The only outward Trump support I'm exposed to is posts on my neighborhood Facebook group from people I don't know. There's zero open Trump supporters in my family and extended family, and zero open Trump supporters among my friends. I have 1 or 2 acquaintances whose spouses may be Trump supporters, but, I'm not even sure. Some of their parents are, but I've never met them or only met them briefly.

And I live in Idaho! Most of my friends are younger and more liberal than me. I'm pretty sure that about 90% of the people I work with are Republican, and I'm sure many or most of them voted from Trump, but, I've never heard one admit it. Never once. Though, nobody talks about politics generally. I hear the odd discussion about guns, and taxes, and God, but, I think political discussion is just considered impolite generally in my work environment (except where it's unavoidable in the context of state government work, and then, there's always kind of a polite conversational distance between work and personal opinion).

I'm kind of sheltered.

I'll answer your question but how about you answer my pending questions first so I don't feel as if I'm being grilled by an attorney and this is a conversation vs cross-examination?

I think there's too much of an effort by each side to "disqualify" the other. If I'm a republican, I say democrats are socialists to disqualify them because of some socialist leanings by a few candidates. If I'm a democrat, I say republicans are racist or white nationalists because of some of Trump's rhetoric to disqualify them as a reasonable choice.

This stuff isn't that simple. The reality is that there are candidates who embody more of these stereotypes and sometimes they make it through the primaries. IMO, Trump is an awful person and says many things that are reprehensible. But, I also realize that politics is a team sport and many republicans held their nose and voted for Trump because the policies of the other side (tax increases, impact to employer-funded health care and some social issues) make voting for any person who agrees with those policies impossible in their mind. This doesn't make them racists or white supremacists, but instead pragmatists to their ideology.

I would expect that there were significantly more white supremacists in the Republican Party in the late 1980s and early 90s than there are now. Yet, the presidents (Reagan and HW Bush) weren't nearly as "white supremacist" in their rhetoric as Trump was. So, the individual beliefs of a candidate aren't representative of the the individual beliefs of the voters in that party. Republicans voted for Trump because they didn't like Hillary or were scared of the policies democrats wanted - not because they wanted a racist in the White House or loved Trump as a person. He was the only option to combat the perceived evil of the democrats. You would hope that some of them would look past that given the way Trump has handled himself as president, but many simply can't overlook their fear of what a democrat may to do to their situation.

Bevin won't contest election results in KY after recanvass takes place.


Edit: He has now conceded

Let me first say I appreciate the cordial conversation. These discussions often time gets heated and go off on a tangent ...

I'm not sure I agree with your asterisk but you used the word "context" later in your response and I think we agree.

Its what people/organizations (1) Say (2) do and (3) the underlying "intent/rationale" behind their actions is important also which I think the ADL definition defines.


I support the Wall and crackdown on illegal immigration because I believe the Wall will help prevent illegal immigration (okay the $40B one, maybe not so much the scraped together $5B one). I am against illegal immigration because it breaks the laws (and because there are so many other legal immigrants in line). If you don't like the law, organize and change it. I don't support the Wall or the crackdown because I think I am superior to the Latin/South Americans.

Was Hitler and the Nazis racist? Absolutely, their intent/rationale was they were the superior race.

Are/were many Chinese and others in SEA racist? Not sure about against whites but definitely against Africans because they do see them as inferior.

So to sum up, I think underlying intent/rationale and "context" (in addition to what they say and do) plays a major role in defining whether a person or organization is a racist.

Edward, I literally answered both of your questions in #20061 (or at the very least discussed using the ADL definition - though I do think it doesn't go far enough in describing structural racism). So.. not sure why you are asking them again.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Trump's approval rating among the GOP has been pretty steady around 90% since the election(Gallup). Why are Republicans happy with Trump now?

It also ignores, as I brought up previously, that Trump didn't get handed the GOP nomination. He had the win it. And he did by 45% of the primary voters. Over people like Ted Cruz and John Kasich and Rand Paul - not exactly liberal Republicans.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Sorry, I did read it but did not interpret that you agreed with the definition. You said you "used it" for your example but I did not understand you agreed that was the definition.

Finishing up something now and will respond to your question this evening.

I think it's fine as a simplistic definition. But with the acknowledgement that it is a simplistic definition. There should be an understanding that racism is a systematic issue and not merely individual assent to whether a race is inferior or superior (which also means people can unconsciously hold views that perpetuate systemic racial oppression).

But even from the ADL definition Trump is consciously racist (almost Nixon-like, but Trump is public about it) and is unequivocally backing his policies using racist rhetoric.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

We are back to the team sports analogy. Trump is the republican so they look past his personal flaws and vote for the guy on their team. The economy has been good and nothing major has impacted most republicans, so why would they not approve him? I think a vote for Trump is also a vote against Washington and the media in many peoples' eyes. Finally, I don't think saying you are happy with what Trump has done in office equates you are happy with who Trump is as a person. Even guys like Jimmy Carter and George W Bush had strong party approval ratings (while the actual country was in shambles).

This goes to my second point above. Trump became the poster child for voting against the Washington establishment and the "liberal" media. That struck a cord with many republicans who were ready to rebel after Obama. Plus, it's not like Trump was getting even 40% of the primary voters when there were other legit candidates. Up until mid April, he was getting between 20 and 35% in most states. It was only when it was clear the other guys weren't winning (and many conceded) did Trump start getting consistently over 40% of the primary vote.

This is my dad's e-mail sig:


Rest of my family, mixed bag.

I think that there's a distinction to be made in this discussion, between supporting the GOP & Trump in 2016 and supporting Trump & the GOP now.

In 2016 Trump's appeal was mostly as an outsider who could shake things up in Washington & the GOP still had a number of elder statesmen with some credibility behind their names who were acting as the face of the party (I guess I'm pretty much just thinking of McCain here). Flash forward and Trump has been incredibly consistent in defining what kind of trash he is, and the face of the current GOP appears to be angry idiots like Jordan and Gaetz.

Voting Trump in 2016 is at least understandable to me, whereas supporting Trump and/or the GOP in 2020 seems practically indefensible.

Indeed. It's also hard to convey 'how' things are being said in only text form. You can't hear how someone is actually saying it. Oh man, I can't even count how many arguments were started with my ex wife because of that.
We also have to deal with how words and their meanings get mutated. Kind of like the whole pop, soda, coke thing. Definitely context is a big factor and also who are you talking to. I'm sure you talk slightly different with people you are friends with or comfortable with than you do with strangers or maybe your boss, etc...


This is where we definitely diverge. The wall is a complete waste of money/resources. Most people here illegally were here legally at first. I live maybe 10/15 minutes from the border for most of my life and I have never had a problem, but, I've had plenty of problems with citizens born here. Anecdotal, yes, but I am fairly certain that's probably the case for a good amount of people, if not the majority of people. Basically, from my own experiences and point of view, I see absolutely no reason to have a wall, we just need a better and more efficient vetting system. If it's just illegal immigration you are worried about then I would assume you would also want a wall built between the US and Canada? If you are worried about the drug cartels and similar bad entities, a wall isn't going to stop them anyway.

Plus, with who wants the wall (trump), I don't trust him one bit and that the wall is just a front for him to line his pockets or his cronies pockets or both with that sweet sweet border wall money.


Definitely agree with you on that and I think can also be used as a bell weather for past, present and future regimes, administrations, etc...
I don't know enough about SEA, but, I have heard of racism against black people in Japan. Is it racism or is it more xenophobia, also could be both? I honestly don't know enough say either way without looking it up.


Yes, totally agree with you on this. I feel that people or organizations that are racist or support racist polices, I choose to completely distance myself from them.
There definitely is not a single solution that will satisfy 100% of the people 100% of the time and compromises will have to be made. Like the old Vulcan saying, the needs of the few or the one sometimes outweigh the needs of the many.

Wow! That is a wall of text. I apologize to everyone :)

Trump ran mostly on building a wall and trashing brown skinned people. His main foray into politics before running was insinuating Obama wasn't born in America because he was black.

Trump's history was well known and people voting for him in 2016 knew exactly what they were getting.

In 2008, Bush had ratings in the sixties or lower among GOP voters. Carter was below fifty percent with Dems for several months.

The simplest explanation for Trump is that GOP voters like him and like what he's doing.

There's this weird desire to say that GOP voters aren't really in favor of the candidate they keep voting for. It happened with Bush and now it's happening with Trump.

This whole 'defining' racism/sexism/white nationalism is silly to me. It reminds me of pornography. I'm not sure I know pornography's verbal definition but I sure as hell know it when I see it.

I guess when you need to make a point about being right the you need to DEFINE something. But as others have said, walks like a duck... etc.

I read an interesting article recently that theorized Trump's approval with the GOP was similar to George W's approval after 9/11 or similar support during wartime that other president's have received. The war in this case is with the evil Democrats.

Nikki Haley really wants to be Vice President.

The audacity of a black president.

Your examples - Stopping/reducing illegal immigration. I don't see that as racist. If he stopped all/most legal immigration for minorities, yup I would say that would be.

Banning Muslims from coming in? He banned Muslims from X countries from coming in vs all Muslims. That really doesn't sound like racism to me.


I would honestly like to see any analysis/polls that show its more than 20%. I really don't know, I really did try googling it but didn't find anything, and I have said 20% was just my best swag.

So racist rhetoric in referring to people from certain countries and calling African countries shit holes is not racist?

Whether it is in his heart or not, it plays to a hard core portion of his base that is definitely racist and who see's people of color as inferior, and he definitely doesn't do a thing to denounce this element of his base.

Bottom line is, no GOP are not all racist, but the VAST majority of racists in this country identify as republican and the GOP as a whole does not do enough to condemn this element. Why, because if they did those people would likely stay home on polling day and they need their votes.

The reason for the hardline immigration stance and Muslim ban is 100% racist. I honestly don't know what to say if you seriously think this adiministration reducing illegal immigration and banning Muslims from x countries wasn't for racists reasons.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/14/u...ion-trump.html

Stephen Miller was the architect of the Muslim ban and was specifically trying to find a legal way to put a stop to Muslim population growth in the country.

He also believes Hispanics are less intelligent than whites.

This is guy that built and pushed those policies. This is the man Trump supports and the administration has defended with threats of libel suits when the emails showing just how much of a white supremacist he is leaked.

I don't think the GOP leadership is white nationalist/supremacist. There may well be some but not majority. I'm not sure where you got that from.

Miami Fan's question was provide names of GOP leadership that is racist (besides Trump). Mitchell, Thune? They have their weaknesses but don't think there's been any serious accusations they are racist. Pence? Maybe. I'm waiting someone else to answer his question.

Or is it the people that Trump surrounds himself with (Miller, Bannon etc.) who are not per-se "GOP leadership" but has/had a platform because of their close connection to Trump?


I'm not sure your point here. I think you are saying that Trump ran on a platform of white-nationalism and because he won, it lends credence that GOP party all/mostly about white-nationalism?

Against those GOP candidates, I'm thinking Trump won because he was anti-establishment, he said what many people wanted to hear about illegal immigration, he reached out to disenfranchised coal miners-and-like, and those GOP candidates didn't play dirty back effectively because they were too busy being traditional politicians. (No, I don't think these are all the reasons but those came off the top of my head and none of those are "racist" or white nationalist like)

In the election, there are multitudes of polls/surveys that points to why voters voted for Trump. It wasn't because of white nationalism (=racism).

It is racist. It is not the 2 examples that I was responding back to.

I'm thinking you don't think I think Trump is a racist. I have said I can easily concede he is a racist.

However, the main discussion topic is not about Trump. We are talking Trump because its only natural and to go off on tangents, but the real topic of discussion that started the past day and half of fun is:



Again, do not disagree that Trump is racist. The question is do we generalized (or over generalized) in saying the GOP is predominantly a white -nationalist party.


Out of curiously, what is the % of GOP voters do you think are racist?

I've stated 20%, ISiddiqui has stated 45%, Chief Rum has said it could be lower or greater than 20%.

How many live below the Mason Dixon line? Then tack on about 50% of those that live above it.

Sorry, my incognito does not work for nytimes.



He's another one I can easily concede is a white-nationalist racist.

But don't see why stopping muslim (equating it to a "race") immigration growth is racist (maybe its in your link). If that's the casual example of racism ...

1. How far will Muslim immigration get in China?
2. How far will Christian immigration get in Saudi Arabia and ME?
3. How far will Christian immigration get in Indonesia and Malaysia?
4. How far will Muslim immigration get in Israel?

Are all those countries racist (ADL definition) because they don't want their dominant religion to be threatened by another by immigration?


I've not read this but can easily believe it.

I guess its racist. Im not sure.

FDR only allowed 26000 Jewish refugees annually from Germany during WW2. He feared German spies would come over. The most notorious case was banning the ocean liner St. Louis. It carried 937 passengers, most thought to be Jewish. It went back to Europe where more then a quarter of the passengers were thought to be killed during the holocaust.

Jimmy Carter banned Iranians from immigrating in 1979. Racist?

Ronald Reagan banned HIV positive people in 1987. This one was homophobic and xenophobic. It was a Jesse Helms deal. W started the process of changing it and Obama finished it. So is the republican party not homophobic because W started the process of changing it?

It has happened throughout the history of the USA. You say racist, Trump says national security. These are countries with high levels of terrorism. Which we are at war with.

Spin how you want. But Its a ban that he felt needed to be put in place.

Equating religions to race just shows how lazy the whole 'race' concept is. It's not even an old concept, born out of outdated 19th century pseudo-science and 19th/20th century nationalism.

I agree with your sentiment about the GOP overall, the second question is a bit tricky. I think the majority of people in this country have bias, whether intentional, subconscious, or influenced. That is just the nature of people, but it doesn't make everyone racist.

I think 20% is likely fairly accurate if describing overt racists, but that number does rise considerably when you factor in what I call the accidental racists, and probably close to ISiddiqui's estimate 35-40%.

Now, by accidental I mean people that allow stereotypes to define how they see others. They may not have ingrained hatred for people of color. But instead allow what they see or hear to affect their perception or those that are different without ever taking the time to form their own views based on interaction/experience. In other words they are racist due to fear of what they don't know/understand and are easily pulled into the narrative that Mexicans trying to come to America are all cartel operatives, or inner city blacks are all thugs, Middle Eastern Muslims all want to blow us up etc. And, this still makes them racist.

I also think a majority of people that fall into this category are conservative, because those beliefs seem "safe" in the face of these "threats" to the American way of life. In a way people that fall into this group are more bothersome to me than the overt racists because they are too lazy/weak to form their own opinions based on experience. So no, not all conservatives are racist, either by intent or influence, but their are many more on that side of the isle than on the left or in the middle.

This is likely the correct answer to that, and Miller is a definite racist POS, who has too much influence over Trump and is a big reason why Trump gets that label.

Who cares who is or isn't racist? Personal beliefs don't matter, policies do. The argument in defense of the GOP seems to be, pay attention to what they say, not what they do. The GOP is in favor of locking children in cages. The GOP is in favor of making voting harder for minorities. The GOP is in favor of decreasing immigration from non-European countries, while increasing it from European countries. The GOP is in favor of making it harder for the FBI to investigate white supremacists.

The GOP is pursuing white nationalist policies while promoting the defense of western culture and the fear of being replaced by minorities and Jews. These aren't fringe actors, they are in the WH and Congress. Determining personal feelings is unimportant.

On the subject of Trump's racism, I'm surprised how little play this got/gets:

Donald and Ivana Trump’s Divorce: The Full Story | Vanity Fair


Typical Trump.

DONALD: "ACTUALLY, it was a DIFFERENT HITLER BOOK I got from my friend Marty, AND HE'S A JEW!"
MARTY: "No, it wasn't & no, I am not."

We are not at war with any of the countries he banned. We grovel at the feet of the country where most of the 9/11 terrorists came from.

The #1 terrorist threat in this country has been neo-nazis and white supremacists for years now. He cut funding to fight them.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...rogram/574237/

So is it really about terrorism?

They absolutely are if we are equating religion to race. But those countries also favor a certain religion. The US isn't supposed to.

I agree in general with what Arles said on this about it being a generally anti-D concept. The polling also consistently showed that a lot of Trump supporters didn't like what he said and didn't agree with a lot of his policy positions. The whole 'they voted Trump, they must approve of his racism' angle is simply demonstrably not true and the readers of this forum regularly prove it.

The whole Amash thing for example - people talked about him being someone with integrity that was respectable but they'd never vote for him. I respected what they said, and still do. But why? Because of what he stands for. Why is that ok, but it's not ok for someone to refuse to vote democratic because they consider what that party stands for to be unacceptable? Two sides of the same coin. Nationally we still haven't dealt with Trump's appeal based on essential his style of bravado - people were sick of being talked down to and condescended to by leaders who appeared at times to be apologizing for their country. This is all wrong-headed, but it's unquestionably a big part of the POTUS' appeal.

I've cited polls here before showing that about 6-8% of the nation agrees with white nationalist perspectives. Even if every single one of them is a Republican, you still aren't getting above 20% of the party that way. As a matter of elemental logic and fundamental data analysis, we need to process the facts that there is a bigger problem here than that. It is a problem … but it only explains part of Trump's support.

The ones that averted the ban - including Saudi Arabia, home to 19 of the 20 9/11 terrorists - were countries with which Trump's businesses had interests.

Purely a coincidence and not at all pour encourager les autres, I'm sure.

Thanks for your % swag. I think your accidental racist is more of a bigot than racist. The ADL definition of bigotry is

Wiki give me this when I search on bigotry:

Prejudice - Wikipedia
Everyone that is a racist is a bigot/prejudice, not every bigot is a racist. The key differentiation I see is racism is based on "I am superior to you because I was born white and you were born yellow".

I am not equating religion to race. It was Atocep's example of using Muslims so that's what we are working with.


I don't think these examples are racist. I think the underlying restrictions/constraints to mass immigration are more political, religious, economic and national security & stability than you are brown, yellow etc.

I would be interested in reading more, appreciate if you can find those links/posts when you get a chance.

Is it about racism when Muslims are not a race but followers of a religion? Maybe the better word is bigotry/prejudice vs racism?


Change the conversation to brown/black people in Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria (and also those brown/yellow people in Venezuela and North Korea) and lets have that discussion.

Meanwhile: As the impeachment hearings continue, this article points out just how good the pr machine on the Right is. https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/14/opini...mer/index.html


Keep saying the hearing is boring, so that impressionable people only hear the "right take."

It's boring, don't tune in.

I wish that every time the GOP at the hearing says "your side" the first automatic retort every time is that "we're on the same side, congress' side, to find out the truth." EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.

Are those countries racist for banning other religions? Perhaps it is being done for racist motives? But those countries do not have values that are written in the founding documents as in our country. America protects and some could argue we invite a society of religious pluralism. Protecting a “ dominant religion” is not remotely an American value.

What an asinine splitting of hairs. You've just argued that Hitler wasn't racist in dealing with the Jews. Also a religion/ethnicity, not a race, right?

The Chinese bans are definitely racist - there is has been a longstanding belief (like centuries old) that Han Chinese are the best ethnic group.

I would also say that the Saudi bans (at least) are based on a feeling of superiority... however, I do think that's more based on religion than race - white Muslims are considered equal(ish).

It's pretty rare for a peacetime President to have a below 50% rating in his own party with a good economy. The housing bubble hurt W and Carter's economy was a dumpster fire. As Bill Clinton said, "it's the economy, stupid." Take a look at the last 2+ years from a republican standpoint. We've been at peace, unemployment has gone down, the economy has been strong and Trump has battled the media/left establishment. If you laugh off his twitter/stupid comments as "Trump being Trump", I can see why a lot of republicans have voted to approve Trump's job. That doesn't mean they support all his beliefs or are some kind of racist.

The people really involved in politics (esp on the left) get so wrapped up on Trump's terrible rhetoric that they can't imagine why someone would support him. In reality, 60+% of people that voted for Trump don't even follow that stuff. They get little soundbites from their scrubbed and right-leaning media sources, see the country is doing well (from their perspective) and think Trump is doing a good job.

I think it's a reach to say because someone likes the economy and thinks Trump has done a decent job - that means they walk lock-step with his personal beliefs. If the country was at war or the economy was in shambles, his approval rating in the party would be down. Would that mean republicans suddenly became less racist?

Do you believe that Trump and the folks who he surrounds himself with are white supremacists? Do you believe that a lot of Trump's views on policies are based on white supremacy (though in other aspects, held by other people arguably may or may not be)?

Because that is the baseline. If you don't agree on that, then we can't have any fruitful conversation here.

If Trump's views and policies are based on his white supremacy beliefs and Republicans in Congress are dedicated to defending and carrying out his policies while not condemning the intent behind it, then at best, the Republican Congressional leadership is carrying water for white supremacy. Mitch McConnell, after all, said he does not believe Trump is a racist. Unless you are asserting that the Republicans in Congress don't care that Trump's justifications for policies are racist, they just compartmentalize that and try to assert non racist reasons for why the policy is ok - which is a POV you can hold, but I don't actually think it works.

(Now, I will say that plenty of Democratic politicians also helped perpetuate racism - though I don't know if they they actually realized it at the time, which leads me to...)


I'd echo this but instead of using the term 'accidental', I'd use 'unconscious'. And a lot of those with unconscious racism are unwilling to learn and do better - getting defensive when pointing out, say, mass incarceration (esp in how it was done) from the War on Drugs was deeply racist.

I'm pretty sure Hitler said the Aryan race was superior to X so clearly Hitler was a racist.


To your point specifically about Jews ... yes, that seems to be a contradiction to me because Jews are not a race but have been referred to one for as long as I can remember. Here's one rationale why ...

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinio...ted-ncna896806

My guess is we'll have to call the "Jewish Race" an exception as its been used over and over again. Otherwise, let's have a Christian race, or a Buddhist race, or a Hindu race etc.

(Or change the too-often thrown refrain from "you're a racist" to "you're a bigot").

Here's some possible motives (there may be more)

1) Political reasons
2) Religious reasons
3) Economic reasons
4) National security & stability reasons
5) Racism

Of the 4 examples I listed, maybe China against Muslim immigration may be due a large part #5 Racism but I do think #1 Political and #4 national security & stability could be the real reason.

Christians immigrating to SA? #2 Religious and #4 National Security & stability.

Christians immigrating to Indonesia and Malaysia? I've spent significant time there and IMO its #2 Religious and #1 Political. They are moderate muslim countries but they don't want an influx of Christians.

Muslim immigration to Israel? #2 Political and #4 National security & stability. I'll concede there may be some racism undertones but the stuff I've read on MSM seems to say #2 and #4.


My question to you:

Which of the 4 examples would you say would be done primarily for racist motives?


I agree. My examples using "religion" instead of "race" was because that example was tossed out for me to respond to.

I think United States is full of bigoted and prejudicial people. I believe only a smaller minority are truly racist (per ADL definition). The original discussion top was below and we got off on a somewhat related tangent.

Just saw this. Yes, this is arguably true. Toss in Japanese also as being pretty racist but prob not as much as Chinese.

Can we just point out (because it's been bothering me for a bit now) is that this is YOUR view of the original discussion.

JPhillips and I have made clear that we believe the GOP is a white nationalist party because the leadership and policies they are undertaking are undergirded by white nationalist intent. We never said that the majority of members of the GOP is white nationalist (I can't speak for JPhillips, but I don't know exactly how many are white nationalist - and whether it matters if they are openly or unconsciously white nationalist).

Therefore saying "GOP is predominantely white nationalist" is a twisting of our argument.

Can we table this minutiae?

Typical off tangent to distract.

Trump just intimidated a witness real time and Roger Stone guilty on all 7 counts.

I don't know about everyone else, but myself and people I know don't have any federal criminals in their close circle of friends.

Usually these type of individuals stick together.

Yes, I do believe Trump and many of the folks he surrounds himself with are racist (not necessarily the other GOP leadership like Mitchell, Thune, Pence). The original discussion point is somewhat related to Trump (and is below), but it was much broader. I don't think we can over generalized saying GOP is predominately white-nationalist.

Quote:

I think the recent discussion topic is 1) GOP is predominately white-nationalist 2) White-nationalist are racists or has racism as one of their major tenets

Are Trump's views and policies based on white nationalism? Some but there are a ton of his policies I would define as just nationalism and playing to his base (and stupidity, hypocrisy, greed/self interest etc.). The original discussion point was not Trump specifically, it was the over generalization that GOP is white nationalist. Yes, I would say they are "carrying water" or enabling Trump.

Referring back to another post on policies:



Odds are that McConnell is saying what he has to say. I'm pretty sure he does think Trump is a racist. I think why the majority of Republicans in Congress don't care about Trump's racism is because of self-preservation not because they believe "I'm white and I'm superior to the brown" people.

I will say if the definition of racism is the second definition, non-ADL version (see below), yeah I can see why some people on this board view so much as being racism.

There's a large group in the media and elected GOP positions who are all-in with Trump. They like him; they agree with him; and they will ride or die with him.

But there's another group (smaller than people realize but still there) who don't really agree with Trump but who are willing to tolerate him to keep Democrats out of power.

What's amazing to me is how these people think he will ever stop. They think that if they can get through just one more unprecedentedly horrible thing, then he will calm down and things can get back to normal.

But that will never happen. The man is a walking Martingale system of shit. He will ALWAYS double down. It is his only move.

And I just don't see how these people who regret not getting off the train 6 months ago think that things won't be worse 6 months from now.

who knew jbmagic was trump?

Looking the other way when the head of the party does things for racist reasons basically perpetuates racism, right?

Besides, who are they worried about self preservation from? If it's only 20% of voters who are worrisome, then a primary challenge to entrenched Senators shouldn't gain any traction, right? Unless they may silently believe what the head of their party is saying, they just don't like the uncouth way he's saying it.

Explains everything, really.

So your beef is I summarized 2 days ago "GOP is a predominantly white nationalist" and that it's a twisting of what JPhillips said "GOP is a white nationalist" party?

Or is it that "we never said the majority of members of the GOP is white nationalist"? If its this, you are right I inferred it (and probably Chief Rum but I'll let him speak for himself). Pretty logical inference but I can concede it may have been the wrong assumption.

So maybe the better statement is "GOP in Congress is enabling Trump with some of his white nationalist" agenda. If so, I don't have a problem with it.

Yes.

Per your other post, apparently I summarized the topic of discussion wrong 2 days ago. I just posted below. Let me know if that's accurate.

Quote:

So maybe the better statement is "GOP is enabling Trump with some of his white nationalist" agenda. If so, I don't have a problem with it.

I don't understand your point. Trump could support another candidate. Trump could influence appropriations. I'm sure there are a bunch of other ways Trump could make life difficult for the Senator/Congressman.

McConnell is working hard every day to make it harder for minorities to vote so that older white voters will be able to hold on to power.

This is what I mean by white nationalist policies as opposed to person racism.

I'm just going raise the possibility that McConnell is driven more by partisanship than racism in this issue.

In outcome, it doesn't matter. Again, it's about policies, not personal feelings. He is working to make sure that older whites continue to dominate the government.

Okay, white nationalist policies but excluding racism.

ISiddiqui, do you agree? You introduced white supremacy/ist in the conversation which clearly alludes to racism.

I agree (unless you use the second proposed definition of racism) and then its clearly racist.

It's still tacit white nationalism.

"White people are our power base so let's do everything we can to amplify their ability to keep us in power" and "White people are innately physically and morally superior and genetically best-suited to rule" are functionally indistiguishable except on a moral level.

In terms of practical impact at a policy level, there isn't a real difference.

Well, until the racial animus drives genocide as a policy consideration, anyway.

I think you have to also separate self preservation from racism. In Arizona, illegals tend to vote around 75% towards democrats. So, we have many republican candidates (including some latinos) who try to reduce the number that end up voting through requiring more legit forms of ID. Does that mean latino republicans are racist against Mexicans? I don't really think so. If they voted 75% republican, those same people would welcome them with open arms.

I don't think McConnell is working for Joe Biden or Bernie Sanders to dominate the government.

It ends up being the same thing. Why are African-Americans (or Latin Americans) less likely to vote for the Republican Party? A history of racism and racist policies.


I don't think they can be de-linked. Racism is a system as well as personal animus.

And Trump is tweeting how unfairly Stone is being treated and why is he the only one in trouble.

Only the best people

Errr... Undocumented immigrants can't vote and there has been very little evidence that they are doing so (in fact voter ID laws tend to prevent more citizens from voting that they do in preventing undocumented people from voting). In fact, I'd say that is a viewpoint guided by racism since there is very little factual basis behind it.

Are 'Illegals' Lining Up to Vote in Battsville, Arizona?

Are undocumented immigrants voting in Ariz.?

Stone guilty on all counts, and I'm sure it can be arranged to add Trump to the list of those in trouble...

Trump tweets attacks on Voyanovich as she testfies. Adam Schiff reads them out to her

That voter ID law is what I was referring to. The point was many republican candidates supported it and were chastised for being racist. When, they just wanted to make sure illegals (who voted democrat more often) weren't able to vote. I wasn't saying it is an issue now - simply that a lot of Arizona congressmen were labeled racist when they supported it. And, I would say it was more self preservation than racist.

Also, before the law was put into play, a person could register to vote in Arizona without submitting proof of citizenship. Those voters could only vote in federal elections (referred to a "federal only" voters), but they could vote for the president. So, in theory, an illegal could register to vote, get a type F driver's license and use that to vote for the president. The voter ID law closed that loophole.

I don't think it was an issue then either. And supporting a voter ID law based on flimsy facts that undocumented people were voting on the basis of a issue that wasn't an issue seems to be racist to me.

In Georgia they've been going on about voter ID laws, even though there has never been shown to be an issue about undocumented people voting.

I'll be honest, I'm torn on the whole "voter ID" issue. I think in specific instances with loopholes, it should be discussed - but it does suppress legal votes as well.

But I didn't bring up this to debate voter ID laws, I used it as an example of where a congressman supported a law that could be viewed as somewhat racist, not because they were racist, but because it may help them get elected. I think self-preservation and holding on to power makes a lot more sense when driving to discern motives of why the GOP still supports Trump.

So it comes back to they are supporting racist laws (not having evidence of voter fraud from undocumented immigrants, but making it a big deal we have to stop it seems hella racist to me; YMMV) for votes. Meaning... the voters are racists? And the politicians are carrying water for racism? Is that better if one is still perpetuating racism due to political advantage?

This.

And enough has come out from people pushing voter ID laws to know that the goal is to suppress likely Dem voters. They know there are almost no cases of in-person voter fraud. They know what they are trying to do. They're just lying so that they can get away with it.

I'm all for Voter ID laws. Makes a lot of sense to me (and Jimmy Carter who I'm sure is not a ADL-Racist). I'm also against electronic voting without some sort of paper trail (e.g. I still buy blu-rays).

Voter ID laws in the United States - Wikipedia

That's a pretty big leap. Looking to close a loophole on illegal immigrants voting in federal elections does not equate "carrying water for racism". It simply means that sometimes supporting a bill, congressman or president can help you get elected or retain power. That's normally a better indicator for motive than "gotta protect whitey!".

To turn it around, if Trump was at 30% approval in the republican party - do you think these racist GOP congressmen would still support him to continue their racist agenda? Or do you think they would drop him in a New York minute and go to the next candidate (probably not at racist) to help them stay in power?

Seeing as there is no evidence that it is an issue, yes, it is carrying water for racism. Especially if you are just doing it for getting elected.

Your second question kind of affirms it. Trump is a racist, everyone knows it (well, except Mitch McConnell apparently), and is polling 90% of the Republican Party. So Republicans are going along with polices that have racist intents (as the President makes clear). It doesn't matter whether it is for political benefits or not, it's perpetuating racism. It's like talking about Southern politicians who were supporting segregation in public. Maybe some of them really weren't for segregation, but it kept them elected. Does that matter when they kept going to bat for it? Not in the slightest. Do we spare them today by saying well it was more political than racial for Senator X? Of course not. Perpetuating a racist system is just as bad as being a racist yourself - may be even worse since you know better.

Whatever your stance is on voter ID, Republicans aren't pushing it because of "illegals voting". They know which demographic it hurts. Just as they know what they're doing when they close a bunch of voter locations is specific neighborhoods.

Truth. And even if they are doing it to "get elected", they are perpetuating racism by doing so. So does it matter if they are doing it merely to get elected as opposed to doing it because they are guided by racial animus (and a lot of times I don't know if the two are as easily separated as people think - folks used to say Nixon was just doing the Southern Strategy for electoral reasons until the Nixon tapes came out and it was obvious he was a massive racist)? In the end it's the same racist result to prevent African-Americans from easly voting.

There was actually plenty of evidence that it was happening here in AZ and it was not just about voting. Illegal immigrants were also getting on Medicaid and other entitlements here and this was more of a sweeping change to prevent that as well. Trust me, I am no fan of the current GOP at all, but working in Medicaid I can tell you it was a legit problem and the loopholes that allowed people to access these programs also allowed them to vote illegally. I doubt it was any where near the extent that was portrayed, but it was happening.

Medicaid, I can see. But in terms of voting, in overwhelming studies done, it has been showing the voter fraud is very, very rare.

Arizona Republicans were claiming massive voter fraud in 2018's Senatorial election with no evidence, even after the voter ID laws.

The easiest way to suppress Dem votes is to make it harder for blacks to vote. As a 2015 study showed,


Again, the policies are white nationalist. It doesn't matter if the people implementing them are personally racist.

Or just simply partisan.

I can't find evidence of that. Here a bunch of officials responsible for it say that isn't happening.

Are undocumented immigrants voting in Ariz.?

Guess which neighborhoods these polling places primarily fall in.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKCN1VV09J

I just want to echo this. Because it seems like this is not getting through.

So, Edward, if you'd like to edit your points:

1. The GOP is a white nationalist party
2. White nationalism is a racist philosophy
3. The GOP is pursing policies that perpetuate racism

Maybe in this way we can avoid mind reading if someone is really truly racist personally or just persuing racist policies for electoral reasons.

That's where they really give up the game. There's a way to do voter ID where everyone can get one easily and at no cost and there's no impact on who can vote.

But the goal is to suppress Dem voters, so voter ID is often supplemented with polling location closings, registration restrictions, reduced early voting, and voter roll purges.

I mean have people not heard of the Southern Strategy? The people behind it were quite implicit in their reasoning. It's still done today.

And this isn't a tiny portion of the party. Not a single Republican has come out to demand that Stephen Miller step down after evidence of him being a white supremacist came out. This is a regular everyday tweet from one of the more Senior Senators.

Texas gained almost nine Hispanic residents for every additional white resident last year https://t.co/rbjpkzMGwf via @TexasTribune

— Senator John Cornyn (@JohnCornyn) June 22, 2019

For the longest time I remember hearing folks saying it was just political, bristling at the fact that Nixon was a virulent racist and the Southern strategy was a racist attempt to win the Presidency. Around Nixon's funeral people were talking about how he was a 'statesman' who's big sin was he tried to cheat. Up until the Nixon tapes came out and then those objections about him being a racist withered away.

I wonder if that's going to happen here. If some letters or recordings of Mitch McConnell come out and then people are like, oh I guess he was personally racist after all, and it wasn't just 'politics' (as if pursuing racist policies because it's politics is ok).

Almost every GOPer in the WH, Senate, and House have bought into the white nationalist idea that immigrants and people of color are replacing whites. All of the immigration stuff and the voting stuff is built on that white nationalist foundation.

They could have gone another way. After the 2012 election the RNC wrote a report on how the party could expand it's reach in minority communities. It was rejected and a strategy of maximizing white votes and suppressing votes of people of color was chosen instead.

It definitely was not massive and in 2018 protections were in place, so that is just a bullshit smokescreen for their candidate getting trucked by Sinema. And it is going to happen to McSally again next year. She is not very popular and running against another very moderate Democrat.

This is after those changes were implemented, so this is more bullshit.

and I'll add JPhillips quote here for clarity. He states implementing but I think he really meant creating so I added to.

Can you provide a definition of "racist policies", not examples but actual definition?

My default answer would have been "... a policy that perpetuates racism, based on the belief that one race is superior to another". That doesn't seem to work well if you take out a creator or implementer from consideration.


EDIT: Maybe it would be second definition of racism below? Way too broad for me but ...

Trump has pardoned three war criminals over the objections of the Pentagon.

and

It turns out there were ten possible sites for the G-7. Those were narrowed down to four and then two were eliminated and Doral was added as a finalist.

I feel like Dumps would weigh in on this Garrett thing if he played for a non battleground state team.