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.