Wow, someone taking that ditz Maureen Dowd seriously. Don’t see *that *every day.
:mad: What kind of monster do you take me for?! I pimp her out!
Look, we’re wasting electrons. Dumb as he is, magellan01 understands that this is an insulting thing to say. You can try - if you’re a sucker - to explain to him why not a lot of black people are voting Republican. I think there’s actually an open thread about it. But it’s not going to fucking work. He won’t get it, either because he can’t think of any good reason to vote Democrat or because he’ll never own up to the game Republicans are playing. So the next time he says he doesn’t understand why black people vote for Democrats, remember that he’s the one who said black people don’t think when they vote. And remember that lots of other Republicans say this stuff all the time.
“The GOP hates black people” is bullshit. Some of the stuff about code words and dog whistles is bullshit, and some of it is not. Until the last few decades, racists really were a massive voting block, and the Southern Strategy was a real attempt by the Republican party to appeal to that block (which previously was locked up by the Dems). The Southern Strategy was not bullshit – it was real (and really, it was just everyday, common, cynical politics). It’s not some sort of con.
He’s given up on me, though. I confused him with another homophobe member (since banned) and though acknowledged the error, I wouldn’t apologize for it. He saw that as an out to stop talking to me and I guess, stop having to struggle to continue justifying himself in light of reasonable questions like exactly how is straight marriage’s “specialness” defined and how is it diminished by gay marriage.
So he’s racist, too. I’m rather less than shocked, since I already had him pegged as an idiot.
Huh? Did you mean the Senate?
That depends on what you mean by “the GOP” and “hates,” I guess. Not every Republican does, but as a national body, the party doesn’t give a shit about people of color and devotes a consider amount of energy to nasty rhetoric, peddling stereotypes and dismantling programs that help them.
“They hate black people” is a sweeping statement that’s obviously not true for 100% of GOP supporters and politicians, and it’s not a particularly useful statement anyway.
Okay.
Doesn’t make it not an assumption.
That’s my point – he didn’t say he “doesn’t understand why,” he ASSUMES that he DOES understand why - because black people just aren’t thinking hard enough. That’s his insulting assumption.
Yes, I know.
If you mistook my comment for trying to excuse him, you were mistaken. It was pretty clear I wasn’t.
Well, I guess it might be unfair to say they hate black people. They just like white votes more.
There was no “they.” It was “the GOP,” which refers to the party, not every single individual in it. I agree that just describing it as hate isn’t all that productive, but if you’re trying to sum up the practices I was talking about, it’s not that bad.
A huge part of the divide between party supporters is still slavery/segregation/Jim Crow/etc, it seems to me.
Most Republicans (and perhaps most conservatives as well) believe slavery/segregation/Jim Crow/etc were very bad things that were pretty much dealt with, and have little relevance to the problems of today. Opportunity is mostly equal, and if one works hard, one can succeed.
Most Democrats (and perhaps most liberals) believe slavery/segregation/Jim Crow/etc were very bad things that were dealt with slowly and incompletely and continue to have very significant ramifications today. Opportunity is still far from equal (though it is closer than before), and hard work is no guarantee for success.
There are also some, shall we say, less decent supporters of each party.
I think it’s likely some Republican/conservative voters don’t really care that much about past wrongs, and don’t really care that much if opportunity is not equal for others – either from racism or apathy. They only care if their own opportunities are equal.
And there are likely some Democratic/liberal voters who don’t really care that much about past wrongs, except how they can be used to excuse their own bad behavior.
I think the latter groups are small, even though partisan opponents probably think they make up the majority of the opposing party.
“As a national body?” What’s that mean?
If you mean the leadership or the RNC, I think you’ll find many many statements of support for blacks and opposition to racism. Of course you will.
It’s not the “national body,” it’s lots and lots of little Republicans saying racist or race-baiting things over and over. That’s significant, of course. But its’ not the same thing as an official position, or beliefs of high-ranking leadership.
Well, then magellan01 isn’t really the epitome of racist Republicans (if we take for granted that the Republican Party is not officially racist), but he is among their target audience, easily swayed by the race-baiting arguments of “little” Republicans.
How complicated can this be? We are talking about a nationwide organization, and I am talking about the whole picture.
Little Republicans? Herman Cain was their favorite to become president at one point despite the notable handicap of being a joke candidate. Paul Ryan was the VP nominee and their favorite make-believe budget genius.
Did I say anything about official positions or the beliefs of RNC leadership? No. I talked about what the party is saying and doing on a national level: Republicans oppose raising the minimum wage, opposed extending unemployment insurance, support cuts to food stamp programs, endorse voter ID laws, and torpedoed immigration reform - all of which are more or less official positions by the way - and they all disproportionately affect nonwhites. Then there’s the way they talk about lazy inner city men (Ryan), the entitled 47% (Romney), ‘takers,’ ‘moochers,’ ‘plantation’ black voters and their comments on other issues all the way down through Trayvon Martin, Shirley Sherrod, ACORN, and the endless parade of Fox News-discovered poor people who are getting rich off the system by buying edible food or having refrigerators. While there are elements of class here as well as race, if you talk about people this way and advocate a series of policies that are bad for them, what do you expect people to say about the party?
“The whole picture” is even MORE vague!
Wait - you’re saying Herman Cain hates black people?
That’s what I’m trying to get at - what do you mean by “national body?” It sure sounded like you meant the RNC or leadership. And hey, if the RNC or leadership comes out against racism (as it does), that could discount the “national body” claim.
What’s “the party…on a national level?” The RNC? Republican leaders?
So you mean those Republicans who believe those things. Which are…who? You mean Republicans elected to Congress?
Official positions by whom?
Are you actually as dumb as magellan01 is pretending to be? Which word is troubling you? I contrasted Republicans on a nationwide level with individual Republicans. I’m talking about policies Republicans are enacting across the country, the actions they’re taking on a federal level, and the way prominent Republicans talk about these issues.
Sometimes you appear to have the memory of a goldfish with head trauma. I did not say any individual hated black people. I said Cain (who called the Democratic Party a plantation) is one of many Republicans who’ve talked shit about black people for fun and profit.
If I’d meant RNC leadership, I’d have just said “RNC leadership.”
This is not that complicated, lance strongarm.
You were being vague. Not my fault. “Republicans” is vague too. Do you mean Republican elected officials, or just regular voters? I understand you now, but you really should be more precise when you talk about things like this.
And yet I’m not. Please don’t assume you’re a perfect communicator and that I am at fault whenever something isn’t clear to me, thanks.
You’re saying that Cain talked shit about black people?
Seriously, dude. Cain is not exactly your best example of racist Republicans.
Yes, instead you said something incredibly vague that could mean almost anything.
Yes, actually, it is.
Relax and just clarify please.
Do you understand that I already addressed this before you started asking “HUUUUUH? What do you mean??!?”
I explained what I was talking about before you asked me what I was talking about. Then I explained it again. If that still didn’t get the job done, I don’t think the fault it on my end. Next time try reading my post three times and see if that helps.
You’re just showing me your vague statements again, which we’ve already discussed.
A “national body” is incredibly vague. It could mean almost anything. So is “the party.”
Do you mean official positions by the party’s national organization? Or positions by most of its elected officials? Or attitudes by it’s voters and supporters? Huge differences that matter alot.
You failed to explain it three times. And it’s entirely your fault.