Republicans are like a jealous ex-boyfriend

Except - this is about republicans who no longer have public support. They lost their election. In response, their reaction is to shift power around so that they can keep as much of it as humanly possible. It happened in North Carolina, it’s happening here. The playbook is blatant - if republicans are about to lose a branch, shift power so that that branch becomes subservient to the branches the republicans do control.

I agree, it would be nice if we could collectively vote every republican out of office. And while we’re fantasizing, I want a magic unicorn to be my best friend. In the meanwhile, it’s important to keep track of these kinds of blatant abuses.

Nah, this guy is more your speed.

Nah, they’re more like a date rapist. They slip rohypnol into your cocktail, make you pass out, rape you, and then deny it.

(emphasis mine)

Bingo.

Kuchiyose No Jutsu

Speak.

The mind seizes to comprehend the stupidity in the above statement. If a person of color said it, white folks would be as outraged as they were when Obama wore a tan suit or Michelle’s showed her bare arms.

What we’re witnessing is the Republican party openly transforming itself into the party of white supremacy. Just today -* today* - a sitting white Senator talked about she would attend a hanging. She said it openly, was unafraid, and did not apologize or acknowledge that those words could be hurtful to people of color. The context of this statement cannot be overstated: Mississippi from 1882-1968 had the highest reported lynchings in the United States. This is a state where people show up to the polls in shirts like this one. This is state that has a long and storied history of terrorizing, torturing, and killing people of color. And, she said this, despite her opponent is an African-American. And, make no mistake about it: Senator Hyde-Smith won’t win despite of her racism, she will be seated as a Senator in Congress* because of her racism*. White liberals shrug.

There should be no misunderstanding. Republicans are never going to let go of power and if you wrench it from them, you’ll be dealing with an insurgency of mail bombs, threats, mass shootings, and hate crimes all fueled by a 24/7 white supremacist propaganda machine. You see them now screaming in Obama-like outrage over Brenda Snipes for the crime of being a person of color is overseeing an important election. Republicans explicit goal is white supremacy and their function is to ensure that even if there are demographic shifts, that the people who have the means of production, that the people who have the all of the wealth, that the people who are in the position of political power are all white. It’s South Africa all over again.

Huey, I don’t disagree with what you wrote, but it’s only South Africa all over again if we let it happen.

The GOP has been pandering to white nationalists since the Southern Strategy. What’s changed is that now, it’s all the party is about. It’s not about fiscal responsibility, it’s not about small government. It is about white nationalism. I know I sound like a broken record, but look at what they did in Georgia: they used their control over the state to disenfranchise black voters and hold a sham election. If this was happening somewhere overseas, our state department would be condemning it. Trumpism is based on the realization that white America is losing its grip on power and deciding that they will not go quietly.

To extend the parallels to South Africa.

The Nationalist government that created Apartheid won the election in 1948 in a manner that will be very familiar to Americans.

They lost the popular vote, but gained more seats in parliament due to gerrymandering and the outsized value of rural votes. They ran on a platform of white supremacy, fear of non-whites, fear of immigration (of English speaking whites) and accusations of support for communism against their opponents.

Their opponents had vague feel good policies, relied on leadership that coasted on the inertia of previous successes and they completely failed to comprehend the extremist campaign the Nationalists were running.

See wikipediafor a summary.

It also requires more people on the left and in the center to come off the bench and get into the game of democracy. Indifference is just as much of a problem as those who are actively supporting the rise of authoritarianism.

I think this is why Bernie’s gaffe the other day actually does matter. I don’t think Sanders is a racist, but being oblivious to the very clear and present danger that white nationalism and authoritarianism pose is problematic.

Sorry, I missed this. Linky?

It is a gaffe to point out that a lot of people have problems voting for someone they consider “not one of us”, and that true comprehension of that “other” actually being “one of us” takes time? Because that’s what he said and it ain’t breaking news.

Well, he said that “I think you know there are a lot of white folks out there who are not necessarily racist who felt uncomfortable for the first time in their lives about whether or not they wanted to vote for an African-American.”

I think a lot of people would contend that not voting for someone just because they are not black is racist. That certainly is what he was criticized for, being tone deaf and oblivious.

He didn’t say he felt uncomfortable. He said a lot of people do, which happens to be true. Many other people do feel uncomfortable voting for a woman, for someone of a different religion, or from a different cultural group (no distinguishing physical features between both groups); this discomfort becomes lower with time, which he also pointed out and which is also true. If Bernie Sanders is now expected to start avoiding saying anything that sounds bad, even if it happens to be true and relevant… that would be a different guy.

I didn’t say that he said he was uncomfortable. In fact, I posted in quotation marks exactly what he said.

Not voting for woman because she’s a woman is sexist. Not voting for a black person because he’s a black person is racist. If Sanders had said “some people felt uncomfortable voting for a black person,” without the not necessarily racist modify he would have been fine. The criticism is that he was oblivious and dismissive of the impact of racism in America, not that he’s racist.

If his qualifier was " who do not think of themselves as racist." then that’d work too. Especially if you then point out that they are becoming less so.

But yeah, he said, in effect, “People who are not necessarily racist make decisions based on race.”

To use kid gloves, and not out and out call them racists for being uncomfortable voting for a black man due to his race is political speak, I can get behind using soft language when approaching the topic. But he went beyond that, and justified their racism, and called the act of discrimination based on racial characteristics “not necessarily racist”.

Oooh. So you’re thinking he’s being polite with people he shouldn’t be polite with.

Well, thing is, it really is not always racist. For many people the discomfort is the same whenever someone who’s not “the expected type” is found wherever. We often label these reactions racism (where “race” may refer to ancestry or to cultural identification) or sexism, but it’s actually a different kind of issue. It’s not a matter of “men shouldn’t be X” or “black people shouldn’t be X” as one of “this person doesn’t fit my mental image of what an X should look like”; if their mental image doesn’t include the possibility of tats, a person with tats would produce the same negative reaction despite otherwise fitting the mental image. That’s why seeing more of these “unexpected people” in whatever place they were unexpected lowers the rejection: it creates familiarity, the mental image gets redefined and widened.

Yes, he’s being polite to bigots. The rest of your post is to simply describe bigotry and then say it’s not bigotry.

They’re just in denial.

This is the slippery slope. If whites don’t vote for a black because they don’t think he’s qualified, does that make them racist? For every Barack Obama, there’s a Marion Barry. Black politicians can be just as corrupt as whites, like Kwame Kilpatrick, who was just as hostile to the press when they covered his misdeeds as our current president.

It’s part of human nature to side with those who resemble you, and the risk of being labeled racist for supporting one’s own race doesn’t help matters. I think Sanders was being honest and realistic. No amount of legislation or regulation is going to force people to prefer different races from their own. Candidates shouldn’t qualify for office just because of race. The way to win elections is to get more people to support you, not alienate them and force them to vote for you because of a sense of entitlement.

No, and no one is saying that, consider the slope up slippery and in fact sticky. What Sanders said and again I am pointing out that I put exactly what he said in quotes in my post, was that some people didn’t feel comfortable voting for the first time for a black person and that they were not racists. The slope is not slippery, it’s ok.