And now we see the “Oh, you are getting all upset. I am being reasonable here (by ignoring the blatant racism)”
Jesus, it’s textbook.
It’s the Pit. Insults are customary.
Let’s face it.
The concept of “only white people should be allowed to immigrate to the United States” is the what @The_Other_Waldo_Pepper is defending here.
No more, no less.
I posted a link to the official manifesto and asked you which parts you object to, so why don’t you quit this diversionary dicking around and get back to what this thread is really about-The Republicans’ openly racist caucus and the apologists covering for it.
Of course not.
Nope.
Strictly speaking, in the current context I suppose we could start with a policy that’d allows people to cross the border into the United States as easily as they can cross the border between two of those states. I’d then go on to discuss the functional equivalent of open borders: if someone replies that, oh, no, not an open border; I’d require them to pay one whole dime, then in a sense you could argue that they’re not advocating for an open border — but it doesn’t strike me as a useful sense. And so on.
You know that’s not really my position, right?
that’s the entire concept of the southern border since the early 1900s … that and they take the jobs from the lines of americans that harvest the crops that most people have never seen after the 1930s
Yeah, straight up sealioning.
Your position appears to be, “Sure that manifesto is hateful and ignorant of American history and values, but I can pull sentence fragments out of it that, without context, seem sensible if one squints at them in a dimly lit room.”
A garbage position from a garbage human being.
That’s the position of the statement from the “Freedom Caucus” that you have been continually tap-dancing around and excusing by re-writing their words, and ignoring the racist parts while attempting to steer the conversation away from.
So I"ll take your word that it’s not your position.
However, you’re sure working overtime to help those folks who DO HOLD that position.
Well, that appears to me to be what you say you’d be doing.
And so on where, more precisely? How difficult does it need to be before you’ll agree not to vote for the person who wants to murder, exile, and/or enslave me and lots of others?
Because that’s exactly where white supremacy winds up, if it gets enough foothold.
If someone says, “I hate murderers so let’s kick all the dark-skinned mongrels out of the country” and you clap for them because you also hate murderers and act like the rest of the statement isn’t a big deal, you’re a pathetic racist piece of shit.
Not that I’m referencing anyone in this thread.
(Okay, obviously I am.)
Also, I’m a white guy who has lived in the USA my whole life and I have no fucking idea what an “Anglo-Saxon culture” is supposed to be. Wearing sweater vests? Listening to Kenny G? Can we have examples?
And so can I, for that matter. So can any of us.
The issue is whether we think that occasional decontextualized agreement on snippets of specific positions justifies us in accepting the America First Caucus platform as a legitimate ideological position overall.
I mean, the Nazi Party in the Third Reich opposed smoking as a health hazard, which is a policy position I endorse, but I’m not gonna join the Nazi Party on account of that agreement, or even consider voting for any of their candidates. You can’t compare two parties just on the relative shittiness of some cherry-picked policy positions without also considering fundamental differences in the shittiness of their overall platforms.
This whole America First Caucus schtick is just the latest reincarnation of Pat-Buchananesque nativist conservatism, ISTM. Remember the 1992 RNC speech of which Molly Ivins wrote “Many people did not care for Pat Buchanan’s speech; it probably sounded better in the original German”?
Point to me where a Democratic caucus advocates calling Republicans and conservatives shit for brains. It’s more often the case that centrists walk on egg shells trying not to offend their fragile white egos.
Well, I’d already mentioned the ‘uniquely Anglo-Saxon’ bit, and I’ll gladly object to the word “imported” likewise; and I disagree with the part about Section 230 as well. But: why not ask me about the parts you’re curious about? Or I could name one or two, and then you could name one or two, and so on, and so on?
Remember, I got into this by addressing the particular short section that someone copy-and-pasted; we can go section by section, if you like.
I’m not following you: is someone advocating for murdering you? For exiling you? For enslaving you?
Nah. We already know how like to take little bits out of context and reword them.
Then maybe ask about any position you please, and we’ll see whether I agree with you that it’s objectionable.
Or all three simultaneously.
Which Democrat has an open borders stance? Name one.