First off, you flatly stated that I’m not remotely willing to believe that they could possibly be white supremacists. I have to ask: why the heck didn’t you just, y’know, ask?
Second, you’re now jumping from “possibly” to “are”. I mean: you see that, right? You introduced the word, and I replied accordingly, and now — this?
I’ve been having a hard time taking some of the replies I’ve seen in this thread seriously — but I’ve been hoping that, hey, maybe some of it is them responding not to what I’m writing, but to what they’re expecting; and, heck, maybe some of it is me being unclear, and I should redouble my efforts. But you’re effectively responding to what you wrote: you’re jumping from your “possibly” all the way to “are”. And, well, that’s just kind of disheartening.
Other_Waldo has a point. It’s possible to see the good and bad in any party or party document while studiously ignoring wider context and code-words. The Republican Party doesn’t see things that way - and are furiously backpeddling, but maybe under some circumstances it makes sense to pass over vile sentiments and twist words to make them sound reasonable.
I’ve heard that Hitler was a great dancer. Also the Mississippi Declaration of Secession has some aspects worth pondering, though of course I part company with their defense of slavery and explicit opposition to black equality. For example, it objects to invading a state and surely they are correct that violence is wrong. It notes that, “the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.” Well I’m against prejudice, etc, etc.
You’ve got weigh both sides and look for the best in every person, political ideology, or cartoon villain.
All that aside, I suspect that even the GOP recognizes that WASP supremacy is a losing proposition - there are too few of them. Demagogues always have a strong sense of demography.
My thought, too. It reminded me of the trial lawyer who asks a horribly out-of-bounds question, knowing the other side will vigorously object, and then simply says, “Withdrawn.”
There’s often value in the bell that can’t be un-rung.
This is about as repulsive as it gets. Does the Emma Lazarus poem go “Give us your huddled masses, as long as there’s something in it for us?” You don’t allow people in solely on whether they can immediately contribute. There are people who face great danger in their native land and bring their children here so that they might actually live to adulthood. Throughout US history, people immigrated because they faced famine or war or persecution at home. We didn’t ask them “what’s in it for us?”
The notion that there is an Anglo-Saxon culture in the US that is under siege is racist and reprehensible. There is no monolithic US culture, it’s a hodgepodge of cultures brought in from all over the world as seen in the great variety of ethnic restaurants, in the music from diverse backgrounds, and so on. Let’s be honest, “Anglo-Saxon” is being used as a proxy for “white”. If you’re uncomfortable with people coming in who don’t look like you, pray like you, eat like you, and so on- YOU’RE the one with the problem. Grow the fuck up and until you do, let the adults run the country.
While it’s certainly neither necessary nor wise to dislike dogs because Hitler liked them, when I find that something I’ve been agreeing with is strongly favored as part of a despicable policy, I back up and take a good hard look at it to make sure a) that I really do agree with it and b) that it can in practice be separated from the despicable policy.
Sometimes I do stick with my opinion. But what I don’t do is to start voting for the despicable policy because the people who have been promoting it have been doing their best to associate it with something that I agree with.
“Party A promotes pro-choice policies, which I favor, but a lower cap on asylum seekers, which I oppose. Party B promotes a stronger focus on infrastructure development, which I favor, but the legalization of eating babies, which I oppose. So both parties have their pros and cons.”
Oh, on that, RW commenters and even actual officials of past Administrations already went there: "Give me your huddled masses who can stand on their own two feet. It was put there by and for Europeans. It was added after the statue was built; it was supposed to be us enlightening others not asking them to come. Right next door at Ellis people were being already excluded." And so forth.
Like the “war” on Christmas/Christianity. They feel persecuted and endangered by merely having to accept that there may be other ways to “be American”.
I’m misremembering, yet you describe exactly what I said—you claimed a friend was the one who was the good Republican.
I don’t know why you think you can get away with all these games. But it doesn’t work. You’ve just admitted you think these guys are racist. And we’ve already established (since you didn’t disagree with me) that what they are saying is of a racist motivation. Yet you say you agree with them. You agree with people who are racist, saying things out of a racist motivation.
Friends, this is the poster who literally and seriously advocated SLAVERY for immigrants who get deported and return to the US. That is not hyperbole. You are wasting your time.