If the Senate were 100 dead people, Congress could never pass anything . . . which should please the Tea Partiers, at any rate.
I admit that in the OP I wrongly inferred what was in Ted Cruz’s heart. No one can truly see into another’s heart. But I do believe that a racist can be recognized by his or her actions.
[ul]
[li]Cruz shares Helms’ disdain for the Voting Rights Act[/li][li]Cruz did not attend the March on Washington anniversary; Helms tried, with a 16-day filibuster, to stop the Senate from approving a federal holiday to honor Martin Luther King, Jr.[/li][li]Cruz submitted an amendment to the Senate’s immigration bill permitting states to require proof of citizenship for registration to vote in elections for federal office, a move “seen as targeting minorities”.[/li][/ul]
So while I can’t truly say what was in Ted Cruz’s heart when he said we need 100 more like Jesse Helms in the Senate, I can say that Cruz ACTS like a racist and I think he should be challenged as to precisely what he meant when he said what he said.
The examples I and Marley23 give indicate that Cruz walks, swims and quacks like a duck… Let him wiggle all he wants.
[Bolding, underscore, mine]
+1
[Bolding, underscore, mine]
What are the specifics of these “arguments by implication”, please?
The nation has passed Jesse Helms by. A pity we didn’t back up and roll over him, but there it is.
It’s not too late for Ted Cruz. 
The idea that you can conclude someone is a racist because they support a bunch of policies that are harmful to minorities or use ads like Helms’ “unqualified minorities” commercial. I was saying that we have some real evidence Helms held black people in contempt on a personal level- at least if they dared suggest they were on equal footing with him.
[Quote=Not Ted Cruz]
The willingness to say all those crazy things is a rare, rare characteristic in this town, and you know what? It’s genuine frontier gibberish
[/quote]
“Rrrarbershh!”
Fuck that noise. Salient characteristics, okay?
This highlights the problem I have with the accusations of racism. All of those issues can be debated without the conclusion that the person who holds them is racist. Was Jesse Helms racist? Probably.
Can’t we debate the VRA, immigration, or a holiday for MLK without an accusation of racism? The last one is particularly vile.
What if I think that MLK’s personal failings make him not deserving of a holiday, but support civil rights nonetheless? What if I just have a policy of no holidays for a person until he is dead for at least 75 years so history can paint a better picture? What if I don’t think that every good thing in history needs paid day off?
The logic is flawed:
P1: All racists oppose an MLK holiday
P2: Bill opposes an MLK holiday
C: Therefore, Bill is a racist.
It’s the most basic of logical fallacies.
Then what action would label a person as being a racist?
Actually the most basic, if not popular, one is the straw man.
It is not what I and many said in a previous thread, it was an issue of optics. As even I pointed before, it is most likely that there was no racism from the part of the Republican leaders, but the shameful bit is that it is more likely that Republicans were missing in action because they do keep in mind that a good chunk of the support they get nowadays is from racists that hide behind purity demands.
The shameful thing happens because the Republican leaders are not being brave enough to tell those elements of their party to bug off demonstrating that they do not care about them.
Ted Cruz speaking in that avenue shows to me that people like him still like to pander to those elements even if they are not like them.
Sure. Luckily, in Helms’ case, there’s a lot more evidence that he holds white supremacist beliefs.
Wait, you think it’s particularly vile to have a holiday recognizing MLK’s accomplishments, but you’re not racist?
No. It’s particularly vile to accuse everyone who opposes an MLK holiday of being a racist.
How can you tell if someone is a racist? It’s hard to read minds and inferences may be made one way or another, but how about instead of focusing on a person, we focus on debating the idea?
There are many reasons pro and con for any particular new immigration law, for example, but an accusation that Politician X just hates brown people does nothing to advance a particular position.
Sure it does, it shows that on the whole most of the republicans that are telling us that it is raining are also clueless when they miss that there are elements that are in reality peeing on us Hispanics and other minorities.
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/publications/when-mr-kobach-comes-to-town
Well, the point is that that cluelessness looks really silly the longer it goes; that is, why it seems that most republicans that are not racists take their sweet time on telling people like Kobach to bug off.
Cite to a single Republican who denies that there are racists in the world and that those racists support some of their positions? It doesn’t make the argument right or wrong.
If I propose a law saying that, and I’m making this up, that for safety no person may listen to music while driving a car. I do this because in my mind it will increase road safety. It just so turns out that, say, 84% of minorities, but only 61% of whites listen to music while driving. Racists back my proposal because it will be a nice little “fuck you” to the minorities. Does that make me a racist?
Plus, it could equally be said that increased regulations, need for business permits, business taxes, etc. keep the poor (more minorities) from becoming small business owners, yet nobody accuses the left of being racist. It is simply an unfortunate side effect of an underlying belief.
I think you’re saying “inferences may be made one way or another” by the person’s actions, yes?
We can debate the idea. In this particular, specific instance I am not interested in “debating the idea”. I am interested in debating the pattern of actions.
Agreed.
I do not agree because “an accusation that Politician X just hates brown people” can encourage a politician to explain their collective actions thereby allowing me to compare their words with their past and future collective actions.
I am not aware of any case where I can vote for a “new immigration law”. I can vote for a politician.
ETA: We can debate the idea. In this particular, specific instance I am not interested in “debating the idea”. I am interested in debating the pattern of ideas.
Changed to:
We can debate the idea. In this particular, specific instance I am not interested in “debating the idea”. I am interested in debating the pattern of actions.
Read it again, that is not what I said.
Missing the point also.
:rolleyes:
The point stands, it takes a long time to see Republicans come as a group to denounce people like Kobach. Getting them elected to office and representing misguided efforts against the dreamers does not help the Republicans who are not racists to make a point, pandering is then the order of the day. People like him should be publicly denounced, not encouraged.
How can GIGOBuster answer that to your satisfaction? Neither he nor I know the answer to my question, above.