But there are also circles of racists that aren’t inside the circle of Republicans.
Or rather, it’s two circles that overlap. Remember Venn diagrams?
Wait, so most white racists are Republicans, but not all, but most non-white racists aren’t Republicans?
I’m not sure how you know this, let alone why it matters, but I guess it’s a reasonable guess.
Of course I do. If we limit the discussion to white racists, then for all practical purposes the racists are a small circle entirely within the larger circle. The two don’t intersect, one is a subset of the other.
Yes. There is a parallel universe where all the criticisms, fair or not, of liberals on this board are being thrown by right-wingers at liberals. Literally–there’s rightwing boards where they bash liberals all day for their alleged extremism, hatred, etc. It’s kind of a silly game both sides play.
So how does that square with your statement that " you do have to be Republican to be racist"?
Are you saying you all white racists are Republicans? Is that it? You think that’s better? Because if that’s it, you really need to get out more.
Why did the Republican cross the road? Racism.
The idea that the Republican party is the home of rascism is just something Democrats tell themselves to feel good. The data does not back up this assertion.
In 2002white people were asked about laws to ban interracial marriages. 11.9% of Democrats were in favor and 11.5% of Republicans were in favor.
In 2008 2008 here is data asking whites whether they would vote for a black for President. (Row: racpres, column partyid, filter: race(1) year(2008)). - Democrats 13.6% said no, and Republicans 11.4% said no.
No real difference in the data.
There have been Democrat Senators who were high ranking members of the Klan, and used the n-word of national television that continued to serve until 2010. Bill Clinton told Ted Kennedy that Barak Obama should be getting them coffee. The current Majority Leader in the Senate called Obama a “light skinned” african american "with no negro dialect "unless he wanted to have one. There are plenty of things said by politicians of all stripes that can be construed as racist if you squint hard enough, but the idea that only one party has racists is just not true.
It’s pretty simple: if you want a stream of race-baiting, and specifically anti-black and Hispanic, rhetoric from your party’s leaders, the Republicans are the only game in town. Therefore, it is a reasonable guess that if you’re a voter whose primary issue is the proper place of non-white people, you’re going to vote Republican. White people who don’t need that rhetoric from their party leaders are likely more evenly distributed between parties.
Republicans are 89% white, so it’s a fairly safe bet that most non-white anything aren’t Republicans.
I don’t think it matters, particularly, I was just contesting BobLibDem’s all-racists-are-Republican remarks.
Look, I’m a lifelong, dedicated Democrat. I’ve served on my local Democratic committee. But I’m not naive enough to make ridiculous, sweeping claims like that. There are more than our share of racists who are Democrats. I’m okay with that - I’ll fight them wherever I see them. But going around denying they exist isn’t how.
Well, as we know, not all racists are whites who hate non-whites either, but that’s getting ahead of ourselves.
And I’m a lifelong Republican, though my dedication is waivering (hoping the moderates take control soon, or I might have to do something drastic, like vote Dem, Libertarian, or not at all. Our Kentucky Dems are pretty centrist, luckily). I have no problem stating that the Republican leadership does far more race-baiting than the Democratic leadership. Do you honestly disagree with that statement? I’m not at all happy about it, but it’s true.
And of course there are racist Democrats, as I’ve said repeatedly.
That’s what I’m saying, that non-white racists exist, and (given the racial breakdown of the Republican Party) generally aren’t Republicans. Consider that line in its context: what party puts out more anti-racial-minority rhetoric? If anti-minority rhetoric is what you want, which party supplies it much more reliably? The Republicans do.
I wasn’t disputing that. Just the idea that there aren’t any racist Democrats, i.e. the Republicans aren’t the “only” game in town. But sure, if you need a racist fast, try your local GOP offices first.
You’re operating on a flawed thesis. There is little doubt that many Republican policies are racist and many Republican politicians make racist appeals, but the idea that most white racists vote Republican is crap.
As Chris Hayes, Nation editor and MSNBC host admitted after he made that mistake, polling data proves Democrats are just as likely as democrats to hold racist views, such as opposition to “interracial marriage”.
As he put it “to the surprise of no black people.”
They’re the only game in town for anti-minority rhetoric from the leadership, not for individual party members who are racists.
If Democratic politicians are engaged in anywhere close to similar levels of rhetoric, I’ve somehow missed it.
For one, that assumes opposition to interracial marriage is exclusively the province of racist white people. That is not the case.
I’m not sure if that’s true either, but at least be careful to make the distinction.
It’s not as bad as the Dems, sure, but how much do you need before it’s bad?
Let me try again. Let’s take 1,000,000 white Republicans. And let’s take 700,000 white racists. Every single one of those 700,000 racists will be Republican, leaving 300,000 Republicans who are not racist. But there are zero white racists who are not Republican, so my point remains: You don’t have to be racist to be Republican (as witnessed by the 300,000 non-racist Republicans in my example) but you do have to be Republican to be racist (because every single one of the 700,000 racists was Republican). Got it?
I thought I had been, in post #27. Just an honest misunderstanding, I reckon.
[Assuming you meant "It’s not as bad as the 'Pubs]
Any amount is bad. I don’t condone any racism (though I acknowledge that it has a biological basis).
Most white American racists who vote, vote Republican. I don’t think there’s really any dispute on that point.
Most, probably. Zero, as BobLibDem claims? Not a chance.
I’m curious, lance. Can you name one prominent Republican who has come out against:
-Homophobia (claiming gays are evil, destroying marriage, are equivalent to pedophiles, etc)
-Sexism (calling women whores, saying women-only health coverage shouldn’t be covered, saying the wage gap is the fault of women, etc)
-Racism (saying Obama is an evil radical muslim Kenyan, and so on)
-The Republican party’s anti-science agenda (against evolution, global warming, stem cell research, etc)
-The Republican party’s theocratic bent (insisting atheists shouldn’t be considered citizens, forcing Christianity on others, claiming all Muslims are evil, etc)
Just one republican who’s against all that and is prominent - I don’t even care if it’s a blogger, just one. If these so-called good Republicans exists, I want to see one of them.
Sure. And there are religious people who claim that the world is 4000 years olds and that other people are stupid for not believing that. But guess what? Those people are wrong. There are people who claim that gays are evil and trying to destroy family values. But guess what? They’re wrong. There are people who claim that feminists are evil and trying to oppress men, and guess what - they’re wrong.
Just because the other side says the same sort of stuff doesn’t mean they’re right, and it doesn’t mean both sides are wrong. Sometimes one side is wrong, and one side is right.