The Trump Presidency – 2016

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

And everyone knows the vast majority of the Republican Party is white. Don't pretend race isn't a part of this discussion.

It's hard to be a white nationalist party if you aren't super white, of course. Granted racism means that you consider another race to be inferior and I struggle to see where calling the Republican Party a white nationalist party indicates that you think whites are inferior (generally speaking - if you say something like whites are so dumb, they vote Republican, that could qualify).

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

His base are older people who have to know they're never going to be billionaires.

As for gun control, every candidate running had the same beliefs. Most with much longer track records. Heck, Trump was calling for background checks and other things the NRA hates just a few years before running.

So why latch on to the white nationalist instead of the others?

Well, I think that the modern GOP message has always been "someone is coming to take ypur shit away from you" and they've been pretty good at making that SOMEONE relatively faceless. Trump and the white nationalists are really good at the former...not so much the latter, but the meat of the message was still on point and folks were distracted/willing to look past the fact that the Boogeyman had changed from a political enemy to people-of-color, as long as "YOU are not getting what YOU deserve" was getting blasted at a higher volume.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

It's wrong to label an entire group of people for the actions of a few.

I'm with you, the echo chamber here often comes back to racism first. I know several Trump supporters. They work in my professional services field, all well educated etc. More concerned with real-or-not perception of Hillary and Democratic giveaways (e.g. more $ minded) than race. Very much surprised me they voted for him.

But I'm not sure I agree with "a few". I don't know what the percentage is you are thinking of (and I would be interested in ready any unbiased analysis) but my guess is up to 20%.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Is it not still wrong?

And everyone knows the vast majority of the Republican Party is white. Don't pretend race isn't a part of this discussion.

Sure, it's wrong but judging someone for their CHOICE in political party is nowhere near the same level as judging someone entirely based on the race they were born.

I'm not pretending race isn't part of this discussion but it's not every part (the Republican party is probably no more white than the group of folks in this thread, so mere whiteness is obviously not the crux of this issue) The KKK are overwhelmingly white too, does that mean criticizing the KKK is racist in your eyes?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I'm with you, the echo chamber here often comes back to racism first. I know several Trump supporters. They work in my professional services field, all well educated etc. More concerned with real-or-not perception of Hillary and Democratic giveaways (e.g. more $ minded) than race. Very much surprised me they voted for him.

But I'm not sure I agree with "a few". I don't know what the percentage is you are thinking of (and I would be interested in ready any unbiased analysis) but my guess is up to 20%.

So these money-minded people voted for the guy who massively ran up the debt and even said he would do it during the campaign. You sure there isn't another reason they voted for him?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

So these money-minded people voted for the guy who massively ran up the debt and even said he would do it during the campaign. You sure there isn't another reason they voted for him?

I did qualify by saying "real-or-not perception". Do you believe Hillary would not have run up the debt?

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I did qualify by saying "real-or-not perception". Do you believe Hillary would not have run up the debt?

Ironically Her husband was the most fiscally conservative president in modern history, which somehow earned them a lifetime of hate from conservatives.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

Ironically Her husband was the most fiscally conservative president in modern history, which somehow earned them a lifetime of hate from conservatives.

Republicans hate budget surpluses! How else can they blame the democrats for a failing economy if they're running around with a surplus all the time? This is a slap in the face to the party of fiscal responsibility!

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

Ironically Her husband was the most fiscally conservative president in modern history, which somehow earned them a lifetime of hate from conservatives.

It would be interesting to pit Bill vs Trump. Bill would probably have won back then, I'm not sure if Bill would have won in 2016. Interesting thought exercise.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Edward64

It would be interesting to pit Bill vs Trump. Bill would probably have won back then, I'm not sure if Bill would have won in 2016. Interesting thought exercise.

You don't think Bill could have outperformed Hillary by 80,000 votes in swing states?

Clinton was sitting with a higher favorability on election day 2016 than Trump and that was with Hillary dragging his rating down throughout her campaign.

He was also one of the most skilled town hall style debaters we've ever seen. There's no chance the right would vote for him, but Dems would come out in droves to vote for Bill Clinton again and he'd easily pull more independents than Hillary.

I don't think this theoretical election would have been all that close.

[Edward64]

FWIW, I'll point out again the ADL definition of racism is.

What is Racism? | ADL

Racism is the belief that a particular race is superior or inferior to another, that a person’s social and moral traits are predetermined by his or her inborn biological characteristics. Racial separatism is the belief, most of the time based on racism, that different races should remain segregated and apart from one another.

Here's another definition which I do not agree with, I think its way too broad.

Racism vs. Prejudice: What's the Difference?

Race scholars Howard Winant and Michael Omi define racism as a way of representing or describing race that “creates or reproduces structures of domination based on essentialist categories of race.” In other words, racism results in an unequal distribution of power on the basis of race.

I think the recent discussion topic is

1) GOP is predominately white-nationalist
2) White-nationalist are racists or has racism as one of their major tenets

If the definition of racism is the former, I agree its an over generalization of the GOP party. If the definition of racism is the later, then I can see the point. I think the former is a better definition.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Edward64

FWIW, I'll point out again the ADL definition of racism is.

What is Racism? | ADL


Here's another definition which I do not agree with, I think its way too broad.

Racism vs. Prejudice: What's the Difference?


I think the recent discussion topic is

1) GOP is predominately white-nationalist
2) White-nationalist are racists or has racism as one of their major tenets

If the definition of racism is the former, I agree its an over generalization of the GOP party. If the definition of racism is the later, then I can see the point. I think the former is a better definition.

The fact that you're splitting hairs on what the definition of racism is in order to defend the GOP says everything we need to know about the current GOP.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Atocep

The fact that you're splitting hairs on what the definition of racism is in order to defend the GOP says everything we need to know about the current GOP.

Splitting hairs? I think those 2 definitions are pretty different.

But goes back to how Greta vs Malala presented themselves. I thought very differently and most here didn't see much of a difference.

Shrug.

[JPhillips]

The GOP is a white nationalist party.

The party is pursuing a white nationalist agenda.

Voting for the GOP to have power at a national level is voting for a party that will pursue white nationalism.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Splitting hairs? I think those 2 definitions are pretty different.

But goes back to how Greta vs Malala presented themselves. I thought very differently and most here didn't see much of a difference.

Shrug.

You're searching for different definitions of racism in an attempt to find something that defines the GOP's current white nationalistic tendencies. While the definitions you presented are different, it's still semantical games being played to find the correct peg for the GOP hole.

When this is what we're left doing with a party then, whether it fits a specific definition or not, it's safe to there's a racism problem within in.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Atocep

You're searching for different definitions of racism in an attempt to find something that defines the GOP's current white nationalistic tendencies. While the definitions you presented are different, it's still semantical games being played to find the correct peg for the GOP hole.

Actually no. I was trying to define racism for another post and found ADL (they are the ADL afterall and assume they would have the best definition).

Had nothing originally to do with white nationalist tendencies in the GOP. Came in handy when this discussion popped up and "racist/racism" was being implied and thought it would be good to level set.

Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - Racism in the News

Originally Posted by Atocep

When this is what we're left doing with a party then, whether it fits a specific definition or not, it's safe to there's a racism problem within in.

Prejudice, nationalist etc. I can agree with. Racist organization? Let's agree to disagree.

[NobodyHere]

I have a question:

Why is Greta Thunberg famous?

[JPhillips]

And the GOP is in bed with a bunch of authoritarians.

Today Lindsay Graham blocked a resolution recognizing the Armenian genocide after meeting with Trump and Erdogan.

Tonight Tucker Carlson said Russia poses no threat to the USA.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

I have a question:

Why is Greta Thunberg famous?

I'm going to be more Malala and politely avoid this trap.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I'm going to be more Malala and politely avoid this trap.

I'm genuinely curious about this one. Probably a billion people (to throw out a number) on this planet are concerned about climate change. But to my knowledge she has no special credibility or experience related to the issue. Why is she the face of the movement?

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

I'm genuinely curious about this one. Probably a billion people (to throw out a number) on this planet are concerned about climate change. But to my knowledge she has no special credibility or experience related to the issue. Why is she the face of the movement?

Is she? I mean, she's gotten some press, she's gotten opportunities that others haven't but is she really the poster child? It's the same argument (rightly so) against Al Gore. Who does he think he is! The point is that scientists have been talking about global warming, climate change for almost 20 years, afair. I know, who cares about scientists, what do they know?



The argument is bigger than she is. It's the people who are opposed to her message that are elevating her beyond her level.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I did qualify by saying "real-or-not perception". Do you believe Hillary would not have run up the debt?

Not like this. Her campaign plan was PAYGO and she has a fiscally conservative voting record from her time in the Senate. Her husband has been the most fiscally conservative President in decades.

The other candidate said debt was good and has a lifetime of running up personal debt and filing for bankruptcy.

You say these people are smart, but if they're voting over the debt, this would seem to question that.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

This is an ironic statement. Walks like a white nationalist party, talks like a white nationalist party, yadayada.

Ironic except one has nothing to do with the other? Is this an Alanis Morrisette sorta ironic?

Everyone in it doesn't have to be a white nationalist if the leadership is. It's like saying well, I'm not a Communist so you can't call Maduro's party in Venezuela (named the United Socialist Party of Venezuela) a Communist Party because I'm a member, even if the leadership is Communist.

If you're going to call all Republicans white nationalists, then yes, it does matter if it's just the leadership or not. So you're okay with making overgeneralized insulting statements about an entire group of people, just because their politics don't agree with you too huh? I wish I could say I was shocked.

It seems so defensive for no real reason other than you want to deny that the leadership of the Republican Party are white nationalists.

Except for my posts calling out the Republican leadership you mean? The shills, the white nationalists, Trump himself?

I assure I can't stand him or them anymore than you. It's probably about time you start viewing me with a 2019 lens instead of a 2009 lens.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

It's hard to be a white nationalist party if you aren't super white, of course. Granted racism means that you consider another race to be inferior and I struggle to see where calling the Republican Party a white nationalist party indicates that you think whites are inferior (generally speaking - if you say something like whites are so dumb, they vote Republican, that could qualify).

I think if you call the party white nationalists, you call the entire membership the same. And that is factually untrue and insulting. Consider me. I hate the people in power of the party I have been in my whole voting life. But I don't feel I have any power to change it except the leave party.

The labeling of tens of millions as white nationalists when they're as currently trapped in this as I am and not white nationalists at all is, as Sack would say , very tribalistic. You can't stand to actually envision that there are good people who simply think different than you. So you take the easy way out. Label them all racists. Easier to dismiss them and allow you to label them without impugning your conscience.

This is why we're in the mess we're in. No one wants to see the other side as human. And it's gotten so bad, apparently, that even the intelligent posters on the left here would rather unfairly denigrate and insult the entire other said in the same manner white nationalists insult minorities and hold them to be inferior.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I'm with you, the echo chamber here often comes back to racism first. I know several Trump supporters. They work in my professional services field, all well educated etc. More concerned with real-or-not perception of Hillary and Democratic giveaways (e.g. more $ minded) than race. Very much surprised me they voted for him.

But I'm not sure I agree with "a few". I don't know what the percentage is you are thinking of (and I would be interested in ready any unbiased analysis) but my guess is up to 20%.

It is conceivable the percentage could be higher or lower. But I'm certain it's a significant minority, which is key to my point.

What is frustrating to me is exactly what you're saying about fearing the agenda of the left side of the aisle over the fact that white nationalists have clearly infiltrated the leadership of their own party. It is that same tribalism on this side that I see on the other side. People in the GOP willing to let go of their personal value systems because somehow they fear socialism ideals more than, what, the return of Hitler? That's utterly insane to me.

The echo chamber on the rigjt doesn't exist here of course, but in other forums and FB groups I am a part of, it's nutty to see the circular thinking Trump voters and even non-Trumpers but right-leaning voters engage in. Getting into an argument with them is even more frustrating than having a discussion with close-minded individuals from the left.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The GOP is a white nationalist party.

The party is pursuing a white nationalist agenda.

Voting for the GOP to have power at a national level is voting for a party that will pursue white nationalism.

And you're a hypocrite.

[Edward64]

From an earlier post, I believe this is the discussion topic:

1) GOP is predominately white-nationalist
2) White-nationalist are racists or has racism as one of their major tenets

Chief Rum and I agree that is an over generalization. Others do not. (If you don't agree with above 1-2, then we don't have a disagreement)

Originally Posted by RainMaker

You say these people are smart, but if they're voting over the debt, this would seem to question that.

My statement said "more concerned with real-or-not perception of Hillary and Democratic giveaways (e.g. more $ minded) than race". We are discussing debt right now and I see the connection you are making to it but its not the only thing.

But let's say the simple quip answer is -- yes, I agree, they are dumb and that's why they voted for Trump because they incorrectly thought Trump would do a better job with the deficit/debt. Therefore they are not the single-minded racist which lends credence to Chief Rum and my position ... its not all about racism (or at least not the ADL definition).

I'll concede there may be up to 20% (my swag) in the GOP that are white-nationalists/racists. The others have different reasons why they voted for Trump and those reasons should not be casually tossed aside with a "they are white nationalists/racists".

e.g. Although I believe Democratic party have more socialist beliefs than the GOP, I would not call the Democratic party socialist. That is an over generalization (or at least until if/when Sanders gets elected) just like, IMO, GOP is a white-nationalist party.

Not like this. Her campaign plan was PAYGO and she has a fiscally conservative voting record from her time in the Senate. Her husband has been the most fiscally conservative President in decades.

I will concede that she would have lower deficit spending and therefore the debt would not have increased as quickly or as much as Trump. I would contend she would not have done much to reduce the debt which is where the root of the problem is.

The other candidate said debt was good and has a lifetime of running up personal debt and filing for bankruptcy.

Debt is good up to a point. I do agree we have exceeded what I would personally consider acceptable. However, in above chart I linked to, we need to discuss national debt in context of GDP. You can see from the chart that there is plenty shared blame for the mess we are in.

You will not get disagreement from me that the GOP has been hypocritical re: fiscally responsible mantra.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

The labeling of tens of millions as white nationalists when they're as currently trapped in this as I am and not white nationalists at all is, as Sack would say , very tribalistic. You can't stand to actually envision that there are good people who simply think different than you. So you take the easy way out. Label them all racists. Easier to dismiss them and allow you to label them without impugning your conscience.

How about we start calling the Democratic party the Socialist party? Is that an equivalent insult (or maybe not).

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

The echo chamber on the rigjt doesn't exist here of course, but in other forums and FB groups I am a part of, it's nutty to see the circular thinking Trump voters and even non-Trumpers but right-leaning voters engage in. Getting into an argument with them is even more frustrating than having a discussion with close-minded individuals from the left.

One of my colleague that voted Trump is a white Christian Fundamentalist. I have breakfast with him occasionally and we talk politics. I always use the WWJD or WWJT(hink) but I am unable to shake him in his support.

He thinks Hillary would have been much worse for the country and I can't convince him otherwise. Supporter of the Wall and reduced illegal immigration (just like I am) but he's not a racist (or at least not the ADL definition).

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

The argument is bigger than she is. It's the people who are opposed to her message that are elevating her beyond her level.

This. The level in which she bothers people, mostly men, who deny or down-play climate change is why she is famous. Honestly, the same can be said for AOC.

[miked]

She makes a great boogeyman, but she is famous because she is a child and took a very public stand, more than most politicians on either side are willing to do. Every time we hear about the environmental catastrophe (which is likely coming), the republicans tell me that coal/oil/shit jobs and profits are more important, and other countries are polluting more. The democrats tell me the only way to do it is to propose legislation that has no chance and come up with unrealistic ideas.

Of course, the "socialist" Obama had a compromise deal that addressed it and neither side was happy so the one in charge ripped it all up. Greta is nothing special, but she was willing to use her status as a child to try and make a change and draw attention to a problem everyone knows exists but nobody wants to try and solve.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

And you're a hypocrite.

Probably.

You're too hung up on the argument that not all GOP voters are racist, an argument that I've not been making. I agree, not all GOP voters are racist, that includes me since I voted for at least two Republicans last week in our local elections. I don't know nor particularly care who is or is not personally racist in the GOP.

But the policies the national level GOP is pursuing are white nationalist policies. Do you want to argue that?

And voting for the GOP at a national level means voting for a party that will pursue white nationalist policies. Do you want to argue that other policies make it worth the white nationalism? Or that Dems are so dangerous it's worth the white nationalism?

Of course, I'm not saying anything that hasn't been said by any number of former GOPers, most notably Tom Nichols. The only way to "save" the GOP is to defeat it to such an extent that the ideas driving it now are universally seen as toxic. Defending the GOP in, not all Republicans..., just gets you more of the same.

And since I've already stirred up a hornet's nest, I'll add this:

The GOP is an anti-democracy party.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

I think if you call the party white nationalists, you call the entire membership the same. And that is factually untrue and insulting. Consider me. I hate the people in power of the party I have been in my whole voting life. But I don't feel I have any power to change it except the leave party.

You are trying to have your cake and eat it too. As JPhillips pointed out, the policies that the Republican Party are pursuing is white nationalist. The leadership of the Republican Party are white nationalists or white nationalist enablers. Twitter recently made news saying they couldn't create algorithms for banning neo-Nazis because US Republican politicians would be caught up in that net. The ordinary rank and file appear to be at best holding their nose at the white nationalism as long as other things get done.

I don't understand why leaving the party is seen as a step too far. And as JPhillips has pointed out, prominent Republicans who have left have called the GOP a white nationalist party and people like George Will have said the Republican Party has to be, basically, smashed so that it can find it's soul again.

Originally Posted by Edward64

e.g. Although I believe Democratic party have more socialist beliefs than the GOP, I would not call the Democratic party socialist. That is an over generalization (or at least until if/when Sanders gets elected) just like, IMO, GOP is a white-nationalist party.

A ha, I believe you've just given up the game. Yes, if Sanders gets elected President and the Democratic leadership falls in lock step with Sanders' policies, you have indicated that you would be fine calling the Democratic Party a Socialist Party. So would I!

So how is that any different from Trump being a White Nationalist and the Republican Party perusing white nationalist policies?

You must see that saying you are fine with calling the Democratic Party Socialist "if/when Sanders gets elected" is exactly the same thing. And you are acknowledging that individual beliefs of the millions of Democratic Party members don't disqualify the party from being Socialist if the leadership and policies pushed by the White House and Congressional leadership are Socialist (and I would agree with you).

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Edward64

How about we start calling the Democratic party the Socialist party? Is that an equivalent insult (or maybe not).

Wait...weren't you just being very pedantic about the definition of the term racist?

Are there bonafide Socialists* in the democratic party? Probably. Is the democratic party catering and cow towing to Socialists* and trying to implement Socialist* policies? I would say no. Is the gop catering to white nationalism and cow towing to white nationalists and implementing white nationalist policies? Most definitely yes.

*Since you didn't define Socialist, I am assuming you mean the actual definition of Socialist/Socialism and not the mutated, bogyman gop/conservative definition of Socialist/Socialism.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

A ha, I believe you've just given up the game. Yes, if Sanders gets elected President and the Democratic leadership falls in lock step with Sanders' policies, you have indicated that you would be fine calling the Democratic Party a Socialist Party. So would I!

So how is that any different from Trump being a White Nationalist and the Republican Party perusing white nationalist policies?

You must see that saying you are fine with calling the Democratic Party Socialist "if/when Sanders gets elected" is exactly the same thing. And you are acknowledging that individual beliefs of the millions of Democratic Party members don't disqualify the party from being Socialist if the leadership and policies pushed by the White House and Congressional leadership are Socialist (and I would agree with you).

I don't see the equivalency. Here's my logic.

Many on this board agrees to the basic premise (if I'm wrong, let me know).

1) GOP is predominately white-nationalist
2) White-nationalist are racists (as defined by ADL) or has racism as one of their major tenets

I concede there are white nationalist elements in the GOP party (e.g. my swag was up to 20%) but to paint it with a broad stroke like that does not factor in the other 80%.

The reason why its okay to call the Democratic party a "socialist" party if/when Sanders gets elected is because Sanders says he is a "democratic socialist" and I assume his supporters agree. (An argument can be made that maybe I should used Sanders term of "democratic socialist vs socialist" and I will going forward if its a big beef of contention).

The GOP has not conceded they are a white-nationalist party nor based on the ADL definition of racism do I see it as such. I contend they are more of a nationalist party (see my proposed wiki definition elsewhere) and can easily concede there are a lot GOP that a prejudice (which does not rise to the level of racism) but then so are a lot of Democrats.

If the discussion topic is Trump or Miller a white nationalist/racist (e.g. Chief Rum's "view of a minority"), that's a different topic however we are discussing the GOP -as a whole-.

Do you agree with the ADL definition of what racism is? If not, feel free to propose another? I may very well agree with you depending on the definition.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Wait...weren't you just being very pedantic about the definition of the term racist?

Absolutely, very important to define when the term is critical for the discussion.

Originally Posted by JediKooter

*Since you didn't define Socialist, I am assuming you mean the actual definition of Socialist/Socialism and not the mutated, bogyman gop/conservative definition of Socialist/Socialism.

That post immediately followed another by me where I referred to Sanders as a socialist and an attempt at humor (obviously I failed). For a more legit discussion, see my response to ISiddiqui immediately above.

Same question to you that I posed to him - Do you agree with the ADL definition of what racism is? If not, feel free to propose another? I may very well agree with you depending on the definition.

[JPhillips]

You're hung up on whether or not individuals are racist. Both I and Imran are saying that individual racism isn't the issue, the policies pursued by the leadership of the GOP are the problem. I'm sure lots of GOPers aren't personally white supremacists, but the leadership is and the policies enacted are, and voting for the GOP at a national level empowers those people and those policies.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

You are trying to have your cake and eat it too. As JPhillips pointed out, the policies that the Republican Party are pursuing is white nationalist.

Maybe this illustrates my thinking better (don't claim to speak for CR). Using a Venn diagram, I concede there are white nationalist people/policies and overlaps GOP people/policies (e.g. the middle portion). I think where you and I differ is you see the overlap as much greater than I do.



Examples of significant GOP policies that don't fall under white nationalist and racism (or at least defined by ADL)? Some of the top of my head

1) China, North Korea
2) Tax cuts
3) SCOTUS (more conservative than racist)
4) Living it up with dictators
5) Healthcare - against poor/less fortunate
6) Climate change
7) TPP/NAFTA or whatever they call them now

I don't believe the next one is racist because I support it and I don't believe I'm a racist. But I can understand why some do.

8) The Wall and illegal immigration reform (e.g. I call this more nationalist vs white nationalist, see my proposed wiki definitions of both)

Notwithstanding Trump's tweets, can you list some significant policies/event that you believe the GOP support and are racist?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

You're hung up on whether or not individuals are racist. Both I and Imran are saying that individual racism isn't the issue, the policies pursued by the leadership of the GOP are the problem. I'm sure lots of GOPers aren't personally white supremacists, but the leadership is and the policies enacted are, and voting for the GOP at a national level empowers those people and those policies.

Great timing, I just finished posting above (please read it for context) and asked

Notwithstanding Trump's tweets, can you list some significant policies/event that you believe the GOP support and are racist?

[miami_fan]

Question for Republicans/ Republican leaning people:

Who are the white nationalists* in your party? You pick the definition. You pick the level of government. Federal, state, municipal I don't care. Can we actually identify anyone? Is David Duke the closest person we had to one in the last 30 years?

I know this may come off as antagonistic but I really would like to have names. It is one of my frustrations with these sorts of conversations. The acknowledgement of the white nationalist by Republicans, but the inability to put a name or names to that acknowledgement. It causes me to question the sincerity of the initial acknowledgement. I end up not trusting whether Republicans actually believe that white nationalism is a thing. I am not saying I am right about that. I am telling you that is the impression that I get.

I agree with Chief that not all Republicans are white nationalists. But I also agree with him that there are white nationalists in the Republican Party. If we know that they are there and we believe that is an issue (IF?), why is it so difficult for Republicans to identify that person or persons? To use the comparison others have made before, not all democrats are socialists. There are socialists in the Democratic party. The difference is I know who the Democratic socialists are. I can put a name or names to them whether are I agree with them or not. If I asked Democrats to name the socialists in their party, they can give me names. I can't do that for the white nationalists in the Republican Party. It comes off to me as they are being protected by Republicans for some reason.

*I am not a fan of the term "white nationalist" or "white nationalism" but am using it as that was the term that was introduced.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I don't see the equivalency. Here's my logic.

The reason why its okay to call the Democratic party a "socialist" party if/when Sanders gets elected is because Sanders says he is a "democratic socialist" and I assume his supporters agree. (An argument can be made that maybe I should used Sanders term of "democratic socialist vs socialist" and I will going forward if its a big beef of contention).

The GOP has not conceded they are a white-nationalist party nor based on the ADL definition of racism do I see it as such. I contend they are more of a nationalist party (see my proposed wiki definition elsewhere) and can easily concede there are a lot GOP that a prejudice (which does not rise to the level of racism) but then so are a lot of Democrats.

If the discussion topic is Trump or Miller a white nationalist/racist (e.g. Chief Rum's "view of a minority"), that's a different topic however we are discussing the GOP -as a whole-.

This seems to be an incredibly strange lack of awareness. If Sanders wins, then the Democratic Party is only socialist because Sanders has referred to himself as a Democratic Socialist? So if he had the same policies, but didn't call himself a Democratic Socialist, you would not be comfortable calling the Democratic Party socialist? No one calls themselves an authoritarian, but can we agree that Maduro, Erdogan, Putin are authoritarians?

Trump is a white nationalist. Ran as a white nationalist. His opponents in the GOP primaries considered him a white nationalist and he won. Sure, one can be for border security and not be a racist, but I would hope that people would see that the way Trump went about it was definitely racist. And I am using the ADL definition, by defining Mexicans coming over as the worst; rapists murders, and pledging to ban Muslims from coming in, he was holding up a view that those people (and yes I realize Islam is a religion, not a race per se) are inferior. And he won. Most of the primary never Trumpers fell in line. And now their goals (and more importantly votes) align with Trump's goals.

I would also say, though this isn't a point I have been making, that there are far more than 20% who share Trump's white nationalism and Trump's Presidency have brought more of these people out of the woodwork, or in cases have converted them to it. Some of us have personal experience - my in laws went from never Trumper Republicans in 2015/6 to posting the most vile racist shit on Facebook and being massive supporters by 2018.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Examples of significant GOP policies that don't fall under white nationalist and racism (or at least defined by ADL)? Some of the top of my head

2) Tax cuts
3) SCOTUS (more conservative than racist)
5) Healthcare - against poor/less fortunate

Notwithstanding Trump's tweets, can you list some significant policies/event that you believe the GOP support and are racist?

While all of the above might not be intentionally racist - in most cases they are simply designed to protect wealth and power, they do disproportionately impact people of color and other marginalized groups. Yes, poor whites and in some cases the middle class suffer too, but these issues have a dramatic effect on people of color and LGBTQ folks. They don't have to be intentionally and maliciously designed to hurt black people to be hugely problematic in terms of racial bias.

8) The Wall and illegal immigration reform (e.g. I call this more nationalist vs white nationalist, see my proposed wiki definitions of both)

When this administration says immigration reform, they mean limiting access to this country to brown people. Full stop. To try to gain support for these measures, they say things like "They're sending people that have a lot of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

How in the hell is this not white nationalism, racism, bigotry, and they're trying to base their immigration policy around this?

There are good discussions to be had around immigration in the United States, but the ones started by the GOP during this administration are disingenuous and blatantly race based using fear mongering by calling an entire race of people subhuman.




In general, I would also like to say that I take issue to how you discuss racism. Too many times the conversation is "Is this person a racist or not?" - This is not a binary yes or no. In most cases we cannot judge an individual and decide "well that comment wasn't TOO racist and they helped black people once so i'm not ready to label that person a racist".

The label is often grey, ignoring extreme outliers like Donald Trump. If we even think there's value in questioning "is this person racist" there's already a problem. There's something there that is impacting minorities to the point that we are having a discussion about racism. So its probably more productive to discuss the policies or words that bring up the "are they racist" topic and to examine how those policies/words have an impact on minorities and how we can work on that to be better instead of deciding what threshold of intentional or unintentional level or racial bias crosses someone over the line of "not racist" to "racist".

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Notwithstanding Trump's tweets, can you list some significant policies/event that you believe the GOP support and are racist?

As Imran said, there's a way to enforce immigration laws without being a white supremacist, but that ain't this GOP. Comparing immigrants to vermin, locking children in cages, calling places shit-hole countries, embracing immigration from places like Norway, claiming to defend Western culture, claiming immigrants spread disease, embracing the idea of a replacement of white people, etc. all come from white nationalist rhetoric.

And it isn't just with people from other countries. Voting restrictions, verbal attacks on people of color and Jews, creating a Jewish puppetmaster controlling global organizations, questioning the American heritage of minority groups, etc. all come from white nationalist rhetoric.

It's all about creating a narrow definition of who is allowed to be American.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Trump's white nationalism and Trump's Presidency have brought more of these people out of the woodwork, or in cases have converted them to it. Some of us have personal experience - my in laws went from never Trumper Republicans in 2015/6 to posting the most vile racist shit on Facebook and being massive supporters by 2018.

I think this is the truly scary part that we're collectively ignoring right now. How many significant fascist/racist rallies were in the mainstream news during the Obama or Bush years?

I live in one of the most liberal places in the country (Portland, OR) and the Proud Boys are rallying down here seemingly every month, intentionally seeking & stoking violent conflict.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Some of us have personal experience - my in laws went from never Trumper Republicans in 2015/6 to posting the most vile racist shit on Facebook and being massive supporters by 2018.

My mom voted for him because...abortions (and GOD)...and she doesn't like Hillary. She can't stand him, and she has said that she's probably sitting the next election out.



My dad, who forever, said he was a middle of the road independent. That he didn't like a lot of what either party says, is retired AF, and a former Vietnam POW, seems to love him. He was a big supporter in 2016, and I told him that I couldn't respect him for making that choice and I pretty much stopped talking to him (not entirely because of that, it's complicated) since. I assume that he hasn't changed, because otherwise I assume he would tell me about it. But from what I do see on FB, it's pretty standard, part and parcel, texas/trump/boomer nonsense.



So yeah, there have been real personal experience and repercussions.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Radii

While all of the above might not be intentionally racist - in most cases they are simply designed to protect wealth and power, they do disproportionately impact people of color and other marginalized groups. Yes, poor whites and in some cases the middle class suffer too, but these issues have a dramatic effect on people of color and LGBTQ folks. They don't have to be intentionally and maliciously designed to hurt black people to be hugely problematic in terms of racial bias.

Based on what you said about protecting wealth & power, disproportionately impacting people of color etc. it aligns more/better with the 2nd definition of racism that I quoted below. I don't agree with the 2nd definition but I can see and understand where you and I disagree.

FWIW, I'll point out again the ADL definition of racism is.

Here's another definition which I do not agree with, I think its way too broad.

I think the recent discussion topic is

1) GOP is predominately white-nationalist
2) White-nationalist are racists or has racism as one of their major tenets

If the definition of racism is the former, I agree its an over generalization of the GOP party. If the definition of racism is the later, then I can see the point. I think the former is a better definition.

When this administration says immigration reform, they mean limiting access to this country to brown people. Full stop. To try to gain support for these measures, they say things like "They're sending people that have a lot of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

How in the hell is this not white nationalism, racism, bigotry, and they're trying to base their immigration policy around this?

I see a difference between white-nationalist (e.g. racist) vs nationalist and I see a difference between Trump and (let say) 80% of the GOP. Sure a large majority of the 80% support the end result of stopping illegal immigration, but are they racist because of it? I personally don't think so.

Is it bigotry and prejudice? I can easily concede the percentage of GOP being bigots and prejudice is higher than white-nationalist.

There are good discussions to be had around immigration in the United States, but the ones started by the GOP during this administration are disingenuous and blatantly race based using fear mongering by calling an entire race of people subhuman.

I think you are referring to Trump and GOP leadership (vs other 80%). I agree.

In general, I would also like to say that I take issue to how you discuss racism. Too many times the conversation is "Is this person a racist or not?" - This is not a binary yes or no. In most cases we cannot judge an individual and decide "well that comment wasn't TOO racist and they helped black people once so i'm not ready to label that person a racist".

I (think) I agree with you. I didn't originally bring up racism but racism is at the forefront of the term white-nationalist and so the conversation naturally gravitated towards that word.

My position is you can't say the GOP is a white nationalist party = racist because although you have 20% (my swag) in the GOP that are racists, the other 80% have other reasons why they voted for Trump. Its this wide generalization that CR and I were countering.

[ISiddiqui]

If you truly believe only 20% of the GOP voters have white supremacists positions then why do you think the leadership is white supremacist?

After all, Trump didn't just run against Hillary Clinton. He ran against Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz and John Kasich and Jen Bush and Mike Huckabee and cleaned their clocks. Trump won 45% of the popular vote in the GOP primary against other conservatives - many of whom pointed out that Trump was a racist. You can't really argue that away by saying well it was against Hillary.

I would argue that 45% may be a good floor for the party rather than 20%.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[stevew]

I definitely don’t talk to my parents as much as before they voted for The Donald.

[Kodos]

I guess I'm lucky. My Dad hates Trump as much as I do.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Absolutely, very important to define when the term is critical for the discussion.



That post immediately followed another by me where I referred to Sanders as a socialist and an attempt at humor (obviously I failed). For a more legit discussion, see my response to ISiddiqui immediately above.

Same question to you that I posed to him - Do you agree with the ADL definition of what racism is? If not, feel free to propose another? I may very well agree with you depending on the definition.

Ah, I missed that and unfortunately in today's climate, sarcasm and dry humor can easily be missed. Don't get me wrong I kind of see what you are getting at, I'm just not 100% sure that I am understanding is all.

As far as the description for racism from the ADL, yes that is a legit description, but, I'd like to throw an asterisk on the word racism/racist. I think that racism/racist can be used colloquially, but, still accurately describe someone or a groups actions from what they say & do. Like the word bigot, even though it's defined as someone that is intolerant of others opinions, I think it is legit to use it to describe someone who is racist.

The important thing in my opinion though, what is the context a word is being used and is the word intentionally being used in the wrong way. So when a American conservative or someone from the gop uses the word socialist, they know and are intentionally misusing the word to try and scare people. Obviously that can also happen with racist, bigot and many other words, but, in the spirit of this conversation, that's not the case with how the word racist is being used. Not sure if any of that made sense, but, my ape brain is only capable of so much while at work