Republicans, do you believe your party isn't racist?

[Brittain33]

.  Frankly I don't know why the Republican doesn't dump the racism, sexism, and homophobia thing.

It's the same reason McDonald's doesn't dump the Big Mac even though it's appalling and bad for you and its own image.

[Zarn]

Given the OP, I can make the following conclusions:

1) I hate myself.

2) November of 1984 was the most racist period in the history of the United States. Ironically it was the same month I was born. That might explain my self-hating tendencies.

[Badger]

Republicans are racist, of course, and seek to murder all the world's brown people, but I would like to ask the OP what he thinks of the rampant anti-Cuban, anti-Vietnamese, and anti-Filipino sentiment in the Democratic party.

WTF?

Seriously, WTF?

[Badger]

It is no coincidence that pretty much every white group votes Republican.

Democrats are racist.

Do you recognize this and not care, or do you not even see it?

Racism, as a social system, is prejudice with the backing of privilege. Non-white groups tend not to have privilege in this country, to put it mildly.

Racism as an individual attitude in individual voting choices, which is what the original post was referring to, doesn't require a backing of privilege. Just prejudice.

Yes, Krazy, and the vast majority of whites in the Democratic Party hate themselves.

Or see themselves as "White" rather than " Irish-American", German-American" "Italian-American", etc.

[Badger]

It is no coincidence that pretty much every non-white group votes Democratic.

Republicans are racist.

Do you recognize this and not care, or do you not even see it?

how can the GOP be racist when its dominated by the jmfcsts?

Ummm....


"How can it be dark when it's nighttime?"

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

It is no coincidence that pretty much every non-white group votes Democratic.

Republicans are racist.

Do you recognize this and not care, or do you not even see it?

how can the GOP be racist when its dominated by the jmfcsts?

jmfcst may not be racist but many of the jmfcsts are.

[krazen1211]

Yes, Krazy, and the vast majority of whites in the Democratic Party hate themselves.

Or see themselves as "White" rather than " Irish-American", German-American" "Italian-American", etc.

Or merely voting against their own interests.

[Insula Dei]

Yes, Krazy, and the vast majority of whites in the Democratic Party hate themselves.

Or see themselves as "White" rather than " Irish-American", German-American" "Italian-American", etc.

Or merely voting against their own interests.

lol

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Yes, Krazy, and the vast majority of whites in the Democratic Party hate themselves.

Or see themselves as "White" rather than " Irish-American", German-American" "Italian-American", etc.

Or merely voting against their own interests.

Hearing this from a Republican is absolutely hilarious. What phenomenon do you think your lock on the South comes from?

[Lief 🗽]

Both parties are of course racist, as they support continuing the drug war and massive incarceration of minorities on a level that rivals and eclipses Apartheid South Africa. But Republicans are undoubtedly the more racist of the two.

[krazen1211]

Yes, Krazy, and the vast majority of whites in the Democratic Party hate themselves.

Or see themselves as "White" rather than " Irish-American", German-American" "Italian-American", etc.

Or merely voting against their own interests.

Hearing this from a Republican is absolutely hilarious. What phenomenon do you think your lock on the South comes from?

What lock on the South? If you're referring to the very recent acquisition of numerous state legislatures that the Democrats held for 100+ years, it has to do with San Francisco Atheists and Massachusetts liberals systematically insulting their culture and values.

Example is provided here. More directly, the South votes Republican because of people like you.

The phrase 'and Religious Exemption' is even in the title of the bill, specifically for the benefit of people who follow those benighted churches that still adhere to ungodly gender determinism.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Yes, Krazy, and the vast majority of whites in the Democratic Party hate themselves.

Or see themselves as "White" rather than " Irish-American", German-American" "Italian-American", etc.

Or merely voting against their own interests.

Hearing this from a Republican is absolutely hilarious. What phenomenon do you think your lock on the South comes from?

What lock on the South? If you're referring to the very recent acquisition of numerous state legislatures that the Democrats held for 100+ years, it has to do with San Francisco Atheists and Massachusetts liberals systematically insulting their culture and values.

Example is provided here. More directly, the South votes Republican because of people like you.

The phrase 'and Religious Exemption' is even in the title of the bill, specifically for the benefit of people who follow those benighted churches that still adhere to ungodly gender determinism.

I don't understand how my (perfectly mainstream) views in opposition to both hydraulic and identitarian attitudes towards human sexuality, which I might point out I developed precisely because of my religious background, have anything to do with voting patterns in the South.

When I say 'lock on the South' I of course refer to the huge margins that national Republicans have been running up in most Southern states for some time now, ever since the racial and sexual dog-whistling began with the exception of when the Democrats put up Southern candidates. Perhaps I should have said 'Deep South', but the culture and values of the area in question are not my concern and I am making no attempt to insult them, beyond critiquing the ways in which they, much like many traditional cultures in, say, the Muslim world and Africa, run afoul of the true means of the world. I make, of course, no effort to abrogate the South's culture or values beyond asking that it cease its attempts to abrogate other people's.

Contrast, for instance, you, and your active and deliberate attempts at abrogating the culture and values of the working class and poor.

Question: You are aware that I am neither an atheist nor a liberal, right?

Further question: You concede, though, that voting out of spite against other parts of the country and other sacramental characters and performativities does, in this case, constitute voting against one's self-interest, do you not?

ETA: Sorry, but I can't resist. I would like to state for the record that I think I understand what some of us might be in the business of calling 'real American' culture and values better than Krazen does, since I grew up in a farming community, was on food stamps for a spell in my childhood, and have spent (personal, not business) time in the Deep South and Tidewater.

[krazen1211]

I don't understand how my (perfectly mainstream) views in opposition to both hydraulic and identitarian attitudes towards human sexuality, which I might point out I developed precisely because of my religious background, have anything to do with voting patterns in the South.

When I say 'lock on the South' I of course refer to the huge margins that national Republicans have been running up in most Southern states for some time now, ever since the racial and sexual dog-whistling began with the exception of when the Democrats put up Southern candidates. Perhaps I should have said 'Deep South', but the culture and values of the area in question are not my concern and I am making no attempt to insult them, beyond critiquing the ways in which they, much like many traditional cultures in, say, the Muslim world and Africa, run afoul of the true means of the world. I make, of course, no effort to abrogate the South's culture or values beyond asking that it cease its attempts to abrogate other people's.

Contrast, for instance, you, and your active and deliberate attempts at abrogating the culture and values of the working class and poor.

Question: You are aware that I am neither an atheist nor a liberal, right?

Further question: You concede, though, that voting out of spite against other parts of the country and other sacramental characters and performativities does, in this case, constitute voting against one's self-interest, do you not?

ETA: Sorry, but I can't resist. I would like to state for the record that I think I understand what some of us might be in the business of calling 'real American' culture and values better than Krazen does, since I grew up in a farming community, was on food stamps for a spell in my childhood, and have spent (personal, not business) time in the Deep South and Tidewater.

Unfortunately for you, I suppose, your views are not mainstream in the South. 86% of those in Mississippi for instance chose to support traditional marriage. Your characterization of 14% as 'perfectly mainstream' is quite funny. As is your statement that you, err, 'don't make any attempt to insult them', and then promptly insult them in the same sentence.

A President like Bill Clinton who sided with landslide majorities in Congress to defend marriage is more than capable of winning numerous states in the South and coming close to winning several others. He of course did. Localization is nothing new to politics; take a look at how well George McGovern did in South Dakota.

In this particular case, of course, there is no particular reason for any Southerner to believe that Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi's Democratic party has their best interests at heart. Electing the Republican party for instance has prevented the scoundrels from the EPA from wrecking havoc on the populace. You might think otherwise, but you're a 14%er. Beyond that fact, well, what you are is up to you.

[freepcrusher]

IMO I wouldn't say the south is racist as much as it is ethnocentric. While the south has a history of racism, much of the south's biggest problem is with alien cultures, including many white people. Look at someone like Chuck Schumer or Howard Berman. They possess a culture and values different from most people in the south. If they went to talk with some everyday people in the south they would likely be called a weirdo or a f****t etc.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I don't understand how my (perfectly mainstream) views in opposition to both hydraulic and identitarian attitudes towards human sexuality, which I might point out I developed precisely because of my religious background, have anything to do with voting patterns in the South.

When I say 'lock on the South' I of course refer to the huge margins that national Republicans have been running up in most Southern states for some time now, ever since the racial and sexual dog-whistling began with the exception of when the Democrats put up Southern candidates. Perhaps I should have said 'Deep South', but the culture and values of the area in question are not my concern and I am making no attempt to insult them, beyond critiquing the ways in which they, much like many traditional cultures in, say, the Muslim world and Africa, run afoul of the true means of the world. I make, of course, no effort to abrogate the South's culture or values beyond asking that it cease its attempts to abrogate other people's.

Contrast, for instance, you, and your active and deliberate attempts at abrogating the culture and values of the working class and poor.

Question: You are aware that I am neither an atheist nor a liberal, right?

Further question: You concede, though, that voting out of spite against other parts of the country and other sacramental characters and performativities does, in this case, constitute voting against one's self-interest, do you not?

ETA: Sorry, but I can't resist. I would like to state for the record that I think I understand what some of us might be in the business of calling 'real American' culture and values better than Krazen does, since I grew up in a farming community, was on food stamps for a spell in my childhood, and have spent (personal, not business) time in the Deep South and Tidewater.

Unfortunately for you, I suppose, your views are not mainstream in the South. 86% of those in Mississippi for instance chose to support traditional marriage.

I also support traditional marriage. Where did you get the impression that I didn't?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's more mainstream than being among the much smaller percentage of people who appear to have Antisocial Personality Disorder, like some people we could name. Besides, I mean mainstream in the context of people who have some education on or understanding of the subject (which doesn't need to be academic, you can get most of what I'm articulating from Internet searches).

Here's another question for you: Did you know that there are gay people who live in Southern states?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Perhaps I should have said 'Deep South', but the culture and values of the area in question are not my concern and I am making no attempt to insult them, beyond critiquing the ways in which they, much like many traditional cultures in, say, the Muslim world and Africa, run afoul of the true means of the world.

Is it 'beyond critiquing the ways in which' that makes the sentence too confusing for you? A critique is not the same as an insult. A critique is substantive and positive in that it leaves room for debate.

A President like Bill Clinton who sided with landslide majorities in Congress to defend marriage is more than capable of winning numerous states in the South and coming close to winning several others. He of course did. Localization is nothing new to politics; take a look at how well George McGovern did in South Dakota.

That was fifteen years ago, Clinton has recanted his position, Clinton campaigned on pocketbook issues and spoke the language of rural Southerners because he was a rural Southerner, and you still haven't answered my question as to whether or not you recognize that caring more about this than about other issues more germane to the actual circumstances of (most of) the good country people of the South is a form of false consciousness.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What reason is there for 'any' Southerner (again: You are aware that the South is more than just the falsely-conscious right-wing white working class, right?) to believe that John Boehner and Mitch McConnell's Republican Party has their best interests at heart? Are you at all familiar with what the public health, infrastructure, education, and standard of living are like in the South? Which party is it that you think cares about improving public health, infrastructure, education, and the standard of living? Because I can assure you that it's not the one that's pathologically obsessed with legal classification on the basis of sex.

Electing the Democratic Party would have prevented, among other things, the monstrosities from the agribusiness and petrochemical industries from wreaking (not wrecking) havoc on the populace of the country in general and the South in particular.

IMO I wouldn't say the south is racist as much as it is ethnocentric. While the south has a history of racism, much of the south's biggest problem is with alien cultures, including many white people. Look at someone like Chuck Schumer or Howard Berman. They possess a culture and values different from most people in the south. If they went to talk with some everyday people in the south they would likely be called a weirdo or a f****t etc.

You're not helping.

[krazen1211]

IMO I wouldn't say the south is racist as much as it is ethnocentric. While the south has a history of racism, much of the south's biggest problem is with alien cultures, including many white people. Look at someone like Chuck Schumer or Howard Berman. They possess a culture and values different from most people in the south. If they went to talk with some everyday people in the south they would likely be called a weirdo or a f****t etc.

Chuck Schumer's former congressional district is about as non southern as you can get, yet it acted on the same pattern.

Normally of course that district would provide a Jewish Democrat with 70-80% of the vote, and it did. Then one particular Jewish Democrat chose to engage in a pattern of behavior that insulted the culture and faith of the citizens of New York's 9th district. He of course lost just this year.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

You're being very selective in what groups you hold to be capable of being insulted in such a way or worth being concerned for the tender feelings of when they are, you know.

[krazen1211]

You're being very selective in what groups you hold to be capable of being insulted in such a way or worth being concerned for the tender feelings of when they are, you know.

Not really. Plenty of groups are capable of such. What changes is who is doing the insulting and why they are doing the insulting, or as you put it, critiquing, as you just unloaded a new barrage of, err, critiques.


You know, you can believe in the imperial judiciary coming to your rescue while at the same time recognizing the consecutive landslide defeats initiated at the voting booth. But I suppose you'll just use a lot of words critiquing again.

As to the only relevant inquiry you made, the obvious answer to this question is the Republican party. One can begin to look at this by examining the 1 party city of Washington DC where Republicans simply don't exist in any significant number.

"Which party is it that you think cares about improving public health, infrastructure, education, and the standard of living?"

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I acknowledge those landslide defeats, but the defeats aren't landslides anymore, and pretty soon they will start not being defeats. When that happens, will you accept that?

I also don't view the judiciary as imperial. I just view it as having much more to do with the process of deciding issues of rights than the initiative/referendum process, and remain mystified as to how you can think that somebody's family is a better matter of public-political interest to hold under a regime of regulation by popular government than his or her business, considering that the government's service is, in large part, service to the family as a concept.

I made several relevant inquiries. I'll repeat one: Are you aware that there are gay people and gay couples and families involving gay relationships in states other than the ones that it is convenient for people of your political ilk to demonize?

Well, yes. Democrats don't comport themselves well as undisputed rulers of blighted urban areas. I never said that they did. Republicans wouldn't either. There is a reason why people who live in those areas continue to vote for Democrats. (Just as there is a reason why people in other types of blighted areas vote for Republicans. I agree with your analysis of what that reason is. I just don't agree that it is sufficient or makes any moral sense.)