The GOP's nazi problem

I don't know if I've seen a last comment/first comment double post before--it's kinda awesome! : D

Wait, what?

I call 'em "page break doubles". Because they are worth twice the points!

Wow, this thread didn't even stay on topic for one page.

If the OP derails their own thread, didn't it technically stay on topic?

I think it does, but then I didn't exactly have high hopes for the GOP Nazi thread.

But apparently a guy that died four years ago is relevant to an elected official today.

Ten years ago.

This is just not that big a deal.

Pretty much. It is about as meaningless and disingenuous as saying that the GOP is the "party of Lincoln".

Malor wrote:
But apparently a guy that died four years ago is relevant to an elected official today.

Ten years ago.

This is just not that big a deal.

Yeah, I had 4 in my head since it was 2004.

Oh, I was actually referring to the OTHER thing..... the talk happened ten years ago (edit: actually, 12 years), and I just think it's pretty much a non-issue.

When I said white supremacists were constituents too, I was serious. I think politicians should be talking to everyone.

Now, I can totally get behind hating the GOP for its racist policies (like the anti-black-voting bills in so many conservative states), but for just showing up and talking to avowed racists? That's their job.

Malor wrote:

Now, I can totally get behind hating the GOP for its racist policies (like the anti-black-voting bills in so many conservative states), but for just showing up and talking to avowed racists? That's their job.

It's 2014, Malor, not 1960. Overt racism is something that society doesn't tolerate anymore. A politician talking with white supremacists should be viewed the same as a politician talking with NAMBLA: something that just isn't done because of common f*cking sense.

I mean there's a connection between the GOP's various racist policies and GOP candidates eagerly courting racist groups to get into power in the first place.

Even after all the fallout from this, the GOP powers-that-be are still supporting Scalise because he's from the Deep South and the party feels he can best speak to the Republican core, which is also people from the South.

A blunter translation of that would be that the GOP wants Scalise in his position because he can best speak to the racists the party is increasingly relying on to stay in power.

I think the thread got derailed by the false equivalence of bringing up Byrd. It's really not the same situation, and was really just put up to distract from the issue that Nazis are attracted to the GOP these days. Democrats were absolutely the party of racists, and Byrd came up as a Dixiecrat. And yes, West Virginia kept electing him. But he was not addressing Nazis and Klansman in the modern era, as far as I know.

But apparently a guy that died four years ago is relevant to an elected official today.

Overt racism is something that society doesn't tolerate anymore.

Clearly, at least some of society does, and they're citizens too.

I disagree with them vehemently, but the politicians should be talking to everyone, not just people you happen to agree with, and not just people that happen to be popular.

Malor wrote:
Overt racism is something that society doesn't tolerate anymore.

Clearly, at least some of society does, and they're citizens too.

I disagree with them vehemently, but the politicians should be talking to everyone, not just people you happen to agree with, and not just people that happen to be popular.

Why? What's the political advantage of consorting with racists? Society is currently on a "if you don't condemn, you condone" kick, so unless a political figure is going to tell racist groups how they shouldn't be racist, why would they choose to be associated with those groups in any way?

Malor wrote:
Overt racism is something that society doesn't tolerate anymore.

Clearly, at least some of society does, and they're citizens too.

I disagree with them vehemently, but the politicians should be talking to everyone, not just people you happen to agree with, and not just people that happen to be popular.

Malor, there's a big difference between association with corporations, environmentalists, etc... and with people who believe in the superiority of some humans versus others on skin tone.

Why? What's the political advantage of consorting with racists?

It's not about political advantage, it's about serving your citizens. All of them, not just the popular ones.

Malor wrote:
Why? What's the political advantage of consorting with racists?

It's not about political advantage, it's about serving your citizens. All of them, not just the popular ones.

So you're into hypothetical IdealLand now. K.

(By which I mean, that doesn't happen now. Politicians don't talk to homeless folk, it grandma's knitting circle, or the Benevolent Order of Moose; they talk to groups that will provide them with political benefit. I would argue that the benefit received from talking with openly racist groups is outweighed by the political damage caused.)

Actually, they *do* talk to homeless people (especially at the local and state levels); small neighborhood groups (again, mostly local and state) and fraternal orders, as well as neighborhood associations, professional associations, church congregations, sports fans, charitable events, corporate gatherings, arts festivals, nursing home residents, even centenarians birthdays. That's part of the bread and butter of staying in touch with constituents.

It's possible to be too cynical about politics and forget that many of them are not totally corrupt and have the concept of service in their work...

Update:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/12/kenny_knight_and_barbara_noble_claim_steve_scalise_never_spoke_to_euro_did.single.html

As an aside, is it even possible to derail a thread that is Godwined by its own title? LO f*cking L. What a partisan sh*thole this board is.

Is it really Godwinning if there are actual nazis involved?

MyBrainHz wrote:

What a partisan sh*thole this board is.

Wow.

LeapingGnome wrote:
MyBrainHz wrote:

What a partisan sh*thole this board is.

Wow.

It does feel a bit over the top.

MyBrainHz wrote:

Update:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/12/kenny_knight_and_barbara_noble_claim_steve_scalise_never_spoke_to_euro_did.single.html

As an aside, is it even possible to derail a thread that is Godwined by its own title? LO f*cking L. What a partisan sh*thole this board is.

I'm confused, is the KKK member trying to suggest that Scalise's contraversy is no big deal because he spoke with attendees of the White Supremacy expo before the expo rather than during it?

I do love the KKK member trying to suggest that the people he spoke with (EURO) are NOT white supremacists though. They just share all of the major concerns with white surpemacists, like Jews taking over, America becoming brown, etc...

MyBrainHz wrote:

As an aside, is it even possible to derail a thread that is Godwined by its own title?

I'd say that you proved that, yes, it is possible.

Jayhawker wrote:
MyBrainHz wrote:

As an aside, is it even possible to derail a thread that is Godwined by its own title?

I'd say that you proved that, yes, it is possible.

Yeah, this is like GGers complaining about people opposing them Godwin-ing arguments while they were receiving support from Stormfront and Roosh (actual neo-Nazis or people with such similar beliefs that they effectively were the same).

MyBrainHz wrote:

Update:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/12/kenny_knight_and_barbara_noble_claim_steve_scalise_never_spoke_to_euro_did.single.html

As an aside, is it even possible to derail a thread that is Godwined by its own title? LO f*cking L. What a partisan sh*thole this board is.

I'm not sure what to suggest. Oddity has said GWJ was rare among gaming sites in that there were few libertarians here (he added a lol, too). Maybe one of them? Or places like Stormfront that have their own gaming forums?

What's funny is that any one who is has been on here for 10 years may recall that P&C was over run with Conservative posters until they all started to get fed up with the Republican side and just stopped posting.

Now a lot of those that have stayed on post on the other side of the table.

karmajay wrote:

What's funny is that any one who is has been on here for 10 years may recall that P&C was over run with Conservative posters until they all started to get fed up with the Republican side and just stopped posting.

Now a lot of those that have stayed on post on the other side of the table.

Yup, I remember being hopelessly out of depth trying to argue against Robear on a point. Now he comes to my rescue with sources.

Demosthenes wrote:
karmajay wrote:

What's funny is that any one who is has been on here for 10 years may recall that P&C was over run with Conservative posters until they all started to get fed up with the Republican side and just stopped posting.

Now a lot of those that have stayed on post on the other side of the table.

Yup, I remember being hopelessly out of depth trying to argue against Robear on a point. Now he comes to my rescue with sources. :lol:

It's true. And frankly, this is far less of a partisan sh*thole than it used to be.

To be fair, the thread title is a bit . . . needlessly inflammatory. Yes, the GOP has been moving more towards the radical right, but "Nazi" isn't "more towards the radical right". "Nazi" is as ugly a brush as you can paint. The GOP clearly has problems with crazies these days, but it's not like the American Nazi Party is marching into the GOP National Convention with applause.