Republicans slam Rep. King for what they call racist remarks

[E. Q. Taft]

I admit it's a dilemma for people who are genuinely conservative on economics but deplore racism. I've always boggled at the existence of the Log Cabin Republicans, for example; how can you support a party that has actively and openly tried to deny your own fundamental rights? But I suppose if you are committed enough to the party ideology apart from that one, you might figure you have to grit your teeth and work within the party to try to reform it. I don't think I could stomach it myself.

Not that I necessarily agree with every part of the Democratic Party platform (let alone all individual Democratic politicians), but the differences are usually in degree, not fundamentals.

[Mouse]

Originally Posted by thorny locust

Anybody else reminded of the mess around Trent Lott's praising Strom Thurmond?

Not as if they hadn't known all along what Lott was like, or what Thurmond was like. But Lott made the mistake of coming out and saying it a little too clearly.

This cartoon is ten years old and still pretty relevant.

Originally Posted by GenYus234

I would agree that not all Republicans are actively racist. But continuing to support a party that is so blatantly racist makes them passive participants in racism, not merely subconsciously racist. They may have other reasons to support the Republican party such as a genuine belief that doing so is better for the economy or security, but being willing to trade the rights of others for such purposes is still supporting racism.

“The hottest corners of hell are reserved for those who, in a moment of crisis, maintain their neutrality.”

I’ve long had a dim view of anyone who claims that they voted for Trump for totally nonracist reasons. Racism wasn’t a small part of Trump’s platform; it was his entire platform. Trump’s entire campaign centered around the idea that certain people qualified as citizens and fully human and thus deserving of the rights afforded to them, whereas certain people do not. No points for guessing the makeup of those who don’t qualify as human. Trump proposed no policies and had no other ideas outside that one idea.

Even supposing that a Trump voter isn’t being extremely disingenuous and genuinely voted for Trump for economic reasons, again, racism wasn’t a small part of his platform. So by voting for Trump for economic reasons, they were
tacitly saying that they had no problem with throwing women and PoC under the bus. Polish that turd all you like, but being willing to sacrifice the lives of others in hopes of improving your own life, is pretty damn reprehensible.

I now have a similar view of Republican Party members/supporters. Racism is currently the driving motivator of both the party and its voters. In the past, maybe you could plausibly claim that you supported the party because you believed in small government or something like that, but not anymore. Claim noble reasons all you like, but again, sacrificing the rights and lives of whole groups of people in the off chance that your life will improve, is really sick.

Though maybe it can all be summed up in this age-old proverb: lie down with dogs, wake up with fleas.

[Dr. Winston O'Boogie]

Originally Posted by Mouse

I’ve long had a dim view of anyone who claims that they voted for Trump for totally nonracist reasons.
.

After the election, I read an editorial titled something like "I am a female Muslim immigrant, and I voted for Trump". Her reasoning came down to her coming from Saudi Arabia, seeing the nastiness of the House of Saud, knowing the closeness of the Clinton administration to the Saudis, and couldn't bear to perpetuate the relationship. I wonder how she feels now....

[Mouse]

The naïveté assuming that there’s any dictatorial strongman whose ass Trump isn’t willing to kiss.

Then again, like I said before, Trump seems to be a shitty Rorschach, shitty as in it’s literally made of shit, and shitty in the figurative sense of being terrible, with everyone seeing what they wanted to see in him.