Why does the GOP condone its association with racism?

[cybrsage]

I have. See the pictures in the rest of the post of which you only quoted a small part.

I know the difference between subjective and objective. My opinion was formed by the objective data shown... making the difference, in this case, a technicality.

Neither picture even mentions anything about "nutty". You have shown nothing to back up your "objective" claim about nuttiness. All you showed was that there are reps and dems in the nation and they did not shift much over a few years. You then make the SUBJECTIVE claim that this pertains to nuttiness when the pictures show nothing about nuttiness.

Try again, this time use data that talks about the nuttiness of the parties - you know, which is what your "objective" claim is about.

 

[zsdersw]

Neither picture even mentions anything about "nutty". You have shown nothing to back up your "objective" claim about nuttiness. All you showed was that there are reps and dems in the nation and they did not shift much over a few years. You then make the SUBJECTIVE claim that this pertains to nuttiness when the pictures show nothing about nuttiness.

Try again, this time use data that talks about the nuttiness of the parties - you know, which is what your "objective" claim is about.

Wrong. There is nothing subjective about what I said. I presented the following facts; facts are not subjective.

FACT: "Nuttiness" (also referred to as "craziness" and "insanity" in this context) is not the default condition in a society that is not in anarchy.

FACT: The US is not in anarchy.

FACT: The US is very nearly split 50/50 between those who most closely identify with the Democratic party and those who most closely identify with the Republican party.

FACT: Nutty people vote for and support nutty political parties and politicians that have similar nutty proposals.

From these facts the objective conclusion can be drawn that nuttiness, being an uncommon condition, is nearly 50/50 split between the Democratic and Republican parties. If one was significantly nuttier than the other it would not represent almost 50% of the population. Nutty political parties cannot have the backing of nearly 50% of the US population.

 

[boomerang]

Arguing with idiots always gets you nowhere. The thread is based in anxiety that Romney might get some big money behind him. It got the OP so distraught that he grasped at straws and got the last one left. The one that worked three and a half years ago that has become passe. Raaaaacists!

I know that some like to argue for the sake of argument but to me it's just a waste of time and effort. But carry on if it works for you.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

The thread is based in anxiety that Romney might get some big money behind him.

No, it's based on Romney and the GOP's ongoing association with birthers and racists (considerable overlap between the two groups, of course.)

 

[nehalem256]

No, it's based on Romney and the GOP's ongoing association with birthers and racists (considerable overlap between the two groups, of course.)

Better than being associated with feminists.

 

[shortylickens]

#1 I'm not a Republican. I'm too extreme for them.
#2 I didnt read the whole thread, am just answering the OP's question.


If you call me a racist and I say I'm not, does that make me a racist?
Much like the GOP at some point I'm going to stop denying and just let you continue acting like a child, because its less stressful that way.

As for the birther issue: I have no comment.

 

[HomerJS]

Not a thread crap - the thread is about a political group being racist. The OP simply selected the wrong group.

Realy funny I didn't accuse the GOP of being a racist party, I accused them of being comfortable welcoming racists in their misdt and wallowing in their beliefs.

GOP as a party not racist but if you find a racist odds are overwelming they are a Republican.

I will get off this kind of thread if you find just one elected Democrat either at the state or national level who made disparaging comments about Romney or McCain (from last election) solely on the basis of being white.

BYW - Nice diversion claiming things like this are just hate or political disagreements and not racist. I supposed calling Obama a tar baby was just a political disagreement.

 

[randomrogue]

Obviously some serious confusion in this thread with respect to the difference between a racist and a stupid person.

 

[blankslate]

Realy funny I didn't accuse the GOP of being a racist party, I accused them of being comfortable welcoming racists in their misdt and wallowing in their beliefs.

GOP as a party not racist but if you find a racist odds are overwelming they are a Republican.

This page hasn't been scrubbed... yet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States'_rights_(speech)

Ronald Reagan's "states' rights" speech given on August 3, 1980, was his first public address after the Republican National Convention officially chose him as the Republican nominee for the 1980 United States presidential election. The speech drew attention for his use of the phrase "states' rights" at the Neshoba County Fair, just a few miles from Philadelphia, Mississippi, a town associated with the 1964 murders of civil rights workers. Reagan said:

I believe in states' rights.... I believe we have distorted the balance of our government today by giving powers that were never intended to be given in the Constitution to that federal establishment.

He went on to promise to "restore to states and local governments the power that properly belongs to them."
The use of the phrase was seen by some as a tacit appeal to Southern white voters and a continuation of Richard Nixon's Southern Strategy, while others argued it merely reflected his libertarian economic beliefs.

Do I think Reagan was a racist?
No however one of his main campaign advisors Lee Atwater (who incidentally was one of Rove's mentors), had no problem with "Dog whistle" politics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eY3XnLv4YpA

It's also very possible President Reagan was completely oblivious to the possible implications of the location of this speech.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Better than being associated with feminists.

Do strong women make your little Willie shrink even more?

 

[cybrsage]

Wrong. There is nothing subjective about what I said. I presented the following facts; facts are not subjective.

FACT: "Nuttiness" (also referred to as "craziness" and "insanity" in this context) is not the default condition in a society that is not in anarchy.

FACT: The US is not in anarchy.

FACT: The US is very nearly split 50/50 between those who most closely identify with the Democratic party and those who most closely identify with the Republican party.

FACT: Nutty people vote for and support nutty political parties and politicians that have similar nutty proposals.

From these facts the objective conclusion can be drawn that nuttiness, being an uncommon condition, is nearly 50/50 split between the Democratic and Republican parties. If one was significantly nuttier than the other it would not represent almost 50% of the population. Nutty political parties cannot have the backing of nearly 50% of the US population.[/QUOTE]

No, you have no connection between nutty people voting and who they vote for. Maybe all the nutty people vote the Green Party. Since it is uncommon, it would explain why they get so few votes.

Your logic simple does not work. You are missing anything which shows who nutty people vote for. You assume they are evenly distributed between the two major parties, but you have no support for such an assumption.

Here is your logic, written in English, with commentary from me:

Nuttiness is not the default condition if the US is not in anarchy.
The US is not in anarchy.
Therefor nuttiness is not the default condition.

This is all unneeded, as anarchy is irrelevant to nuttiness, but since the US is not in anarchy, it does not matter. I concur that nuttiness is not the default condition.

The nation is almost evenly divided into Dem Supporters and Rep Supporters.

Since Congress swings and moves around the 50% of each party mark, I will concur this is most likely true.

Nutty people vote for nutty parties and nutty politicians.

I see nothing to support this. I believe nutty people many times vote for the dems or the reps, as well as the greens, the communists, the nazis, etc. I would posit that more nutty people vote green, communit, nazi, la raza, etc., than for the two major political parties.


Therefor nutty people are even spit between the political parties.

You have shown nothing to suppor this conclusion. As I said, it is far more believable that nutty people vote for parties OTHER than the major two.


What you said was aking to this:

Submarines do not have screen doors on them.
Submarines are in the ocean.
Submarines are expensive.

Therefor the reason screen doors are not on submaries is because ocean water is bad for screen doors.

 

[cybrsage]

Do strong women make your little Willie shrink even more?

Yes, it does.

 

[zsdersw]

I see nothing to support this. I believe nutty people many times vote for the dems or the reps, as well as the greens, the communists, the nazis, etc. I would posit that more nutty people vote green, communit, nazi, la raza, etc., than for the two major political parties.

If we were to do demographics on the "nutty vote", defined as which parties have the most support by nutty people, what reason is there to conclude that the "nutty vote" is split between Democrats and Republicans in any different proportion to that of the rest of the population? ... which was essentially your claim, that Democrats are "far nuttier" than Republicans. There is no reason to conclude this.

The voting data shows the "nutty vote".. comprised of votes for all parties both major and minor.. to be an extreme minority of the overall national vote, and that when they do vote for the two major parties they aren't picking one over the other in any significant amount... which refutes your one-is-far-nuttier-than-the-other claim.

Additionally, among the minor parties in the US, there are only 3 with registrations over 100,000: the Constitution party, Green party, and Libertarian party. The Constitution party is very much right-wing and the Green party is very much left-wing. The Libertarian party is right-wing on some issues, left-wing on others.. so it's a wash for the purposes of this comparison.

Therefor nutty people are even spit between the political parties.

You have shown nothing to suppor this conclusion. As I said, it is far more believable that nutty people vote for parties OTHER than the major two.

It's probably true that they vote for the many minor parties more than for either the Democrats or Republicans. Even that doesn't help your case or refute the representative accuracy of the data I've presented.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

While people here are arguing about whether or not the GOP is nutty or racist, the party's presidential nominee is embracing Donald Trump -- a nutty racist.

Pretty ironic.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Racism in the GOP? Perish the thought.