At CPAC, Extremists On Stage And Off

[deanrd]

Trump is right!

No administration has done what this administration had done.

And I think we are about to find out every single thing they did.

In detail.

Good!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

As a conservative, as a Republican, I will admit that white supremacists tend to align with my side. I have no problem, and I am sure that the vast majority of my fellow conservatives/Republicans, have no problem condemning these racists, and saying that they do not speak for my side of the political aisle. They are a fringe that most on my side reject.

If most conservatives/ Republicans condemn racism, why does Trump still enjoy so much support from them.? They are either in denial of his racism or tacitly condone it.

No one on my side, except for some tiny extreme fringes, condones this racism, tacitly or openly.

I challenge you to say the same about the degenerate fringes of your side—the faggots, the trannies, and other foul sexual deviants; the abortionists, the illegal aliens and their treasonous supporters, the race-baiters, the violent criminals such as those in the Antifa, Black Lies Matter, and Occupy movements, and so on. Will you condemn and reject the degenerate fringes of your party, as I unreservedly do with those of mine?

It is interesting and telling how you cant address any topic without working "faggots and trannies" into it. The sure sign of a very obsessive problem that you have. The "degenerate fringes " that you identify are figments of your twisted mind.

Do you deny that faggots overwhelming tend to align with your side, more than with mine?

Do you deny that trannies tend to align overwhelming more with your side, than with mine?

These are seriously f•••ed-up elements of subhumanity, and it is you side with which they align. Can you bring yourself to condemn them, as I condemn the f•••ed-up elements that align with my side?

There are other bad elements, as well. On the whole, there are some very bad elements on your side, much, much much worse than anything on mine. Can you bring yourself to condemn any of them? To even acknowledge them?

No! I do not deny that LGBTQ people tend to be drawn to the party that shows respect and support for people who are different and the party that stands for civil and human rights. You are one seriously demented and foul mouthed fuck head.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Both parties can be pretty racist.
I will be glad when you oblivious goobers realize that.

Which Democrats have been hob knobbing with white Nationalists and neo Nazis? ? Which ones said that Hispanics specialize in rape? Please list them all

Lol see?
White nationalists arent the only racist people in the country.
I will be glad when you oblivious goobers realize that.

He probably doesn't think Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, et al aren't racist

Red Herring logical fallacy horseshit! You can't actually address the Republican bigotry so you deflect to Jackson and Sharpton. I'm not taking the bait and allow you to troll my thread, Deal with the issue that I raised or shut the fuck up.

You can't address Democrat intolerance so you deflect to white supremacists and nationalists.

You're doing the exact same goddamn thing.

Speaking for myself, I'm not going to abandon my conservative principles just because a few yahoos chose to pervert those principles for their own purposes. I am not responsible for their views and actions and will not be counted among them just because we share a political party. That is correlation, not causation. I am not Republican for the same reasons they are and vice versa.

As I explained to someone recently, the reason white supremacists are Republicans is because Republican ideals conform more to their way of thinking vis-a-vis Democrat ideals. Take the border issue for example. A white supremacist wants secure borders because he doesn't care for Mexicans. A typical Republican wants secure borders because he doesn't care for illegal immigrants coming here and bilking the system. And then there's the Democrat ideal of open borders. So which party do you think a white supremacist is going to join?

Dude! The thread is about white nationalism and the bigotry on the right. I am not deflecting at all. For your part, you alluded to left wing racism without proving and specifics, and even if you can point to something racist about Jackson and Sharpton, it is nothing like the scale and scope of the CPAC circus.

Thank you for the stunning admission that the reason white supremacists are Republicans is because Republican ideals conform more to their way of thinking But to accuse the Democrats of wanting open borders is as stupid as stupid gets and shows that all you guys do is mindlessly repeat standard and inane talking points.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Let's see, Demorats: party of the KKK, Jim Crow, segregation, fighting against the civil rights act, resisting giving blacks or women the right to vote, putting Black Panthers at the voting booths to intimidate white voters, need we go on?

Democrats Are No Longer the Racist Party

Few things annoy me more than when people who want to stick a thumb in the eye of Democrats resort to tactics such as pointing out they founded the Ku Klux Klan or pushed through Jim Crow laws following the Civil War. The intent seems to be to draw attention away from the party that harbors the racists of today by shaming the Democrats for the sins of our forefathers.

It’s a sleazy tactic that doesn’t work, and It is time to set the record straight. First of all, Democrats- for the most part- do not deny or try to hide the parties past. Second, I will show how, when and why the racists fled from the Democratic Party and found a new home and lastly, I will present evidence that shows how, during the civil rights era, support for civil right legislation was split, not by party affiliation but by regional loyalty-specifically the old Confederacy and the Union. Let’s begin by talking about the civil war era

https://classroom.synonym.com/civil-warera-political-parties-north-vs-south-8901.html

Democratic Party

The Democratic Party was formed by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in 1792 and held considerable power in the years leading up to the Civil War. The Democratic Party became divided in the 1850s over the issue of slavery, with some factions in the north supporting abolitionist causes, some northern factions supporting accommodation of the South and Southern Democrats supporting the continuation and expansion of slavery. During the elections of 1860, Southern and Northern Democrats nominated separate candidates for president. After the Civil War broke out, former Southern Democrats held considerable clout in the Confederate Congress. Northern Democrats lost much of their political power in the North during the Civil War.

Republican Party

The Republican Party was founded in the 1850s by northerners who wanted to abolish slavery. The demise of the Whig Party and the split in the Democratic Party in the years leading up to the 1860 elections gave the Republicans an opportunity to advance. Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln won the U.S. Presidential election in 1860 and Republicans gained control of Congress, leading to the secession of eleven Southern states. The Republican Party had very little support in the South before the war and virtually none after war broke out. In 1864, the Republican Party joined with Democrats who favored the war effort to form the National Union Party. Other Republicans, who were in favor of pressing the war more forcefully, left the Republican Party to form the Radical Democracy Party. The National Union Party won the 1864 presidential election.

The truth about Republicans and civil rights even then was not as clear cut as some would like us to believe:

https://medium.com/everyvote/how-the-republicans-and-democrats-switched-on-civil-rights-in-5-racist-steps-92c1b41480b

Republicans and Democrats after the Civil War

It’s true that many of the first Ku Klux Klan members were Democrats. It’s also true that the early Democratic Party opposed civil rights. But there’s more to it.

The Civil War-era GOP wasn’t that into civil rights. They were more interested in punishing the South for seceding and monopolizing the new black vote.


In any event, by the 1890s, Republicans had begun to distance themselves from civil rights.

As for the democrats

Democrats v Republicans on Jim Crow

Segregation and Jim Crow lasted for 100 years after the end of the Civil War.

During this time, African Americans were largely disenfranchised. There was no African-American voting bloc. Neither party pursued civil rights policies — it wasn’t worth their while.



Democrats dominated Southern politics throughout the Jim Crow Era. It’s fair to say that Democratic governors and legislatures are responsible for creating and upholding white supremacist policies.

Southern Democrats were truly awful.

Then things began to change

President Truman Integrates the Troops: 1948

Fast forward about sixty shitty years. Black people are still living in segregation under Jim Crow. Nonetheless, African Americans agree to serve in World War II. At war’s end, President Harry Truman, a Democrat, used an Executive Order to integrate the troops. (That order was not executed until 1963, however because: racism.)

The Party of Kennedy v the Party of Nixon in the Civil Rights Era

Two things started happening at the same time:

· Racist Democrats were getting antsy

· Neither party could afford to ignore civil rights anymore

In 1960 Kennedy defeated Nixon. At the time of his election, the both parties unevenly supported civil rights. But President Kennedy decided to move forward.

After Kennedy’s assassination in 1963, Johnson continued Kennedy’s civil rights focus.

As you can imagine, that did not sit particularly well with most Southern Democrats. This is when Strom Thurmond flew the coop for good.

In fact, a greater percentage of Congressional Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than did Democrats. Support for the Act followed geographic, not party, lines. ( More on that later)

Get that? Support for civil rights was along geographic, not party lines. Now we get to the meat of the matter:

S

oon after, the Republicans came up with their Southern Strategy — a plan to woo white Southern voters to the party for the 1968 election.

The Kennedy and Johnson administrations had advanced civil rights, largely through national legislation and direct executive actions. So, the Southern Strategy was the opposite — states’ rights and no integration.

As in the Civil War, the concepts of “states’ rights” and “tradition,” were codes for “maintaining white supremacy.”

The divide between the north and the south vs the Democrats and the Republicans can be easily illustrated:


https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/28/republicans-party-of-civil-rights


As we saw earlier more Republicans than Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act, but that is not the whole story
View attachment 248748

You don't need to know too much history to understand that the South from the civil war to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 tended to be opposed to minority rights. This factor was separate from party identification or ideology. We can easily control for this variable by breaking up the voting by those states that were part of the confederacy and those that were not.

View attachment 248749

But what happens when we control for both party affiliation and region? As Sean Trende noted earlier this year, "sometimes relationships become apparent only after you control for other factors".

View attachment 248750

In conclusion, maligning the entire Democratic Party as the historical racist party without regard to regional loyalties or the fact that the racists fled from the Democrats ranks in the 60’s is just dumbed down revisionist history, and patently dishonest. I have to wonder, which party will be remembered as the party of racists in another 150 years or so. Any guesses?

Republicans already know that the Democrats are no longer the preferred party of the KKK....

They just like making you type long ass posts trying to explain something they already know....

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Let's see, Demorats: party of the KKK, Jim Crow, segregation, fighting against the civil rights act, resisting giving blacks or women the right to vote, putting Black Panthers at the voting booths to intimidate white voters, need we go on?

Democrats Are No Longer the Racist Party

Few things annoy me more than when people who want to stick a thumb in the eye of Democrats resort to tactics such as pointing out they founded the Ku Klux Klan or pushed through Jim Crow laws following the Civil War. The intent seems to be to draw attention away from the party that harbors the racists of today by shaming the Democrats for the sins of our forefathers.

It’s a sleazy tactic that doesn’t work, and It is time to set the record straight. First of all, Democrats- for the most part- do not deny or try to hide the parties past. Second, I will show how, when and why the racists fled from the Democratic Party and found a new home and lastly, I will present evidence that shows how, during the civil rights era, support for civil right legislation was split, not by party affiliation but by regional loyalty-specifically the old Confederacy and the Union. Let’s begin by talking about the civil war era

https://classroom.synonym.com/civil-warera-political-parties-north-vs-south-8901.html

Democratic Party

The Democratic Party was formed by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in 1792 and held considerable power in the years leading up to the Civil War. The Democratic Party became divided in the 1850s over the issue of slavery, with some factions in the north supporting abolitionist causes, some northern factions supporting accommodation of the South and Southern Democrats supporting the continuation and expansion of slavery. During the elections of 1860, Southern and Northern Democrats nominated separate candidates for president. After the Civil War broke out, former Southern Democrats held considerable clout in the Confederate Congress. Northern Democrats lost much of their political power in the North during the Civil War.

Republican Party

The Republican Party was founded in the 1850s by northerners who wanted to abolish slavery. The demise of the Whig Party and the split in the Democratic Party in the years leading up to the 1860 elections gave the Republicans an opportunity to advance. Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln won the U.S. Presidential election in 1860 and Republicans gained control of Congress, leading to the secession of eleven Southern states. The Republican Party had very little support in the South before the war and virtually none after war broke out. In 1864, the Republican Party joined with Democrats who favored the war effort to form the National Union Party. Other Republicans, who were in favor of pressing the war more forcefully, left the Republican Party to form the Radical Democracy Party. The National Union Party won the 1864 presidential election.

The truth about Republicans and civil rights even then was not as clear cut as some would like us to believe:

https://medium.com/everyvote/how-the-republicans-and-democrats-switched-on-civil-rights-in-5-racist-steps-92c1b41480b

Republicans and Democrats after the Civil War

It’s true that many of the first Ku Klux Klan members were Democrats. It’s also true that the early Democratic Party opposed civil rights. But there’s more to it.

The Civil War-era GOP wasn’t that into civil rights. They were more interested in punishing the South for seceding and monopolizing the new black vote.


In any event, by the 1890s, Republicans had begun to distance themselves from civil rights.

As for the democrats

Democrats v Republicans on Jim Crow

Segregation and Jim Crow lasted for 100 years after the end of the Civil War.

During this time, African Americans were largely disenfranchised. There was no African-American voting bloc. Neither party pursued civil rights policies — it wasn’t worth their while.



Democrats dominated Southern politics throughout the Jim Crow Era. It’s fair to say that Democratic governors and legislatures are responsible for creating and upholding white supremacist policies.

Southern Democrats were truly awful.

Then things began to change

President Truman Integrates the Troops: 1948

Fast forward about sixty shitty years. Black people are still living in segregation under Jim Crow. Nonetheless, African Americans agree to serve in World War II. At war’s end, President Harry Truman, a Democrat, used an Executive Order to integrate the troops. (That order was not executed until 1963, however because: racism.)

The Party of Kennedy v the Party of Nixon in the Civil Rights Era

Two things started happening at the same time:

· Racist Democrats were getting antsy

· Neither party could afford to ignore civil rights anymore

In 1960 Kennedy defeated Nixon. At the time of his election, the both parties unevenly supported civil rights. But President Kennedy decided to move forward.

After Kennedy’s assassination in 1963, Johnson continued Kennedy’s civil rights focus.

As you can imagine, that did not sit particularly well with most Southern Democrats. This is when Strom Thurmond flew the coop for good.

In fact, a greater percentage of Congressional Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than did Democrats. Support for the Act followed geographic, not party, lines. ( More on that later)

Get that? Support for civil rights was along geographic, not party lines. Now we get to the meat of the matter:

S

oon after, the Republicans came up with their Southern Strategy — a plan to woo white Southern voters to the party for the 1968 election.

The Kennedy and Johnson administrations had advanced civil rights, largely through national legislation and direct executive actions. So, the Southern Strategy was the opposite — states’ rights and no integration.

As in the Civil War, the concepts of “states’ rights” and “tradition,” were codes for “maintaining white supremacy.”

The divide between the north and the south vs the Democrats and the Republicans can be easily illustrated:


https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/28/republicans-party-of-civil-rights


As we saw earlier more Republicans than Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act, but that is not the whole story
View attachment 248748

You don't need to know too much history to understand that the South from the civil war to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 tended to be opposed to minority rights. This factor was separate from party identification or ideology. We can easily control for this variable by breaking up the voting by those states that were part of the confederacy and those that were not.

View attachment 248749

But what happens when we control for both party affiliation and region? As Sean Trende noted earlier this year, "sometimes relationships become apparent only after you control for other factors".

View attachment 248750

In conclusion, maligning the entire Democratic Party as the historical racist party without regard to regional loyalties or the fact that the racists fled from the Democrats ranks in the 60’s is just dumbed down revisionist history, and patently dishonest. I have to wonder, which party will be remembered as the party of racists in another 150 years or so. Any guesses?

Republicans already know that the Democrats are no longer the preferred party of the KKK....

They just like making you type long ass posts trying to explain something they already know....

I would not bet on what they know. They could just be that stupid. Or, they think that they can score points with that crap even knowing that it's bullshit. In any case they can't be allowed to get away with it.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

As a conservative, as a Republican, I will admit that white supremacists tend to align with my side. I have no problem, and I am sure that the vast majority of my fellow conservatives/Republicans, have no problem condemning these racists, and saying that they do not speak for my side of the political aisle.

IMO, I see current Republicans rarely doing this. They condemn only after the fact, and only if the racism is caught on audio or video. Then it's deflected as a 'joke', and a condemnation/apology comes only when further pressed.

Democrats, who claim to be the party of inclusion (for minorities, etc.) would rather pretend they are above racism/bigotry (pure bullshit) so asking them to condemn one of their own when their jackassery is uncovered is even harder.

Both parties are different sides of the same shit pile.

Will you condemn and reject the degenerate fringes

Yes. But on Both sides.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

In today's news:

Trump's obvious mental instability and emotionally erratic behavior hits a disturbing new height

 

[Bob Blaylock]

You are one seriously demented and foul mouthed fuck head.

You're the one who openly sides with faggots, trannies, and other sick, degenerate sexual perverts. That leaves you in no position to cast aspersions on my moral character nor anyone else's.

And I suppose the irony and hypocrisy of your last gratuitous insult has gone right over your head.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

You are one seriously demented and foul mouthed fuck head.

You're the one who openly sides with faggots, trannies, and other sick, degenerate sexual perverts. That leaves you in no position to cast aspersions on my moral character nor anyone else's.

And I suppose the irony and hypocrisy of your last gratuitous insult has gone right over your head.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Which Democrats have been hob knobbing with white Nationalists and neo Nazis? ? Which ones said that Hispanics specialize in rape? Please list them all

Lol see?
White nationalists arent the only racist people in the country.
I will be glad when you oblivious goobers realize that.

He probably doesn't think Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, et al aren't racist

Red Herring logical fallacy horseshit! You can't actually address the Republican bigotry so you deflect to Jackson and Sharpton. I'm not taking the bait and allow you to troll my thread, Deal with the issue that I raised or shut the fuck up.

You can't address Democrat intolerance so you deflect to white supremacists and nationalists.

You're doing the exact same goddamn thing.

Speaking for myself, I'm not going to abandon my conservative principles just because a few yahoos chose to pervert those principles for their own purposes. I am not responsible for their views and actions and will not be counted among them just because we share a political party. That is correlation, not causation. I am not Republican for the same reasons they are and vice versa.

As I explained to someone recently, the reason white supremacists are Republicans is because Republican ideals conform more to their way of thinking vis-a-vis Democrat ideals. Take the border issue for example. A white supremacist wants secure borders because he doesn't care for Mexicans. A typical Republican wants secure borders because he doesn't care for illegal immigrants coming here and bilking the system. And then there's the Democrat ideal of open borders. So which party do you think a white supremacist is going to join?

Dude! The thread is about white nationalism and the bigotry on the right. I am not deflecting at all. For your part, you alluded to left wing racism without proving and specifics, and even if you can point to something racist about Jackson and Sharpton, it is nothing like the scale and scope of the CPAC circus.

First of all, I didn't say anything about left wing racism, I said "left wing intolerance". Secondly, The cases of the Covington kids and the guy punching out the conservative at U.C. Berkeley and those of liberals confronting and assaulting conservatives wearing MAGA hats is proof enough that there are some on the left who are intolerant.

Thank you for the stunning admission that the reason white supremacists are Republicans is because Republican ideals conform more to their way of thinking

Nothing stunning about it. Far right conservatives and moderate conservatives have a lot of the same goals and ideals. But at the point where conservatism comes up against racism, this is where we diverge. If you think our sharing some ideals such as wanting secure borders includes racism or wanting a wall to keep out Mexicans then you're a fucking idiot.

But to accuse the Democrats of wanting open borders is as stupid as stupid gets and shows that all you guys do is mindlessly repeat standard and inane talking points.

Some Democrats do want open borders and this is a fact.

My citing open borders is just an example. Even if we compare the prevailing moderate Democrat views about illegal immigration with the prevailing Republican view on illegal immigration, there is still a decided difference between the two. To make matters worse, even moderate Democrats are accusing those moderate Republicans who support more secure borders and more stringent border control as being racist.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

First of all, I didn't say anything about left wing racism, I said "left wing intolerance". Secondly, The cases of the Covington kids and the guy punching out the conservative at U.C. Berkeley and those of liberals confronting and assaulting conservatives wearing MAGA hats is proof enough that there are some on the left who are intolerant.

As a lefty, I'm intolerant of is intolerance, stupidity and those who would destroy everything that this country once stood for.. If you said "intolerance" instead of racism, then what did you mean? Intolerance of policies that marginalize and discriminate against minorities, policies that go against out tradition of welcoming immigrants and refugees? Intolerance for policies that cater to the wealthy and screw the rest of us? Policies that would destroy the environment and the quality of like for those who come after us, for short term corporate profit? You are god damned right I'm intolerant.

Oh, and what I recall is the kid in the MAGA hat staring down a Native American

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Nothing stunning about it. Far right conservatives and moderate conservatives have a lot of the same goals and ideals. But at the point where conservatism comes up against racism, this is where we diverge. If you think our sharing some ideals such as wanting secure borders includes racism or wanting a wall to keep out Mexicans then you're a fucking idiot.

Again, we want secure borders as well, but don't try to tell me that the pathological obsession of Trump and his minions isn't motivated by racism and xenophobia

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Some Democrats do want open borders and this is a fact.

That is a boatload of bizarre bovine excrement. Name those democrats .

 

[Correll]

It is becoming more and more apparent that the Republican Party is irredeemable. They have lost all sense of decency and compassion and are on the wrong side of every issue. As people should be judged by the company they keep, so should be a political party. The past weekends Conservative Political Action Conference bears that out

At CPAC, Extremists On Stage And Off | HuffPost

"The annual conference served as yet another reminder of how the conservative movement in America is joined at the hip with the white nationalist movement."

Selected excerpts:

NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. — In 2004, far-right activist Michelle Malkin published a racist book called “In Defense of Internment.” It argued that the United States was right to forcibly remove 120,000 people of Japanese ancestry from their homes during World War II — 70 percent of whom were American citizens — and place them in internment camps for years, where they often lived behind barbed-wire fences under the watch of armed guards.

Malkin — who, it bears repeating, wrote a book that defended putting an ethnic group in government internment camps — told the crowd that current immigration levels amount to an “invasion” that “endangers our general welfare and the blessings of liberty.”

Among those whom Malkin listed as on the “front lines for liberty” were Gavin McInnes, the racist and anti-Semitic founder of the violent neofascist gang the Proud Boys; Laura Loomer, the anti-Muslim activist and InfoWars conspiracy theorist; and the Center for Immigration Studies, an anti-immigrant group founded by a eugenicist.

....!

1. The Proud Boys are not neofascist nor racist, nor anti-semitic. They have employed violence in self defense. Traditionally, AMERICANS, have supported that.

2. Are you seriously prepared to debate Japanese Internment? Start by including the points that Malkin made in favor of it, and why you think they are wrong.

 

[Correll]

Nothing stunning about it. Far right conservatives and moderate conservatives have a lot of the same goals and ideals. But at the point where conservatism comes up against racism, this is where we diverge. If you think our sharing some ideals such as wanting secure borders includes racism or wanting a wall to keep out Mexicans then you're a fucking idiot.

Again, we want secure borders as well, but don't try to tell me that the pathological obsession of Trump and his minions isn't motivated by racism and xenophobia

1. You do not want secure borders.

2. Stop with the race baiting, you asshole.

 

[Correll]

First of all, I didn't say anything about left wing racism, I said "left wing intolerance". Secondly, The cases of the Covington kids and the guy punching out the conservative at U.C. Berkeley and those of liberals confronting and assaulting conservatives wearing MAGA hats is proof enough that there are some on the left who are intolerant.

As a lefty, I'm intolerant of is intolerance, stupidity and those who would destroy everything that this country once stood for.. If you said "intolerance" instead of racism, then what did you mean? Intolerance of policies that marginalize and discriminate against minorities, policies that go against out tradition of welcoming immigrants and refugees? Intolerance for policies that cater to the wealthy and screw the rest of us? Policies that would destroy the environment and the quality of like for those who come after us, for short term corporate profit? You are god damned right I'm intolerant.

Oh, and what I recall is the kid in the MAGA hat staring down a Native American

A native American who was drumming and chanting in his face, well within his personal space.


That you focus on the person just LOOKING, instead of the asshole chanting and drumming, is to be expected, since the guy invading the kid's space was brown.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

My citing open borders is just an example. Even if we compare the prevailing moderate Democrat views about illegal immigration with the prevailing Republican view on illegal immigration, there is still a decided difference between the two. To make matters worse, even moderate Democrats are accusing those moderate Republicans who support more secure borders and more stringent border control as being racist.

Many Republicans are racist starting with the demented orange ogre in the white house. Yes there is a difference between Democrats and Republicans. We want this to be an inclusive welcoming nation and we are not afraid of diversity and, in fact value it. We recognize the fact that this is a country of immigrants who have contributed much to what America is. I am old enough to remember when Italians and the Irish were feared and loathed as immigrants. My mothers parents came from Italy soon after the turn of the 20th century and she was born 12 years later. She recalled how she was called the N word because she was a little on the dark side, and that traumatized her for life.

The same kid of hatred is not being inflicted on Latinos and Muslims. History does repeat itself but it wont be kind to you people. You can't preserve this county as a white Christian majority. That ship has sailed. And as a white guy, I'm just fine with that. Those who are threatened by that have personal identity issues that they need to seek help with.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

1. The Proud Boys are not neofascist nor racist, nor anti-semitic. They have employed violence in self defense. Traditionally, AMERICANS, have supported that.

Horseshit

 

[Correll]

My citing open borders is just an example. Even if we compare the prevailing moderate Democrat views about illegal immigration with the prevailing Republican view on illegal immigration, there is still a decided difference between the two. To make matters worse, even moderate Democrats are accusing those moderate Republicans who support more secure borders and more stringent border control as being racist.

Many Republicans are racist starting with the demented orange ogre in the white house. Yes there is a difference between Democrats and Republicans. We want this to be an inclusive welcoming nation and we are not afraid of diversity and, in fact value it. We recognize the fact that this is a country of immigrants who have contributed much to what America is. I am old enough to remember when Italians and the Irish were feared and loathed as immigrants. My mothers parents came from Italy soon after the turn of the 20th century and she was born 12 years later. She recalled how she was called the N word because she was a little on the dark side, and that traumatized her for life.

The same kid of hatred is not being inflicted on Latinos and Muslims. History does repeat itself but it wont be kind to you people. You can't preserve this county as a white Christian majority. That ship has sailed. And as a white guy, I'm just fine with that. Those who are threatened by that have personal identity issues that they need to seek help with.

Challenge.


I dare you to go a day without calling someone a racist.


DO you think you could do that, and survive?

 

[Correll]

1. The Proud Boys are not neofascist nor racist, nor anti-semitic. They have employed violence in self defense. Traditionally, AMERICANS, have supported that.

Horseshit

Want to support that bullshit? Or just call people racist some more? I know many of you believe that calling someone a racist, is a supporting argument, and to prove it, you can call people racist, AGAIN.