Quote:Florida GOP gubernatorial candidate Ron DeSantis has a problem, one he shares with a lot of Republicans these days: For some reason, racists are attracted to his campaign and seem eager to give him money and lend their vocal support.

Why does this keep happening to members of the Republican Party who desire nothing but equality and respect for all people? It’s a real mystery.

Quote:But the vast majority of conservatives will tell you that they strongly believe in racial equality. Even the donor who wrote “F— THE MUSLIM N—–” about Obama says he is “absolutely not” a racist. They do believe, however, that they are constantly being unfairly accused of being racists by liberals.

Quote:But just by virtue of being Republicans in 2018, being lumped in with racists is a risk they run. Their favored news outlets are positively saturated with white nationalist rhetoric. Their party is led by a man who is not only an obvious bigot but who also turned himself into a political figure by advocating the racist lie that Barack Obama is not actually an American, who ran a presidential campaign built on xenophobia and racial resentment, and who, in office, continues to stoke fear and hatred of immigrants. President Trump doesn’t get celebrated on white nationalist websites because they’re laboring under some misimpression about who he is. So, if you’re a Republican standing enthusiastically behind Trump, racists have every reason in the world to think you’re on their side.

Quote:And so Republicans who think themselves to be people of goodwill might ask themselves: Why is it that all these racists are so supportive of my party? Why is it that a bunch of actual Nazis won Republican nominations for elected offices this year, and our nominee for the Senate in Virginia is a neo-Confederate? Why is it that every white nationalist thinks they can find a home in the GOP? And what can I do to change that?

I would be interested to hear their ideas. But so far, we’ve heard pretty much nothing.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plu...03296f2d2d

Coming from the, "Keep 'em dumb, keep 'em poor, keep 'em dependent on handouts, and you can keep 'em voting democrat," welfare plantation party (and I'm pretty sure the author belongs to that party), that is remarkable criticism indeed.

Not all racists are republicans. And even if all racists are republicans, that does not mean all republicans are racists, which is what the author is clearly trying to imply--if you don't run them off, you are one of them. I don't think republicans are racists, but some of their non-racist messages happen to resonate with some people who happen to be racists.

As far as the question, I will very clearly state that republican inability to deal with this issue drives me up the wall. I mean, seriously, the opposition is promoting, "Keep 'em dumb, keep 'em poor, keep 'em dependent on handouts, and you can keep 'em voting democrat," and republicans can't come up with anything better than the welfare plantation?

I really think the Party of Lincoln needs to get high behind pushing the kinds of programs that people like Jack Kemp promoted, things that will actually upgrade the economic and other well-being of poor minority populations. I don't think it's racism that they don't, I just think it's lack of understanding.

First, there are tons of racists in the other party.... But not necessarily 'anglo' racists.

Second, 'the right to have unpopular and even bad opinions' is something the right supports much more than the left. It's not about supporting their opinion, just their right to their opinion... Which stops as soon as they try and put that opinion into action

One can ask why the Democrats seem to be the party of choice for radical bombmakers or for violent Black Panthers?

Both Ease's question and the one above are rhetorical and fundamentally idiotic.

Since Ease never bothers to discuss or comment, but simply chooses to interact in drive-by post linkypoo mode, I dont understand why this discussion is even occurring in the first place, to be honest.

Oh noes! Poor tanq is triggered and thinks he’s entitled to something.

Lock up your wives, daughters, and farm animals.

Quote:Oh noes! Poor tanq is triggered and thinks he’s entitled to something.

Hmm... As for 'triggered', I dont seem to be stalking anyone into other threads and launching non-germane adolescent-type ad-homs. Just saying, sparkles.

Or are you just trying your best to get this thread removed like you managed to do with the Kavanaugh thread?

Quote:Lock up your wives, daughters, and farm animals.

(I wish there was an avatar for a mic drop, especially one for a post that doesnt even require a response for the mic drop to happen)

I think it inherently stupid for either side to claim all the bad people are on the other side.

(09-22-2018 04:21 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think it inherently stupid for either side to claim all the bad people are on the other side.

That's stupid....

(09-22-2018 04:43 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-22-2018 04:21 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think it inherently stupid for either side to claim all the bad people are on the other side.

That's stupid....

Inherently?

(09-22-2018 01:07 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  First, there are tons of racists in the other party.... But not necessarily 'anglo' racists.

Second, 'the right to have unpopular and even bad opinions' is something the right supports much more than the left. It's not about supporting their opinion, just their right to their opinion... Which stops as soon as they try and put that opinion into action

Dealing with some of the Republican GOP Grass Roots in the Deep South post-2009 was a bit of a challenge.

Tea Party people were fairly easy. They weren't "off the deep end" even though their understanding of Constitutional Law was limited to what was on a 8 page pamphlet.

The "Alex Jones" "Glenn Beck" and "Birther" people were a different story. Someone comes in spouting off the "Obama and Valerie Jerrett are Iranian Agents" BS and they kindly asked for their contact information and told that we have all the help we need at the time but we will call you if we need you.

But of course all monetary donations were gladly accepted.

(09-22-2018 06:29 PM)WoodlandsOwl Wrote:  

(09-22-2018 01:07 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  First, there are tons of racists in the other party.... But not necessarily 'anglo' racists.

Second, 'the right to have unpopular and even bad opinions' is something the right supports much more than the left. It's not about supporting their opinion, just their right to their opinion... Which stops as soon as they try and put that opinion into action

Dealing with some of the Republican GOP Grass Roots in the Deep South post-2009 was a bit of a challenge.

Tea Party people were fairly easy. They weren't "off the deep end" even though their understanding of Constitutional Law was limited to what was on a 8 page pamphlet.

The "Alex Jones" "Glenn Beck" and "Birther" people were a different story. Someone comes in spouting off the "Obama and Valerie Jerrett are Iranian Agents" BS and they kindly asked for their contact information and told that we have all the help we need at the time but we will call you if we need you.

But of course all monetary donations were gladly accepted.

I believe Ronald Reagan once said, when somebody tried to play the guilt-by-supporters'-association game, that all it meant was that they support my agenda; it doesn't mean I support theirs.

I also think, to WoodlandsOwl's point, Republicans do a far better job of keeping the wackos confined to the fringe than the Democrats do. Objectively nonserious ideas like "Abolish ICE" find far fewer barriers in progressing from the left fringe to the left mainstream, and easily make it to having high-profile proponents in the Democratic party. There is no equivalent analogy on the right as far as I can tell.

(09-23-2018 11:57 AM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(09-22-2018 06:29 PM)WoodlandsOwl Wrote:  

(09-22-2018 01:07 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  First, there are tons of racists in the other party.... But not necessarily 'anglo' racists.
Second, 'the right to have unpopular and even bad opinions' is something the right supports much more than the left. It's not about supporting their opinion, just their right to their opinion... Which stops as soon as they try and put that opinion into action

Dealing with some of the Republican GOP Grass Roots in the Deep South post-2009 was a bit of a challenge.
Tea Party people were fairly easy. They weren't "off the deep end" even though their understanding of Constitutional Law was limited to what was on a 8 page pamphlet.
The "Alex Jones" "Glenn Beck" and "Birther" people were a different story. Someone comes in spouting off the "Obama and Valerie Jerrett are Iranian Agents" BS and they kindly asked for their contact information and told that we have all the help we need at the time but we will call you if we need you.
But of course all monetary donations were gladly accepted.

I believe Ronald Reagan once said, when somebody tried to play the guilt-by-supporters'-association game, that all it meant was that they support my agenda; it doesn't mean I support theirs.
I also think, to WoodlandsOwl's point, Republicans do a far better job of keeping the wackos confined to the fringe than the Democrats do. Objectively nonserious ideas like "Abolish ICE" find far fewer barriers in progressing from the left fringe to the left mainstream, and easily make it to having high-profile proponents in the Democratic party. There is no equivalent analogy on the right as far as I can tell.

Both parties have racists, and both parties have nutcases. Republicans describe their nutcases as noutcases. Democrats describe theirs as the future of their party.

Reagan was right. You support me does not mean that I support you.

(09-23-2018 11:57 AM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(09-22-2018 06:29 PM)WoodlandsOwl Wrote:  

(09-22-2018 01:07 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  First, there are tons of racists in the other party.... But not necessarily 'anglo' racists.

Second, 'the right to have unpopular and even bad opinions' is something the right supports much more than the left. It's not about supporting their opinion, just their right to their opinion... Which stops as soon as they try and put that opinion into action

Dealing with some of the Republican GOP Grass Roots in the Deep South post-2009 was a bit of a challenge.

Tea Party people were fairly easy. They weren't "off the deep end" even though their understanding of Constitutional Law was limited to what was on a 8 page pamphlet.

The "Alex Jones" "Glenn Beck" and "Birther" people were a different story. Someone comes in spouting off the "Obama and Valerie Jerrett are Iranian Agents" BS and they kindly asked for their contact information and told that we have all the help we need at the time but we will call you if we need you.

But of course all monetary donations were gladly accepted.

I believe Ronald Reagan once said, when somebody tried to play the guilt-by-supporters'-association game, that all it meant was that they support my agenda; it doesn't mean I support theirs.

I also think, to WoodlandsOwl's point, Republicans do a far better job of keeping the wackos confined to the fringe than the Democrats do. Objectively nonserious ideas like "Abolish ICE" find far fewer barriers in progressing from the left fringe to the left mainstream, and easily make it to having high-profile proponents in the Democratic party. There is no equivalent analogy on the right as far as I can tell.

Wasn’t it Rick Perry that pushed the idea of abolishing three, erm, or two, entire Departments? And ideas similar to that (like abolishing the IRS) are similarly thrown out by the right.

Not sure why that is any less nonserious than some Dems who advocate for abolishing a government organization that is less than 2 decades old.

I don’t think there is a big difference between the two parties with respect to fringe policies making their way to the mainstream, you just don’t think your fringe ideas are fringe and, vice versa for Dems.

(09-23-2018 01:37 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 11:57 AM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(09-22-2018 06:29 PM)WoodlandsOwl Wrote:  

(09-22-2018 01:07 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  First, there are tons of racists in the other party.... But not necessarily 'anglo' racists.

Second, 'the right to have unpopular and even bad opinions' is something the right supports much more than the left. It's not about supporting their opinion, just their right to their opinion... Which stops as soon as they try and put that opinion into action

Dealing with some of the Republican GOP Grass Roots in the Deep South post-2009 was a bit of a challenge.

Tea Party people were fairly easy. They weren't "off the deep end" even though their understanding of Constitutional Law was limited to what was on a 8 page pamphlet.

The "Alex Jones" "Glenn Beck" and "Birther" people were a different story. Someone comes in spouting off the "Obama and Valerie Jerrett are Iranian Agents" BS and they kindly asked for their contact information and told that we have all the help we need at the time but we will call you if we need you.

But of course all monetary donations were gladly accepted.

I believe Ronald Reagan once said, when somebody tried to play the guilt-by-supporters'-association game, that all it meant was that they support my agenda; it doesn't mean I support theirs.

I also think, to WoodlandsOwl's point, Republicans do a far better job of keeping the wackos confined to the fringe than the Democrats do. Objectively nonserious ideas like "Abolish ICE" find far fewer barriers in progressing from the left fringe to the left mainstream, and easily make it to having high-profile proponents in the Democratic party. There is no equivalent analogy on the right as far as I can tell.

Wasn’t it Rick Perry that pushed the idea of abolishing three, erm, or two, entire Departments? And ideas similar to that (like abolishing the IRS) are similarly thrown out by the right.

Not sure why that is any less nonserious than some Dems who advocate for abolishing a government organization that is less than 2 decades old.

I don’t think there is a big difference between the two parties with respect to fringe policies making their way to the mainstream, you just don’t think your fringe ideas are fringe and, vice versa for Dems.

A Republican calling for abolishing the Education and Energy departments is saying that the federal government is too big and its tentacles are reaching too far, which is an idea reasonable people can disagree on but it's not a fringe idea by any stretch. And I don't think "abolish the IRS" has any high-profile GOP proponents but even so, as far as I know, all that would be is just shorthand for "let's make the tax code simpler and fairer so we don't need tens of thousands of federal employees to enforce it." I'm pretty sure that even if Republicans got their dearest tax wish list desires enacted, they'd still be in favor of having an enforcement agency to track down scofflaws. No serious Republican is in favor of abolishing all federal taxation or relying totally on the honor system to collect federal revenue.

"Abolish ICE," in contrast, is *not* shorthand for "let's sensibly reform the immigration system." It is shorthand for "no borders." It is shorthand for "the whole idea of restrictions on human migration and enforcing laws relating thereto is inhumane and immoral." So, "abolish ICE" is not a serious idea, yet it has mainstream Democratic support.

(09-23-2018 02:20 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 01:37 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 11:57 AM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(09-22-2018 06:29 PM)WoodlandsOwl Wrote:  

(09-22-2018 01:07 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  First, there are tons of racists in the other party.... But not necessarily 'anglo' racists.

Second, 'the right to have unpopular and even bad opinions' is something the right supports much more than the left. It's not about supporting their opinion, just their right to their opinion... Which stops as soon as they try and put that opinion into action

Dealing with some of the Republican GOP Grass Roots in the Deep South post-2009 was a bit of a challenge.

Tea Party people were fairly easy. They weren't "off the deep end" even though their understanding of Constitutional Law was limited to what was on a 8 page pamphlet.

The "Alex Jones" "Glenn Beck" and "Birther" people were a different story. Someone comes in spouting off the "Obama and Valerie Jerrett are Iranian Agents" BS and they kindly asked for their contact information and told that we have all the help we need at the time but we will call you if we need you.

But of course all monetary donations were gladly accepted.

I believe Ronald Reagan once said, when somebody tried to play the guilt-by-supporters'-association game, that all it meant was that they support my agenda; it doesn't mean I support theirs.

I also think, to WoodlandsOwl's point, Republicans do a far better job of keeping the wackos confined to the fringe than the Democrats do. Objectively nonserious ideas like "Abolish ICE" find far fewer barriers in progressing from the left fringe to the left mainstream, and easily make it to having high-profile proponents in the Democratic party. There is no equivalent analogy on the right as far as I can tell.

Wasn’t it Rick Perry that pushed the idea of abolishing three, erm, or two, entire Departments? And ideas similar to that (like abolishing the IRS) are similarly thrown out by the right.

Not sure why that is any less nonserious than some Dems who advocate for abolishing a government organization that is less than 2 decades old.

I don’t think there is a big difference between the two parties with respect to fringe policies making their way to the mainstream, you just don’t think your fringe ideas are fringe and, vice versa for Dems.

A Republican calling for abolishing the Education and Energy departments is saying that the federal government is too big and its tentacles are reaching too far, which is an idea reasonable people can disagree on but it's not a fringe idea by any stretch. And I don't think "abolish the IRS" has any high-profile GOP proponents but even so, as far as I know, all that would be is just shorthand for "let's make the tax code simpler and fairer so we don't need tens of thousands of federal employees to enforce it." I'm pretty sure that even if Republicans got their dearest tax wish list desires enacted, they'd still be in favor of having an enforcement agency to track down scofflaws. No serious Republican is in favor of abolishing all federal taxation or relying totally on the honor system to collect federal revenue.

"Abolish ICE," in contrast, is *not* shorthand for "let's sensibly reform the immigration system." It is shorthand for "no borders." It is shorthand for "the whole idea of restrictions on human migration and enforcing laws relating thereto is inhumane and immoral." So, "abolish ICE" is not a serious idea, yet it has mainstream Democratic support.

Actually, 'open borders' means 'we want to import an entire assemblage of people that we know will vote for us.' That is the core reason for mainstream Democratic support, lets not kid one another on that.

And yes, the 'abolish ICE' movement is rooted in the ideal of such open border philosophy. Lock, stock, and two smoking barrels.

I am sure that for some abolishing the Department of Energy or the Department of Education also has some fringe rationale that is pervasive within the right, probably racist or social justice based. I just havent heard of those.

All I have heard is that these are examples of Departments that are believed to be superfluous to the operating of the Federal government. If one thinks that these are core, central tenets of the operation of Federal system, I could see why they might also be deemed 'fringe' policies that made it into the mainstream. I dont see that they are such, and, to be blunt, kind of pale in terms of Department of State, Department of Defense, Department of Commerce etc. (and to boot, each of the three listed has a specific root in the Constitutional power of the Federal Government, but I digress)

If you can point to other 'fringe based' reasons for the issue of the removal of those two Departments I will think your example a tad more relevant or on point. But the ones discussed in the paragraph above simply highlight the differences of viewpoints in the roles of the Federal government that exist between the conservative and progressive philosophies.

(09-23-2018 02:20 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 01:37 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 11:57 AM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(09-22-2018 06:29 PM)WoodlandsOwl Wrote:  

(09-22-2018 01:07 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  First, there are tons of racists in the other party.... But not necessarily 'anglo' racists.

Second, 'the right to have unpopular and even bad opinions' is something the right supports much more than the left. It's not about supporting their opinion, just their right to their opinion... Which stops as soon as they try and put that opinion into action

Dealing with some of the Republican GOP Grass Roots in the Deep South post-2009 was a bit of a challenge.

Tea Party people were fairly easy. They weren't "off the deep end" even though their understanding of Constitutional Law was limited to what was on a 8 page pamphlet.

The "Alex Jones" "Glenn Beck" and "Birther" people were a different story. Someone comes in spouting off the "Obama and Valerie Jerrett are Iranian Agents" BS and they kindly asked for their contact information and told that we have all the help we need at the time but we will call you if we need you.

But of course all monetary donations were gladly accepted.

I believe Ronald Reagan once said, when somebody tried to play the guilt-by-supporters'-association game, that all it meant was that they support my agenda; it doesn't mean I support theirs.

I also think, to WoodlandsOwl's point, Republicans do a far better job of keeping the wackos confined to the fringe than the Democrats do. Objectively nonserious ideas like "Abolish ICE" find far fewer barriers in progressing from the left fringe to the left mainstream, and easily make it to having high-profile proponents in the Democratic party. There is no equivalent analogy on the right as far as I can tell.

Wasn’t it Rick Perry that pushed the idea of abolishing three, erm, or two, entire Departments? And ideas similar to that (like abolishing the IRS) are similarly thrown out by the right.

Not sure why that is any less nonserious than some Dems who advocate for abolishing a government organization that is less than 2 decades old.

I don’t think there is a big difference between the two parties with respect to fringe policies making their way to the mainstream, you just don’t think your fringe ideas are fringe and, vice versa for Dems.

A Republican calling for abolishing the Education and Energy departments is saying that the federal government is too big and its tentacles are reaching too far, which is an idea reasonable people can disagree on but it's not a fringe idea by any stretch. And I don't think "abolish the IRS" has any high-profile GOP proponents but even so, as far as I know, all that would be is just shorthand for "let's make the tax code simpler and fairer so we don't need tens of thousands of federal employees to enforce it." I'm pretty sure that even if Republicans got their dearest tax wish list desires enacted, they'd still be in favor of having an enforcement agency to track down scofflaws. No serious Republican is in favor of abolishing all federal taxation or relying totally on the honor system to collect federal revenue.

"Abolish ICE," in contrast, is *not* shorthand for "let's sensibly reform the immigration system." It is shorthand for "no borders." It is shorthand for "the whole idea of restrictions on human migration and enforcing laws relating thereto is inhumane and immoral." So, "abolish ICE" is not a serious idea, yet it has mainstream Democratic support.

The mainstream candidates that I’ve heard y’all about abolishing ICE don’t mean that. They talk about refocusing how border protection is implemented and changing what agency handles that, going back more to a pre-9/11 status. They focus on the fact that the agency responsible would not longer solely be responsible for basically just deporting individuals or investigating terrorism. The idea being that a more broadly focused department would result in better immigration policy implementation.

The people in the mainstream do not advocate for an abolishment of all detainment and deportment processes.

(09-23-2018 02:50 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 02:20 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 01:37 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 11:57 AM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(09-22-2018 06:29 PM)WoodlandsOwl Wrote:  Dealing with some of the Republican GOP Grass Roots in the Deep South post-2009 was a bit of a challenge.

Tea Party people were fairly easy. They weren't "off the deep end" even though their understanding of Constitutional Law was limited to what was on a 8 page pamphlet.

The "Alex Jones" "Glenn Beck" and "Birther" people were a different story. Someone comes in spouting off the "Obama and Valerie Jerrett are Iranian Agents" BS and they kindly asked for their contact information and told that we have all the help we need at the time but we will call you if we need you.

But of course all monetary donations were gladly accepted.

I believe Ronald Reagan once said, when somebody tried to play the guilt-by-supporters'-association game, that all it meant was that they support my agenda; it doesn't mean I support theirs.

I also think, to WoodlandsOwl's point, Republicans do a far better job of keeping the wackos confined to the fringe than the Democrats do. Objectively nonserious ideas like "Abolish ICE" find far fewer barriers in progressing from the left fringe to the left mainstream, and easily make it to having high-profile proponents in the Democratic party. There is no equivalent analogy on the right as far as I can tell.

Wasn’t it Rick Perry that pushed the idea of abolishing three, erm, or two, entire Departments? And ideas similar to that (like abolishing the IRS) are similarly thrown out by the right.

Not sure why that is any less nonserious than some Dems who advocate for abolishing a government organization that is less than 2 decades old.

I don’t think there is a big difference between the two parties with respect to fringe policies making their way to the mainstream, you just don’t think your fringe ideas are fringe and, vice versa for Dems.

A Republican calling for abolishing the Education and Energy departments is saying that the federal government is too big and its tentacles are reaching too far, which is an idea reasonable people can disagree on but it's not a fringe idea by any stretch. And I don't think "abolish the IRS" has any high-profile GOP proponents but even so, as far as I know, all that would be is just shorthand for "let's make the tax code simpler and fairer so we don't need tens of thousands of federal employees to enforce it." I'm pretty sure that even if Republicans got their dearest tax wish list desires enacted, they'd still be in favor of having an enforcement agency to track down scofflaws. No serious Republican is in favor of abolishing all federal taxation or relying totally on the honor system to collect federal revenue.

"Abolish ICE," in contrast, is *not* shorthand for "let's sensibly reform the immigration system." It is shorthand for "no borders." It is shorthand for "the whole idea of restrictions on human migration and enforcing laws relating thereto is inhumane and immoral." So, "abolish ICE" is not a serious idea, yet it has mainstream Democratic support.

Actually, 'open borders' means 'we want to import an entire assemblage of people that we know will vote for us.' That is the core reason for mainstream Democratic support, lets not kid one another on that.

And yes, the 'abolish ICE' movement is rooted in the ideal of such open border philosophy. Lock, stock, and two smoking barrels.

I am sure that for some abolishing the Department of Energy or the Department of Education also has some fringe rationale that is pervasive within the right, probably racist or social justice based. I just havent heard of those.

All I have heard is that these are examples of Departments that are believed to be superfluous to the operating of the Federal government. If one thinks that these are core, central tenets of the operation of Federal system, I could see why they might also be deemed 'fringe' policies that made it into the mainstream. I dont see that they are such, and, to be blunt, kind of pale in terms of Department of State, Department of Defense, Department of Commerce etc. (and to boot, each of the three listed has a specific root in the Constitutional power of the Federal Government, but I digress)

If you can point to other 'fringe based' reasons for the issue of the removal of those two Departments I will think your example a tad more relevant or on point. But the ones discussed in the paragraph above simply highlight the differences of viewpoints in the roles of the Federal government that exist between the conservative and progressive philosophies.

Your last comment makes my point perfectly - these ideas really only seem fringe because you disagree with the underlying premise. Both parties have equally “crazy” type ideas to those in the other party because they do not agree with a lot of the fundamental ideas driving those policy positions.

(09-23-2018 03:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 02:20 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 01:37 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 11:57 AM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(09-22-2018 06:29 PM)WoodlandsOwl Wrote:  Dealing with some of the Republican GOP Grass Roots in the Deep South post-2009 was a bit of a challenge.

Tea Party people were fairly easy. They weren't "off the deep end" even though their understanding of Constitutional Law was limited to what was on a 8 page pamphlet.

The "Alex Jones" "Glenn Beck" and "Birther" people were a different story. Someone comes in spouting off the "Obama and Valerie Jerrett are Iranian Agents" BS and they kindly asked for their contact information and told that we have all the help we need at the time but we will call you if we need you.

But of course all monetary donations were gladly accepted.

I believe Ronald Reagan once said, when somebody tried to play the guilt-by-supporters'-association game, that all it meant was that they support my agenda; it doesn't mean I support theirs.

I also think, to WoodlandsOwl's point, Republicans do a far better job of keeping the wackos confined to the fringe than the Democrats do. Objectively nonserious ideas like "Abolish ICE" find far fewer barriers in progressing from the left fringe to the left mainstream, and easily make it to having high-profile proponents in the Democratic party. There is no equivalent analogy on the right as far as I can tell.

Wasn’t it Rick Perry that pushed the idea of abolishing three, erm, or two, entire Departments? And ideas similar to that (like abolishing the IRS) are similarly thrown out by the right.

Not sure why that is any less nonserious than some Dems who advocate for abolishing a government organization that is less than 2 decades old.

I don’t think there is a big difference between the two parties with respect to fringe policies making their way to the mainstream, you just don’t think your fringe ideas are fringe and, vice versa for Dems.

A Republican calling for abolishing the Education and Energy departments is saying that the federal government is too big and its tentacles are reaching too far, which is an idea reasonable people can disagree on but it's not a fringe idea by any stretch. And I don't think "abolish the IRS" has any high-profile GOP proponents but even so, as far as I know, all that would be is just shorthand for "let's make the tax code simpler and fairer so we don't need tens of thousands of federal employees to enforce it." I'm pretty sure that even if Republicans got their dearest tax wish list desires enacted, they'd still be in favor of having an enforcement agency to track down scofflaws. No serious Republican is in favor of abolishing all federal taxation or relying totally on the honor system to collect federal revenue.

"Abolish ICE," in contrast, is *not* shorthand for "let's sensibly reform the immigration system." It is shorthand for "no borders." It is shorthand for "the whole idea of restrictions on human migration and enforcing laws relating thereto is inhumane and immoral." So, "abolish ICE" is not a serious idea, yet it has mainstream Democratic support.

The mainstream candidates that I’ve heard y’all about abolishing ICE don’t mean that. They talk about refocusing how border protection is implemented and changing what agency handles that, going back more to a pre-9/11 status. They focus on the fact that the agency responsible would not longer solely be responsible for basically just deporting individuals or investigating terrorism. The idea being that a more broadly focused department would result in better immigration policy implementation.

The people in the mainstream do not advocate for an abolishment of all detainment and deportment processes.

Then why 'Abolish ICE' which actually enforces? This is like saying 'Down with the pigs' means you would like the police department to return to community based police work. The pithy term(s) actually call for the dismantling of the sole enforcement agency.

This is classic -- 'Abolish ICE' doesnt mean 'Abolish ICE'; jeezus krist. Talk about an extension of of living constitutionalism where 'person' doesnt mean person, it really means 'just those persons who are part of the militia.'

Sorry Lad. This is classic doublespeak. Reread Orwell.

(09-23-2018 03:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 02:50 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 02:20 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 01:37 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 11:57 AM)illiniowl Wrote:  I believe Ronald Reagan once said, when somebody tried to play the guilt-by-supporters'-association game, that all it meant was that they support my agenda; it doesn't mean I support theirs.

I also think, to WoodlandsOwl's point, Republicans do a far better job of keeping the wackos confined to the fringe than the Democrats do. Objectively nonserious ideas like "Abolish ICE" find far fewer barriers in progressing from the left fringe to the left mainstream, and easily make it to having high-profile proponents in the Democratic party. There is no equivalent analogy on the right as far as I can tell.

Wasn’t it Rick Perry that pushed the idea of abolishing three, erm, or two, entire Departments? And ideas similar to that (like abolishing the IRS) are similarly thrown out by the right.

Not sure why that is any less nonserious than some Dems who advocate for abolishing a government organization that is less than 2 decades old.

I don’t think there is a big difference between the two parties with respect to fringe policies making their way to the mainstream, you just don’t think your fringe ideas are fringe and, vice versa for Dems.

A Republican calling for abolishing the Education and Energy departments is saying that the federal government is too big and its tentacles are reaching too far, which is an idea reasonable people can disagree on but it's not a fringe idea by any stretch. And I don't think "abolish the IRS" has any high-profile GOP proponents but even so, as far as I know, all that would be is just shorthand for "let's make the tax code simpler and fairer so we don't need tens of thousands of federal employees to enforce it." I'm pretty sure that even if Republicans got their dearest tax wish list desires enacted, they'd still be in favor of having an enforcement agency to track down scofflaws. No serious Republican is in favor of abolishing all federal taxation or relying totally on the honor system to collect federal revenue.

"Abolish ICE," in contrast, is *not* shorthand for "let's sensibly reform the immigration system." It is shorthand for "no borders." It is shorthand for "the whole idea of restrictions on human migration and enforcing laws relating thereto is inhumane and immoral." So, "abolish ICE" is not a serious idea, yet it has mainstream Democratic support.

Actually, 'open borders' means 'we want to import an entire assemblage of people that we know will vote for us.' That is the core reason for mainstream Democratic support, lets not kid one another on that.

And yes, the 'abolish ICE' movement is rooted in the ideal of such open border philosophy. Lock, stock, and two smoking barrels.

I am sure that for some abolishing the Department of Energy or the Department of Education also has some fringe rationale that is pervasive within the right, probably racist or social justice based. I just havent heard of those.

All I have heard is that these are examples of Departments that are believed to be superfluous to the operating of the Federal government. If one thinks that these are core, central tenets of the operation of Federal system, I could see why they might also be deemed 'fringe' policies that made it into the mainstream. I dont see that they are such, and, to be blunt, kind of pale in terms of Department of State, Department of Defense, Department of Commerce etc. (and to boot, each of the three listed has a specific root in the Constitutional power of the Federal Government, but I digress)

If you can point to other 'fringe based' reasons for the issue of the removal of those two Departments I will think your example a tad more relevant or on point. But the ones discussed in the paragraph above simply highlight the differences of viewpoints in the roles of the Federal government that exist between the conservative and progressive philosophies.

Your last comment makes my point perfectly - these ideas really only seem fringe because you disagree with the underlying premise. Both parties have equally “crazy” type ideas to those in the other party because they do not agree with a lot of the fundamental ideas driving those policy positions.

Im not the person saying 'Abolish ICE' doesnt mean 'Abolish ICE', am I? Sorry, that is the jig you are dancing right now....

I will take it that you think Department of Energy and Department of Eduction are core Federal functions, up there with State, Defense, and Commerce. That is the only ideal you can espouse that pushes proposed elimination of the two into such 'fringe' category.

Tell me what other 'core functionalities' should the Federal government be deemed to oversee in your world?

Perfect example of how even the more-left leaning candidates publicly advocate that abolishing ICE is about reinventing immigration policy and not just, as the most cynical will say, creating open borders for votes. Yes, some lawmakers will probably try and abolish deportations in general, but that is the fringe we’re talking about.

Quote:...Ocasio-Cortez wrote on her campaign website. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York—a potential 2020 presidential contender—hopped on the bandwagon shortly after, telling CNN, “I believe that ice has become a deportation force … and that’s why I believe you should get rid of it, start over, reimagine it, and build something that actually works...”

Democratic Representative Pramila Jayapal of Washington, one of the most outspoken lawmakers on the issue, said in an email that she wants “to eliminate the agency as it stands and restructure its functions, starting from scratch.” Jayapal, along with Representative Mark Pocan of Wisconsin, will soon be introducing legislation to dismantle the agency. “There will still be enforcement of immigration laws, but it must be without cruelty and abuse,” she said.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theatla...le/564752/

Anyways, not trying to advocate one way or the other, just pointing out that there are lots of quotes and evidence of Dems advocating for the abolishment of ICE in a way that doesn’t result in a complete halting of immigration enforcement.