(11-15-2019 05:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-15-2019 05:45 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  relax dude

Naw, let him champion the barely grade-school equating of email correspondence to personal pornography.

You STILL don't get it?

The "personal" porn was sent by email.

So we are comparing one email correspondence to another.

How far will you go to NOT understand?

(11-15-2019 02:44 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  The thread title implies that there are a lot of racists in the GOP. It in no way implies that there are none among the democrats.

Stephen Miller is racist and if the republican party were interested in refuting the narrative that this title thread suggests, they would do well to disown him.

When I say republican party, I do not mean you personally, #s.

And Elizabeth Warren is arguably socialist and her programs arguably communist in nature. If the Democratic party were interested in refuting the narrative of 'why all these communists join the Democratic party' suggests, they would do well to disown her. Funny that.

(11-15-2019 02:44 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  The thread title implies that there are a lot of racists in the GOP. It in no way implies that there are none among the democrats.

If "all the racists keep joining the GOP," then by definition there would be none among the democrats.

My best guess would be that there are a few racists in each party, and that they comprise very small minorities of each.

With respect to Tanq's point, I would guess that there are far fewer racists in either party than there are collectivists--communists, socialists, or fascists--among the democrats.

Personally, I am a libertarian. Both parties favor far too much big government and not nearly enough individual liberties for my taste.

(11-15-2019 06:31 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-15-2019 05:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-15-2019 05:45 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  relax dude

Naw, let him champion the barely grade-school equating of email correspondence to personal pornography.

You STILL don't get it?

The "personal" porn was sent by email.

So we are comparing one email correspondence to another.

How far will you go to NOT understand?

The transmission method is irrelevant. Apparently there is a massive amount of difference in one thing sent with an expectation of confidence in the material and a second thing sent with an expectation of confidence in the material.

Yes, one is personal porn. And yes, the other is personal information. Please do tell us the enormity of that difference, and please do tell where in lad world the magic line is drawn that so distinguishes 'personal porn' so as to engender such a massive difference in both outlook and treatment in that world?

(11-15-2019 07:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-15-2019 06:31 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-15-2019 05:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-15-2019 05:45 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  relax dude

Naw, let him champion the barely grade-school equating of email correspondence to personal pornography.

You STILL don't get it?

The "personal" porn was sent by email.

So we are comparing one email correspondence to another.

How far will you go to NOT understand?

The transmission method is irrelevant. Apparently there is a massive amount of difference in one thing sent with an expectation of confidence in the material and a second thing sent with an expectation of confidence in the material.

Yes, one is personal porn. And yes, the other is personal information. Please do tell us the enormity of that difference, and please do tell where in lad world the magic line is drawn that so distinguishes 'personal porn' so as to engender such a massive difference in both outlook and treatment in that world?

So we're all good with S. Miller in the White House driving immigration policy? Awesome.

(11-15-2019 09:28 PM)ausowl Wrote:  So we're all good with S. Miller in the White House driving immigration policy? Awesome.

I'm not. But I'm not good with any democrat alternative either.

I'm less concerned with who is driving than I am with where the policy is being driven. I favor more legal immigration, following a merit based model, as is employed by most advanced countries. And I favor elimination of illegal immigration by whatever means necessary. Not because I'm a racist, but because I am a pragmatist.

(11-15-2019 09:28 PM)ausowl Wrote:  

(11-15-2019 07:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-15-2019 06:31 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-15-2019 05:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-15-2019 05:45 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  relax dude

Naw, let him champion the barely grade-school equating of email correspondence to personal pornography.

You STILL don't get it?

The "personal" porn was sent by email.

So we are comparing one email correspondence to another.

How far will you go to NOT understand?

The transmission method is irrelevant. Apparently there is a massive amount of difference in one thing sent with an expectation of confidence in the material and a second thing sent with an expectation of confidence in the material.

Yes, one is personal porn. And yes, the other is personal information. Please do tell us the enormity of that difference, and please do tell where in lad world the magic line is drawn that so distinguishes 'personal porn' so as to engender such a massive difference in both outlook and treatment in that world?

So we're all good with S. Miller in the White House driving immigration policy? Awesome.

I think the better question is not necessarily whom is 'driving immigration policy', but what is the better immigration policy.

And yes, Sessions, Miller, and Bannon were absolutely the architects of a vastly more restrictive immigration stance ---- including zero tolerance and very sharp increases in actual enforcement of existing legal structures.

And for dismantling legal structures that were facially illegal --- such as DAPA *and* facets of DACA.

What has been the alternative from today's left? That is aside from open borders, the primacy of sanctuary cities to disregard enforcement of law, f-ck ICE, and ultimate nirvana stage of passing out amnesty like cotton candy?

And, to be honest, if the issue is to put into question the people behind policies, then perhaps you should also look at the promulgation of people like Van Jones as a 'person who promotes policy' by the previous administration with the same umbrage. Or not. My guess would be on the 'not' in most cases by the left.

Further, if the bar to naming someone a 'racist' is by what sites they have read, or what books they have read --- then I guess you should color me in as one as well. Hate to tell you I have read some of the same sites that the SPCL (loud fing laugh at using the SPCL as a source, but that is another topic entirely) uses as their yardstick -- albeit I read them since one of my first clients as a solo practitioner was an avowed white nationalist. A real one. Not the ones that y'all keep jumping up and down and flapping your wings about.

And I have read 'Camp of Saints' -- back in the mid-80's when it was compared to 'Soylent Green' and wasnt the casue celebre that it seems to be amongst both the dumb*** right *and* the dumb*** left of today. But these are probably the same myna birds that hate the novel 'Submission' for similar reasons. Btw another novel I have read....

But I guess, thank heavens I will never run for office --- as I guess my negative view on open borders *and* the temerity of actually having read 'Camp of Saints' would make me a de facto racist jacktard to the left by insinuation.

The funny thing, is that when you ever read what Miller promotes, it is undoubtedly nationalistic. No arguments there in the slightest. But, what I find absolutely hilarious is the absolutely short-bus level methodologies to equate 'nationalism' to 'white nationalism' by some.

But, I really hate to tell you, that being less than pro-immigration is not ipso facto racist; even being anti-immigration is not ispo facto racist. Perhaps if you all actually read Bannon's and Miller's positions and points on immigration, you might be able to discern the rather glaring difference between the two. Or, you can simply read the SPLC (lol, again) synopsis of their viewpoints and squawk about racism if that is your choice.

(11-15-2019 11:21 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-15-2019 09:28 PM)ausowl Wrote:  

(11-15-2019 07:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-15-2019 06:31 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-15-2019 05:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Naw, let him champion the barely grade-school equating of email correspondence to personal pornography.

You STILL don't get it?

The "personal" porn was sent by email.

So we are comparing one email correspondence to another.

How far will you go to NOT understand?

The transmission method is irrelevant. Apparently there is a massive amount of difference in one thing sent with an expectation of confidence in the material and a second thing sent with an expectation of confidence in the material.

Yes, one is personal porn. And yes, the other is personal information. Please do tell us the enormity of that difference, and please do tell where in lad world the magic line is drawn that so distinguishes 'personal porn' so as to engender such a massive difference in both outlook and treatment in that world?

So we're all good with S. Miller in the White House driving immigration policy? Awesome.

I think the better question is not necessarily whom is 'driving immigration policy', but what is the better immigration policy.

And yes, Sessions, Miller, and Bannon were absolutely the architects of a vastly more restrictive immigration stance ---- including zero tolerance and very sharp increases in actual enforcement of existing legal structures.

And for dismantling legal structures that were facially illegal --- such as DAPA *and* facets of DACA.

What has been the alternative from today's left? That is aside from open borders, the primacy of sanctuary cities to disregard enforcement of law, f-ck ICE, and ultimate nirvana stage of passing out amnesty like cotton candy?

And, to be honest, if the issue is to put into question the people behind policies, then perhaps you should also look at the promulgation of people like Van Jones as a 'person who promotes policy' by the previous administration with the same umbrage. Or not. My guess would be on the 'not' in most cases by the left.

Further, if the bar to naming someone a 'racist' is by what sites they have read, or what books they have read --- then I guess you should color me in as one as well. Hate to tell you I have read some of the same sites that the SPCL (loud fing laugh at using the SPCL as a source, but that is another topic entirely) uses as their yardstick -- albeit I read them since one of my first clients as a solo practitioner was an avowed white nationalist. A real one. Not the ones that y'all keep jumping up and down and flapping your wings about.

And I have read 'Camp of Saints' -- back in the mid-80's when it was compared to 'Soylent Green' and wasnt the casue celebre that it seems to be amongst both the dumb*** right *and* the dumb*** left of today. But these are probably the same myna birds that hate the novel 'Submission' for similar reasons. Btw another novel I have read....

But I guess, thank heavens I will never run for office --- as I guess my negative view on open borders *and* the temerity of actually having read 'Camp of Saints' would make me a de facto racist jacktard to the left by insinuation.

The funny thing, is that when you ever read what Miller promotes, it is undoubtedly nationalistic. No arguments there in the slightest. But, what I find absolutely hilarious is the absolutely short-bus level methodologies to equate 'nationalism' to 'white nationalism' by some.

But, I really hate to tell you, that being less than pro-immigration is not ipso facto racist; even being anti-immigration is not ispo facto racist. Perhaps if you all actually read Bannon's and Miller's positions and points on immigration, you might be able to discern the rather glaring difference between the two. Or, you can simply read the SPLC (lol, again) synopsis of their viewpoints and squawk about racism if that is your choice.

Immigration policy? Trump/Miller walked from a bipartisan DACA fix.

Yes, I do think it matters if you put someone with garbage white nationalist views in charge of policy.

If you want to squawk that Miller doesn't have those views, that's your choice.

(11-15-2019 11:21 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  y some.

But, I really hate to tell you, that being less than pro-immigration is not ipso facto racist; even being anti-immigration is not ispo facto racist.

I don't know anything about Miller. But I do think that the above is a very true statement, and one that most leftists do not understand.

(11-17-2019 03:31 PM)ausowl Wrote:  Trump/Miller walked from a bipartisan DACA fix.

Says here that DACA was the result of executive action. Is there such a thing as a bipartisan executive order?

(11-17-2019 03:31 PM)ausowl Wrote:  

(11-15-2019 11:21 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-15-2019 09:28 PM)ausowl Wrote:  

(11-15-2019 07:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-15-2019 06:31 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  You STILL don't get it?

The "personal" porn was sent by email.

So we are comparing one email correspondence to another.

How far will you go to NOT understand?

The transmission method is irrelevant. Apparently there is a massive amount of difference in one thing sent with an expectation of confidence in the material and a second thing sent with an expectation of confidence in the material.

Yes, one is personal porn. And yes, the other is personal information. Please do tell us the enormity of that difference, and please do tell where in lad world the magic line is drawn that so distinguishes 'personal porn' so as to engender such a massive difference in both outlook and treatment in that world?

So we're all good with S. Miller in the White House driving immigration policy? Awesome.

I think the better question is not necessarily whom is 'driving immigration policy', but what is the better immigration policy.

And yes, Sessions, Miller, and Bannon were absolutely the architects of a vastly more restrictive immigration stance ---- including zero tolerance and very sharp increases in actual enforcement of existing legal structures.

And for dismantling legal structures that were facially illegal --- such as DAPA *and* facets of DACA.

What has been the alternative from today's left? That is aside from open borders, the primacy of sanctuary cities to disregard enforcement of law, f-ck ICE, and ultimate nirvana stage of passing out amnesty like cotton candy?

And, to be honest, if the issue is to put into question the people behind policies, then perhaps you should also look at the promulgation of people like Van Jones as a 'person who promotes policy' by the previous administration with the same umbrage. Or not. My guess would be on the 'not' in most cases by the left.

Further, if the bar to naming someone a 'racist' is by what sites they have read, or what books they have read --- then I guess you should color me in as one as well. Hate to tell you I have read some of the same sites that the SPCL (loud fing laugh at using the SPCL as a source, but that is another topic entirely) uses as their yardstick -- albeit I read them since one of my first clients as a solo practitioner was an avowed white nationalist. A real one. Not the ones that y'all keep jumping up and down and flapping your wings about.

And I have read 'Camp of Saints' -- back in the mid-80's when it was compared to 'Soylent Green' and wasnt the casue celebre that it seems to be amongst both the dumb*** right *and* the dumb*** left of today. But these are probably the same myna birds that hate the novel 'Submission' for similar reasons. Btw another novel I have read....

But I guess, thank heavens I will never run for office --- as I guess my negative view on open borders *and* the temerity of actually having read 'Camp of Saints' would make me a de facto racist jacktard to the left by insinuation.

The funny thing, is that when you ever read what Miller promotes, it is undoubtedly nationalistic. No arguments there in the slightest. But, what I find absolutely hilarious is the absolutely short-bus level methodologies to equate 'nationalism' to 'white nationalism' by some.

But, I really hate to tell you, that being less than pro-immigration is not ipso facto racist; even being anti-immigration is not ispo facto racist. Perhaps if you all actually read Bannon's and Miller's positions and points on immigration, you might be able to discern the rather glaring difference between the two. Or, you can simply read the SPLC (lol, again) synopsis of their viewpoints and squawk about racism if that is your choice.

Immigration policy? Trump/Miller walked from a bipartisan DACA fix.

Yes, I do think it matters if you put someone with garbage white nationalist views in charge of policy.

If you want to squawk that Miller doesn't have those views, that's your choice.

Perhaps you can tell us what the views they have put forward then. That is aside from your puerile comment of '[i]f you want to squawk that Miller doesnt have those views'.

The difference is that I have read the Bannon/Sessions/Miller viewpoint. All you do is flap your fing wings and label them 'white nationalist'.

Now that you have made that strong positive assertion, please state exactly what positions they (or he) promote and espouse. And tell us why they are 'white nationalist' in nature.

I mean you have stated that now unequivocally. Now, I suggest you put some fing proof on the table.

I guess I will be listening to the fing crickets for the response to this one.....

Oh no, they 'walked from a DACA fix'. Perhaps you want to fill us in on the details and the story of that 'proof positive'. And yes, there are a lot of details in that background there. That is, aside from your fing 200,000 foot statement there.

(11-17-2019 04:02 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-17-2019 03:31 PM)ausowl Wrote:  Trump/Miller walked from a bipartisan DACA fix.

Says here that DACA was the result of executive action. Is there such a thing as a bipartisan executive order?

Ausowl is referring to a point where a legislative backing to DACA was put forth. You know, one that actually is constitutional in nature.

Trump did walk back from a very initial support of that legislative action that would have implemented provisions of DACA that are..... spotty.... to be diplomatic.

But ausowl never mentioned any of the other things that were in the air at that time that led to Trump's walking back support of it. Let alone his assertion that Miller is a 'white nationalist.'

Funny thing I have spotted ausowl that Miller is in fact a nationalist; as is Bannon and others in the group to zeroed in on immigration issues. Ausowl still hasnt taken up the invitation to distinguish a 'nationalist' from a 'white nationalist', but still slings that latter term around like fing dollar bills at a sleazy Crescent City biker stripper bar.

Ausowl, again: one can be: a) less than pro-immigration; and b) actually be anti-immigration without being 'white nationalist'. Hey, but why bother being specific and accurate when you have such an *awesome* perjorative to toss around willy nilly.

(11-17-2019 07:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-17-2019 04:02 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-17-2019 03:31 PM)ausowl Wrote:  Trump/Miller walked from a bipartisan DACA fix.

Says here that DACA was the result of executive action. Is there such a thing as a bipartisan executive order?

Ausowl is referring to a point where a legislative backing to DACA was put forth. You know, one that actually is constitutional in nature.

Trump did walk back from a very initial support of that legislative action that would have implemented provisions of DACA that are..... spotty.... to be diplomatic.

But ausowl never mentioned any of the other things that were in the air at that time that led to Trump's walking back support of it. Let alone his assertion that Miller is a 'white nationalist.'

Funny thing I have spotted ausowl that Miller is in fact a nationalist; as is Bannon and others in the group to zeroed in on immigration issues. Ausowl still hasnt taken up the invitation to distinguish a 'nationalist' from a 'white nationalist', but still slings that latter term around like fing dollar bills at a sleazy Crescent City biker stripper bar.

Ausowl, again: one can be: a) less than pro-immigration; and b) actually be anti-immigration without being 'white nationalist'. Hey, but why bother being specific and accurate when you have such an *awesome* perjorative to toss around willy nilly.

I doubt you will hear from him. But I hope you do.

(11-17-2019 07:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-17-2019 04:02 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-17-2019 03:31 PM)ausowl Wrote:  Trump/Miller walked from a bipartisan DACA fix.

Says here that DACA was the result of executive action. Is there such a thing as a bipartisan executive order?

Ausowl is referring to a point where a legislative backing to DACA was put forth. You know, one that actually is constitutional in nature.

Trump did walk back from a very initial support of that legislative action that would have implemented provisions of DACA that are..... spotty.... to be diplomatic.

But ausowl never mentioned any of the other things that were in the air at that time that led to Trump's walking back support of it. Let alone his assertion that Miller is a 'white nationalist.'

Funny thing I have spotted ausowl that Miller is in fact a nationalist; as is Bannon and others in the group to zeroed in on immigration issues. Ausowl still hasnt taken up the invitation to distinguish a 'nationalist' from a 'white nationalist', but still slings that latter term around like fing dollar bills at a sleazy Crescent City biker stripper bar.

Ausowl, again: one can be: a) less than pro-immigration; and b) actually be anti-immigration without being 'white nationalist'. Hey, but why bother being specific and accurate when you have such an *awesome* perjorative to toss around willy nilly.

Are you intentionally being obtuse regarding Miller?

(11-17-2019 08:31 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-17-2019 07:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-17-2019 04:02 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-17-2019 03:31 PM)ausowl Wrote:  Trump/Miller walked from a bipartisan DACA fix.

Says here that DACA was the result of executive action. Is there such a thing as a bipartisan executive order?

Ausowl is referring to a point where a legislative backing to DACA was put forth. You know, one that actually is constitutional in nature.

Trump did walk back from a very initial support of that legislative action that would have implemented provisions of DACA that are..... spotty.... to be diplomatic.

But ausowl never mentioned any of the other things that were in the air at that time that led to Trump's walking back support of it. Let alone his assertion that Miller is a 'white nationalist.'

Funny thing I have spotted ausowl that Miller is in fact a nationalist; as is Bannon and others in the group to zeroed in on immigration issues. Ausowl still hasnt taken up the invitation to distinguish a 'nationalist' from a 'white nationalist', but still slings that latter term around like fing dollar bills at a sleazy Crescent City biker stripper bar.

Ausowl, again: one can be: a) less than pro-immigration; and b) actually be anti-immigration without being 'white nationalist'. Hey, but why bother being specific and accurate when you have such an *awesome* perjorative to toss around willy nilly.

Are you intentionally being obtuse regarding Miller?

Good for you, a non-substantive ad hom. <clap>

(11-17-2019 08:31 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-17-2019 07:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-17-2019 04:02 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-17-2019 03:31 PM)ausowl Wrote:  Trump/Miller walked from a bipartisan DACA fix.

Says here that DACA was the result of executive action. Is there such a thing as a bipartisan executive order?

Ausowl is referring to a point where a legislative backing to DACA was put forth. You know, one that actually is constitutional in nature.

Trump did walk back from a very initial support of that legislative action that would have implemented provisions of DACA that are..... spotty.... to be diplomatic.

But ausowl never mentioned any of the other things that were in the air at that time that led to Trump's walking back support of it. Let alone his assertion that Miller is a 'white nationalist.'

Funny thing I have spotted ausowl that Miller is in fact a nationalist; as is Bannon and others in the group to zeroed in on immigration issues. Ausowl still hasnt taken up the invitation to distinguish a 'nationalist' from a 'white nationalist', but still slings that latter term around like fing dollar bills at a sleazy Crescent City biker stripper bar.

Ausowl, again: one can be: a) less than pro-immigration; and b) actually be anti-immigration without being 'white nationalist'. Hey, but why bother being specific and accurate when you have such an *awesome* perjorative to toss around willy nilly.

Are you intentionally being obtuse regarding Miller?

...says the closed mind.

(11-17-2019 09:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-17-2019 08:31 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-17-2019 07:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-17-2019 04:02 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-17-2019 03:31 PM)ausowl Wrote:  Trump/Miller walked from a bipartisan DACA fix.

Says here that DACA was the result of executive action. Is there such a thing as a bipartisan executive order?

Ausowl is referring to a point where a legislative backing to DACA was put forth. You know, one that actually is constitutional in nature.

Trump did walk back from a very initial support of that legislative action that would have implemented provisions of DACA that are..... spotty.... to be diplomatic.

But ausowl never mentioned any of the other things that were in the air at that time that led to Trump's walking back support of it. Let alone his assertion that Miller is a 'white nationalist.'

Funny thing I have spotted ausowl that Miller is in fact a nationalist; as is Bannon and others in the group to zeroed in on immigration issues. Ausowl still hasnt taken up the invitation to distinguish a 'nationalist' from a 'white nationalist', but still slings that latter term around like fing dollar bills at a sleazy Crescent City biker stripper bar.

Ausowl, again: one can be: a) less than pro-immigration; and b) actually be anti-immigration without being 'white nationalist'. Hey, but why bother being specific and accurate when you have such an *awesome* perjorative to toss around willy nilly.

Are you intentionally being obtuse regarding Miller?

Good for you, a non-substantive ad hom. <clap>

You’re right that someone can want to restrict immigration significantly and not be a white nationalist. But sharing and promoting white nationalist material really undermines that argument.

(11-18-2019 07:20 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  You’re right that someone can want to restrict immigration significantly and not be a white nationalist. But sharing and promoting white nationalist material really undermines that argument.

OK, I am a nationalist. I want to increase legal immigration, based upon a merit system like most of the rest of the advanced world uses. I want to eliminate illegal immigration. And for those already here and working regularly, including the DACA, I would do a guest worker program with no path to citizenship unless they either 1) go back and do it right, or 2) serve a hitch in the military with an honorable discharge (in which case it would be expedited).

So what does that make me?

(11-18-2019 08:10 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-18-2019 07:20 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  You’re right that someone can want to restrict immigration significantly and not be a white nationalist. But sharing and promoting white nationalist material really undermines that argument.

OK, I am a nationalist. I want to increase legal immigration, based upon a merit system like most of the rest of the advanced world uses. I want to eliminate illegal immigration. And for those already here and working regularly, including the DACA, I would do a guest worker program with no path to citizenship unless they either 1) go back and do it right, or 2) serve a hitch in the military with an honorable discharge (in which case it would be expedited).

So what does that make me?

I don’t know - you?

The conversation started based on the emails Miller sent and the material he was providing in them. He regularly provided information from white nationalist/racist sources and media.

This would be like arguing someone wasn’t a communist if they shared the Communist Manifesto in rationalizing why someone should support the government expanding social programs. That’s a hard perspective to sell, but someone supporting the expansion of social programs isn’t automatically a communist.

(11-18-2019 08:15 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-18-2019 08:10 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-18-2019 07:20 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  You’re right that someone can want to restrict immigration significantly and not be a white nationalist. But sharing and promoting white nationalist material really undermines that argument.

OK, I am a nationalist. I want to increase legal immigration, based upon a merit system like most of the rest of the advanced world uses. I want to eliminate illegal immigration. And for those already here and working regularly, including the DACA, I would do a guest worker program with no path to citizenship unless they either 1) go back and do it right, or 2) serve a hitch in the military with an honorable discharge (in which case it would be expedited).
So what does that make me?

I don’t know - you?

So, on the facts I quoted, you don't know? That screams of a mindset that is going to yell "racist" at every disagreement.

Quote:The conversation started based on the emails Miller sent and the material he was providing in them. He regularly provided information from white nationalist/racist sources and media.
This would be like arguing someone wasn’t a communist if they shared the Communist Manifesto in rationalizing why someone should support the government expanding social programs. That’s a hard perspective to sell, but someone supporting the expansion of social programs isn’t automatically a communist.

The conversation started from post #1 on this thread, which was set up very cleverly to suggest that republicans were racist because some people who are considered racist favored republicans. I challenged that assertion in post #2.

White racists clearly favor republicans, Black racists and race-baiters clearly favor democrats. The question I have is why must republicans denounce racists or else be subject to the racist smear, but democrats get to embrace their racists with no consequences?