Christian Persecution vs Persecuted Christians

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

Yes, the race was open to Republicans. He couldn't win as a Democrat not because he wouldn't get votes or that only Republicans would vote for a racist, but because it was an opportunity open to Republicans at the time.
It doesn't. If that's the argument -- that there are racists in the Republican party, then I can agree and we can be done: there are racists in the Republican party. If the argument is that some racists have had high positions, then we can agree and be done: there have been some racists holding high positions in the Republican party. I find neither of those statement objectionable or arguable.
My argument is that the party isn't racist because of that. To whit, I offer the counter observations that the Democrat party has racist elements, and that racists have held high positions in the Democrat party.

Sure, the democrats had their racist in high positions, but then they rushed off to the republican party (dixiecrats). I believe the point is that currently, the republican party is racist, or at least seen as racist. The republican party is courting a racist element in their electorate. Their policies are geared towards limiting the rights of minorities. Whether purposefully or not, that is the end result. Primary campaigns have turned into a contest of who can say the most outrageous things about some group that is different than the republican base. Considering that the republican base looks very old and white, it usually ends up being a minority group that gets ripped on for the sake of attracting votes. If republicans are pandering to racist, they are being racist. I mean, you have to in order to pander to racists.

He never one another one, and I'm not arguing that he didn't win an election. There's a 2 year old mayor of a town out there right now, so that's a benchmark of low quality. He won a special election to a state house, and lost it promptly the next election with stiff opprobrium from the party. Hardly a case of him being a solid representative of the Republican party as a whole.

Well how bad was the other republican candidate that the racist won the election?

Yes, and he even lampshaded that particular argument quite well by pointing out that it's guilt by association before he went on and made the guilt by association argument. Very well done, rhetorically, except that pointing out it's a bad argument before going on an making that argument doesn't magically absolve you of making a bad argument.

As much as you may want it to be different, you'll be judged by whom you hang out with. If you're hanging out with a bunch of thugs and junkies, are you going to be surprised if you get labeled a thug and/or junkie? If you hang out with a bunch of swastika tattooed KKK members, would you be surprised if you were labeled a racist? Sure, guilt by association may sometimes get it wrong

Really? It was talked about widely in the media, and many of the other candidates specifically called it out as racist. A trivial google search turns up loads of hits on this. Here's one.

Let's look at what they actually say:

“I’ve said very clearly that Donald Trump does not represent the Republican Party,” Rick Perry said Sunday on ABC’s This Week. “I was offended by his remarks. Listen, Hispanics in America and Hispanics in Texas, from the Alamo to Afghanistan, have been extraordinary people, citizens of our country and of our state.”

Note he says that Trump is not representative of the republican party and Hispanics are not bad. He doesn't call out Trump for being a racist, or saying racist things. He just gives Trump this tepid slap on the wrist.

Mike Huckabee, speaking on CNN’s State of the Union, said Trump “made a severe error in saying what he did about Mexican-Americans, and it is unfortunate.”

Sounds more like its more about political strategy rather than about the substance of what Trump has said. He doesn't say Trump is wrong. He just says Trump made an error in saying it.

Bush seems to be the only one to really say that trump is wrong, but even he is very measured in his response.

Meanwhile, you get republicans like Ted Cruz who salute Trump for his comments because calling all Mexicans criminals and rapists is the way to focus attention on immigration.

In any case, saying that the republican party is racist doesn't limit that racism to the republican politicians. The republican voters are also counted in that. Look who is leading in the polls. Trump, the guy who said that all Mexican immigrants are criminals and rapists, and Carson, the guy that suggested we drone immigrants crossing the boarder and that a Muslim could not be President.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I suppose that fact that David switched from the Democrat party to the Republican party just to be able to run, and how he carried the white Democrat vote as well isn't truthy enough. Or how he was repudiated at every turn by the Republican party, and failed to win any elections except the special runoff to the Louisiana State House, the one he swapped parties to run in?

Yeah, a bunch of opinion pieces making vague and weasel worded accusations that Duke is somehow relevant to the Republican Party isn't exactly a bedrock foundation.

1) I was in my hometown of NOLA when Duke beat out incumbent buddy Roemer to force a runoff between himself and the former governed and convicted criminal Edwin Edwards. People actually interviewed on TV wanted to vote for Duke, but said they wouldn't purely because big companies like Apple said they'd pull out of the state if Duke were elected.

2) did you note that the Op-Eds were from bit the Left and Right? The reason Duke gets pointed out as a historical catalyst is that his rhetoric and policies keep getting recycled by the current radical right, and this is lost on neither side of the political spectrum.

 

[Ovinomancer]

1) I was in my hometown of NOLA when Duke beat out incumbent buddy Roemer to force a runoff between himself and the former governed and convicted criminal Edwin Edwards. People actually interviewed on TV wanted to vote for Duke, but said they wouldn't purely because big companies like Apple said they'd pull out of the state if Duke were elected.

Straight up? You guys were screwed. Vote for the lizard, not the wizard? Crikey. There's a lot of issues down Louisiana way, although I do love the food in nawlins.

2) did you note that the Op-Eds were from bit the Left and Right? The reason Duke gets pointed out as a historical catalyst is that his rhetoric and policies keep getting recycled by the current radical right, and this is lost on neither side of the political spectrum.

No. I'm not intimately familiar with the slant of the writers of the op-eds, and there aren't any banners. Which are which? Idle curiosity, though, as I don't think that that improves your argument much.

 

[Umbran]

Idle curiosity, though, as I don't think that that improves your argument much.

That some of the "weasel worded accusations" that he is relevant to the party come from folks in the party doesn't matter?

Perhaps you need statistically relevant polling of the party before you'll accept something as being relevant to the party?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Perhaps you need statistically relevant polling of the party before you'll accept something as being relevant to the party?

I know Associated Press and Public Policy Polling have a few.

The AP's 2012 poll does show that a simple majority (51%) of ALL Ameicans in general harbor anti-black positions, but further showed there were more holding such views in the GOP than in the Democratic party. In fairness, though, they also showed a general decline in bigotry across the board since 1997.

The Dems are healing themselves faster, though. One question asked participants attitudes about interracial dating/marriage. In 1997, a similar AP poll pegged the numbers at about 33% GOPers and 31% of Dems being opposed to them. In 2012, the GOP had dropped that number to 18%...but the Dems were sitting at 5%.

 

[Ovinomancer]

That some of the "weasel worded accusations" that he is relevant to the party come from folks in the party doesn't matter?

Perhaps you need statistically relevant polling of the party before you'll accept something as being relevant to the party?

Sorry, I realize that I used jargon and wasn't clear. What I mean by 'weasel words' are things like "might," "may," "could," etc. They are words that allow a perception to be created without actually doing the work to show that perception. Use of these words when discussing facts is a sign that the discussion has moved from a factual basis to speculation, with all of the attendant issues of speculation, but still appears to be fact based. I've had technical work published and 'weasel words' was jargon we used to identify when we were "selling instead of telling." Words that end in -ly are often the same when used in fact based articles.

And as for polling and 'relevant,' there's a lot that's relevant to the party that I wouldn't look to polling for, but if you're describing relevant as applying to the whole party, then, yeah, statistical polling would be a great starting point. I see Danny has done some work on this (thanks, Danny) and it looks like racism is a dwindling issue in the party, and certainly couldn't be used to describe the party as a whole.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I know Associated Press and Public Policy Polling have a few.

The AP's 2012 poll does show that a simple majority (51%) of ALL Ameicans in general harbor anti-black positions, but further showed there were more holding such views in the GOP than in the Democratic party. In fairness, though, they also showed a general decline in bigotry across the board since 1997.

The Dems are healing themselves faster, though. One question asked participants attitudes about interracial dating/marriage. In 1997, a similar AP poll pegged the numbers at about 33% GOPers and 31% of Dems being opposed to them. In 2012, the GOP had dropped that number to 18%...but the Dems were sitting at 5%.

Thanks, good stuff.

 

[Ryujin]

To inform the racism debate: In Canada we are in the last two weeks of a Federal election campaign. The incumbent Conservative government has been pushing the issue of the niqab (face covering worn by some Muslim women) as an 'important' issue. They've been talking about banning it, in law, during citizenship ceremonies and in Federal public sector workplaces. I can't speak to the Federal workplace issue but it would seem that precisely two woman have EVER requested to wear the niqab during the swearing in ceremony. It should also be noted that the ceremony and the actual official swearing in are separate events.

In other words this is a clear appeal to bigotry.

 

[Ovinomancer]

To inform the racism debate: In Canada we are in the last two weeks of a Federal election campaign. The incumbent Conservative government has been pushing the issue of the niqab (face covering worn by some Muslim women) as an 'important' issue. They've been talking about banning it, in law, during citizenship ceremonies and in Federal public sector workplaces. I can't speak to the Federal workplace issue but it would seem that precisely two woman have EVER requested to wear the niqab during the swearing in ceremony. It should also be noted that the ceremony and the actual official swearing in are separate events.

In other words this is a clear appeal to bigotry.

How so? I mean, I'm not disagreeing with you, but all you've done here is set the stage and then jumped to the conclusion. Are we meant to understand exactly what you think is bigotry, here? Is it the call for the policy change to require not covering your face for citizenship ceremonies, the Conservatives using it as a wedge issue, both, or neither?

 

[Ryujin]

How so? I mean, I'm not disagreeing with you, but all you've done here is set the stage and then jumped to the conclusion. Are we meant to understand exactly what you think is bigotry, here? Is it the call for the policy change to require not covering your face for citizenship ceremonies, the Conservatives using it as a wedge issue, both, or neither?

It's the conflation of the entire issue. There have been, as stated, precisely two women who requested to wear the niqab during the swearing in ceremony. Both of these women removed the niqab, in private and with appropriate officials, for the ACTUAL swearing in (not the public ceremony). So now the Conservatives crank it up to 11 for this issue, which is a non-issue, in an effort to capture the xenophobe vote.

Let's be plain here. I freely admit that the niqab makes me uncomfortable. I've worked with a woman who for the first 5 years I knew her didn't wear one, then suddenly started to. It still makes me jump a little. I think that in cases in which positive identification is needed (passport, driver's license, citizenship documentation) the niqab should be removed. I also think that covering your face from your fellow citizens, when taking the symbolic pledge, has very bad optics. Im also, however, not the one who is doing it and feels that it's a religious requirement. (There's a debate to be had over that also, that could go on for weeks.) The Cliff's Notes is that it's two people, out of literal millions, and so is a drop in the bucket. It's a non issue as when it's required, those same two women did remove it for identification.