"Well, what's wrong with slavery?"

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

Nothing, according to conservative radio host Jan Mickelson. It's interesting how people that hold up "freedom" and the Constitution with the passion that conservatives do, still manage to espouse denying others their rights.

 

[Kramodlog]

"And then we start to extort or exploit or indenture your labor."

I'm pretty sure this can happen to immigrants without being property of the state.

I can already hear someone say "It is about building a better tomorrow with the illegals of today!".

I wonder if it is part of an up coming wave started by Trump. He gets to say all sort of racist things without negative consequences to his campaign. A lot of supporters say that he speaks the truth without being politically correct, which really means saying racist stuff without caring. Maybe the host feels more confortable saying hateful things now. Not that conservative talk show host really were shy before.

 

[was]

...First off, let me qualify my post by stating that I am certainly not a conservative on social issues. That being said, it has always amazed me how partisan publications, from both parties, are able to dig up such totally obscure sources and paint them as being the typical attitude, or belief, for the opposing party or region. I find it absolutely appalling for any 'news' publication to willingly sow such ignorance.

...While I have traveled throughout the U.S. and overseas, I have lived in Iowa for much of my life. I currently live Des Moines, an area which also tends to vote liberal, where apparently this show originates. I had never heard of this Jan Mickelson person until the Huffington Post article with his comments was posted here. He certainly is not much of a controversial, or popular figure, in this area. His shows does not even appear to be advertised on local billboards or television. What the Post has really done, in their pointed article, is to draw potential supporters to an unknown broadcaster.

...Finally, not many people around here bother to turn on AM radio unless the tornado sirens are sounding.

 

[Kramodlog]

...First off, let me qualify my post by stating that I am not certainly not conservative on such social issues. That being said, it has always amazed me how partisan publications, from both parties, are able to dig up such totally obscure sources and paint them as being the typical attitude, or belief, for the opposing party or region. I find it absolutely appalling for any news publication to willingly sow such ignorance.

Well, its an attitude that is typical enough among Republicans that it lets Trump be the leading Republican candidates in polls. Enough that other candidates wanted to join in the ban wagon and started using terms like "anchor babies".

 

[was]

Well, its an attitude that is typical enough among Republicans that it lets Trump be the leading Republican candidates in polls. Enough that other candidates wanted to join in the ban wagon and started using terms like "anchor babies".

...Concern over the expense of dealing with illegal immigration is certainly not unique to the Republicans. What is different, between the two parties, is the perceived urgency of the problem. Many of the current Republican candidates are seeking support from southern / southwestern voters who deal with the issue on a daily basis. With family down in Yuma, AZ, very close to the border, I hear weekly about the problems they are having with illegal immigrants, particularly in regards to drugs and violence. Many of those voters are simply infuriated with the refusal of the federal government to deal with it.

...The term 'anchor babies' has been present since the Regan elections in the 1980's. Elections which saw a mass migration of conservative, southern Democrats, disgruntled with civil rights legislation, into the Republican party. Prior to this point, the 'typical Republican' was defined as being socially moderate while still fiscally conservative. When you actually dig past the media stereotypes, you find a range of voters (from liberal to conservative) within each party.

...I think Trump's current popularity is a basic, knee-jerk reaction by people fed up with an unresponsive government. IMO, his attraction will wane once the primaries get closer and people start actually getting serious about making a real choice.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

...First off, let me qualify my post by stating that I am certainly not a conservative on social issues. That being said, it has always amazed me how partisan publications, from both parties, are able to dig up such totally obscure sources and paint them as being the typical attitude, or belief, for the opposing party or region. I find it absolutely appalling for any 'news' publication to willingly sow such ignorance.

Well, first, both sides actively monitor each other. Any politician or person with a high profile who does not understand this is asking to get pilloried.

Second, because you are not a conservative means that you are unlikely to have heard of this guy, but the fact that politicians are willing to go on his show means he's got some kind of pull with the party's base. And THAT should frighten you.

'Cause here's the thing: he says that he's had all of the current GOP candidates on the show save Jeb, and further, that he meant that particular broadcast in a "Swiftian" sense.

https://mobile.twitter.com/amtalker/status/634072768926105600

...but how many out there- left or right- will get that (true or not)?

If a significant number of his listeners are unaware that he may have been engaging in extreme political sarcasm, that will inflame the radical right to action...political and otherwise. We've already seen assaults on minorities inspired by the much less inflammatory words of Donald Trump.

 

[was]

Well, first, both sides actively monitor each other. Any politician or person with a high profile who does not understand this is asking to get pilloried.

Second, because you are not a conservative means that you are unlikely to have heard of this guy, but the fact that politicians are willing to go on his show means he's got some kind of pull with the party's base. And THAT should frighten you.

..I'll admit that you might be right. I do, however, find the alleged popularity of talk show host who merits no local billboards or television advertising less than credible. It might just be that with the plethora of conservative candidates out there, many of whom were excluded from nationalized televised debates, many are simply desperately grasping at any source of media attention.

 

[was]

he says that he's had all of the current GOP candidates on the show save Jeb

..I wonder if they were 'on' the show in person or via telephone/twitter. That knowledge would be a greater indicator of his 'pull.'

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

..I'll admit that you might be right. I do, however, find the alleged popularity of talk show host who merits no local billboards or television advertising less than credible. It might just be that with the plethora of conservative candidates out there, many of whom were excluded from nationalized televised debates, many are simply desperately grasping at any source of media attention.

He's not seeking THEM out- they're coming to him. And have for some time, apparently.
http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/05/20/to-win-in-iowa-gop-candidates-must-win-over-thi/203709

..I wonder if they were 'on' the show in person or via telephone/twitter. That knowledge would be a greater indicator of his 'pull.'

Most likely via telephone. That's pretty standard unless the broadcaster ALSO has a TV show or the like- see Rush, Beck, Imus, Stern, etc.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

...Concern over the expense of dealing with illegal immigration is certainly not unique to the Republicans. What is different, between the two parties, is the perceived urgency of the problem. Many of the current Republican candidates are seeking support from southern / southwestern voters who deal with the issue on a daily basis. With family down in Yuma, AZ, very close to the border, I hear weekly about the problems they are having with illegal immigrants, particularly in regards to drugs and violence. Many of those voters are simply infuriated with the refusal of the federal government to deal with it.

The urgency of the problem? No, far from it.
[sblock=The differences is the extreme reaction republicans have to immigrants and the violence they believe should be used deal with immigrants.]

The political right in America has been flirting with dangerous ideas for a while now, particularly on issues involving immigrants and minorities. But in the last few years the rhetoric has gotten particularly crazy.

Texas Congressman Louie Gohmert proposed using troops and ships of war to stop an invasion of immigrant children, whom he described as a 28 Days Later-style menace. "We don't even know all of the diseases, and how extensive the diseases are," he said.

"A lot of head lice, a lot of scabies," concurred another Texas congressman, Blake Farenthold.

"I'll do anything short of shooting them," promised Mo Brooks, a congressman from the enlightened state of Alabama¹.

Then there's Iowa's Steve King, who is unusually stupid even for a congressman. He not only believes a recent Supreme Court decision on gay marriage allows people to marry inanimate objects, but also believes the EPA may have intentionally spilled three million gallons of toxic waste into Colorado's Animas river in order to get Superfund money.

Late last year, King asked people to "surround the president's residence" in response to Barack Obama's immigration policies. He talked about putting "boots on the ground" and said "everything is on the table" in the fight against immigrants.

So all of this was in the ether even before Donald Trump exploded into the headlines with his "They're rapists" line, and before his lunatic, Game of Thrones idea to build a giant wall along the southern border. But when Trump surged in the polls on the back of this stuff, it caused virtually all of the candidates to escalate their anti-immigrant rhetoric.

For example, we just had Ben Carson – who seems on TV like a gentle, convivial doctor who's just woken up from a nice nap – come out and suggest that he's open to using drone strikes on U.S. soil against undocumented immigrants. Bobby Jindal recently came out and said mayors in the so-called "sanctuary cities" should be arrested when undocumented immigrants commit crimes. Scott Walker and Marco Rubio have both had to change their positions favoring paths to citizenship as a result of the new dynamic.

Meanwhile, Rick Santorum, polling at a brisk zero percent, joined Jindal and Lindsey Graham in jumping aboard with Trump's insane plan to toss the 14th Amendment out the window and revoke the concept of birthright citizenship, thereby extending the war on immigrants not just to children, but babies.

All of this bleeds out into the population. When a politician says dumb thing X, it normally takes ‘Murica about two days to start flirting publicly with X + way worse.

[/sblock]

...The term 'anchor babies' has been present since the Regan elections in the 1980's. Elections which saw a mass migration of conservative, southern Democrats, disgruntled with civil rights legislation, into the Republican party. Prior to this point, the 'typical Republican' was defined as being socially moderate while still fiscally conservative. When you actually dig past the media stereotypes, you find a range of voters (from liberal to conservative) within each party.

Reagan was pretty damn racist, and he attracted like minded people.

I think Trump's current popularity is a basic, knee-jerk reaction by people fed up with an unresponsive government. IMO, his attraction will wane once the primaries get closer and people start actually getting serious about making a real choice.

That's what moderate republicans are hopping for. It doesn't look like it's going to happen. Trump's numbers have continued to stay high. He keeps drawing large crowds of republican voters to his rallies.



[sblock=1]At least he wasn't willing to shoot them. That's an improvement, right?[/sblock]