Republicans want Steve King out, but are they really against white nationalism?

Applesauce

@piloteer

Are the republicans actually against white nationalism?

what makes you think they are for white nationalism?
you do know there are blacks and other minorities in the Republican party, right?

Zombieguy1987

piloteer said:

A lot of people are pointing out that Steve King didn't do well in his reelection bid. Some have suggested that the real reason the republicans want to distance themselves from him is because he probably won't win in the 2020 elections and will end up surrendering his seat to a Democrat. Are the republicans actually against white nationalism?

nothing sounds like being for white nationalism when the Republican Party has people who aren't white

piloteer

@Applesauce

I'm not claiming that the Republicans are necessarily a party that represents the ideals of white nationalism or white supremacy. I'm just trying to have a discussion on whether the republicans are trying to oust Steve King because they believe his remarks were "inconsistent with the parties ideals", or are they just trying to get rid of a representative who could potentially lose his seat to a Democrat? I notice you claim that the Republicans have "blacks and minorities" within their ranks. That is a valid point, but it doesn't even touch the real question here, which is, what is the true motivation of the republicans actions against Steve King? 

YeshuaBought

My pastor is a Republican, and he agrees with me on racial unity. Thinks for yourself, not a collectivist party.

Applesauce

@piloteer

I see, well I think it's very simple really.  Steven King is making the group look bad, as in any group, when that happens, most of the time you cut them loose.  If this were a business, he would get fired for making the company look bad, so I don't think there's much we can make of this one way or the other.
though I find the selective outrage hypocritical
https://clashdaily.com/2014/04/9-racist-things-big-democrats-said-media-forgotten/

piloteer

@Applesauce ;

I don't think Steve King said anything worse than our President. I would agree with you that most white Democrats are racist, but that certainly doesn't exonerate the republicans. I fail to see how anything you've said proves that the republicans are trying to to get rid of Steve King because he's a racist.

Applesauce

piloteer said:

@Applesauce ;

I don't think Steve King said anything worse than our President. I would agree with you that most white Democrats are racist, but that certainly doesn't exonerate the republicans. I fail to see how anything you've said proves that the republicans are trying to to get rid of Steve King because he's a racist.

where did I say anything about proving republicans are trying to get rid of him because he's racist?  are you confusing me with someone else, because I never said anything remotely like that.
I'm not sure you can prove it regardless.  Some did say he should be fired for his racist remarks, but a few don't speak for the whole group, so unless there's some kind of poll or they ask each and every single republican it would be impossible to attribute motive.

piloteer

@Applesauce

Ummm, well since there are people calling on him to resign because of his remarks, I guess it wouldn't be impossible to establish a motive. The reason for this discussion is whether we believe the republicans when they say they want him out because he's a racist, or do we just accept that the republicans don't care at all that he's a racist, they just want to make sure his seat stays with the republicans. 

Applesauce

@piloteer
I don't actually know what he said or how he replied to the criticism, people do say things they don't really mean, perhaps we should examine what he said and the context he said it in.

CYDdharta

piloteer said:

@Applesauce ;

I don't think Steve King said anything worse than our President. I would agree with you that most white Democrats are racist, but that certainly doesn't exonerate the republicans. I fail to see how anything you've said proves that the republicans are trying to to get rid of Steve King because he's a racist.

Hmmm, So when a Republican makes racist remarks, the Republicans chastise him and try to drum him out of Congress.  When Democrats make racist remarks, like Hillary and Biden, the Dem establishment promotes them to the highest levels in the party.  Makes sense for the party of segregation and the Klan.

MayCaesar

There are millions Republicans in America. I do not think questions such as "Do Republicans want...?" are valid in this context.

Next, action matters more than the intent. It does not matter to me what reasons the Republican management put behind the narrative against Steve King (whoever it is; I do not know anything about him), what matters is that the narrative exists and will lead to action. The right action taken for the wrong reasons is still the right action.

Finally, I would prefer the party so focused on the ideal of free speech to promote free speech among its own members. If the party does not like the behavior of one of its members, it should not take action against him/her, as long as he/she follows the general rules of the party.

Overall, politics seems more and more like a game of adults to me. People's feelings get hurt over the slightest comments, leading them to drastic action. Perhaps all those people in suits should focus more on their actual job, such as what they can do for this country to improve it - than on political squabbles.

Vincent_Costanzo

Of course we are. In fact, I find the fact that the Republican party is consistently excommunicating members who say the kinds of things that King did is indicative of the fact the Republicans are consistent in their views against white nationalism. Contrast that with the Democratic party who openly laud anti-Semites and have open anti-Semites in their own party. Only now after coming under pressure from the right have the Democrats distanced themselves from the Women's March which has open anti Semitic leadership. But they have yet to cast out the members of their own party who share their views and they refuse to condemn the views of people like Louis Farrakhan. So the question isn't if Republicans are against white nationalism because we consistently clean house. The question is "are Democrats against Antisemitism?" They never clean house, they refuse to even condemn the idea of antisemitism.

piloteer

@MayCaesar

I'm plain and simply shocked at how obtuse your argument is. I know you can do better than this.

 First off, you claim- ***"(You) would prefer the party so focused on the ideal of free speech to promote free speech among its own members. If the party does not like the behavior of one of its members, it should not take action against him/her, as long as he/she follows the general rules of the party."***

 If a member of either party stood before the house of representatives and exclaimed that we should abandon the constitution and swear allegiance to the memory of hitler, are you gonna say that they shouldn't be barred their freedom to do so? Ya, of course anybody has the right to say that, but there are ramifications for such actions. Freedom of speech does not protect you from the repercussions of hate speech. 

"@Vincent_Costanzo "@CYDdharta

I don't deny that the democrats are racist, but how does that exonerate the republicans?

"@Applesauce ;

Steve King questioned why white nationalism is so offensive.

CYDdharta

piloteer said:

@MayCaesar

I'm plain and simply shocked at how obtuse your argument is. I know you can do better than this.

 First off, you claim- ***"(You) would prefer the party so focused on the ideal of free speech to promote free speech among its own members. If the party does not like the behavior of one of its members, it should not take action against him/her, as long as he/she follows the general rules of the party."***

 If a member of either party stood before the house of representatives and exclaimed that we should abandon the constitution and swear allegiance to the memory of hitler, are you gonna say that they shouldn't be barred their freedom to do so? Ya, of course anybody has the right to say that, but there are ramifications for such actions. Freedom of speech does not protect you from the repercussions of hate speech.

LOL, 4 posts to prove Godwin's law.

"@Vincent_Costanzo "@CYDdharta

I don't deny that the democrats are racist, but how does that exonerate the republicans?

Democrats are all racists, Republicans are all racists, everyone is a bigot.

MayCaesar

@piloteer

Yes, I do think that a person swearing allegiance to the memory of Hitler has a place in a political party promoting freedom of speech. Now, I do not think that the party has no right to take action against that person: the party, after all, is a private organization. However, this factor alone does not seem to me as sufficient for the action against the person to be reasonable.

I believe that pluralism of opinions within a political party is a healthy thing. If someone worships Hitler for some reason, but still follows the general ideals of the party, then I, if I were another member of that party, would prefer a healthy discussion with them to ostracizion. Of course, there are certain boundaries you just do not overstep - but one disagreement on something, or a few controversial statements, do not seem like such a boundary to me.

It is the same thing as on campuses, where right-wing opinions are often ostracized. Someone said they do not accept transsexualism - and immediately they are denied all possible platforms, and the "Diversity departments" take action against them to try to suspend their employment.
I think people who do not accept transsexualism are narrowminded - but, first, their opinion is still an opinion, and second, their opinion does not even relate to their employment duties. The university has the right to deny them a platform - and yet denying them a platform is petty and unreasonable.

piloteer

@MayCaesar

***"Yes, I do think that a person swearing allegiance to the memory of Hitler has a place in a political party promoting freedom of speech."***

Huh?!?!? . So ummm, if I organized a "political party (for) promoting freedom of speech", probably the last person I'd want in my party is someone who claims that we should abandon the constitution and swear allegiance to the memory of hitler. The nazis didn't have the best track record with free speech. In fact, they openly argued against free speech. 

This discussion is about whether the republicans are distancing themselves from Steve King because of his racist comments, or because he's possibly going to lose his seat to a democrat. It sounds to me like you don't care that Steve King made the comments, and you are happy to hear that he did make the comments because we should be promoting free speech.(even if that free speech is ultimately against free speech). 

The republican party is NOT a private organization. All the elected officials are elected by the public. As far as colleges go, if it is a private college, they should have the right to promote whatever agenda they like. If public colleges are pushing social justice agendas that you disagree with, it is up to you and all who agree with you, to voice your discontent with their practices. If enough people are able to sway popular opinion on the matter, perhaps the schools will change their agendas. But just accepting hate speech from one sector of society, simply to combat the "petty and unreasonable" actions of another sector of society will not balance anything, it will only cause further mistrust and polarization.

I'm starting to think that some people on this thread think I'm talking about ALL people who identify as republicans. I would never assume that someone is automatically a racist simply because they're a republican, or a democrat. I would however consider someone a racist if they question what is so offensive about white nationalism, or white supremacy. This discussion is about the actions of the republicans in the house of representatives toward Steve King. I find it strange that they claim to want to censure him for comments he made, but they steadfastly stand behind the president who has said some egregious things also. What is their true motive here? Is it because they don't like what he said, or because he could lose a seat for the republicans in 2020? 

CYDdharta

piloteer said:

@MayCaesar

It sounds to me like you don't care that Steve King made the comments, and you are happy to hear that he did make the comments because we should be promoting free speech.(even if that free speech is ultimately against free speech).

If it's good enough for college campuses all across the country, why would you criticize Steve King?  SJW idiots are constantly trying to shut down free speech under the guise of free speech.

whiteflame

I think it's a pretty simple and straightforward issue with Steve King: he won a House seat with some consistency, which allowed the Republican Party to hang onto a seat of some importance in Iowa, a state whose caucuses are extremely important. They had little reason to change candidates, largely because he represented a small minority of the party with his views while voting with the party line on most everything. He's being targeted because he's become a more visible liability to the party and isn't really helpful in his role in the House, as the Democrats now have a majority there. Truth is there probably isn't much actual outrage among Republicans for what he's said, though that's how they have characterized the decision in some circles. Coming back to the main question, does that mean Republicans aren't really against white nationalism? I'm sure many of them are against white nationalism, they're just willing to accept it in their ranks so long as those candidates provide them with meaningful support. Democrats have been willing to accept unsavory characters as well for long periods of time. Steve King is a more outrageous example in some ways, but I don't think he embodies some widely-held views among Republicans. He's certainly representative of what the party accepted for political expediency these past 16 years, and I do hope what they present as outrage will be reflected in the candidates they support for 2020 and beyond.

piloteer

@CYDdharta

I don't condone that type of behavior from Steve King, and the supposed "SJWs". I fail to see how accepting the racist banter of one sector of society will somehow balance the oppressive agenda of another sector of society. Accepting one type of oppressive collectivism to combat another type of oppressive collectivism will eventually leave society with only two choices, and each are equally oppressive and not conducive to our civil liberties. It's funny how both those agendas that are supposedly opposed to one another, are winning at working toward the same goal, and in the end the only loser will be our liberty.

piloteer

@whiteflame

You and I both hope that what the Republicans present as outrage will be reflected in the candidates they support for 2020, but I have my reservations. The midterms sorta dissipated some of the extreme right wing steam, but the Democratic party aren't gonna go back to business as usual, it will almost certainly be a loss for them. They'll need a fresh new face, and I'm squeamish to see what kind of agendas they'll be pushing. Now that the most hideous forms of extremist conservatism are accepted more and more, I'm anxious to find what kind of vommit inducing rhetoric the radical left can come up with to combat the Republicans. Just so were all on the same page here, I'm not accusing the Republican party of being racist, and the same goes for the Democratic party, but it seems that they are both looking for the seething extremist sectors of their respective parties for shock value, and the outcome is ugly. It's almost as if the centrists are becoming the minority.

CYDdharta

piloteer said:

@CYDdharta

I don't condone that type of behavior from Steve King, and the supposed "SJWs". I fail to see how accepting the racist banter of one sector of society will somehow balance the oppressive agenda of another sector of society. Accepting one type of oppressive collectivism to combat another type of oppressive collectivism will eventually leave society with only two choices, and each are equally oppressive and not conducive to our civil liberties. It's funny how both those agendas that are supposedly opposed to one another, are winning at working toward the same goal, and in the end the only loser will be our liberty.

You don't condone that behavior from SJWs???  Then why haven't you ever called it out? 

You also fail to see that what is far and away the exception for the GOP is the mainstream of the Dems.  SJWs aren't losing power in their party, they're gaining power.  The Dems don't disavow ANTIFA, they embrace them.

whiteflame

piloteer said:

@whiteflame

You and I both hope that what the Republicans present as outrage will be reflected in the candidates they support for 2020, but I have my reservations. The midterms sorta dissipated some of the extreme right wing steam, but the Democratic party aren't gonna go back to business as usual, it will almost certainly be a loss for them. They'll need a fresh new face, and I'm squeamish to see what kind of agendas they'll be pushing. Now that the most hideous forms of extremist conservatism are accepted more and more, I'm anxious to find what kind of vommit inducing rhetoric the radical left can come up with to combat the Republicans. Just so were all on the same page here, I'm not accusing the Republican party of being racist, and the same goes for the Democratic party, but it seems that they are both looking for the seething extremist sectors of their respective parties for shock value, and the outcome is ugly. It's almost as if the centrists are becoming the minority.

I agree with you on the uncertainty and reservations regarding how both parties are handling the more radical portions of their bases, though I take some issue with the notion that they are moving towards the extremists. From what I've seen, both sides have largely payed them lip service, aside from a few issues. That being said, I do see reason to be concerned about how things are progressing. My experience with elections and my knowledge of election history showcases swings in general perspectives of the two parties, but there does seem to be a more vocal and extreme response now than I can recall to anything in recent history beyond the Vietnam War. There are elements to both parties that are absolutely fed up, and they're driving a lot of the discourse. I don't know if that means the parties are actively looking to bolster these elements (my impression has been that they're either trying to minimize how much they represent the whole party or otherwise just pretend they are meeting their expectations in order to garner votes), but they're certainly using the fact that these vocal elements exist to make a statement. It's an open question regarding who Democrats will nominate in 2020, and the field is certainly going to be wide enough to encompass a broad set of views within the party. I don't think that's a bad thing, but I do think that it means Democrats will get a candidate who is either going to represent a safe, moderate option or someone who functions as a standard-bearer for something different. Whether that difference is radical leftism or something else is an open question at this point. I also don't think that centrism is inherently good, though I do think that the ability to compromise and respect one another is absolutely necessary. Divisiveness in the government isn't going away anytime soon, and it's about time that our legislators learned to play nice and appreciate what the other side of the aisle represents.

AlofRI

"Republicans" for the most part, have ALWAYS been against white nationalism. The problem now is, there are few, if any, Republicans left! Just a few years ago, 4?, 5? ? the Republican you heard mostly about was Saint Reagan, who could do no wrong. Today, his name is rarely brought up. The Republicans, who had some semblance of decency have been replaced by Retrumplicans … who have little but a wish to have THEIR WAY, or the highway! 
A level of gun control is wanted by over 80% of Americans, many of them conservatives. There is a noisy 20+% that don't give a damn about the majority, but wish to have it THEIR WAY! Mostly what used to be called the "TEA Party". 
NO regulation on gun control will guarantee safety! NO automobile safety regulation, or driving regulation will guarantee safety! BUT, laws against drunk driving, laws against driving without a license, laws about needing a drivers test, an eyesight test, etc. DO save lives. Reasonable gun regulation will do the same. 
Several Constitutional Amendments have been "modified" to "modernize them". The Second could stand some modernization. The Musket is not the weapon of the day, as it was when the Amendment was penned.

piloteer

@CYDdharta

If you had read my post, you'd clearly see that I called out any form of collectivism. Whether it be on the right or the left. 

CYDdharta

piloteer said:

@CYDdharta

If you had read my post, you'd clearly see that I called out any form of collectivism. Whether it be on the right or the left. 

How many threads have you started calling out the the many examples of racism and censorship from leftists?

piloteer

@CYDdharta

None! I won't either. The title of this thread is crystal clear. I made this thread to call out the Republicans. 

CYDdharta

piloteer said:

@CYDdharta

None! I won't either. The title of this thread is crystal clear. I made this thread to call out the Republicans. 

LOL, yes, you've made yourself quite clear.