Here they come again! Racist on the horizen

[nowandthen]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...g-numbers.html

[greeneyedgrrl]

ruh-roh! please please please tell me they don't have a chance in hell. even as i type i know that's wishful thinking. sometimes i hate what humans are capable of.

[girl_dee]

David Duke makes me sick (I almost rhymed that with puke)

Years ago he ran up against our former Governor, Edwin Edwards who was a known crook in a Governors race. DAVID DUKE was almost elected governor!

(I voted for the crook, who now remains in jail for being a crook.)

HOW he got that far I will never know!

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by nowandthen

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...g-numbers.html

Surprises me not at all. I wish I could say that it did. I hate to throw a blanket but expect *more* of this in the next three decades as the United States continues its demographic shift. By mid-century the USA will no longer have a single ethnic majority. Whites will continue to be a plurality but they will no longer be the majority. As this shift happens, expect white supremacists to continue to run for office on increasingly overtly racist platforms.

Cheers
Aj

[apretty]

http://www.notracistbut.com/

[dark_crystal]

Originally Posted by apretty

http://www.notracistbut.com/

That tumblr is awesome

[nowandthen]

What is scary to me is not that these fools show themselves. I find them to make Buchanan,Palin, Paul, and others look digestible. Just as moderate queers complain about drag queens and leather folks, the right wing needs its , "I'm not like them" folks to comfort those who fear difference.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by nowandthen

What is scary to me is not that these fools show themselves. I find them to make Buchanan,Palin, Paul, and others look digestible. Just as moderate queers complain about drag queens and leather folks, the right wing needs its , "I'm not like them" folks to comfort those who fear difference.

This is what concerns me as well. Now, I think that Buchanan, Palin and the Pauls are all different varieties of the same species and that there is a continuity between them and, say, David Duke. Here's how I would break things down:

Buchanan, Duke and Palin are all closer to one another than *any* of them is closer to the Pauls. I say this because Buchanan and Duke are just flat out white supremacists and Christian supremacists as well. Palin is, I think, a flat out theocrat while I don't think that Buchanan or Duke are theocrats.

It is the Pauls (Ron and Rand) that I think are the more dangerous. Buchanan is unelectable, his moment has come and gone. Duke is unelectable as is Palin (she doomed herself when she quit being governor halfway through her term). Ron Paul may not be electable outside of the South but Rand just might be. The reason I think they are dangerous is that they favor such a minimal state that neither one of them would, if their public pronouncements are to be believed, lose a minute's worth of sleep if some large company were to institute a policy of overt discrimination. (Think Woolworth's lunch counters here) They would cluck about how 'regrettable' it was that a large company chose to discriminate and then they would happily give that company their patronage. They would then wax philosophical about how 'freedom' includes the freedom to be a racist ass and that while this is a sorry state of affairs, the government should not be involved in ameliorating this.

Now, let's say that this discrimination takes the form of, say, not hiring non-whites. Let's say that this company is the largest employer in town. So effectively if you are non-white your chances of finding a job in this town have now rushed down toward zero. The Paul's would say that while this is sad, the people who found this untenable could just move or boycott the company. I think they are dangerous because until you actually take a hard look at what their libertarian philosophy leads to they might sound reasonable.

Buchanan, Palin, Duke and, realistically, Bachmann you can see the danger a mile away. Either Paul would happily turn the clock back to a pre-1964 America and claim that this was the very essence of freedom.

Cheers
Aj

[*Anya*]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

This is what concerns me as well. Now, I think that Buchanan, Palin and the Pauls are all different varieties of the same species and that there is a continuity between them and, say, David Duke. Here's how I would break things down:

Buchanan, Duke and Palin are all closer to one another than *any* of them is closer to the Pauls. I say this because Buchanan and Duke are just flat out white supremacists and Christian supremacists as well. Palin is, I think, a flat out theocrat while I don't think that Buchanan or Duke are theocrats.

It is the Pauls (Ron and Rand) that I think are the more dangerous. Buchanan is unelectable, his moment has come and gone. Duke is unelectable as is Palin (she doomed herself when she quit being governor halfway through her term). Ron Paul may not be electable outside of the South but Rand just might be. The reason I think they are dangerous is that they favor such a minimal state that neither one of them would, if their public pronouncements are to be believed, lose a minute's worth of sleep if some large company were to institute a policy of overt discrimination. (Think Woolworth's lunch counters here) They would cluck about how 'regrettable' it was that a large company chose to discriminate and then they would happily give that company their patronage. They would then wax philosophical about how 'freedom' includes the freedom to be a racist ass and that while this is a sorry state of affairs, the government should not be involved in ameliorating this.

Now, let's say that this discrimination takes the form of, say, not hiring non-whites. Let's say that this company is the largest employer in town. So effectively if you are non-white your chances of finding a job in this town have now rushed down toward zero. The Paul's would say that while this is sad, the people who found this untenable could just move or boycott the company. I think they are dangerous because until you actually take a hard look at what their libertarian philosophy leads to they might sound reasonable.

Buchanan, Palin, Duke and, realistically, Bachmann you can see the danger a mile away. Either Paul would happily turn the clock back to a pre-1964 America and claim that this was the very essence of freedom.

Cheers
Aj

I wish I was a sure as you that Palin would not be elected. George W. Bush got elected & I spent 8-years after that, marking off each day on my "Bush Count-Down Calendar". That calendar was filled with the most unbelievable, idiotic comments Bush ever made. Someone, somewhere, is probably making a calendar for Palin, as we speak (or write, as the case may be).

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Anya/Georgia

I wish I was a sure as you that Palin would not be elected. George W. Bush got elected & I spent 8-years after that, marking off each day on my "Bush Count-Down Calendar". That calendar was filled with the most unbelievable, idiotic comments Bush ever made. Someone, somewhere, is probably making a calendar for Palin, as we speak (or write, as the case may be).

Quite honestly, I don't think Palin *wants* to be President. It doesn't pay very well, she would have to bone up on subjects like geopolitics, economics, etc. and she would have to behave like a responsible adult. I think Sarah Palin has found her calling as a conservative celebrity. She can play the aggrieved victim day and night and pretend to being just your average, ordinary hockey mom with her own airplane and her own TV show. You know, just like all those folks you see at the little league or soccer game who fly to and from in their airplanes before rushing off to film another episode.

What's more, being President isn't fun. I'm sure that the first week or two is a blast as you get to ride on Air Force One etc. After that, though, I suspect that it stops being fun real quick. Look at how that job ages people.

I may be wrong, but I just don't see it. Palin seems to have realized that after Bush we Americans may have decided that perhaps we *don't* want our head of state to be the guy we throw back endless beers and tequila with and would prefer someone with gravitas. Palin has not been trying to develop her gravitas and without that, I just don't see her making it through the GOP primary (which she hasn't gotten in). Lastly, traditional conservatives would crucify her. She is *not* a conservative, she's a radical--a right-wing radical but a radical nevertheless.

There are, perhaps, two conservatives in the entire Republican field--Romney is one and Huntsman is the other. The rest of them are all some form of right-leaning radical.


Cheers
Aj

[Jar]

Originally Posted by sassy_girl

Years ago he ran up against our former Governor, Edwin Edwards who was a known crook in a Governors race. DAVID DUKE was almost elected governor!

I remember this. It was in my home state. I can't believe he's back!