1 year ago: There’s a pattern here

June 14, 2012, on this blog: There’s a pattern here

Let’s be clear: These guys are all whackjobs and they in no way represent the official views of the Republican Party or of the majority of Republicans. Whackjobs aren’t rational creatures, and they can choose to attach themselves to any larger institution whether or not that institution welcomes them.

Yet there’s a clear pattern apparent to anyone who looks at this particular form of racist whackjobbery: These guys all consider themselves Republicans.

Why would this be? Why are racists — outright, proud, explicit racists — attracted to the Republican Party? These guys sound like President Andrew Johnson, yet they’re not drawn to Johnson’s party, the Democrats. They are, instead, drawn to the part of Lincoln. The Republican Party condemns their views, explicitly and consistently, yet they remain convinced that, despite such official pronouncements, it reciprocates their affection.



"Einstein (the cat) was a nurturer too. He and Berkeley were my only two kitties ..."

Beyond belief
"Right. This reinforces my suspicion as to what the condition is, and to what passage ..."

Billy Graham is dead
"... Aaaaand now I'm reminded of this:Grand Moff Cinderella of the Death Star.https://www.youtube.com/wat..."

LBCF, No. 173: ‘The hidden display’

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • EllieMurasaki

    I also live in a world where the US’s most prosperous time (providing one wasn’t a woman or minority) coincided with the US’s highest tax rates on the upper crust. I do not think this is actually coincidence, or the result of having just come out of WWII.

  • Carstonio

    Party breakups and realignments have historically originated with divisive issues like slavery and civil rights. More Republicans are coming around on same-sex marriage, folks like Jon Huntsman and Tom Ridge, and that issue could conceivably split the party as public opinion changes.

  • Geoffrey Kransdorf

    The housing collapse and economic disruption was a direct result of policies initiated under the Clinton Administration and the mismanagement of Fannie and Freddie Mac which Barney Frank and Chris Dodd can mostly take credit for. The Bush Administration tried to make some corrections and were soundly rebuffed by the Democrats in Congress. And criticizing Bush for having “Wall Street buddies” is rich, when Obama’s entire first term economic staff came straight from Goldman Sachs. Obama has had an entire first term to show that he knows what he is doing and can fix this. He hasn’t fixed it, he doesn’t know what he is doing, and it is clearly his fault by now. Obama and his supporters will be happliy blaming Bush in 2016. That doesn’t show much sense of responsibility.

    Democrats must be dogs, since they seem much better at hearing alleged “dog whistles” than actual Republicans can. I’ve heard people criticized for using “racist” terms like “clean” or “skinny”.

    We clearly disagree on what is ethical and decent. But claiming that your opponent’s position is UNethical and INdecent is how we got into the IRS mess and other situations where people felt that doing evil things was fine, since the Conservative victims were all just a bunch of evildoers anyway. I soundly reject that canard and the reasoning behind it. And I reject the notion that Republican policies are inherently bad for women, minorities and anyone else. I am highly suspicious of people who want to run my life with my best interests at heart.

    That’s my World. I call it “reality”.

  • Rhubarbarian82

    Oh hey look, it’s that crazy guy from the postal service thread. The one who spends over 50% of his income in taxes.

  • EllieMurasaki

    That comment deserves a longer rebuttal than I am capable of giving at the moment, so I’ll focus on I reject the notion that Republican policies are inherently bad for women in conjunction with I am highly suspicious of people who want to run my life with my best interests at heart.

    Republicans are trying to overturn Roe and reinstate laws against abortion at any point in pregnancy. In the meantime, they’re trying to make abortion and contraception as hard as possible to obtain. This has had the effect of making a great many women mothers (or mothers again), against their will, and generally when their financial circumstances do not permit an additional child without strain if not outright catastrophe. Is this not an example of Republicans trying to run women’s lives? If not, how not?

    And pre-Roe, women in the US died of illegal abortion all the time. Post-Roe, not so much.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Oh, should I not be engaging?

  • Lectorel

    Sounds like a dull RPG to me, really. But different strokes for different folks, I suppose. What are the monthly fees like? And how expensive are the expansions? I’ve heard ‘The Government Never Did Anything For Me’ can get pricy.

  • Rhubarbarian82

    I’ve never seen anyone use the “Barney Frank caused the housing crisis” line while arguing in good faith, personally. He said some really stupid stuff in the postal service thread, then bounced when people dismantled his arguments.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Oh okay. I’ll disengage, then. I ought in any event to know better than to engage with anyone who says X group must be animals, particularly when the someone knows full well that X group contains many people of color. Republicans not racist, my ass.

  • Geoffrey Kransdorf

    Abortion is a complicated and sensitive topic. You can legitimately oppose it on religious grounds, on the grounds that it is a form of legalized infanticide or just on general principle. Of course, there are reasons to support it as well, which is why it is controversial. The proper thing to do in a democracy would be to let people decide by a vote. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court short-circuited that option, which is why it has been a political bomb ever since.

    Personally, I think Republicans would be happy not so much banning abortion, but simply letting people decide democratically whether they want to permit it or not. The opposing, un-democratic position, which is to insist that it be legal no matter what, is popular with feminists, but not so much with the general public or even all women.

    I think Democrats realize that their position on this is neither as popular nor as secure as they might wish, so they cling to Roe, and try to cut off any debate on the topic.

    But going further, women have many other concerns besides abortion. Getting a good job, making ends meet, having a secure marriage, getting a good education for their children–all of these are legitimate concerns that far outweigh abortion to many women. And the Republicans have better answers to all of them than the Democrats do.

    You apparently think that your single issue “Democrats are pro-Choice!” is enough to close the debate and win the argument. The fact that you seem to believe this ,simply shows how out of touch with reality you really are.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Don’t you just love when people confuse ‘it is legal to do this’ with ‘it is required to do this’? And don’t answer the actual question?

  • Rhubarbarian82

    Personally, I think we should resolve this the democratic way: take a vote on whether or not Geoffrey Kransdorf should be relocated to a remote mountaintop, far from any internet connection.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Three wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner?

    (True democracy has minority rights. Can’t do that.)

  • Rhubarbarian82

    The opposing, un-democratic position, which is to insist that it be legal no matter what, is popular with feminists, but not so much with the general public or even all women.

    Not according to Geoffrey Kransdorf!

  • EllieMurasaki

    We can’t treat him the way he wouldn’t want to be treated. That just wouldn’t be fair.

  • Oh yeah, that hairsplitting about how “YOU are totally not a n-word, because YOU are one of those nice black people” – ugh. The unstated assumption that you have to conform to a white way of thinking and acting to get anywhere is a very pernicious one.

    Honestly though, the way black people speak is far more expressive, IMV, because there are just some thing you canNOT express properly without using AAVE.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Tumblr is blocked at work. WOE.

  • You should be able to see it now.

  • EllieMurasaki

    ? I’ll just look at it when I get home. The comment was mostly so I’d be able to look at the conversation in Gmail and instantly tell which one had the Tumblr link, anyway, since emails from me I can see the text in Gmail’s dinky mid-convo preview thing and emails from Disqus all have the exact same header.

  • Geoffrey Kransdorf

    I really don’t think that your line of argument is doing you credit here:

    “I disagree with his ideas. In fact, I think they’re crazy. So I won’t refute them rationally. He’s just a crazy guy who we should ignore and shun. That will show him. Maybe he will go away.”

    I’m sure that the true believers find all this very convincing, but ordinary rational thinkers may be less impressed.

  • Geoffrey Kransdorf

    I see that you have the legendary feminist sense of humor (“How many feminists does it take to change a light bulb? That’s not funny!!”). Try not to take rhetorical quips literally. They’re not Bible verses.

  • Geoffrey Kransdorf

    Do you have any rational, real reason for disbelieving that Frank rebuffed the Bush Administration’s requests to reform Fannie? Or any reason for disbelieving that the new mortgage standards that Clinton put into place contributed substantially to the subsequent crises? Or is it just your policy to ascribe bad faith to any commentator whose opinions gore your personal oxen?

  • Geoffrey Kransdorf

    The last time I checked, women were actually a majority in the US. Of course, not all women agree with you for some inexplicable reason, Hence the reluctance to allow the democratic process to work.

  • I’m sure that the true believers find all this very convincing

    They’re not Bible verses

    The look on Geoffrey’s face when he discovers he’s talking to an atheist…

  • EllieMurasaki

    I wasn’t gonna say anything. Funnier that way.

  • Yeah, well, us true believers have a more refined sense of humor.

    Wait, I’m not Christian either…

  • EllieMurasaki

    Ever wonder why people saying the same tired old bullshit that needs 101 arguments to counter insist on making their voices heard through the attempts to carry on a 200-level or 400-level conversation?

  • Geoffrey Kransdorf

    No, why is that?

    Seriously, if you guys have 101 serious rational arguments in opposition to what I’m saying, I’d love to hear them. Those I can argue against. It’s hard to argue against “You’re crazy” or “Are you f–ing kidding?”

  • Rhubarbarian82

    Blaming Barney Frank betrays such a total disregard for the actual facts of the financial meltdown that it’s really not worth the effort on my part to get involved (particularly not with someone who’s claimed to pay over 50% of his income in taxes).

    I know you think that you’re the center of the universe and that the rest of us should drop what we’re doing to cater to you and your lack of understanding, but the truth is you’re just a write-off.

  • dpolicar

    Translation assistance: when Ellie says “101 arguments”, ze doesn’t mean one hundred and one arguments, ze means introductory arguments.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Ze, not she, please and thank you.

  • dpolicar

    (nods) Edited. For reference, do you object to “they”? (Which is my usual pronoun to use when gender is unknown, though I incorrectly assumed I knew your gender.)

  • EllieMurasaki

    I do not object to ‘they’, no.

  • Geoffrey Kransdorf

    ze? I zee now that I am zadly ignorant of zour zpecial line of argument.

    And thank you for the clarification. Actually, I thought that there were 101 Dalmatians whose cuteness absolutely argued for the rightness of your positions. But, as usual, I was zadly misinformed.

  • Geoffrey Kransdorf

    Translation: I can’t refute this factually, so I’ll just blow it off with yet another ad hominim attack.

    Count me convinced!

  • Are you seriously positing that President Obama has done worse by anyone than President Bush? Anyone who isn’t a multimillionaire at least (And even then…) Are you seriously positing that a republican would have done better by African-Americans over the period 2009-2013?

  • EllieMurasaki

    He’s seriously positing that it is hilarious, not fucking racist, to call people of color animals. He’s seriously positing that it is hilarious, not fucking cissexist, to mock my preferred pronouns. He’s seriously positing that the above is an ad hominem against him and that he does not ad hominem anybody ever (nb: I wouldn’t say he does, but given his definition of the term, if we are then he is). He’s seriously positing, in other words, that he’s a fucking fuckwit who is not worth paying any further attention to. Please don’t.

  • Geoffrey Kransdorf

    Yes, I am seriously positing that the village idiot couldn’t have handled the economy worse than Obama has done for the last five years. And ANY Republican would have produced a decent recovery–for blacks and whites alike, which Obama’s ideological blinders prevent him from doing.

  • You can legitimately oppose it on religious grounds. You can not legitimately oppose it on the grounds that “it is a form of infanticide” because it is not. That is a matter of objective medical, legal and scientific fact, and not a matter of opinion. Therefore, by its very definition, opposing it on those grounds if illegitimate, just as it is defintionally illegitimate to oppose hormonal birth control on the basis that it is abortifacient, or to oppose the drinking of milk because milk weakens teeth.

  • Geoffrey Kransdorf

    If your “preferred pronouns” don’t exist in the English language than yes, expect to be mocked. If you can’t take a very modest humorous reference, which was clever and in in no way racist, than yes, expect to be mocked. If you can dish it out but can’t take it in the teenyist bit, than yes, expect to be mocked.

    If the above makes ME a F–wit in your eyes, than so be it. I have my own opinion of who needs an attitude adjustment here.

  • Given that gender-neutral pronouns do exist in other languages, check your ethnocentrism, Klondike Bar.

  • Geoffrey Kransdorf

    You apparently know something about human biology that I do not. Because it is my impression that an unaborted pregnancy results in a baby. So killing that baby prior to birth means that a baby died which is infanticide to many people–yourself apparently not included.

    If you choose to regard this position as illegitimate, than that is your right. But you can’t simply dismiss it with a handwave and pretend that there is no rational basis for it.

  • Geoffrey Kransdorf

    Perhaps he/she/ze should post in one of those languages then. It would scarcely make his/her/zer posts less interesting or relevant.

  • Lectorel

    Please go away until you understand why demanding people educate you is a derailing tactic. And if you could stay away after that, too, that’d be great.

  • The lack of a commonly accepted pronoun in a malleable language does not invalidate the concept.

  • Geoffrey Kransdorf

    Sorry, but demanding an explanation of why a fact that I have stated is wrong is not an unreasonable request. I understand that I am disrupting the harmony of everyone patting themselves on the back here, but that isn’t necessarily a reason to go away.

    People here seem to think that insults and condescending remarks constitute argument and proof. It’s very disappointing and doesn’t speak well for the quality of “progressive” reasoning.

  • Omnicrom

    I wasn’t quite sold on you being an asshole, but then you mocked a person for wishing to avoid being misgendered on the internet. The fact that someone your response to two people talking calmly and rationally about how to communicate with scorn and mockery makes your assholery quite clear.

  • And yet, you conceded my point without even realizing it. You said “an unaborted pregnancy results in a baby.” Results. If the pregancy is aborted, the baby does not result. There is no baby until the pregnancy completes, because the baby is the result of the pregnacy. You can not commit infanticide on an infant that does not yet exist. The termination of a fetus as a result of abortion can no more be “infanticide” than the death of an 80 year old man could be: The fetus isn’t an infant. The 80 year old man isn’t an infant. No infant, therefore no infanticide. If you belive that abortion is a form of infanticide, you are rejecting very straightforward logic in favor of what is patently a logical impossibility.
    The thing you’re doing is literally the exact polar opposite of a “rational basis”.

  • Geoffrey Kransdorf

    Languages work because there is common vocabulary and grammar that everyone agrees is correct. You can make up your own words, but you shouldn’t expect people to recognize them or accept them as correct if they fall outside this commonly agreed pool. “Ms.” has gradually moved from a novelty to a fairly well accepted term. “ze” hasn’t. In fact, I wasn’t even sure what the possessive form was (zer or zis). So if you insist on using words that a majority of people don’t know and don’t recognize as correct, than you can expect some resistance and even ridicule. Taking offense at people’s reluctance to adopt your bizarre new vocabulary strikes me as narcissistic at best.