All Purpose News and Politics Thread Part IV: The Center Cannot Hold

[aja_christopher]

"Trump invokes KKK slogan 'love it or leave it' at North Carolina rally"

"If they don’t love it, tell them to leave it" - that was US President Donald Trump’s message about four Democratic congresswomen at a rally in North Carolina, where supporters called for one of four female politicians - who was born overseas - to be “sent back”.

“Let ’em leave,” Mr Trump said of the four women. “They’re always telling us how to run it, how to do this, how to do that. You know what? If they don’t love it, tell ’em to leave it.”

But the ‘love it or leave it’ line is an eerily familiar slogan of the Klu Klux Klan in North Carolina, according to Australian National University US politics expert Jennifer Hunt.

Dr Hunt, who grew up in North Carolina, said the “Love it or Leave it” slogan was used by the KKK years ago when it claimed to be fighting “communism and integration”.



“I remember seeing signs as a child, ‘Welcome to Klan country … love it or leave it,” she told SBS News.

“Many of those good people didn’t leave North Carolina, they worked to improve it. And the white nationalists who remained didn’t relinquish their degenerate slogans and ideas, just their decent place in society.

“But when they’re ushered back in, that threatens the safety of us all.”

Mr Trump’s rally cries came on the back of days of criticism after he told the four women to “go back” to their countries of origin, although three of them were born in America.

When Mr Trump made the “love it or leave it” remark, the crowd responded enthusiastically back shouting, “leave it!”

Dr Hunt said such language would undoubtedly embolden white nationalists.

“They’re being brought in from the cold after a whole generation of being cast out of polite society and now they’re’ feeling empowered," she said."

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/trump-in...carolina-rally

[WestPhillyPunisher]

"Trump invokes KKK slogan 'love it or leave it' at North Carolina rally"

"If they don’t love it, tell them to leave it" - that was US President Donald Trump’s message about four Democratic congresswomen at a rally in North Carolina, where supporters called for one of four female politicians - who was born overseas - to be “sent back”.

“Let ’em leave,” Mr Trump said of the four women. “They’re always telling us how to run it, how to do this, how to do that. You know what? If they don’t love it, tell ’em to leave it.”

But the ‘love it or leave it’ line is an eerily familiar slogan of the Klu Klux Klan in North Carolina, according to Australian National University US politics expert Jennifer Hunt.

Dr Hunt, who grew up in North Carolina, said the “Love it or Leave it” slogan was used by the KKK years ago when it claimed to be fighting “communism and integration”.



“I remember seeing signs as a child, ‘Welcome to Klan country … love it or leave it,” she told SBS News.

“Many of those good people didn’t leave North Carolina, they worked to improve it. And the white nationalists who remained didn’t relinquish their degenerate slogans and ideas, just their decent place in society.

“But when they’re ushered back in, that threatens the safety of us all.”

Mr Trump’s rally cries came on the back of days of criticism after he told the four women to “go back” to their countries of origin, although three of them were born in America.

When Mr Trump made the “love it or leave it” remark, the crowd responded enthusiastically back shouting, “leave it!”

Dr Hunt said such language would undoubtedly embolden white nationalists.

“They’re being brought in from the cold after a whole generation of being cast out of polite society and now they’re’ feeling empowered," she said."

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/trump-in...carolina-rally

No way in hell that was a happy coincidence. Someone showed Trump that picture and he promptly ran with that loathsome slogan. White supremacists all over the country must've been wearing **** eating grins from ear to ear when they heard about that speech. This administration grows more and more repugnant with each passing day, and the REPUBLCIAN PARTY continues turning a blind eye and deaf ear to the madness which they're actively condoning with their silence.

[Mister Mets]

Then you probably should discuss your hypothetical open borders with those hypothetical people on the "left" instead of constantly trying to sell it to those of us who have more important and much more real concerns -- like a racist, child-abusing, hypocritical, criminal supporting, authoritarian Republican theocracy attempting to take over our government by suppressing the votes of non-white American citizens, while simultaneously treating non-white asylum seekers worse than prisoners in order to motivate their "base" to vote.

I don't shift the conversation from other topics to immigration.

You could check the context of the current chain of posts. In this case, I responded to someone else's post about the migrant crisis.

You guys have been more likely to bring up my views on immigration policy in responses to other posts.

Apparently he wants to pretend like none of us saw how "civil", "moderate" Obama was treated by the Republicans while he was the President and still is treated by many (like Trump) today.

Kenyan-Muslim Obama, as I think Trump and many other Republicans referred to him (when they weren't using racial slurs) -- Kenyan-Muslim Obama who all the Republicans treated with "civility" and respect while they blocked all of his legislation and even a Supreme Court pick before voting that same Trump into the office of the Presidency.

You want "civility" Mets -- get your party to stop telling people of color to "go back where they came from" first.

Better yet -- get them to stop violating the rights of "minorities" for "white" votes.

I'll add that I think most of us have been more than civil with you during this discussion, and the fact that you are still harping on theoretical "limiting principles" instead of directly addressing the fact that your party is a racist criminal organization shows us just how far "civility" goes when dealing with racism and corruption in both our society and in our government.

Your party needs to be voted out of power, and the criminals (like Trump) need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law -- that's about as "civil" a statement I can make on the issue.

Do you really think your side is more civil than I am in this discussion?

I mean, a point where I thought "civility" went out the window might have been during the 2013 Government Shutdown when Ted Cruz led a mob of Tea Party loons outside the gates of the White House to wave a Confederate flag at it while the first African American president sat inside, and then had a preacher demand he "put down the Koran and come out with his hands up".

Didn't see any Republicans clutching pearls about the lack of civility at that point.

My brother's not a fan of Ted Cruz. Neither am I. I backed O'Rourke.

However, I am unaware of Cruz leading people outside the White House for the purposes of waving a confederate flag. Do you have a link for that story?

Where dey at tho?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKCN1UB2UD

That seems to be more about closing ranks. He's getting more support because they see him as being under fire, rather than that doubts that he was really racist have been reassured.

I guess he is a white cis-het male?
Because those are the only people who were EVER awarded any kind of civility in the US of A on a regular basis.

Someone worried about civility wants people other than white cis heterosexual men to be treated with civility.

[PaulBullion]

Someone worried about civility wants people other than white cis heterosexual men to be treated with civility.

I'll explain it in simpler terms:

If there is any decline in civility, it is only being experienced by the white guys.

The rest has always been treated like ****.







So if your brother is NOW noticing a lack of civility, he didn't pay ANY attention to the treatment of minorities and women in the past and he should be ashamed of himself.

Also, he should be ashamed of himself if he really thinks people telling Trump he should go **** himself is worse than Trump locking toddlers in cages.

[jetengine]

This is the horrible flip side of the coin to pushing heavy on 'patriotism' and nationalism.

[SquirrelMan]

Civility.

Good grief.

[KOSLOX]

I don't shift the conversation from other topics to immigration.

You could check the context of the current chain of posts. In this case, I responded to someone else's post about the migrant crisis.

You guys have been more likely to bring up my views on immigration policy in responses to other posts.

Do you really think your side is more civil than I am in this discussion?

My brother's not a fan of Ted Cruz. Neither am I. I backed O'Rourke.

However, I am unaware of Cruz leading people outside the White House for the purposes of waving a confederate flag. Do you have a link for that story?

That seems to be more about closing ranks. He's getting more support because they see him as being under fire, rather than that doubts that he was really racist have been reassured.

Someone worried about civility wants people other than white cis heterosexual men to be treated with civility.

Conservatives are rallying behind him because he's under fire.

Why is he under fire?

For being racist.

Walk through that.

So are you saying that they are too stupid to understand the specifics of why he's under fire, or are you going to concede they understand exactly why he's under fire and view that as a rallying point?

[aja_christopher]

You guys have been more likely to bring up my views on immigration policy in responses to other posts.

Do you really think your side is more civil than I am in this discussion?

We bring it up because we're tired of you making excuses for your party abusing and mistreating immigrants and other people of color -- whether at the border or elsewhere.

And yes we're more civil because I have the feeling if people could tell you exactly what they thought without fear of moderation, you'd realize just how "civil" we're being here in the face of someone openly defending white supremacy and attacks against non-white Americans by avoiding discussing said behavior or acting as if "both sides" are responsible for these problems.

Telling people to be more "civil" while the party you support literally strips away civil rights is as tone-deaf as it gets -- as it stands, you should appreciate the tact being shown in the face of racism, fascism and blatant criminality.

Honestly, you should consider it a blessing that some of us even will even attempt to discuss it with you "like adults" given how vile and malicious your party has become in it's attacks on democracy and people of color -- acting as if hypothetical "open borders" is why Republicans are justified in their racist, criminal behavior is pathetic, to be blunt, but not at all unexpected given your affiliation.

You can't support the "party of Trump" and still expect people to believe you prefer civility, and even if you do, it's clear your party doesn't.

[Mister Mets]

I'll explain it in simpler terms:

If there is any decline in civility, it is only being experienced by the white guys.

The rest has always been treated like ****.







So if your brother is NOW noticing a lack of civility, he didn't pay ANY attention to the treatment of minorities and women in the past and he should be ashamed of himself.

Also, he should be ashamed of himself if he really thinks people telling Trump he should go **** himself is worse than Trump locking toddlers in cages.

I don't think he's saying this is a new development, and he certainly isn't saying that Trump is one of the greatest victims. But the problem of civility in modern politics would tie into other issues, contributing to the difficulty of the multiple sides getting together to fix complex problems (IE- improving conditions for migrants without compromising on the border.)

[BruceWayneJr.]

"The decline in civility"

What a fucking joke.

[master of read]

that's like a bully who's bullies other kids and when one of them fights back, he says he wants to solve issues without violence. it's easy to call for such things when you are in a position of power.

[SquirrelMan]

You know what's an even bigger problem in this country than the decline of civility?

Politicians don't wear top hats anymore.

I said what I said.

[Theleviathan]

As an effort to break the cycle of "everybody pile on" with civility, I'll try and read into that a bit. If I were to work in government in Washington, I could definitely see being extremely frustrated with the complete inability to work through problems with compromise. You can't do the work of the people right now because one party has completely shut that avenue down.

It's a fair thing to be concerned about. Perhaps not as cataclysmic, but on a daily basis (if you're truly trying to serve your country) I could see how that impediment would loom large.

It's a legitimate concern, but the blame lies in once place and it escalated starting with Newt Gingrich IMO.

[Mister Mets]

Conservatives are rallying behind him because he's under fire.

Why is he under fire?

For being racist.

Walk through that.

So are you saying that they are too stupid to understand the specifics of why he's under fire, or are you going to concede they understand exactly why he's under fire and view that as a rallying point?

There are going to be several positions.

People are going to use motivated reasoning to suggest that their candidate is okay, and come up with excuses. This is complicated by the imprecision with the word racism. Conor Friedersdorf showed the problem "A question about the word "racism" in journalism: if you had 280 characters or less to write a *New York Times* style guide entry that editors and writers would diligently consult and defer to when deciding whether or not to use the word, what definition would you put forth?" We essentially use multiple definitions, focusing on result, motive and beliefs.

Some of the Republicans would believe that the reaction to Trump's comments is greatly exaggerated, that it is important that he ended his comment with "and then come back." So they would see this as a continuing pattern of flawed claims of racism by the liberal media. The charge of racism is a significant charge because it carries great moral weight, and left-wing critics have made this accusation too freely in the past.

There is also a sore spot for populists and conservatives when it comes to liberal immigrants and children of immigrants. They are more likely to believe that immigrants should completely assimilate, and that any liberal values demonstrate a failure to understand the problems with the country they fled in the first place. This is not a view I endorse. A view on the left that comes from a similar place is the suggestion that people who have been through something must support massive government support for anyone else in a similar position (IE- that the children of immigrants should support new immigrants who will be public charges, that people who have succeeded despite disabilities should be amiable to subsidized health care for much more able-bodied individuals.)

[aja_christopher]

As an effort to break the cycle of "everybody pile on" with civility, I'll try and read into that a bit. If I were to work in government in Washington, I could definitely see being extremely frustrated with the complete inability to work through problems with compromise. You can't do the work of the people right now because one party has completely shut that avenue down.

It's a fair thing to be concerned about. Perhaps not as cataclysmic, but on a daily basis (if you're truly trying to serve your country) I could see how that impediment would loom large.

It's a legitimate concern, but the blame lies in once place and it escalated starting with Newt Gingrich IMO.

It's still escalating with Newt Gingrich -- Trump is just a lot more blunt in his racism.

------
"Newt Gingrich Defends Racist Tweets: Trump ‘Better Off’ When He Shows How ‘Anti-American’ Congresswomen Are"

"Appearing Monday morning on Fox & Friends, Gingrich argued that the president is smart to put the quartet of Democratic House members in the spotlight — no matter what he does to put them there.

“I think the president believes the more he can get the country to look at the so-called squad, the more he can get them to realize how radical they are, and how fundamentally anti-American their views are, in the long run, the better off he is,” Gingrich said. “I think he would like to see them the front page of the Democratic Party. And I think he thinks anything he does to elevate them is to his net advantage.”

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/newt-def...resswomen-are/