Replies

You're playing games now, and everyone here can see it. This thread began when Dayton3 suggested that the GOP should try to increase its percentage of the white vote, rather than trying to make marginal improvements in its share of the non-white vote. That was a reasonable suggestion, though worthy of debate because increasing the GOP's share of any group's votes is problematic in a "diverse" society.

However, it was met with some handwringing about it being a racist or offensive tactic. It isn't. But that's how people think in our liberal-imprinted nation. When Jesse Helms ran an anti-affirmative action TV ad, he was accused of "racism". His opponent, Harvet Gantt, supported race preferences for members of his race, at the expense of whites. That wasn't considered racist. Instead, Helms was considered racist for describing Gantt's position. Likewise, Obama wasn't considered racist for belonging to Wright's racist church. But people who were critical of his membership were said to be stoking the fires of racism.

That's the world in which we now live. So it isn't surprising that even on a conservative website it's often considered "racist" to recognize that white voters might have some interests of their own. It's okay to say that non-whites have their own interests and to target them, but not whites.

You responded to Dayton3 in Post 44 as follows:

You won't get enough percentage of the White people to get and maintain power. As a matter of fact if it was attempted the party would actually lose Whites who would not want to be associated with the tactic.

I responded to you in Post 47 as follows:

What you're basically saying is that white voters are so imprinted with liberalism that they would rather see America become a Third World nation than be perceived as racist. Note that I said perceived, because there is actually nothing racist about defending oneself against racial aggression. So millions of whites will continue to defer to the Obamas and the Sotomayors as they overtly work to promote the interests of non-whites at the expense of whites. They'll do this on the grounds that resistance would be an immoral tactic they wouldn't want to be associated with.

Well, you're probably right. Which is why at some point the nation will probably balkanize and that will be the end of the American experiment, assuming it isn't over already.

You can just forget about winning non-whites, because with the exception of some Asian groups which aren't all that big, it's a lost cause. So, in all likelihood, is America.

I was agreeing with you that whites may be unlikely to rally to an effort to win their votes. People today are so conditioned to think that way that it's almost Pavlovian for them. Go to a college campus where all-black or all-Latino clubs, fraternities, and programs are readily accepted, and mention starting a white one and almost everyone will shudder with horror at the racism. I was crediting you with having the foresight to recognize this fact. But I made a big mistake. You weren't just recognizing the tendency, you were engaging in it, as your subsequent posts indicated.

In Post 48 you wrote in response to me:

I said no such thing and go screw yourself for suggesting it. Being against racism and Jim Crow does not make one a liberal. The historical precedents for a White party strategy are parties like the Dixiecrats or American Independent Party, both defeated decisively in much Whiter times.

So you had immediately gone way overboard and concluded that Dayton3's mild suggestion that the GOP should try to increase its share of the white vote was a form of "racism and Jim Crow". You didn't just oppose going after more white voters because you thought it would fail, but because you found it immoral to do so.

I responded in Post 49 with this:

Where did anyone suggest promoting racism and Jim Crow? You see, you perceive any suggestion that white people have any interests at all as being racist. You perceive any suggestion that white voters should be courted as being racist and immoral. But no one feels that way about courting blacks or other minorities. All Dayton3 suggested was that the GOP should try to get more white votes (because winning the non-white vote is obviously not possible) and people think that's just the more horrible thing they've ever heard. To wit, they'd rather lose the country than try overtly to win white votes.

The debate continued along these lines through Posts 54, 64, 68, 71, and 74. You continued to insist that it would be racist and offensive to non-whites if the GOP were to court white voters, though never explained why it isn't offensive to whites when they court non-whites. And in Post 74, you accused McCain of insulting Hispanics by backing away (temporarily) from his support of the Kennedy-McCain amnesty bill during the height of the campaign:

The first thing to do is not stupidly crap on their heads. For example when John McCain made an amnesty bill with Ted Kennedy and later said he would not support his own bill he managed to alienate White voters and destroy himself with Hispanics at the same time. He would have been a lot better off not doing anything. Being weak and treacherous is not a way to win friends and influence people.

In Post 75, I responded on the illegal immigration/amnesty issue as follows:

With all due respect, if Hispanic voters want and expect amnesty, then by definition it means they are siding with illegal invaders of our nation against their fellow citizens. In other words, it means they are putting their ethnicity ahead of the national interest and the rule of law. Given the choice between siding with fellow citizens who aren't Hispanic, and illegal invaders who are, they side with the invaders.

People who do such a thing are not going to be conservative Republican voters. If they get amnesty, the first thing they'll do is use their added political clout to demand less guarded borders, and then they'll demand another amnesty a few years down the road. Meanwhile, they'll be raiding the social welfare budgets of every state they occupy, while screaming "racism" at everyone who tries to cut them off. They'll do this even as they continue to support La Raza, MECHA, and howl that opponents of the next amnesty are bigots and xenophobes.

I also made other points in that post which people are free to read. In Post 82 you responded to my points regarding amnesty/illegals as follows:

Writing off a major racial or ethnic segment of the electorate is a racist action. The idea that Hispanics can't be good citizens or conservatives because they sympathize with illegals is nonsense. It was not unusual for other ethnic groups to have similar sympathies and take actions both legal and illegal actions on their behalf. What Dr. Tiller did was legal. Mere legality is not a decisive point.

The idea that Whites are ignored in the GOP if the undertakes an effort to recruit Minorities is a particularly snide point you keep trying to use. What do you suggest, that we try to be militant White people like some sort of NAACP for Whites? The GOP is a White party, too damn White for the good of its long term survival.

Emphasis was mine. That was the key post here where your game was exposed. What you're really promoting is amnesty and non-white racial identity politics, while accusing those opposed to those practices of "racism".

People should continue reading our debate after that point to get the full picture. Also, there are the posts involving wardaddy, which should be read. Also, in Post 95 you wrote:

You added some stuff and the, "some people" reference is bull since this is between you and me on this thread. At no time did I say anything resembling, "go after the minority vote by supporting amnesty, race preferences". You started your responses to me by by trying to put words in my mouth and you are continuing

I'll concede one point. I was using the term "some people" as a figure of speech, but I see that it was very poorly chosen. In fact, you are the only one on this thread defending those Hispanics who demand a racial/ethnic illegal alien amnesty for their fellow identity group members as a prerequisite for supporting a candidate or party.