Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
We're not talking about a handful of racists in the Republican party. We're talking about the Republican leadership in Congress whom your "moderates" (really? where?) would be voting for being openly racist, about their bill, their platform, the head of their party....
You're at the point of trying to argue that one shouldn't be considered a Catholic just because they're a member of the Roman Curia.
Are there times one might vote R? Sure, I can think of the Weld-Silber race in Massachusetts, where Silber was a racist ass and Weld was just an elitist ass, as being one. But it's been quite a while since we saw any of those races. You have to be pretty old to remember that Republican party.
Come on, dude. Get real. The Pope is Catholic, and Republicans are Racists. If you have any doubt, just go recite their respective catechisms.
|
I get it. Of course the R party has turned into a shitshow in which racists are running around like gremlins, wrecking the place and killing off the establishment Rs.
But as you noted, the establishment Rs are a different lot. And there are a lot of them still out there, wandering, lost and confused. They still vote R because they don't like the alternative, but they don't like the crazies within their party, either.
Adder'd lump them under the term "racist." Seems unfair to do that to the old guard. I recall a time when moderate Ds and moderate Rs weren't all that unlike. I'd never label of those moderate Ds a "socialist" or some other excessive descriptive. In that same spirit, I'd never call an old establishment R a "racist." It's a bit too much.
Threaded Mode