Atlantic: Trump Can't Reverse the Decline of White Christian America

[The_Doctor]

I'm talking out of my ass here, but might we attribute this to the fact that the Hispanic population continues to grow, whereas certain European groups filtered in either at lower rates, or during more specifically defined periods?

That's a good question, I'll need to do research and find the answer and actually need to do some general research. But offhand, Latino growth is now happening through birthrates, not immigration, if that's what you mean by "filtered through"?

The Eastern Europeans and the Irish came around 1860-1920 (pardon the generalizing, I know there were a couple of specific waves). I know that by the 1950s, the Catholics had achieved economic parity and were voting Republican by 1968-1980 in part because of their migration to the suburbs and economic power. included in this group would be Italian and Irish Catholics, so it's a rough approximation.

So the answer is maybe? I would need to dig into the research. I'm pretty sure there's an answer, since the 1960s and 1970s texts on elections are chockful of specific reference to specific sub-white populations like Irish, Slavic, etc.

I'm repeating my earlier points so I'll stop there. It might be that the economic integration took a generation or two. Read this article and start at the "with hindsight" paragraph.

The groups mentioned in this paragraph voted heavily for the New Deal but 50 years later, were voting Republican. I'm not sure I ably addressed your point but it's a rough answer (I hope).

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I'm talking out of my ass here, but might we attribute this to the fact that the Hispanic population continues to grow, whereas certain European groups filtered in either at lower rates, or during more specifically defined periods?

That's a good question, I'll need to do research and find the answer and actually need to do some general research. But offhand, Latino growth is now happening through birthrates, not immigration, if that's what you mean by "filtered through"?

Not exactly, but that would still contribute to the "supply/demand" problem (the idea being that there are a significantly greater amount of Hispanics as a portion of the population than there ever were of, say, Italians or Poles).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This period coincides both with the immense restriction on immigration from 1924 to 1965, and also the New Deal. (I think it should also be mentioned that the Great Migration, I believe, occurred during this time, which would not have made your average second generation Sicilian the lowest man on the totem pole in Cleveland or Detroit ~1930) The point being that there are multiple reasons one might posit that they successfully immigrated into the middle/upper-working class; they were thus poised to be responsive to the same campaign tactics that would attract any well-integrated person in those classes ~1970. This is all speculation, of course.

[The_Doctor]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not really grasping what you're saying here still. Are you saying there are a lot more Latinos vis a vis relative to the jobs that would be normally available to first generation immigrants compared to these earlier migrations?

I just wanted to be clear.

This period coincides both with the immense restriction on immigration from 1924 to 1965, and also the New Deal. (I think it should also be mentioned that the Great Migration, I believe, occurred during this time, which would not have made your average second generation Sicilian the lowest man on the totem pole in Cleveland or Detroit ~1930) The point being that there are multiple reasons one might posit that they successfully immigrated into the middle/upper-working class; they were thus poised to be responsive to the same campaign tactics that would attract any well-integrated person in those classes ~1970. This is all speculation, of course.

Right, I broadly agree even if I place a strong premium on economic factors.

And, well, just a last thought, because I wanted to say it. The New Deal might have pushed these people towards the Republican Party by promoting a full employment and wage growth based set of Keynesian policies that enabled them to leave the cities and become Republicans in the suburbs by the 1970s. I agree of course with you that there could have been a lot of factors into the migration of this particular group politically.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not really grasping what you're saying here still. Are you saying there are a lot more Latinos vis a vis relative to the jobs that would be normally available to first generation immigrants compared to these earlier migrations?

I just wanted to be clear.

Basically put. That, combined with the fact that it would be harder to both economically and culturally absorb 14% of the country as compared to a smaller amount.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Right, I broadly agree even if I place a strong premium on economic factors.

And, well, just a last thought, because I wanted to say it. The New Deal might have pushed these people towards the Republican Party by promoting a full employment and wage growth based set of Keynesian policies that enabled them to leave the cities and become Republicans in the suburbs by the 1970s. I agree of course with you that there could have been a lot of factors into the migration of this particular group politically.

[/quote]

Absolutely. Once you granted someone a middle class existence, they absorbed middle class values, ironically making them more predisposed toward Republicanism (not saying I believe this definitely happened, but that it seems plausible). This of course brings into question the long-term viability of both left-wing and right-wing coalitions.

[HAnnA MArin County]

Actually, Asian Americans are more likely to become Republicans first, under any realignment. They voted 48-50% (50-50?) for the GOP in 2014 and their economic situation is strong enough that if social issues were taken off the table, they would be part of any GOP coalition in the future. I think Asians are just ticked off at the GOP's social issues (since a ton of Asians are highly educated and there's an education divide).

It's not remembered but Bush won 44% among Asians too. Coincidentally, the 44% in both Latinos and Asians matched his CA performance in 2004.

I don't think it's so much social issues (didn't Asians narrowly vote for Proposition 8?), but it's more, as you said, the GOP's pandering to the rubes and their anti-intellectualism that turns so many Asians off. Asians value higher education and they don't see Ivy League universities and those with doctoral degrees as "liberal elites;" rather, they see these places as institutions of honor and prestige. Asians don't want to be associated with the stupid party that is represented by heehaws like Phil Robertson and Kim Davis, and the Trumptards' hijacking of the Republican Party and the war on facts probably just turns off more Asians even more. 

[Hindsight was 2020]

Actually, Asian Americans are more likely to become Republicans first, under any realignment. They voted 48-50% (50-50?) for the GOP in 2014 and their economic situation is strong enough that if social issues were taken off the table, they would be part of any GOP coalition in the future. I think Asians are just ticked off at the GOP's social issues (since a ton of Asians are highly educated and there's an education divide).

It's not remembered but Bush won 44% among Asians too. Coincidentally, the 44% in both Latinos and Asians matched his CA performance in 2004.

I don't think it's so much social issues (didn't Asians narrowly vote for Proposition 8?), but it's more, as you said, the GOP's pandering to the rubes and their anti-intellectualism that turns so many Asians off. Asians value higher education and they don't see Ivy League universities and those with doctoral degrees as "liberal elites;" rather, they see these places as institutions of honor and prestige. Asians don't want to be associated with the stupid party that is represented by heehaws like Phil Robertson and Kim Davis, and the Trumptards' hijacking of the Republican Party and the war on facts probably just turns off more Asians even more. 

Do you people even try to hide your classism anymore?

Being stupid is not necessary "classism" you can be poor but value education or be rich but stupid (heck our president fits in that second part)

[PragmaticPopulist]

It reminds me of a theory I've heard come up that states that working-class whites will one day vote as Republican as blacks vote Democratic. I find it a bit unlikely, considering working-class whites outside the deep south seem to be the most elastic voting bloc.

[Person Man]

It reminds me of a theory I've heard come up that states that working-class whites will one day vote as Republican as blacks vote Democratic. I find it a bit unlikely, considering working-class whites outside the deep south seem to be the most elastic voting bloc.

I would that's almost the case in the Bible Belt snd rural areas.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

I don't have the time or patience to care much about Atlas these days but the canonical explanation for why the average 3rd generation Mexican-American who is 35 and cannot speak Spanish does not consider himself/herself to be White relates to the fact that the Mexican identity has been replenished by waves of immigration. For those who are totally detached from the roots of their grandparents, it's rather easy to maintain a loose affiliation with these roots when there are large numbers of people who are around your age who are present to remind you of those roots.

This is true of other Hispanic immigrant communities and does not even note the fact that most Hispanics live in highly concentrated/segregated neighborhoods. I suspect that this will change going forward but, look, I'll never consider myself to be White and I have a White Dad! This is because my Mom is from Mexico. Anyone who has a direct connection (read: parental) to a Latin American country will have a hard time seeing themselves as White so long as they grew up before ~2020-2030.

As for the statement that "Trump Can't Reverse the Decline of White Christian America", sure, he cannot but, politically, this does not matter. He can disenfranchise or humiliate those who are non-white and who have immigrant ancestry. He has already made America a much less desirable place to emigrate to, as evidenced by the fact that graduate schools in the South are much less attractive for international students in 2017 than they were in 2016. You don't need to assume that Asians and Hispanics (former way more likely than latter imo, 2nd gen Asians mix well with White people!) will assimilate to Whiteness in order to argue that Trump's coalition is durable/viable. It's extremely viable. Remember, there were still plenty of white working class people who voted for Clinton...

[Technocracy Timmy]

Donald Trump was endorsed by the KKK, pretended to not know who David Duke was, winked at the alt right and retweeted neo nazis, said he would deport all undocumented immigrants, said he'd build a wall on our southern border and make Mexico pay for it, and said he'd ban all Muslims.

Donald Trump still won more people of color than Mitt Romney did. That's not to say the GOP don't have demographic problems moving forward, but if the Democratic Party couldn't even stop more people of color from voting for Trump than Romney last year given the kind of campaign Trump ran, then the Democrats have their own problems unrelating to demography that evens the playing field.

[Shadows]

Donald Trump was endorsed by the KKK, pretended to not know who David Duke was, winked at the alt right and retweeted neo nazis, said he would deport all undocumented immigrants, said he'd build a wall on our southern border and make Mexico pay for it, and said he'd ban all Muslims.

Donald Trump still won more people of color than Mitt Romney did. That's not to say the GOP don't have demographic problems moving forward, but if the Democratic Party couldn't even stop more people of color from voting for Trump than Romney last year given the kind of campaign Trump ran, then the Democrats have their own problems unrelating to demography that evens the playing field.

Amen ! Trump out-performing Romney among Hispanics after calling Mexicans rapists & drug dealers !

[Orthogonian Society Treasurer]

Donald Trump was endorsed by the KKK, pretended to not know who David Duke was, winked at the alt right and retweeted neo nazis, said he would deport all undocumented immigrants, said he'd build a wall on our southern border and make Mexico pay for it, and said he'd ban all Muslims.

Donald Trump still won more people of color than Mitt Romney did. That's not to say the GOP don't have demographic problems moving forward, but if the Democratic Party couldn't even stop more people of color from voting for Trump than Romney last year given the kind of campaign Trump ran, then the Democrats have their own problems unrelating to demography that evens the playing field.

Trump outperformed Romney with non-white voters because of the kind of campaign he ran, not in spite of it. "Trump es muy macho, Mitt Romney no es macho."

[Badger]

"Trump can't reverse the decline of white, Christian America", says increasingly panicked establishment.

Don't be stupid. Levels of both white Americans and Christianity is on a downward trajectory. You want to bray about your man god (fortunately you live under Trudeau by your avatar or something) but at least ascertain your facts are remotely correct.

For starters one would want to evaluate why Trump lost the popular vote despite winning whites by a record 22 points.

Hint: non whites.

The 👏🏻 popular 👏🏻 vote 👏🏻 doesn't 👏🏻 matter. The 👏🏻 GOP 👏🏻 win 👏🏻 when 👏🏻 they 👏🏻 appeal 👏🏻 to 👏🏻 white 👏🏻 people 👏🏻

I'm glad you guys are at least willing to admit that you're not interested in representing or serving the United States, but rather only one particular group within the United States. And that you are willing to rely exclusively on the undemocratic electoral college, gerrymandered districts, and the unrepresentative Senate to maintain control. Not that we didn't already know this though...

Oh yeah? Well here us now, tough guy! You're totally wrong about the Republican Party because......

Reasons.

[Badger]

"Trump can't reverse the decline of white, Christian America", says increasingly panicked establishment.

Don't be stupid. Levels of both white Americans and Christianity is on a downward trajectory. You want to bray about your man god (fortunately you live under Trudeau by your avatar or something) but at least ascertain your facts are remotely correct.

For starters one would want to evaluate why Trump lost the popular vote despite winning whites by a record 22 points.

Hint: non whites.

The 👏🏻 popular 👏🏻 vote 👏🏻 doesn't 👏🏻 matter. The 👏🏻 GOP 👏🏻 win 👏🏻 when 👏🏻 they 👏🏻 appeal 👏🏻 to 👏🏻 white 👏🏻 people 👏🏻

I realize you're Canadian living under Trudeau and thinks somehow Trump is the Great White Saviour and you don't understand American elections, but let me give you an impromptu lesson. Because by God, I know my sh*t in this area. And I know you don't.

I bet you felt really good about yourself while writing that - powerful, even.

One! The popular vote matters in terms of delivering electoral legitimacy. If you - a Republican - cannot win the popular vote and 35-40% of whites vote Democratic, because you lost California by 4 milliion votes, Illinois by 2 million votes, New York by 2 million votes, and your margin in Texas is cut in half because 18-44 vote Democratic by a wide margin, let me explain something to you: you have limited legitimacy as President. It's called a "mandate"  in political science and no popular vote means no mandate to enact your policies.

"We can't govern unless our coastal masters are happy!" This is why you and your ilk are losers: you seek the approval of people who hate you. California, New York, and Illinois can sit and spin - the Trump agenda goes forward with or without their consent.

Two: white people matter less and less in this country in terms of determining the President. In 2004, George W. Bush won 44% of Latinos and 44% of Asians, and won the popular vote by 2.5 million he won whites 57-43%. Trump won the white vote by 22 points (either 59-37% or 58-37%) but lost the popular vote because Latinos voted 65-27% for Clinton and Asians voted similarly for Clinton.

Now, I know math may not be the strongest forte of the Trumpists, but hold onto your hats folks

"Hold on to your hats"? Jesus Christ, listen to yourself.

because my God, this is revelationary: if non-whites grow at the clip they did and cost Trump the popular vote by 3 million, that means appealing only to whites the way the Donald did is not a winning strategy. Because eventually, states like Georgia, Arizona, and other states flip adding up to 270 for the Democrats! What a novel concept!

I forgot that demographic shift is a mystical and inexplicable force and not something that flows from policy.

Now, I know you didn't do any research whatsoever because you follow the likes of r/the_Donald, but let me educate you about the most liberal states that delivered huge majorities for Clinton. Did you know, by any chance, brilliant strategist that you are, the white vote in these states? That's right, Clinton won CA whites by 5 points, lost NY whites by 6 points, and lost IL whites by 12 points (less than half of her national margin). She won WA whites, OR whites, New England whites.

So! The logical deduction is that you can't just keep hoping to win more whites over time to win elections!

Have I made my point that your point about "appealing to whites" is absolutely retarded along with your apparently asinine understanding of American politics?

Yes? Excellent.

You sound completely hysterical. Cut the soy out of your diet and stop drinking from plastic bottles.

White Nationalist Tears. Yummy!

Mor plz Clash

[Person Man]

"Trump can't reverse the decline of white, Christian America", says increasingly panicked establishment.

Don't be stupid. Levels of both white Americans and Christianity is on a downward trajectory. You want to bray about your man god (fortunately you live under Trudeau by your avatar or something) but at least ascertain your facts are remotely correct.

For starters one would want to evaluate why Trump lost the popular vote despite winning whites by a record 22 points.

Hint: non whites.

The 👏🏻 popular 👏🏻 vote 👏🏻 doesn't 👏🏻 matter. The 👏🏻 GOP 👏🏻 win 👏🏻 when 👏🏻 they 👏🏻 appeal 👏🏻 to 👏🏻 white 👏🏻 people 👏🏻

I realize you're Canadian living under Trudeau and thinks somehow Trump is the Great White Saviour and you don't understand American elections, but let me give you an impromptu lesson. Because by God, I know my sh*t in this area. And I know you don't.

I bet you felt really good about yourself while writing that - powerful, even.

One! The popular vote matters in terms of delivering electoral legitimacy. If you - a Republican - cannot win the popular vote and 35-40% of whites vote Democratic, because you lost California by 4 milliion votes, Illinois by 2 million votes, New York by 2 million votes, and your margin in Texas is cut in half because 18-44 vote Democratic by a wide margin, let me explain something to you: you have limited legitimacy as President. It's called a "mandate"  in political science and no popular vote means no mandate to enact your policies.

"We can't govern unless our coastal masters are happy!" This is why you and your ilk are losers: you seek the approval of people who hate you. California, New York, and Illinois can sit and spin - the Trump agenda goes forward with or without their consent.

Two: white people matter less and less in this country in terms of determining the President. In 2004, George W. Bush won 44% of Latinos and 44% of Asians, and won the popular vote by 2.5 million he won whites 57-43%. Trump won the white vote by 22 points (either 59-37% or 58-37%) but lost the popular vote because Latinos voted 65-27% for Clinton and Asians voted similarly for Clinton.

Now, I know math may not be the strongest forte of the Trumpists, but hold onto your hats folks

"Hold on to your hats"? Jesus Christ, listen to yourself.

because my God, this is revelationary: if non-whites grow at the clip they did and cost Trump the popular vote by 3 million, that means appealing only to whites the way the Donald did is not a winning strategy. Because eventually, states like Georgia, Arizona, and other states flip adding up to 270 for the Democrats! What a novel concept!

I forgot that demographic shift is a mystical and inexplicable force and not something that flows from policy.

Now, I know you didn't do any research whatsoever because you follow the likes of r/the_Donald, but let me educate you about the most liberal states that delivered huge majorities for Clinton. Did you know, by any chance, brilliant strategist that you are, the white vote in these states? That's right, Clinton won CA whites by 5 points, lost NY whites by 6 points, and lost IL whites by 12 points (less than half of her national margin). She won WA whites, OR whites, New England whites.

So! The logical deduction is that you can't just keep hoping to win more whites over time to win elections!

Have I made my point that your point about "appealing to whites" is absolutely retarded along with your apparently asinine understanding of American politics?

Yes? Excellent.

You sound completely hysterical. Cut the soy out of your diet and stop drinking from plastic bottles.

White Nationalist Tears. Yummy!

Mor plz Clash

Seriously, how do they think they are going to win when they call 60% of the voters rapists, heathens, and thugs?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Look, yes, the declining demographics pose a serious challenge to the GOP, but the idea that it will magically mean salvation for the Democrats (especially if they keep failing to articulate any coherent message beyond "at least we're not as bad as them!") is ridiculous.

oh my fucking god i thought i was joking wtf kill me now

[Badger]

Look, yes, the declining demographics pose a serious challenge to the GOP, but the idea that it will magically mean salvation for the Democrats (especially if they keep failing to articulate any coherent message beyond "at least we're not as bad as them!") is ridiculous.

oh my fucking god i thought i was joking wtf kill me now

Jesus. I thought that screen shot was a joke. But no. HAhahahahaha!

[The_Doctor]

"Trump can't reverse the decline of white, Christian America", says increasingly panicked establishment.

Don't be stupid. Levels of both white Americans and Christianity is on a downward trajectory. You want to bray about your man god (fortunately you live under Trudeau by your avatar or something) but at least ascertain your facts are remotely correct.

For starters one would want to evaluate why Trump lost the popular vote despite winning whites by a record 22 points.

Hint: non whites.

The 👏🏻 popular 👏🏻 vote 👏🏻 doesn't 👏🏻 matter. The 👏🏻 GOP 👏🏻 win 👏🏻 when 👏🏻 they 👏🏻 appeal 👏🏻 to 👏🏻 white 👏🏻 people 👏🏻

I realize you're Canadian living under Trudeau and thinks somehow Trump is the Great White Saviour and you don't understand American elections, but let me give you an impromptu lesson. Because by God, I know my sh*t in this area. And I know you don't.

I bet you felt really good about yourself while writing that - powerful, even.

One! The popular vote matters in terms of delivering electoral legitimacy. If you - a Republican - cannot win the popular vote and 35-40% of whites vote Democratic, because you lost California by 4 milliion votes, Illinois by 2 million votes, New York by 2 million votes, and your margin in Texas is cut in half because 18-44 vote Democratic by a wide margin, let me explain something to you: you have limited legitimacy as President. It's called a "mandate"  in political science and no popular vote means no mandate to enact your policies.

"We can't govern unless our coastal masters are happy!" This is why you and your ilk are losers: you seek the approval of people who hate you. California, New York, and Illinois can sit and spin - the Trump agenda goes forward with or without their consent.

Two: white people matter less and less in this country in terms of determining the President. In 2004, George W. Bush won 44% of Latinos and 44% of Asians, and won the popular vote by 2.5 million he won whites 57-43%. Trump won the white vote by 22 points (either 59-37% or 58-37%) but lost the popular vote because Latinos voted 65-27% for Clinton and Asians voted similarly for Clinton.

Now, I know math may not be the strongest forte of the Trumpists, but hold onto your hats folks

"Hold on to your hats"? Jesus Christ, listen to yourself.

because my God, this is revelationary: if non-whites grow at the clip they did and cost Trump the popular vote by 3 million, that means appealing only to whites the way the Donald did is not a winning strategy. Because eventually, states like Georgia, Arizona, and other states flip adding up to 270 for the Democrats! What a novel concept!

I forgot that demographic shift is a mystical and inexplicable force and not something that flows from policy.

Now, I know you didn't do any research whatsoever because you follow the likes of r/the_Donald, but let me educate you about the most liberal states that delivered huge majorities for Clinton. Did you know, by any chance, brilliant strategist that you are, the white vote in these states? That's right, Clinton won CA whites by 5 points, lost NY whites by 6 points, and lost IL whites by 12 points (less than half of her national margin). She won WA whites, OR whites, New England whites.

So! The logical deduction is that you can't just keep hoping to win more whites over time to win elections!

Have I made my point that your point about "appealing to whites" is absolutely retarded along with your apparently asinine understanding of American politics?

Yes? Excellent.

You sound completely hysterical. Cut the soy out of your diet and stop drinking from plastic bottles.

White Nationalist Tears. Yummy!

Mor plz Clash

It's like the white nationalists don't even bother being unique anymore. When the boy started talking about plastic bottles I knew he was one of these types. His white nationalism and sexism is on full display here. It's awesome.

Ditto that signature in conjunction with everything else.

(also total lack of understanding of politics).

[The_Doctor]

Seriously, how do they think they are going to win when they call 60% of the voters rapists, heathens, and thugs?

But in their world white rural people only vote and not minorities. or women. Or urban people. When white nationalists construct their world view around race you see the whole disdain for democracy and human rights for non whites blindly clear in their thinking. We have a bunch of white nationalists and their racial and sexist thinning is pretty clear as far as it goes.

They're a bunch of /redpill folks who literally believe women are a threat as well as minorities. They're the descendants of the southern segregationists and the folks who started burning crosses on people's lawns.

[Badger]

Perhaps the most obnoxious thing about this debate isn't Republicans arguing the electoral viability of tripling down on the white vote, but rather the utter ignoring the inherently racism and racist policies we need to adopt to achieve those aims.

[Orthogonian Society Treasurer]

It's like the white nationalists don't even bother being unique anymore. When the boy started talking about plastic bottles I knew he was one of these types. His white nationalism and sexism is on full display here. It's awesome.

Ditto that signature in conjunction with everything else.

(also total lack of understanding of politics).

"His white nationalism and sexism is on full display here. It's awesome." - SilentCal1924

[The_Doctor]

It's like the white nationalists don't even bother being unique anymore. When the boy started talking about plastic bottles I knew he was one of these types. His white nationalism and sexism is on full display here. It's awesome.

Ditto that signature in conjunction with everything else.

(also total lack of understanding of politics).

"His white nationalism and sexism is on full display here. It's awesome." - SilentCal1924

Well I'm glad you don't deny it. Acceptance is a healthy thing!

And lolz and if you bothered to read my posts I picked my handle because I express a variety of right wing opinions (abortion, gun rights, etc).

The lefties here don't accuse me of white nationalism and sexism mostly because, gee, I go out of my way to condemn it and advocate policies that don't have racist or sexist underpinnings. Or say things like the GOP should rely on the white vote!

[Unapologetic Chinaperson]

Actually, Asian Americans are more likely to become Republicans first, under any realignment. They voted 48-50% (50-50?) for the GOP in 2014 and their economic situation is strong enough that if social issues were taken off the table, they would be part of any GOP coalition in the future. I think Asians are just ticked off at the GOP's social issues (since a ton of Asians are highly educated and there's an education divide).

It's not remembered but Bush won 44% among Asians too. Coincidentally, the 44% in both Latinos and Asians matched his CA performance in 2004.

Don't forget another reason why we Asians vote Dem these days - because the GOP likes to perpetuate the "Perpetual Foreigner" idea. (Exhibit A: The "Watters World" Chinatown Segment. Exhibit B: Steve Bannon's "Too many Asians in Silicon Valley" comment." Exhibit C...you get the point.) Of course the GOP does this for the same reason they demonize other minorities - to attract more and more of the White vote...

Which ultimately supports your point - for the GOP to adapt, they have to drop the otherization of immigrants and embrace them, which is incompatible with Trumpist ethnic nationalism.

[Orthogonian Society Treasurer]

It's like the white nationalists don't even bother being unique anymore. When the boy started talking about plastic bottles I knew he was one of these types. His white nationalism and sexism is on full display here. It's awesome.

Ditto that signature in conjunction with everything else.

(also total lack of understanding of politics).

"His white nationalism and sexism is on full display here. It's awesome." - SilentCal1924

Well I'm glad you don't deny it. Acceptance is a healthy thing!

And lolz and if you bothered to read my posts I picked my handle because I express a variety of right wing opinions (abortion, gun rights, etc).

The lefties here don't accuse me of white nationalism and sexism mostly because, gee, I go out of my way to condemn it and advocate policies that don't have racist or sexist underpinnings. Or say things like the GOP should rely on the white vote!

It was a joke, man. You see, out of context, the quote makes you sound like you think white nationalism and sexism are 'awesome'. Chill out for a bit, internet forums aren't that serious.

Leftists don't accuse you of anything because you're harmless and you don't challenge their worldview in any way.

[SNJ1985]

Leftists don't accuse you of anything because you're harmless and you don't challenge their worldview in any way.

Exactly. McMullin-type ''conservatives'' only enable the left. They are so desperate to be liked by people who despise them and would love to be able to deny them a place in politics. They're masochists.