Lexicus
Deity
"I will never admit that someone is a Nazi, even if they're literally Adolf Hitler, we can't be 100% sure"
Neo-Nazi wins Primary for GOP in Illinois 3rd congressional district
- Thread starter Archbob
- Start date
"I will never admit that someone is a Nazi, even if they're literally Adolf Hitler, we can't be 100% sure"
Synobun
Deity
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2006
- Messages
- 24,884
Generally speaking, your vote for an individual also implies a tacit approval of their core platform.
If you vote for a politician that campaigned and is visibly proud of being a rapist, then yes it's probably safe to say that you support rape.
Arthur Jones self-describes as a leader of Nazism in the United States. It's not like his political beliefs are a minor, obscure quirk that had to be uncovered by a cabal of journalists and naysayers. His beliefs, and his intentions, are clear. You do not vote for someone like that because you think they might have a pretty neat tax policy for your income bracket. Missing the forest for the trees.
If you vote for a politician that campaigned and is visibly proud of being a rapist, then yes it's probably safe to say that you support rape.
Arthur Jones self-describes as a leader of Nazism in the United States. It's not like his political beliefs are a minor, obscure quirk that had to be uncovered by a cabal of journalists and naysayers. His beliefs, and his intentions, are clear. You do not vote for someone like that because you think they might have a pretty neat tax policy for your income bracket. Missing the forest for the trees.
Lexicus
Deity
I think it's likely that @rah is correct and most who voted for him did so because he had an R next to his name and that's how they vote. That's fine, I think people who vote for a Nazi in ignorance of what they're voting for still count as Nazis.
I have to revisit this because it's just so silly.
If you vote for a Democrat you're a person who votes for Democrats. Part of the definition of Democrat is "person who votes for Democrats." Similarly, voting for a Nazi makes you a person who votes for Nazis. Now I may be going out on a limb here but I feel like part of the definition of "Nazi" maybe should be "votes for Nazis." I don't know, maybe you disagree. My comment replying to this above played on this idea that your definition of "Nazi" may be so restrictive that even real-life historical Nazis like Hitler wouldn't qualify.
Synobun
Deity
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2006
- Messages
- 24,884
I'm not sure I agree with the last part, but they are definitely responsible for potentially putting someone of... inadequate moral standing in power. Voting for a letter is stupid and their stupidity is going to have consequences.
Wow, okay you weren't just trolling. Just some basic logic. Part of being a bear means you have four legs. Does that mean if you have four legs that you are a bear? Of course not. Many non-democrats sometimes vote for democrats. This is just... completely obvious. You might be a communist, but make a compromise and vote for a democrat because they more closely reflect your views that the other guy, but still completely reject the label of democrat.
More importantly, the argument here, which has already been given, is that some people just voted for "R" without knowing the first thing about him. For those people, it's possible that they are not Nazis, if they didn't even know they were voting for a Nazi. They were just ignorant of who they were voting for, that is one possible case. Which is why the blanket accusation that "voting for a Nazi makes you a Nazi. Full stop." is completely false.
Lexicus
Deity
Before we progress further, I must ask, do you believe that someone rejecting a label means that the label factually does not apply to them?
No.
Being a Nazi is a reflection of views that you hold. If you vote for someone in ignorance, it is not a reflection of views you hold, it's a reflection of your ignorance. Calling these people Nazis is nothing but obfuscation and only serves to embolden the other side. Leave the world for actual Nazis, so you don't give fuel to the other side. Calling people Nazis, who have views are provably not Nazi, but voted for a Nazi in ignorance, is not just bad from a tactical standpoint, but wrong.
Lexicus
Deity
Okay, that's good. That means that you do believe there is some objective standard for when a label applies to someone, and that if, for example, someone attends Nazi Party meetings, frequents Stormfront, and generally likes to shout about the menace posed by Jews, we can identify that person as a Nazi even if they deny being a Nazi.
I think I have a more expansive view of what a Nazi is than you. I'll illustrate with an example. Imagine for a moment that we're American soldiers each responsible for the administration of neighboring towns in occupied Germany, in 1945. In my town, I'm following the de-Nazification order to the letter, which means no person who was a member of the Nazi party is allowed to participate in the civil administration ever again. I don't care whether they joined the Party because everyone was doing it, because they thought it was the path to professional advancement, or because they fervently believed in every bit of Nazi ideology. If someone joined the Party, they're a Nazi to me. Now, I'm not going to assume what you'd do, but it sounds to me like you'd give a pass to people who joined the party for pragmatic reasons but weren't totally on board with the ideology. Do you think this is a fair characterization of the difference between our views here, and do you understand how this applies by analogy to the situation we're actually discussing?
I don't have any issue with classifying someone as a Nazi because they joined the Nazi party, just like I wouldn't mind classifying someone as a Democrat because they joined the Democratic party. Mainly because it's almost impossible to imagine that someone joined a Nazi party accidentally.
With the voting case, we are literally talking about the hypothetical person who accidentally voted for a Nazi, and you are saying that makes them a Nazi. Additionally, there is a certain sense in which joining a Nazi party makes you by definition a Nazi, in a way that voting for someone from a different party doesn't make you a member of that party.
The main primary election on the GOP side was for governor, where a Tea Party type ran a strong campaign against the incumbent Bruce Rauner and nearly beat him. But most of the rest of the offices in this district would have been a single candidate running unopposed. Voters who voted for him just had a single bubble to fill in, and had no reason to find out any information on him - he would have "won" the primary no matter what, so it comes down to whether or not they like filling in meaningless bubbles. Some voters might also have wrongly thought that not voting in that one-candidate race would have spoiled their ballot for the other offices including governor.
Thus far, though, the only real scandal is that the Republicans didn't notice he was the only registered primary candidate and run someone, anyone, against him. They might have at least been able to run a write-in campaign, assuming the write-in deadline is later than the main candidate deadline. There really should be an "against" option for single-candidate elections. Hell, even Soviet one-candidate elections allowed voters to do that, although actually doing it was a rather bad idea.
Now if he gets a result in the general election that is anything like what previous Republicans got, that would be pretty worrying. I'm sure he will get a little bit of support from people who really do prefer a neo-Nazi to a Democrat, and also some votes from people who are still ignorant of who he is. Hopefully he gets outpolled by a third-party candidate and finishes with a single-digit percentage.
I am very much unconvinced that neo-Nazis, outright white supremacists, and other true extreme-right types actually have much support in the US, or that their support has increased significantly in recent years. After all, David Duke did run for governor of Louisiana in a jungle primary in 2016. He got 3% of the vote in a state that went overwhelmingly for Trump. He had gotten 39% for governor in 1991 and 43% for Senate in 1990, placing second in each case.
Thus far, though, the only real scandal is that the Republicans didn't notice he was the only registered primary candidate and run someone, anyone, against him. They might have at least been able to run a write-in campaign, assuming the write-in deadline is later than the main candidate deadline. There really should be an "against" option for single-candidate elections. Hell, even Soviet one-candidate elections allowed voters to do that, although actually doing it was a rather bad idea.
Now if he gets a result in the general election that is anything like what previous Republicans got, that would be pretty worrying. I'm sure he will get a little bit of support from people who really do prefer a neo-Nazi to a Democrat, and also some votes from people who are still ignorant of who he is. Hopefully he gets outpolled by a third-party candidate and finishes with a single-digit percentage.
I am very much unconvinced that neo-Nazis, outright white supremacists, and other true extreme-right types actually have much support in the US, or that their support has increased significantly in recent years. After all, David Duke did run for governor of Louisiana in a jungle primary in 2016. He got 3% of the vote in a state that went overwhelmingly for Trump. He had gotten 39% for governor in 1991 and 43% for Senate in 1990, placing second in each case.
Berzerker
Deity
How about if they're an accused rapist and you vote for them anyway? Didn't Roy Moore voters get accused of supporting a child molester.
So Bill Clinton voters support rape even if they didn't know he was accused of rape?
You reading that, Sommers? You said calling someone a Republican was so different from calling them a Republican voter it constituted moving goal posts.
Lexicus
Deity
You know Sommer and I are two different people tho right?
If there had been a N next to the guys name I would agree that the people that voted for him could be called Nazis. Or if they knew his position and voted for him. But if they didn't you really can't call them that.
Now on the Roy Moore Issues. While that was way more public so it was hard to ignore, I would have never voted for him but wouldn't accuse those that did of supporting his type of behavior. (even though there are some that do support that behavior) I honestly believe that those that voted for him actually didn't believe the accusations. But enough did and didn't vote for him so he lost. Those were the true heroes because the went against their party because they couldn't support someone that had displayed that type of behavior.
Now on the Roy Moore Issues. While that was way more public so it was hard to ignore, I would have never voted for him but wouldn't accuse those that did of supporting his type of behavior. (even though there are some that do support that behavior) I honestly believe that those that voted for him actually didn't believe the accusations. But enough did and didn't vote for him so he lost. Those were the true heroes because the went against their party because they couldn't support someone that had displayed that type of behavior.
Lexicus
Deity
I would. And do.
You're really trying to have this both ways. If these folks were heroes for going against their own party, then it seems like the people who didn't go against their own party were supporting pedophilia....
I think this 'honest belief' of yours demonstrates surprising forgetfulness on your part. We know that many people who supported Roy Moore believed the accusations because they publicly excused them rather than denying them, an example that I recall being the Alabama State Auditor mentioning that Joseph was an adult and Mary was a teenager when Jesus was born. There were also plenty of people on social media wondering what the big deal about a 30-year-old asking out a 16 or 17-year-old was. And lastly there were plenty of people sharing memes to the effect that while Roy Moore may molest children, Doug Jones was going to murder them via his support for abortion rights. And I think that you knew all of this, you just forgot about it in your rush to exonerate the people who voted for Roy Moore. It's understandable, but I think this all boils down to you were a Republican for a long time and the idea that large swaths of Republicans support Nazism or child molestation makes you very uncomfortable and so you don't want to believe it.
And I'm sorry for stating things so bluntly but that's honestly how I see things right now.
I'll end by saying that I think refusing to believe Moore's accusers and voting for him to go to the Senate constitutes "support for his type of behavior."
Preferring a creepy homophobic fundamentalist with no respect for the federal judiciary over a civil rights lawyer who is a moderate Democrat does not directly make someone a homophobic fundamentalist. But it indicates that they are fellow travelers to some extent or another, and that's already pretty worrisome. Likewise with preferring a neo-Nazi running as a Republican to a Democrat, which would be true of anyone who votes for him in November and hasn't been living under a rock, since Arthur Jones's beliefs will likely be common knowledge even for relatively uninformed people by then.
Lexicus
Deity
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
As we look for excuses for these Republican voters I have a related question.
While the US is commonly referred to as having a "two-party system," the fact is that we do have other parties. People and candidates in the Green Party, among others, don't believe that either of the main parties really represent their views, so even though they can't really win much of anything they are out there. There's also nothing preventing a political party from expelling members that don't reflect the party positions.
So how is it that the neo-Nazis have not formed their own party? Why can they find a major party that adequately represents their views while the Greens cannot?
How is it that the Republican party has a member running around calling himself a Nazi and Republican, and have not only not expelled him but have allowed him to represent the party on the ballot numerous times?
While the US is commonly referred to as having a "two-party system," the fact is that we do have other parties. People and candidates in the Green Party, among others, don't believe that either of the main parties really represent their views, so even though they can't really win much of anything they are out there. There's also nothing preventing a political party from expelling members that don't reflect the party positions.
So how is it that the neo-Nazis have not formed their own party? Why can they find a major party that adequately represents their views while the Greens cannot?
How is it that the Republican party has a member running around calling himself a Nazi and Republican, and have not only not expelled him but have allowed him to represent the party on the ballot numerous times?
They have kept him off the ballot in the past if I remember correctly. But this time they error ed and weren't paying attention. An admitted black eye on the party. And they have discussed running a write in campaign against him in the November election even though there is zero chance that he could win.
Again this is an aberration, i'd be more concerned about the dumpster.
Similar threads
