Conservative Marc Theissen column: Trump built a winning coalition. White nationalists will destroy it.

[essentialsaltes]

Trump built a winning coalition. White nationalists will destroy it.​

--

'Political suicide': Pro-Trump commentator warns MAGA's 'overt racists' will destroy GOP​

In a Thursday column, Thiessen laid out how Republicans were able to secure both a popular vote and Electoral College majority in 2024 for the first time in two decades thanks to making inroads with Black and Hispanic voters. He argued, however, that the GOP's activist base includes "morally reprehensible" people like neo-Nazi podcaster Nick Fuentes, whose growing influence could turn into "political suicide for the right."

According to Thiessen, (a MAGA conservative who recently advocated for President Donald Trump to win the Nobel Peace Prize) Trump’s 2024 voting coalition was "significantly more racially and ethnically diverse than it had been in 2020 or 2016," and he had increased his vote share "almost every key demographic."

However, Thiessen warned that gains are now in jeopardy due to Fuentes' increasingly prominent role in Republican politics. Fuentes – who is the at the heart of the ideological civil war currently consuming the influential conservative Heritage Foundation think tank — is a known Holocaust denier who regularly demeans racial minorities and has called for the "death penalty" against Jewish people and practitioners of all non-Christian faiths.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Another view of the sitch, but there's some poopoo words in this Guardian article:

White nationalist Nick Fuentes is exposing a civil war among US Republicans: ‘We look like clowns’​

 

[DaisyDay]

Good.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Here's my honest take...

The racists they're referring to were always part of the coalition. (even back in 2016)

They're just much more vocal and visible now.


The reason why this wasn't as visible from 2016-2023? Internet/Social Media censorship.

I tried making this argument back a few years ago... the argument of "sunlight is the best disinfectant". And that "you're actually helping Trump by hiding his most radical supporters from public view"


And that's really the ironic part, it was the "We need to ban any and all offensive speech and microaggressions" crowd (that hates Trump the most) that delayed people coming to realization, on the basis of "needing to protect peoples' feelings online"

I think we can mostly agree that the catalyst behind this "awakening" moment some in the conservative movement are having, is largely due to Nick Fuentes content not being censored anymore and a lot of people on the conservative half are learning about him (and his views) for for the first time.

Had some of the BlueSky-type crybabies not demanded content censorship on the major platforms back in 2016-2020, this "realization" that's leading to a "MAGA fracturing" could've happened 3-4 years ago when it actually mattered -- BEFORE he got elected again instead of afterwards.

People having that realization now changes nothing. With or without a "unified MAGA", Trump is your president until Jan. 2029.

 

[Chesterton]

The Grand Old Party's getting destroyed? <pops open bottle of champagne>

They haven't been grand since they abandoned human rights, free enterprise, non-interventionism, etc.

 

[FireDragon76]

Why is this surprising to anybody? Groyperism has always been something the GOP played footsie with ever since Trump ran for president. Trump's dog whistles were not in vain.

 

[FireDragon76]

Here's my honest take...

The racists they're referring to were always part of the coalition. (even back in 2016)

They're just much more vocal and visible now.


The reason why this wasn't as visible from 2016-2023? Internet/Social Media censorship.

I tried making this argument back a few years ago... the argument of "sunlight is the best disinfectant". And that "you're actually helping Trump by hiding his most radical supporters from public view"


And that's really the ironic part, it was the "We need to ban any and all offensive speech and microaggressions" crowd (that hates Trump the most) that delayed people coming to realization, on the basis of "needing to protect peoples' feelings online"

I think we can mostly agree that the catalyst behind this "awakening" moment some in the conservative movement are having, is largely due to Nick Fuentes content not being censored anymore and a lot of people on the conservative half are learning about him (and his views) for for the first time.

Had some of the BlueSky-type crybabies not demanded content censorship on the major platforms back in 2016-2020, this "realization" that's leading to a "MAGA fracturing" could've happened 3-4 years ago when it actually mattered -- BEFORE he got elected again instead of afterwards.

People having that realization now changes nothing. With or without a "unified MAGA", Trump is your president until Jan. 2029.

I disagree. Though content moderation could be heavy-handed in the 2010's, the Overton window has moved alot since the major social media platforms capitulated in favor of techno-libertarian feudalism.

 

[rambot]

Here's my honest take...

The racists they're referring to were always part of the coalition. (even back in 2016)

They're just much more vocal and visible now.


The reason why this wasn't as visible from 2016-2023? Internet/Social Media censorship.

I tried making this argument back a few years ago... the argument of "sunlight is the best disinfectant". And that "you're actually helping Trump by hiding his most radical supporters from public view"


And that's really the ironic part, it was the "We need to ban any and all offensive speech and microaggressions" crowd (that hates Trump the most) that delayed people coming to realization, on the basis of "needing to protect peoples' feelings online"

I think we can mostly agree that the catalyst behind this "awakening" moment some in the conservative movement are having, is largely due to Nick Fuentes content not being censored anymore and a lot of people on the conservative half are learning about him (and his views) for for the first time.

Had some of the BlueSky-type crybabies not demanded content censorship on the major platforms back in 2016-2020, this "realization" that's leading to a "MAGA fracturing" could've happened 3-4 years ago when it actually mattered -- BEFORE he got elected again instead of afterwards.

People having that realization now changes nothing. With or without a "unified MAGA", Trump is your president until Jan. 2029.

I dont' think the OP would challenge that the racists weren't part of the coalition. EVeryone knows they were.

The issue is the slowly increasing voice and legitimacy the neonazis are getting...which has been happenning since 2016 but just got roped up.

I do also, find it just so strange how, again, you manage to blame democrats for the expanding racism (or less flattering aspects) of the republican party.

It's so weird how often you do that.
Is there a reason why REpublicans couldn't be responsible for the racism in their own party and perhaps also the racism that is happenning now when they have complete control? They were not obliged to be welcoming OR tolerant of those nazis from 2016-2023. They could ALSO stop it right now.


But those stupid dems...back then did something.
Like....what?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I dont' think the OP would challenge that the racists weren't part of the coalition. EVeryone knows they were.

The issue is the slowly increasing voice and legitimacy the neonazis are getting...which has been happenning since 2016 but just got roped up.

I do also, find it just so strange how, again, you manage to blame democrats for the expanding racism (or less flattering aspects) of the republican party.

It's so weird how often you do that.
Is there a reason why REpublicans couldn't be responsible for the racism in their own party and perhaps also the racism that is happenning now when they have complete control? They were not obliged to be welcoming OR tolerant of those nazis from 2016-2023. They could ALSO stop it right now.


But those stupid dems...back then did something.
Like....what?

I'm blaming them because it was their fault...

If we agree that increased public exposure of the Nick Fuentes types is what's driving this fracturing of the GOP... It only stands to reason that the sooner that exposure would have happened, the sooner that fracture would have occurred, right?

What stopped all of the conservatives from seeing, and becoming aware of, the Nick Fuentes types and just how radical the views were?

That would be the fact that YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter blocked people from seeing it, correct?... Not only that, they had algorithms that would shadow ban content if it even referenced his name or likeness even if it wasn't his video.

Which political entity was it that was demanding that kind of censorship?

This fracturing among the GOP could have happened back in 2019

 

[essentialsaltes]

Nick Fuentes definitely agrees.

Nick Fuentes on his America First movement: “We’re looking to fundamentally replace the GOP”​

Fuentes: “This is the moment when America First demonstrates that it has legs. ... We’re looking to totally alter the GOP. We’re looking to fundamentally replace the GOP. ... Now you have a blueprint for how this could be used in the future.”

And arguably, this is the moment when America First demonstrates that it has legs. This is what Trumpism has to give birth to, which is we’re not looking to win control over the GOP. We’re looking to totally alter the GOP. We’re looking to fundamentally replace the GOP. And this now has legs. Now you have a handful of MAGA congressmen or America First congressmen. Now you have a blueprint for how this could be used in the future.

 

[rambot]

What stopped all of the conservatives from seeing, and becoming aware of, the Nick Fuentes types and just how radical the views were?

That would be the fact that YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter blocked people from seeing it, correct?... Not only that, they had algorithms that would shadow ban content if it even referenced his name or likeness even if it wasn't his video.

Which political entity was it that was demanding that kind of censorship?

This fracturing among the GOP could have happened back in 2019

And how can you know it would have happenned at that time and it would have not been fully embraced by the GOP?
And how can we know it didn't exacerbate or even speed up the problem?

I see the movement as slowly growing instead.

Anything is possible, yes.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

And how can you know it would have happenned at that time and it would have not been fully embraced by the GOP?
And how can we know it didn't exacerbate or even speed up the problem?

I see the movement as slowly growing instead.

Anything is possible, yes.

Has the right gone further right, or moved more toward the middle between 2019 and now?

If the right (circa 2025) is fracturing over the "Fuentes Factor", and the circa-2025 is the most extreme version of "the right" we've ever had, then this kind of stuff would've been even more fracturing back in 2019 by that reasoning, correct?

That would be logical conclusion, right?

If the 2025 version of the right is the "most right-wing that the right has ever been, bordering on fascism" as some have said, and half of them are like "whoa, what's the deal with this Fuentes dude saying the holocaust didn't happen!?!?, I don't know if I want to be a part of this"

Wouldn't that reaction be even more pronounced among the 2019 right, who were a little less far-right?



I think my reasoning is rock solid on this.

Social media is a major driver in politics.

The excesses of either faction have the effect of being off-putting to a lot of people.

The left went out of their way to silence and hide the excesses of the right on social media on the basis of "mean words could hurt peoples' feelings", while the excesses of the left were amplified and put at the top of everyone's Twitter feed.


From a Democratic strategy perspective, this picture sums it up...

If I was running for office, and the Westboro Baptist Church was supporting my opponent, and the Church of Scientology was supporting me, and my supporters pulled levers to get FB, YT, and Twitter to suppress Westboro posts, and amplify Scientology posts, that'd be a pretty stupid move (strategically), right? -- Despite the fact that morally speaking, the Westboro Baptist Church is more immoral than the Scientologists becomes irrelevant at that point, as the general public is only going to be made aware of the "crazies" on my side, and not hear anything about the "crazies" (who are actually worse) supporting the other guy.

 

[Chesterton]

I think my reasoning is rock solid on this.

Solid reasoning based on incorrect preliminary facts will lead to wrong conclusions. Listen to Nikki Haley's son, and tell me what's "extreme" about him.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Solid reasoning based on incorrect preliminary facts will lead to wrong conclusions. Listen to Nikki Haley's son, and tell me what's "extreme" about him.

What does Nikki's son have to do with anything?

A non-extreme person can certainly "agree" with Fuentes on certain issues within a limited scope.

Fuentes is against financially supporting Israel
I'm against financially supporting Israel

Fuentes opposes DEI initiatives
I oppose DEI initiatives


The key difference

I oppose financially supporting Israel because they have a more balanced budget than we do and their corrupt government is using that money for the efforts of disproportionate retaliation. (for the same reason that, if I were deeply in debt, and a family member who was not in debt asked me if they could borrow $500 to go bet on a horse race, I'd say no)
...
He opposes it because he thinks Jews are born with a genetic disposition that makes them want to exert economic control over other peoples


I oppose DEI because I believe is an over-correction mechanism that backfires in most cases and promotes mediocrity
...
He opposes it because he believes Whites are genetically intellectually superior to Blacks, and that people just need to make peace with that "biological reality" and proceed within that framework.


We are not the same.

 

[Chesterton]

What does Nikki's son have to do with anything?

He succinctly explains things that you seem to be confused about.

We are not the same.

No one said you were. But you seem interested in the changes taking place. You can choose to be on the right side of history, or the right side of morality.

 

[zippy2006]

I think my reasoning is rock solid on this.

Yes, I think it is good reasoning.

So would you say that censorship is ever politically expedient?

Part of what you are saying is, "Twitter (under Dorsey) should not have censored Fuentes, because it was politically counterproductive." Part of the problem with this is that Dorsey was not merely a political actor, but also a moral actor. He was doing something that he believed to be good for the country, not merely good for the Democrats. He may well have responded to you by saying, "Yeah, maybe this won't help the Democrats, but it is still the right thing to do."

 

[iluvatar5150]

I'm blaming them because it was their fault...

If we agree that increased public exposure of the Nick Fuentes types is what's driving this fracturing of the GOP...

No, it’s not merely the greater exposure that the Groypers are getting. It’s also that they’re becoming more numerous on the right, particularly among their younger ranks. Social media isn’t just exposing these folks, it’s creating more of them. The Republican party of old would have censored this stuff themselves.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

He succinctly explains things that you seem to be confused about.

Perhaps you didn't have it queued up to the right spot?

When I listened to the part you queued it up to, it was him talking about how the media are "blood sucking leeches who thrive off of the destruction of the United States, and I hate them"

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Yes, I think it is good reasoning.

So would you say that censorship is ever politically expedient?

Part of what you are saying is, "Twitter (under Dorsey) should not have censored Fuentes, because it was politically counterproductive." Part of the problem with this is that Dorsey was not merely a political actor, but also a moral actor. He was doing something that he believed to be good for the country, not merely good for the Democrats. He may well have responded to you by saying, "Yeah, maybe this won't help the Democrats, but it is still the right thing to do."

Just for the record, I'm not a fan of censorship, generally speaking.

...but strictly speaking in terms of political strategy:

Censorship is only politically expedient if one's own house "is in order" regards to to the Overton Window.

However, if one's own team as just as many views that a significant number of Americans find to be "cuckoo", censoring the other teams cuckoo views (while leaving their own out there in broad daylight for everyone to see) only hurts themselves.


With regards to the "moral" aspect. I think it's hard to tell how much that really played a factor. Tech-based platforms were being given thinly veiled coercion from congress/senate, phrased in the form of a "strong suggestion" that they should censor certain things based on the premise that "Gee, that's some nice section 230 platform protection you've got there, it'd be a real shame if something happened to it"

 

[Chesterton]

Perhaps you didn't have it queued up to the right spot?

When I listened to the part you queued it up to, it was him talking about how the media are "blood sucking leeches who thrive off of the destruction of the United States, and I hate them"

If that's all you bothered to listen to, and wish to remain benighted, fine, that's your choice.

But, do you disagree with that sentence? I went to McDonald's for breakfast. The guy who tried to take my order couldn't speak English. I had to wait for the hi-tech image machine to keep moving and show what I wanted so I could point at it. Blood sucking leeches who thrive off of the destruction of the United States. No, not the employee, the multinational corporation.