"America First" caucus "a common respect for uniquely Anglo-Saxon political traditions"

[hislegacy]

Well, fascism certainly is pretty uniquely Anglo-Saxon.

Can you name a race that does not have a history of being slave owners?

 

[Albion]

Hence 'pretty', hth

"Pretty uniquely" I think was the oxymoron used.

 

[Triumvirate]

Can you name a race that does not have a history of being slave owners?

Weird, weird flex. Positively weird.

Can you name 'anglo-saxon political traditions' that non-anglo-saxon nations don't also have a history of using?

 

[Triumvirate]

"Pretty uniquely" I think was the oxymoron used.

Which should have tipped you off not to take an obviously glib remark that seriously

Anyway, fascism bad, don't do this 'Anglo-Saxon' or 'America First' schtick, it's posting cringe

 

[Albion]

Okay. It's good to "see" you again.

 

[Larniavc]

Thanks to the corporate money coming their way, Democratic candidates were able to outspend their Republican opponents by quite a lot last year.

Oh boo hoo. America has a proud tradition of billionaires buying political favour.

It’s only a problem because you don’t like it.

 

[Larniavc]

Well, that appears to be just your imagination working overtime. The term "Anglo-Saxon" is a simple historical term and an accurate one in this case (as was explained).

In this context (as in, especially America) it means white.

 

[Triumvirate]

It's as naff a suggestion as me claiming that 'thou shalt not kill' is an 'atheist' value.

Not only would the Christians here have a few raised eyebrows at the precise wording, but even outside of Christianity, most societies have prohibitions on murder. They wouldn't be very stable societies otherwise.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Somehow, we've got to get people to stop relying upon political slogans from fifty years ago, which lead them to say things like "The Republican Party is the party of the rich" when the two parties have completely switched sides in more recent years.

No, the Republican party is still the "Party of the Rich" They are not the party of the ultra rich. That should tell you something. People that no longer are in the game for the money and are more interested in the well being of everyone no longer support the Republican party.

 

[Triumvirate]

Somehow, we've got to get people to stop relying upon political slogans from fifty years ago, which lead them to say things like "The Republican Party is the party of the rich" when the two parties have completely switched sides in more recent years.

slogans from 80 years ago like 'america first' might be a start too

 

[hislegacy]

--Observation -- Anyone curious besides me that opponents of the Republican Party say that the Republicans are uneducated (not college educated) etc, then another time they are the party of the rich.

 

[Triumvirate]

--Observation -- Anyone curious besides me that opponents of the Republican Party say that the Republicans are uneducated (not college educated) etc, then another time they are the party of the rich.

Hardly total polar opposites.

I've seen plenty of rich kids go through college without gaining much from the privilege.

Gaetz went to university, for example, but God made his brains on a Sunday.

 

[Triumvirate]

In the manifesto for this...thing, there is only one reference to 'Anglo-Saxon' and it's not explicated on further. Seems to be pretty strongly in dog-whistle territory, at least given the vacuity and ambiguity of the term.

 

[Albion]

Oh boo hoo. America has a proud tradition of billionaires buying political favour.

So it was okay to pin that on the wrong party? "Everyone does it?" I think that's not a good argument.

 

[Albion]

In this context (as in, especially America) it means white.

This is getting very strange. Americans who are white are supposedly all supremacists and history supposedly proves it. But then again, the demand has been to take account of the non-Anglo-Saxons who have made contributions to our culture...even if those contributions are by definition white supremacy. It sounds very much like this is a contention that doesn't really bother with the details. Claim them when it helps, ignore them when it doesn't.

 

[essentialsaltes]

--Observation -- Anyone curious besides me that opponents of the Republican Party say that the Republicans are uneducated (not college educated) etc, then another time they are the party of the rich.

It's a little more complicated than that.

The leaders of the GOP have almost all gone to universities. (and are also rich)
The policies of the GOP tend to favor the rich and corporate leaders (who are also mostly college educated).
The right-wing messaging is that universities are suspect liberal indoctrination centers and should be avoided by red-blooded American patriots.
And thus the GOP base skews (nowadays, it was not always thus) toward non-college educated people who have been hoodwinked into voting against their own economic interests.

Just 25 years ago, Republicans had a huge advantage among white college educated voters. But right wing media has de-educated the base.

'I voted for Trump because he's like me.'
'Oh, did you inherit millions and attend the Wharton School?'

 

[Albion]

No, the Republican party is still the "Party of the Rich" They are not the party of the ultra rich.

So we agree that the Republican Party isn't the party of the ultra-rich. Now, because the supposedly white suburbs are targets of the Harris-Biden administration, and most of those people would be considered rich if not super-rich, the number of "rich" people that the Republican Party allegedly represents has to be so small that the claim of the GOP being the party of the "rich" has to be false.

 

[essentialsaltes]

"Everyone does it?" I think that's not a good argument.

True, that isn't. But maybe now that the GOP is getting hurt by Citizens United, it will join with Democrats in looking at how to undo that, by constitutional amendment if necessary.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Can you name a race that does not have a history of being slave owners?

Interesting justification, but whatever...

 

[Sabertooth]

Why aren't you considering the obvious third possibility?

3. It's legit.

Because even if it was legit, it would be political suicide to say so.
If he knew that when he was in office, why would he not know it now...?

I call shenanigans.