Why do people say the GOP is really racist and sexist?

[nec209]

People say the GOP is really racist and sexist probably more than Trump. What do people mean the GOP is saying really racist and sexist comments.

And why do they say they more racist and sexist than Trump?

 

 

 

[swansont]

41 minutes ago, nec209 said:

People say the GOP is really racist and sexist probably more than Trump. What do people mean the GOP is saying really racist and sexist comments.

And why do they say they more racist and sexist than Trump?

Who is “they”?

[iNow]

3 hours ago, nec209 said:

Why do people say the GOP is really racist and sexist?

Because they have eyes and ears mostly 

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Who is “they”?

Seconded 

[J.C.MacSwell]

Well...I would say that some people are racist and sexist, some more than Trump, and these people seem to gravitate more toward the GOP than the Democrats...in part, but not all...because Trump

Edited November 2 by J.C.MacSwell

[MigL]

There are racist and sexist Democrats also; they are, after all, politicians and human.
But the Republican leader, D Trump, has normalized such behavior, and so most Republicans express such behavior, and are not ashamed of openly doing so.

[pzkpfw]

If the GOP (as a whole) are not racist and sexist (regardless of more or less), why accept him as their figurehead?

Edited November 2 by pzkpfw

[TheVat]

1 hour ago, pzkpfw said:

If the GOP (as a whole) are not racist and sexist (regardless of more or less), why accept him as their figurehead?

Indeed.  They had a perfectly presentable, sane, smart and experienced candidate in the primaries: Nikki Haley.  Who was a woman of south Asian (Punjabi) descent.  

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

Indeed.  They had a perfectly presentable, sane, smart and experienced candidate in the primaries: Nikki Haley.  Who was a woman of south Asian (Punjabi) descent.  

Like Harris, she would also have handed Trump his ass in a debate, but he refused just as he did for any second debate against Harris.

Instead he just holds blowhard rallies, complete with sexist and racist content...brags incessantly, and somehow gets a pass.

I keep looking at the polls and thinking "are you kidding me?"

Hopefully they are, due to overcompensating for past mistakes,

[nec209]

20 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Well...I would say that some people are racist and sexist, some more than Trump, and these people seem to gravitate more toward the GOP than the Democrats...in part, but not all...because Trump

Well yes but is there any examples of what the GOP said that was racist or sexist?

[Phi for All]

8 minutes ago, nec209 said:

Well yes but is there any examples of what the GOP said that was racist or sexist?

GOP Rep. Tim Burchett of Tennessee calls Harris a "DEI vice president", implying she is dumb and relies on her gender and ethnicity to get ahead, despite an absolutely brilliant career in law and politics. Rep. Harriet Hageman of Wyoming described Harris as "intellectually, just really kind of the bottom of the barrel", despite the evidence to the contrary. Rep. Glenn Grothman of Wisconsin claims "Democrats feel they have to stick with her because of her ethnic background", once again signalling racist judgments. Former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy described Harris as "totally stupid and dumb", again ignoring her success in both law and politics and targeting her as the GOP version of a typical woman.

Seriously, I'm ashamed for you that you could even ask this question. It's like you have your head... in the sand.

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

GOP Rep. Tim Burchett of Tennessee calls Harris a "DEI vice president", implying she is dumb and relies on her gender and ethnicity to get ahead, despite an absolutely brilliant career in law and politics. Rep. Harriet Hageman of Wyoming described Harris as "intellectually, just really kind of the bottom of the barrel", despite the evidence to the contrary. Rep. Glenn Grothman of Wisconsin claims "Democrats feel they have to stick with her because of her ethnic background", once again signalling racist judgments. Former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy described Harris as "totally stupid and dumb", again ignoring her success in both law and politics and targeting her as the GOP version of a typical woman.

Seriously, I'm ashamed for you that you could even ask this question. It's like you have your head... in the sand.

Unfortunately that's on Biden. He literally announced that he intended to choose a black female as running mate. She's more than qualified to run your country as POTUS, certainly far more than Biden or Trump, but she was in fact a DEI choice for VP as a running mate.

Not that Burchett should get a pass for firing the gun Biden loaded, but that's politics today.

Of course many in the GOP say far worse and have absolutely no excuse.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Unfortunately that's on Biden. He literally announced that he intended to choose a black female as running mate.

I seem to recall having this discussion before (though it may have been SCOTUS rather than VP). Can you say with certainty that the statement of intent happened before the choice/shortlist was determined?

He announced that four black women were on the shortlist in July 2020

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/21/politics/joe-biden-four-black-women-vice-president/index.html

When did he definitively say it would be a black woman?

 

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

She's more than qualified to run your country as POTUS, certainly far more than Biden or Trump, but she was in fact a DEI choice for VP as a running mate.

This belies what DEI actually, and feeds the incorrect GOP narrative, that DEI means choosing a less-qualified minority/woman (because nobody can be as qualified as a white man) rather than the actual mandate of making sure you consider them, since they are often overlooked, and recognizing that diversity has value

The GOP people calling her a DEI hire are not using the latter. But was the consideration that maybe a VP that can represent the perspective of more than half of the constituency might have value, and should be one of the criteria to consider? Yeah, I think that’s actually a smart thing to do.

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

4 hours ago, swansont said:

I seem to recall having this discussion before (though it may have been SCOTUS rather than VP). Can you say with certainty that the statement of intent happened before the choice/shortlist was determined?

 

 

We (not sure if you were included) definitely discussed this here. Just over four years ago but I am absolutely sure. I said at the time Biden should have simply made his choice as the best available pick. Being black, and being female, could have factored in to that, politics being what it is. But he didn't do that. He virtue signalled in not a good way IMO.

That's on him, not Harris. I'm sure she was happy she was chosen but would have preferred to be chosen as the best available candidate, not the best available black female.

Correct me if I'm wrong but choosing a DEI candidate doesn't mean you won't get the best candidate, it just means you've excluded other candidates that might have been a better choice.

For my part, I didn't like the pick at the time, nothing to do with the fact she was black or female, but like it now...also nothing to do with the fact she's black or female. 

[swansont]

29 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Correct me if I'm wrong but choosing a DEI candidate doesn't mean you won't get the best candidate, it just means you've excluded other candidates that might have been a better choice.

No, it doesn’t. DEI means “consider these candidates, too.” It expands the candidate pool, rather than constricting it. Unless you think organizations with DEI simply do not hire white guys.

[J.C.MacSwell]

8 minutes ago, swansont said:

No, it doesn’t. DEI means “consider these candidates, too.” It expands the candidate pool, rather than constricting it. Unless you think organizations with DEI simply do not hire white guys.

My context was for a single position.

[swansont]

5 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

My context was for a single position.

So you only have to show that Biden wouldn’t have named someone else had a clearly better candidate been available. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

8 minutes ago, swansont said:

So you only have to show that Biden wouldn’t have named someone else had a clearly better candidate been available. 

Why do I need to do that? Maybe if a clearly better candidate had been available prior to Biden announcing DEI criteria...he wouldn't have announced DEI criteria...

[Peterkin]

On 11/2/2024 at 12:33 PM, nec209 said:

People say the GOP is really racist and sexist probably more than Trump.

I've never heard anyone say that. Given the legislative records of GOP dominated states, both racism and sexism have figured large for some time. As for Trump, I've heard him talk about women and ethnic minorities in ways that leave no doubt as to his attitudes. Since trump has co-opted the Republican party, I guess they're pretty much of the same mind; there need not be any question of which is more sexist and racist.  

The far more interesting question is, when Trump is gone, will Vance take over as poster boy for the GOP? They'd go on being racist and sexist, but more intelligent and competent, which is a very real danger. 

 

[Night FM]

12 hours ago, Phi for All said:

GOP Rep. Tim Burchett of Tennessee calls Harris a "DEI vice president", implying she is dumb and relies on her gender and ethnicity to get ahead, despite an absolutely brilliant career in law and politics. Rep. Harriet Hageman of Wyoming described Harris as "intellectually, just really kind of the bottom of the barrel", despite the evidence to the contrary. Rep. Glenn Grothman of Wisconsin claims "Democrats feel they have to stick with her because of her ethnic background", once again signalling racist judgments. Former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy described Harris as "totally stupid and dumb", again ignoring her success in both law and politics and targeting her as the GOP version of a typical woman.

Seriously, I'm ashamed for you that you could even ask this question. It's like you have your head... in the sand.

That type of rhetoric is by no means exclusive to one party. Much of the same type of rhetoric was directed towards individuals such as Sarah Palin, for example.

[swansont]

6 hours ago, Night FM said:

That type of rhetoric is by no means exclusive to one party. Much of the same type of rhetoric was directed towards individuals such as Sarah Palin, for example.

Probably not the best example when you can point to actual data, like not being able to name a single newspaper that she reads, or a SCOTUS decision she disagreed with, other than Roe v Wade, or her retelling of how Paul Revere warned the British.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-irrefutable-stupidity_b_382213

There are plenty of women politicians on the right who are not attacked regarding their intellect. Palin was, because relative to the job she was seeking, she was not smart.

 

[TheVat]

8 hours ago, Night FM said:

That type of rhetoric is by no means exclusive to one party. Much of the same type of rhetoric was directed towards individuals such as Sarah Palin, for example.

Really had to dig down for that one, eh?  Even McCain didn't want her as running mate, preferring Joe Lieberman but talked out of it by his advisors - he later expressed regret at following their advice.  Palin was recognized as not the sharpest tool in the shed, for good reason.   It wasn't just rhetoric.  

https://thehill.com/homenews/news/386392-mccain-i-regret-picking-palin-as-my-vice-presidential-nominee/

[Peterkin]

8 hours ago, Night FM said:

That type of rhetoric is by no means exclusive to one party. Much of the same type of rhetoric was directed towards individuals such as Sarah Palin, for example.

Can you name some other examples? Can you compare the actual intelligence/knowledge of any two of those 'examples' and what was said about them by the other party spokesmen?  You know, deploy those dirty words: Fact Check?

[Phi for All]

10 hours ago, Night FM said:

That type of rhetoric is by no means exclusive to one party. Much of the same type of rhetoric was directed towards individuals such as Sarah Palin, for example.

Except it wasn't rhetoric in Palin's case, and most definitely wasn't "much the same type". This type of rhetoric, where you call brilliant people "totally stupid and dumb" without any examples of what you're talking about, is strictly a Republican tactic. Democrats are much more likely to actually do research, whereas Republicans learned from Newt and Rush that you just need to use schoolyard taunts to disparage things you don't like.

[CharonY]

Relating to OP just a few general themes:

- the GOP base has coalesced around nativist and racist themes (great replacement theory). These lines of thoughts are penetrating the GOP with most members now suggesting that racial diversity is a threat to the country (which was steady at around 20% through the years)

- this has penetrated the party at large where racist voices were largely delegated to the fringe (to various degrees) but are now carrying significant power in congress

- GOP-dominated areas are changing school curricula to make it more difficult to understand the concepts of historic and systemic racism. Essentially the GOP has a concerted effort to revise historic facts and how the next generation is supposed to think about it

- In short, there is a concerted ideological re-arrangement in the GOP which in which the racist fringe has been empowered and gleefully throw their weight around.

[CharonY]

The most stupid and blatant form of racism was also the broad propagation of Haitians eating pets. Especially considering that it is the wrong form of racism- folks have long accused East Asians to eating dogs (and rats), not Haitians. Too incompetent to be a proper racist, so to speak.

I forgot to add points to the sexism part:

- other than racism, sexism was the second strongest predictor for Republican voters (presidential and mid-term). This was in part because previously Republican voters with less sexist and racist attitudes shifted to the Dems in the 2018 election.

- the whole Dobbs situation. It is at this point almost impossible not to see a sexist angle, especially as we see women denied health care and dying only so that certain folks can feel morally superior.

- the GOP has largely embraced language from the manosphere, which is explicitly misogynist (male supremacist, if you prefer). Often it it frames under the concept of "traditional values", which ultimately translate to subordinate role of women. 

- this trend has not gone unnoticed and much has been said about the increasing gender rift.