The Great Replacement Theory

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

I repeat that it is not the liberal media or Democratic machine making this conflation. It is the right. The conspiracy theorists and people like Crazy who are desperately not racist but still need to repeat all these same nutso narratives for unknown reasons. Stop trying to both sides everything. We all have our own sins. This particular sin is a sin of the right.

I both sides things I believe should be. I don’t think the way this is being portrayed is right. I laid out my reasoning pretty thoroughly.

I don’t understand your position. You admit conclusion #2 is not racist. Yet the linked articles conflate that (which is what the quoted Republican in Cosmic’s MSNBC clip said and what the NPR article attacked) with the conspiracy theory in Theory 1.

But since you think there is a “sin” here, could you at least spell out what that is? Is it the part where the Republicans say the Dems are intentionally allowing more immigrants into the country to boost Dems future electoral chances?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Lucy are you educated? It’ll shock you to know that I vote Republican in the main. I didn’t support Trump as he was a man of ill character and appealed largely to folks who aren’t educated nor intelligent- like someone who comes to a message board and throws around silly labels- stay informed or stay away silly person- smoke dope with Danc and the rest of the intellectually lazy Trump cultists- adults need to make decisions when we are staring at 31 trillion in debt- dope smokers and blindly partisan need not apply

In 2016, we had dozens of GOP candidates. The two which survived were my bottom two. The Democrats had some possibles, but Hillary survived. I more or less held my nose and voted for Trump.

I think his term was a raging success as compared to most administrations of the last few decades. Among his failures was NATO reform, but recent events show us that Trump was right about all of that too. Biden‘s term has shown me how much damage can be done to America by one administration in a short period of time, I never thought that was possible. Good Government is much more fragile than I believed. Biden broke it. Trump chewed through cabinet secretaries and advisors. . Biden hasn’t fired anybody for any reason, and I have never seen such a collection of ideological bureaucratic incompetents.

For his part, I think Trumps post election behavior was enormously damaging and the democrats and media pounced making the damage much worse.

But here‘s the thing about Trump. Every day of the Biden administration makes me appreciate Trump more. A year ago, I was in the anybody but Trump category. The GOP has a deep bench and many good choices, but I’m not sure they have the chops to fix the Biden damage.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

In 2016, we had dozens of GOP candidates. The two which survived were my bottom two. The Democrats had some possibles, but Hillary survived. I more or less held my nose and voted for Trump.

I think his term was a raging success as compared to most administrations of the last few decades. Among his failures was NATO reform, but recent events show us that Trump was right about all of that too. Biden‘s term has shown me how much damage can be done to America by one administration in a short period of time, I never thought that was possible. Good Government is much more fragile than I believed. Biden broke it. Trump chewed through cabinet secretaries and advisors. . Biden hasn’t fired anybody for any reason, and I have never seen such a collection of ideological bureaucratic incompetents.

For his part, I think Trumps post election behavior was enormously damaging and the democrats and media pounced making the damage much worse.

But here‘s the thing about Trump. Every day of the Biden administration makes me appreciate Trump more. A year ago, I was in the anybody but Trump category. The GOP has a deep bench and many good choices, but I’m not sure they have the chops to fix the Biden damage.

Have you read The Fifth Risk by Michael Lewis?

 

[vesuvius13]

I really don't know what Carlson is pitching and I'd prefer not making him part of this, because it will lead to side issues of whether people are for or against him.

He points out the democrats that have said it over the last decade or more. He isn't pushing the theory like the left has said.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Have you read The Fifth Risk by Michael Lewis?

No. I’ll check it out.

 

[Joe_Hoopsier]

But here‘s the thing about Trump. Every day of the Biden administration makes me appreciate Trump more. A year ago, I was in the anybody but Trump category. The GOP has a deep bench and many good choices, but I’m not sure they have the chops to fix the Biden damage.

Do you think Trump can correct the damage in 4 years? All of the cemented in place incompetent bureaucrats will make his life 10 fold more difficult than the first go around. I am starting to think even he can't pull it off.
I truly appreciate your thoughts sir.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I both sides things I believe should be. I don’t think the way this is being portrayed is right. I laid out my reasoning pretty thoroughly.

I don’t understand your position. You admit conclusion #2 is not racist. Yet the linked articles conflate that (which is what the quoted Republican in Cosmic’s MSNBC clip said and what the NPR article attacked) with the conspiracy theory in Theory 1.

But since you think there is a “sin” here, could you at least spell out what that is? Is it the part where the Republicans say the Dems are intentionally allowing more immigrants into the country to boost Dems future electoral chances?

That's the main part of it, yes. But even the non-racist versions of this discussion are conflated with the conspiracy by talking about the dems being happy, looking forward to screwing the white conservatives, that all drags it closer and closer to the racist version the more outrage is displayed.

 

[mcmurtry66]

In 2016, we had dozens of GOP candidates. The two which survived were my bottom two. The Democrats had some possibles, but Hillary survived. I more or less held my nose and voted for Trump.

I think his term was a raging success as compared to most administrations of the last few decades. Among his failures was NATO reform, but recent events show us that Trump was right about all of that too. Biden‘s term has shown me how much damage can be done to America by one administration in a short period of time, I never thought that was possible. Good Government is much more fragile than I believed. Biden broke it. Trump chewed through cabinet secretaries and advisors. . Biden hasn’t fired anybody for any reason, and I have never seen such a collection of ideological bureaucratic incompetents.

For his part, I think Trumps post election behavior was enormously damaging and the democrats and media pounced making the damage much worse.

But here‘s the thing about Trump. Every day of the Biden administration makes me appreciate Trump more. A year ago, I was in the anybody but Trump category. The GOP has a deep bench and many good choices, but I’m not sure they have the chops to fix the Biden damage.

Trump infected the electorate. The bench isn't a bench it's an injured reserve list. The party is Trump/DeSantis. Guys like Aloha, I understand, but they need to vote DeSantis or sit out. Old guard pubs days are over - for better or worse

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

No. I’ll check it out.

It doesn't paint a flattering picture of Trump but I think you would get something out of it. I discussed and critiqued it and Lewis here last year. Marv had a thread about it.

What it does well is delve into the depths of the things the executive branch does and is in charge of (from the commerce dept to the energy dept) and how an administration has to manage those things. You might ideologically think the fed govt shouldn't be involved in most of it, but the book shows that a lot of the things involved (guarding our nuclear secrets and overseeing nuclear power, for example) are boring but necessary and that Trump's admin didn't treat them seriously.

From what I know, no one has disputed his reporting in the book, either.

Lewis is a breezy writer so its a relatively quick read. Check it out.

 

[mcmurtry66]

It doesn't paint a flattering picture of Trump but I think you would get something out of it. I discussed and critiqued it and Lewis here last year. Marv had a thread about it.

What it does well is delve into the depths of the things the executive branch does and is in charge of (from the commerce dept to the energy dept) and how an administration has to manage those things. You might ideologically think the fed govt shouldn't be involved in most of it, but the book shows that a lot of the things involved (guarding our nuclear secrets and overseeing nuclear power, for example) are boring but necessary and that Trump's admin didn't treat them seriously.

From what I know, no one has disputed his reporting in the book, either.

Lewis is a breezy writer so its a relatively quick read. Check it out.

Doesn't surprise me. I really don't think he will run again.

 

[BCCHoosier]

Do you think Trump can correct the damage in 4 years? All of the cemented in place incompetent bureaucrats will make his life 10 fold more difficult than the first go around. I am starting to think even he can't pull it off.
I truly appreciate your thoughts sir.

Dude has bankrupted nearly every business he's touched. The Apprentice saved his a$$. Other than inheriting a bunch of money, he's nothing spectacular other than selling snake oil to rubes. I'm sure if he wins he'll add to the debt just like his first term.

He did do a good job of taking over a great situation from the Obama years.

I do look forward to his spectacular healthcare plan and his second attempt of making Mexico pay for the wall.

Can't you guys move on? There are plenty of other options.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

It doesn't paint a flattering picture of Trump but I think you would get something out of it. I discussed and critiqued it and Lewis here last year. Marv had a thread about it.

What it does well is delve into the depths of the things the executive branch does and is in charge of (from the commerce dept to the energy dept) and how an administration has to manage those things. You might ideologically think the fed govt shouldn't be involved in most of it, but the book shows that a lot of the things involved (guarding our nuclear secrets and overseeing nuclear power, for example) are boring but necessary and that Trump's admin didn't treat them seriously.

From what I know, no one has disputed his reporting in the book, either.

Lewis is a breezy writer so its a relatively quick read. Check it out.

I think we have some good people at the high GS levels. And I have no doubt that in the technical fields, like engineering, we benefit from dedicated competent people. But in the fields where discretion and political views take hold, we have problems.

But federal doesn’t mean competent. I read some about the federal detention center where Epstein died and that was a total mess compared to our county jail, which is overcrowded.

Does he discuss the growing influence and power of government consultants? That’s another problem.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

I think we have some good people at the high GS levels. And I have no doubt that in the technical fields, like engineering, we benefit from dedicated competent people. But in the fields where discretion and political views take hold, we have problems.

But federal doesn’t mean competent. I read some about the federal detention center where Epstein died and that was a total mess compared to our county jail, which is overcrowded.

Does he discuss the growing influence and power of government consultants? That’s another problem.

Yes, he does, especially with respect to the National Weather Service. Check it out.

You'll learn about some things non-govt related along the way and don't have to buy into Lewis's clear conclusion to find parts of the book illuminating.

Here you go: you can buy it for $1 ($6 to ship):

9780141991429 - The Fifth Risk: Undoing Democracy by Lewis, Michael, Used - AbeBooks

The Fifth Risk: Undoing Democracy by Lewis, Michael and a great selection of related books, art and collectibles available now at AbeBooks.com.

www.abebooks.com

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Trump infected the electorate. The bench isn't a bench it's an injured reserve list. The party is Trump/DeSantis. Guys like Aloha, I understand, but they need to vote DeSantis or sit out. Old guard pubs days are over - for better or worse

Don’t know what you mean by “old guard”. I thought the Bush’s were good presidents, WJC I also thought was pretty good. They are old guard. Then Trump. I’d love to find someone who has the confidence to bust through conventions and paradigms like Trump does but isn’t so tactless. Government is way to unwieldy and can’t get out of its own way. The democrats make all of that worse which is a separate issue from the destructive policies.

Im encouraged that Musk has said he is voting Republican. I see a lot of similarities between how Musk built spaceX and Tesla and how I think government should run.

 

[IUCrazy2]

I repeat that it is not the liberal media or Democratic machine making this conflation. It is the right. The conspiracy theorists and people like Crazy who are desperately not racist but still need to repeat all these same nutso narratives for unknown reasons. Stop trying to both sides everything. We all have our own sins. This particular sin is a sin of the right.

More on Schrödinger’s Demographic Change | National Review

In all cases, the rules must be the same: If you get to talk about demographic change in public, then everybody else does, too.

www.nationalreview.com

My challenge to you is the challenge listed in this article. First this:



NPR said that a version of the GRT "assumes that immigrants and non-white people will vote a certain way, ultimately drowning out the votes of white Americans."

Is this not exactly what Julian Castro was doing in the linked Twitter post? If you contend it is not, show your work.

I tend to believe this:



And I don't think the majority who think it might be a bad thing believe it for racial reasons. I think they believe it because of how statistics say these people are going to vote. And that is exactly why people like Castro believe it is a good thing. It is intentionally ignoring and/or gaming immigration laws in a naked power grab.



Celebrating the number of white people falling and looking to make sure they don't have minority white rule sure sounds racially power motivated. No?



Weird. And it is Jenny again but she is quoting Max Boot in the Washinton Post. The (liberal) newspaper in the nation's capital. That is pretty mainstream no? And that quote she is enthusiastically saying "Yes!" to sounds awfully GRT doesn't it?

So this is all to say that the protests that this isn't what is being discussed on the left are a bunch of mularkey. However. I am interested in how you square this circle.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

More on Schrödinger’s Demographic Change | National Review

In all cases, the rules must be the same: If you get to talk about demographic change in public, then everybody else does, too.

www.nationalreview.com

My challenge to you is the challenge listed in this article. First this:

View embedded media

NPR said that a version of the GRT "assumes that immigrants and non-white people will vote a certain way, ultimately drowning out the votes of white Americans."

Is this not exactly what Julian Castro was doing in the linked Twitter post? If you contend it is not, show your work.

I tend to believe this:

View embedded media

And I don't think the majority who think it might be a bad thing believe it for racial reasons. I think they believe it because of how statistics say these people are going to vote. And that is exactly why people like Castro believe it is a good thing. It is intentionally ignoring and/or gaming immigration laws in a naked power grab.

View embedded media

Celebrating the number of white people falling and looking to make sure they don't have minority white rule sure sounds racially power motivated. No?

View embedded media

Weird. And it is Jenny again but she is quoting Max Boot in the Washinton Post. The (liberal) newspaper in the nation's capital. That is pretty mainstream no? And that quote she is enthusiastically saying "Yes!" to sounds awfully GRT doesn't it?

So this is all to say that the protests that this isn't what is being discussed on the left are a bunch of mularkey. However. I am interested in how you square this circle.

So this is what I've been trying to get at, the same thing Cooke addresses. The difference here is that Cooke is not allowing the point that Goat has now stated: it's a conspiracy theory or racist, in Goat's mind, because you are linking the Dems immigration policy to their desire to change the electorate or glee that it is changing. That their desire to change the electorate to vote their way is driving their immigration policy.

I'm guessing Cooke would agree with me that that is not much of a stretch based on our understanding of how politics operate and human nature (see Theory 2, assumption (d)). I see it as the flip side of the coin for Republican's views on voting IDs: I think Republicans are motivated, at least in part, by the desire to dampen the # of Dem votes.

 

[mrhighlife]

Its inevitable that people are going to immigrate here. In large numbers at times. It's what our country was built upon. It's very first fundamental definition of our nation.

No one is pushing for this. However some recognize this inevitability. It is what it is. It's our DNA. Embrace it as the "American Dream". Others fear this and are actively pushing back.

 

[IUCrazy2]

So this is what I've been trying to get at, the same thing Cooke addresses. The difference here is that Cooke is not allowing the point that Goat has now stated: it's a conspiracy theory or racist, in Goat's mind, because you are linking the Dems immigration policy to their desire to change the electorate or glee that it is changing. That their desire to change the electorate to vote their way is driving their immigration policy.

I'm guessing Cooke would agree with me that that is not much of a stretch based on our understanding of how politics operate and human nature (see Theory 2, assumption (d)). I see it as the flip side of the coin for Republican's views on voting IDs: I think Republicans are motivated, at least in part, by the desire to dampen the # of Dem votes.

I think that there has to be a definition of what we are talking about here. Goat and Hoos are thinking, "I don't want more open immigration because of voting, I think it is right because X,Y, and Z" so when I say, Democrats want open borders for votes, they take umbrage. For the sake of this conversation, they are not Democrats and they don't matter. Democrats are the party apparatchiks and the people (like Boot and Rubin) who run in those circles and help to sell policy and narrative. Those people absolutely want the open borders as much as possible because they believe, and have believed since at least when "The Coming Democrat Majority" was penned, that a demographic shift to Latinos in places like Texas, Florida, and Arizona would give them an almost unassailable stranglehold on the government when combined with California and New York. It is no secret, this has been bragged about for what, at least 2 decades now?

The southern border is the quickest way for that to occur. That is why you see so much focus on leaving that basically open while next to no effort is made to make things easier for say Africans and Asians. The turnover there would be too slow because those people have to navigate an ocean to get here.

The same distinction with voter ID. Republicans in the sense I defined Democrats above probably think that there are some who would be too put out to go and get an ID which would make votes for Democrats decrease while the rank and file think Democrats cheat and they are proactively looking for ways to weed out people who should legally not be voting (which ties back to the whole illegal immigration idea).

 

[IUCrazy2]

Its inevitable that people are going to immigrate here. In large numbers at times. It's what our country was built upon. It's very first fundamental definition of our nation.

No one is pushing for this. However some recognize this inevitability. It is what it is. It's our DNA. Embrace it as the "American Dream". Others fear this and are actively pushing back.

Immigration is inevitable. The type of illegal immigration happening under Biden is not. And we know this because Trump. You get the behavior you desire by how you enforce that behavior. Democrats want next to no restrictions and to let people in and they get millions trekking across the desert to get in. Trump wanted a tighter grip on who was allowed in, he enforced laws on the books, and the flood of people dried up.

To say no one is pushing for this is a bald faced lie.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

I think that there has to be a definition of what we are talking about here. Goat and Hoos are thinking, "I don't want more open immigration because of voting, I think it is right because X,Y, and Z" so when I say, Democrats want open borders for votes, they take umbrage. For the sake of this conversation, they are not Democrats and they don't matter. Democrats are the party apparatchiks and the people (like Boot and Rubin) who run in those circles and help to sell policy and narrative. Those people absolutely want the open borders as much as possible because they believe, and have believed since at least when "The Coming Democrat Majority" was penned, that a demographic shift to Latinos in places like Texas, Florida, and Arizona would give them an almost unassailable stranglehold on the government when combined with California and New York. It is no secret, this has been bragged about for what, at least 2 decades now?

The southern border is the quickest way for that to occur. That is why you see so much focus on leaving that basically open while next to no effort is made to make things easier for say Africans and Asians. The turnover there would be too slow because those people have to navigate an ocean to get here.

The same distinction with voter ID. Republicans in the sense I defined Democrats above probably think that there are some who would be too put out to go and get an ID which would make votes for Democrats decrease while the rank and file think Democrats cheat and they are proactively looking for ways to weed out people who should legally not be voting (which ties back to the whole illegal immigration idea).

I didn't think it had to be stated that we are talking about the politicians here, not the plebes from Team D or Team R, here. But yeah, that's a good distinction.

For everyone else outside the pols, you have to judge the policy on its stated justifications, I think. Because something can be motivated by X strategic reason, but justified for Y good-of-the-nation reason.

 

[mrhighlife]

Immigration is inevitable. The type of illegal immigration happening under Biden is not. And we know this because Trump. You get the behavior you desire by how you enforce that behavior. Democrats want next to no restrictions and to let people in and they get millions trekking across the desert to get in. Trump wanted a tighter grip on who was allowed in, he enforced laws on the books, and the flood of people dried up.

To say no one is pushing for this is a bald faced lie.

Illegal Immigrants can't vote.

 

[IUCrazy2]

Illegal Immigrants can't vote.

You aren't thinking past step 1.

 

[hoosboot]

You aren't thinking past step 1.

So, how quickly do we evil Dems get past step 1? Just wondering because you're highlighting Julian Castro saying Dems can win those states in 2024. That evil Biden better get moving because he's got to get those "millions" of illegal immigrants we're importing as voters to dilute white conservative votes to step 2 (whatever that is) pronto.

Or maybe you're just imprinting your own shallow political power plays on everyone else.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

So, how quickly do we evil Dems get past step 1? Just wondering because you're highlighting Julian Castro saying Dems can win those states in 2024. That evil Biden better get moving because he's got to get those "millions" of illegal immigrants we're importing as voters to dilute white conservative votes to step 2 (whatever that is) pronto.

Or maybe you're just imprinting your own shallow political power plays on everyone else.

Conspiracy theories are fun. Republicans say 1) inflation is terrible 2) Republicans will win in the fall ergo Republican corporations are intentionally causing inflation to defeat Democrats. This is the same logic as Democrats are causing illegal immigration to win elections.

So Republicans are causing inflation just to win an election, how do you guys sleep at night hurting people like that?

 

[vesuvius13]

Do you think Trump can correct the damage in 4 years? All of the cemented in place incompetent bureaucrats will make his life 10 fold more difficult than the first go around. I am starting to think even he can't pull it off.
I truly appreciate your thoughts sir.

I prefer DeSantis over Trump and I hope he runs for President.

 

[Bowlmania]

I prefer DeSantis over Trump and I hope he runs for President.

Looks like it's already happening - - just not officially.

 

[Ohio Guy]

Have you read The Fifth Risk by Michael Lewis?

I haven't read that, but it looks interesting. I'm also pulling for him to do well at Ball State.

 

[bawlmer]

Conspiracy theories are fun. Republicans say 1) inflation is terrible 2) Republicans will win in the fall ergo Republican corporations are intentionally causing inflation to defeat Democrats. This is the same logic as Democrats are causing illegal immigration to win elections.

So Republicans are causing inflation just to win an election, how do you guys sleep at night hurting people like that?

eg, Big Oil.

 

[IUCrazy2]

So, how quickly do we evil Dems get past step 1? Just wondering because you're highlighting Julian Castro saying Dems can win those states in 2024. That evil Biden better get moving because he's got to get those "millions" of illegal immigrants we're importing as voters to dilute white conservative votes to step 2 (whatever that is) pronto.

Or maybe you're just imprinting your own shallow political power plays on everyone else.

Go back up to the question I asked Goat and feel free to play along. If you don't think the Democrats are for the open border for political reasons, you are only lying to yourself. And again, hoosboot's personal views on political power plays don't ****ing matter because hoosboot isn't someone making those decisions. So I don't know why you keep interjecting your personal opinion on the topic into what the Democrat Party is doing.

But please, disavow me of the notion with some actual factual data points as opposed to whining about how I could ever dastardly attribute to Democrats (the political party) what they openly brag about on the regular. What did Castro mean in the quote if he wasn't talking about the type of replacement Brad Steven's was mentioning as his option 2. Spell it out. Should be easy to do.

 

[IUCrazy2]

Conspiracy theories are fun. Republicans say 1) inflation is terrible 2) Republicans will win in the fall ergo Republican corporations are intentionally causing inflation to defeat Democrats. This is the same logic as Democrats are causing illegal immigration to win elections.

So Republicans are causing inflation just to win an election, how do you guys sleep at night hurting people like that?

Third person I will issue the challenge up above to.

This isn't a conspiracy theory. It is a fact. Democrats believe that the majority of those illegal immigrants are going to produce voters for them. Either by the children they have when they cross the border who automatically become citizens or they themselves after a "path to citizenship" (amnesty) gets established.

You all don't want to be intellectually honest, that's fine, you are only fooling yourselves though.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

Conspiracy theories are fun. Republicans say 1) inflation is terrible 2) Republicans will win in the fall ergo Republican corporations are intentionally causing inflation to defeat Democrats. This is the same logic as Democrats are causing illegal immigration to win elections.

So Republicans are causing inflation just to win an election, how do you guys sleep at night hurting people like that?

OK, so you believe Theory 2 is a conspiracy theory then? Which part?

Can you identify the premise (a)-(d) that makes it so, so that we can discuss it? Or maybe outline where Theory 2 or its conclusion jumps the tracks from theory to racist conspiracy theory?

I laid that out in an attempt to narrow the discussion and head off a bunch of irrelevant arguments and name calling. Not sure it worked.

 

[bawlmer]

Third person I will issue the challenge up above to.

This isn't a conspiracy theory. It is a fact. Democrats believe that the majority of those illegal immigrants are going to produce voters for them. Either by the children they have when they cross the border who automatically become citizens or they themselves after a "path to citizenship" (amnesty) gets established.

You all don't want to be intellectually honest, that's fine, you are only fooling yourselves though.

People aren't coming here to vote. It's the right that can't empathize with sharing our economy with immigrants.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

More on Schrödinger’s Demographic Change | National Review

In all cases, the rules must be the same: If you get to talk about demographic change in public, then everybody else does, too.

www.nationalreview.com

My challenge to you is the challenge listed in this article. First this:

View embedded media

NPR said that a version of the GRT "assumes that immigrants and non-white people will vote a certain way, ultimately drowning out the votes of white Americans."

Is this not exactly what Julian Castro was doing in the linked Twitter post? If you contend it is not, show your work.

I tend to believe this:

View embedded media

And I don't think the majority who think it might be a bad thing believe it for racial reasons. I think they believe it because of how statistics say these people are going to vote. And that is exactly why people like Castro believe it is a good thing. It is intentionally ignoring and/or gaming immigration laws in a naked power grab.

View embedded media

Celebrating the number of white people falling and looking to make sure they don't have minority white rule sure sounds racially power motivated. No?

View embedded media

Weird. And it is Jenny again but she is quoting Max Boot in the Washinton Post. The (liberal) newspaper in the nation's capital. That is pretty mainstream no? And that quote she is enthusiastically saying "Yes!" to sounds awfully GRT doesn't it?

So this is all to say that the protests that this isn't what is being discussed on the left are a bunch of mularkey. However. I am interested in how you square this circle.

Charles Cooke is way off base, but the argument is all over the place, so I'll explain piecemeal, and wait for you to take issue with any particular point I make:

1. Julian Castro and others are wrong-headed to simply assume that Hispanics will vote a particular way. Hispanics are not monolithic. Those of Central American ancestry may very well be more likely to vote Dem, but the same might not be true of those who trace their lineage to Cuba. On top of all that, the lurch to the left by the Democratic party on social issues by and large does not help with minorities, who tend to be more conservative on these issues than mainstream Democratic whites.

2. It is absolutely true that some discussion of demographic shifts is morally neutral: "This is what appears to be happening; these are what I think the political implications are." That's neutral. "This shift is happening, and it's wrong." That's not morally neutral. Most of the moralizing happens on the right, not the left. It's not about having it both ways. It truly is about having two different conversations.

3. Not all moralizing is also racializing. One of Rubin's tweets quoted in the article certainly sounds racializing, but the Boot quote isn't. It's moralizing, and it's partisan, but it's not anti-white. It's anti-Republican.

4. There is a version of GRT - the primary, insane version - that is without a doubt white supremacist and nativist. I don't know how many conservatives actually subscribe to the conspiracy, but a lot of conservatives at least play footsie with it. Tucker and other media figure aren't necessarily courting the neo-Nazis, but they are using neo-Nazi fears to court other conservatives who may not consider themselves racist, but for whatever reason, are still susceptible to the fears and discomfort that these racist conspiracies are intended to foment.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

Charles Cooke is way off base, but the argument is all over the place, so I'll explain piecemeal, and wait for you to take issue with any particular point I make:

1. Julian Castro and others are wrong-headed to simply assume that Hispanics will vote a particular way. Hispanics are not monolithic. Those of Central American ancestry may very well be more likely to vote Dem, but the same might not be true of those who trace their lineage to Cuba. On top of all that, the lurch to the left by the Democratic party on social issues by and large does not help with minorities, who tend to be more conservative on these issues than mainstream Democratic whites.

2. It is absolutely true that some discussion of demographic shifts is morally neutral: "This is what appears to be happening; these are what I think the political implications are." That's neutral. "This shift is happening, and it's wrong." That's not morally neutral. Most of the moralizing happens on the right, not the left. It's not about having it both ways. It truly is about having two different conversations.

3. Not all moralizing is also racializing. One of Rubin's tweets quoted in the article certainly sounds racializing, but the Boot quote isn't. It's moralizing, and it's partisan, but it's not anti-white. It's anti-Republican.

4. There is a version of GRT - the primary, insane version - that is without a doubt white supremacist and nativist. I don't know how many conservatives actually subscribe to the conspiracy, but a lot of conservatives at least play footsie with it. Tucker and other media figure aren't necessarily courting the neo-Nazis, but they are using neo-Nazi fears to court other conservatives who may not consider themselves racist, but for whatever reason, are still susceptible to the fears and discomfort that these racist conspiracies are intended to foment.

I think I agree with you on every point. And Cooke agrees with you on at least 3.

So how is he way off base?

 

[Marvin the Martian]

OK, so you believe Theory 2 is a conspiracy theory then? Which part?

Can you identify the premise (a)-(d) that makes it so, so that we can discuss it? Or maybe outline where Theory 2 or its conclusion jumps the tracks from theory to racist conspiracy theory?

I laid that out in an attempt to narrow the discussion and head off a bunch of irrelevant arguments and name calling. Not sure it worked.

Nope, I am just making light of people who are insisting Democrats are rigging the system to screw Republicans. Crazy seemed certainly to suggest that when he suggested that the fact illegal aliens cannot vote was not the final step. If anyone believes illegal aliens are brought in by Democrats they should look at who owns the places they work. Those chicken processing plants busted in the south a couple years ago are not owned by radical leftists.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I think I agree with you on every point. And Cooke agrees with you on at least 3.

So how is he way off base?

His main point was that we - the left, the MSM, the elites, whatever - are unfairly treating conservatives differently by judging discussions of the demographic shift based entirely on what side people fall on. I'm saying that's not true. The issue isn't what side you fall on; the issue is whether you make a moral judgment about the facts as measured, and further, whether your moral judgment is based at all on race.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

Nope, I am just making light of people who are insisting Democrats are rigging the system to screw Republicans. Crazy seemed certainly to suggest that when he suggested that the fact illegal aliens cannot vote was not the final step. If anyone believes illegal aliens are brought in by Democrats they should look at who owns the places they work. Those chicken processing plants busted in the south a couple years ago are not owned by radical leftists.

Great point on who hires them/brings them in. Not sure that defeats the theory, though--both things could be true.

 

[mrhighlife]

Great point on who hires them/brings them in. Not sure that defeats the theory, though--both things could be true.

So Republicans are bringing them to the door and Democrats are opening it and letting them in.

 

[82hoosier]

The 'great replacement' conspiracy theory isn't fringe anymore, it's mainstream

A racist conspiracy theory is believed to have motivated the suspected gunman in the Buffalo attack. It was once a fringe belief, but it's found its way into the mainstream.

www.npr.org

Is there a difference between:

Theory 1: a conspiracy theory that some secret cabal of Jewish people and Illuminati types are trying to "replace" white-skinned people with Muslims or Latinos

and

Theory 2: a theory that in the U.S., (a) demographics are and have been shifting towards an ever increasing % of Latinos via immigration and birth rates, (b) Latinos have historically voted about 2-1 in favor of Democrats, (c) that Democrats, in general, have more liberal immigration and path-to-citizenship policies, (d) human beings and political parties are motivated by a desire for more power, CONCLUSION: at least one reason for (c) is that Democrats want more power--that it will benefit their party more.

Regarding Theory 2, factual premises (a)-(c),I think, have been pretty mainstream thought for over two decades. Premise (d) doesn't seem like much of a stretch, does it?

Is wrapping up Theory 2 with Theory 1 just a cynical ploy to convince people that believing Conclusion 2 is not only wrong, but actually racist (i.e. it's so wrong don't even listen to the argument because it's verboten)?

I'm really curious about this. I don't buy that there is a cabal of people trying to "replace" white people. But I think quite a few people in the world--including me--would like to see a blending of all peoples together so that we don't have these distinctions anymore in however many hundreds of years it takes (and which is where we are headed anyway). Am I a replacer? If I believe Theory 2, does that make me a racist or a believer in a conspiracy theory?

Finally, it is bizarre to me that the Great Replacement Theory would be a motivating reason for anti-black hatred and this shooting.(No doubt the Buffalo shooter suffers from some mental illness as nearly all these people do.) Black people are increasing as a % of the population, but not at nearly the same rate as Latinos or Asians and the growth is due to bi-racial growth (which I see as beneficial)--the % of people labeled as "black only" is actually decreasing.

Key findings about Black America

The Black population in the U.S. is diverse and growing. Our analysis explores the demographic characteristics of this population in 2019.

www.pewresearch.org

The great replacement theory is just another theory for dumb s*** to blame their lot in life on anybody else but themselves.

 

[hoosboot]

Go back up to the question I asked Goat and feel free to play along. If you don't think the Democrats are for the open border for political reasons, you are only lying to yourself. And again, hoosboot's personal views on political power plays don't ****ing matter because hoosboot isn't someone making those decisions. So I don't know why you keep interjecting your personal opinion on the topic into what the Democrat Party is doing.

But please, disavow me of the notion with some actual factual data points as opposed to whining about how I could ever dastardly attribute to Democrats (the political party) what they openly brag about on the regular. What did Castro mean in the quote if he wasn't talking about the type of replacement Brad Steven's was mentioning as his option 2. Spell it out. Should be easy to do.

Next time you provide some factual data points will be the first time, Crazy, so please spare me your bullshit whining about your bullshit complaints. You're so eaten up by political obsession, you can't even tell that you and Brad haven't offered an ounce of "actual data" about the motivations of Democratic Party politicians. So, when you say I'm lying to myself, you probably should recognize that once again you're projecting, bro.

So, when are you going to offer up how the evil Dems get step #2 all worked out by 2024?