The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!
Republicans want Steve King out, but are they really against white nationalism?
in Politics
Debra AI Prediction
Arguments
what makes you think they are for white nationalism?
you do know there are blacks and other minorities in the Republican party, right?
Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
The Animals
  Considerate: 44%  
  Substantial: 69%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.64  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
Blues and Raptors handed two very toxic teams embarrassing losses, 95% of the sports world is rejoicing in the news
Repealing the Second Amendment is the first step to Totalitarianism, and it needs to be prevented to protect our freedom
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/
  Considerate: 70%  
  Substantial: 93%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.94  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
I'm not claiming that the Republicans are necessarily a party that represents the ideals of white nationalism or white supremacy. I'm just trying to have a discussion on whether the republicans are trying to oust Steve King because they believe his remarks were "inconsistent with the parties ideals", or are they just trying to get rid of a representative who could potentially lose his seat to a Democrat? I notice you claim that the Republicans have "blacks and minorities" within their ranks. That is a valid point, but it doesn't even touch the real question here, which is, what is the true motivation of the republicans actions against Steve King?
  Considerate: 68%  
  Substantial: 90%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.28  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 68%  
  Substantial: 38%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.2  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
I see, well I think it's very simple really. Steven King is making the group look bad, as in any group, when that happens, most of the time you cut them loose. If this were a business, he would get fired for making the company look bad, so I don't think there's much we can make of this one way or the other.
though I find the selective outrage hypocritical
https://clashdaily.com/2014/04/9-racist-things-big-democrats-said-media-forgotten/
Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
The Animals
  Considerate: 69%  
  Substantial: 72%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.4  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 17%  
  Learn More About Debra
I don't think Steve King said anything worse than our President. I would agree with you that most white Democrats are racist, but that certainly doesn't exonerate the republicans. I fail to see how anything you've said proves that the republicans are trying to to get rid of Steve King because he's a racist.
  Considerate: 29%  
  Substantial: 79%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.9  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
I'm not sure you can prove it regardless. Some did say he should be fired for his racist remarks, but a few don't speak for the whole group, so unless there's some kind of poll or they ask each and every single republican it would be impossible to attribute motive.
Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
The Animals
  Considerate: 44%  
  Substantial: 81%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
Ummm, well since there are people calling on him to resign because of his remarks, I guess it wouldn't be impossible to establish a motive. The reason for this discussion is whether we believe the republicans when they say they want him out because he's a racist, or do we just accept that the republicans don't care at all that he's a racist, they just want to make sure his seat stays with the republicans.
  Considerate: 56%  
  Substantial: 78%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.6  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
I don't actually know what he said or how he replied to the criticism, people do say things they don't really mean, perhaps we should examine what he said and the context he said it in.
Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
The Animals
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 80%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.7  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 38%  
  Substantial: 79%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.7  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
Next, action matters more than the intent. It does not matter to me what reasons the Republican management put behind the narrative against Steve King (whoever it is; I do not know anything about him), what matters is that the narrative exists and will lead to action. The right action taken for the wrong reasons is still the right action.
Finally, I would prefer the party so focused on the ideal of free speech to promote free speech among its own members. If the party does not like the behavior of one of its members, it should not take action against him/her, as long as he/she follows the general rules of the party.
Overall, politics seems more and more like a game of adults to me. People's feelings get hurt over the slightest comments, leading them to drastic action. Perhaps all those people in suits should focus more on their actual job, such as what they can do for this country to improve it - than on political squabbles.
  Considerate: 77%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.46  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 92%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.38  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
I'm plain and simply shocked at how obtuse your argument is. I know you can do better than this.
First off, you claim- ***"(You) would prefer the party so focused on the ideal of free speech to promote free speech among its own members. If the party does not like the behavior of one of its members, it should not take action against him/her, as long as he/she follows the general rules of the party."***
If a member of either party stood before the house of representatives and exclaimed that we should abandon the constitution and swear allegiance to the memory of hitler, are you gonna say that they shouldn't be barred their freedom to do so? Ya, of course anybody has the right to say that, but there are ramifications for such actions. Freedom of speech does not protect you from the repercussions of hate speech.
"@Vincent_Costanzo "@CYDdharta
I don't deny that the democrats are racist, but how does that exonerate the republicans?
"@Applesauce
Steve King questioned why white nationalism is so offensive.
  Considerate: 37%  
  Substantial: 93%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.98  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 92%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 30%  
  Substantial: 93%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.08  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 88%  
  Learn More About Debra
Yes, I do think that a person swearing allegiance to the memory of Hitler has a place in a political party promoting freedom of speech. Now, I do not think that the party has no right to take action against that person: the party, after all, is a private organization. However, this factor alone does not seem to me as sufficient for the action against the person to be reasonable.
I believe that pluralism of opinions within a political party is a healthy thing. If someone worships Hitler for some reason, but still follows the general ideals of the party, then I, if I were another member of that party, would prefer a healthy discussion with them to ostracizion. Of course, there are certain boundaries you just do not overstep - but one disagreement on something, or a few controversial statements, do not seem like such a boundary to me.
It is the same thing as on campuses, where right-wing opinions are often ostracized. Someone said they do not accept transsexualism - and immediately they are denied all possible platforms, and the "Diversity departments" take action against them to try to suspend their employment.
I think people who do not accept transsexualism are narrowminded - but, first, their opinion is still an opinion, and second, their opinion does not even relate to their employment duties. The university has the right to deny them a platform - and yet denying them a platform is petty and unreasonable.
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 93%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.84  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 92%  
  Learn More About Debra
***"Yes, I do think that a person swearing allegiance to the memory of Hitler has a place in a political party promoting freedom of speech."***
Huh?!?!? . So ummm, if I organized a "political party (for) promoting freedom of speech", probably the last person I'd want in my party is someone who claims that we should abandon the constitution and swear allegiance to the memory of hitler. The nazis didn't have the best track record with free speech. In fact, they openly argued against free speech.
This discussion is about whether the republicans are distancing themselves from Steve King because of his racist comments, or because he's possibly going to lose his seat to a democrat. It sounds to me like you don't care that Steve King made the comments, and you are happy to hear that he did make the comments because we should be promoting free speech.(even if that free speech is ultimately against free speech).
The republican party is NOT a private organization. All the elected officials are elected by the public. As far as colleges go, if it is a private college, they should have the right to promote whatever agenda they like. If public colleges are pushing social justice agendas that you disagree with, it is up to you and all who agree with you, to voice your discontent with their practices. If enough people are able to sway popular opinion on the matter, perhaps the schools will change their agendas. But just accepting hate speech from one sector of society, simply to combat the "petty and unreasonable" actions of another sector of society will not balance anything, it will only cause further mistrust and polarization.
I'm starting to think that some people on this thread think I'm talking about ALL people who identify as republicans. I would never assume that someone is automatically a racist simply because they're a republican, or a democrat. I would however consider someone a racist if they question what is so offensive about white nationalism, or white supremacy. This discussion is about the actions of the republicans in the house of representatives toward Steve King. I find it strange that they claim to want to censure him for comments he made, but they steadfastly stand behind the president who has said some egregious things also. What is their true motive here? Is it because they don't like what he said, or because he could lose a seat for the republicans in 2020?
  Considerate: 53%  
  Substantial: 96%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.24  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 91%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 37%  
  Substantial: 83%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.22  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 84%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.08  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
I don't condone that type of behavior from Steve King, and the supposed "SJWs". I fail to see how accepting the racist banter of one sector of society will somehow balance the oppressive agenda of another sector of society. Accepting one type of oppressive collectivism to combat another type of oppressive collectivism will eventually leave society with only two choices, and each are equally oppressive and not conducive to our civil liberties. It's funny how both those agendas that are supposedly opposed to one another, are winning at working toward the same goal, and in the end the only loser will be our liberty.
  Considerate: 72%  
  Substantial: 94%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.4  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
You and I both hope that what the Republicans present as outrage will be reflected in the candidates they support for 2020, but I have my reservations. The midterms sorta dissipated some of the extreme right wing steam, but the Democratic party aren't gonna go back to business as usual, it will almost certainly be a loss for them. They'll need a fresh new face, and I'm squeamish to see what kind of agendas they'll be pushing. Now that the most hideous forms of extremist conservatism are accepted more and more, I'm anxious to find what kind of vommit inducing rhetoric the radical left can come up with to combat the Republicans. Just so were all on the same page here, I'm not accusing the Republican party of being racist, and the same goes for the Democratic party, but it seems that they are both looking for the seething extremist sectors of their respective parties for shock value, and the outcome is ugly. It's almost as if the centrists are becoming the minority.
  Considerate: 72%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.66  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 69%  
  Substantial: 88%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.52  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 92%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 82%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.1  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
A level of gun control is wanted by over 80% of Americans, many of them conservatives. There is a noisy 20+% that don't give a damn about the majority, but wish to have it THEIR WAY! Mostly what used to be called the "TEA Party".
NO regulation on gun control will guarantee safety! NO automobile safety regulation, or driving regulation will guarantee safety! BUT, laws against drunk driving, laws against driving without a license, laws about needing a drivers test, an eyesight test, etc. DO save lives. Reasonable gun regulation will do the same.
Several Constitutional Amendments have been "modified" to "modernize them". The Second could stand some modernization. The Musket is not the weapon of the day, as it was when the Amendment was penned.
  Considerate: 63%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.46  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
If you had read my post, you'd clearly see that I called out any form of collectivism. Whether it be on the right or the left.
  Considerate: 80%  
  Substantial: 44%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 4.78  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 86%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 71%  
  Substantial: 61%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.2  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 89%  
  Learn More About Debra
None! I won't either. The title of this thread is crystal clear. I made this thread to call out the Republicans.
  Considerate: 81%  
  Substantial: 41%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 3.9  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 67%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 81%  
  Substantial: 41%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 84%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 4.96  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 83%  
  Learn More About Debra