[W:216, 238]Emails show White House advisor Stephen Miller promoting white nationalism to Breitbart

SouthernDemocrat said:

Focus on the Family was designated a hate group because it expended a huge amount of money and resources in fighting against the government recognition of same sex marriage, has expended a large amount of money and resources in fighting against discrimination protections for gays and lesbians, and puts a lot of money into gay conversion programs, has fought against gays and lesbians being able to adopt and so on.

10 Things You Should Know About Focus On The Family | Human Rights Campaign

Now, let's say you were gay or lesbian. If an organization was putting significant resources into legally preventing you from marrying who you want to marry, putting significant resources into banning your ability to adopt, and putting significant resources into preventing you from having legal discrimination protects - despite you being a member of a group that has historically been a big target of hate crimes and discrimination, would you view that organization as a hate group? I think you probably would and rightly so.

As a married heterosexual man with a family, I think we often can take for granted the legal freedoms and protections that we have that were until recently not extended to same sex couples.

Click to expand...

uptower said:

because when taken on aggregate the things they say and do paint a clear picture of discrimination. This is the case with some lobby groups, it is the case with Miller. An objective reading of these recently revealed emails demonstrates his bigotry; a glance at what he's said and done in the past strengthens the case against him.

We might cherry pick and say this one excerpt or that alone doesn't 'prove' anything, but when all lumped together, it's not pretty.

Click to expand...

sjmay said:

I understand your point, I'm at a different stance, in your scenario, I could see them being viewed as a hate group, but I can also discern that my view is biased enough, where although I view it as hate, others might not. They aren't using illegal scare tactics, they aren't lynching people, they are using resources that they have, legally, to promote their point of view, however much I disagree, that's their right.

Click to expand...

Tanngrisnir said:

Fun to watch you try and impugn where the emails are shown but not the rankly racist and white supremacist content of them.

Why do you support naked racism and white supremacism?

Click to expand...

Pound4abrown said:

Some things are just self-evident.

Click to expand...

SouthernDemocrat said:

So by your reasoning, David Duke is not a hate group. He isn't lynching people and he only uses legal resources to promote his point of view.

There are many White Supremacist groups that do not engage in violence, and while what they argue for is vile, they are well within their legal rights to do so, thus by your reasoning, they should not necessarily be viewed as hate groups. Some might just say they were advocating for the white race, not against other races, right? I mean that is your reasoning here.

Click to expand...

sjmay said:

I normally don't consider one person a group, but ok.

Listen, you think Focus on the Family is a hate group, go for it, no problem, just don't act surprised when other people don't. One can think the Klan as a hate group, and FOTF as not, don't get so triggered though eh?

Please show me White Supremacists group that don't engage in violence....I'm truly curious about that....

Click to expand...

sjmay said:

I normally don't consider one person a group, but ok.

Listen, you think Focus on the Family is a hate group, go for it, no problem, just don't act surprised when other people don't. One can think the Klan as a hate group, and FOTF as not, don't get so triggered though eh?

Please show me White Supremacists group that don't engage in violence....I'm truly curious about that....

Click to expand...

SouthernDemocrat said:

There are plenty of white supremacist groups that don't engage in violence. That doesn't mean they are not a hate group.

Moreover, I am not triggered, I am just pointing out why Focus on the Family was designated as a hate group. The argument to defend Stephen Miller was that since the Southern Poverty Law Center had designated Focus on the Family as an anti-LGBT hate group, they were not credible. I merely pointed out why it's a flawed argument. Of course its also irrelevant. Stephen Miller has a lifetime of white nationalism behind him, and his own emails are being used against him now.

Finally, those arguing this are not fooling anyone. Helen Keller could see through some of y'all. Those that have hateful views about the LGBT community do not like the fact that groups like Focus on the Family were designated as hate groups because it implicates them as well. Those with white nationalist views do not like the fact that Stephen Miller is viewed as a white nationalist, because it implicates them as well as they agree with him.

Bigots are very seldom self aware enough to recognize their own bigotry.

Click to expand...

sjmay said:

Please, show me one....

Click to expand...

sjmay said:

Just curious....is the majority of Canada racist now?

Click to expand...

weaver2 said:

These groups advocate an anti-American, anti-constitutional, anti-democracy and anti-social agenda. Wouldn't support from a representative of the POTUS be considered high crimes and misdemeanors?

Click to expand...

Nalu said:

I addressed the Canadian aspect in a thread about blackface.

Click to expand...

dobieg said:

I stopped reading after I saw this.




I mean, honestly.

Click to expand...

sjmay said:

Ok, so is a majority of Canada racist now?

Click to expand...

Jonsa said:

yes how "honest" of you to simply dismiss the fact that Miller is a scumbag racist white nationalist, despite his jewish "blood". I am amazed the white boys accept one with such a taint.

Click to expand...

Nalu said:

I addressed the Canadian aspect in a thread about blackface.

Click to expand...

JustHanging said:

Nope. Now if we had elected a racist PM who had spent a decade leading a racist movement that attacked the previous PM for no other reason than the colour of his skin, you know, like Trump.


Birtherism was why so many Republicans liked Trump in the first place


If we had elected a racist PM who had made his primary campaign strategy to energize his base designed to attract cowardly racists, you might have a point. You know, like Trump.

Trump’s Midterm Closing Argument: Pure Racial Fear


If we had elected a racist PM who had refused to rent to blacks because of the colour of their skin, you might have a point. You know, like Trump.

‘No Vacancies’ for Blacks: How Donald Trump Got His Start, and Was First Accused of Bias - The New York Times


But a one off like what Trudeau did? That was just stupid. We weren't supporting a blatant life long racist like the Trump base. It wasn't racism that attracted so many to Trudeau, like it was that attracted so much of the Trump base, at least according to Trump.

Click to expand...

sjmay said:

One off? There were multiple incidents.....and the poster I asked, literally said blackface is racist, so...does he think Canada is racist for electing a PM who has donned black face, MULTIPLE times ?

Click to expand...

justabubba said:

not to anyone who actually read it

Click to expand...

Nalu said:

You know, I switched screens to get some more stuff (Miller's article for the Duke Chronicle, for example, wherein he claimed that racism doesn't exist and called it "racial paranoia") but then realized that that would be a complete waste of time. You're going to ignore whatever's given to you just like you're ignoring the already obvious and undeniable fact that Miller is a racist.

If you want to pretend that discarding your nonwhite friends because of their race isn't racist, that's on you. If you want to pretend that sharing racist rants from VDARE, AmRen, and Infowars and pushing "Camp of the Saints" isn't racist, that's on you. Saying that, "people of color are a danger to our country and should not be allowed in." Writing the racist underpinnings of certain Trump speeches, including the war in Warsaw. Masterminding the travel ban and the Southern border policy. Promoting Hitler era immigration policies. All racist.

I know, I know. That's just me talking and doesn't prove anything. The problem with racism deniers and excusers, though, is that they pretend, via use of coded language they invented to be acceptably, subtly racist, is that either nothing is racist to them or anti-white racism is just as big a problem as racism against nonwhites. They won't even agree that blackface is racist and will spend pages on internet boards defending it and thereafter still want to be taken as a serious person.

Just for reference, this is what's on the Washington Examiner's opinion page today:

A*damning email dump*from former Breitbart editor Katie McHugh points to Miller simply being a racist who hates immigrants. . . .

We can't say with certainty what hate is or isn't in Miller's heart, but we know that he was happy enough to use the work of hatemongers and kill the GOP's last shot at immigration reform, apparently because it would help predominantly Mexican immigrants. It's long past time for Trump to dump Miller.

It's high time for Trump to dump Stephen Miller

Click to expand...

Nalu said:

Yeah, I know Salon has a bias. Take a breath. I didn't offer that writer's opinion as proof of Miller's racism. Just like I did with Fox's write up of Sanders's immigration plan in another thread, I expected you to discern through the bias of the tone and extract the pertinent facts and events. For example, this writer thinks that Miller's high school comments about janitors were racist. I think they could have just as easily been classist. Encouraging an influential news outlet to promote overtly racist propaganda is, however, racist any way you slice it.

I have to say that I'm a little disappointed that you're determined to attack my source rather than address my substance. Since I had a feeling that you might, I also gave you a piece by the Washington Examiner. It more or less says the same thing that the Salon editorial does but comes from a source that is as far right as Salon is left.

Washington Examiner - Media Bias/Fact Check

All that said, though, it's all, to some extent, a matter of opinion and perception. I addressed that stalemate in an earlier post.

Click to expand...

Hatuey said:

Let me guess, all of those Jews, blacks and whites at the SPLC are anti-white?



Sent from the Matrioshka in the WH Christmas tree.

Click to expand...

truthatallcost said:

Actually, black and female employees have accused the leadership of the SPLC of practicing racism and sexism behind the scenes, if you're really interested, which I doubt you are. Morris Dees and Richard Cohen resigned their positions as the #1 & #2 most powerful figures at the SPLC earlier this year when they were finally confronted by a usually complicit media over the charges.

Click to expand...

Oborosen said:

So more baseless blather and no real proof, just blind assertion and rage and the dying of the lite, and all that. If you want to keep throwing your faux morality around and continue in being mad for no real reason, then so be it.

But this is a blatant hit piece, because it takes quotes out of context, it uses hearsay and assertion to paint a picture that it wants you to see, and I've literally seen enough of this BS from Salon over the last four years to just know not to trust it on face value. Because these are the same jackasses that would call an inanimate object racist, or that a hand gesture is a symbol of white supremacy.

It's wasted on anyone who can actually exorcise their higher brain functions at this point.

Does anyone actually have hard proof that what they're claiming of Miller is true, and if so. Then they should be able to supply it.

Click to expand...