GOP candidate says he'll fight socialists in Congress like he fought terrorists - Polidicks

https://nypost.com/2019/05/25/georgia-gop-candidate-appears-to-threaten-ocasio-cortez-sanders-in-video/?utm_source=reddit.com A congressional candidate in Georgia is targeting Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Bernie Sanders all but literally. A campaign video from Republican Harrison Floyd shows images of the progressive darlings, then a clip of himself firing a rifle in a combat setting, while he says in a voiceover: “I’ll fight socialists in Congress the same way I fought terrorists in the desert.” “I’m running for Congress because my family and I didn’t fight for our freedoms to allow our country to fall to socialism,” Floyd, a Marine veteran, says at the start of the vid. Carolyn Bourdeaux, a Democratic candidate for Georgia’s seventh congressional district, decried the video. Floyd is one of several Republican candidates in the race who have made Ocasio-Cortez’s high-profile progressive proposals a center of their campaigns, according to the Atlanta Journal- Constitution. Incumbent Rep. Rob Woodall is retiring. Floyd’s video came in a heated political season that has seen death threats to politicians including Ocasio-Cortez’s ally Rep. Ilhan Omar.

At least he didn't threaten to throw a milkshake at Bernie and AOC, that would of definitely gone too far and ruined civil discourse forever.

“I’m running for Congress because my family and I didn’t fight for our freedoms to allow our country to fall to socialism,” Bro you fought because our government sent you to sandland for dinosaur juice. Sorry you got played but shut the fuck up

Someone ask this guy when was the last time an American Marine fought for American's freedom

WW2, yessir. Everything after was just.. us.

The dude's this far, he obviously believes 9/11 was hateful terrorists doing hateful things and we could have never seen it coming, and nothing more, and that our military conflicts following such were totally justified in response, and that Saddam totally did have WMDs and invading Iraq was a totally good idea.

he fought so he could get himself a nice new dodge challenger guaranteed

I was assuming that the NYP would be exaggerating the context but when he says " the same way I fought terrorists in the desert" it cuts to a picture of him aiming a rifle so damn lol doesn't leave much to the imagination.

this guy is a terrorist. straight up saying "I WANT TO SHOOT POLITICIANS"

man, its always been difficult to square our position on socialism with the economic systems of our allies in europe, but 2020 promises to just make us all look fucking retarded. this is the dumbest attempt at red scare yet, the subversives have such a dastardly plan to....give people healthcare....strengthen labor laws...... and rebalance the economy...... so fucking pathetic

It's always the height of absurdity to see black GOP supporters. Especially young ones. With how radical the GOP has gotten lately, they're two steps from mandating Klan robes and Swastikas as their uniform. And anyone who's been paying attention knows that's not hyperbole. I wish it were. You look at people like Ben Carson and you can pass off his idiocy as senility coupled with religious delusion. What's Floyd's excuse? Is he brainwashed? Or just plain dumb? And why is it always the mental midgets who get elected to the Senate among the GOP? Then again, to associate oneself with that party in the first place in this day and age one must be lacking something fundamental.

People who grow up in wealthy/upper-middle class families tend not to experience the racism aspect of conservative rhetoric regardless of their ethnicity. Wealth can be a great insulator from the negative aspects of human experience, including racism. I suspect that may be part of the situation here.

If it weren't for the overt racism displayed by GOP representatives from Bible belt States, where their wear their degeneracy like a badge of honour, that explanation could satisfy me. It's all over the news whenever it happens, after all.

It's very easy for people who support conservative ideology to either weasel out of any racially motivated statement made by a conservative politician by arguing semantics or attempt to separate themselves from that person by claiming they are an outlier. At it's most extreme you get arguments like "'Gas the kikes' does not objectively mean 'kill the jews'" which is an argument someone in this forum actually made at one point. Any singular example of a left-leaning person doing something bad is considered emblematic of the innumerable ways 'the left' is trying to undermine traditional American values and destroy society. Any example of a right-leaning person doing something bad is just a lone wolf- a single individual who regrettably but understandably violently snapped because of the pressure put upon them by 'the left'. If someone with right-leaning views does something bad, it's still the fault of 'the left' because if 'the left' hadn't been doing what it does then that person would've never done the bad thing. Even if we admit that a right-leaning person has actually said something wrong/racist (after a lot of hand-wringing and arguing semantics), it's still 'the left''s fault for making them racist in the first place. When someone genuinely believes that every wrong thing in the world can be adequately traced back to a singular ideological root, then even bad things committed by 'my side' are still the fault of the opposition.

TBH he looks more mixed race than black. He could almost pass as Hispanic. I never really understood why anybody that doesn't look like they have strictly white ancestors is categorised as black. You'll have a hard time finding a native African that looks like this guy.

I don't think the Gas the Kikes dude was actually a Nazi tho lol, he was using that as an example of words meaning and misinterpretation. It was a dumb af example and hilarious out of context but I just wanna point that out.

I agree. I was using it as an example of how someone could use semantic arguments to explain away a racist statement made by someone else. I'm sorry that wasn't clear.

"Socialism bad. FREEDOM. AMERICA BEST COUNTRY. Damn lefties, all of them snowflakes. Healthcare is a right! Minorities = criminals." "Sir, this is an Arby's"

A black goo member... He truly is brainwashed, he's literally fighting against his own interests. He's literally part of the group, that if this was colonial America, they'd be fighting to keep slaves.

Soooo...he'll give AOC and Bernie guns and then break into the wrong house?

Less giving them guns and more breaking into the wrong house and then planting guns everywhere as justification to break into the house. And still blame the Democrats somehow.

Obama was mixed, too. But as far as the GOP is concerned, if your family tree doesn't look like a wreath, you're genetically inferior.

Because blackness in America isn't like white Americans obsession with "I'm 50% German, 20% Irish, and 30% Polish," but off of their experience. Saying "oh but you're only half black" is mixed race erasure. They're still black. The main unifer is their experience. Obama doesn't look white, so he was never treated as white; he was treated as a person of color, particularly black. Which is what makes men like in the OP all the more frustrating. Like someone else said, financial privilege can be a great insulator to racial oppression.

Right, so essentially what you're saying is that, because American racists treat people with the slightest visible black trait as black, then that's objectively what they are? I'm not sure what's so "ignorant" about stating the facts. From a genetic standpoint Obama is just as white as he is black. Just because a good chunk of Americans start frothing at the mouth the instant they see a slightly brown shade of skin doesn't mean that we should all adopt their standards of what counts as black or white, and it certainly doesn't make me dumb to point out that hypocrisy, regardless of what you imply. I never said that mixed-race people don't face the same institutional racism and discrimination as black people. In fact, pointing out the opposite is my entire point. That Americans' skewed views on race stem from racists' association of whiteness with purity, according to which only people who pass as 100% white are considered as such and anybody with a visible hint of African ancestry is thus considered black. That this remains widely unquestioned is honestly kind of mind blowing, and serves as a basis for white supremacist propaganda, which portrays white people as being some kind of increasingly small underdog, when the increasing share of mixed-race people in the population is actually no more of a "threat" to white people than it is to black people. Your taking offence over my not adopting the same skewed standards as your enemies is honestly straight-up weird.

Whooosh. Way to miss the point. Again. I find it amusing that you're assuming he's offended when you're the only one in this exchange with a propensity for taking arguments made by the people you debate as personal insults, as I saw during our last discussion. Nobody here is saying it's okay that the racists in America are degenerates and that they use such made-up, bullshit standards for determining 'racial purity'. We all know it's fucked up. The thing you're missing is that we're pointing out how fucked up it is that someone those racists would deem sub-human by their own bullshit standards is actually putting himself out there to defend them and further their agenda. Despite the fact that anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows those standards are bullshit, we're not asking you to 'adopt' them. We're acknowledging that they exist and illustrating why it's bad that this dude is actually representing an ideology that would strip him of his rights and enslave him, given half the chance. You might find it helpful to actually read what the people you go off on are saying instead of making up arguments they aren't making in your head and pretending that that was their intent.

Wow. You might want to read arlygoodbrownie's point again, because I'm not the one with a reading comprehension problem here. How do you reconcile this: With this ? The person I'm replying to is saying that "they're still black" and that me saying otherwise is "mixed-race erasure". He's saying I'm ignorant for not agreeing to those standards.

In America, being mixed race is exactly the same as being fully black in terms of discrimination. You are a 'person of color' if your skin is anywhere off white and if your ancestry is anything but pure European. The extremists among the GOP even consider Irishmen, Spaniards and Italians to be sub-human. To point out that a person of color in the States is only 'half black' as if that makes a practical difference to the challenges they face is therefore ignorant because it diminishes the fact that they may as well be black in the eyes of the degenerates that make up the GOP and its voter base. You misunderstood his point.

No. You misunderstood mine: You can claim that someone is mixed-race while still acknowledging that racists discriminate against them in the exact same way they do against black people. What I'm arguing is that insisting that anybody with African ancestry who faces racial discrimination is de-facto black basically plays in the hand of racists who use the exact same definition, and is dumb when you could just as well consider that both mixed-race and black people, though slightly distinct in ancestry, are part of a greater whole that suffers the same ills under institutional racism.

Jokes on him because socialists are soluble and thus immune to waterboarding.

I don't see that as making any difference, personally. To do so would be to imply that being fully black is somehow objectively worse than being half black, as though 'black' was some kind of slur. In reality, phenotype has no bearing on anything, given human genetic variation, as I assume you're aware. But because Floyd is considered 'black' by the fucked-up standards of discrimination prevalent in the United States, we use the same term for the sake of brevity. Anything else is pointless pedantry in the context of this discussion.