Trump Campaign Nominates Prominent White Supremacist To Be Convention Delegate

[CPUd]

Trump Campaign Nominates Prominent White Supremacist To Be Convention Delegate

By Ben Mathis-Lilley


Well, this is crazy but not necessarily entirely surprising: Mother Jones reports that the Donald Trump campaign has nominated William Johnson, a California attorney and "one of the country's most prominent white nationalists," to be a delegate at July's Republican convention.

The details: Campaigns participating in the June 7 California primary submit lists of 169 proposed delegates to California's Secretary of State. A certain number of those delegates go to the national convention depending on how the California vote turns out. And one of the delegates who was nominated by the Trump campaign is the leader of the American Freedom Party, whose group seeks to preserve "the customs and heritage of the European American people" and who once wrote a book suggesting that all nonwhite Americans should be deported.

The Trump campaign is going with "database error" as its excuse for nominating a white supremacist to be a convention delegate:

Johnson, who co-hosts a Christian (!) radio show broadcast in three states and who has previously made national headlines for buying pro-Trump robocalls, tells Mother Jones he did not conceal his identity or beliefs when he applied to the Trump campaign to become a potential delegate

The robocalls, the radio show, and the "harassment hotline" were all things that Johnson mentioned in his application to become a Trump delegate. He specifically cited an anti-Romney robocall commissioned in Utah this past March, which begins, in part, "My name is William Johnson. I am a farmer and a white nationalist."

(Here's more on that "harassment hotline.")

Johnson asserts that the American Freedom Party has gained "hundreds of new members" during the Trump campaign. "[Trump] is allowing us to talk about things we've not been able to talk about," he says. "So even if he is not elected, he has achieved great things."

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slate...onvention.html

[CPUd]

Here is the Trump slate:
http://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/stat...-delegates.pdf

[moostraks]

Johnson also now finds it easier to be himself: "For many, many years, when I would say these things, other white people would call me names: 'Oh, you're a hatemonger, you're a Nazi, you're like Hitler,' " he confessed. "Now they come in and say, 'Oh, you're like Donald Trump.' "

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...e-nationalism/

[hells_unicorn]

I looked into this William Daniel Johnson guy, and the term "white supremacist" is a misnomer since the guy's political platform falls more under the lines of being a "separatist" and a "pan-nationalist" rather than a "supremacist". His views on deporting people of certain races is actually indistinguishable from the "Back to Africa" movement and Abraham Lincoln's "Liberia policy", which never came to fruition since there wasn't enough support for it.

I probably would just barely make the cut for his standard of "1/8 Native American blood" cut-off, as is the case with a number of my friends. I don't support such a policy, but it would be nice if the MSM would stop being so MSMish and actually give a fuller account of where this guy is coming from politically rather than using creepy buzz words. Distorting the truth in such a fashion is actually part and parcel of how Trump got this far in the presidential race, and harping on stuff like this will most likely make his eventual victory even more certain.

[erowe1]

I looked into this William Daniel Johnson guy, and the term "white supremacist" is a misnomer since the guy's political platform falls more under the lines of being a "separatist" and a "pan-nationalist" rather than a "supremacist". His views on deporting people of certain races is actually indistinguishable from the "Back to Africa" movement and Abraham Lincoln's "Liberia policy", which never came to fruition since there wasn't enough support for it.

So having a policy that's indistinguishable from Lincoln's "Liberia policy" is a reason not to call someone a white supremacist?

[acptulsa]

So having a policy that's indistinguishable from Lincoln's "Liberia policy" is a reason not to call someone a white supremacist?

Yes, it probably is. But it won't make the typical rational person like them one bit more.

[erowe1]

Yes, it probably is. But it won't make the typical rational person like them one bit more.

I assume this must come down to the fine points of white nationalist nomenclature, but why would a white supremacist not support that?

[acptulsa]

I assume this must come down to the fine points of white nationalist nomenclature, but why would a white supremacist not support that?

You're asking me?

Are you sure a white supremacist wouldn't support that?

Do you want me to guess? Because it makes it harder to bring back slavery? Because they think black girls are hot? Because they want to bring back slavery because they think black girls are hot? Is there a correct answer?

[tod evans]

If you don't criticize Black, Brown, Yellow and Red supremacists equally then $#@! off and die..

This guy is a nobody, who is being paraded around as a somebody, by a bunch of nobodies...

To what end?

[hells_unicorn]

So having a policy that's indistinguishable from Lincoln's "Liberia policy" is a reason not to call someone a white supremacist?

Nope, the reason not to call someone a "white supremacist" is because it carries connotations that don't apply to what Johnson has stated. His stance could be described as xenophobic, though it's an inconsistent brand of xenophobia given that he makes fairly sizable allowances for people of various Asian, Mongolian and Aboriginal backgrounds compared to the "one-drop rule" that was common in 19th century America. I don't support William Johnson's ideas, though I do have some pan-nationalist tendencies myself, but the deliberate mislabeling of a person's stance is not a good way of going about defeating it if that's your approach. His ideas are growing in popularity, largely due to the obnoxious tendencies of people who support open-borders and the fact that many of the people allowed in harbor similar "segregationist" tendencies within their own conclaves which are glossed over.

Me mentioning Lincoln's "Liberia Policy" is more a reflection on the irony of left-wing nutters who worship Lincoln not doing their research on what he believed and said in various speeches. The mental gymnastics involved in rationalizing Lincoln's racist views are actually quite comparable to how the average Trump supporter justifies certain things that he says, and also how a certain number of so-called "libertarians" on this forum rationalize their de facto support for Hillary Clinton in the name of "stopping Trump".

I'm taking more of a bystander approach to this election now that it's clear that rationality has largely gone out the window for all concerned parties. If this country is going to hell in a bucket, I'm at least going to enjoy the ride.

[randomname]

Trump has removed this guy from the list already right?

[puppetmaster]

If you don't criticize Black, Brown, Yellow and Red supremacists equally then $#@! off and die..

This guy is a nobody, who is being paraded around as a somebody, by a bunch of nobodies...

To what end?

this

[CPUd]

Trump has removed this guy from the list already right?

Why would he want to remove him? After all, he can probably make a case that the guy is more of a white nationalist than a white supremacist.

[LibertyEagle]

Yes, because the "libertarian" thing to do is to hate white people and promote "diversity", multiculturalism, and the overrun of borders by illegal aliens?

[CPUd]

[Antischism]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...e-nationalism/

That quote is exactly why some people are supporting Donald Trump. They want to be openly racist and bigoted without getting their feelings hurt when they're criticized for being sh!theels.

Yes, because the "libertarian" thing to do is to hate white people and promote "diversity", multiculturalism, and the overrun of borders by illegal aliens?

Open borders is de facto libertarianism, so I'm not sure what you're getting at.

[acptulsa]

Yes, because the "libertarian" thing to do is to hate white people and promote "diversity", multiculturalism, and the overrun of borders by illegal aliens?

Who are you talking to and what are you talking about?

Are you responding to any particular comment in this thread, or are you just bitching because this factoid appeared where you could see it?

[LibertyEagle]

Open borders is de facto libertarianism, so I'm not sure what you're getting at.

I was summarizing what I have seen on here of late and was asking if I had it right. Is it also fair to say that it is a "libertarian" position to be pro-multiculturalism and "diversity"? From what you said, does it also mean that you believe "libertarians" are for the illegal alien overrun of our border?

[Antischism]

I was summarizing what I have seen on here of late and was asking if I had it right. Is it also fair to say that it is a "libertarian" position to be pro-multiculturalism and "diversity"? From what you said, does it also mean that you believe "libertarians" are for the illegal alien overrun of our border?

I don't see them as "illegal aliens"; they're people no better or worse than those already residing in this country. It's easy to vilify entire groups of people when you categorize them in such a manner — a label with negative connotations. Being in favor of multiculturalism and diversity has nothing to do with libertarianism per se, but being a libertarian and for open borders means that you're okay with people of all backgrounds inhabiting the same land. You can separate yourself somewhere with people who look or think like you if that's what you want. You can hold odious beliefs about "others" as well, but people will sure as heck look down on you for it.

[erowe1]

I was summarizing what I have seen on here of late and was asking if I had it right. Is it also fair to say that it is a "libertarian" position to be pro-multiculturalism and "diversity"? From what you said, does it also mean that you believe "libertarians" are for the illegal alien overrun of our border?

You should ask that question in a more objective way, like, "Have libertarians stopped promoting rape yet?"

[LibertyEagle]

I don't see them as "illegal aliens"; they're people no better or worse than those already residing in this country. Being in favor of multiculturalism and diversity has nothing to do with libertarianism per se, but being a libertarian and for open borders means that you're okay with people of all backgrounds inhabiting the same land. You can separate yourself somewhere with people who look or think like you if that's what you want. You can hold odious beliefs about "others" as well, but people will sure as heck look down on you for it.

So, not too high on the idea of nations?

Your stance on illegal immigration sounds like you agree with multiculturalism and "diversity". Because that is exactly what the unfettered overrun of our borders creates. Is that fair to say?

Whereas multiculturalism deals with cultural diversity within a particular nation or social group,

(wikipedia)

[acptulsa]

Is it possible to start a thread which can't be turned into an open borders witch hunt?

[randomname]

William Daniel Johnson, the leader of the white-nationalist American Freedom Party, was selected as a delegate from California on Donald Trump’s slate, Mother Jones reported Tuesday. Johnson allegedly disclosed details about his extremist political beliefs in the application to become delegate and he has been an outspoken supporter of the presumptive Republican nominee in recent months, setting up robocalls in various states on his behalf as well as a hotline for Trump supporters who have felt “marginalized.”

After the news broke, Johnson was contacted by Tim Clark, Trump’s California chairman, and was told “you are not being considered for a delegate position,” he told The Daily Beast.

Johnson then sent an email stating he understood, and that he “hereby resigned as a delegate” and said he hadn’t discussed the matter further with anyone else from the Trump campaign. Looking back, he says he understands why he got thrown under the bus.

“I don’t want to negatively impact Trump’s efforts,” he told The Daily Beast. “And his campaign has determined that my involvement is not best for his efforts. So I accept that. We live in a society where white people hate white people who like white people. And me being a white nationalist doesn’t sit well with some people… So I understand his campaign’s concerns, and I support… [Trump’s decision to] not having me as a delegate.”

In a Tuesday afternoon statement, however, the Trump campaign said, “a database error led to the inclusion of a potential delegate that had been rejected and removed from the campaign’s list in February 2016.”

[tod evans]

I don't see them as "illegal aliens"; they're people no better or worse than those already residing in this country. It's easy to vilify entire groups of people when you categorize them in such a manner — a label with negative connotations. Being in favor of multiculturalism and diversity has nothing to do with libertarianism per se, but being a libertarian and for open borders means that you're okay with people of all backgrounds inhabiting the same land. You can separate yourself somewhere with people who look or think like you if that's what you want. You can hold odious beliefs about "others" as well, but people will sure as heck look down on you for it.

There seems to be a rather large segment of society that considers your views "odious" as shown in the current polling......

You could probably care less if all of them "look down on you for it"......

Fact of the matter is there's a rift and it's going to progress into a tear...........

[LibertyEagle]

Is it possible to start a thread which can't be turned into an open borders witch hunt?

As opposed to a witch hunt of white people who do not hate their own race and their nation?

[Wilf]

As opposed to a witch hunt of white people who do not hate their own race and their nation?

Not everyone on this forum is white.

[tod evans]

As opposed to a witch hunt of white people who do not hate their own race and their nation?

Hold on a minute!

I'm white and you can bet your ass that I hate a whole bunch of the whistledick, pantywaste morons that share my skin tone.........

[RonPaulMall]

I don't support such a policy, but it would be nice if the MSM would stop being so MSMish and actually give a fuller account of where this guy is coming from politically rather than using creepy buzz words. Distorting the truth in such a fashion is actually part and parcel of how Trump got this far in the presidential race, and harping on stuff like this will most likely make his eventual victory even more certain.

As far as the media is concerned, all of us are racists and they will always refer to us as such no matter the facts or details. The objective is not to change the media's mind, or convince them to treat us fairly. The objective is to destroy them.

[Antischism]

So, not too high on the idea of nations?

Your stance on illegal immigration sounds like you agree with multiculturalism and "diversity". Because that is exactly what the unfettered overrun of our borders creates. Is that fair to say?
(wikipedia)

Even if you maintain the border, you can do so without restricting immigration. A nation will not cease to be a nation as a result. If being in favor of zero restrictions on immigration means I'm in favor of multiculturalism and diversity, then sure; I agree with it. I don't have a problem with people of other backgrounds.

There seems to be a rather large segment of society that considers your views "odious" as shown in the current polling......

You could probably care less if all of them "look down on you for it"......

Fact of the matter is there's a rift and it's going to progress into a tear...........

Sure, and that's okay. Using the power of the state to dictate where people can and can't move is solidly un-libertarian, however. It would make sense that many would find this odious because only a small fraction of the population is libertarian.

[tod evans]

Sure, and that's okay. Using the power of the state to dictate where people can and can't move is solidly un-libertarian, however. It would make sense that many would find this odious because only a small fraction of the population is libertarian.

Using the power of the state to permit people to move where they're not wanted is just as bad, maybe even worse.......