The Young Republicans are our future -- also our present

[Hodad]

 

Politico

 

 

Mixed into formal conversations about whipping votes, social media strategy and logistics, the members of the chat slung around an array of slurs — which POLITICO is republishing to show how they spoke. Epithets like “f----t,” “retarded” and “n--ga” appeared more than 251 times combined.

In one instance, Walker — who at the time was a staffer for Ortt — talked about how a mutual friend of some in the chat “dated this very obese Indian woman for a period of time.”

Giunta responded that the woman “was not Indian.”

“She just didn’t bathe often,” Samuel Douglass, a state senator from northern Vermont and the head of the state’s Young Republicans, replied to Giunta.

 

 

Clearly awful, awful people. Now we get to watch like-minded folks here line up to once again defend the indefensible. 

[gatomontes99]

38 minutes ago, Hodad said:

 

Politico

 

 

Mixed into formal conversations about whipping votes, social media strategy and logistics, the members of the chat slung around an array of slurs — which POLITICO is republishing to show how they spoke. Epithets like “f----t,” “retarded” and “n--ga” appeared more than 251 times combined.

In one instance, Walker — who at the time was a staffer for Ortt — talked about how a mutual friend of some in the chat “dated this very obese Indian woman for a period of time.”

Giunta responded that the woman “was not Indian.”

“She just didn’t bathe often,” Samuel Douglass, a state senator from northern Vermont and the head of the state’s Young Republicans, replied to Giunta.

 

 

Clearly awful, awful people. Now we get to watch like-minded folks here line up to once again defend the indefensible. 

Why didn't you start a thread about the NC Dem candidate that repeatedly sent text messages that he wanted to put two bullets in his opponents head while expressing just how much he wanted his opponents wife to watch her children die? I guess faģgot, rėtard and nigga are far more offensive than  fantasizing about killing children, I  your world. 

Edited October 15, 2025 by gatomontes99

[Hodad]

14 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

Why didn't you start a thread about the NC Dem candidate that repeatedly sent text messages that he wanted to put two bullets in his opponents head while expressing just how much he wanted his opponents wife to watch her children die? I guess faģgot, rėtard and nigga are far more offensive than  fantasizing about killing children, I  your world. 

I see that whataboutism is the first course. Pretty predictable. 

You could at least put in the effort to find a better whatabout though. Yes, indeed saying something hateful about one hated foe is VASTLY less offensive than blanket racism, misogyny and other such condemnable sentiment. 

Doesn't make it admirable, but the stark difference is pretty obvious, you know, if you're not working overtime to defend the indefensible. 

[paxamericana]

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

like-minded folks here line up to once again defend the indefensible. 

Which race baiting thread are we on now?

[Chrissy1979]

It shows what kind of people they are, and what their peers find acceptable. 
 

I suggest the “locker room talk” defence again. That was funny to watch.

[robosmith]

51 minutes ago, paxamericana said:

Which race baiting thread are we on now?

Doesn't say "race baiting" in your quote.

[gatomontes99]

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

I see that whataboutism is the first course. Pretty predictable. 

You could at least put in the effort to find a better whatabout though. Yes, indeed saying something hateful about one hated foe is VASTLY less offensive than blanket racism, misogyny and other such condemnable sentiment. 

Doesn't make it admirable, but the stark difference is pretty obvious, you know, if you're not working overtime to defend the indefensible. 

Really? Killing a politician and his kids while torturing his wife with their deaths is less offensive than faģgot? Niģga? Rėtard?

What about the fact that this guy said he would kill his opponent over Hitler every time? Isn't that a tacit acceptance of killing Jews? 

This isn't what-about-ism. This is where-are-your-priorities-ism. And your priorities are with your ideology over decorum. I don't know the context of these conversations, and neither do you. Some of the words could be objectionable in most circumstances. But are those words, even in the worse circumstances, really worse than openly stating that you would kill your opponent and his kids and torture his wife with making her watch?

Is that what you are hanging your hat on? If it is, that is truly disgusting. 

[Hodad]

27 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

 

This isn't what-about-ism. 

Sure, except for the fact that it's the textbook definition of whataboutism.

And now you propose that the "context" of racial either epithets and other hate speech might redeem the usage. Because there's got to be some kind of reasonable pro-Hitler, pro-slavery context. 🙄

Look, it's no surprise that these people are exactly who we think they are when they think no one is watching. Sometimes the hood slips. What's always a little surprising--and entertaining--is how eager some of you are to unmask yourselves and jump right into the hot water with them. 

 

[gatomontes99]

10 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Sure, except for the fact that it's the textbook definition of whataboutism.

Nah. You just want it to be about that because you got exposed for your disgusting hypocrisy. 

 

10 minutes ago, Hodad said:

And now you propose that the "context" of racial either epithets and other hate speech might redeem the usage. Because there's got to be some kind of reasonable pro-Hitler, pro-slavery context. 🙄

Yes. Every word can be used appropriately or inappropriately. Without context of every use of each word, passing judgement is Russian Roulette. 

 

14 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Look, it's no surprise that these people are exactly who we think they are when they think no one is watching.

Your proof that it is true is that your fantasy world needs it to be true? That should work out for you. 

14 minutes ago, Hodad said:

What's always a little surprising--and entertaining--is how eager some of you are to unmask yourselves and jump right into the hot water with them. 

This, from a guy that won't condemn assasination of a politician and his family. 

[Hodad]

2 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

Nah. You just want it to be about that because you got exposed for your disgusting hypocrisy. 

 

Yes. Every word can be used appropriately or inappropriately. Without context of every use of each word, passing judgement is Russian Roulette. 

 

Your proof that it is true is that your fantasy world needs it to be true? That should work out for you. 

This, from a guy that won't condemn assasination of a politician and his family. 

I'm not going to indulge your desperate whataboutism. Nor will I entertain the premise that there is any circumstance in which blatant racism and misogyny are excusable. 

It's beneath the dignity of decent people everywhere. 

You can wallow in depravity with your brethren, but I won't be joining you. 

[herbie]

Nazis are gonna define themselves as a race so they can plead how we discriminate against them.

[Deluge]

3 hours ago, Hodad said:

 

Politico

 

 

Mixed into formal conversations about whipping votes, social media strategy and logistics, the members of the chat slung around an array of slurs — which POLITICO is republishing to show how they spoke. Epithets like “f----t,” “retarded” and “n--ga” appeared more than 251 times combined.

In one instance, Walker — who at the time was a staffer for Ortt — talked about how a mutual friend of some in the chat “dated this very obese Indian woman for a period of time.”

Giunta responded that the woman “was not Indian.”

“She just didn’t bathe often,” Samuel Douglass, a state senator from northern Vermont and the head of the state’s Young Republicans, replied to Giunta.

 

 

Clearly awful, awful people. Now we get to watch like-minded folks here line up to once again defend the indefensible. 

We need to burn the US constitution.

-- The left

[gatomontes99]

9 hours ago, Hodad said:

I'm not going to indulge your desperate whataboutism.

Except, there is no what-about-ism. Just your hypocrisy. 

 

9 hours ago, Hodad said:

Nor will I entertain the premise that there is any circumstance in which blatant racism and misogyny are excusable. 

That isnt what I said, and you know it. I said that the words have meanings, but the words are either appropriate or inappropriate depending on the context of the conversation. I've used nigģa four times in this conversation. Not one use was racist. 

You don't want to acknowledge that it is possible to use the words, in context, appropriately. If you did, you wouldn't be able to maintain irrational hatred. 

I will acknowledge it is possible or even likely they inappropriately used those words. If they did, they should be condemned. We don't tolerate intolerance. 

I have a hard time believing anything the left comes up with because you guys lie so damn often. And isn't it just so convenient that they just happened to find this text chain days after their guy was caught fantasizing about killing a political opponent and his family? That is some next level coincidence right there.

[Shady]

14 hours ago, Hodad said:

 

Politico

 

 

Mixed into formal conversations about whipping votes, social media strategy and logistics, the members of the chat slung around an array of slurs — which POLITICO is republishing to show how they spoke. Epithets like “f----t,” “retarded” and “n--ga” appeared more than 251 times combined.

In one instance, Walker — who at the time was a staffer for Ortt — talked about how a mutual friend of some in the chat “dated this very obese Indian woman for a period of time.”

Giunta responded that the woman “was not Indian.”

“She just didn’t bathe often,” Samuel Douglass, a state senator from northern Vermont and the head of the state’s Young Republicans, replied to Giunta.

 

 

Clearly awful, awful people. Now we get to watch like-minded folks here line up to once again defend the indefensible. 

Who’s defending anything?  It’s a leaked conversation of random nobody’s.  Sorry if I don’t care all that much.  The leaked text messages of the Democrat running for lieutenant governor in Virginia is much more relevant.  You know the ones where he wants to kill his opponent?

[Chrissy1979]

59 minutes ago, Shady said:

Who’s defending anything?  It’s a leaked conversation of random nobody’s.  Sorry if I don’t care all that much.  The leaked text messages of the Democrat running for lieutenant governor in Virginia is much more relevant.  You know the ones where he wants to kill his opponent?

They aren’t nobodies at all, and it demonstrates what Republicans are like when they think only fellow Republicans are listening.

You aren’t offended because you’re one of them. Nice whataboutism though.

[Shady]

3 minutes ago, Chrissy1979 said:

They aren’t nobodies at all, and it demonstrates what Republicans are like when they think only fellow Republicans are listening.

You aren’t offended because you’re one of them. Nice whataboutism though.

They’re complete nobodies.  

[CDN1]

Meh. Why should I care? Leftist teachers say worse shit every day. 

Democrats and liberals have openly normalized anti-White rhetoric and scapegoating throughout institutions and mainstream media. There are very few moderates speaking up and rarely any consequences or condemnation for it. You have no ground to stand on here.

 

 

 

Edited October 16, 2025 by CDN1

[Chrissy1979]

31 minutes ago, Shady said:

They’re complete nobodies.  

The leadership of the Young Republicans are nobodies? Now they are, I guess, unless you decide what they said is fine.

[Shady]

40 minutes ago, Chrissy1979 said:

The leadership of the Young Republicans are nobodies? Now they are, I guess, unless you decide what they said is fine.

A few random people, yes, nobodies.  I just don’t care about a private text chain of a bunch of kids joking around.  Sorry.

[Chrissy1979]

5 minutes ago, Shady said:

A few random people, yes, nobodies.  I just don’t care about a private text chain of a bunch of kids joking around.  Sorry.

They were neither random nor kids. They are the young Republicans leadership. You just don’t care because that’s how you talk too.

[Nationalist]

13 hours ago, Hodad said:

I'm not going to indulge your desperate whataboutism. Nor will I entertain the premise that there is any circumstance in which blatant racism and misogyny are excusable. 

It's beneath the dignity of decent people everywhere. 

You can wallow in depravity with your brethren, but I won't be joining you. 

Obviously you're not because to do so exposes your blatant hypocrisy. 

Lol...you silly twit. You ARE wallowing in depravity.

13 hours ago, herbie said:

Nazis are gonna define themselves as a race so they can plead how we discriminate against them.

"NAZIS!"

Gawd you're a pathetic goof.

[SpankyMcFarland]

16 hours ago, Hodad said:

I see that whataboutism is the first course. Pretty predictable. 

You could at least put in the effort to find a better whatabout though. Yes, indeed saying something hateful about one hated foe is VASTLY less offensive than blanket racism, misogyny and other such condemnable sentiment. 

Doesn't make it admirable, but the stark difference is pretty obvious, you know, if you're not working overtime to defend the indefensible. 

Imagine the Ten Commandments carrying a notwithstanding clause in the small print at the bottom: but if the Canaanites do any of the above, have at ‘er b’y, sin at will. 

[Shady]

38 minutes ago, Chrissy1979 said:

They were neither random nor kids. They are the young Republicans leadership. You just don’t care because that’s how you talk too.

They’re random kids joking around.  I don’t care about a group chat of teenagers making stupid jokes.  Your fake outrage is amusing though Chrissy, or should I say Karen.

[Chrissy1979]

5 minutes ago, Shady said:

They’re random kids joking around.  I don’t care about a group chat of teenagers making stupid jokes.  Your fake outrage is amusing though Chrissy, or should I say Karen.

They’re not random kids. They are young Republican leadership participating in a young Republican leadership group chat. Lying doesn’t help your case.

[Shady]

1 hour ago, Chrissy1979 said:

They’re not random kids. They are young Republican leadership participating in a young Republican leadership group chat. Lying doesn’t help your case.

Literally random kids that signed up.  There are thousands of the same thing all over the country.  Did you even say a word about the texts from the .Democrat running lieutenant governor of Virginia?  Or is this just selective outrage?