30

Post from Facebook Teabonics

enter image description here

Reads

In the past year, Republicans have selected a Nazi, a neo-Confederate, a pedophile, and a pimp as general election candidates. [Pictures of presumed GOP candidates and of Ocasio-Cortez] But please keep telling us how Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is too radical for America because she doesn't want people to be sick or poor!

Did Republicans select a nazi, neo-Confederate, pedophile, and pimp as general election candidates?

49

Mostly correct.

According to Google's reverse image search, the 4 photos are of the following people:

  1. Arthur J Jones. His Wikipedia entry starts with "Arthur Joseph Jones (born January 1, 1948) is an American neo-Nazi far-right white nationalist and Holocaust denier. He is the Republican candidate for Illinois's 3rd congressional district." His own website has a section denying the holocaust.

  2. Corey Stewart. Vox.com says this about him: "Virginia Republicans just nominated an alt-right hero to run for Senate. Corey Stewart’s Confederate leanings and “Unite the Right” support, explained." It also calls him a birther and a virulent anti-Semite. Here's a NY Post link showing a video of Stewart giving his support for the confederate flag. And Celebrity Snooper details his birther support on Twitter.

  3. Roy Moore. He has been accused of sexual misconduct. As his alleged victims were between 14 and 18 years old, he may technically not be a paedophile. Newsweek calls him an "Ephedophile". He has not been convicted.

  4. Dennis Hof. Wikipedia's entry about him starts with: "Dennis Hof (born October 14, 1946), self-designated the "Trump from Pahrump," is an American brothel owner, entrepreneur, restaurateur and star of the HBO series Cathouse, currently running for the Nevada State Legislature. He is best known as the owner of seven legal brothels in Nevada." I assume that means he can be called a "pimp" as well - certainly there are lots of web pages that do. Buzzfeed has more information about life in his brothels.

  • 4
    Great work. I'm worried that the message of the claim is unaddressed. Ocasio is probably not the worst the Democrats have nominated, yet these four are probably the worst the Republicans have nominated. Likely not a fair comparison. – fredsbend Jul 28 '18 at 6:26
  • 40
    @fredsbend I don't think the message of the image is really "Republicans are worse than Democrats", but "You complain about a democratic socialist, but you have literal Nazis as candidates". It seems more like a defense of Ocasio-Cortez, and less of an attack on Republicans. Adding a comparison to "worse" Democrats to the answer wouldn't seem in the spirit of the question. – tim Jul 28 '18 at 6:37
  • 2
    I agree though that a bit more context would be nice. Jones eg was disavowed by many Illinois Republicans and likely only succeeded because Republicans didn't care enough about the district (or about preventing a Nazi to run and win their nomination). Then again, Jones isn't the only Nazi or White Supremacist Republican candidate... – tim Jul 28 '18 at 6:38
  • 15
    @gerrit He hasn't been convicted because of the statute of limitations. Presumption of innocence is for a court of law; I think it's fine to point out that he wasn't convicted; the answer also already uses the phrase "accused of" instead of eg plain saying that he sexually assaulted children. But putting "alleged" before "victims" indirectly accuses all those who came forward of lying, which doesn't seem necessary in this context. – tim Jul 28 '18 at 17:47
  • 4
    @tim As long as the criminal act is an accusation, there are only alleged victims. That doesn't imply accusing anybody of lying, it's just stating that those allegations have not been proven in court. Presumption of innocence is not only for a court of law, it is for all society. – gerrit Jul 29 '18 at 20:47
7

Devils advocate, I'm going to somewhat dispute the "replublicans have selected" part of the claim.

Basically it was an extremely safe Dem seat with basically zero chance of a Rep winning... so they struggled to find anyone willing to run as a Rep, he put himself forward with nobody to oppose.

From this article

Jones, whom the GOP has denounced as a Nazi and who has a section on his campaign website devoted to denying the Holocaust, was unopposed in the primary and won the Republican nomination to represent the Illinois 3rd District in Congress.

And from this article.

“Even if only myself and my wife voted for me, I’d win the primary because the Republican Party screwed up big time,” Mr. Jones said in an interview.

...

The Illinois Republican Party has sought to distance itself from Mr. Jones in recent weeks, blanketing the district with campaign fliers and robocalls urging voters to “stop Illinois Nazis,” according to a robocall script provided by the party. Mr. Jones said he had received three robocalls himself.

“Arthur Jones is not a real Republican — he is a Nazi whose disgusting, bigoted views have no place in our nation’s discourse,” Tim Schneider, the Illinois Republican Party chairman, said in a statement. He said the party had urged voters “to skip over his name when they go to the polls” and moving forward planned on “vehemently opposing Jones with real campaign dollars.”

A spokesman for the Illinois Republican Party said those dollars would be used to support an independent candidate in the November general election. Party leaders are in talks with several potential candidates, the spokesman said, but have not yet decided which one to endorse.

So... he basically selected himself and then the GOP campaigned against him.

As for Corey Stewart there's been some accusations of strategic cross-party voting in the primary... and some examples of people simply boasting about it but it's basically impossible to know how much of the primary vote was "strategic" voting to try to get the least electable candidate on the oppositions ballot.

For the other 2 I can't find equivalent claims.

  • 2
    If there are no other candidates can't they simply elect not to put anyone at all forward? Are they forced by some rule to field whatever douchbag throws his name in, even if he is a Nazi? – dont_shog_me_bro Jul 31 '18 at 14:56
  • 3
    Something that would make this answer better is show the Republican party can't stop a candidate getting the (R) next to their name (if that's the case), I read a bit about fusion voting and crossover voting but I found saute this explicitly – daniel Aug 1 '18 at 8:56
  • 1
    @dont_shog_me_bro I think they are. But regarding the "replublicans have selected" part, it's probably relevant to note that while mainstream Republican politicians denounced Jones, Republican voters turned out and voted in numbers almost equal to the Republican candidate in 2012. So while it could have been only Jones and his wife voting for him, it actually seems to have been a majority of Illinois Republicans who voted for a Nazi. – tim Aug 7 '18 at 22:38
  • 1
    It's very disturbing how the alt-right have managed to make Nazis into acceptable candidates again. Maybe there were always lots of closet Nazis in Illinois, but at least they felt too ashamed to actually openly vote for white supremacists. – dont_shog_me_bro Aug 8 '18 at 8:22
  • 2
    @tim As pointed out in the articles in Illinois when voting there's an option to just vote for your party down the line. He's a relative nobody running for a seat that he won't get. Many many people just tick the "rep" box with no knowledge of the candidates and many were apparently horrified when told details of him. In most american elections if the rep candidate was replaced with a cabage in a wig and the dem candidate with a turnip... most people would still just tick the party box. – Murphy Aug 8 '18 at 10:17

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .