You’d think they’d learn. The Young Republicans had a signal chat where they thought everything was confidential among themselves, so they indulged themselves in profanity, misogyny, and racism while they were discussing their strategy for taking over the YR organization. Ha ha, it was leaked, and these unpleasant young men have been exposed. They were revealed to be repulsive people who hoped to be the future of the Republican party.
The 2,900 pages of chats, shared among a dozen millennial and Gen Z Republicans between early January and mid-August, chronicle their campaign to seize control of the national Young Republican organization on a hardline pro-Donald Trump platform. Many of the chat members already work inside government or party politics, and one serves as a state senator.
Together, the messages reveal a culture where racist, antisemitic and violent rhetoric circulate freely — and where the Trump-era loosening of political norms has made such talk feel less taboo among those positioning themselves as the party’s next leaders.
Read the linked article if you really want to know what they had to say. I can say that at least the organizer has “apologized” for the disgusting conversation.
“I am so sorry to those offended by the insensitive and inexcusable language found within the more than 28,000 messages of a private group chat that I created during my campaign to lead the Young Republicans,” he said. “While I take complete responsibility, I have had no way of verifying their accuracy and am deeply concerned that the message logs in question may have been deceptively doctored.”
Classic. He’s apologizing that people were offended, and further is suggesting that the logs were faked. He was just ridiculously bigoted, he’s been caught, and now he wants to conjure up some plausible denial.
Giunta was the most prominent voice in the chat spreading racist messages — often encouraged or “liked” by other members.
When Luke Mosiman, the chair of the Arizona Young Republicans, asked if the New Yorkers in the chat were watching an NBA playoff game, Giunta responded, “I’d go to the zoo if I wanted to watch monkey play ball.” Giunta elsewhere refers to Black people as “the watermelon people.”
Hendrix made a similar remark in July: “Bro is at a chicken restaurant ordering his food. Would he like some watermelon and kool aid with that?”
Hendrix was a communications assistant for Kansas’ Republican Attorney General Kris Kobach until Thursday. He also said in the chat that, despite political differences, he’s drawn to Missouri’s Young Republican organization because “Missouri doesn’t like f–s.”
They’ve all got the same old tired racist “jokes”. Cancel ’em all. Hendrix has already lost his position in Missouri, despite, hypothetically, Missourians not liking homosexuals.
Flush all their careers away for being racist, and the one thing that might condemn them in the eyes of their fellow Republicans, being tech-stupid. Future Republicans are expected to be racist and savvy about communications — fortunately, they all seem to be ignorant idiots.
He wasn’t sincere at all. He only said “sorry” because he got caught. That’s all.
Imagine how offensive you have to be to get fired by Kris Kobach.
By coincidence I had just read the Politico article about these jerks. I hope the stink of fascism we find here sticks to these clowns and ends their political careers. “I love Hitler” writes one of these morons. These are self described Trump supporters.
Their political careers are now on hold until they put in some time as analysts on the new CBS News.
Can’t say I did not see something like that coming given the current state of the GQP.
Millennials and Zoomers huh? I thought the Xers were the source of all the rot now given our lead addled brains.
@3 Give it five years and they will have all slimed their way back into politics. They’ll even accuse those who brought up their shitty past as bullies.
god i thought this was about college republicans at first, not people holding office
The excreable Peter Giunta looks rather old to be a “Young Republican”, but apparently they accept members between the ages of 18 to 40.
He too has been fired from his job as chief of staff to a GOP member. Dude is the epitome of neckbearded incel. *photo at link
https://www.silive.com/politics/2025/10/staten-island-republican-fires-chief-of-staff-over-alleged-antisemitic-comments.html?outputType=amp
“They were revealed to be repulsive people who hoped to be the future of the Republican party.” I’d change “hope to be” to ‘are.’ This toothpaste ain’t going back in the tube.
(Maybe instead of toothpaste, I should’ve said Preparation H?)
Funny that all the men in the article look like the kind of people that Pete Hegseth would like to kick out of the army, beards and all. Will public officers ever be held to the new absurd standards as military ones? Rhetorical question.
“Missouri doesn’t like f–s.”
the rest of the civilized world doesn’t like people who are fucking assholes.
As reported over at Raw Story…
“On Tuesday, the chairman of the Kansas Republican Party said the Politico article disclosing the commentary prompted immediate deactivation of the Kansas Young Republicans organization.”
The tech wasn’t the problem. Signal is an excellent choice for private conversation, and anyone who is savvy about communications knows that.
The alleged problem (really this seems like a speedbump in their political careers at worst) was being loose with invites and not being properly paranoid about everyone who could possibly be listening. A low-tech gotcha as old as socialization itself.
Reginald Selkirk@2-
I doubt he was fired for being offensive. He was freewheeling this rhetoric in YR group chats for months, so I imagine his views and ways of expressing them were well known to Kobach and many others in Republican circles.
He was fired for causing political blowback. (See also Tucker Carlson.)
Reginald Selkirk@2-
I doubt he was fired for being offensive. He was freewheeling this rhetoric in the group chat for months, so I imagine his views and ways of expressing them were well known in Republican circles.
He was fired for causing political blowback. (See also Tucker Carlson.)
Sorry for the double-posting.
About three decades back, rampaging vampires were mistaken for Young Republicans…
(The irony of the fall-from-grace of the creator of that commentary will no doubt be invoked — nonironically — by wannabe Young Republicans.)
And so now, have any of the IDK, old republicans? Have any of them disowned their evil spawn?
Yeah. Seven years ago, this was already noticed.
Innuendo Studios is a really good analyst, I guess.
jo1storm, I took a look at the 7-year old video you adduced.
I quote from the transcript: “No one is tightening security at the US-Canada border, 0:41 No one is pulling over white Europeans to check their visas.”
I got the conceit, but that claim… well.
here: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-immigration-detaining-european-tourists-borders/
U.S. immigration authorities are detaining European travelers, weighing on tourism
Updated on: March 21, 2025 / 11:25 AM EDT / CBS/AP
John, seven years they didn’t. Things change in seven years with Cheeto in power. Maybe you should watch the whole video and actually get the point before instead of focusing on irrelevant details before commenting?
“Updated on: March 21, 2025 / 11:25 AM EDT / CBS/AP “, says right there in the article. Wow, things are different before and after fash takeover? Who knew?!
jo1storm, perhaps I was too oblique; if that is a functional premise, its falsehood invalidates the argument. I watched no further, as I reckon it was such a thing. Else, why assert it in the preamble, if not foundational?
Anyway. I get the message at hand, far-right rhetoric uses euphemism, plausible deniability, and coded language to mainstream extremist ideas without triggering social or institutional backlash.
Thing is, what I quoted probably functions as a premise, to the effect that certain groups such as white Europeans are structurally exempt from scrutiny while others (implicitly racialised or marginalised) are targeted.
Am I wrong?
You are wrong. Watch the rest of it. It’s not a foundational premise.
So, since I am wrong, it is not the case that the message at hand is that far-right rhetoric uses euphemism, plausible deniability, and coded language to mainstream extremist ideas without triggering social or institutional backlash.
What is the message, then? Can you adumbrate it in one sentence, or one paragraph?
When will people realize that they are not really capable of shame? Shame implies regret and they regret not a word.
@John
No, you have to watch it for yourself.
“Can you adumbrate it in one sentence, or one paragraph?”
Very few.
Almost zero.
A couple of old guard Republicans have found a few vertebrae and an ability to tell right from wrong.
George Conway.
Adam Kinzinger.
Both have paid a high price for not turning into part of the MAGA echo chamber.
George Conway is now divorced from Kellyanne Conway, the cuckoo Trump counselor. (This is arguable. I can’t imagine anyone sane married to her.)
Adam Kinzinger criticized Trump and declined to seek reelection after the state of Illinois redistricted.
They’re exactly who we thought they were.
raven @28
You failed to mention Liz and Darth Cheney. The cringey neocon Bill Kristol has been lambasting Trumpists and MAGAts with his Bulwark colleagues. George Will is always a mixed bag and I haven’t kept up with his output, but he broke with the GOP over Trumpism. Mitt Romney?
@29. Brony, Social Justice Cenobite : Yet somehow still worse..
I posted a comment here yesterday, and it vanished without a trace. Could PZ maybe look into this, please?
George Will is always a mixed bag and I haven’t kept up with his output, but he broke with the GOP over Trumpism.
Yes and no: he admits Trumpism is bad, but he’s still blaming (unspecified) “progressives” and the “illiberal Left” for Trumpism.
But if you say you’re an anti-fascist, you’ll be put on the terrorist watch list.
#28, raven — There’s also Marjorie Taylor Greene. MTG hasn’t been the same since she had that meeting with Epstein survivors, all of whom are now grown women. After that meeting, her face was set and she looked ready to punch somebody. Perhaps she saw the real Trump? I certainly hope so.
The party against antisemitism. /s
The thing about video in general and tl:dr, is that you can’t and videos are much much slower than reading. A video maker had better be pithy, or have a good abstract demonstrating that the rest of their article is worth the time. It is not like a written article where you can scan through it to see what it is about. So if a video starts out wrong, especially if it has said it has been edited which means the person who made it has actually gone back and up and looked at it for improvement, no I will NOT watch it. I have a life.
Mano has a tendency to overquote written sources. PZ has a tendency to post really long videos. There’s a certain amount of overlap in readers of these blogs, but followers tend to copy the lead examples. I think John Morales is reasonable here.
John Watts @34
MTG isn’t exactly old guard. She crossed my mind though. To say MTG has baggage or a checkered political career is an understatement. From the standpoint of expedience she could be useful and maybe susceptible to being peeled away from the other MAGAts on some issues. I think she still has a loyalty to Trump. She definitely has a very long if not insurmountable redemption arc ahead of her. That said, some of the stuff I’ve watched in my Youtube feed gives me cautious hope. OTOH several years ago I had briefly thought Nancy Mace was much better than she turned out to be. The second coming of Trump may have sent her down a descent path into the political sewer with the rest of them.
I’m just curious if Trump will still be healthy enough in 2028 to run. It’s pretty clear that the playbook has been set for that to happen. By that time all these “young” Republicans will be the majority of Republicans as the last few remaining old school republicans will have either retired or been forced out.
@27 jo1storm
Refusing to describe your link’s contents and telling us to ‘No, you have to watch it for yourself’ is pissweak at best. Maybe try commenting again when you’ve critically evaluated the piece you’re presenting instead of credulously swallowing it whole, at least you might be able to answer basic questions about it.
[meta + jocular]
canadiansteve, re “I’m just curious if Trump will still be healthy enough in 2028 to run.”, well…
@ 38. canadiansteve : “I’m just curious if Trump will still be healthy enough in 2028 to run.”
Trump wasn’t healthy enough to run last year I reckon but that didn’t stop him. Or stop people voting for him – including indirectly via Stein & other spoilers – despite the evident although glossed over and downplayed by media signs of his mental incompetence and dementia. The things that supposedly disqualified Biden (& definitely did NOT disqualify Kamala Harris) were somehow acceptable from Trump even when they were already worse.
Question is will Trump be alive then and that could well be unlikely – and if his current rapid mental & physical decline continues he might be too obviously demented even if he is.
However, as anyone paying attention knows, there will NOT be any more real elections in the USA or as long as the Christianist White Supremacist Fascists are in charge. They won’t now cede power willingly clearly. Thanks Trump voters, 3rd party spoiler voters and non-voters*. You shouldn’t have. No, you really really should NOT have.
.* Quite possibly Musk and voting manipulators too. But all those named played their malignant evil parts.
Source : https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/jd-vance-dismisses-bipartisan-outrage-over-racist-and-offensive-young-republican-group-chat
Intresting admission in that last bit – oh and, of course, they weren’t “just kids” and the sheer hypocrisy of the bit about political violence given Jan 6th & the murder of the Hortmans among more.. Yeesh.
@36 and @39
If I need to spend 15 minutes of my time sumarising 16 minute long video for you, then its a waste of time for me and you are not worth engaging in a discussion in the first place.
Btw, the video is 7 years old and was not edited. John was being a jerk as he usually is and took an article from this year as a proof that a foundational idea of the video is wrong without watching the video at all.
The issue with that is
1) it wasn’t the policy 7 years ago when the video was made and started this year
2) it is not foundational part of the video.
And now I justspent 10 minutes explaining this when you could have just watched it and we could have discussed the actual contents. Hearsay is inadmissible in court for a reason, why are you asking for my hearsay?!
So no, I can’t “adumbrate it in one sentence, or one paragraph?”, I can do it in three paragraphs, at which point I’d be putting my own understanding of the information-dense video in a comment on a blog. Instead of you forming your own understanding by, you know, watching the thing!
Go get ’em @jo1storm
[Ahem]
That”s 5 paragraphs, which exceeds 3 paragraphs. Just saying.
I am normally a proponent of too-long-didn’t-watch and informative summaries, for a lot of the points that @36 seachange raised. Additionally the text around a video makes it easy to search for when I can’t remember the video’s title.
Still, though, my reaction to video linkdrops is to ignore them. If John Morales is spending more than 16 minutes loudly complaining about not watching a 16-minute video, the question of which is the bigger waste of time becomes clear.
@46 I could put all that in one paragraph, John, but then you’d accuse me of posting a hard-to-read block of text. And we’d still be faffing about instead of discussing the content of the post or the relevant (and prescient!) video I posted.
“If John Morales is spending more than 16 minutes loudly complaining about not watching a 16-minute video, the question of which is the bigger waste of time becomes clear.”
I type pretty fast. Whence your 16-minutes claim, beholder?
To what alleged complaint do you refer, beholder?
Here, for your delectation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courtier%27s_reply
“@46 I could put all that in one paragraph, John, but then you’d accuse me of posting a hard-to-read block of text. And we’d still be faffing about instead of discussing the content of the post or the relevant (and prescient!) video I posted.”
You could now, though back then you claimed “@John
No, you have to watch it for yourself.”
You now can, but back then you could not.
(Grats on levelling)
So. I have too watch it, though you now claim you could adumbrate it in one paragraph.
(care to sustain that claim? it is a positive one)
Me, I did mine (speculatively, but informedly) when I wrote “I get the message at hand, far-right rhetoric uses euphemism, plausible deniability, and coded language to mainstream extremist ideas without triggering social or institutional backlash.” which is one sentence. Succinct, but dense wiith meaning.
You claim that is not the message of the videoo, but you cannot actually elucidate the message, nor can you adumbrate it, nor can you summarse it, and it is necessary to watch it to get the (ineluctablle) message.
John Morales @40
That’s a long video. Too long didn’t watch. Could you summarize it for me?
Sure, Hemidactylus.
Mortician Caitlin Doughty has a YouTube channel, and this is a video that explores the (ahem) rather extreme preservation techniques used to maintain what’s left of Lenin’s corpse, which has been on display for over 90 years.
@52 John Morales
Thanks. I was being a little facetious given the recent meta about videos ;-)
So…they’re going to preserve Trump?Reminds me a little of the head of Nixon on Futurama.
Figurehead thingy, Hemidactylus. I was riffing off canadiansteve’s comment.
Lol. You asked for a single paragraph, I couldn’t do it then, I cannot do it now, without being accused of hard-to-read block of text. I’d need at least three. How hard is that for you to understand?
That’s the start. You got “They are doing it”. Except the point of the video is what happens when the need for doing this stops and what conditions are required for that need to stop. Also, what conditions arose for them to start doing it in the first place.
And now I gave you absolutely no details as for the actual content of the video. And you will still need to watch it to get that information.
“Except the point of the video is what happens when the need for doing this stops and what conditions are required for that need to stop. Also, what conditions arose for them to start doing it in the first place.”
Sure. Except, ““Updated on: March 21, 2025 / 11:25 AM EDT / CBS/AP “, says right there in the article. Wow, things are different before and after fash takeover? Who knew?!”
(I can do exception stacks)
@jo1storm
I don’t often do much in the way of contextualizing videos I link, but your “this was already noticed.” in @20 was a little vague as to what you might have been responding to or what “this” entailed per the video. Again, I don’t exactly hold myself to too high a standard when linking videos.
Heh. ‘this’ is inchoate and ineffable, Hemidactylus.
(One has to watch the video, or so I am told)
@57 Hemydactilus
Except, the name of the video, as is very clearly visible in preview, is “Alt-Right playbook: The Death of a Euphemism”.
The last sentence of OP is literally: “Future Republicans are expected to be racist and savvy about communications — fortunately, they all seem to be ignorant idiots.” .
They are in hot water for not using euphemisms but for being openly racist and misogynistic. So what “that” is is “the explanation why they won’t be using euphemisms in the future” either.
What?! WTF do you mean here?!
@jo1storm He means to waste your time. Always. When he engages reasonably, it is to get a response. When he engages as with you here in this thread, it is to get a response. To waste time, always. Looked at through this lens, it all makes sense.
It is why my standard response is as it is. To make it clear that addressing or responding to me is a waste of his time.
Good luck!
jo1storm posts eight comments within 23 hours saying he doesn’t have the time to summarise the link he so highly recommends. Mkay.
The claim: “They are in hot water for not using euphemisms but for being openly racist and misogynistic. So what “that” is is “the explanation why they won’t be using euphemisms in the future” either.”
The reality:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-admin-slammed-for-using-ethnic-cleaning-euphemism/ar-AA1Owu20
—
Fair enough for claims from 7 years ago to be superseded by reality, but to hold a false prognosis as authoritative in the face of reality is a bit more special.
n the early 1960’s the Young Republicans had an anti-semitic group calling themselves the “ratfinks.” They had a song to the tune of Jingle Bells which ended “oh what fun it is to have the Nazis back in town.”
@62 badland
I never said I don’t have the time, I said its 1) a waste of my time and 2) that I am morally opposed to sumarizing it and explained why. Its the principle of the thing.
Or as my school teacher used to say: its your own time you’re wasting.
@63 you still didn’t watch the video, haven’t you? Else you wouldn’t have written that.
Be aware: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/oct/03/how-remigration-became-a-buzzword-for-europes-far-right
I grant that it’s such an obvious euphemism it’s almost as it’s deliberate trolling.
(If that’s your exit, take it)
@67 John, did you watch the video yes or no?
Ahem: I already told you: “jo1storm, perhaps I was too oblique; if that is a functional premise, its falsehood invalidates the argument. I watched no further, as I reckon it was such a thing.”
Again:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remigration
Again: “Fair enough for claims from 7 years ago to be superseded by reality, but to hold a false prognosis as authoritative in the face of reality is a bit more special.”
What would I gain watching it?
You claim it’s about right-wingers not using euphemisms then nor in the future, but they actually do.
(I offered you an out, remember?)
@69 So, you didn’t watch the video, John. Correct?
You should have watched the video because it addresses all your points.
“I watched no further” I wrote, so no. I wrote that @23, and nothing has changed.
(Tricky, I know)
@71 Well, that’s your issue right there. Until you do, we can’t continue this “discussion”.