On the other hand, with modern "conservative" groups, you can be told to "go back to your country" (even if you were born in America) as long as you're non-white, if you say anything that displeases the white supremacist in the presidency. They're not racist anti-racists, or even pretend-'colorblind' racists as used to be the fashion, they're just old-fashioned standard-issue racist racists.
Here's where I get to play a left-wit card in the opposite direction. Most "modern conservative groups" aren't "truly conservative" as it should be defined in an American context. Much like all those Countries with "socialist" in their name, and political parties with "socialist" in them aren't actually socialist, and ditto for "communist" parties and nations that used that word in their name.
What you have are partisan or religious organizations that when placed into a Venn diagram they have enough overlap with "conservative" that given nobody has bothered to develop another term for them(besides either "Republican" or "Religious") results in their being identified as such. We're dealing with the imprecise nature of language here. This is further complicated by what the root word "conservative" means in the first place == resistant to change.
You have Religious/Social Conservatives, who have typically have religious/"other" reasons to
resist social change, and even sometimes try to enact laws to change things to their liking(not very conservative--they're making changes), but generally qualifies them as "conservative" (root meaning) if nothing else because they rarely gain enough power to be able to make changes. (Yes, there are racists and bigots to be found in this category, but most people in it are not)
Then you have the people who are simply happy enough with how things are and don't want somebody to screw it up -- they're "conservative" (root meaning) but for different reasons, they just prefer the status quo.
Then you have that "Classical Liberal" who would be that "True Conservative" on the American spectrum. They're not pursuing a social agenda in any typical sense, they're not pursuing a religious agenda either. They're simply trying to adhere to the founding principles as they understand them to relate to the present day. (Rand Paul openly is "a social conservative," so he doesn't qualify for this category)
Trump said that Judge Gonzalo Curiel could not be impartial and should recuse himself in judging a case relating to Trump's business interests, because he was "of Mexican heritage", and Trump was building a wall with Mexico. Was that treating him like an individual? Or, geez, he was judging him based on Curiel's heritage and race, though it was a very non-racist wall that Trump was supposedly building, for completely non-racist reasons, which would however simultaneoulsly somehow naturally aggravate Curiel as he was of Mexican heritage?
Trump is another category entirely, he's "a business Conservative" and this is further reflected by his past affiliation with the Democratic Party up through the Bush 43 presidency, and his social positions actually containing a number of very liberal positions in their mix. His "base" also is rather weird, and not particularly Republican at its core, although he's seemingly "won over" a lot of Republicans over the past few years. But I think a part of that has to do with people like Adam Schiff, AOC, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren scaring the #$%& out of them.
If "conservatives" want to pretend that they're treating people like individuals, and that they're colorblind or whatever, then they should actually stop bringing up other people's nationality and origins, but that has instead been Trump's entire shtick ever since he took up the banner of birtherism, and he's been consistent in emphasizing his various opponents' ethnicities ever since.
Kanye West and the Kardashian family count him as a friend, a number of other high profile minorities also consider him to be a friend. Now I'm not going to rule out "reflected fame" being a motivation for Trump, as he loves any and all press attention he can get, even if it is negative(so he can complain about it and get even more). So it makes the "buy in" on him being a racist rather high, and its a bar that hasn't been cleared for me as of yet. He says a lot of stupid stuff, but words are one thing, actions are another. I'm more about judging people "by their works" rather than their words. And Trump's record in regards to minorities is pretty impressive
in a very good way, which again raises the bar even higher on getting a "buy in" on him being a racist. He may "say the words" but he doesn't do any of the other stuff that would be expected to accompany it.
Unlike what can be said for a great many Democrats who "use the
right words" all the freaking time, but still have yet to show much of anything to demonstrate they meant what they've been saying. If anything, their results(works) tend to be exact opposite of what they say. It's only when Republicans start stirring the pot that things tend to improve for those groups.
