@gets - When I look at YouTube videos and read the comments or see tweets or Facebook posts, I know that racism is alive and well in this country. The racist posters are pretty open about it. The idea that there are secret racists is also true, but not as much as the Left seems to think it is. The same goes for the code words. That's why when I take the time to read comments about Obama being a Muslim (not an Arab, I've never seen one that claimed he was an Arab), they sincerely believe it but do not express any racial animus toward him. In fact, there are a number of black people who think he's a Muslim.
As for socialist, there's nothing racial about that either. Socialists come in all colors, and while I don't think he's a socialist, his policies and ideas are very socialistic/progressive and find a lot of agreement with senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders (who is an actual socialist).
To those who believe he hates America, they mean he hates capitalistic America. They believe he hates the free market economy, and that he believes in government jobs over private ones. They believe that he wants an ever-increasing amount of control over the private sector, part of which is through the Affordable Care Act.
The racial code words were used in the 1950s to early 1970s by Democrat politicians. I've seen accusations, but no evidence that they've been used by Republicans. The Left claimed that Richard Nixon's campaign of "law and order" was a code word, but it wasn't. Nixon left the racist vote to George Wallace. The Left claimed that the use of an ad about Willie Horton was another code word for racism, but in fact it was a legitimate issue that a furlough was given to a murderer and a rapist, who committed another rape while out on this furlough. Moreover, Democrat Senator Al Gore was the first one to bring up Willie Horton in the primary. I could go on and on, but the point is that with rare exceptions the claim that racial code words are being used by the GOP is nothing more than left-wing propaganda. Again, I belong to neither party, but I am interested the truth.
Finally, on treatment of Catholics, again context is necessary. From the 1300s to the 1600s there were Catholic persecutions of Protestants. John Wyclif was burned at the stake as was Jon Huss. There were the persecutions by Queen Mary I. There was the St. Bartholomew's Massacre in 1572 in which 5000 to 30,000 French Protestants were killed. There was the Inquisition. Not only that, but until 1870 the Pope ruled a country called the Papal States that had its own army. To Protestants who had a history of experience persecution, to them the Pope was the anti-Christ and yes, Catholics were called Papists. There are historical reasons that Protestants did not trust Catholics, yet Maryland was founded as a Catholic colony and Charles Carroll was a Catholic and a Founding Father who signed the Declaration, and Daniel Carroll and Thomas Fitzsimons both signed the Constitution. Moreover, until 1959 the Catholic Church considered Protestants to be heretics, from 1959 they became "separated brethren." This was only about a year before JFK ran for President. As I wrote, context is everything.
