They would no doubt be quick to claim that protection should they need it for sure. These far left ideas only work when the one espousing them is situated in the lap of luxury, far from the reaches of any actual suffering.
Just a question, weren’t the democratic and republican party’s flipped then? Their ideology was the reverse of today? Democrats were conservative and republicans liberals?
One may remind Szalai that it was indeed the Democrat party that fought to keep their slaves; that formed the KKK as a paramilitary force to keep former slaves and their offspring “in line”; and that enacted Jim Crow laws in the south that made life miserable for black Americans. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was preceded by the civil rights acts of 1875, 1957, and 1960 which were all prevented by Democrats from having any real teeth in the fight for racial equality; something the Republican party had stood for since
The idea that the parties "switched" is a popular, but false trope peddled by the left and their cultural allies in the media, academia, and elsewhere as a feeble attempt to shed their own deeply racist roots.
They usually point to Nixon's "southern strategy" as the impetus for the switch- where basically overnight, the Dems all decided to drop 200 years of racist history, and the Republicans likewise adopted it. Without any need for historical analysis, this is on its face, ludicrous.
But to look at history, Eisenhower had already made inroads in the south for Republicans in 1952 and '56, long before Nixon came along. In 1976, after the so-called switch was supposed to be fully in place, apparently the south suddenly forgot they were supposed to now be Republicans, because Carter did overwhelmingly well there. In 1980, Reagan carried just about everywhere except the south. And beyond presidential politics, Dems had control of just about every southern state government up until the mid and late 90s. Even today, Dems do quite well in southern state races.
So the answer is more nuanced than the left tries to make it out to be. Their contention is that it's all about race, and the switch happened overnight as the racists all magically instantly morphed into Republicans. Today, Republicans are more prominent in the south, where the Dixiecrats once stood. But this wasn't due to a switch. Dems tended to migrate north and Republicans south. The transformation happened slowly over 5 or 6 decades, and had nothing to do with race, but rather economics primarily.
This is one of the most disingenuous and misleading commentaries I’ve read. It feels like an ode to Musk so he would amplify the post far and wide in Xitter. I read the pieces you mentioned and they say nothing of the sort as you’d portrayed them. It’s truly an intentional misrepresentation in the pursuit of a false narrative. Wow.
Thank you for reading and taking the time to share your thoughts - though obviously, I disagree. I would be interested to hear exactly what you find to be erroneous. I quoted the passages from both editorials that I took issue with. Szalai made it clear she thinks the Constitution is flawed and outdated, and should be abolished. So I addressed that. Reich did indeed call for the arrest of Musk for thought crimes. I responded accordingly.
You clearly hold a differing political orientation- and that's legitimate. You clearly disagree with my positions. Also legitimate. But if you're going to accuse me of falsehoods or misrepresenting the truth, I am obliged to ask for specifics.
“One of the most disingenuous and misleading commentaries I’ve ever read?” Really? Talk about hyperbole without evidence. I’ve also read the pieces under criticism and they most certainly DO say what Mr McCoy portrays. I’m surprised you didn’t release the progressive’s most favorite attack dog on Mr McCoy; The “misinformation” mutt.
Can we say that the NYT and these authors have waived their rights to the protection of the US Constitution?
They would no doubt be quick to claim that protection should they need it for sure. These far left ideas only work when the one espousing them is situated in the lap of luxury, far from the reaches of any actual suffering.
Excellently said!
Just a question, weren’t the democratic and republican party’s flipped then? Their ideology was the reverse of today? Democrats were conservative and republicans liberals?
One may remind Szalai that it was indeed the Democrat party that fought to keep their slaves; that formed the KKK as a paramilitary force to keep former slaves and their offspring “in line”; and that enacted Jim Crow laws in the south that made life miserable for black Americans. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was preceded by the civil rights acts of 1875, 1957, and 1960 which were all prevented by Democrats from having any real teeth in the fight for racial equality; something the Republican party had stood for since
Thanks for your comment!
The idea that the parties "switched" is a popular, but false trope peddled by the left and their cultural allies in the media, academia, and elsewhere as a feeble attempt to shed their own deeply racist roots.
They usually point to Nixon's "southern strategy" as the impetus for the switch- where basically overnight, the Dems all decided to drop 200 years of racist history, and the Republicans likewise adopted it. Without any need for historical analysis, this is on its face, ludicrous.
But to look at history, Eisenhower had already made inroads in the south for Republicans in 1952 and '56, long before Nixon came along. In 1976, after the so-called switch was supposed to be fully in place, apparently the south suddenly forgot they were supposed to now be Republicans, because Carter did overwhelmingly well there. In 1980, Reagan carried just about everywhere except the south. And beyond presidential politics, Dems had control of just about every southern state government up until the mid and late 90s. Even today, Dems do quite well in southern state races.
So the answer is more nuanced than the left tries to make it out to be. Their contention is that it's all about race, and the switch happened overnight as the racists all magically instantly morphed into Republicans. Today, Republicans are more prominent in the south, where the Dixiecrats once stood. But this wasn't due to a switch. Dems tended to migrate north and Republicans south. The transformation happened slowly over 5 or 6 decades, and had nothing to do with race, but rather economics primarily.
Here's a link with a lot more detailed information https://www.conservapedia.com/U.S._%22Party-switch%22_myth
This is one of the most disingenuous and misleading commentaries I’ve read. It feels like an ode to Musk so he would amplify the post far and wide in Xitter. I read the pieces you mentioned and they say nothing of the sort as you’d portrayed them. It’s truly an intentional misrepresentation in the pursuit of a false narrative. Wow.
Thank you for reading and taking the time to share your thoughts - though obviously, I disagree. I would be interested to hear exactly what you find to be erroneous. I quoted the passages from both editorials that I took issue with. Szalai made it clear she thinks the Constitution is flawed and outdated, and should be abolished. So I addressed that. Reich did indeed call for the arrest of Musk for thought crimes. I responded accordingly.
You clearly hold a differing political orientation- and that's legitimate. You clearly disagree with my positions. Also legitimate. But if you're going to accuse me of falsehoods or misrepresenting the truth, I am obliged to ask for specifics.
“One of the most disingenuous and misleading commentaries I’ve ever read?” Really? Talk about hyperbole without evidence. I’ve also read the pieces under criticism and they most certainly DO say what Mr McCoy portrays. I’m surprised you didn’t release the progressive’s most favorite attack dog on Mr McCoy; The “misinformation” mutt.