The South had 'Dixie-crats' who were KKK Nazis, Democrats who were openly racist
First Thread: Before Trump
So my Ph D treaties on Twitter, about how Trump split up the GOP. We start with history of course. And we go to the political era before Trump. To the origins.
No. Not Sarah Palin.
No. Not Newt Gingrich. The origins:
George Wallace, the last racist
The South had 'Dixie-crats' who were KKK Nazis, Democrats who were openly racist
Democrats threw the racists out of their party and embraced the minorities, with a passion. Today it seems impossible to imagine DEMs as racists
When George Wallace's runs ended, the racists had no party to call their own. They infiltrated the Republican party who tolerated them. THAT WAS A MISTAKE
This was George Wallace's voter base. Since Wallace, no politician DARED to appeal to the racists, until Trump
I do not mean all Southern Whites are racists
I do not mean all white Christians are racists
I do not mean all land-owners are racists.
BUT racists tend to be most of those things. They are sick slice of the population. GOP tolerated them
When RACISTS heard Trump question Obama's nationality (= Kenyan, the birtherism) they found their maga god
More from Tomi Ahonen, Croupier at Pardon Roulette
In case you missed it. I wrote a Thread... This is our Path 6: Mark Meadows. So this is the criminal path of Trump stealing classified documents to Mar-A-Lago and related espionage. Here when we count prison time, even centuries are not enough.. SRSLY. Enjoy..
Path 6 - Mark Meadows First Thread/1
— Tomi T Ahonen Standing With Ukraine (@tomiahonen) September 10, 2022
This is the Sixth Path to take Trump to prison for life. It is named Mark Meadows who is a key player to get Trump convicted in espionage, related to stealing 325 classified documents in Trump's attempt to sell US secrets to US enemies pic.twitter.com/d8E5OTsVLu
More from Politics
All the challenges to Leader Pelosi are coming from her right, in an apparent effort to make the party even more conservative and bent toward corporate interests.
Hard pass. So long as Leader Pelosi remains the most progressive candidate for Speaker, she can count on my support.
I agree that our party should, and must, evolve our leadership.
But changed leadership should reflect an actual, evolved mission; namely, an increased commitment to the middle + working class electorate that put us here.
Otherwise it’s a just new figure with the same problems.
I hope that we can move swiftly to conclude this discussion about party positions, so that we can spend more time discussing party priorities: voting rights, healthcare, wages, climate change, housing, cannabis legalization, good jobs, etc.
Hard pass. So long as Leader Pelosi remains the most progressive candidate for Speaker, she can count on my support.
The strange thing about the fight to displace Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House is that no one seems willing to run against her. https://t.co/VhBqf4KJom
— The New Yorker (@NewYorker) November 21, 2018
I agree that our party should, and must, evolve our leadership.
But changed leadership should reflect an actual, evolved mission; namely, an increased commitment to the middle + working class electorate that put us here.
Otherwise it’s a just new figure with the same problems.
I hope that we can move swiftly to conclude this discussion about party positions, so that we can spend more time discussing party priorities: voting rights, healthcare, wages, climate change, housing, cannabis legalization, good jobs, etc.
I told you they’d bring this up
I was wondering why that tweet had so many stupid replies. And now I see
Seriously, this was “the night before.” If you’re at the march where they’re changing “Jews will not replace us” and “Blood and soil,” you’re not a “very fine person.” Full stop.
There are 3 important moments in that transcript.
1.) When someone asked Trump about a statement *he had already made* about there being blame on “both sides,” he said the “fine people” line.
2. Trump does clarify! “I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and white nationalists — because they should be condemned totally “
Okay!
Then adds that there were “many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists.”
Right-wing media have essentially convinced themselves that Trump never said "very fine people." They're lying. https://t.co/5960NPMYLJ
— Parker Molloy (@ParkerMolloy) February 11, 2021
I was wondering why that tweet had so many stupid replies. And now I see
The Fine People Hoaxers are trying hard to keep you from reading the actual FULL transcript because then you would see how the hoax was pulled off with devious editing. https://t.co/PQLj0DWuPj
— Scott Adams (@ScottAdamsSays) February 11, 2021
Seriously, this was “the night before.” If you’re at the march where they’re changing “Jews will not replace us” and “Blood and soil,” you’re not a “very fine person.” Full stop.
Trump defense talking about how the then-president was praising the peaceful protests at Charlottesville that occurred "the night before" the violence on Saturday. That was the night where the torch-bearing crowd chanted "Jews will not replace us." pic.twitter.com/HCKS6Q9LBY
— Anthony Zurcher (@awzurcher) February 12, 2021
There are 3 important moments in that transcript.
1.) When someone asked Trump about a statement *he had already made* about there being blame on “both sides,” he said the “fine people” line.
2. Trump does clarify! “I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and white nationalists — because they should be condemned totally “
Okay!
Then adds that there were “many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists.”
This idea - that elections should translate into policy - is not wrong at all. But political science can help explain why it's not working this way. There are three main explanations: 1. mandates are constructed, not automatic, 2. party asymmetry, 3. partisan conpetition 1/
First, party/policy mandates from elections are far from self-executing in our system. Work on mandates from Dahl to Ellis and Kirk on the history of the mandate to mine on its role in post-Nixon politics, to Peterson Grossback and Stimson all emphasize that this link is... 2/
Created deliberately and isn't always persuasive. Others have to convinced that the election meant a particular thing for it to work in a legislative context. I theorized in the immediate period of after the 2020 election that this was part of why Repubs signed on to ...3/
Trump's demonstrably false fraud nonsense - it derailed an emerging mandate news cycle. Winners of elections get what they get - institutional control - but can't expect much beyond that unless the perception of an election mandate takes hold. And it didn't. 4/
Let's turn to the legislation element of this. There's just an asymmetry in terms of passing a relief bill. Republicans are presumably less motivated to get some kind of deal passed. Democrats are more likely to want to do *something.* 5/
I\u2019m sorry it\u2019s just insane that Democrats are like, \u201cwe won everything and our opening position on relief is $1.9T\u201d and Republicans are like, \u201cwe lost and our opening position is $600B,\u201d and the media will be like, \u201cDemocrats say they want unity but reject this bipartisan deal.\u201d
— Meredith Shiner (@meredithshiner) January 31, 2021
First, party/policy mandates from elections are far from self-executing in our system. Work on mandates from Dahl to Ellis and Kirk on the history of the mandate to mine on its role in post-Nixon politics, to Peterson Grossback and Stimson all emphasize that this link is... 2/
Created deliberately and isn't always persuasive. Others have to convinced that the election meant a particular thing for it to work in a legislative context. I theorized in the immediate period of after the 2020 election that this was part of why Repubs signed on to ...3/
Trump's demonstrably false fraud nonsense - it derailed an emerging mandate news cycle. Winners of elections get what they get - institutional control - but can't expect much beyond that unless the perception of an election mandate takes hold. And it didn't. 4/
Let's turn to the legislation element of this. There's just an asymmetry in terms of passing a relief bill. Republicans are presumably less motivated to get some kind of deal passed. Democrats are more likely to want to do *something.* 5/
You May Also Like
BREAKING: @CommonsCMS @DamianCollins just released previously sealed #Six4Three @Facebook documents:
Some random interesting tidbits:
1) Zuck approves shutting down platform API access for Twitter's when Vine is released #competition
2) Facebook engineered ways to access user's call history w/o alerting users:
Team considered access to call history considered 'high PR risk' but 'growth team will charge ahead'. @Facebook created upgrade path to access data w/o subjecting users to Android permissions dialogue.
3) The above also confirms @kashhill and other's suspicion that call history was used to improve PYMK (People You May Know) suggestions and newsfeed rankings.
4) Docs also shed more light into @dseetharaman's story on @Facebook monitoring users' @Onavo VPN activity to determine what competitors to mimic or acquire in 2013.
https://t.co/PwiRIL3v9x
Some random interesting tidbits:
1) Zuck approves shutting down platform API access for Twitter's when Vine is released #competition
2) Facebook engineered ways to access user's call history w/o alerting users:
Team considered access to call history considered 'high PR risk' but 'growth team will charge ahead'. @Facebook created upgrade path to access data w/o subjecting users to Android permissions dialogue.
3) The above also confirms @kashhill and other's suspicion that call history was used to improve PYMK (People You May Know) suggestions and newsfeed rankings.
4) Docs also shed more light into @dseetharaman's story on @Facebook monitoring users' @Onavo VPN activity to determine what competitors to mimic or acquire in 2013.
https://t.co/PwiRIL3v9x
