1/ If there's no evidence of voter fraud in GA (and there is none) then what 'problem' is being addressed w/new voter restrictions there? It can only be the 'problem' that the 'wrong' people are voting. Not illegally mind you (again no evidence of that), but just voting at all...
2/ And who are these people? Black folks and white city folks and students mostly. There is NO anti-fraud reason for limiting early voting, ending it on Sundays, or banning handing out food or water. But this is a good way to limit voting by POC and working class folks...
3/ Bc early voting helps them if they can't get off work on election day, or don't want to stand in long lines that day (bc their precincts don't have enough machines to handle demand). So too Sunday voting (Souls to the Polls) and giving water to folks waiting long times...
4/ Both facilitate participation by people who otherwise might not vote. And only authoritarian elitists would have a problem w/that. So too, there's no evidence that mail-in voting leads to significant fraud. NONE. But it makes voting easier for all, and elitists oppose that...
5/ They don't even try and make an anti-fraud case for this nonsense. At least Matt Walsh is willing to admit he wants to go further and impose literacy tests and limit voting to people who pay income tax. I like my fascists to be honest and upfront...
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
But Matt, by your standard we would never discuss racial inequity at all for fear of upsetting white people. Why not use the race/class combo framing of @IanHaneyLopez and get at both issues. You are throwing in the towel on solidarity altogether so as to pander to white racism..
I wrote a book on this, Colorblind, which shows why class centric, race-phobic messaging actually doesn't work the way many think. It never has. And in this case it is once again telling POC to be quiet about their issues so we can attend to the needs of Joe Sixpack...
And yes, I agree that @IanHaneyLopez doesn't advocate front loading with race, but showing the interest convergence of race and class. But it seems like you really want to avoid race altogether, which is both morally and strategically absurd
1/ If you bash cancel culture & scream about free speech but support states/school districts banning material they deem influenced by Critical Race Theory (or really anything that says racism has been a central feature of U.S. history--an inarguable truth btw), you're a fraud...
2/ A committee in NH just passed out a bill to do this. One proponent of the bill cited a lecture of mine being used in some classes as the reason why. What was the offending material that hurt this snowflake's feelings so much? Let's see. He cites three points in the lecture...
3/ First, he was mad bc I said, "Rich white people telling working-class white people that their enemies are Black and Brown...That's the whole history of America." Well, it's true. That's been a constant since the colonies...
1/ If you need proof that racism harms white folk too, just consider the trajectory of COVID deaths and what it tells us...
2/ In April of 2020 when whites had only been 30% of C19 deaths, and headlines announced disproportionate Black death rates, the administration and the right demanded opening everything back up, ending lockdowns, etc...
3/ Coincidence? Of course not. If the data had shown disproportionate white death (or wealthy death, or younger folks dying or healthier folks), no way are people clamoring for "getting back to normal" or showing up at rallies with guns and camo, screaming about 'tyranny...'
There is a stunning lack of analytical sophistication among much of left Twitter, which causes their loudest voices to grossly overstate support for progressive/left policies. As someone who supports those policies it pains me to say this but it's true...
A THREAD
2/ These folks excitedly point to survey data showing broad support for M4A, for instance, or other left priorities & say "see, the people are with us!" and thus, the reason we don't get those things passed is "big Pharma money" or other corporate money buys off the lawmakers...
3/ This is incredibly simplistic on multiple levels. First, NO lawmakers would actually vote against what the people in THEIR district supported if they believed those people were actually going to vote, money be damned. They wouldn't commit political suicide for PAC money FFS...
That any conservatives would today praise MLK is evidence of the failure of our school system to teach him accurately, or the utter venality of those conservatives. Not ONE movement conservative supported King while he was alive. They detested him...
(a brief thread)
2/ The National Review — the main organ of the movement — condemned the civil rights movement he led and actually claimed “crazed Negroes” might have bombed the 16th St Baptist church in B’ham themselves, just to cast aspersions on sweet little segregationist whites...
3/ No conservatives or right wingers marched with him. And please, don’t say “but Charlton Heston!” That was actually when Heston was a liberal, so...
1/ I’m not one for ‘told ya so’s but in 1989 when David Duke won the state House seat in Louisiana, some of us said this was an inflection point in American politics. This wasn’t just the logical result of Reaganesque racial dog whistling. It was something different (a thread)...
2/ It wasn’t even George Wallace, strictly speaking, though it was closer to that than Reagan. It was the blatant introduction of racist appeals under the guise of mainstream conservatism, and w/a polish and media-savvy Wallace lacked, as had most previous white supremacists...
3/ Duke knew how to use media. He cut 30 minute infomercials in his Senate run in 1990 — unheard of at the time — to slowly lay out his politics of racial resentment, knowing it would find a home w/white folks angered by previous GOP scapegoating of welfare, etc..