What if a hermaphrodite walks into your daughter's toilet?

Open your mind so that you can educate yourself enough to identify the actual risks in life, so that you might better protect them.

White racial what?? Did something snap in your brain or is this a joke?

As for a Southern realignment, you are a wrong again. I think that video makes it perfectly clear - the Democrats who voted against the Civil Rights bill did not switch to the Republican party. And most of those seats didn't go Republican for 30 years. If the parties were to have realigned, they certainly waited an awfully long time to do it.

What percentage of the population is hermaphrodite?

I don't think anyone disputes that the Southern Democrats were racist. The question is how did the Southern Democrats who were prominent in the South lose to Republicans in the South why did a large portion of African Americans start voting Democrat.

You can trace the change of African American voting largely to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Though African American voting was split before that along different lines such as support for the New Deal, unionization, etc.

The Southern Strategy, of course, isn't some kind of myth propagated by Democrats but the open strategy of Lee Atwater.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

The change was gradual though and wasn't complete until at least Reagan's term.

I was asking wil, not you.

What would you do, wil, if Olympic gold medalist and hermaphrodite Caster Semenya started heading towards the toilet where you daughter was? Would you

a) rush up to her and ask her for an autograph, or

b) rush up to her and knee her in the nuts?

Realignment took a long time, no doubt. Hence why I said "going back to Truman", i.e at least to 1948. Just because the process was complex doesn't mean it wasn't largely driven by dixiecrats response to the growing civil rights movement over several decades. I'm not suggesting everyone got in a room and decided to switch parties all at once.

Awwww, did you forget the rest:

"Atwater: But Reagan did not have to do a southern strategy for two reasons. Number one, race was not a dominant issue. And number two, the mainstream issues in this campaign had been, quote, southern issues since way back in the sixties. So Reagan goes out and campaigns on the issues of economics and of national defense. The whole campaign was devoid of any kind of racism, any kind of reference. And I'll tell you another thing you all need to think about, that even surprised me, is the lack of interest, really, the lack of knowledge right now in the South among white voters about the Voting Rights Act.[13]"

You do know Einsehower supported Brown v. Board of Education and Federalized the National Guard to enforce it in Arkansas - after Truman. Yes?

I know it's hard for Leftists to admit they continue to be the party of racism, but there it's pretty undeniable.

Of course not. Lee said the strategy had been formulated since 1968. Of course using racism as a cudgel goes back further. The youtube video you liked made it sound like the Southern Strategy was made up by butt hurt Democrats but here you are agreeing with me that Lee Atwater said those things. I'm glad you agree with me and not the video.

There is no doubt in my mind the party who exploits race right now are the Democrats. Every topic comes back to race. It's not even close.

So you agree there was no racism in the Republican platform because you take Lee Atwater in his entirety. Good on you, Hue.

Sure. It's like you think either there's this absolutely clean break, where one party was absolutely virtuous and the other absolutely evil, or else there was no realignment at all. But that's not the argument. There are plenty of racist Democrats, even to this day, who are Democrats for reasons unrelated to racial issues. There are plenty of anti-racist Republicans. But it's also obvious that the civil rights movement had an impact on partisan affiliation related to people's attitudes towards civil rights, and party politics shifted, more in some places and less in others, to reflect those changes in attitude. This affected national politics in the South more than local politics. See for example the difference between the Presidential vote between 1960 and 1968 and votes for Governors, where no sudden change happened. I think this reflects the fact that changes in the national Democratic party did not immediately cause the southern Democrats to change. Again, I certainly agree that the civil rights realignment is a complicated story, but you're trying too hard to find a straw-man to beat down in order to avoid recognizing any role for views on race in partisan affiliation in the wake of the civil rights era.

That what racists have been saying about inclusion for years.

Except that's not true. Reagan kicked off his campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi, the town famous for the murders of civil rights workers, with a speech about segregation, er State's Rights.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan%27s_Neshoba_County_Fair_"states%27_rights"_ speech

And you give too much credence to views on race as reasons for voting in the post civil rights era. It is disingenuous to presume that because economic interests align that racial interests must as well. It's pretty clear though which party continues to work along racial lines however and which party continues to sew the seeds of racial division. It's not even close - not by a long shot.

For sure, like, wil's entire shtick is based on the assumption that transgender people are out to molest kids in bathrooms.

When cities talk about being sanctuary cities and "states rights", is that also code for racism? Is California being racist for not wanting to pay Federal Taxes to a Trump administration.

The fantastical delusions of the Leftists are irrelevant.

JiggyCuc using the word disingenuous could trigger a gravitational singularity. THAT is the REAL risk!

Leftist - so far on the wrong side of every argument that they have to back and rewrite history.

No it's the opposite. State's Rights regarding sanctuary cities is anti-racist, while state's rights regarding segregation in the South was racist.

And of course that's obvious and you know it.

You do see how your reactive impulse keep messing you up right? You were so mad at Fly that you ended up saying that post op female to man transsexuals were fine to go in men's bathrooms because they have a penis which is the only thing Republicans are trying to prevent.

Now you posted a video that said the Southern Strategy was made up and the contradict it a few posts later by substantiating that it did very well exist.

You can't keep your facts straight because you really don't have a strong handle on the facts, you're just trying to react.

For instance, I would agree with Lee Atwater that Reagan's campaign against Carter probably didn't have too much direct or indirect racism in it because the dire straights of the economy put so much focus on that, though I haven't had time to research that campaign. That isn't to say, which isn't what Atwater said at all, that there's no racism in the Republican Party.

It's like a free form word association game of reaction right now. Abortion? Black genocide! Racism? KKK were Democrats! Democrats? Democrats are racist! States rights? Sanctuary cities! etc.

Suppressing narratives about racism and controlling narratives about racism are in the interests of racists. Free speech is naturally blessedly vexing for racists. They can try to simply assert authority about racism like a bigot or a trumpist, but that's fronting and we know it. Present tense in The South.

There is evidence even from the presidential election in 2016 that attitudes about race-related political issues were predictive of the vote.

https://www.economist.com/news/speci...sts-race-helps

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.0fb65f5aa529

https://www.thenation.com/article/ec...mp-racism-did/

Note, however, that to my general point that racism isn't a purely partisan issue, the underlying data here (GSS, ANES) shows the continued relevance of attitudes about race in general, across party lines. Voting Democrat doesn't mean someone doesn't have prejudicial attitudes. Voting Republican doesn't necessarily mean someone does. But there is a partisan divide on these issues, and the civil rights movement is certainly an important part of the history of the divide. It is not my contention that views on race and racial politics are the only thing that explains partisan affiliation, but it clearly plays a role, and even an increasingly important role in the last couple years.