National Review woke up today and thought: you know what, let's take the quiet part and yell it into a bullhorn. https://t.co/YwD2fbHz9u
Holy shit... The National Review actually just asked:
"Might the republic be better served by having fewer –but better– voters?"
White Supremacists never fucking stop, do they??
This National Review piece is elitism on steroids. It’s also insane.
“if more eligible voters go to the polls then the outcome will more closely reflect what the average American voter wants. That sounds like a wonderful thing ... if you haven’t met the average American voter.” https://t.co/KaLPMQzuzD
The entire Trump regime violated the Hatch Act.
Every damn day.
PROSECUTE THEM ALL.
#Resist #MorningJoe #TheView Mo Brooks Justice Breyer United Airlines Andrew Giuliani Eric Trump Patagonia Hump Day Kellyanne Conway National Review https://t.co/XddGbRiHfM
National Review arguing voters are what made the country a mess. Remind me again, was it the VOTERS who lied us into the Iraq War? Who crashed the global economy? Who bailed out the banks and left everyone else to rot? https://t.co/xtkbusZ0VR
“Might we be better off returning to feudalism?”
- The National Review
No, but the republic might be better off having fewer periodicals workshopping fascism for shits and giggles, National Review
As Kevin Williamson pops up in National Review to argue that narrowing voting rights is a Good Thing Actually™, I'll repost this thread I did on NR's past stances on civil rights issues. https://t.co/b9tI456hrH
“Is that old saying ‘all men are created equal’ really so self-evident?”
- The National Review
I’ve seen National Review’s most recent column arguing for winnowing the electorate of “unqualified voters” is getting attention. I’ve been writing on this subject for a while, and wanted to collect some strands in a thread:
More Republicans saying quiet part out loud
This rhetoric used to justify Jim Crow & by National Review to oppose Voting Rights Act
"Over most of this century the great bulk of Southern Negroes have been genuinely unqualified for the franchise" James Kilpatrick wrote in 1965 https://t.co/BuscMzunmh
This is an actual headline from the National Review.
And when they say “better”, hey mean “whiter”.
Same as it ever was.
It lost the fight to defend Apartheid in the American South, and then lost again in South Africa, but National Review has been making the case for winnowing the electorate throughout its history: https://t.co/0L9zqZG5ie
"Might the republic be better served by having fewer -- but better -- voters? " - National Review
Yep! You can't get anymore openly racists than that....
In 1986 National Review's William F. Buckley was quipping in the New York Times that people with AIDS should be tattooed.
"Our society is generally threatened, and in order to fight AIDS, we need the civil equivalent of universal military training."
Finally, the world's media are taking note. The National Review call what's happening in Ireland "shocking" "cruel" "ineffective" "humiliating"
Storytime with BDD: Chauvin DAY 8, Biden Infrastructure, NRCC Defectors, Komodo on the Shelf, National Review.
ALSO, more fun from The Liddle'est President, LIVE NOW on @ReallyAmerican1
It's comical to deny NR institutionally believes too many people vote. National Review has been saying this for decades, beginning with Buckley in the 50s. Innumerable NR columnists have too. It hasn't stopped. There have been two this week! https://t.co/A8ucSchNpj
So the psuedo-intellectual National Review is trending.
I'm not the first person to say this but we should stop referring to the bigotry / racism from the right as dog whistles or saying the quiet part out loud.
They wear their hate on their sleeves for all to see.
“Did Jim Crow have a point?” asks the National Review, with a straight face (and a white hood.) https://t.co/QAFULxVEaP
Interesting idea, National Review. Not sure how I feel about “worse” voters having no say at all, though.
Perhaps a compromise? Say, “worse” voters count as three-fifths of a voter?
National Review asshat on Chris Hayes demonstrating the art of bad faith arguments. I guess there's a point to inviting him on, just to expose how empty these clever men really are.
The National Review would really like it if we could go back to the original voting system of white, male, land owners.
But they didn't get the outcomes they wanted in Nov and Jan, so they changed the rules.
Now National Review says they suddenly don't like
"one person, one vote"
Why? Because the hard-right is too narrow a political faction to ever win any more elections in America.
On the National Review's boneheaded argument that consent of the governed is more sophisticated than the vote: "While it is true that a vote alone does not always constitute consent, consent cannot be constituted without the vote." https://t.co/gYyPRqtXMI
Who the hell reads The National Review? Oh ah didn’t think reading a requirement for treasonous RepublicansResistance🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
National Review is a CIA false-opposition operation created by William Buckley and inherited by Richard Lowry
He’s a scumbag like most of national review