Because it didn't. the "Nixon political strategist" referred to in the WIkipedia article was a low level campaign aid who recommended the Nixon campaign adopt the strategy he claims they did adopt and became disaffected when the campaign rejected his advice because it ran counter to Nixon's entire political career as a campaigner for Civil Rights. It might be worth noting that the Nixon Administration did more to desegregate southern schools than the Johnson Administration. I could go further by showing you the voting trends. Nixon did not receive a significant increase in Southern White votes over previous Republican Presidential candidates and the only reason the Democrats did poorly in the South in the 1968 Presidential election is because George Wallace, previously a Democrat, pulled a lot of votes in the South running as an independent. George Wallace returned to the Democratic Party and won election as Georgia's governor in 1970, as a Democrat, and ran in the Democratic primaries for President in 1972. A study of voting patterns shows that Southern voters only became Republican as the older, racist generation died off and the Democratic Party moved left.

Except that you didn't need as many factory workers to build tractors as you had needed as farm laborers before the automation. What you are missing is that if the government lets them, people will find a way to make a good living for themselves...even people you think aren't smart enough to do anything more complex than flip burgers. You are also missing that people said the SAME thing at every other disruptive stage of automation: "Where are the new jobs of the future coming from?" Yet, those new jobs DID come, every time. This "problem" does not go back to the beginning of the Industrial Revolution...it goes back to the beginning of time.

The same argument has been made every time there is disruptive automation. You are worrying about automation destroying jobs which were created by automation to make use of populations who had been freed from doing more menial tasks by automation. Further you complain about excess population, another argument which has been made repeatedly in the past, yet the problems predicted because of "excess population" have failed to materialize. Both of your predictions have been used in the past to champion some form of central planning, which HAS repeatedly resulted in the problems which its proponents claim it is necessary to prevent (starvation and ecological disasters).

Well, assuming your assumption is correct, that they CAN get better results (which is open to debate), the answer is BECAUSE they are MUCH smaller and more homogeneous.

It is right there in the summary, "Only 3.5 % of vehicles sold in Canada are electric". If the people of Canada wanted to do away with fuel powered cars and light trucks, they would be buying electric vehicles in larger numbers. The fact that they are not confirms the fact that the government does not care what the voters think.

People who lived in 1700 would think that we have done so.

While you make a good point, you miss the fact that much of the money which the study says those countries spent to "support oil, coal, and gas" did not go to any oil, coal, or gas companies. Instead it went to automobile manufacturers, airlines, and other companies which either consume fossil fuels or manufacture products which consume fossil fuels. So, during a time of serious economic dislocation those governments spent money to support industries which were hurt by that dislocation.

You are overlooking the fact that you are not living after "the plague", after the population decline. Rather, you are living through the population decline. If you look at Europe during the years of the plague, the economic dislocation involved more than just the people who got sick. Sure, those who were alive when it was all over and population began to rise once more were better off than anyone living before the plague, but that did not help those who were living during the plague...and this population decline is happening over a much longer period of time than the plague.

While gasoline is flammable, liquid gasoline is not particularly explosive, despite what movies may portray. For that matter, if you toss a lit match into a puddle of gasoline, the match will go out.

It is worth noting that the Muslim who the SPLC accused of "anti-Muslim extremism" had railed against what he called the false use of the Koran to incite violence. https://www.newsweek.com/splc-...

It is worth mentioning that on more than one occasion SPLC has labeled a Muslim as a person spreading anti-Muslim hate speech.

That is actually a good point. How much other fake content is Facebook creating?

That does not take away from the fact that they greatly exaggerated the amount of white supremacist activity going on by doing this.

You clearly have not read the other comments on this article.

In Pennsylvania, it works quite well by doing something like that in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. Those cities have districts which voted 110% for the Democratic candidate in the last 3 Presidential elections.

Not Kool aid...he just didn't stop paying attention to actual news when facts actually started to come out.