When asked to cite a source for that assertion, what you produced is... Which, if we’re honest about this, fails as a source for that assertion

I wasn't sure if you were talking about my first statement about Republicans being responsible for mass shootings, that advocating for small government makes you a racist, or both, so I started off with the first sentence and moved on to the second sentence.

As close a source as you could find:

Each of my sources are loaded with words that libertarians and small-government advocates use consistently: the article is a subtle attack on them while being an overt attack on Republicans. The language the author chose is language common in the libertarian lexicon and not so common in the Republican one: governmental overreach, theft, illegitimate oppression, anti-government, these aren't talking points of most Republicans.

Which we can only consider a source if we abandon logic to support your hysterical outburst. Okay, let’s try that then. Let’s assume that by ‘advocating for small government’ you meant to say ‘being a Republican.’ Making your assertion ‘Being a Republican makes you a racist.’ Even that’s absurd, and to my knowledge found nowhere in these links. That tortured assertion is yours, and you can keep it.

See my first point.

As for your claim that Lee Atwater’s explanation of the Southern strategy is about racism no longer being an issue in the South, I’m afraid you’ve either entirely missed the point of what he was saying, or, and I say this with no disrespect for your opinion, you’re just deluding yourself. Read it again and just see if you can’t work out how he may’ve been talking about how racism could be made to work in the future.

Taken out of context in that way, of course he may've been talking about that, but he wasn't.

The South in 1964 was considered reactionary, Neanderthalic, and so forth because we weren’t mainstream on not only on the race...

When asked to cite a source for that assertion, what you produced is... Which, if we’re honest about this, fails as a source for that assertion

I wasn't sure if you were talking about my first statement about Republicans being responsible for mass shootings, that advocating for small government makes you a racist, or both, so I started off with the first sentence and moved on to the second sentence.

As close a source as you could find:

Each of my sources are loaded with words that libertarians and small-government advocates use consistently: the article is a subtle attack on them while being an overt attack on Republicans. The language the author chose is language common in the libertarian lexicon and not so common in the Republican one: governmental overreach, theft, illegitimate oppression, anti-government, these aren't talking points of most Republicans.

Which we can only consider a source if we abandon logic to support your hysterical outburst. Okay, let’s try that then. Let’s assume that by ‘advocating for small government’ you meant to say ‘being a Republican.’ Making your assertion ‘Being a Republican makes you a racist.’ Even that’s absurd, and to my knowledge found nowhere in these links. That tortured assertion is yours, and you can keep it.

See my first point.

As for your claim that Lee Atwater’s explanation of the Southern strategy is about racism no longer being an issue in the South, I’m afraid you’ve either entirely missed the point of what he was saying, or, and I say this with no disrespect for your opinion, you’re just deluding yourself. Read it again and just see if you can’t work out how he may’ve been talking about how racism could be made to work in the future.

Taken out of context in that way, of course he may've been talking about that, but he wasn't.

The South in 1964 was considered reactionary, Neanderthalic, and so forth because we weren’t mainstream on not only on the race thing but on economic issues and national defense and all. We were considered, you know, ultraconservative and everything. What happens is a guy like Reagan who campaigns in 1980 on a 1964 Goldwater platform, minus the boo-boos and obviously the Voting Rights Act and [Tennessee Valley Authority] and all that bullshit. But, if you look at the economics and the national defense, what happened is the South went from being behind the times to being mainstream. The Reagans 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 ‘60s. 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.