«12. . .2,0312,0322,0332,0342,0352,0362,037. . .2,1812,182»
More important issue here is not who founded the region, but that during its existence the Right has evolved a lot. I.e. many Republicans are no longer capitalists. Some are hardcore protectionists, and some are even quite warm toward a welfare state (at least to its part that goes overwhelmingly to white people, like Social Security) and much higher taxes on the rich. We even have the next presumptive presidential nominee using state power to punish a corporation that dared to criticize him - and so many people on the Right love that (which is why he did that in the first place - not because he has thin skin or something). The British Conservative Party has evolved in similar ways. People like myself who still believe in free trade and fiat money are now called globalists, and that's not a term of endearment.
Well, sounds like he's desperate to make us believe that his threats are not empty. If he was actually seriously ill, he would go to great length to conceal that in order to maintain firm grip on power. Once people start thinking he's not going to be around for long, they no longer focus on pleasing him but try to figure out what's next and start trying to make correct bets and to hedge.
Their are Worse Things they Could Call You, but this is a PG-13 Website.
Post self-deleted by Kalatchevia.
I recently read this interesting analysis by a guy whose book on WWII I just bought (literally minutes ago I first opened it and flipped through the pages): https://thecritic.co.uk/the-strange-death-of-conservatism/ He basically agrees with you (in the article, not the book): "The transformation, indeed, has been so breathtaking that we should stop using the word “conservative” to describe the Republicans and Conservatives."
I agree the Word Conservative should not be used to Describe Republicans, nor should Liberal Be used for Democrats for that matter.
although I don't know what words you would use to describe the Group Known as Conservatives ? id go with "Reactionary Populists".
Midlands and The anarcho-capitalist lands of kool-aid
Nice gaslighting.
I'm still willing to try, as much as you like denying the facts and asserting falsehoods.
The dichotomy has been framed many different ways...
Socialist versus Capitalist
Collectivist versus Individualist
Globalist versus Nationalist
Authoritarian versus Libertarian
Equity versus Equality
...but labeling is an exercise in simplification that often drifts into oversimplification.
Neither the Democrat, nor the Republican party are monolithic in culture or personality, and neither is represented fairly and accurately in a progressive media environment.
Taken individually, you can find characteristics bleeding back and forth across party lines, but overall Democrat voters usually have an easier time of it, because their leadership tends to remain more loyal and in line ideologically with their constituents than Republican officials do with theirs.
The DC social circuit is not bifurcated, and it is amazing how quick and willing elected Republicans are to compromise themselves and their voters just for cocktail and dinner party invitations.
The day to day of playing politics tends to push most officials left of their voters in attitude regardless of party affiliation.
For my part, I am a free speech, worship, market, and association absolutist, and gauge my support by these values.
No, it wouldn't win over people like Midlands. It goes to show in the reaction to Trump's suggestion to study Hydroxychloroquine, and his suggestion that people should have the right to choose to wear a mask, or get vaccinated.
"I believe in free trade"
"Thinks Xiden won legitimately"
Yeah, okay. You're not fooling anyone with your lip service.
https://scdhec.gov/covid19/dangers-using-hydroxychloroquine-ivermectin-preventing-or-treating-covid-19
The problem with that though is a hefty number of people in the United States at least have shown an outright refusal to wear masks or get vaccinated, and often resorting to alternative medicine (which is never a good idea), or relying on "covid parties" to develop "herd immunity" (which is even worse).
It's still a good idea to get the shot.
In the context of COVID-19? Yes.
I'm not asking you to believe EVERYTHING the government says, just the empirical data.
I will concede that American elections have often been tainted. But let’s look at your examples. The 1936 and 1940 elections were held in the heyday of Democrat machine politics, so doubtlessly there was some chicanery, but the ill will towards Republicans over the Great Depression was such that any vote fraud probably did not matter. In 1960 the machine vote in Chicago and other Democrat controlled cities probably did make the difference, but Nixon was old school and chose not to contest the election. If you mean Johnson in 1964, that was more the result of a successful smear campaign that painted Goldwater as a crazed jingoist ready to launch a nuclear war. In 1968 the Nixon victory was more the result of the George Wallace Third Party effort taking some of the blue collar vote from the Democrats. The Supreme Court intervention prevented the 2000 election from ever being resolved politically. The two Obama victories were more the case of McCain and Romney running mealy-mouthed, lukewarm, wishy-washy campaigns as Democrat-lite candidates. In 2020 the overwhelming bias in the media and in the mainstream press against Trump probably affected the result more than any vote casting skullduggery. That is not to say that Democrat control in the major cities did play some part in Biden’s victory. Ultimately, the Democratic lock on the Electoral College was Trump’s undoing. Biden started with the West Coast, Washington DC, and the Northeast, with the Traditional Upper Midwest solidly in his Electoral control. The Trump strongholds in the South and Mountain States could not overcome Biden’s liberal state base. So many years after the American Civil War, the regional political differences still exist.
That's cute.
Politics and journalism do not have the same veracity as a chemistry text, and nothing filtered through them comes out wholly objective.
In a medium where forwarding the narrative is more important than its factual content, who winds up before the camera between a political officer and forensic analyst?
I have been acquainted with people on both the lab and administrative sides of institutions like OHSA and the CDC, and there is always a difference in implication between what researchers submit to their bosses, and how they then present that to us.
Dr. Fauci was a terrible medical practitioner, but is an excellent, shrewd, and ruthless bureaucrat in the right place and time to forward a wrong headed mitigation campaign with the aid of a complicit media and opportunistic social engineers.
It is all a moot point now.
Between vaccination and exposure, nine out of ten people on Earth have some measure of protection from covid.
So the only unreasonable stance to have at this point is a 100% immunization zero covid policy, because there is nothing forensic or political that points to that being anything but inhumane as Shanghai has adequately demonstrated.
Post by Miranorte suppressed by a moderator.
I have a large population of Mutants for sale.
I agree to disagree.
No! It does not have 99% survival rate. It's a vicious lie. 3% of Indian population died of Covid. Despite being younger than Western populations and having a functional healthcare system (that got overwhelmed but still did a lot to save people). More important (in the long term) is that full recovery rate is much lower. E.g. a large proportion of infected people have permanent brain damage. Future economic costs of all that will be enormous.
«12. . .2,0312,0322,0332,0342,0352,0362,037. . .2,1812,182»
Advertisement