I can't take you seriously as a critical thinker when you don't even know history of Republican and Democratic party. Here is George Wallace, a Democrat talking about segregation I am a conservative. I intend to give the American people a clear choice. I welcome a fight between our philosophy and the liberal left-wing dogma which now threatens to engulf every man, woman, and child in the United States. I am in this race because I believe the American people have been pushed around long enough and that they, like you and I, are fed up with the continuing trend toward a socialist state which now subjects the individual to the dictates of an all-powerful central government. He goes on to say It is very appropriate that from this cradle of the Confederacy, this very heart of the great Anglo-Saxon Southland, that today we sound the drum for freedom as have our generations of forebears before us time and again down through history. Let us rise to the call for freedom-loving blood that is in us and send our answer to the tyranny that clanks its chains upon the South. In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow and segregation forever. So which party do you think he will be in current day and age?
one of us doesn't anyway: hyperbole often helps ppl see simple concepts Is staying quiet not analogous to not voting? Would yelling squirrel/voting 3rd party change the murder dynamic? and i've explained as much to Tony, it still is not equivalent to joining in the riot to overturn democracy which is why maggats are getting slapped w/insurrectionism and antifa isn't. I get it plenty. What you don't get is that the left can get worse, a lot worse, authoritarian worse, and comparing holding the vote to going nazbol is disingenuous. Again, read the Spanish's left backlash on clerical institutions as an example after the fascists tried and failed in their attempt of overturning an election.
Wow. Well that's the first time i ever heard that definition before. It's sounds like you are describing human nature, for which i should be paid at least $60 an hour to analyze. I always thought conservativism was kinda the opposite of liberalism in how best to spend, or not spend, the public money that comes in via taxes. Conservativism conserves the public pot, while liberalism would empty the pot and even borrow against the next generation to put more spendable cash in the pot. It's a fiscal term. You've shown how terms morph over time, as panderers push agendas. Now i'm afraid to ask what a white is, so i can tell you if i am one.
It's not obvious to you? The only party, today, with a strong contingent of segregationists is the Democrat party, mainly because they have been pandering to racists for a long time now. Johnson, a racist and a contemporary of Wallace, began, in earnest, the neo pandering pandemic.
But when did I claim to be a moderate and when did I claim to be moderate 'because both sides'? You have completely botched what the term means. Did you not see me advocating for court expansion? But when I pointed out that it is not practical because of the balance of power, I become a moderate? Accepting realities makes you a moderate? Did you have the power to speak up? yes or no? Voting gives you that power and if you choose to throw it away knowing fully well what it would do in real life, then you own responsibility for your actions. Antifa isn't because their numbers are tiny and like most leftist groups they are constantly fighting with each other. And that's not my analysis, that's according to Chomsky. But I didn't disagree that authoritarianism looks any different coming from right or left, we are talking even in the most liberal democracies where conservatives are always looking to bully some out group.
So segregationist George Wallace who attacked liberals and the left would find a place in today's Democratic party?
Well George was not a good panderer. To be a good panderer, you have to be more subtle, and a little more slippery with the use of the English language. The push for segregation is happening, in the dark corners of the party body politique. You were not aware of this? The best segregation is when you can let the racists, who want to segregate, think it was their idea.
You lack an anchor that prevents you from being confused by terms of use in political campaigns. Politics is like a MMA wrestling. The objective is to put down your opponent. One minute you are on one side of the ring, facing away from the spectator, another minute you are on the other side of the ring facing toward the spectator. Without an anchor you can be confused by the use of words and terms. It appears most Democrats lack an anchor. So i'm not sure i could help you for less than $60 an hour. I mean, you've already shown your propensity to be confused about the term conservative.
You are evading again from answering a simple question and I understand why - your entire belief structure which you inherited from your peers cannot withstand any acceptance of contradiction or it would collapse.