The conditional is right there
The conditional is right there
I’m sure Vance was lying, but if these were anything like the Presidential debates, there would definitely be a strong Democrat bias. You can’t possibly think that Walz didn’t get fact checked because he was a perfect little angel with flawlessly honest rhetoric, right?
Disclaimer: I didn’t watch very much of the debate because, as others said, it was boring, but Harris sure as shit lied in her debate.
what’s opposing nationalisation and public ownership is and always has been purely ideological
It’s private interests seeking to maintain their own profits. The ideology is downstream of that.
I was lazy picking Wikipedia when everyone knows it’s got an American brainrot problem. That’s entirely my fault.
It is true that “conservative opposition to liberalism” is a thing that has exist and currently exists, but the issue is that “conservative” is a relative term, it refers not to an absolute ideological tendency (like liberalism does) but to the necessarily relative value of seeking to conserve the current order of things. This is relative because the order of things can be different, and that changes the question of if you want to conserve it (conservative), go back to some past state, real or imagined (reactionary), or advance to some future state of greater development (progressive).
So when liberal revolutionaries set the west on fire, conservatives were in conflict with them because the conservatives were trying to preserve the feudal/aristocratic/monarchic order that the liberals opposed. Now that the liberals in the west are no longer revolutionaries but overwhelmingly the establishment and without any serious contest, the acting of promoting liberalism over other ideologies is conservative and the old position of promoting a feudal/aristocratic/monarchic order is reactionary. The rise of neoliberalism, in particular, represents the overwhelming historical victory of liberalism over both reactionary and progressive forces (“There is no alternative,” the perfect conservative slogan).
Of course, a political ideology can be a mix of conservative and reactionary or conservative and progressive (I’ll let you decide on reactionary/progressive), and I’d say that former pair is pretty important for understanding the ideology of the Republicans, but don’t let that exaggerate in your mind the piddling degree to which the latter pair applies to Democrats.
Is that a better explanation? Whether this is how you personally want to use the words or not, this will help you understand how socialists use them.
There are certainly criticisms to be made of it, but characterizing them as “the bad guys” in a conflict with Israel because they do [thing Israel has been known for for decades] is either sarcasm or rank stupidity
Generally, the people posting this sort of thing also support land back or some variant of it, and will be on the side of the indigenous population in any dispute with western colonizers.
You could be clearer next time by adding an /s
It self-consciously is the reason: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYLNCcLfIkM
Israel only has lobbying groups that are allowed to operate in American politics because the US was already dedicated to zionism. Otherwise there’d be, like, a Chinese AIPAC lobbying for the PRC or something.
States aren’t people, dog
I think Bibi was technically born in Israel and spent his early childhood there but lived in Philidelphia during the period that he went to high school.
Israel serves a geopolitical purpose destabilizing the Middle East and suppressing development of rival countries (e.g. assassinating that nuclear physicist in Iran).
Take it from Biden: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYLNCcLfIkM
“Both sides are just as bad!” is the bullshit
It’s not that they are identical, it’s that delineating between the Hitlerites and the Strasserites just isn’t very meaningful compared to the understanding that they are wings of the same monstrous entity that needs to be destroyed. You don’t even need to Obamas embracing Bush and saying “same values” to see that, but seeing that makes denial inexcusable.
The first-past-the-post voting system sucks; the resulting two-party system sucks; but
The hand-wringing isn’t the worst part, but it’s definitely the most annoying. “Don’t worry, I’m disavowing Harris while I vote for her in my non-swing-state, so it doesn’t count even as she uses those votes to claim legitimacy just like Biden did”.
It’s an understandable mistake regardless, but just for your reference, the “What is your story?” at the end informally indicates it only wants affirmative answers because that’s how you’d have a “story” to tell in this regard. There are often hints like that in a question like this.
Nearly everyone would like a roof, heat/cooling (climate dependent), beds of some kind, etc. I don’t give a shit about seasonal decorations for a portion of the population until everyone who wants those gets them.
The Hillsborough disaster?
idk what your reference point is, but ime people want homes
and they are tied to “state owned companies”
“State Owned Enterprises” is the term. Anyway, is this actually true? My impression was that the billionaires had private companies (Alibaba, etc.) and SOEs did not produce them.
Fair enough!