Both blindly support ideology, and neither could produce an argument to defend their position. They are of no use to us in a democracy, though I’m partial to the ones who don’t advocate the mutilation of children’s genitals.
Both are more interested in winning than being right, which tends to be somewhere in the middle.
So yes, leftists vote Democrat. Unless there’s someone further left to vote for - then they vote for that fool instead.
I should clarify that a democrat isn’t necessarily leftist, but a leftist will always vote democrat.
I think this is incorrect(although I must concede that your post is the first time I’ve encountered the term “republitard”…had to google it).
I don’t think this is true of either. In fact, I believe the republitard blindly supports a political party, while the Leftist supports an ideology he understands.
I think this is true of the “republitard,” but not necessarily of the Leftist.
I despise the idea being right is somewhere in the middle of super-fucked-up and pretty-fucked-up. Where does that thought come from? It just seems like something people throw out without thought.
Often.
Often.
Correct. Some Union guys vote Democrat. And many religious, black folks.
You just said “Unless there’s someone further left..” And I agree with that. Edit: Of course, I believe there are Leftists in the Republican Party as well.
No, I don’t think everyone who votes democrat is a leftist. I know several boomers, including family members, and their friends, who voted for Biden after voting for Trump, because Trump turned out to be “crazy” and was “stirring up hate,” only to regret voting for Biden.
These people do not even understand what is leftism, what is it, its mentality, or its history.
(I pressed the trash option on that by accident. I refreshed it.)
Can you explain how this applies to World War II, which was started when Britain and France declared war on Germany after Germany took back formerly-German territory in Poland? Eventually over seventy countries got involved in what was a dispute between only two!
This was all about money? Tens of millions died fighting for money? Can you explain this?
After all, it is, but not only. Sometimes it is also a matter of survival and a decent life, not necessarily of great wealth. Or it may be for a higher purpose, which is to rule the world or the respective continent or region. Which in the end results in an influx of more money and a better life for the people who rule over the rest. In this case, the main thesis was that the German people and the life they lived was in a much lower place than what they deserved. The Germans felt aggrieved. Why should English and French have such influence in Europe and Germany not. And here are such works, in which there was a serious reason to some extent.
On the other hand, Germany didn’t just attack Poland, it attacked almost all of Europe. There is a lot of evidence of an agreement between Hitler and Stalin that first Hitler would take over certain territories and then Russia /USSR/ would join the war, finally dividing the continent. Here, for example, after Hitler had already started the war, on the borders of the USSR there were mostly trucks and other vehicles with tires, not tanks with tracks. Which proves that the Russians were ready to move by road, not by fields and meadows, which means to freely enter already conquered territories. But Hitler did not rely on the arrangement, because it was not known what Stalin would do next, so he decided to attack first. Despite the aggression of the Germans, Stalin did not expect war, which proves that he had some kind of agreement with Hitler. Who will stand still when he sees what is happening around him.
Anyway, I have yet to talk to one person who thinks we will have or is in favor of an American civil war who said, “we can make a lot of money from one.”
This money thing is also news to me considering I’ve never been told how the Yugoslav wars were over money rather than extreme hostility between different nations.
That enmity arises from attitude. Why, for example, should Croats or Slovenes pay taxes that go not only to them, but to the republics of all of Yugoslavia. Some may have a better geographical location, work more and so on. Also, the situation there is incomparable to that of the USA. In this case, there were people of different ethnicities /although close in language and many other things/ who were the majority of the population of the respective republic. Some of the states had existed before the unification. They just wanted to separate for a number of reasons. Yes, it is undeniable that there was also hatred between some of them. States which represent such associations and are not created naturally usually end up this way. This is what happened with the USSR.
For this reason, I do not see the typical US civil war. It is not clear to me who will fight against whom and what they will fight for. And how will the camps of the belligerents be formed.
@deyan No one knows certainly if and when it will happen or the details. All of this is impossible to know and are only predictions. All one can do is theorize and refer to others who’ve theorized. See my book recommendation in a previous post here if you wish, Civil War II by Thomas Chittum.
Why did they want that land? The Germans referred to this as Lebensraum. The fascists in Italy referred to it as spazio vitale. It was about increasing a state’s access to resources.
Yes. Look at our politicians and ask if money isn’t behind many of their policies and decisions. BLM talks a good game while pocketing millions.
Well, I don’t agree with abortion bans or contraceptive bans - which are ‘far right’ ideologies. And I don’t agree with turning little boys into little girls - which is a ‘far left’ ideology. There is a middle ground known as “common sense” though…
abortions up until the end of the first trimester are legal (but not taxpayer funded).
allowing your kids to express their thoughts and feelings (even if that means they are actually gay) without surgically altering them into the Cosma-Gendered Squirrel they think they feel like.
Middle-ground is simply common sense, which most of the left and right actually have. It’s the outliers that won’t shut the fuck up, and both parties are guilty of not disowning their crazies.
I mean, @BrickHead already pointed out one, but wars are fought for religion, nationalism, independence and sometimes simply ideological differences.
You can stretch terms as much as you want to make things fit the narrative of being “for money”, but that doesn’t make it true. Often there is financial gain involved in war, but how much money exactly did we gain during the last 20 years of war? Land perhaps? Surely at least resources…?
If it was just for money, I’d imagine we’d make a lot more money off of it.
