Charlottesville: Where Do We Go From Here?

[Olerand]

It would have suppressed the South. Objectively, in the eyes of History, we wouldn't be here if the South had been successfully suppressed.

Certainly, change is not inherently good. You need a balance. Not too much change (like Sweden), nor too little (like America).

I don't know about that, the Union was hardly filled to the brim with people of the progressive persuasion. In fact, when the second Klan arised in the 1920's, Indiana, a decidedly Union state during the war, was a hot spot for their activity.

Certainly, the Union wasn't "progressive", as that term is vapid and means nothing. But the Union was capable of suppressing the South.
This would have made Nixon's Strategy the... Mid-Western Strategy, and just by demographics alone, it would have been less powerful and long-lasting.

[Valrifell]

I would do no such thing. They are being relocated to an island

And given free lead injections?

Nah.

It's mercury.

[Badger Industries]

Pretty good deflection, eh? You laugh but centrist belief lacks any sort of substantial substance, the kind of substance it takes to unite and properly run a country. You laugh but when a country choses to remain stagnant in the interests of "centrism" it is failing its people.

When someone believes this, it's not worth trying to convince them.
The trick is to walk away and tally up how many people think this, by their political affiliation, and look for any patterns.

You know the joke in that is that a government of that type displeases everyone on both sides, right?

Their actions to shift it to one political extreme cancel each other out!

I've never gotten a centrist to explain what they actually stand for other than "centrism."

[Luziyca]

Can I just say that I hope nobody confuses this "person" with a regular conservative. I'm what you could call a conservative and I can't stand having these true terrorists trying to speak for us.

That's part of why I typically refuse to align myself with a label, because then it eventually throws me in with these wackjobs. These labels for conservative and liberal have damaged us in the sense that when this stuff happens, everybody gets thrown in. You support said political candidate? Well, this hate group ALSO supports them, so you're part of them. I hate it, and can't do anything about it, and that upsets me.

I share that feeling with you, quite frankly.

Ditto. This is why I am uneasy saying "I am a liberal:" social liberal, yes, but just saying liberal without any disambiguation? No.

If we can purge the extremists on both sides, and focus on improving the welfare of the ordinary citizen, I imagine that such a system will probably be in the best interests of a majority of the population. Especially if it is ruled by a benevolent dictator.

It's kind of difficult for a country to work in the interests of the population if it's not ruled by the population, no?

I'm sure it's a bit more difficult to work in the interests of the population when they are ruled by radicals who do not represent the majority of the population.

[The East Marches II]

Sucks for them.

I'm sure you wouldn't want what we have. And that's why we have threads like this.

Yes I far prefer threads like these to threads discussing a tragedy and protests to the Gendarmes arresting everybody for hate speech. The cost freedom and all that, not that you lot would understand. :^)

[Thermodolia]

When someone believes this, it's not worth trying to convince them.
The trick is to walk away and tally up how many people think this, by their political affiliation, and look for any patterns.


Their actions to shift it to one political extreme cancel each other out!

I've never gotten a centrist to explain what they actually stand for other than "centrism."

The best of both right and left.

[The East Marches II]

Me and TEM obviously

If I had to pick someone on the right it would be WRA tbh.
Or CM....actually I'm not sure where he is exactly on the scale.

Both of those would be a good choice tbh.

[Napkiraly]

>Not Primo de Rivera.
Why even bother then?

Primo de Rivera is a fascinating character, I was recently rereading a book on the matter. Very underrated tbh.

He is quite the interesting figure, even if one disagrees with him. Others that many don't know about are Gentile, Balbo, and Salgado (Brazilian Integralism).

[Olerand]

Sucks for them.

I'm sure you wouldn't want what we have. And that's why we have threads like this.

Yes I far prefer threads like these to threads discussing a tragedy and protests to the Gendarmes arresting everybody for hate speech. The cost freedom and all that, not that you lot would understand. :^)

The Gendarmes arrest people so we don't have threads like this.

If this is freedom, you can keep it. And clearly, you are.

[Genivaria]

If I had to pick someone on the right it would be WRA tbh.
Or CM....actually I'm not sure where he is exactly on the scale.

Both of those would be a good choice tbh.

No offense, haven't argued with you have as much is all.

[Proctopeo]

When someone believes this, it's not worth trying to convince them.
The trick is to walk away and tally up how many people think this, by their political affiliation, and look for any patterns.


Their actions to shift it to one political extreme cancel each other out!

I've never gotten a centrist to explain what they actually stand for other than "centrism."

You're unlikely to get a proper, wordy explanation if you come in like that.
I will, however, provide a sentence fragment, because I'm nice: "whatever doesn't suck, I'll consider"

[Napkiraly]

The people in the helicopter died apparently: https://twitter.com/Variety/status/896496602633781248

Fuck.

[The East Marches II]

Yes I far prefer threads like these to threads discussing a tragedy and protests to the Gendarmes arresting everybody for hate speech. The cost freedom and all that, not that you lot would understand. :^)

The Gendarmes arrest people so we don't have threads like this.

If this is freedom, you can keep it. And clearly, you are.

The Gendarmes repress speech because the French people have decided they can't handle the cost of freedom. Don't deny anything the government tells you to think!

[Ostroeuropa]

I don't know about that, the Union was hardly filled to the brim with people of the progressive persuasion. In fact, when the second Klan arised in the 1920's, Indiana, a decidedly Union state during the war, was a hot spot for their activity.

Certainly, the Union wasn't "progressive", as that term is vapid and means nothing. But the Union was capable of suppressing the South.
This would have made Nixon's Strategy the... Mid-Western Strategy, and just by demographics alone, it would have been less powerful and long-lasting.

The Nixon strategy only succeeds because the democrat elites are unwilling to adopt policies that would counter it.

[Valrifell]

Certainly, the Union wasn't "progressive", as that term is vapid and means nothing. But the Union was capable of suppressing the South.
This would have made Nixon's Strategy the... Mid-Western Strategy, and just by demographics alone, it would have been less powerful and long-lasting.

The Nixon strategy only succeeds because the democrat elites are unwilling to adopt policies that would counter it.

Dems have won since Nixon, you know...

[Thermodolia]

Certainly, the Union wasn't "progressive", as that term is vapid and means nothing. But the Union was capable of suppressing the South.
This would have made Nixon's Strategy the... Mid-Western Strategy, and just by demographics alone, it would have been less powerful and long-lasting.

The Nixon strategy only succeeds because the democrat elites are unwilling to adopt policies that would counter it.

Sounds oddly familiar

[The East Marches II]

The Nixon strategy only succeeds because the democrat elites are unwilling to adopt policies that would counter it.

Sounds oddly familiar

*laughs in Midwest*

So... about those farm subsidies and that military spending....

[Thermodolia]

The Nixon strategy only succeeds because the democrat elites are unwilling to adopt policies that would counter it.

Dems have won since Nixon, you know...

Not very much in the south though

[Thermodolia]

Sounds oddly familiar

*laughs in Midwest*

So... about those farm subsidies and that military spending....

When I'm in charge you'll get both of those and more. Though you might be at war with a good chunk of Central America.

[Ostroeuropa]

The Nixon strategy only succeeds because the democrat elites are unwilling to adopt policies that would counter it.

Dems have won since Nixon, you know...

They've won elections, sure. They haven't forced a political realignment, which is more important for fostering actual change.

Trump came closer to it than they managed.

[Olerand]

The Gendarmes arrest people so we don't have threads like this.

If this is freedom, you can keep it. And clearly, you are.

The Gendarmes repress speech because the French people have decided they can't handle the cost of freedom. Don't deny anything the government tells you to think!

A healthy society requires moderation, self-control, the removal of toxic elements and figures. Otherwise, you end up with America.

Certainly, the Union wasn't "progressive", as that term is vapid and means nothing. But the Union was capable of suppressing the South.
This would have made Nixon's Strategy the... Mid-Western Strategy, and just by demographics alone, it would have been less powerful and long-lasting.

The Nixon strategy only succeeds because the democrat elites are unwilling to adopt policies that would counter it.

The Democrats aren't blameless obviously. Their over-reliance on minorities and non-whites is itself part of the problem.

[Valrifell]

Dems have won since Nixon, you know...

They've won elections, sure. They haven't forced a political realignment.

Trump came closer to it than they managed.

Parties don't force political realignment, they reflect them.

[Sovaal]

I don't know about that, the Union was hardly filled to the brim with people of the progressive persuasion. In fact, when the second Klan arised in the 1920's, Indiana, a decidedly Union state during the war, was a hot spot for their activity.

Certainly, the Union wasn't "progressive", as that term is vapid and means nothing. But the Union was capable of suppressing the South.
This would have made Nixon's Strategy the... Mid-Western Strategy, and just by demographics alone, it would have been less powerful and long-lasting.

Said sentiment was wide spread across the US, even in the cities, but especially in rural areas. Native American and foreign influence and all that jazz.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I share that feeling with you, quite frankly.

Ditto. This is why I am uneasy saying "I am a liberal:" social liberal, yes, but just saying liberal without any disambiguation? No.

It's kind of difficult for a country to work in the interests of the population if it's not ruled by the population, no?

I'm sure it's a bit more difficult to work in the interests of the population when they are ruled by radicals who do not represent the majority of the population.

I'm a conservative, perhaps too reasonable of a conservative to actually see things from the liberal side.

Nowadays, being a conservative that's willing to compromise is seen akin to treason... It's why I don't define myself as a conservative too often, personally. I value tradition, and value stable change, so I disagree with liberal's radical steps towards change for the sake of change. However, I'm not beyond siding with liberals on changes I honestly believe will benefit society as a whole.

[Ostroeuropa]

They've won elections, sure. They haven't forced a political realignment.

Trump came closer to it than they managed.

Parties don't force political realignment, they reflect them.

I disagree. By adopting certain policies and rhetoric, voters switch sides. The party forces the political realignment by building a new coalition.

The Democrats have seemingly done precisely nothing to break up the Nixon strategy. Conversely, the Trump strategy seems to be Nixon+. He's stolen "A certain kind of democrat" from the dems.

The republicans are simply better at politics imo.