NationStates

Sovaal wrote:

Olerand wrote: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.

Sovaal wrote:

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

And given free lead injections?

Proctopeo wrote:

Badger Industries wrote: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.

Valrifell wrote:
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!

Soldati Senza Confini wrote:

Cland Eastopia wrote:

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.

Badger Industries wrote:

Luziyca wrote: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?

Olerand wrote:Sucks for them.

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

Badger Industries wrote:

Proctopeo wrote: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."

Genivaria wrote:

Thermodolia wrote: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.

The East Marches II wrote:

Napkiraly wrote:>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.

The East Marches II wrote:

Olerand wrote: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 East Marches II wrote:

Genivaria wrote: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.

Badger Industries wrote:

Proctopeo wrote: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."

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

Olerand wrote:

The East Marches II wrote:
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.

Olerand wrote:

Sovaal wrote: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.

Ostroeuropa wrote:

Olerand wrote: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.

Ostroeuropa wrote:

Olerand wrote: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.

Thermodolia wrote:

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

Sounds oddly familiar

Valrifell wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
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...

The East Marches II wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:Sounds oddly familiar

*laughs in Midwest*

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

Valrifell wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
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...

The East Marches II wrote:

Olerand wrote: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 wrote:

Olerand wrote: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.

Ostroeuropa wrote:

Valrifell wrote:
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.

Olerand wrote:

Sovaal wrote: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.

Luziyca wrote:

Soldati Senza Confini wrote:
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.

Badger Industries wrote: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.

Valrifell wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
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.