ZombiFrancis

Breakfast of Champions by Kurt Vonnegut Jr, if I am not mistaken.

Based on my experience criticizing Iraq and Afghanistan for 20+ years here's your canned responses:

• Gas is so expensive now, why did trump attack Iran?

"That's why we gotta win. Finish the job and it'll come down."

• I’m really worried about our country, won’t china take advantage of this?

"China can't beat America. The only advantages they can get is by stealing our technology."

• What if there is a draft?

"I am too old to get drafted, so not my problem."

Being concerned about China overtaking America in some metric really brings out some pretty dorment racism I have found. But there's usually just a 'one more inning' mindset where it'll all turn arpund against all logic and reason.

Arab and Muslim are synonymous terms to most chuds. And 'Muslim' just means 'brown person' to them, usually.

What happened in the 60s and 70s to turn a large number of "great society" voters towards Reaganomics?

To be super broad with it: Nixon, an Oil embargo, and Civil Rights.

The Great Society was predicated on the New Deal, which relied on an alliance with segregationist conservatives who resonated woth infrastructure and an industrial war economy. When it came time to extend the gains of the Great Society to non whites, they ultimately rebelled in practice.

It was also Carter who adopted the precepts of what became Neoliberalism to try and sustain the political alliance. So the oil embargo of 1979 after Iran kicked us out for doing imperialism is a huge component that crushed the party leading into Reagan.

And so Reagan followed with his conservative plans to squelch the economic futures of those guaranteed civil rights, sealing the deal by offering a solution to those threatened economically.

But finally it was Nixon before Carter who broke the trust between the American public and government. Nixon came with the prestige of being Eisenhower's VP for 8 years. His resignation was an admission of defeat that the GOP learned to never repeat at any cost, the effects we see today.

This is all brushing past the assassination of JFK that put LBJ in his position to begin with.

This is true, yes. In many ways you could say Fetterman is worse in his betrayal to his constituency. But as far as anyone can argue, it took brain damage from a stroke to facilitate.

Oz being the victor would have been a direct blow to the organization network that got Fetterman in office, which was largely policy driven. (Fetterman ran on the 2020 DNC platform, which meant holding the DNC to their promises at the time.) Fetterman is loathed for his policy betrayal. There is no real cult of personality around him where he can Do No Wrong.

He is better mostly because him losing to Oz would have meant policy didn't matter. And it does, which is particularly relevant for assessing Platner.

When you run candidates where they personally matter, and not their policies, you wind up in worse situations.

Please understand my point was a deference towards a more precise and accurate definition of conservatism and an appeal to understanding the difference of when conservatism becomes reactionary or fascist.

It was kind of a corroboration of your point.

...which now I am unsure of since you are so readily disagreeable with it on grounds of American.

Conservative means what it means - people who want to conserve rather than change, and are comfortable with how things are and, in their opinion, have always been.

One might argue it is about maintaining constants through change.

Most ideological conservatives that I know are well aware change is inevitable (and probably the most constant thing out there). What separates and divides them are what constants they seek to maintain, and some systems are categorically more damnable than others.

What happens when conservatives lose this constant, or are threatened to lose it, is when they become reactionaries or fascists respectively.

This is actually a good demonstration of what I mean, yes.

Just by using the word immigrant a divide between 'everybody' is made and then people are free to start cutting each other off from healthcare, exactly as you put it. The cruelty is perfectly rationalized. Away, even.

Suddenly national borders and individual locale are valid opposition to a concept of healthcare for 'everybody'.

For the most part, yeah. Though there's some great examples of juxtaposing these massively epic bosses with much smaller and subtle ones. That's where the 'ease' is something for you to recognize in its own right.

Making a hard game easy can be fun. Making an easy game hard can be challenging.

Even Fetterman is better than Oz. Platner is orders of magnitude better on policy than Collins.

MBFC bot people got real aggressive when you suggested it was inaccurate or unhelpful.

It's purpose though is relevant though: it exists to provide that exact dynamic: unbiased bias. The bread and butter of most political trolls.

They'd also be able to express how they believe an immigrant doesn't deserve healthcare. Either that they deserve the healthcare of their homecountry, or that they aren't a part of 'everyone', be that German, or otherwise.

Without any congitive dissonance.