I was genuinely looking for specifics. The internet has this amazing ability to make conservative a bad word and socialists the only good guys, unless they are the bad guys which makes them not really socialists, and if a conservative does something good they're not really conservative, cause otherwise they would only do bad things... I like words to mean something. Yes, there were conservatives who enabled the Nazis, you are correct on that point, thank you for being specific.
Most economic theorists have been proven largely wrong over the years, Marx among them. Their predictions have failed to bear fruit time and time again so it's not really much of an argument to bring up what people like them have said.
Then how come that almost never happens? Authoritarians are wielding the structures of government in ways that are grossly unfair all over the world, and maintain an iron grip on power.
Erm, was not one reason for the failure of the populace in the UK to abide by covid restrictions compared to, say, New Zealand, that the UK politicians were blatantly ignoring them in a way the NZ politicians were not?
I think there was an element of British exceptionalism to it as well.
Temporarily, yes, however if said people in power don't patch the holes, don't consider the people, and thus cause the people to lose faith in the system, then said system will fall. Either because the people actively overthrow it or because it collapses because the people stop being willing to hold up said system. All systems rely upon the people to support it in order to function. Even in tyrannical dictatorships the people have to be willing to be exploited for the dictatorship to remain in power.
This little snippet is as false as it is irrelevant.
"We the people" can, "we" just don't. In the end a large chunk of the public are not particularly invested in politics and governance, and where they engage they are often uninformed, gullible, trivial, and easily distracted.
The response will always be 'they're all as bad as each other', which is a very successful lie on the Tories' part.
It's because we're all selfish pricks.
Said systems have persisted for multiple centuries.
I ignored the part of your response that doesn't have to do with my statements. The point you came in to refute is that the SPD were conservative. Talking about other people isn't going to refute that.
Erm, in modern times that's not so much the case anymore. Britain and the US are the exceptions, being notably long lived governments. Most other countries have had their governments replaced at least once (often multiple times) in the last 2 centuries or so. Sure, often this is due to external pressures, but often this is due to internal issues.
You mean a truth. Even if someone decides to pedantically pick apart what one party or candidate or the other has done to find which one is a little microscopically tiny bit better than the other it's missing the point, that neither of them are good at period, but also are the only real options. It doesn't even matter if one party is 100x better than the other if said party is still terrible, it just shows how far the standards have fallen that THIS is what we have to choose from.
www.newscientist.com
If the vast majority vote for one party or the other, how are they not the ones who decide the election? Seems like the ones who follow the campaign don't have the power (numbers) to do that.
If the conservatives are defined and understood, and they do not have the same beliefs and policies as the SPD, then the inescapable logic is that the SPD is not conservative.
That's not how that works. There are infinite ways to be conservative or progressive. Disagreeing with a conservative doesn't mean you aren't also conservative.
"All the while the vast majority of "We the People" vote for whatever party they've always voted for."
