In a newly unearthed video, North Carolina’s GOP nominee for governor says America was better then because Republicans "fought for real social change."
There’s a non-outrage-inducing non-headline grabbing logic here that is him saying he wishes republicans were more liberal
I posted this above, but it makes more sense in a reply to what you said. I wish someone in the audience had the balls to ask, “when you say Republicans, are you talking about liberals or conservatives?”
He’s trying to take credit for liberal successes, while being in the conservative party. It’d be like if King Charles tried to take credit for the success of the Boston Tea Party because it was done by British colonists.
I wish someone in the audience had the balls to ask, “when you say Republicans, are you talking about liberals or conservatives?”
Even if you got them to ask this, they’d immediately get defensive because liberal is a bad word to them simply because it means having something in common with the opposition party to them. The true meaning is lost once you get into a public political context today. Just more manipulation of language to suit keeping public opinion of their voters being on their side after consultants or analysts figure out what engages people the most.
Also after reading about this guy on wikipedia, he seems like a real piece of work. Not too surprising since you’re required to master doublespeak in all political and leadership roles to be successful today.
I posted this above, but it makes more sense in a reply to what you said. I wish someone in the audience had the balls to ask, “when you say Republicans, are you talking about liberals or conservatives?”
He’s trying to take credit for liberal successes, while being in the conservative party. It’d be like if King Charles tried to take credit for the success of the Boston Tea Party because it was done by British colonists.
Even if you got them to ask this, they’d immediately get defensive because liberal is a bad word to them simply because it means having something in common with the opposition party to them. The true meaning is lost once you get into a public political context today. Just more manipulation of language to suit keeping public opinion of their voters being on their side after consultants or analysts figure out what engages people the most.
Also after reading about this guy on wikipedia, he seems like a real piece of work. Not too surprising since you’re required to master doublespeak in all political and leadership roles to be successful today.