I assumed you meant the competent republican will be so successful, the party will win the next election and the dems will not be able to compete. So you would rather they fail and let you win.
But now I realise that you actually implied they will rig the elections, which makes me think you are dramatising even more, since I doubt that will happen.
Maybe you are right, but I would not underestimate how quickly things can change. The did change quickly with Trump, did they not?
Why would they not support him? A sizeable portion of their base love the guy. He has a lot of power.
And why would the situation not change if a more sensible person assumed leadership of the party? Things can change rather quickly, and if his term goes badly I doubt the conservative establishment will appreciate another idiot nominee with a god complex.
The democrats nominated a barely functioning senile man that can’t string a sentence together for president twice. That does not mean that every single nominee that comes after is going to have dementia, does it?
Would you say the americans adopted the ebglish language from the british?
Being more competent than Trump is hardly remarkable.
I believe you are being unfair to republicans. I understand the desire to caricature the other side, but this is unbecoming of Boddhisatva.
Would you rather not have a competent government? You are dramatising a bit I believe.
But when that happened, the americans were not a group distinct from the british, they were a part of the state that did that, so it is not the case that they adopted slavery from the brits, like it is not the case they adopted english from the brits for example.
1)The british did not invent slavery.
2)Americans did not adopt it from the british because they had been practising it since they emerged as a nation.
No, not really.
Maybe the next Republican will be more sensible.
I read it as "robot that can eat orgasms for fuel. My version is better.
Also, if something can’t be disproven, it isn’t science.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_science
Read this. I used to favour Popper, but I now quite like Kuhn. Kuhn is based.
My point is that the scientific endeavour according to Kuhn is not an inherently critical one(as it is with Popper, for example). Science is based on dogmas, positions and suppositions that are not questioned within a paradigm.
Jesus was a first century Jew, he was almost certainly not a socialist.
If you get rid of the rich, what will you do then? The institutions we have now, the social order we have now, what will you replace it with? Who will control the economy and by what means?
I would say that America can afford a safety net, it just doesn’t do it for ideological reasons.
I mean, I am not trying to scare you, just showing you that a lack of investment is bad.
Yeah, when welfare and pensions are butchered because the EU is trying to salvage the deindustrialising increasingly uncompetitive economy by pouring lots of money in the military-industrial complex instead of social services this is going to be soooo awesome. Only Europe is going to be doing that in a much more fiscally constrained environment that America. Greaaaat.
Did Northern Ireland adopt the Irish language from Ireland after the treaty then?