Protestant/Unionist

That is mainly the root of it. The Catholic-Protestant divide is mirrored as the Republican-Unionist divide. Even if the religion could be separated the political implication remained.

Which made things especially tough for the Protestants in the republic and all the Catholics in the union.

I can offer up a story on it from a British Business magazine, if the Novara source seems biased or uncredible.

https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/un-report-systematic-sexual-violence-israeli-detention-1792474

Conservatism can easily be a form of liberalism, and can even be considered progressive. It sounds contradictory but conservatism of progressive traditions, customs, and values is a component of many liberal societies. That’s your Teddy Roosevelts, the Southern New Deal Democrats, and the Blue Dog coalition.

there is no necessary overlap afaik.

As long as it is recognized that overlap isn’t a necessity, I think this is fine. The important thing to remember is that none of these terms are wholly exclusive to each other. Discussion just needs to agree to the context of used terms.

Plenty of (big C) Conservatives want to conserve the social institutions of racial segregation or other regressive concepts. But you can also legitimately say Xi Xinping is a conservative in the context of the PRC. So there’s a wide field for the context of the terms to get stretched around and (mis)used and (mis)interpreted.

Liberalism too. It is a concept that has existed and been applied to right wing monarchies and left wing republics. The entire French Revolution is exemplary in how these terms have no strict limit and so a baseline of agreed context is what is necessary.

The former starts its life as the latter anyway.

That’s why there was a whole rest of the sentence.

That’s a better comparison, actually. Mitt very publicly doesn’t like Trump, but voted with him like 80% of the time.

If I were to Americanize it: This is essentially if Ted Cruz, or better yet Chris Christie, beat Donald Trump in the general election. Undeniably a good thing as it’d mean no more Trump and it’s kinda humilating for him.

But it means… yeah. One of them at the helm.

America supported Pol Pot in the U.N., yes, but the direct aid continues to be denied/mired in controversy, whereas the funding of Israel is an integral part of the American electoral system and not some backroom deal of the executive.

The difference in that alone, aid or not, is especially pertinent with Israel. It’s not a denial of aid to the Khmer Rouge, but the fundamental nature of the aid to Israel that is different.

Pol Pot and Rwanda weren’t directly aided and funded by most westerners tax dollars, nor committed explicitly and on daily video by their ‘allies’.

Nitpicking over such details doesn’t change the particulars.

They’re just referring to the martial law and white terror period that existed on the island for almost 4 decades. But it’s been almost as long since than it lasted.

It’s a pretty important period for Taiwan, but interestingly enough this shows that the people of Taiwan today are less inclined to maintain that stance despite that history.

However I wager that’s likely due to a rejection of association with the PRC than an identification with being Taiwanese alone.

The 0.01 holds 1.77 trillion so the distribution is skewed. Furthermore there are likely many thousands of accounts in the ‘small’ amounts of tens of thousands, ostensibly for every member of an extended family in things like trust funds, etc.

That was Trump’s go-to his first term. Why not the second? These ghouls are lasting longer than ever.

It includes all land between the Euphrates and the Nile. Portions of Egypt and Saudi also in the crosshairs.

These protests are a place for organizing and networking.

But what’s really being danced around is “Why are there not politicians converting this movement into effective policy?”

And we all know that the power brokers and leaders of the political parties are being paid to ignore them and keep it a leaderless and rudderless movement. We saw the exsct same thing with Occupy Wall Street and thst resulted in lobbyists codifying their bribery into law.

Best bang for their buck placating a large and influential political body.

They’re trying to save ICE for use during a Democratic administration. This is how Senate Democrats are calculating their politics. They’re approaching this from the angle that the current admin is ruining ICE.

Like, they fundamentally support Iran war and regime change, and only oppose that this guy is doing it so badly.

Uhm, it all comes back to the EO, which sums it up better than I could.

Crazy how that was a winning message.

Also the most uninformed Lemmy user is likely far more informed than your average American voter. That’s why that shit worked.

Places in Africa are finding out about this the hard way right now.

For the most part what’s happened is that China is not longer funding new and more Africa infrastructure. A lot of this is due to the infrastructure having now been built, and the economic benefits from said infrastructure being used to pay the loans back. As intended.

I also question if powering all of Cuba is really something even they could do in a span of weeks.

They utilize I think 20% solar currently, but the problem is also storage for nighttime power consumption. Even if they could generate 100% during the day they also need the infrastructure to store or generate for nighttime.