Let's assume those parent organizations are backed by conservative donors. So what?
Hopefully it did happen. That's hilarious.
If the dose was low enough to not permanently mess him up, then it was too low to be detectable.
A botched poisoning with Novichok makes someone a retarded cripple. Whatever happened to Navalny it couldn't have been one of the most absurdly effective nerve agents on the planet, especially considering the supposed time between exposure and treatmemt.
Navalny may have been poisoned, but it wasn't Novichok. It is hard to understate the lethality of modern chemical weapons. If there had been a couple drops(enough to kill thousands) in his tea as is theorized, he would have dropped dead by the time he boarded the plane, and he certainly wouldn't be casually walking out of the hospital a couple weeks later.
The right's main problem is that they are extremely hierarchical. As long as there is no clear leader, there will always be pointless in-fighting as people instinctively struggle for dominance, whether they intend to be doing so or not. Once that leader emerges though, everyone quickly falls in line and starts pushing together, as Trump proved.
Lizaddon the Harmless launches the 13th Never Trump Crusade from the Eye of Pedos against Mar-a-Cadia.
A cry for help in time of need! Await relief from holy league.
Harris doesn't want to stop the decline towards bug eaters fucking mutilated pod children. He wants the regime to stop being so obvious and lull the population back to sleep as they were under Clinton or Blair.
Lincoln's First Inaugural Address is a fun read for destroying the regime narrative. Lincoln is the only sitting President to endorse an amendment to the constitution to protect slavery:
I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution--which amendment, however, I have not seen--has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.
Every side in a war has it's own narrative. The Southern narrative is that it was about their peculiar institution of slavery, partly because the anxiety over whites being genocided as happened in Haiti was very motivating for the war effort. The Northern narrative is that it was about preserving the Union as Lincoln addresses here:
It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union... I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws the Union is unbroken, and to the extent of my ability, I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States... The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere.
Ironically again, progressives have taken up the Southern narrative of the war, except they are disappointed the South didn't get the Haiti experience.
The North always was, and is, racist but not in the same way as the South. The Yankees didn't have much exposure to blacks until after the war, when there was a large migration northwards. Before, they wanted to save the noble savage. After, they thought blacks needed to be segregated and strictly managed, which persists to this day informally despite the stated preferences of affluent white progressives.
The South won reconstruction. There were various southern partisans that harassed the Northern occupation forces the entire time. It came to a head when Wade Hampton won the governorship of South Carolina following a wave of bloody street fighting. He subtly threatened to kick off a second round of open warfare if the North didn't leave, so they did.
Many Northerners had grown sympathetic to the South as they were being tyrannized by the occupation forces. Ironically by the end, the North had adopted the Southern view of race and the South took up Northern economics. This all tends to get glossed over because, in the post-colonial framework of the New Left, the South inevitably appears as the subaltern fighting for liberation from Northern colonialism.
When prop 209 passed in California and banned affirmative action, the colleges looked for proxy measures to use. They first tried using primarily financial measures, but that brought in too many slavs and Armenians so they started weighting school districts instead.
It's self defense at this point. How many innocents are the feds allowed to kill before they are recognized as the most dangerous terror organization in the US?
The nuclear option is rapidly becoming the only path to reform. Wipe out the teachers' union. Fire every single Florida Education Association employee. It would be safer for the students to randomly pick people off the streets and make them teachers.
MMT views taxes as money destroyed. In order to get cash back out of the economy they are sending out an army of IRS agents to rifle through everyone's couch cushions for loose change. Thus solving inflation once and for all.
It would force them to examine the sources of their foundational assumptions and reveal some of the contradictions. They both operate off the idea that various liberal ideas are derived scientifically in the same way gravity is derived by observing an apple fall, which is absurd on its face. If they realized that all laws are by nature a codification of metaphysically derived morality, they'd have to take a hard look at their own religious principles which often conflict with observable reality, such as racial differences or the societal harm caused by LGBT.
One of them is almost entirely an argument about what is truth, which is a really interesting question but neither of them say anything worthwhile about it. If they had started to seriously approach truth, they would have risked shattering liberalism. It's not worth listening to at all.
If he actually believed there was a deadly highly-contagious disease going around, he wouldn't be out at a restaurant.
I'm a fan of schapism.
This has been warned about for far longer than two decades.
That sounds like a standard line from an employee at a amusement park.
They steal more than what we give them plans for. I've personally witnessed a Chinese company in the US plop down a giant German built machine(I'm being intentionally vague) to the side of their production floor, 3D scan it, take a couple bolts off, scan again, etc. It appeared to be a common routine for them and didn't make sense in the context of their business.
Let's check in on the beautiful rainbow nation of South Africa to see what the future holds... uh oh.
You're thinking too small. Put out a giant Holocaust denial display and talk about how the books could get you put in jail in many first world countries.