Kristol is, but Carville, the person being quoted, was Clinton’s main campaign strategist (both Bill and Hillary) and has been a consultant for a very large amount of centrist democrat campaigns on all levels. He has always been a Democrat, but in the Clintonite wing of the party.

No we vote for neither. Maybe you should support a party who has anything to offer or any reason to vote for them other than “we are extremely very evil right-wing genocide supporters, but we promise the other side can still be worse”

No, you don’t get how elections work. If they can support genocide and ICE and building the wall and, and, and… but because they are more competent and polite than Trump, they are lesser evil. And they should be able to take votes for granted for everyone that isn’t “moderate Republicans” and those are the only ones that they should appeal to, everyone else is just expected to have blind loyalty to the Party in terms of “vote blue no matter who” then they have no incentive at all not to just make every evil the Republicans do bipartisan and just keep moving right and enabling the Republicans like they have done for the last 30 years, at least. If there is supposed to be nothing they should lose my vote for, there is nothing they wont do.

No, you’re describing .world. This is the truth.

No, the USSR did agree to take Eastern Poland in Molotov-Ribbentrop, but they did wait until after the Nazis took the western part before starting their invasion. A combination of waiting to see if Poland could fight off the Nazis, meaning that they didn’t have to worry about further Nazi expansion, and after that moving the border west to provide more territory needing to be taken in an eventual war with Germany.

No they didn’t. If a non-aggression pact allowing Nazi annexation of territory is equivalent to an alliance, then France and Britain allied with the Nazis multiple times before the Soviets. There is a reason about how the only non-aggression pact that you hear about is Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and not the Munich Agreements or the Franco-German Declaration, etc. The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact came out of the Soviets being turned down multiple times by France and Britain to forming an anti-fascist alliance.

This is the selective remembrance of appeasement. It is ignored that that encompassed many non-aggression pacts with the Nazis and is only remembered to selectively invoke for war hawking. If we say a nation is evil, than not being on board with a war of aggression is actually evil (Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, etc.) and you are just like Chamberlain, whose only motivation was being a pussy. You can discuss the morality or effectiveness, but Molotov-Ribbentrop was to try to delay the war for preparation and that the Nazis wouldn’t be stupid enough to start a war without their own oil and steel supplies and without preventing a possibility of a two front war with France/Britain, and the Soviets were caught flat-footed because of overestimating the rationality of the Nazis. There was also the worry that France and Britain might eventually join the Nazis since they were pretty vocal about fascism being a possible necessary evil as it is the most extreme form of anti-communism, even though the attempt of appeasement was trying to sit out an eventual war between the Nazis and USSR, since Judeo-Bolshevism was a thing Nazis believed before they even took power.