u/cold-vein

I will also rate them on a scale of 1-5. Note these are not my opinions on the movies themselves, Brosnan has a top 3 Bond movie and Dalton doesn't even crack the top 5.

Sean Connery:
Connery is amazingly charismatic and just the right kind of ruggedly handsome Bond requires. He's got everything going for him, and his Bond is iconic for a reason. However I do think his version of the character is perhaps a bit bland; it's simply Sean Connery as a secret agent. He brings little nuance to his portrayal, staying pretty much the same for his whole run. He doesn't surprise, his Bond is a caricature and never strays far from Connery. 4/5

George Lazenby:
Another case of a charismatic dude doing himself as a secret agent. Lazenby's Bond is a lot softer than the others, sure the script is basically Bond in love but Lazenby himself wasn't a tough guy. He's not a very good actor either but very likeable. 2/5

Roger Moore:
Roger was the first to NOT play himself as Bond, and his Bond is a fucking psycho. He displays little emotion past "stressed" or "in pain", he's got a permanent smirk on his face and he seems to enjoy killing people the same as having sex. The infamous scene where he just kicks the evil henchmen's car down a cliff pretty much defines the Moore Bond, and I think it's the funniest take for sure. 3,5/5

Timothy Dalton:
Now Timothy I think is the best actor out of all the Bonds. He's not playing himself, and he's not playing a caricature either. His Bond goes from a charismatic leader to a man falling in love to a psychotic killer within the span of like 30 minutes, and he does all three amazingly. His Bond definitely has the most range, showing Bond as a flawed but very human, a person. That said, Dalton I think when he gets mad is the craziest, he's even more mental than Moore. Moore is cold and distant, just amused but Daltons Bond if crossed will not rest until he's ripped you to shreds with his bare hands. Amazing, too bad the movies aren't that good 5/5

Pierce Brosnan:
Ah, this is a hard one. Goldeneye is one of the best Bond movies, it feels both grounded and extravagant at the same time, a balance Dalton's movies tried but couldn't quite pull off. It has iconic villains and henchmen and Bonds little pals, and Brosnan is at the top of his game. BUT, Brosnan is soft. His Bond doesn't enjoy killing, he's a hero not an antihero like Bond's supposed to be. He's charming, but he's too charming. And his movies go from bad to worse after Goldeneye. If I were to rate only the first one, he would score higher but as a whole Brosnan gets a 3/5.

Daniel Craig:
Ah, the second best actor of the series. His Bond is a new take, and probably the only one where they actually thought about who Bond is and what defines him. His Bond is an emotionally stunted manchild, a violent Gorilla in a suit who's also very intelligent and emotional. He's exactly what Bond is: a blunt instrument with too much autonomy and a tendency to go rogue, but with added sensitivity none of the others except Dalton had. Great take on the character, again Casino Royale is the best of the bunch and goes to my top 3 Bond movies. Rest are uneven, mostly bad with some great stuff occasionally, but he always keeps his performance top notch. 4/5.

As we know, republicans used to be progressives and democrats conservatives. The switch happened in the 1930s onward, democrats became liberal and republicans conservative.

Right now, we're seeing Republicans and especially MAGA supporting very radical ideas about the government, America's role globally and fusing religion with politics. It's not liberal, but it's very radical and in many ways opposite of conservative, which is defined as "Conservatism is a cultural, social, and political philosophy and ideology that seeks to promote and preserve traditional institutions, customs, and values" Democrats on the other hand ARE trying to maintain a world order defined after WW2, are very much trying to resist change.

So the question isn't whether republicans are turning liberal, but rather are they increasingly radical and democrats are increasingly conservative?

And why democrats are failing is the same story as with conservatism throughout history: the old story doesn't ring true anymore, it doesn't offer meaning to people and a majority want something new.

Edit for clarification, here are the definitions of conservative and radicalism:

"Conservatism is a cultural, social, and political philosophy and ideology that seeks to promote and preserve traditional institutions, customs, and values."

The word actually has no connotations regarding political platform. The opposite would be radicalism:

"Radicalism refers to political, social, or ideological beliefs that advocate for fundamental, "root-and-branch" change, seeking to alter the core of existing social, economic, or political structures."

Frontstreet esp, just hard shit no chorus or pop