Dems if you are right about Trump, celebrate the destruction of the R party

[VivaRevolution]

You think China hasnt changed in these last 30 something years?

I think that China's leadership hasn't changed in 30 years.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Double

 

[VivaRevolution]

??? What do you think "things have changed" means? That everything is the same?

I described it Jack.

Reading is fundamental.

 

[Fawlty]

Well, I'm a progressive, and you basically shit on me at every chance you get, so I just assume you are a neo-liberal.

You also said nazi, which is just batshit fucking crazy. And you follow it up by asking me to tell you what I believe, which you don't know but assume conforms to the vague "neo-liberal" label you're merely throwing out there like it's supposed to stick to something- god please, stick to anything!

Your issue with me seems to be that I think your stuff is garbage and all over the place. Because you can't readily identify anything where I'm out of line politically. So, it's an emo wittle tantrum.


You have three issues, as specific or broad as you want to make them. Let me know what they are, and I'll identify where I stand on them politically. Use ideological stances, policy positions, my stance on certain events, whatever you like. Bring me three or suck my dick.

 

[Lord Commander Palis]

We have GOT to stop talking about the destruction of the Republican Party because they have been doing nothing but winning elections since 2010.

Instead let's START talking about how supposed liberals have turned into a bunch of spineless losers that don't stand for anything and are in the midst of a very real identity crisis that has left them all reeling.

That's a much more pressing issue as far as I'm concerned.

You are a wise man @theBLADE1. I will always respect your opinions.

 

[Lord Commander Palis]

Well, I'm a progressive, and you basically shit on me at every chance you get, so I just assume you are a neo-liberal.

But I will tell you what, why don't you tell me what you believe in, and then we can label it.

 

[Lord Commander Palis]

I still think we should be able to assume whatever unfounded shit we can think of about Trump because that's what they did the Mr. Obama.

Like I'm pretty sure Donald is fucking Ivanka. Because look at these pictures!!

 

[xcvbn]

This is what I have been saying. 8-years of Trump (hope he doesn't do too bad,) but he will push us and make america ready for a Democratic Socialist.

We're due. It's been 100 years since the Progressive Era ended. All we need is leader who isn't 75 years old to split from one of the two corrupt parties, some Muckrakers, intelligent but not feminazi women, and Elon Musk(maybe Jeff Bezos if he stops the Washington shitPosting).

 

[Rod1]

I think that China's leadership hasn't changed in 30 years.

Yes it has, several times with different results.

China is actually quite stable from a political perspective because while there is political bickering there is also one goal among them all.

 

[VivaRevolution]

You also said nazi, which is just batshit fucking crazy. And you follow it up by asking me to tell you what I believe, which you don't know but assume conforms to the vague "neo-liberal" label you're merely throwing out there like it's supposed to stick to something- god please, stick to anything!

Your issue with me seems to be that I think your stuff is garbage and all over the place. Because you can't readily identify anything where I'm out of line politically. So, it's an emo wittle tantrum.


You have three issues, as specific or broad as you want to make them. Let me know what they are, and I'll identify where I stand on them politically. Use ideological stances, policy positions, my stance on certain events, whatever you like. Bring me three or suck my dick.

No, I'm just not stupid enough to put a position out, that you can attack.

You can claim all you want, that you weren't just setting me up by asking me to tell you what makes you a neo-liberal, instead of telling me why you are an actual progressive, but I don't consume chump-bait.

That is called being strategically smart.

When you show me you are a quality poster, with an actual argument to make, instead repeating talking points, I will treat you as such.

From Libertarian, to centrist Dem, to far righties, I treat people fairly on here. If I don't treat you fairly, you have earned it by engaging in branding, marketing, and arguing for positions with rhetoric over substance.

I just had a back and forth with IGIT, where I made a clearly wrong statement, and I conceded the ground, and at worst we saw each others POV.

I have never seen you concede ground on here. Why would I debate with someone that shows no ability to have a productive conversation?

Instead I chose to label you.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Yeah, I did that on purpose.

Faulty wasn't trying to have a real conversation. He was trying to control the grounds of debate.

This little ploy he is engaging in, is why I constantly push for a classic debate format on here. I will debate with anyone over anything, with rules that prevent these kinds of ploys.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Yes it has, several times with different results.

China is actually quite stable from a political perspective because while there is political bickering there is also one goal among them all.

We are arguing figure head vs actual power here.

I don't think that when Xi came to power that anything actually changed.

The Communist party runs China in my opinion, and Xi is a figurehead.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Here I will prove my point with Faulty.

Hey @Fawlty, why don't you tell me why you aren't neo-liberal, or why you are an actual progressive?

See, I bet he has no interest in having this conversation, because he will be putting out a position that can be attacked, and that he will have to defend, which is a great way to lose a debate before it has even started.

 

[Rod1]

We are arguing figure head vs actual power here.

I don't think that when Xi came to power that anything actually changed.

The Communist party runs China in my opinion, and Xi is a figurehead.

The Communist party is not a conciouss entity, the person at the head is quite certainly capable of establishing the current policy of the party, the party of course will change its head because a single individual holding much power would create instability, so its more like a game of chairs that ensures power succession process without coups, the fact that China has managed such large growths for so much time is testament to their political stability.

Meanwhile a two party system is the most weak system out there because it encourages half the country to obstruct and cause as much harm to the other half with the hope to make the other side look bad.

In a working plural democracy republican obstructionism would had been punished with republicans drifting into irrelevance, instead it rewarded them because it made the ruling party to look bad and thus make people vote for the alternative.

 

[IppoMakanuchi]

We are arguing figure head vs actual power here.

I don't think that when Xi came to power that anything actually changed.

The Communist party runs China in my opinion, and Xi is a figurehead.

You very clearly don't know anything about China or its history.

China has only been in the process of instituting State Run Capitalism for a little over 30 years now. And yet that decision led to massive internal and external change.

 

[VivaRevolution]

You very clearly don't know anything about China or its history.

China has only been in the process of instituting State Run Capitalism for a little over 30 years now. And yet that decision led to massive internal and external change.

Of course it did. That is in no way evidence against my statement.

By what mechanism do you think new people came to power in China?

 

[VivaRevolution]

The Communist party is not a conciouss entity, the person at the head is quite certainly capable of establishing the current policy of the party, the party of course will change its head because a single individual holding much power would create instability, so its more like a game of chairs that ensures power succession process without coups, the fact that China has managed such large growths for so much time is testament to their political stability.

Meanwhile a two party system is the most weak system out there because it encourages half the country to obstruct and cause as much harm to the other half with the hope to make the other side look bad.

In a working plural democracy republican obstructionism would had been punished with republicans drifting into irrelevance, instead it rewarded them because it made the ruling party to look bad and thus make people vote for the alternative.

I never argued that a government ran by Caesar wasn't effective, just that it has the fatal flaw of eventually leading to Nero.

 

[Deleted member 196663]

A note to Dems, if you are right about Trump, celebrate the permanent destruction of the Republican party.

Folks you can not follow GW Bush, with a equal or worse failure of Trump, and think that Republicans will ever win an election again in our life times.

Now, if Trump fails, but not to the level of disaster that was Bush, then you need to ask yourself why you are screaming like a lunatic with your hair on fire about Trump. However, if you are right, and Trump is more dangerous then Bush, it is time to sit back and enjoy the check mate.

Dems, wake up and smell the roses. We are in a win, win scenario. Either Trump succeeds and the party of obstructionism is no more, or he fails and the Republican party is no more.

Little advice to my fellow Dems though. We can not pick up the Republican playbook of obstructionism, and manufacture Trump's failure. Let Trump and the Republicans succeed or fail on their own merits. By attempting to manufacture failure, the Dems could very well be playing into the worst outcome possible of a stale mate.

It's impossible for either party to fail when they are literally the only viable alternative. How long until this becomes obvious?

 

[Teppodama]

I still think we should be able to assume whatever unfounded shit we can think of about Trump because that's what they did the Mr. Obama.

Like I'm pretty sure Donald is fucking Ivanka. Because look at these pictures!!

Come on now let's be fair. Wouldn't you slip her the D too. I mean look at her...

 

[VivaRevolution]

It's impossible for either party to fail when they are literally the only viable alternative. How long until this becomes obvious?

I used to believe in 3rd parties, until we had an election with Trump and Clinton, and GJ got 3%, and Stein 1%.

I mean if it happens, great, I'm with you. I have no belief that it will ever happen at this point.

I guess there is a court case coming up where someone is suing the FEC to democratize the presidential primary process. If that happens there is hope, but with the rules as they are, it is futile.