International Oligarchy is not just a Russian phenomenon. It exists right here in the USA.

[filthybliss]

I mean it wouldn't surprise me, some people take their trolling very seriously. Bro you've literally questioned my sanity multiple times for saying every other developed country has healthcare and that the media and our politicians are beholden to corporate interests

Lets see the receipts.

I mean it wouldn't surprise me, some people take their trolling very seriously. Bro you've literally questioned my sanity multiple times for saying every other developed country has healthcare and that the media and our politicians are beholden to corporate interests, this stuff isn't remotely controversial

I agreed with you on all of that on a surface level. My issue is that you overemphasize the extent and act like the world would magically morph into Bernie's image if you "drained the swamp". I have explained this specific disagreement that I have with you several times and you go off on a tanget completely neglecting that fundamental point.

What do you think of Jack lying? Do you acknowledge that Jack lied in this thread multiple times?

I don't agree with him or Imamate on Unions, I honestly haven't parsed through your back and forth. It seems like a merry-go round.

 

[deviake]

Lets see the receipts.


I agreed with you on all of that on a surface level. My issue is that you overemphasize the extent and act like the world would magically morph into Bernie's image if you "drained the swamp". I have explained this specific disagreement that I have with you several times and you go off on a tanget completely neglecting that fundamental point.


I don't agree with him or Imamate on Unions, I honestly haven't parsed through your back and forth. It seems like a merry-go round.

No, the posts are there for all to see, I'm not playing fetch again. I think you're a troll.

Did Jack lie in this thread multiple times or not? I tagged you in a post that you ignored.

@Islam Imamate

Did Jack lie in this thread or not?

 

[brothir]

What even is the core contention anymore? What end point is all this arguing serving right now?

 

[UberHere]

The guy literally doesn’t know that tax refunds are refunds from overpaying. He's not any more worthy of attention than someone shouting on a street corner.

Prime example of why democrats lost. I think I know what I pay in federal taxes every year whereas people who collect tax refunds usually don’t. Oh but show me this article that tells me reality isn’t reality.

 

[Jack V Savage]

What even is the core contention anymore? What end point is all this arguing serving right now?

The discussion was his weird claim that the liberal party in America is pretty right-wing. I pointed out that that was wrong, and then he cited some policies, and I pointed out that Democrats don’t have full control of gov't (at times they have almost no control). He had no real response to that except to misrepresent me as having said he's "a wackjob for saying every other country has healthcare and several have better public programs," which obviously wasn't my claim (I certainly agree that some aspects of American policy are to the right). And then he started flipping out and calling me a liar. He brought @Sinister in to repeat a trolly attack that I previously let go.

 

[Jack V Savage]

No, the posts are there for all to see, I'm not playing fetch again. I think you're a troll.

Did Jack lie in this thread multiple times or not? I tagged you in a post that you ignored.

@Islam Imamate

Did Jack lie in this thread or not?

Everyone is a troll to you because you're unable to conceive of people just believing different things than you do. Even in the broader world, it seems you classify people as evil or dupes of evil people if they don't agree with you on everything. This is madness, but it flows naturally from your inability to evaluate arguments logically.

 

[brothir]

The discussion was his weird claim that the liberal party in America is pretty right-wing. I pointed out that that was wrong, and then he cited some policies, and I pointed out that Democrats don’t have full control of gov't (at times they have almost no control). He had no real response to that except to misrepresent me as having said he's "a wackjob for saying every other country has healthcare and several have better public programs," which obviously wasn't my claim. And then he started flipping out and calling me a liar. He brought @Sinister in to repeat a trolly attack that I previously let go.

I'm really useless at keeping track of discussions that drift.

 

[brothir]

Everyone is a troll to you because you're unable to conceive of people just believing different things than you do. Even in the broader world, it seems you classify people as evil or dupes of evil people if they don't agree with you on everything. This is madness, but it flows naturally from your inability to evaluate arguments logically.

It seems like being angry at Republicans instead of Democrats would solve all his problems. Doesn't have to be more complicated than that.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I'm really useless at keeping track of discussions that drift.

Yeah, I don't know how many people care after one or two exchanges. Just seems tempting to respond because I think I can make clear enough points that refute what he's saying that even he'd have to admit that it's right. Naive of me, I guess, but I'm optimistic by nature.

 

[UberHere]

It seems like being angry at Republicans instead of Democrats would solve all his problems. Doesn't have to be more complicated than that.

That’s the two system for you. Lots of room to disagree with your own side

 

[Jack V Savage]

It seems like being angry at Republicans instead of Democrats would solve all his problems. Doesn't have to be more complicated than that.

Well, that's the dispute, right? Why don’t we have more left-wing policy? Is it because Republicans win elections and oppose it or because Democrats are secretly crawling with saboteurs? Answer to that determines your approach.

Relatedly, I think a lot of leftists are truly mistaken about how popular their policies are. They believe if Dems took bold, leftists stands, they'd win overwhelming majorities, but they don't take those easy wins because they'd rather lose to Republicans than implement leftist policy. I think that is extremely far from reality (my view is that Dems lose winnable elections because they have leftist principles that they aren't willing to compromise on).

Those real disputes don't get discussed because leftists regard their view as established beyond any doubt and so obviously true that anyone who expresses disagreement with them is only pretending because of some corrupt (if they're bought off) or evil motive.

 

[Jack V Savage]

That was also underlying my dispute with Sinister. I agree that if you ask people if they want better programs, most will say yes. But it's also true that if you ask if they want to pay for those programs (including with debt), they'll say no.

 

[Sinister]

That was also underlying my dispute with Sinister. I agree that if you ask people if they want better programs, most will say yes. But it's also true that if you ask if they want to pay for those programs (including with debt), they'll say no.

First off, saying you did a thing you did is not an "attack." Dont go all TYT anytime you have heated opposition to your contentions.

Secondly no, single-issue polling has shown that progressive social safety net expansions are popular even if people realize they may result in some modicum of tax increase. They're less popular than if you just ask if people would like them, but the support doesnt hist disappear, and still consists of the majority of people.

 

[Jack V Savage]

First off, saying you did a thing you did is not an "attack." Dont go all TYT anytime you have heated opposition to your contentions.

It is. Instead of just acknowledging that we disagree or trying to show why I should agree with you, you say that I'm side-stepping you. I'm happy to examine my reasoning or look at facts you might think I've overlooked, but I'm really not interested in how you think my failuee to agree with shows my personal flaws or having my motives questioned. Why would anyone care about that?

Repeating false assertions also doesn't do it for me.

 

[Sinister]

It is. Instead of just acknowledging that we disagree or trying to show why I should agree with you, you say that I'm side-stepping you. I'm happy to examine my reasoning or look at facts you might think I've overlooked, but I'm really not interested in how you think my failuee to agree with shows my personal flaws or having my motives questioned. Why would anyone care about that?

Repeating false assertions also doesn't do it for me.

Side-stepping is not a failure to agree.

 

[deviake]

The illusion of serious discussion. If you write 10 paragraphs it must be serious stuff right? But after a while you get that's its 95% windbag horseshit and 5% dishonesty. He's going to act all surprised at this but the point is not to let yourself fall for it.

I don't totally know what his game is but I don't rule out a personality disorder. I've dealt with people with legit mental illness/personality disorders in real life and that's how he comes off on these here internets.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Side-stepping is not a failure to agree.

Not in reality. Your accusation is based on that.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I don't totally know what his game is but I don't rule out a personality disorder. I've dealt with people with legit mental illness/personality disorders in real life and that's how he comes off on these here internets.

Of course. The only reason anyone would disagree with you is some horrible defect. Probably bad breath too.

 

[Sinister]

Well, that's the dispute, right? Why don’t we have more left-wing policy? Is it because Republicans win elections and oppose it or because Democrats are secretly crawling with saboteurs? Answer to that determines your approach.

Relatedly, I think a lot of leftists are truly mistaken about how popular their policies are. They believe if Dems took bold, leftists stands, they'd win overwhelming majorities, but they don't take those easy wins because they'd rather lose to Republicans than implement leftist policy. I think that is extremely far from reality (my view is that Dems lose winnable elections because they have leftist principles that they aren't willing to compromise on).

Those real disputes don't get discussed because leftists regard their view as established beyond any doubt and so obviously true that anyone who expresses disagreement with them is only pretending because of some corrupt (if they're bought off) or evil motive.

The contention that US Democrats have been "too left" is comically absurd and flies in the face of essentially global interpretation of the Overton Window. Ever since the parted started accepting corporate influence over Union influence, things have been skewed and what ensued was a habitual "run right" reaction any time Democrats have had to contend with any significant issue. Or at the very most lukewarm vehement verbal advocacy, while delivering nothing to effect citizens.

We have data that this has cost voters, lessened engagement, and allowed the opposition to make strongholds out of what used to be States and Counties that voted back and forth more often. And how did they do it? With populism. I dont know how many times liberals need to get kicked in the teeth in defeat by populist campaigns before they just accept that they cannot dictate to the people what they want. Hell this is so potent there are a few "progressive" Democrats who got elected on populist platforms only to to turncoat and become conservative once in office. And what message does that send? Some have fully just turned Republican.

What's the last actual left thing that happened as a Country? What was that marriage equality? Yeah Obama had to contend with reversal of his own previously conservative position on that. And these things even have to be made with conservative type of arguments. Abortion access was passed because conservatives USED to believe the State had no right to intervene in your medical affairs. Marriage equality won because some conservatives in power still believed that equal protection under the law was a viable concept.

And over time the more Democrats have formed that habit of running right (as they have done more recently with racial issues, being as Harris outright refused to address them, trans issues, Harris also stayed far away from those, being "tough on Crime" as Clinton helped with deleterious policies to minorities who then get blamed for those policies existing, and now the border wheren they dont advocate for migrants insomuch as all they do is say Republicans are hyoicrites... which no one cares about), the closer we've come to fascism. This is not a coincidence, and it has haooenednhistorically numerous times.

 

[Sinister]

Not in reality. Your accusation is based on that.

I said you side-stepped because you side-stepped. When confronted with the notion that single-issue polling indicates policies people are in favor of, your reply was "yeah people all want good things." Lol

You're aware of how silly an answer that was. But the herculean effort displayed here to reframe it is admirable on some level.