Zone1 And On A Personal Note....

[PoliticalChic]

I responded with a large post and respectfully addressed every detail of what they said to me. No, they won't actually respond to any of it. They will name call and deflect, but never actually engage the content of my post. That's because their rhetoric has no depth.

I'm getting the feeling you won't be honest about what will unfold though, so I'm quickly losing interest.

Did you say this?

“…you have no substance underneath your rhetoric.”

Well, Now It’s Out In The Open…. post #119

 

[alang1216]

Oh, I believe Anomalism can be beat.

Anyone can be beat but she will not even try, I bet.

 

[Anomalism]

Did you say this?

“…you have no substance underneath your rhetoric.”

Well, Now It’s Out In The Open…. post #119

Robert W

Non response number 1.

 

[PoliticalChic]

They're not here to debate. The OPs strategy is to exhaust people with sludge while ignoring the content of their posts.

Name calling and deflection with fear propaganda is all they have beneath the surface.

Education has always been my mission.

I provide facts and build to the issue posed in my OPs.

Clearly my OPs have substance, you simply lie.

 

[alang1216]

Did you say this?

“…you have no substance underneath your rhetoric.”

Well, Now It’s Out In The Open…. post #119

First response: a whataboutism

 

[Anomalism]

Education has always been my mission.

I provide facts and build to the issue posed in my OPs.

Clearly my OPs have substance, you simply lie.

Robert W

Non response number two.

 

[Anomalism]

The OP was also invited to face me one on one in a structured debate. They won't do that either, because there is nothing but name calling and empty propaganda beneath the rhetoric.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The OP was also invited to face me one on one in a structured debate. They won't do that either, because there is nothing but name calling and empty propaganda beneath the rhetoric.

You will be forced to understand that you will do things my way.


Do you know what " having substance" means?


Answer or slink away as a low-life cur that you are.

 

[Anomalism]

You will be forced to understand that you will do things my way.


Do you know what " having substance" means?


Answer or slink away as a low-live cur that you are.

Robert W

Third post, still ignoring the content of my earlier response.

How many times does this poster need to demonstrate their inability to debate before you'll admit it?

Calling me a low life cur is just straight up ad hominem. I have not name called this poster. I've simply been honest about their tactics and lack of engagement.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Robert W

Third post, still ignoring the content of my earlier response.

How many times does this poster need to demonstrate their inability to debate before you'll admit it?

You voluntarily subscribed to my thread.

I make the rules.


Answer the question:

Do you know what " having substance" means?


Answer or slink away as a low-live cur that you are.

 

[Anomalism]

You voluntarily subscribed to my thread.

I make the rules.


Answer the question:

Do you know what " having substance" means?


Answer or slink away as a low-live cur that you are.

Robert W

Non response number 4.

 

[Robert W]

Calling me a low life cur is just straight up ad hominem.

That is a true point in your favor.

You try hard to pay her back by constantly discussing her but ignoring her major points.

 

[Anomalism]

That is a true point in your favor.

You try hard to pay her back by constantly discussing her but ignoring her major points.

Are you serious? I responded comprehensively and in depth to what they said to me. They have yet to respond to any of it, and they won't, because there's nothing there.

Be honest Robert. I know you can.

You saw my post. You said this poster would respond. They haven't. They won't.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Robert W

Non response number 4.

I just proved that you are the one who wouldn't respond.


You've been beaten as badly as Carthage in the Third Punic War anf is now making demands on Scipio Africanus and the victorious Romans. losers do not make demands. They make requests. They make pleas.

And when I demand an answer, you answer.

 

[Robert W]

How many progressives do you honestly know? I know plenty and they don't fit your description.

Why don't you stick to actual parties to discuss?

 

[Anomalism]

I just proved that you are the one who wouldn't respond.


You've been beaten as badly as Carthage in the Third Punic War anf is now making demands on Scipio Africanus and the victorious Romans. losers do not make demands. They make requests. They make pleas.

And when I demand an answer, you answer.

Non response number 5.

Robert W

I responded in depth to what this poster said to me. You saw it. You pinged this poster and said they would engage. They haven't, and they won't.

 

[Leo123]

I see this all the time and it always gives me the same thought:

If liberalism and leftism and progressivism were so good and doing so well and so obviously liked, then why is it that progressives are always so miserable and unhappy to discuss and debate their policies and their successes?

I have noticed that lefties are always very vocal about their politics assuming everyone agrees with their POV.

 

[Robert W]

Non response number 5.

Robert W

I responded in depth to what this poster said to me. You saw it. You pinged this poster and said they would engage. They haven't, and they won't.

She responded so you decided not to reply to her, but to pull me into your charade.

 

[Anomalism]

Robert W

In case you forgot my response that they never did and never will respond to...

You’re not presenting facts. You’re presenting ideology masquerading as fact, and the more important question is why do you need the enemy to be that evil to justify your position?

1. “Most of us remember when Democrats denied being socialist/communist.”

Mainstream Democrats support mixed-market capitalism, not state ownership of all production. Words like “communist” are used here not as accurate descriptions, but as weapons, a way to paint your opponents as inherently un-American. That’s Cold War cosplay, not policy analysis.

2. “Progressives share sympathies with communists.”

Sharing some values, like wanting a safety net or worker protections, doesn’t make someone a communist. By that logic, Dwight Eisenhower, who expanded Social Security and built the interstate highway system, was a Marxist. This “guilt by adjacency” tactic is intellectually lazy and historically dishonest. Kengor’s quote is propaganda, not scholarship. Saying “dupes” doesn’t prove people are dupes. It just assumes your worldview is the only valid one.

3. “Communist Bernie got more votes than Hillary in 2020 and had it stolen.”

She wasn’t even running in 2020, and in 2016, she won both the popular vote and the delegate count. If your narrative needs fiction to work, that should tell you something. Also, Bernie is a democratic socialist, not a communist. There’s a massive difference, and you know it. You just don’t care, because precision gets in the way of fear.

4. “Only one Democrat voter said they’d reconsider depending on the agenda.”

That’s not data, it’s anecdote, and if you think your thread proves all Democrats are communists because one anonymous person didn’t express doubt, you’re not arguing; you’re proselytizing.

5. “Openly Marxist candidates are running and winning under the Democrat banner.”

Yes, a handful of DSA-backed candidates have won local or state elections. That doesn’t mean the party as a whole is Marxist. A few libertarian anarchists also run under the GOP. Should I say that proves Republicans are an anti-government insurgency, or do I owe them more intellectual honesty than that?

Your closer “The Democrat Party is not American.”

Here’s where the mask slips. This isn’t about policy. This is about identity, purity, and exclusion. You’re saying half the country isn’t really American if they disagree with you. That’s not patriotism. That’s factionalism taken to a dangerous place. Historically, every authoritarian movement starts by deciding who really belongs. Calling fellow Americans “comrades” as a slur tells me more about your insecurity than your argument.

If your ideology depends on demonizing tens of millions of citizens as enemies of the nation, maybe it’s not actually about loving America. Maybe it’s about fearing change, and maybe what you’re calling “truth” is just an excuse to stop listening.

 

[Anomalism]

She responded so you decided not to reply to her, but to pull me into your charade.

They didn't respond to the content of my post that was in response to what they said. They are deflecting and avoiding actual debate. They don't engage the content of people trying to debate. I have demonstrated that thoroughly now.

You said you would be honest. I knew you wouldn't be. Have a nice day.