Well, Now It’s Out In The Open….

[Lisa558]

Classy Leftist? 1 of them actually exists-)

Which one?

 

[Anomalism]

Damn Chic, you yank their chains so hard, they just can not help baring their a**es while embarrassing themselves, lol!

Yanking chains is the only thing this poster does. Their refusal to engage with substance and instead relying on deflections and ad hominem attacks shows that.

 

[imawhosure]

Yanking chains is the only thing this poster does. Their refusal to engage with substance and instead relying on deflections and ad hominem attacks shows that.

Then invite the lady to a debate. Start a thread, and we will watch! See who wins!

 

[Anomalism]

Then invite the lady to a debate. Start a thread, and we will watch! See who wins!

I have invited them multiple times to debate in their own threads. The OP refuses to engage in actual debate. I don't think that's why this person is here. I think they're here to preach fear and binary thinking while exhausting opposition with ad hominem attacks and sludge overload.

This person doesn't debate honestly. If you read their threads it's obvious.

 

[imawhosure]

I have invited them multiple times to debate in their own threads. The OP refuses to engage in actual debate. I don't think that's why this person is here. I think they're here to preach fear and binary thinking while exhausting opposition with ad hominem attacks and sludge overload.

This person doesn't debate honestly. If you read their threads it's obvious.

OK, then I ask the CHIC to debate you, 1 on 1. If she refuses, you automatically win. Fair enough?

 

[Anomalism]

OK, then I ask the CHIC to debate you, 1 on 1. If she refuses, you automatically win. Fair enough?

Sure.

The rules would have to involve no ad hominem attacks and no fearmongering with Cold War era propaganda.

On topic policy discussion that doesn't devolve into deflections.

I'm ready.

The OP won't honor that though.

 

[imawhosure]

OK, then I ask the CHIC to debate you, 1 on 1. If she refuses, you automatically win. Fair enough?

I am more than willing to be fair, I used to be a Democrat, lol. (silly me) BUT, people want to prove a point, then prove a point. No 1 liners, use your own words with 1 link to support it. I think that is more than fair! If the best the debater can do is 1 line, no need to even attempt it!

Should these 1 on 1s start happening, I ask the mods to give a little leeway. Remember---------->anyone can find a link that supports ANY position. I contend..........when posters have to verbally support it, they will rethink the position, if the link is weak!

 

[Anomalism]

I am more than willing to be fair, I used to be a Democrat, lol. (silly me) BUT, people want to prove a point, then prove a point. No 1 liners, use your own words with 1 link to support it. I think that is more than fair! If the best the debater can do is 1 line, no need to even attempt it!

I'm ready.

This person does not actually debate issues honestly though. They won't accept that kind of structured debate, because it removes the tactics that make them seem effective at debating when they're really not.

 

[imawhosure]

I'm ready.

This person does not actually debate issues honestly though. They won't accept that kind of structured debate though, because it removes the tactics that make them seem effective at debating when they're really not.

Well, I like PC........but if that is the case, then you have won without lifting a sword. I expect more, but then again, maybe I shouldn't!

 

[Anomalism]

Well, I like PC........but if that is the case, then you have won without lifting a sword. I expect more, but then again, maybe I shouldn't!

I'm really not even a Democrat. If that poster could be more honest they would realize that I actually agree with them on a lot more things than they probably would ever expect.

It wouldn't even be a left versus right debate per se. It would be a clarity versus obfuscation debate.

 

[imawhosure]

I'm really not even a Democrat. If that poster could be more honest they would realize that I actually agree with them on a lot more things than they probably would ever expect.

It wouldn't even be a left versus right debate per se. It would be a clarity versus obfuscation debate.

Send her a PM and offer a debate! Both of you might discover you agree far more, than you disagree. Honestly, that is a good thing.

To many people want massive division. I for 1, do not! I believe we can agree to agree; agree to disagree, and debate like he** when we are at loggerheads.

I always ask this question when people are really upset with each other over politics------------> You are in a jungle/desert/plain, and we are at war and YOU have been conscripted and find yourself in a foxhole.

Who do you want next to you defending your position?

Americans, North Koreans, Russians, or the Chinese?

But, what if one of them is named POLITICAL CHIC............in your case specifically! You still want the American if that is her?!?!?!

HELLO, I would take the biggest RACIST on this site...... IM2.........in my foxhole, before I took North Koreans, a Russian, or any communist Chinese!

 

[Anomalism]

Send her a PM and offer a debate! Both of you might discover you agree far more, than you disagree. Honestly, that is a good thing.

To many people want massive division. I for 1, do not! I believe we can agree to agree; agree to disagree, and debate like he** when we are at loggerheads.

I always ask this question when people are really upset with each other over politics------------> You are in a jungle/desert/plain, and we are at war and YOU have been conscripted and find yourself in a foxhole.

Who do you want next to you defending your position?

Americans, North Koreans, Russians, or the Chinese?

But, what if one of them is named POLITICAL CHIC............in your case specifically! You still want the American if that is her?!?!?!

HELLO, I would take the biggest RACIST on this site...... IM2.........in my foxhole, before I took North Koreans, a Russian, or any communist Chinese!

If the poster is interested in a structured debate with me (they're not) they will see this and respond to the challenge.

 

[imawhosure]

If the poster is interested in a structured debate with me (they're not) they will see this and respond to the challenge.

And if either of you decline, I think both of you missed an opportunity. 1 liners have been the norm on here for faaaaaaaaar to long. It is time that many of those people who find it EASY to post thread after thread, with 1 line and a link supporting it, show all of us what they know, and have got.

PC may very well take up your challenge. Most of the rest of the people would never do it, lol. To much work for them, and knowing THEIR position is not so important to them, but rather trying to convince you what position most everybody else has. They want to make everyone see it their way, through peer pressure.

Tis time they open their mouths, and tell us what THEY THINK, own it...........instead of links to show what other people think!

Good luck with PC!

 

[BothWings]

America favouring the fascist Nazi regime until 1941 when The socialist Roosevelt regime pranked the Pearl Harbour thing on the extreme right.

You are speaking for a small handful of aristocrat investors and industrialists such as Prescott Bush and Henry Ford, as if most average Americans supported the Nazis. You actually believe that CRAP you just said??

 

[IM2]

You are speaking for a small handful of aristocrat investors and industrialists such as Prescott Bush and Henry Ford, as if most average Americans supported the Nazis. You actually believe that CRAP you just said??

Jim Crow was Nazi fascism.

 

[BothWings]

Jim Crow was Nazi fascism.

Even many of those racist American assholes would have fought the real German Nazis to the death....and DID. If this wasn't true then we probably wouldn't have beat them.

The person I was responding to was referring to Americans supporting the imperial Nazi war machine, not America's own problem with racism. In spite of the disgustingness of Jim Crow laws, there was no organized attempt in the U.S. to gas black people to death by the millions until they were extinct, and overrun every country along its borders and beat them into submission and kill all the black people in those places too. The multitude of people in America were united against the Germans in the 1940's....and the PERSON I WAS ANSWERING indicated otherwise.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yanking chains is the only thing this poster does. Their refusal to engage with substance and instead relying on deflections and ad hominem attacks shows that.

Substancd???


Pretty clear you're lying again.




1.Most of us are old enough to recall that claims that the Democrat Party is socialist/communist were greeted with vehement denials.



2. About half of the Party’s supporter always came from the interchangeable terms socialist/communist/Progressive/ etc. Professor Kengor said this: "The progressive left, and the liberal left, while not themselves communists, share many of the same sympathies, such of redistribution of wealth, and worker’s rights, nationalizations of industry, etc, but are not quite as far left as the communists, and would not go to the same lengths as the communists to achieve their goals. This does not mean, though, that the help of these dupes is not necessary in order for the communists to achieve victory. Even at their peak, in the ‘30’s, the Communist Party of the United States never had more than 100 thousand members: so deception of the ‘dupes’ was critical. Dr. Paul Kengor, Hoover Institution, Stanford “DUPES: How America's Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century




3. Push came to shove when Communist Bernie got more votes than Hillary in 2020, and had the nomination outright stolen because the establishment Democrat couldn’t allow Marxism to be their brand.




4. In a recent thread we found that only one Democrat voter said he would reconsider voting Democrat depending on their agenda (Why Are There No Democrat Intellectuals?). Communism is just fine.




5. Openly communist/Marxist candidates are openly running under the Democrat banner, and winning.

“The socialist movement led Zohran Mamdani to victory.

….easily the most important factor in Zohran’s victory is the movement that Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) has built in New York City since the Bernie Sanders campaign in 2016. I want to stress two elements.”

The Socialist Movement Led Zohran Mamdani to Victory​

Pundits have emphasized Zohran Mamdani’s videos and charisma and Andrew Cuomo’s weaknesses in Mamdani’s victory. But easily the most important factor in that victory is the movement that the Democratic Socialists of America have built in New York City.

jacobin.com




So, today’s Democrat Party is not an American party, and if you vote Democrat you are casting aside any American values, heritage, and identity…….comrade.

 

[Billiejeens]

This thread is a classic “us vs them” political framing meant to mobilize opposition by painting the other side as existentially dangerous. This framing trades in Cold War fears and identity politics, ‘comrade’ as an insult, for example, to stoke fear rather than advance honest discussion. It creates enemies instead of addressing real policy debates.

Political discourse should focus on policy differences and real-world effects, not alarmist labels and reductive caricatures. It’s possible to critique the party without resorting to fear tactics that shut down dialogue. If the concern is about the influence of socialism or progressivism, have a discussion grounded in facts and ideas, not ad hominem and conspiracy.

Democrats framed themselves with their policies.

 

[Anomalism]

Substancd???


Pretty clear you're lying again.




1.Most of us are old enough to recall that claims that the Democrat Party is socialist/communist were greeted with vehement denials.



2. About half of the Party’s supporter always came from the interchangeable terms socialist/communist/Progressive/ etc. Professor Kengor said this: "The progressive left, and the liberal left, while not themselves communists, share many of the same sympathies, such of redistribution of wealth, and worker’s rights, nationalizations of industry, etc, but are not quite as far left as the communists, and would not go to the same lengths as the communists to achieve their goals. This does not mean, though, that the help of these dupes is not necessary in order for the communists to achieve victory. Even at their peak, in the ‘30’s, the Communist Party of the United States never had more than 100 thousand members: so deception of the ‘dupes’ was critical. Dr. Paul Kengor, Hoover Institution, Stanford “DUPES: How America's Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century




3. Push came to shove when Communist Bernie got more votes than Hillary in 2020, and had the nomination outright stolen because the establishment Democrat couldn’t allow Marxism to be their brand.




4. In a recent thread we found that only one Democrat voter said he would reconsider voting Democrat depending on their agenda (Why Are There No Democrat Intellectuals?). Communism is just fine.




5. Openly communist/Marxist candidates are openly running under the Democrat banner, and winning.

“The socialist movement led Zohran Mamdani to victory.

….easily the most important factor in Zohran’s victory is the movement that Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) has built in New York City since the Bernie Sanders campaign in 2016. I want to stress two elements.”

The Socialist Movement Led Zohran Mamdani to Victory​

Pundits have emphasized Zohran Mamdani’s videos and charisma and Andrew Cuomo’s weaknesses in Mamdani’s victory. But easily the most important factor in that victory is the movement that the Democratic Socialists of America have built in New York City.

jacobin.com




So, today’s Democrat Party is not an American party, and if you vote Democrat you are casting aside any American values, heritage, and identity…….comrade.

You literally just copy and pasted the same post I've already responded to twice. Neither of those times did you engage any of my points, because you have no substance underneath your rhetoric. You are just proving my point over and over. Is this really the best you can do? Are these even your own thoughts? Is that why you can't engage in actual debate, because you are just copy pasting?

 

[PoliticalChic]

You literally just copy and pasted the same post I've already responded to twice. Neither of those times did you engage any of my points, because you have no substance underneath your rhetoric. You are just proving my point over and over. Is this really the best you can do? Are these even your own thoughts? Is that why you can't engage in actual debate, because you are just copy pasting?

To prove you a liar again.

AI Overview

In an article, "substance" generally refers to the core message, key takeaways, or essential information that the article conveys. It's the main idea, the gist, or the important content that the author wants the reader to understand. Essentially, it's what the article is "about" beyond the superficial details.


You should stop using terms you don't understand, even though it might leave you mute.