Exactly. That's my point. It's valid to say that someone is alt-right as long as they are actually alt-right.

Re Bernie, I disagree with you, but I also have a lot of lefty friends who tell me that Bernie is really just an anarchocapitalist who doesn't want real change. I'm not super interested in defending this topic. If Bernie were the nominee, I would care more, but what's the point in discussing his ideas specifically anymore?

Posted by strikeout26 on 4/12/2020 8:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 4/12/2020 8:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by usf_bulls on 4/12/2020 7:59:00 PM (view original):
Wow, a flurry of posts. There's too many for me to respond to all of them but I did read them all. Nice to see you post again, strikeout.

Tang - For me, there are more "directions" than left and right. Using the term alt-right as a part of the right, for me, is an appeal to emotion. Calling Stalin far left is also incorrect. There is an up and down too, if you will. The Nazis and Stalins of the world are authoritarians, which can have left or right leanings but are really their own class of ideology. On the opposite end are essentially anarchists, who want no restrictions whatsoever.

You are absolutely correct. However, it is not incorrect to state that the alt-right is far-right. On a two-dimensional scale, the alt-right would be on the far-right. A anarchocommunist is still a leftist, even if they are also an anarchist.

Yes, but the problem is that the left claims that anyone on the right is alt-right. As gomiami said, it's a play on emotion and is intellectually dishonest.

...and the right now claims that everyone on the left is some sort of progressive socialist.

It's all part of the dummying down of America where the solution to every issue must only have two viable choices (of course, Republican or Democrat) in order to create a false dichotomy of black and white in the general public's mind.

Therefore, every ideology must be assigned somewhere within that Right/Left divide, even if it has nothing to do with either. It makes it much easier for both power parties to create slogans, hand-held signs and rally chants (four legs good, two legs better!) than having all these intellectual shades of gray, which doesn't play well for the camera and wouldn't raise a lot of money.

Posted by usf_bulls on 4/12/2020 8:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 4/12/2020 8:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 4/12/2020 8:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by usf_bulls on 4/12/2020 7:59:00 PM (view original):
Wow, a flurry of posts. There's too many for me to respond to all of them but I did read them all. Nice to see you post again, strikeout.

Tang - For me, there are more "directions" than left and right. Using the term alt-right as a part of the right, for me, is an appeal to emotion. Calling Stalin far left is also incorrect. There is an up and down too, if you will. The Nazis and Stalins of the world are authoritarians, which can have left or right leanings but are really their own class of ideology. On the opposite end are essentially anarchists, who want no restrictions whatsoever.

You are absolutely correct. However, it is not incorrect to state that the alt-right is far-right. On a two-dimensional scale, the alt-right would be on the far-right. A anarchocommunist is still a leftist, even if they are also an anarchist.

Yes, but the problem is that the left claims that anyone on the right is alt-right. As gomiami said, it's a play on emotion and is intellectually dishonest.

...and the right now claims that everyone on the left is some sort of progressive socialist.

It's all part of the dummying down of America where the solution to every issue must only have two viable choices (of course, Republican or Democrat) in order to create a false dichotomy of black and white in the general public's mind.

Therefore, every ideology must be assigned somewhere within that Right/Left divide, even if it has nothing to do with either. It makes it much easier for both power parties to create slogans, hand-held signs and rally chants (four legs good, two legs better!) than having all these intellectual shades of gray, which doesn't play well for the camera and wouldn't raise a lot of money.

Agreed, though I would add the Overton window in America is very tilted in one direction.

Posted by tangplay on 4/12/2020 8:33:00 PM (view original):
Exactly. That's my point. It's valid to say that someone is alt-right as long as they are actually alt-right.

Re Bernie, I disagree with you, but I also have a lot of lefty friends who tell me that Bernie is really just an anarchocapitalist who doesn't want real change. I'm not super interested in defending this topic. If Bernie were the nominee, I would care more, but what's the point in discussing his ideas specifically anymore?

I think it's important to discuss Bernie because he garnered a lot of support that will carry forward to future elections. To me, Bernie is more of a symbol. We've already seen what happens when his TRUE beliefs materialize.

I'm not saying that tyranny in the other direction is better, but that's not where we're heading right now.

Posted by Uofa2 on 4/12/2020 8:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by usf_bulls on 4/12/2020 8:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 4/12/2020 8:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 4/12/2020 8:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by usf_bulls on 4/12/2020 7:59:00 PM (view original):
Wow, a flurry of posts. There's too many for me to respond to all of them but I did read them all. Nice to see you post again, strikeout.

Tang - For me, there are more "directions" than left and right. Using the term alt-right as a part of the right, for me, is an appeal to emotion. Calling Stalin far left is also incorrect. There is an up and down too, if you will. The Nazis and Stalins of the world are authoritarians, which can have left or right leanings but are really their own class of ideology. On the opposite end are essentially anarchists, who want no restrictions whatsoever.

You are absolutely correct. However, it is not incorrect to state that the alt-right is far-right. On a two-dimensional scale, the alt-right would be on the far-right. A anarchocommunist is still a leftist, even if they are also an anarchist.

Yes, but the problem is that the left claims that anyone on the right is alt-right. As gomiami said, it's a play on emotion and is intellectually dishonest.

...and the right now claims that everyone on the left is some sort of progressive socialist.

It's all part of the dummying down of America where the solution to every issue must only have two viable choices (of course, Republican or Democrat) in order to create a false dichotomy of black and white in the general public's mind.

Therefore, every ideology must be assigned somewhere within that Right/Left divide, even if it has nothing to do with either. It makes it much easier for both power parties to create slogans, hand-held signs and rally chants (four legs good, two legs better!) than having all these intellectual shades of gray, which doesn't play well for the camera and wouldn't raise a lot of money.

Agreed, though I would add the Overton window in America is very tilted in one direction.

Damn. I didn't think I'd see a day where we agree three times in one afternoon/evening (I agree with the Overton window analysis as well.)

Very nice reference.

The reason why I supported Bernie was because I thought he was a visionary who could push America's overton window to the left.

And of course I agree with you, usf/miami

Posted by tangplay on 4/12/2020 9:08:00 PM (view original):
The reason why I supported Bernie was because I thought he was a visionary who could push America's overton window to the left.

And of course I agree with you, usf/miami

If I were not under city, county and state house arrest, I'd go out and buy a lottery ticket.

Posted by strikeout26 on 4/12/2020 7:30:00 PM (view original):
Bernie is left of Stalin! By the way, what hell are y'all doing over there in the democratic party? Can y'all not find a single viable candidate? You guys completely left my boy Andrew Yang in the dust.

sing it brother

Posted by strikeout26 on 4/12/2020 8:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 4/12/2020 8:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 4/12/2020 8:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Uofa2 on 4/12/2020 7:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 4/12/2020 7:54:00 PM (view original):
And as far Yang, I'm not sure I agree with a single policy of his, but I do like him. And Tulsi.

Bernie is a dangerous person and you like Tulsi.

Ok.

What's dangerous about Tulsi? Is it dangerous that she calls out Hillary and the democratic establishment? Is it dangerous that she fought for our country? I agree that her policies could have dangerous ramifications if that's where you were going, although I don't think that's what you were talking about.

If you can't see how an apologist of dictators is dangerous, we are in trouble. I haven't had much, if any, correspondence with you as I haven't really posted much since you started posting here, but I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're smarter than that.

Tulsi was also a huge Sanders supporter in 2016, just FYI.

I don't want to make a different post to reference what Strikeout said about Bernie, but I disagree that he is a Soviet apologist. Here's a quote from a WaPo article about Sanders' trip to Russia in the 80's:

"“I think [Sanders] saw and we all saw the downside of the Soviet system,” Seaver said. “Yes, they may have had low-cost apartments, but things were very out of whack — there were food shortages, no political freedom. I suspect that what Bernie saw in Russia probably affected his views that you see today, where he is not anti-free-enterprise or capitalism but he wants to have a safety net and give a fair shake to all, but certainly not to have a command economy we saw in the Soviet Union.”

Take a look at Bernie's actual quotes, not someone else's synopsis. He is for sure a sympathizer with the leftist dictators. As I said, this is indisputable. He hasn't even tried to dispute it. He's doubled down.

Leaving Bernie out of this.............He's nearly irrelevant now...........

We already HAVE a sympathizer for dictators in the WH at this very minute. Maybe not "leftist" dictators but the affinity for "strongmen in power" is readily apparent. He hasn't tried to dispute that either, more like double down on it to gain support from those folks you referred to as very "evil".
You gonna call him out Coach?

Actually, I've played under many a coach in my life. All of the good ones earned my respect AND made me desire to perform beyond my SELF for my team and teammates.
There was a coach or two that didn't. In both cases it was due to their own Character issues that led to them being extremely poor at leadership and organizational inspiration. In BOTH cases I left the program and went to play for someone who HAD character I could believe in.

Nobody had "R's" or "D's" after their name and thus it was easy to determine the "flaws" of the supposed "leader". You could say I had NO internal bias clouding my judgment. I just made the "call" to call out incompetence and publicly LEAVE the squad/program.

When are WE, collectively as a Nation, gonna speak truth and call out the imposter in the WH?
We ALL (deep down) know just how morally unfit this tonto is to lead us, yet nearly half of us can't put aside our OWN biases and admit we "F'd" up "bigly" and made a poor decision in 2016.

Will you call out incompetent immoral leadership from ALL sides Coach?

Given the two choices we had in 2016, I will NEVER believe we made a mistake. I said it then (when he was still alive) and I'll say it now: I'd vote for Castro before HRC.

Yang, and maybe a few others, are prime examples of why the Primary process is as big a joke as the candidates themselves. As is, some States' primaries don't mean diddly-squat, and should just be cancelled. Primaries, like the general election, should be on the same day for everyone, and under the same rules (closed or open).

Don the Con votes by mail, no one else should though.

What a lovely day. We are beating the virus. Trump is President. WINNING WINNING WINNING!

I think the primary rules should be more normalized state-by-state. However, I'm not sure I'm down for one day primaries. They would effectively kill Yang or any other smaller candidate's chances of winning and guarantee the front-runner wins every time. Obama wouldn't have won in '08, for example. Trump probably wouldn't have won in '16.

Posted by all3 on 4/13/2020 9:48:00 AM (view original):
Given the two choices we had in 2016, I will NEVER believe we made a mistake. I said it then (when he was still alive) and I'll say it now: I'd vote for Castro before HRC.

Which one? And why didn't you vote for Gary Johnson instead of HRC or el Tonto Orangehead?

Did you really believe Trump was more fit for the job (and able!) than Johnson?