Posted by tangplay on 4/12/2020 7:41:00 PM (view original):

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.

I was down with Yang too. Pretty sure he'll have his time when the party realizes that centrists can't win.

I'm pretty sure that you were joking with that first comment, but I'm concerned that you might not be.

Bernie's ideologies are in line with Stalin's and Castro's. This is indisputable. He is a Soviet Union apologist. He has never backed down from that. The fact that he has as much support as he does is downright scary. He is a dangerous person.

And as far Yang, I'm not sure I agree with a single policy of his, but I do like him. And Tulsi.

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.

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.

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.

Agreed

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.

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.

No, that’s exactly what I was talking about, especially since she’s....an apologist of Assad.

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.

Yeah, I should be working. Y'all are distracting me again.

I agree with most of your post, but I don't think there are different directions, only different degrees. Stalin was undoubtedly on the radical, far left as Hitler was on the far right. Where Tang was correct is that they share something in common, a collectivist mentality. The reason that I take issue with today's radical left is that they stand on the collectivism mantel proudly. We've seen where it leads. We can't bury our head in the sand and pretend that the atrocities didn't happen.

Posted by Uofa2 on 4/12/2020 8:04:00 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.

No, that’s exactly what I was talking about, especially since she’s....an apologist of Assad.

Touché.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

I don't bring up Charlottesville to demonize the right, or to say that it was indicative of Conservatism. However, I will demonize the alt-right, and I think that's where some of the Republican base is headed. Specifically, I refer to the Qultists and the OAN fanboys.

I don't think that everyone on the right is alt-right. Conservatism and alt-right are two different things. However, I get frustrated when I point to a nazi and people on the right say "But we aren't all Nazis".

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.

Posted by tangplay on 4/12/2020 8:21:00 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.

I don't bring up Charlottesville to demonize the right, or to say that it was indicative of Conservatism. However, I will demonize the alt-right, and I think that's where some of the Republican base is headed. Specifically, I refer to the Qultists and the OAN fanboys.

I don't think that everyone on the right is alt-right. Conservatism and alt-right are two different things. However, I get frustrated when I point to a nazi and people on the right say "But we aren't all Nazis".

Of course there's a difference between the alt-right and conservatism, just as you can't conflate liberals with the radical left.