- Oct 20, 2022
- 4,979
- Thread starter
- #2,741
I could write more if you like - you know I couldA restrained response (in terms of length) seeing that the question could easily warrant a book sized response!
I could write more if you like - you know I couldA restrained response (in terms of length) seeing that the question could easily warrant a book sized response!
The point I was trying to make is that the Democrat Party is leaning towards totalitarianism, one party rule.
Everyone can agree that they are are doing their best to imprison their main political opponent.
I agree about the slurs. And I find @lasvegan interesting. I can myself construct a defense of voting for Trump based on perceived personal benefit. If that's his position, fine. But I start to sigh when the slurs start to appear. For example, Lasvegan claiming the Democrats want a one party state. What rubbish!Yes, I totally see what you are saying and I get that but my point is more of a general one.
I just wanted to highlight that Americans have redefined âsocialismâ - there simply isnât an homogeneous understanding of the term and it is more concrete than just âsettingsâ - maybe read the article I posted. Our âClause 4â understanding of âsocialismâ doesnât even come into American discourse. Right wing American politicians as British ones, use âsocialismâ as a general slur against any politician/party espousing left wing politics. The term âfascismâ has also been misappropriated as a derogatory term used by left wing ideologists to slur hard right politics. Iâm just saying, these terms can be very undefined, redefined and unrefined in modern political debate and often have no relation to the root ideology from which they spring..
I did also note that you were called a âsocialistâ in a deliberately derogatory manner by @lasvegan (for which he has admitted and qualified). Sorry if I didnât recognise that insult to you in my response.
Iâm merely pointing out that it is much easier to have a dialogue about political ideologies if both sides can at least have a common understanding on the fundamental terms being used - otherwise people simply end up shouting across a canyon and listening to their own echoes.
I think we are probably on the same page tbh.
Esp from a supporter of the President who incited an attempted coup and who's stated aim is to pardon all those who took part (after he's pardoned himself first, of course)This is a huge statement to make with no information to back it up.
Got to say I would need some convincing of this being true.
As someone else noted, we are a bit off topic, but whilst we are here....No it's not what we vote for.
We only vote for it when the Conservative government has shit the bed so badly we all crave a reset but don't have the stones to go all in Socialist.
It's where we are at now, where we were post Major and where we will be in 25 years time.
You first, why are you so invested in seeing a foreign presidential candidate removed by lawfare(Electoral interference.) when you don't live there?Perhaps a good start would be telling us why you are so vested in a Trump presidency (to the extent that you are) when you are not living in the US or are American - or are you?
I think @Zerberdi has answered that in post #2756 a couple of pages back where they listed many reasons why they didn't consider Trump was a good president for America or the World.You first, why are you so invested in seeing a foreign presidential candidate removed when you don't live there?
The highlighted bit is your subjective view, and unfair to include in one question - because if we try an answer the question as edited above, without removing the subjective bit - you could justifiably say that we had 'accepted' the lawfare point of view. Which I certainly haven't - and reading @Zeberdi 's posts - I don't think they have either.You first, why are you so invested in seeing a foreign presidential candidate removed by lawfare(Electoral interference.) when you don't live there?
Because half my family live in the States - because his Jan 6 attempt at interrupting the peaceful transition of power was a threat to the liberal democratic Country they live in. Because they are Jewish and donât want to continue living in a Country where the President of that Country dog whistles to neo-Nazis and White Supremacists.You first, why are you so invested in seeing a foreign presidential candidate removed âŠwhen you don't live there?
I didnât mean it to be derogatory, just calling it as I see it. People ARE socialist, communist, Marxist, authoritarian, totalitarian, or whatever you want to call it. Itâs no more of a slur than calling me a capitalist.I did also note that you were called a âsocialistâ in a deliberately derogatory manner by @lasvegan (for which he has admitted and qualified).
So you find me interesting, yet sighâŠa little condescending maybe?I agree about the slurs. And I find @lasvegan interesting. I can myself construct a defense of voting for Trump based on perceived personal benefit. If that's his position, fine. But I start to sigh when the slurs start to appear. For example, Lasvegan claiming the Democrats want a one party state. What rubbish!
It's the slurs against Biden.So you find me interesting, yet sighâŠa little condescending maybe?
I think anyone asking the right questions years ago could have concluded the Trump Organization is one large cover for Trumpâs money laundering operations with Russia through the Deutsche Bank:Exclusive: Trump Media saved in 2022 by Russian-American under criminal investigation
Trumpâs social media company went public relying partly on loans from trust managed by person of interest to prosecutorswww.theguardian.com
I didnât mean it to be derogatory, just calling it as I see it.
To make it easier, @lasvegan could refer to the table (which I posted earlier) and say which definition of socialism he embraces - because, yes, as you say, it seems to make no ideological sense to us in the UK at all, in calling anyone that doesnât support Trump/Democrats, a âsocialistâ. Then perhaps we could start to unpack why Lasvegan thinks the Dems are socialist by looking at what Democrat policies fulfil his criteria to earn such an epithet.Could you post a link to your definition of socialist please, because calling people who don't support Trump socialists doesn't make sense.
To make it easier, @lasvegan could refer to the table (which I posted earlier) and say which definition of socialism he embraces - because, yes, as you say, it seems to make no ideological sense to us in the UK at all, in calling anyone that doesnât support Trump/Democrats, a âsocialistâ.
I think you meant âincorrectâ.Correct definitions of socialism aren't limited to the UK. Right wing Americans use the term for anyone not as right wing as them, but it's not accurate either here or in the US.