2020 Democratic presidential candidate

[Michelle]

7 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

I'm curious as to whether you're one of those conservatives who pushes the false narrative that this was founded as a 'Christian Nation' as well.

I'm curious as to whether you know the KKK was started by Democrats?

Founded in 1866, the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) extended into almost every southern state by 1870 and became a vehicle for white southern resistance to the Republican Party’s Reconstruction-era policies aimed at establishing political and economic equality for blacks.

https://www.history.com/topics/ku-klux-klan

[Aquila King]

5 minutes ago, Michelle said:

I'm curious as to whether you know the KKK was started by Democrats?

Founded in 1866, the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) extended into almost every southern state by 1870 and became a vehicle for white southern resistance to the Republican Party’s Reconstruction-era policies aimed at establishing political and economic equality for blacks.

https://www.history.com/topics/ku-klux-klan

I'm curious as to whether you know that claim to have been debunked ages ago.

Quote

Historians weigh in

James Marten, an author and chairman of the history department at Marquette University, disputed the Dane County GOP claim the Klan was "founded" as the military arm of the Democratic party.

"It was at its simplest a secret fraternal organization, but it very quickly became an organization dedicated to preserving white supremacy and intimidating African Americans," he said. "They and other groups like them broke up schools, torched houses, and interfered with black social and church gatherings.  

"And, along with those other groups as well as individuals and gangs, committed thousands of acts of terror, violence, and murder throughout the South. However, the early Klan — the founding generation of the Klan — really only lasted into the 1870s before it was driven underground, and it was not an overtly political organization."

Eric Foner, a Columbia University history professor, noted the Klan was a "military force."

"In effect, the Klan was a military force serving the interests of the Democratic party, the planter class, and all those who desired restoration of white supremacy," he said. "Its purposes were political, but political in the broadest sense, for it sought to affect power relations, both public and private, throughout Southern society."

But serving the interests of the party is not the same as being part of the party. Consider the political landscape today, where super PACs and other entities work outside the formal party structure.

In a June 10, 2013, PolitiFact Virginia article, Carole Emberton, associate professor of history at the University at Buffalo, noted that the "party lines of the 1860s/1870s are not the party lines of today."

"Although the names stayed the same, the platforms of the two parties reversed each other in the mid-20th century, due in large part to white ‘Dixiecrats’ flight out of the Democratic Party and into the Republican Party after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964," she said. "By then, the Democratic Party had become the party of ‘reform,’ supporting a variety of ‘liberal’ causes, including civil rights, women’s rights, etc. whereas this had been the banner of the Republican Party in the nineteenth century."

Our rating

The Republican Party of Dane County claimed "the KKK was founded as the military arm of the Democratic Party."

There is little doubt that the political interests of the Klan and the Democratic Party, at least in the early years, intersected. But there is no evidence that it was founded as part of the Democratic Party, or that the party ever even had an official "military arm."

If a Democrat today claimed the KKK is the military arm of the Republican Party, we’d have a similar point of view.

We rate the claim False.

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2017/oct/23/dane-county-republican-party/debunking-claim-kkk-was-founded-military-arm-democ/

 

[Michelle]

I'd suggest you look up Robert Byrd...Hillary's mentor.

Edited April 25, 2018 by Michelle

[F3SS]

4 hours ago, Aquila King said:

That doesn't mean that ideas shouldn't be tested for validity. I may not be able to argue that a universal basic income is realistically feasible, but nor can you argue that it isn't since such a system has never been truly attempted.

I’ve argued with you extensively about why it couldn’t work in this country. Besides, if it’s all about automation robots can’t do everything and, like others have said, people will figure out a way to conduct competing businesses around them. 

And http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/gop/1499184/posts

[F3SS]

The post civil rights dem/rep party flip is a facade. What really happened is the chains were cut and the party was exposed so they put a big smile on their face, claimed to be the champion of minoroties and sold them snake oil in the form of welfare in exchange for votes. The chains are still there just metaphorically.

[Nnicolette]

On 4/23/2018 at 1:06 PM, LV-426 said:

$1000 bucks a month for free?

I'd expect a massive increase in applications for US citizenship

Including me...

*does a dodgy rendition of The Star-Spangled Banner while waving a hastily-drawn Democratic Party flag*

1000 a month? And you have to live on that as a total income? You can't even get rent that cheap here... so...

[LV-426]

7 minutes ago, NicoletteS said:

1000 a month? And you have to live on that as a total income? You can't even get rent that cheap here... so...

I'm planning on becoming a polygamist, with a number of wives also collecting $1000 bucks a month...

Never let it be said I don't plan ahead!

[RavenHawk]

37 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

What's childish is to use the Founding Fathers as brownie points by (falsely) attaching your political ideology to them in an pathetic attempt to boost your own position.

That is a very poor comeback.  My ideology is based on the study of the Founding Fathers.  My interest is personal as one of my ancestors is a Founding Father.  Through my research, I have discovered that I share their passion.

 

38 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

I'm curious as to whether you're one of those conservatives who pushes the false narrative that this was founded as a 'Christian Nation' as well.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-schweitzer/founding-fathers-we-are-n_b_6761840.html

I do indeed.  And it is not false.  Your link looks interesting.  I only started to read it.  I probably already know everything in it, but when I began to read it, noticed where you went wrong.  It’s in the opening quote from Adams:

 

“The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”

 

He is absolutely right!  Still don’t see it?  Let me help you.  You need to recognize the difference between this nation and the government of this nation.  The Founding Fathers had a wide range of beliefs and faiths but they all floated around the basic Judeo-Christian faith.  The majority of the populace of this nation is Christian of some denomination.  That makes this nation a Christian nation.  I don’t think that anybody wants to see a Christian Theocracy rule.  The Founding Fathers knew about the religious intolerance that ravaged Europe.  Even though that lead to the Peace of Westphalia and that paved the way for the English Bill of Rights, it was enough to encourage the Founding Fathers who had a blank slate to not entangle the future of the government with religion.  Do you get it now?  The government of this nation is not this nation.  The nation is Christian and the government is secular. 

 

When I perused the link, I didn’t see the story behind Jefferson’s concept of separation of church and state, which is not in the Constitution.  It appears in letters between him and the Danbury (CT) Baptist Association.  Jefferson’s thoughts were not to build an impassible wall both ways.  It was really intended to assure that the government didn’t infringe on freedom of religion and not that government should be completely free of religion.  Many times, a President relies on his faith for guidance.  But anyway, I’m surprised this example wasn’t in your link.

 

I know quite a bit about the founding fathers actually. It's often times conservatives who seem content to re-write history to their liking.

As with the example above, you haven’t demonstrated that you know anything about the Founding Fathers.  You should know all about rewriting things to your liking, though.

 

You still don't have a clue what socialism is, nor do you seem to care. Just label anything you don't like as 'socialist' and then attack the enemy. And then you have the audacity to call

me childish. Typical.

Really?  I feel that I have more of a clue than you.  I care very much.  Socialism is a devious and deadly poison.  Was it you that posted a short list of tenets from the American Socialist website??  I don’t recall the thread.  I was going to rip those a new one, but I didn’t have the time and I knew the effort would have been lost on you.  And I must have thought that others had put you in your place.

[acidhead]

The most expressed virtuous individual is more than likely the least virtuous.

An individual who seeks to tell you how to live your life according to how they trick you into believing how they live theirs.

They are the least Noble.

There always exists an alternative motive.

 

[AnchorSteam]

It is starting to feel like I am going off topic, but who would the Dem's candidates be?

 

Do they have anyone under 70 that anyone likes?

[acidhead]

4 minutes ago, AnchorSteam said:

It is starting to feel like I am going off topic, but who would the Dem's candidates be?

 

Do they have anyone under 70 that anyone likes?

No

Nobody that the King Trump wouldn't bury in plain sight with a hatchet and shovel.

[RavenHawk]

7 minutes ago, AnchorSteam said:

It is starting to feel like I am going off topic, but who would the Dem's candidates be?

 

Do they have anyone under 70 that anyone likes?

I think that the front runner is still Oprah.

[Tatetopa]

23 minutes ago, AnchorSteam said:

Do they have anyone under 70 that anyone likes?

Duane Johnson, Bruce Springsteen, Beyonce, Oprah, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, and Vladimir Putin.

[preacherman76]

4 hours ago, Aquila King said:

Trump and his supporters have thrown out every kind of lowball petty insult imaginable at their political opponents. The irony here is hilarious.

I think what you mean is, I can't think past my compassion. Actually caring about how certain policies affect real people in their daily lives is not me just being 'emotional', it's me being empathetic and compassionate to their situation.

I genuinely do not know how to argue empathy at somebody. I don't want concert goers and school children to be routinely slaughtered in hailstorms of bullets. You don't care. I don't want some kid's first memory to be that of a jackbooted deportation force kicking down their door and ripping their father from them. You don't care. I don't want a mother to bury her child solely because she couldn't swing $600 for a two-pack of epipens. You don't care.

Every day you deflect, but-what-about, twist, bend, contort, and echo whatever vile, clubfooted rationalization that keeps you from having to admit that you're not just complicit in, but in fact actively facilitating this nightmare of a reality so many people are experiencing.

This isn't a matter of a 'different perspective', since your perspective is objectively proven to time and time again facilitate these horrors whereas what I advocate for has been proven to do otherwise. If you disagree with these basic facts, then you're no different then a flat-earther and are simply delusional.

I care about other people, and I care about facts. You do not. It's as simple as that.

And I'm sure by the words 'big picture' you actually mean 'broad inaccurate stereotype'.

You're right, I refuse to slander ALL Muslims as worthy of being banned, I refuse to see ALL people from 's**thole countries' as unworthy of immigration to the US, and I refuse to see a dumb border wall as solving ALL illegal immigration problems.

I look at each and every person individually, rather than stereotype people by the millions. So yeah, I refuse to see your inaccurate 'big picture'.

That's a straw man argument there, I never said that.

What I said, was that the founding fathers were not perfect people, and therefore idolizing them as if they were and harkening back to and quoting them as if their words were gospel is a ridiculous and mute point. My point is that what's right is what's right regardless of whatever the founding fathers intended, so to constantly go back to their words and intentions is often times pointless.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with the founding fathers on the overwhelming majority of what they founded this nation on. I'm just saying that the reason I support them is because I agree with them, not because they simply said it and therefore I must somehow agree with them by default.

I'm advocating for a social democratic system such as Canada, Sweden, Finland, etc.

Go ahead, name the atrocities of said countries in recent history. I'm dying to know.

Well this was predictable. It’s what emotional people who can’t think beyond their feels always resort to. Attacking the source and dehumanizing the opposition. 

You pretend to stand on some moral high ground, therefore anything said that counters your emotions must be deemed irrational and hateful. After all if we don’t subscribe to your moral superiority we must be irrational, and hateful. Right? Void of any “compassion”. 

If this script goes how it always has before you will soon start to believe, if you don’t already, that people who don’t share a spot on your moral high ground simply need to be eliminated. This is the exact ideology that saw the slaughter of hundreds of millions. It’s why they teach next to nothing when it comes to the evils of Marxism. They want you to repeat it. 

[likwidlite]

6 hours ago, Aquila King said:

Trump and his supporters have thrown out every kind of lowball petty insult imaginable at their political opponents. The irony here is hilarious.

I think what you mean is, I can't think past my compassion. Actually caring about how certain policies affect real people in their daily lives is not me just being 'emotional', it's me being empathetic and compassionate to their situation.

I genuinely do not know how to argue empathy at somebody. I don't want concert goers and school children to be routinely slaughtered in hailstorms of bullets. You don't care. I don't want some kid's first memory to be that of a jackbooted deportation force kicking down their door and ripping their father from them. You don't care. I don't want a mother to bury her child solely because she couldn't swing $600 for a two-pack of epipens. You don't care.

Every day you deflect, but-what-about, twist, bend, contort, and echo whatever vile, clubfooted rationalization that keeps you from having to admit that you're not just complicit in, but in fact actively facilitating this nightmare of a reality so many people are experiencing.

This isn't a matter of a 'different perspective', since your perspective is objectively proven to time and time again facilitate these horrors whereas what I advocate for has been proven to do otherwise. If you disagree with these basic facts, then you're no different then a flat-earther and are simply delusional.

I care about other people, and I care about facts. You do not. It's as simple as that.

And I'm sure by the words 'big picture' you actually mean 'broad inaccurate stereotype'.

You're right, I refuse to slander ALL Muslims as worthy of being banned, I refuse to see ALL people from 's**thole countries' as unworthy of immigration to the US, and I refuse to see a dumb border wall as solving ALL illegal immigration problems.

I look at each and every person individually, rather than stereotype people by the millions. So yeah, I refuse to see your inaccurate 'big picture'.

That's a straw man argument there, I never said that.

What I said, was that the founding fathers were not perfect people, and therefore idolizing them as if they were and harkening back to and quoting them as if their words were gospel is a ridiculous and mute point. My point is that what's right is what's right regardless of whatever the founding fathers intended, so to constantly go back to their words and intentions is often times pointless.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with the founding fathers on the overwhelming majority of what they founded this nation on. I'm just saying that the reason I support them is because I agree with them, not because they simply said it and therefore I must somehow agree with them by default.

I'm advocating for a social democratic system such as Canada, Sweden, Finland, etc.

Go ahead, name the atrocities of said countries in recent history. I'm dying to know.

Whilst I agree with what you say about compassion and stereotyping etc on a personal level. Compassion is subjective and stereotypes don't exist without reason. You're advocating social democracy, socialism only works if everyone is on board and many on here have strong arguments against it. So how would you deal with those who flatly refuse to come around to your way of thinking and will violently oppose your ideals if pushed? 

P.s. please don't take this as a personal slight. I've asked the same question to many others, I just interested in the opinion of a strongly willed social democrat.

[RavenHawk]

10 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

Really?  I feel that I have more of a clue than you.  I care very much.  Socialism is a devious and deadly poison.  Was it you that posted a short list of tenets from the American Socialist website??  I don’t recall the thread.  I was going to rip those a new one, but I didn’t have the time and I knew the effort would have been lost on you.  And I must have thought that others had put you in your place.

Ah ok, I found the thread and it’s the Democratic Socialists that you support, not the American Socialist Party of America.  Is that correct?  It’s got to be pretty interesting when the two get together (if they ever do) to see who is more socialist…  So I noticed that the DSA website has been rewritten.  That’s interesting.  Your tenets have changed.  Playing with the wording, eh?

 

I noticed one thing that didn’t change:

 

“In the short term we can’t eliminate private corporations, but we can bring them under greater democratic control.”

 

But in the long term, you do.  Bringing them under greater *democratic* control is eliminating private ownership.  And that goes against human nature and violates natural rights.  It is not very compassionate.  In this case *democratic* means mob rule.  That is wrong.  It is unhealthy.  It destroys the economy.  East Germany is just one example.  The only solution is to embrace the free market and the Invisible Hand.  Trust that the self-interest of each business man benefits the whole.

[Aquila King]

14 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

My ideology is based on the study of the Founding Fathers.  My interest is personal as one of my ancestors is a Founding Father.  Through my research, I have discovered that I share their passion.

Well good for you. As for me, the only interest I have in the founding fathers is that they are represented accurately. Beyond that I don't really care.

You're childishly attaching your political ideology to them, and then using them as a means of justifying it. It's like if I were to say "Jesus was a socialist! You don't wanna disagree with Jesus do you?" It's stupid. No he wasn't, and know they aren't. The founding fathers were not far right-wing extremists like you are. That's just a simple fact.

They didn't share my exact same ideology, but they sure as hell didn't share yours either. And once again, quite frankly, I don't care. I only care about what's actually best for the American people. If that means opposing the views of the founding fathers, then so be it. Because doing what's best for the people is more important then doing what our founders intended.

14 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

I do indeed.  And it is not false.  Your link looks interesting.  I only started to read it.  I probably already know everything in it, but when I began to read it, noticed where you went wrong.  It’s in the opening quote from Adams:

“The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”

He is absolutely right!  Still don’t see it?  Let me help you.  You need to recognize the difference between this nation and the government of this nation.  The Founding Fathers had a wide range of beliefs and faiths but they all floated around the basic Judeo-Christian faith.  The majority of the populace of this nation is Christian of some denomination.  That makes this nation a Christian nation.  I don’t think that anybody wants to see a Christian Theocracy rule.  The Founding Fathers knew about the religious intolerance that ravaged Europe.  Even though that lead to the Peace of Westphalia and that paved the way for the English Bill of Rights, it was enough to encourage the Founding Fathers who had a blank slate to not entangle the future of the government with religion.  Do you get it now?  The government of this nation is not this nation.  The nation is Christian and the government is secular. 

When I perused the link, I didn’t see the story behind Jefferson’s concept of separation of church and state, which is not in the Constitution.  It appears in letters between him and the Danbury (CT) Baptist Association.  Jefferson’s thoughts were not to build an impassible wall both ways.  It was really intended to assure that the government didn’t infringe on freedom of religion and not that government should be completely free of religion.  Many times, a President relies on his faith for guidance.  But anyway, I’m surprised this example wasn’t in your link.

It's at least comforting to know that you aren't advocating for a Christian Theocracy like many right-wingers are. Contrary to what you might think, there are many in the religious right who do advocate for this nation to be a Christian Theocracy. So given the innumerable abhorrent positions you hold, at least this doesn't seem to be one of them.

14 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

As with the example above, you haven’t demonstrated that you know anything about the Founding Fathers.  You should know all about rewriting things to your liking, though.

I have no need to justify myself to you. No matter what I say or what sources I provide, you'll simply continue to insist that the founding fathers support your position when they don't, and as I've already said numerous times before, I just don't care. What the founding fathers have to say on most issues holds little to know weight with me. What matters is what is objectively best for the people in this time period, not the opinions of a group of people over 200 years ago.

14 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

Really?  I feel that I have more of a clue than you.  I care very much.  Socialism is a devious and deadly poison.  Was it you that posted a short list of tenets from the American Socialist website??  I don’t recall the thread.  I was going to rip those a new one, but I didn’t have the time and I knew the effort would have been lost on you.  And I must have thought that others had put you in your place.

Sigh... Let me repeat myself (for some stupid reason)...

When I advocate for 'Socialism', I am advocating for simply for the most part expanding on currently established government instituted social programs that have been objectively proven to benefit people overall. I'm advocating for public schooling, universal healthcare coverage, a living wage, things like that.

You may very well disagree with me here and say that placing our tax dollars into such social programs are somehow not beneficial for some reason, but I don't for the life of me understand why you keep treating this as if I'm advocating for something so outright 'evil'. How is insuring that someone doesn't die simply because they don't have enough money for their medical bills 'evil'? How is insuring that those who are smart enough and studious enough to go to college yet can't go due to tuition costs (or if they do go they live under insanely high student loan debt) can go inherently 'evil'? How is insuring that those who work full time actually make enough money to live off their earnings so darn 'evil'?

You aren't listening to what I'm proposing here. All I'm asking for are some basic social safety nets that insure that all Americans have an equal opportunity to succeed. That's it. I'm not anti-capitalist, I'm not against the free market, I'm simply against letting people suffer and die with no way out of their financial holes. I don't want people to die because of lack of healthcare, I don't want people to work full time and not make enough to survive, and I don't want those who are smart enough to get ahead to be denied that right simply because they weren't born into money. How in the hell is that 'evil'?

Need I remind you that you have outright advocated for murdering innocent civilians as legitimate targets of war, nuking entire countries thereby massacring millions of innocent people, implementing torture (one of the worst civil rights abuses in the world, and a blatant violation of international law), murdering the innocent women and children of suspected terrorists, etc. Yet you want to call me evil for wanting to insure that people are provided basic healthcare, etc.? Don't make me laugh.

I've already put you in your place multiple times over before on here. Yet it does no good since no matter what move I make in this little chess game, you only ever just s**t all over the board and strut about like you 'won' the game anyway.

You are what many describe as 'too far gone'. I pity you.

[Aquila King]

3 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

Ah ok, I found the thread and it’s the Democratic Socialists that you support, not the American Socialist Party of America.  Is that correct?  It’s got to be pretty interesting when the two get together (if they ever do) to see who is more socialist…  So I noticed that the DSA website has been rewritten.  That’s interesting.  Your tenets have changed.  Playing with the wording, eh?

I noticed one thing that didn’t change:

“In the short term we can’t eliminate private corporations, but we can bring them under greater democratic control.”

But in the long term, you do.  Bringing them under greater *democratic* control is eliminating private ownership.  And that goes against human nature and violates natural rights.  It is not very compassionate.  In this case *democratic* means mob rule.  That is wrong.  It is unhealthy.  It destroys the economy.  East Germany is just one example.  The only solution is to embrace the free market and the Invisible Hand.  Trust that the self-interest of each business man benefits the whole.

This is what I support: https://www.justicedemocrats.com/platform

There are some people who would even argue that I don't really count as a 'true' Socialist, since all I'm advocating for is a social democracy like what exists in Scandinavia, or Canada, etc. The term 'Socialist' is a rather open-ended term.

Anyway, that's enough beating my brains into the wall here.

[Aquila King]

13 hours ago, acidhead said:

The most expressed virtuous individual is more than likely the least virtuous.

An individual who seeks to tell you how to live your life according to how they trick you into believing how they live theirs.

They are the least Noble.

There always exists an alternative motive.

If you think I'm trying to act like some moral paragon you're sadly mistaken. I'm just a boring average human being. At the end of the day I can be somewhat selfish and a bit of a dick. I've certainly done a number of things in my lifetime I'm not proud of, so I'm not some great arbiter of moral truth here.

It doesn't take an extremely virtuous individual like Superman to know that Nazism is wrong. The same is true in regards to banning ALL Muslims from entering the country, or giving people who simply lack the money for medical bills a death sentence, or implementing torture, or killing innocent civilians as legitimate targets of war, or voting for a pedophile in Alabama, etc.

You don't have to be a moral paragon to be disgusted with that s**t. You just have to be a decently average human being. I'm not standing on some moral high ground. It's just that some of you people that support this s**t are lower than dirt.

[Aquila King]

12 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

Well this was predictable. It’s what emotional people who can’t think beyond their feels always resort to. Attacking the source and dehumanizing the opposition. 

You pretend to stand on some moral high ground, therefore anything said that counters your emotions must be deemed irrational and hateful. After all if we don’t subscribe to your moral superiority we must be irrational, and hateful. Right? Void of any “compassion”. 

If this script goes how it always has before you will soon start to believe, if you don’t already, that people who don’t share a spot on your moral high ground simply need to be eliminated. This is the exact ideology that saw the slaughter of hundreds of millions. It’s why they teach next to nothing when it comes to the evils of Marxism. They want you to repeat it. 

Now that is some far-out Alex Jones level conspiracy theory bulls**t...

I would NEVER advocate for the slaughter of anyone. Hell, I'm outright opposed to all forms of the death penalty, even for terrorists and mass-murderers. Why on Earth would I under that ideology ever support some sort of genocide? That's the biggest stretch I've seen in a long while...

[Aquila King]

11 hours ago, likwidlite said:

Whilst I agree with what you say about compassion and stereotyping etc on a personal level. Compassion is subjective and stereotypes don't exist without reason.

I would agree that compassion is indeed subjective, but overall human well-being is not. Whether or not someone is physically, emotionally, or psychologically healthy can be objectively measured, and we can determine what policies are best for people often times on those grounds.

For instance, we know as a fact that under other single payer universal healthcare systems, the annual death rate of those who don't receive medical treatment is at a net 0, whereas under our current system it measures into the tens of thousands. Under a single-payer system, the number of people who file medical bankruptcy is also at a net 0, here it's once again hundreds of thousands.

We know by this standard objectively speaking, that our current healthcare system causes great levels of harm, and so we can therefore determine that the obvious solution to this dilemma is to implement a universal healthcare system here in the US.

It's true that compassion is subjective, as someone might genuinely compassionately believe the alternative is the best course of action. However whether you like it or not, that just isn't the case, and so if you have genuine compassion for these people who are suffering under our current system and you see these statistics, but you still don't support universal healthcare, you're simply delusional.

If I say that someone lacks compassion, for the most part it is in response to someone who acknowledges these statistics but doesn't really care. Although delusional would unfortunately fit that description in some cases also.

I realize nobody likes being called uncompassionate or delusional, but whether you like it or not it's nonetheless in this case invariably true.

Now as for your statement about stereotypes, some stereotypes may exist for various reasons, but that doesn't make any stereotype suddenly correct. ALL stereotypes are wrong by definition, since there is always an exception to the rule. Finding a reason for a stereotype does not in any way ever justify it.

11 hours ago, likwidlite said:

You're advocating social democracy, socialism only works if everyone is on board and many on here have strong arguments against it.

The kind of socialism I'm advocating for works whether all the people agree with it or not. I honestly don't now what you mean that statement.

Whether every in the nation supports universal healthcare for instance, doesn't make the effects of such a system any less successful in solving our healthcare dilemma.

The only way that it hurts it is simply by means of the democratic process, in that those who disagree with such a system could vote against such a system. So if you're arguing from that front, then yes, there is indeed a dilemma of many many people who vote against their own best interests. I honestly don't know what the solution is to that beyond a better education, resources, and information regarding the actual issues. Though regardless it seems that most people are content to persist in their delusions despite that, so I honestly don't know what to do or say with those people.

11 hours ago, likwidlite said:

So how would you deal with those who flatly refuse to come around to your way of thinking and will violently oppose your ideals if pushed? 

Do you not know how democracy works? If they disagree, then they're more than willing to engage in peaceful protest and rally to vote against it. Though if they lose the election, and such programs are implemented, then like it or not they'll just have to deal with it until they can rally enough supporters together to strike it down in the next election. That's the democratic process. It's as simple as that.

If they oppose the democratic process by using violence, then they're no different then terrorists.

12 hours ago, likwidlite said:

P.s. please don't take this as a personal slight. I've asked the same question to many others, I just interested in the opinion of a strongly willed social democrat.

No problem at all. I appreciate you asking politely.

[preacherman76]

39 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

Now that is some far-out Alex Jones level conspiracy theory bulls**t...

I would NEVER advocate for the slaughter of anyone. Hell, I'm outright opposed to all forms of the death penalty, even for terrorists and mass-murderers. Why on Earth would I under that ideology ever support some sort of genocide? That's the biggest stretch I've seen in a long while...

Soviet Marxism isn’t some far out anything. We are watching the same exact mindset of what led to the slaughter of hundreds of millions being resurrected as we speak. It isn’t a stretch, an exaggeration, a conspiracy. It’s a historical fact.

Thats always the answer though isn’t it? You guys are gonna do it the right way this time. Scary. 

[AnchorSteam]

14 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

I think that the front runner is still Oprah.

Really?

So it isn't Crazy Bernie anymore? Say what you will about the guy that went to Moscow for his honeymoon (that is just such a hoot!)  he is pretty open about being a communist and has some appeal to the dominant far-Left elements.

Oprah has neither, but she does give free stuff away from time to time... instead of just promising them and promising that other people can be forced to pay for them.

[F3SS]

They don’t have anybody and they don’t have a platform that isn’t about giving something away and hating those who even ask why about it. Tucker had some dem on last night to talk about the 2020 platform and reparations, yes reparations, is part of the platform along with free everything. Tucker kept asking the guy questions about the reparations. Who pays, how does it work, does an immigrant who just moved here have to pay reparations too? The guy had nothing. He even said there are no details. Damnit it’s a good divisive mantra though. The only other answer the guy had besides “I don’t know” was that two white guys had no business discussing it. Wtf? They can offer it though? Tucker’s comeback was right. He said as a taxpayer he has every right to ask questions about policies his government may implement. The Democratic Party is the most shortsighted racist bunch of clueless idiots I’ve ever seen. They really are pathetic.

[Aquila King]

56 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

Soviet Marxism isn’t some far out anything. We are watching the same exact mindset of what led to the slaughter of hundreds of millions being resurrected as we speak. It isn’t a stretch, an exaggeration, a conspiracy. It’s a historical fact.

Thats always the answer though isn’t it? You guys are gonna do it the right way this time. Scary. 

Dude, I'm not a Marxist or a Communist. I'm sick to absolute death of people thinking that just because I'm to the left of you personally, that that suddenly means that I'm as far left as one could possibly be. That's nonsense. That's like saying "Oh, you're to the right of me? Well that must mean you're a fascist!" It's utter BS.

All I'm advocating for a dualistic system of free-market capitalism with a healthy dose of socialism to keep corporations from getting out of hand. I'm advocating for a system like Sweden or Finland. Do you see Sweden out there slaughtering hundreds of millions or showing the least bit of a sign that they intend to? No. Of course not. Because that's utterly ridiculous and you know it.