Democrats are doing a ‘very sinister thing’

Post Reply New Topic

Oh, please stop, I am starting to cry because I am laughing so hard...

Sky News, the home of rationality. They should trademark that.

And I love, "I have been told, by someone in Europe, that the Democrats have drifted a lot more to the left." That is your idea of critical thinking? A random European made a comment about the US Democrats?

Maybe the results in this European study will interest you: Republicans closely resemble autocratic parties in Hungary and Turkey – study

So you wonder why people on the left have a problem with you, and then you trot out something like this?

One person's view of European or Australian politics is a good conversation starting point but nothing more. And as usual, context is very important. If we accept for a moment that the US Democrats really have moved to the left (and that is debatable), we still have to take account of where on the political spectrum they started and where they've allegedly ended up. Genuinely left wing, as in mild socialism? Very doubtful. Genuinely centrist, as in Liberal or Social Democrat? Also highly unlikely. Slighty more to the left of moderately-right-wing, aka right of international centre but left of the Republicans? Ah yes, there we are.

The only change I can see is that a couple of people on the left of the Democrat party are getting a lot of airtime, namely Bernie Sanders and AOC. Though as the US media is generally more Republican than Democrat I do wonder if that's partly in an effort to discredit the wider party by emphasising a false loony left / reds under the bed narrative. Especially with Bernie as he's exactly the sort of character who could easily be written off as a clueless old duffer if anyone wanted, in the same way Michael Foot was written off as leader of the UK Labour Party many years ago (look him up). It's also true that the Democrats look more left-wing than they used to, simply because the Republicans shifted so far to the right under Trump. It's not really clear what their bounce-back position will be.

I'm not totally convinced of your centrist position, Pepe. It seems to be based around the present American centre, which is a false neutral position in international terms. American politics operate in a particularly narrow, right-of-centre band. The mid-point between the USSR or Castro's Cuba, and Pinochet's Chile, Noriega's Panama or Hitler's Germany, does not lie inbetween the US Democrats and Republicans.

Given the discussion is in regards to American political issues, wouldn't the appropriate position to be in order to look this be from the "centre" of that political system, rather than some abstract (or "international") "true centre", though?

Looking at it from some abstract "centre" would provide a skewed view of the given subject (given the subject is not "defined" by it, but rather by its own internal "rules"), and relies on this "centre" even being defineable, or agreed upon by those on all sides.

I hope the mods take note of your history of mocking behaviour.



Compared to the left-leaning ABC, yes, the people I watch are more rational.
Do you watch Sky News often?



It never ceases to amaze me how you constantly jump to conclusions.

The person I was sourcing is not a 'Random' person.
He is someone I have gotten to know over time and I have come to respect his views.
He knows a lot more about European politics than both you and I, which seems to be in evidence.



I think every one of us has come across conflicting articles.
I'd be surprised if I couldn't find one which seemingly negates your own.
*This* is why I try to maintain a skeptical/objective perspective.
Kruger/Dunning situation here.

Read my previous post.



OK, you tell me where you think I am on the political spectrum.

I hate big business.
I think a medicare system works well in Australia.
I am in support of welfare for genuine people in need.
I believe in social equality for all citizen, no matter which ethnic group.
I don't vote for the conservative party here.



I haven't seen that.
To the contrary, I see the opposite.



As an example:
The political left is against modular nuclear energy.
I personally see that as a lay down misere in terms of reducing the Australian cabon footprint, but the 'looney left' won't have a bar of it.

Mhmm, so then why when I refuted one of your posts that was riddled with lies & inaccuracies did you not find even a single article to refute or negate any of the ones I posted links to?

Surely it can't be because you're not as sceptical/objective as you believe yourself to be? Wouldn't that be ironic..

It is only your opinion that the post was full of inaccuracies.
I did supply the 'standard of living graph', but of course you would have a counter-argument with that also.

Politics is all about spin and counter spin.
It is tedious.
That is why I prefer to maintain a skeptical attitude and use my experience and reasoning ability.

You aren't interested in a discussion.
It is all about debating point scoring with you.
I find that tedious.

BTW, The "Beast from the East" is back.
I am told it is a global warming phenomenon.

It wasn't my opinion. I posted several links to facts that disprove what you posted point by point. There are only facts, not alternative facts.

Sure, politics is spin & perspective, but that has nothing to do with inaccurate statements vs. provable facts.

I was interested in discussion. You refused to discuss facts that proved your statements were false. For someone so unbiased that seeks only the truth that seems rather.. odd - if in fact you are unbiased and seek truth, anyways. I have a sneaking suspicion that you may not be as unbiased as you believe yourself to be nor as interested in facts and truth.

The "Beast from the East," = some weather phenomenon? Hot/cold? We're currently experiencing a cold snap that started pretty much last night. It's 20C lower temperatures than normal right now for this week. There was frost on my windshield this morning - and it's been a VERY mild winter, only a few flakes of snow at home for day or so vs. typically getting a few weeks of winter weather. It snowed in downtown Vancouver today - enough to accumulate on the ground everywhere (kinda rare-ish) and dumped something like a foot and a half of snow in mountain regions. (We're located in just about the only place in the entire country that doesn't get covered in ice and snow for months on end.)

Darling, but you are the beast of the East. Your fluffy chest makes the world combust like a fireball.

Don't you know it's dangerous to start political threads, let me do it for you.

The only person who didn't make it pretty clear at first that they were talking not about you specifically was goldfish but thankfully he said he didn't mean you. [eventually, with a little insecurity, yeah... never trust fish, they are always up to something, like teasing you]
Are you sure you aren't having the bad habit of looking for proof of people trying to attack you personally? Why do you feel like a victim just because of one scum who in the past personally attacked you with insults just because your views? You might be driving yourself into stress you do not deserve. People behave the same way not just towards you.
Hug. Political debates aren't healthy for you until you identify these things like you identified some people aren't speaking in a very conveying manner or serious, using sarcasm or irony, and some get to using personal insults.
I think Kraichgauer was pretty clear, it didn't seem to me he was talking about you supporting Trump. It seems he was talking about Trump himself. Because Trump says silly things, a hint on why he isn't trustworthy.

Last edited by Rexi on 09 Feb 2021, 1:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Now remember, the French have some wise sayings, such as: 'Qui s'aime se taquine.' There is just one conclusion that can be drawn from this... [goldfish is in love ]

It's particularly funny when their "lawjick" starts eating its own tail. Like whining about words being subverted, but then starting threads just to undermine words. "WaR iS pEaCe" they hoot and lament, yet casually want to discuss how fascists aren't fascists and nazis aren't nazis. "EvErYtHiNg Is sOoOoOo OrWeLlIaN!" they warble and cry, except when they're using Orwell's own words to argue that fascism isn't fascism after all, wielded as a blunt instrument to sweep aside all use of the word - except when they use it. "BoTh SiDeS aRe JuSt aS BaD HoRsEsHoE ThEoRy!" but even though both sides are just as bad, one side is still somehow worse. When other people agree with them, that's "consensus", but when other people collectively disagree, that's just a brainwashed mob. "Be more accepting of different opinions! Specifically, mine! Not that I'll ever try to deviate from my opinion, but you still should, and accept specifically my ideas!"

So centrist. Much impartial. Neutral Doge. Neutral Doge verifies Neutral Doge's own neutrality. Flawless Logics!

Are you saying you don't believe in what the links are purporting?

Regarding facts:
I still have a chuckle over the "97% of scientist agree" 'fact'.
I am sure Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck have degrees in the climate change sciences.



There are "provable facts" showing how 'modelling' has been corrupted by information tampering, as an example.
Your point is presumptous and moot.



You are interested in debating point-scoring.
No matter what someone offers in an argument, you will find a counter-argument.
That is your history.
Those are 'The Facts'.

That is fine if both parties want a debate.
Personally, I find it tedious because I am interested in mutual growth, not through debate, but through a collaborative venture.
PPR doesn't support that.

If you want a debate, I suggest you have it with Brictoria.
He has a lot more mental energy for that style of social interaction.
Simples.



I find your demands for me to engage in a debating style of social intercourse rather odd.



You are being presumptuous, again.

Are you saying:
-I believe I am infallible?
-I am not aware of unconscious bias?

And what is your position?
"I have a sneaking suspicion that you may not be as unbiased as you believe yourself to be nor as interested in facts and truth."

Your perspective is rather amusing.




You obviously haven't researched "The Beast from the East".
'Google' is your friend.

Nothing you have said has changed my position of being 'scientifically skeptical'.
I find it odd that you need me to agree with you.

Is the sky blue and water wet?

*waiting for you to find right wing propaganda nonsense that says no to both & claim you're an unbiased centrist only interested in facts*

Misrepresentation.
I embrace a (scientifically) skeptical mindset.
I find indisputable facts hard to come by, possibly because I am much older than you and realise how 'spin' can be used.

I have said on many, occasions that I enjoy speculation, also.
It is a hobby of mine.

Please don't pidgeon-hole me.
I am a true aspie.

I'm still waiting.

I am genuinely interested in seeing where you think I am on the Political Spectrum.
I won't guarantee I will agree with you, but I can't guarantee I won't either.
I need to see what you have written, first.