You're viewing part of a thread.
You’ve done nothing of the sort. You’ve shared your own immature fantasies.
-
Democrats associate themselves with the status quo
-
The status quo is a system in decline
-
As the status quo declines, people will be less inclined to support a party that is associated with the status quo.
Which part of that, exactly, is an "immature fantasy?"
3 for sure. That's not supported by any historical or sociological evidence.
That's a pretty strange thing to disagree with. It's very straightforward logic so it would take quite a bit of evidence to put it in doubt.
And I have no idea what evidence you're looking at but I know what evidence you're not looking at, for example, the rise of Hitler in Germany. As the status quo became worse and worse, more people turned away from the establishment parties and to the far-right (and to the far-left, unfortunately to a lesser extent), which brought about the end of the republic. You can see similar cases in most every fascist state that has ever existed. I would very much like to know which historical examples you are looking at that don't support my third statement.
Oh, I thought you were talking about people abandoning the status quo for the left. I do not contest that frustrated people flock to fascism. Your strategy is excellent at driving people to fascism, I've been saying that from the start.
Do we not agree that flocking to fascism is bad? In that case yeah, our goals are definitely not aligned.
That's a deliberate mischaraterization of my position. There is not a single thing I've said anywhere that could possibly be construed into what you said.
Obviously, people flocking to fascism is bad. But that is what's going to happen so long as what passes for the left is aligned with the declining status quo. That's why the only two possibilities for stopping fascism are implementing policies that will actually stop the decline, or creating a leftist party that can criticize the establishment while offering a non-fascist explanation of the decline and how to fix it.
Since you retracted your disagreement with my third statement, I'll ask again - which of my three statements is wrong?
-
Your strategy is for people to get fed up with the status quo (Dems) and unseat them for good.
-
You cite examples of how this plays out in fascist states all the time.
Seems like a justified characterization.
My rejection is entirely contingent on your rejection of what I had mistakenly presumed was an implicit assumption: the goal is to disrupt the status quo with a leftist power, not a fascist one.
If you reject that assumption, then sure, you are doing exactly the right thing to help unseat the status quo with a fascist power.
If you want to adopt that assumption, then no I still disagree with your third statement.
All the examples you could think of were specifically fascist. The strategy doesn't work for leftists, it specifically breeds fascism. There's no evidence of this strategy replacing the status quo with leftists.
Your strategy is for people to get fed up with the status quo (Dems) and unseat them for good.
Liar. Where did I claim this?
What I've said, that you're deliberately mischaraterizing, is that people will inevitably get fed up with the status quo (Dems) and turn to fascism, unless something is done to stop it, either the Dems enacting the necessary policies or people moving to a new party, which are what I advocate for. In other words, the exact opposite of what you're characterizing my position as.
Is this all you have? You can't actually find fault with my reasoning, so finding yourself backed into a corner you just try to lie and slander your way out of it?
unless something is done to stop it, which is what I advocate for
Water on the grease fire
So you've given up even trying to argue now.
Like I said
I'm not gonna nuh-uh-yuh-huh with someone who doesn't understand elections
I made my point, it remains valid. You're throwing water on a grease fire because it's obvious to you that water puts out fire.
The only reason you're talking about "nuh-uh-yuh-huh" is because you can't make a coherent argument beyond that.
Your "point" is grounded in deliberate lies and mischaracterization.
Me: If I see something that's going to start a house fire, I should try to stop it or put it out, or, failing that, plan around the house fire occuring.
You: Your strategy is for the house to burn down.
In what way is that not a blatant and deliberate lie?
-
-