That's ridiculous. What about the recent example where I called out conservatives for using the argument that small sections of walls stop 95% of illegal crossings (as if they could extrapolate that to a full scale wall where there wasn't a convenient alternative to get across.)

Furthermore my comment wasn't taking the conservative side. It was sort of taking the side of liberals who were scared that an avowed socialist would be less likely to beat Trump.

But I wasn't even really taking THEIR side. They could be wrong because an avowed socialist might be more likely to beat him. The problem was only that those arguing against the worried liberals used an incorrect argument even if their conclusion was correct. They implied that all voters would lump together candidates who say they are socialists and candidates who deny that but are called socialists by the right.

Coming to the correct conclusion via fallacious arguments is worse than coming to the incorrect one. Because it delays the day that people decide to learn how to think.

Also we've got half the forum "IT'S AGAINST THE LAW" and discussing it when the civil war/deportations/killings/whatever starts and the people in charge of said laws promptly not giving a ****.

This how i think they should go.

Republicans have called dems socialist my entire life and long before it. To the point in a lot of ways its a meaningless word to their audience. The dems should take advantage of them making it meaningless and push for the most progressive candidate with a good shot at beating trump. Then to calm the centrist dems that person should pick a establishment candidate as their running mate.

What is the dollar point when someone goes from a capitalist to a socialist? Obviously the military is exempt and dems can spend as much as they want there.

Conservatives definition of socialism 1. Anything vaguely left wing, involving government spending, or really anything they don’t like.

Definition of socialism 2. Venezuela, the USSR, Cuba (but only the worst parts)

Use 1 to decide what to criticise. Use 2 to justify that criticism.

If anyone points out Europe, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and Canada, just mention something about Muslims in Sweden.

easy.

Nice change of tone the last month or two by cuserounder about possibility everything's going to ashes after the election.
Pretty sad it took 2 years+ for you to reach these conclusions.
Now imagine about the rest of the population that isn't as smart as you and cannot write/express themselves as well, and you realize nothing will be done to change this.

Also worth noting that discussing socialism with trumpkins is useless, they just hate how the word sounds.

Same as it ever was

Yeah, exactly. A lot of people on here are choosing the wrong front on which to have these arguments with conservatives. We should not be arguing about whether a particular policy is or is not socialism/socialistic, that’s conceding too much ground, ie that socialism is inherently bad. The “argument,” as much as it should be one, should be over the fact that they are so terrified of an abstract concept. Who cares if universal healthcare is “socialism”? Make them defend their irrational and ignorant fear of a concept that applies to tons of programs they love.

( twitter | raw text )

( twitter | raw text )

( twitter | raw text )

( twitter | raw text )

I mean, he’s not wrong.

I wonder if this is related to how wound up he's been over the weekend.

( twitter | raw text )

Doubtful he's aware of any of that.

If I was NP I'd be instructing all my members to keep on about repubs like Graham, Mitch, Collins etc having blood on their hands by facilitating the orange buffoon and his racist remarks.

borrowed for incitement

that meme is so well-executed that i had to steal it and re-post it on social media a few weeks back

sorry not sorry

( twitter | raw text )

Conservative: We can’t have those types of welfare programs in the United States! They just won’t work.

Normal: Why won’t they work?

Conservative: They just won’t!

Normal: No, seriously why not?

Conservative: Those countries have a homogeneous population.

Normal: So we can’t have nice things because black people might get them too?

Conservative: I didn’t say that! Why is everything about race with you librards.

Yup. I had one tell me the only place liberalism has ever worked is..... China. And liberalism = socialism.

( twitter | raw text )

Yeah I don't get the "those countries have small populations and are homogenous" argument. The "homogenous" argument is saying that white people will cut their own nose to spite their face to deny anything to black people. And the "small populations" argument is a complete non-sequeter.