Well what I see from the other side of the Atlantic is that the Democratic Party largely see themselves as left of centr
Liberalism is, always has been and always will be, a right-wing ideology.
Are we clear on this?
Well, I suspect that any lack of clarity there was due to you cutting off the end of the sentence, which said
e or centre in America, are right of centre by European standards
Now you go on to claim that you would never blame a political party for not having a more left wing agenda, but it seems to me that I started off by sarcastically challenging you to explain how Kamala is responsible for Trump’s fascism and here you are, having belittled me for not understanding the tenets of your political bible in detail “the relationship” between them, but now you not only don’t blame the liberals for fascism, you don’t even blame them for liberalism.
Either you’ve been so busy disagreeing with me that you’ve lost your way and contradicted yourself, which suggests you’re just trolling, or you lack the ability for consistent rational thought, which I doubt, or you’re really bad at explaining your viewpoint, which I believe to be the appears diagnosis.
So I reverse your challenge: are you seriously telling me that in the year of our Lord 2025, over 170 years after the communist manifesto was piblished in plain English, a dbzer0 user is unable to explain how liberalism causes fascism to the uninitiated and can only resort to slagging off .world users for not already understanding the thing they repeatedly swerve explaining?
Liberalism is, always has been and always will be, a right-wing ideology.
…you are not clear on this?
If you are unwilling and/or incapable of acknowledging that which has been blatantly obvious for more than a hundred years now what is the point of taking this conversation further?
My energy would be better spent arguing with a flat-earther.
For the fucking third time, and this time making it as clear as it could possibly be, YES, Democrats are right of centre. How can you have read this a second time with me pointing out that it was already in my answer and still not listened?
Your energy would be better spent if you took even half a second to think about what I said, recognise that we have points of agreement, and build on those to an explanation of how it is that he Democratic party, who oppose the republicans, and who have held actual power in America for a total of about two years this century so far, are responsible for the far right excesses of the Republican party. So far all you’ve given me is rhetoric, disbelief that I don’t already understand your logic in 2025, bizzare non-sequiturs and strange irrelevant points about non existent square eggs. If you’re not capable of explaining your logic clearly to someone who doesn’t already understand then yes, I agree you are certainly wasting your time and mine, but all you seem to be doing in this discussion is berating me for disbelieving your conclusions, rather than attempting to explain how you reached them.
What is it that you think has been obvious for 100 years? You never explain, you just berate!
If all you ever meant was that the Democrats are also right of centre and not that they are responsible for trumps evils, say so clearly and we can agree and get on with our lives. Otherwise, EXPLAIN YOUR LOGIC!
If you actually can’t answer the question why/how, all you have is an axiom or an article of faith, and you shouldn’t be cross with people for not sharing it.
Liberalism is, always has been and always will be, a right-wing ideology.
I DID NOT use a liberal weasel-term like “right of centre” in my text. I DID NOT attempt to misinform and/or misdirect you by pretending that the liberal myth of a political “centre” is something that actually exists.
YOU did - not me.
There is only ONE “centre” in politics - and that is where political power is centralised.
It is the function of reactionary right-wing ideology to protect this “centre” - and radical left-wing ideology exists to threaten it.
That’s how you tell the difference between them in spite of all the reactionary propaganda the liberal media machine tries to feed you, see?
Not really, because I think you’re splitting hairs rather than answering my question. I called it right of centre and you called it right wing and you’re very very cross that I didn’t use your exact phrase, but you aren’t explaining what your phrases mean not why it’s important that I use them nor why you disbelieve in political centre. If your point all along was that there is no centre, maybe you should have said so earlier, and maybe you can find it in your heart to explain calmly why you believe what you believe and what you mean by the words you use instead of shouting at me for not already understanding when you consistently fail to explain.
Trying to understand your perspective is exhausting because you never answer my questions, never explain your reasoning, but instead get furious with me for not using the terminology you didn’t explain and for not already prebelieving the conclusions I’ve been challenging you to explain the rationale for, for two days now.
I begin to suspect that your position is that any party that doesn’t advocate for the abolition of money is necessarily far right and that making distinctions between them is counterproductive*, but you literally never said that and I’m having to deduce your position from how relatively cross you are about things I said. It’s neither very effective communication of ideas, nor a very persuasive debating technique, as I believe very few people who don’t already agree with you would have persisted this long or given you so many opportunities to explain.
*I disagree, and I think Trump is far, far worse than other presidents I’ve seen in the USA
Sigh. Nope. I give up. I tried very hard to get an explanation out of you, but it’s not happening any decade soon. I’ll ask my dog instead. He’s no more able to explain tankie reasoning than you are, and he’s just as likely to get distracted by irrelevant details, but at least he licks my hand instead of shouting at me when he doesn’t answer my questions.
I think you have a perspective on the world that I became interested in exploring and for some reason thought you might explain your position instead of insulting me for not already sharing. I was wrong. I give in. I won’t learn anything from you because rather than ever answering my questions or explaining your position, all I ever get is some rant about how awful I am based on some word we use differently.
I don’t understand by what mechanism you think communism eliminates hatred but all I get in response is bizzare nonsequiturs, rants, rhetoric, accusations and astonishment. At no point did you ever try giving a straightforward explanation.
If I ask my dog how we can eliminate hatred, he’ll probably go and bring me his lead, and yes, I can kind of see how he thinks that no one could possibly hate when they’re having a fantastic walk, but I’m not entirely sure it will eliminate all hatred, and I know full well he’s still going to growl at the terrier at number 35. I think he enjoys growling darkly at the terrier at number 35, and the terrier enjoys running along the fence and barking.
Some people think that if they become rich they will become happy, but I think they’re wrong. Being in desperate need definitely makes people unhappy, and we should definitely eliminate that unnecessary source of unhappiness, but happiness isn’t simply the absence of unhappiness, and universal love and mutual respect isn’t simply the absence of an exploitative capitalist elite.
Well, I suspect that any lack of clarity there was due to you cutting off the end of the sentence, which said
Now you go on to claim that you would never blame a political party for not having a more left wing agenda, but it seems to me that I started off by sarcastically challenging you to explain how Kamala is responsible for Trump’s fascism and here you are, having belittled me for not understanding the tenets of your political bible in detail “the relationship” between them, but now you not only don’t blame the liberals for fascism, you don’t even blame them for liberalism.
Either you’ve been so busy disagreeing with me that you’ve lost your way and contradicted yourself, which suggests you’re just trolling, or you lack the ability for consistent rational thought, which I doubt, or you’re really bad at explaining your viewpoint, which I believe to be the appears diagnosis.
So I reverse your challenge: are you seriously telling me that in the year of our Lord 2025, over 170 years after the communist manifesto was piblished in plain English, a dbzer0 user is unable to explain how liberalism causes fascism to the uninitiated and can only resort to slagging off .world users for not already understanding the thing they repeatedly swerve explaining?
So…
…you are not clear on this?
If you are unwilling and/or incapable of acknowledging that which has been blatantly obvious for more than a hundred years now what is the point of taking this conversation further?
My energy would be better spent arguing with a flat-earther.
For the fucking third time, and this time making it as clear as it could possibly be, YES, Democrats are right of centre. How can you have read this a second time with me pointing out that it was already in my answer and still not listened?
Your energy would be better spent if you took even half a second to think about what I said, recognise that we have points of agreement, and build on those to an explanation of how it is that he Democratic party, who oppose the republicans, and who have held actual power in America for a total of about two years this century so far, are responsible for the far right excesses of the Republican party. So far all you’ve given me is rhetoric, disbelief that I don’t already understand your logic in 2025, bizzare non-sequiturs and strange irrelevant points about non existent square eggs. If you’re not capable of explaining your logic clearly to someone who doesn’t already understand then yes, I agree you are certainly wasting your time and mine, but all you seem to be doing in this discussion is berating me for disbelieving your conclusions, rather than attempting to explain how you reached them.
What is it that you think has been obvious for 100 years? You never explain, you just berate!
If all you ever meant was that the Democrats are also right of centre and not that they are responsible for trumps evils, say so clearly and we can agree and get on with our lives. Otherwise, EXPLAIN YOUR LOGIC!
If you actually can’t answer the question why/how, all you have is an axiom or an article of faith, and you shouldn’t be cross with people for not sharing it.
Did I perhaps miscommunicate? Let me check…
No, no, this is what I typed -
I DID NOT use a liberal weasel-term like “right of centre” in my text. I DID NOT attempt to misinform and/or misdirect you by pretending that the liberal myth of a political “centre” is something that actually exists.
YOU did - not me.
There is only ONE “centre” in politics - and that is where political power is centralised.
It is the function of reactionary right-wing ideology to protect this “centre” - and radical left-wing ideology exists to threaten it.
That’s how you tell the difference between them in spite of all the reactionary propaganda the liberal media machine tries to feed you, see?
Not really, because I think you’re splitting hairs rather than answering my question. I called it right of centre and you called it right wing and you’re very very cross that I didn’t use your exact phrase, but you aren’t explaining what your phrases mean not why it’s important that I use them nor why you disbelieve in political centre. If your point all along was that there is no centre, maybe you should have said so earlier, and maybe you can find it in your heart to explain calmly why you believe what you believe and what you mean by the words you use instead of shouting at me for not already understanding when you consistently fail to explain.
Trying to understand your perspective is exhausting because you never answer my questions, never explain your reasoning, but instead get furious with me for not using the terminology you didn’t explain and for not already prebelieving the conclusions I’ve been challenging you to explain the rationale for, for two days now.
I begin to suspect that your position is that any party that doesn’t advocate for the abolition of money is necessarily far right and that making distinctions between them is counterproductive*, but you literally never said that and I’m having to deduce your position from how relatively cross you are about things I said. It’s neither very effective communication of ideas, nor a very persuasive debating technique, as I believe very few people who don’t already agree with you would have persisted this long or given you so many opportunities to explain.
*I disagree, and I think Trump is far, far worse than other presidents I’ve seen in the USA
Really? Your attempt to justify your belief in reactionary propaganda is “splitting hairs?”
WHAT (supposed) “centre?”
WHERE is this (alleged) “centre” between left and right that you speak of?
Show it to me.
Sigh. Nope. I give up. I tried very hard to get an explanation out of you, but it’s not happening any decade soon. I’ll ask my dog instead. He’s no more able to explain tankie reasoning than you are, and he’s just as likely to get distracted by irrelevant details, but at least he licks my hand instead of shouting at me when he doesn’t answer my questions.
Don’t be angry at me. You could have avoided all of this. I give you the option of simply admiting that…
…remember?
Not angry, resigned.
I think you have a perspective on the world that I became interested in exploring and for some reason thought you might explain your position instead of insulting me for not already sharing. I was wrong. I give in. I won’t learn anything from you because rather than ever answering my questions or explaining your position, all I ever get is some rant about how awful I am based on some word we use differently.
I don’t understand by what mechanism you think communism eliminates hatred but all I get in response is bizzare nonsequiturs, rants, rhetoric, accusations and astonishment. At no point did you ever try giving a straightforward explanation.
If I ask my dog how we can eliminate hatred, he’ll probably go and bring me his lead, and yes, I can kind of see how he thinks that no one could possibly hate when they’re having a fantastic walk, but I’m not entirely sure it will eliminate all hatred, and I know full well he’s still going to growl at the terrier at number 35. I think he enjoys growling darkly at the terrier at number 35, and the terrier enjoys running along the fence and barking.
Some people think that if they become rich they will become happy, but I think they’re wrong. Being in desperate need definitely makes people unhappy, and we should definitely eliminate that unnecessary source of unhappiness, but happiness isn’t simply the absence of unhappiness, and universal love and mutual respect isn’t simply the absence of an exploitative capitalist elite.