Total posts: 4,920
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
Why did you even reply to what I said?This is getting off topic though.
Why did you address me instead of addressing what the person who created the forum post said?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
Which is why I mentioned capitalism not capital. Do you think there are flaws to capitalism?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
How are the majority of your claims related to the topic at hand?
Your question is st*pid and a waste of everyone's time. I made the conversation better. Thank me later. I see now you are incapable of actually defending your position so you simply stated this question. It really gauges how little you actually thought about your position.
If you are not trolling seek professional help.
Created:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
This is a troll so I will stop talking.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
Then what were you even saying with that comment?positive is not intended to convey "better"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
Do make it simple for me. I had a problem with all of it.No.
The fundamental flaw is the "ism", the idea implicating capital as an operative principle, rather than a medium of utility. Free Market Principle would be a better representation of the positive connotation sometimes attributed to capitalism.
Why are you talking about the ism?
Operative principle?
Medium of utility?
Free market principle what is it?
Better representation of the positive connotation?
Just type it simpler.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
So are you saying free is better than control in simpler terms?The fundamental flaw is the "ism", the idea of capital as an operative principle, rather than a medium of utility. Free Market Principle would be a better representation of the positive connotation sometimes attributed to capitalism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
But the poor are still poor and even your general statement is false. The rich are getting richer while the poor are getting paid the same. What have you got to say about wage stagnation?It does. As the rich get richer, the poor get richer.
Your link confirmed this.
This is actual delusion. Do you not see the graph that says "Wage increase in the U.S rise to the top earners"?
Would it be better if the rich barely got better and the poor barely got better? I don't think so.
False conclusion made on a false premise.
what's wrong with Capitalism?
So you can't find problems with capitalism?
This is a contradiction. Hell sadly exists and people burn there according to the link I provided.
I was assuming that in order to say that about hell since I figured you are trolling but since you are not I take back that statement.
A person's living expenses can be summarized in the FISTO acrinomn. This is:
If my question wasn't clear tell me what you support. Public healthcare or private healthcare.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
They are closer to the GOP then they are to the PDP but I think there are many major differences between libertarians and the GOP:
The only thing that really matters is their stance on capitalism which libertarian's and Republican's like whereas DNC are more supportive of socialist policies. Socialism is more of an important issue to the DNC which will drive them away and into the Republican party.
Socialism destroys economies.
If the economy doesn't serve the interests of the people why shouldn't socialism "destroy" it?
Minimally gov involved capitalism produces a high sustainable living standard for the average person in such a country. It's why the US has a GDP per capita rise, whereas it is unstable in even places like Scandinavia.
Why should people care about GDP when wage stagnation is a problem in the US?
What are the flaws of capitalism? You didn't answer it.
If God doesn't exist, then why do people burn in hell?
People don't burn in hell because God would require to exist in order for there to be somewhere God sends people who it doesn't like.
This nation is very fixed compared to hell and if we allow people from hell to come to the US, they would help solve some of our economic problems.
Healthcare?
Created:
Posted in:
, it probably would be a libertarian as of right now. I think I'm going through an ideological phase where I am extremely prone to change my positions.
I would consider libertarian's part of the Republican party.
I hate socialism and love capitalism.
What are the flaws of both?
I'm not sure if the bible is true, but God definitely exists.
God does not exist.
He exists, but he is not all loving, otherwise hell would not be a permanent punishment.
I don't know what kind of argument is this but still doesn't mean God exists.
What do you think of digging holes to hell to free those that are in hell?
Too many people in hell. Too much money to get there. Fix the country before fixing other places.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
So you are a conservative atheist/agnostic?
Bad combo.
What do you think of socialism?
What do you think of capitalism?
Yeah God is bad and we would all be going to hell if the Bible was true.
Created:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
If it was the case I would've spoken to God or God's when I was looking at leaves.
Was funny but you are spreading false information. I wish there some sort of rule like that on the site.
Created:
Fault of the people. If they were more aware of what was going on they could have stopped it but since most people are busy doing other things it has become like that. I can't blame this generation to expect to understand what is wrong when it wasn't their fault but they can be blamed when the media and the government are doing bad in their generation without asking for change.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Titanium
Problem is that it will create a gap that needs to be filled. Bezos has money and by killing him you would have to actually distribute that wealth well or someone who is in his will or something gets his money so basically you are still back to square one. Tax avoidance is a problem that needs to be addressed and more redistributive policies is a solution.We could just kill 8 to reduce poverty by half which may be more sensible than my first plan. Bezos being one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
Did this one and got this:
Introvert(50%) iNtuitive(25%) Thinking(6%) Perceiving(9%)
- You have moderate preference of Introversion over Extraversion (50%)
- You have moderate preference of Intuition over Sensing (25%)
- You have slight preference of Thinking over Feeling (6%)
- You have slight preference of Perceiving over Judging (9%)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
Did this one and got this:
Personality type: “The Logician” (INTP-T)
Individual traits: Introverted – 71%, Intuitive – 51%, Thinking – 51%, Prospecting – 65%, Turbulent – 69%
Role: Analyst
Strategy: Constant Improvement
Created:
Posted in:
From this I got INTJ.
The icons said Perspectives Introverted intuition. So basically the first icon that is purple.
The second icon said I got was Effective Extraverted Thinking. So basically the 6th icon that is blue purple and has a person on it.
Created:
Posted in:
We're virtually programmed to listen to authority before the age of around 7.
Don't you think that authority shapes you the person you are today? When you are indoctrinated at a young age to follow a specific thing and not to be open-minded that becomes ingrained in you. Why would you test what you know when you it is already ingrained in you?
Also the whole you can't reason someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into.
Don't know what you are trying to say with this but I will carry on with the point. No matter how good your reason is you can't breaks someone's emotion like that. An emotional connection can be broken if the person does not value reason over emotion. People who have already been believing in spirituality more than the material world are too far gone.
Change is possible.
It is possible for me to be the richest man alive. Is it going to happen? No. So stop with the possible argument when the only argument that matters is if it probable. It is also unfair to even have that standard but we can't really allow people to live with their delusions since it can harm their children if they do decide to have them or persuade people to believe their live.
Lets say a person who uses reason above emotion is a 10. Lets say a person who uses emotion above reason is a 5. In order to be honest with what you believe you would require a 10. So to expect that from a 5 is not probable. Do you agree with that?
Avoiding confirmation bias is possible.
My being superman is possible. Is it going to happen? No. I don't like this motivational-esc speaking. It completely disregards the circumstance the person is in and the unlikelihood of a person getting out of that position and fulfilling their initial dream instead of conceding on something more practical. Here is a person talking about a person who is in a really bad spot but has deluded himself into thinking he will actually hit his goals.
It's just extremely hard.
Thank you. This is what matters above all else. It doesn't matter it is possible it matters if it is likely/probable.
Just imagine admitting you had an imaginary friend, actually a version of yourself that you have been talking to for years. It takes a lot of time to admit that to yourself.
Sorry but you are talking to a grown adult who has a fully developed which means they have the capacity of reason but they don't use it. I feel sympathy for children because they are less capable than adults but if adults had an imaginary friend but did not have a mental illness attached to it then they don't have a good justifiable reason to have an imaginary friend. It is easier to write off theists as mentally ill but I doubt that is the case since I think they just have a severe lapse of judgement.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Titanium
It is based on emotion and no matter how reasonable your argument is you won't break that emotional connection. Sure your argument can be the best ever but with emotion it doesn't stand a chance. Reason is emotion and reason contradict one another. One doesn't have to be consitent but the other does. Which is why people are capable lets say learning philosophy but are incapable of applying that to what they believe. They use their feelings to decide what will best suit what they believe instead of challenging them and even that is limited to what they deem reasonable. They can't fathom a world without God even if you tell them how wrong they are they still won't listen.
Hey I picked you a profile picture. Do check it out:
Page 2 last one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Terran
No one challenged you?
Okay. Denial is strong with this one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I would still say yes but would consider execution worse.
Mainly on the grounds that it is putting someone's death in the public eye.
The public will eventually be normalized by such behaviour and might even be happy at a person's death.
That would be true for public execution. The other form has a problem of not having enough evidence to take someone's life. The problem I find is that it can be politicized and not actually be used to bring about justice or some sort of agreed right by the people. The link does not say what I am saying but does say 13 people were wrongfully put on capital punishment/execution.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Doesn't it depend on how you define immoral?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MrMaestro
I've used the forum post but in the future I will be using the comment section.
Google docs is not for me. I use Word to complete what I want to type then I simply copy it over.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@K_Michael
If you are having withdrawal problems gradually use DDO less and less. When you realise DDO is really problematic with no moderation then you will realise there is no point going back. It is like sh*t with gold with in it. You would to have to sieve through so much sh*t just to find a piece of gold.
Created:
Posted in:
Addition to this:
What participant provided the most reliable sources?
The contender used this source: - https://www.webwise.ie/teachers/what-is-fake-news/
Which gave evidence to support his definition of the word of Fake News.
In order for the instigator to counter he would have actually needed to provide a source of his own but did not he simply stated 2 Fake News definitions then in a later Round said "There are multiple definitions on fake news. There is no dictionary definition." which is not justification for not provide a source for his definition.
The contender also use this source: - https://cnnsoc185.wordpress.com/vision-statement/
Which helped anyone understand what CNN's mission is as a company.
The instigator use this source: https://stonecoldtruth.com/the-numbers-dont-lie-proof-of-fake-news-confirmed/
Which did not provide a definition of Fake News. What also didn't help was that the instigator used this to say CNN is Fake News when all this stated was news coverage of Trump is negative. Negative does not mean Fake News so the evidence was a non-sequitur and needed a better source for actual Fake News whether it be by his definition or what the contender gave.
The instigator also gave this source: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdP8TiKY8dE&t=) and this (https://www.infowars.com/proof-cnns-acosta-is-fake-news-caravan-is-an-invasion/) which even if true doesn't mean CNN is Fake News by either his own definition or the contender's definition.
The contender gave this source https://edition.cnn.com/2019/02/19/media/nick-sandmann-washington-post-lawsuit/index.html which was old compared to more recent news that stated CNN is being sued. The problem here is that it does not help either side about whether or not CNN is Fake News. This one applies to what I said here as well: https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/03/04/how-covingtons-nick-sandmann-could-win-his-defamation-claim-against-washington-post/
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/comment/donald-trump-twitter-fake-news-fraud-not-new-a8475866.html This given by contender helped readers understand the history behind Fake News before it was called that. This has helped his case since his definition is given more legitimacy if he can use past events as a reason for why this is used today.
which requires intent and sinister motive by default This also helped readers understand that Fake News is basically fraud but used in the context of news.
- https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/dec/18/what-is-fake-news-pizzagate This also furthers the contender's credibility of his use of Fake News.
https://edition.cnn.com/specials/politics/trump-russia-ties This gave the instigator a chance to pick an article that he deemed Fake News but the contender's attempt was in vain but does still help his side because the instigator didn't even mention it in following Rounds.
https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/craig-bannister/cnn-hit-275-million-lawsuit-over-covington-kid-coverage
This helped readers understand that the contender was false but the core of the debate was about whether or not CNN is Fake News so saying CNN is being sued by Covington doesn't mean it is actually Fake News. What the instigator could have done is provide a case report of the Covington kid suing based on fraud charges and showing how the Washington Post lost because of it. This wasn't the case because the Covington lawyers filed a defamation claim not a fraud claim.
This is no way helps the instigator's point of view because he used this to simply talk about the headline which by itself cannot state how that story if Fake News by both definitions and cannot in anyway say how CNN is Fake News by both definitions.
The instigator provided a new point in the last Round. This should have been in earlier Rounds so that the contender can speak about it but it was added in the last Round. It did not help his case about CNN being Fake News by both definitions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
Generally Ben Shapiro is supportive of limited government. Although I wish he would speak more on checks and balances,
If you actually hear him speak he advocates for these positions but never says how he will do it or if he will go against the Republican party in order for his principle like many others conservatives talkers don't vote for someone who doesn't want limited government like Trump. Yes I do know Ben voted for Cruz but even he didn't even say how he will propose "limited government".
I don't think its as pertinent in his perspective because he advocates a system with less liability to account for in the government.
Yeah where he basically said people choose to be poor even though there is something called a poverty cycle.
I don't understand communism as a coherent philosophy, and I don't think of Ben Shapiro as bordering fascism.
He supports an ethno-state called Israel.
I don't consider myself sympathetic to fascism as a sustainable approach to government, so no.
You said you were a nationalist which means you agree with the far right.
The comma means its an incomplete sentence
The distinction you made:
The nation is made up of people, but the United States could be said to be more of a shared idea between the people.
Still did not say a nation was made up of people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
I asked Virtuoso and he said it is okay.
My vote is on this debate:
If you want to know what I am talking about.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
I would have to establish a better understanding of a right - left paradigm.
Far left is communism.
Far right is facism.
By the statements made is Ben Shapiro a far right figure.
My understanding in the context I have, is that I am far right on a spectrum which differs from American norms.
I take that as a yes.
I don't know what distinction this is referring to.
You said:
You said precisely that the United States is made up of people. I have not.
Even though earlier you said this:
The nation is made up of people,
Created:
Posted in:
Round3 Our_Boat_is_Right
The instigator forfeited which does mean I will be voting the conduct point to the contender.
Round3 RationalMadman
The contender gave 2 sentences which does seem like he was waiving the Round due to the instigator not giving the contender anything to respond to for Round 3. The contender could have used this Round or even the last one to state how even by the instigator's own definition it isn't Fake News but didn't.
Round 4 Our_Boat_is_Right
The instigator then appeals to the readers by saying the contender dropped "objective reporting". Problem here is that the conversation has revolved around definitions which the contender hasn't helped even though I have laid out how even by the instigator's own definition CNN is not Fake News. The instigator also makes the point that which I do agree with that the contender did not address all of his arguments. The instigator does have a point here but"If I put my time into an argument" the instigator should also be capable of making sure simple things like definitions are not a problem in the debate. That problem is the fault of the instigator which was addressed in Round 2.
The instigator then makes a point about name-calling but this isn't what the debateis about.
Then the instigator decides to correct in saying Covington is also suing CNN. The problem here is that the point the contender made was not important in saying CNN is Fake News but the instigator did not realise that and then proceeded into correcting his point that wouldn't mean he was right about the core of the debate if he was right.
The instigator then decides to counter-claim the contender counter-claim to his definition by saying "There is no dictionary definition.". This could have been a point for the instigator but he then decides to talk about how this""decontextualised"- sounds a bit like Covington, doesn't it?" Problem here is that it is not a point for him even if he was correct.
After that the instigator talks about CNN headings to articles then proceeds into saying "this does not reflect the facts of the story, with insults being thrown at sandman and the boys first with the use of profanity and racial remarks" Problem here is that judging something based a story based on its title leaves out what is inside. This also does not help his case because he did not clear up the contradiction which the contender failed to miss which was that sometimes repeatedly is Fake News worthy. So even if he had a point the goal posts were changed by that comment and pretty much his point null due to a contradiction.
The instigator then points out again the contender did not respond to all hisarguments which is a fair criticism.
Then the instigator nails down the point that producer do have a say in what was going on at CNN but like I said earlier on it was not enough to provide a case for CNN being Fake News.
Finally the instigator brings in a new point in Round 4 even though there was plenty of space in earlier Rounds.
Round 4 RationalMadman
The contender stated the instigator violated a rule. Since I am not voting on siter ules I will leave it at that.
Then the contender brings up forfeiting Round 3.
Thirdly the contender brings up brings up that the instigator made new points and didnot address what the contender gave as a link for CNN's coverage of Russia ties.
What participant provided more convincing arguments?
Since the instigator was not able to provide a definition in Round 1 and did not fulfillhis burden of proof in the following Round or in later Rounds. This point will be rewarded to the contender.
What participant provided the most reliable sources?
Both gave sources but one gave evidence to why his definition of Fake News is correct compared to the other which didn't instead simply said "There are multiple definitions on fake news." without showing a source for his own Fake News definition.
What participant had better spelling and grammar?
Tie.
What participant had better conduct?
The instigator forfeited, tried to appeal to the readers and did not fulfil his burden of proof even when he moved the goalposts on what the debate was about.
Everything else that was not addressed is a tie.
Created:
Posted in:
Round 1-
The instigator did not define what he meant by Fake News which made the contender define it. That is bad conduct since the instigator is the one who created the debate and should be burdened with laying out the rules. The instigator 4 stories from CNN and called it Fake News. The problem here is that CNN has posted more stories than that and since he has not given the definition of Fake News the contender was forced to concede the Round and wait until the burden of proof is fulfilled by the instigator. The contender used his Round to define Fake News and state CNN's mission statement while also laying out a direction this debate would go.
Round 2 Our_Boat_is_Right
The instigator finally define Fake News. The problem here is that he has 2 definitions which means not only is he making the reader confused on what would be his burden he is also making the contender confused on how his opponent is supposed to fill his burden of proof.
The instigator then started with his actual argument which is basically 90% of news about Trump is negative therefore Fake News. The problem here is that being negative does not mean it is fake. The instigator did not understand that so basically he gave no point for CNN being Fake News.
The instigator then moves on to his 4 initial points which he tries to provide how they were Fake News.
The instigator basically says for his first point CNN made points about a 2 minute video therefore they are fake news. The problem here is that by both of his definitions they are not. The instigator failed to say if it was deliberate but can show if it is done consistently.
The second was about Smollet. This time the instigator stated "CNN did not have all the facts." even if he stated earlier the "incidents pretty close together" does not mean CNN is Fake News. Just by looking at the front page of CNN there are 38 articles they have published. Even if both stories came out on the same day there are 36 other stories which the instigator would have to say that is also Fake News in order to say CNN is Fake News just by looking at their site on that day in that hour.
Third point is basically the instigator has conspiracy theories about supposed conspiracy theories that CNN "made" up about Russia collusion. The problem here is that the Mueller report was not done and CNN were speculating like I am sure FOX was saying there was no Russia collusion.
Fourth reason the instigator gave was 1 CNN reporter said "Russia Collusion is just a big nothing-burger.". CNN has more than 1 staff and to point out an anecdote like this doesn't mean CNN as a whole is Fake News.
Lastly is another reporter that "also spread fake news" without proving it to be the case. Even if his source is right that Jim Acosta is repeatedly spreading Fake News that only makes the case the Jim Acosta is Fake News. Even by the second definition he brought in CNN is not Fake News.
The conclusion was basically saying he has proven CNN is Fake News but from my breakdown he hasn't. He also moved the goal posts of the debate while also making a contradiction "So when I say "CNN is fake news", I am changing that for the sake of people's technicality to "CNN sometimes spreads fake news stories/topics that can lead to them not being trusted". By this he has pretty much said CNN sometimes repeatedly spreads Fake News. Sometimes and repeatedly is a contradiction since both cannot apply at the same time.
Round 2 RationalMadman
The contender starts of by saying CNN is living up to their mission statement by delivering current news on an important topic like Russia collusion. Not part of if CNN is Fake News or not so I will stop talking about it.
The contender next provided Nick Sandman is suing Washington Post but not CNN. Don't see how this is important in saying CNN is fake news.
The contender then points out that the instigator provided his own definition of Fake News but didn't due to an appeal to hypocrisy.
Then the contender claims the instigator is moving the goalposts which then was followed up by sources that add more credibility to his definition of Fake News.
Then he briefly mentions CNN's coverage about Russia Collusion without giving a source that could have helped him to provide a more substantiated point. The contender did however challenge the instigator to view the articles but didn't point out a snip it of their coverage which would have improved his point.
The problem I had with the contender's Round 2 was that he did not address all of the instigator's points. I have clearly mentioned above the problems with the instigator's points but the contender focused on who Nick Sandman is not suing, more evidence that his definition is correct and a challenge and a point about CNN's Trump-Russia ties.
Continues...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
Didn't expect that. Sorry for what I did as well. So I would like you to answer questions before we leave this.Okay, I am sorry for the confusion.
Does Shapiro hold views that mostly resembles the far-right which makes him a far right?
Do you understand if you support nationalism you are a part of the far right?
Do you understand people have ideas so basically making a distinction like what you did had no bearing in the conversation?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
Guess I consider this a failure by you. Can't defend Ben Shapiro, can't defend being a nationalist and can't defend whatever the last part of the conversation was about.I'm grasping but can't seem to get a grip on the point of this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
So you say to me
Read the OP
But you didn't even follow it either.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
If the conversation is going to continue shifting from nonsensical ideologies to reality, idolatry is going to prove detrimental
So you can't defend your burden on where this conversation went? Good to know.
Ben Shapiro represents ideas. Did I once mention him by his features or something? I strictly talked about his ideas and how much he is like an alt-right figure.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
Why did you contest what I said?
Surely you wanted to stay with what the forum post initially said but you replied to my statements.
Why is that if you wanted to talk about what the forum was about?
Without you I wouldn't have said more about the topic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
Can I have a link to my reason to a forum post if I run out of characters?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
So basically many people want public healthcare because they like the idea but the Republican party don't want that to happen.The nation is made up of people, but the United States could be said to be more of a shared idea between the people.
Are there voices being heard and why isn't their public healthcare?
Since what is right doesn't come from governments constructed by men to serve their people, there may be issues utilizing your philosophy in general.
I am not going to allow you to shift the conversation in a different direction. Remember when it was about Ben Shapiro being part of the alt-right then you decide to make it about yourself then you decide to change that conversation to about how nationalism or socialism are not on the left and right spectrum. You really do like changing the argument when you know you can't defend the previous ones.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
What is it made up of then?You said precisely that the United States is made up of people. I have not.
You said this
The nation is made up of people,
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
What is the character count on vote reason section?
Created:
Posted in:
If the majority of the United States wants public healthcare why isn't it happening. You did say the United States is made up of people but are there voices being heard?I don't understand
Rather distinct from it, in this case.
What do you mean?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
If this was true why don't people have healthcare?The nation is made up of people, but the United States could be said to be more of a shared idea between the people.
The means by which public healthcare is contingent upon the will of the people who can therefore have it, would be a voluntary business venture distinct from, but not necessarily unrelated to the United States.
So basically if the people will it then it becomes part of the United States?
Created:
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
Don't understand this.So don't think of this as you conceding nihilism, think of it as proving your nihilism by contradiction. If you can assume nihilism is false and still get nihilism or a logical contradiction, then it proves nihilism and it's a good thought experiment
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
The United States is made up of people. Those people are still there therefore if the people will it they can have public healthcare.I don't think the United States has ever been at a point where it wasn't worth salvaging. If it did get to that point, I view reconstruction to be preferable to abandonment.
What are values that you think that the United States has that you would like to keep?
Created:
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
If X did equal meaning then nihilism wouldn't even be relevant at all.One way to do this is to presuppose that X = meaning and then take it for a test drive to see what happens.
Is the X different between individuals?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
Why?I would support my country even when my countrymen are doing things I think are bad, but don't see myself advocating for the other things.
So you won't do anything if the US are involved with a genocide?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
Utilitarianism is a better system than Deontology. So I win you lose.If yes, does two wrongs make a right?
Created:
Posted in:
Advocate or vote for it.Can you please define "support"?
I'm sensing that the alternative right left paradigm seems to be something akin to fascism vs socialism. Do you have any comment when it comes to the alt-left?
I haven't heard of such a word but if it was then it would be like the left equivalent of Richard Spencer trying to re-brand far left ideas. That would be communism. Anarchism is not really a left or right thing since it can be on both sides.
I'll have the questions repeated here again:
Would you support tariffs?
Stopping immigration?
Support keeping race percentage the same in the US?
Support your country even when they do bad?
Created: