Why are Americans so bloody stupid?

[Gary Childress]

Gary ... you are responsible for what you do.

Haven't you learned anything?

Are you the poster boy for the thread title?

So I "support" Iran to be a terrorist state because I'm against attacking them unprovoked? Is that correct?

[Gary Childress]

The Republican Party wanted communist Sanders to be the Democrat candidate in that presidential election. At that time he would have lost in a general election.

So Sanders is a "commie". Is that correct?

[Will Bouwman]

So Sanders is a "commie". Is that correct?

No he isn't. Sanders is a democratic socialist; it's just that some Americans who are genuinely bloody stupid can't tell the difference.

[Walker]

You just stated that you think terrorism is not a provocation.

That's the trouble when you play word games rather than truth, Gary.

[Walker]

Bernie's favourite boogie-man word is "oligarch."
He was a Soviet kind of guy, old school commie.

Lots of millionaires in Moscow because Putin gets a taste.
Lots of oligarchs after the empire fell.

[Gary Childress]

You just stated that you think terrorism is not a provocation.

That's the trouble when you play word games rather than truth, Gary.

[Walker]

Is Putin a commie?

[Gary Childress]

Is Putin a commie?

Take this to heart. The world would be better without you in it, Walker. The world would be better without me as well; however, I'm not quite as big a problem as you are.

[Walker]

Gary, is Putin a commie?

[Immanuel Can]

I think she makes a compelling case for her actual thesis.

Well, you've already realized she got the whole derivation of American education thing wrong. So you might do well to wonder what other things she has wrong. What you will find, I think, is that she has basically adopted a mono-causal view of each aspect of American formation, rather than complex causality. And there's a very great deal she's simply failed to include in her thinking.

Once again, I commend to you Tocqueville. You'll find his analysis of the American psyche much more balanced and apt, and a whole lot less negative and self-congratulatory. And in addition, almost everybody who is a serious historian or sociologist of America quotes Tocqueville. Sample a bit here, if you like: https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes ... ocqueville

However, If her analysis satisfies you, then I guess it satisfies you. I don't think you'll find that it satisfies the facts of history, though.

[Walker]

Take this to heart. The world would be better without you in it, Walker. The world would be better without me as well; however, I'm not quite as big a problem as you are.

That's a bloody stupid comment.

[Immanuel Can]

Ah, I see what you did there. I said Trump's one true talent was for causing division and you came right back with "Yeah, but what about the Democrats?" That's very meta.

No, I'm just pointing out that in a two party system, if you don't choose "door number 1," then there's no possibility but "door number 2." So the Dems have themselves to blame, if they don't like Trump: they could have chosen somebody competitive to run against him, and they didn't.

The Democrats had their chance with Sanders (who, incidentally, you dismiss as just another "wealthy socialist").

That's exactly the truthful description of the man. He's a wealthy Socialist. But the Dems don't find him manageable, apparently, because they've never allowed him to the front of the line.

I don't suspect the American public would have voted for Sanders. But he would have posed a much more credible opposition than the candidates they did choose. As you recall, they skipped the primary and had a kind of informal coronation, instead. I think they really believed that, after Biden, the American public could be induced to accept anybody...and Harris was just so controllable, in a way that Bernie never was.

Yes, the Democrats blew it.

That's the point.

However, when the other door people choose clearly demonstrates that it's the worst option,

I don't think we can say that. I think we can say that Harris was no option at all, though.

Sanders was too "socialist" for the red-white-and-blue-blooded "commie" haters.

Rich Socialist, of course. Like so many of the Socialist self-appointed "illumnati," Sanders really seems to believe he's entitled to privileges. It's okay for him to have at least 2.5 millon dollars of private assets, plus a lavish home, plus a lakefront home, plus another home he recently sold...for a radical Socialist, that seems a little lavish, doesn't it?

...according to people like you, "socialists" are all genocidal, autocratic demons that must be avoided at all costs.

That's actually according to history. That's how it's been 100% of the time. No wonder, then, that Harris exhorted us all to forget history and be "unburdened by what has been"; what has been has been a total disaster. She would need us to stop remembering that.

Maybe Trump will turn out to be something worse. That's conceivable, I suppose. But it's hard to beat the record of disasters Socialism has caused, so he's got a ton of work to do before he gets there. At least 140 million killed in the last century alone, and the thefts, the tortures, the gulags, the re-education camps, the death marches, the purges, the killing fields and the complete national economic disasters -- it's going to take him awhile.

I'm not sure 3 years is long enough, and that's all he's got.

[Gary Childress]

Take this to heart. The world would be better without you in it, Walker. The world would be better without me as well; however, I'm not quite as big a problem as you are.

That's a bloody stupid comment.

Suit yourself. Not sure what else to tell you. Enjoy your day.

[Gary Childress]

No, I'm just pointing out that in a two party system, if you don't choose "door number 1," then there's no possibility but "door number 2." So the Dems have themselves to blame, if they don't like Trump: they could have chosen somebody competitive to run against him, and they didn't.

The Democrats had their chance with Sanders (who, incidentally, you dismiss as just another "wealthy socialist").

That's exactly the truthful description of the man. He's a wealthy Socialist. But the Dems don't find him manageable, apparently, because they've never allowed him to the front of the line.

I don't suspect the American public would have voted for Sanders. But he would have posed a much more credible opposition than the candidates they did choose. As you recall, they skipped the primary and had a kind of informal coronation, instead. I think they really believed that, after Biden, the American public could be induced to accept anybody...and Harris was just so controllable, in a way that Bernie never was.

Yes, the Democrats blew it.

That's the point.

However, when the other door people choose clearly demonstrates that it's the worst option,

I don't think we can say that. I think we can say that Harris was no option at all, though.

Sanders was too "socialist" for the red-white-and-blue-blooded "commie" haters.

Rich Socialist, of course. Like so many of the Socialist self-appointed "illumnati," Sanders really seems to believe he's entitled to privileges. It's okay for him to have at least 2.5 millon dollars of private assets, plus a lavish home, plus a lakefront home, plus another home he recently sold...for a radical Socialist, that seems a little lavish, doesn't it?

...according to people like you, "socialists" are all genocidal, autocratic demons that must be avoided at all costs.

That's actually according to history. That's how it's been 100% of the time. No wonder, then, that Harris exhorted us all to forget history and be "unburdened by what has been"; what has been has been a total disaster. She would need us to stop remembering that.

Maybe Trump will turn out to be something worse. That's conceivable, I suppose. But it's hard to beat the record of disasters Socialism has caused, so he's got a ton of work to do before he gets there. At least 140 million killed in the last century alone, and the thefts, the tortures, the gulags, the re-education camps, the death marches, the purges, the killing fields and the complete national economic disasters -- it's going to take him awhile.

I'm not sure 3 years is long enough, and that's all he's got.

So Sanders would have just been a step closer to a Stalinist-style Soviet Union clone? Is that correct?

[Gary Childress]

Gary, is Putin a commie?

No. Next irrelevant question.