US election 2020: Could it be Bernie Sanders v Donald Trump?

[That Guy]

Yes, I called you a word I shouldn't have and I was wrong.

Now, however, back to the meat and potatoes of this discussion; I dont see why you are on the defensive about a culture and ideology that is just colonialism in another form wreaking havoc across the world, besides the fact that its degenerate the the nth degree.

We're talking about America, and internal American politics. Who should be America's president? what does colonialism have to do with this?

If we're gonna talk about america, we have to do so within the context of the american culture.

And yes, I agree with @Omar Al-Deek , women cant be leaders. Why I say this? Because no one puts them in the positions of officers in the military lol

That is not an argument, that is you just stating an opinion.

It's a fact, but this liberal charade and puppeteering is just to play games of emotionalism by entertaining false notions of gender equality.

Once again, that's not a fact, that's you stating an opinion without any evidence or reasoning to back it up.

If we dont put them in charge of making military strategies, and that's where the true differences show, then why put them in charge of nations? Because democracy is a farce

That's a loaded statement. Once again, you're making statements and assumptions without any real argument to defend yourself with.

As for the word you used, I forgive you, but keep in mind that i will from now on never take you seriously.

 

[Yankee-stani]

Yes, I called you a word I shouldn't have and I was wrong.

Now, however, back to the meat and potatoes of this discussion; I dont see why you are on the defensive about a culture and ideology that is just colonialism in another form wreaking havoc across the world, besides the fact that its degenerate the the nth degree.

And yes, I agree with @Omar Al-Deek , women cant be leaders. Why I say this? Because no one puts them in the positions of officers in the military lol

It's a fact, but this liberal charade and puppeteering is just to play games of emotionalism by entertaining false notions of gender equality.

If we dont put them in charge of making military strategies, and that's where the true differences show, then why put them in charge of nations? Because democracy is a farce

Neo Liberal Colonialism is still colonialism but with Starbucks and Latte characteristics as for Women being leaders I say they are better as figure heads more likely while men run the actual show look at "cucked " countries are run by women while Chad countries are run by men mostly well sort of then again as long as the USA is the leader of globalisation and neo liberlalism that would be difficult to find tbh

 

[That Guy]

Neo Liberal Colonialism is still colonialism but with Starbucks and Latte characteristics as for Women being leaders I say they are better as figure heads more likely while men run the actual show look at "cucked " countries are run by women while Chad countries are run by men mostly well sort of then again as long as the USA is the leader of globalisation and neo liberlalism that would be difficult to find tbh

What about Bangladesh? Sheikh Hasina and Khaleda Zia are the two most powerful politicians in the country, and under them Bangladesh has done quite well, especially under Shiekh Hasina.

Or New Zealand's PM Jacinda Ardern? The country has done well under her, and she is also the most popular politician that New Zealand has seen in a long time.

I don't really buy the arguments that women can/just have to be figure heads.

Also, can we not use the terms "cucked" or "chad", it's so cringy.

 

[Desert Fox]

We're talking about America, and internal American politics. Who should be America's president? what does colonialism have to do with this?

If we're gonna talk about america, we have to do so within the context of the american culture.


That is not an argument, that is you just stating an opinion.



Once again, that's not a fact, that's you stating an opinion without any evidence or reasoning to back it up.


That's a loaded statement. Once again, you're making statements and assumptions without any real argument to defend yourself with.

As for the word you used, I forgive you, but keep in mind that i will from now on never take you seriously.

Aren't we all stating our opinions then?

Prove me wrong; if men and women are equal why don't we have women strategizing wars in the military?

Is it because they're not equal to men? Lol

Liberalism is defunct.

As for the word you used, I forgive you, but keep in mind that i will from now on never take you seriously.

Well, you do know we feel the same way about you, right? You're defending a myth called 'gender equality' for Gods sake

 

[Yankee-stani]

Aren't we all stating our opinions then?

Prove me wrong; if men and women are equal why don't we have women strategizing wars in the military?

Is it because they're not equal to men? Lol

Liberalism is defunct.


Well, you do know we feel the same way about you, right? You're defending a myth called 'gender equality' for Gods sake

There is not wrong in proving the difference tbh, the issue is when I hear "Paks" in the west defend the tenets of Global Homo and unfettered Neo Liberal Capitalism it shows why I could understand why some Paks in Pakistan may mistrust these diaspora types in some instances and NZ isnt a superpower and dont give me GDP growth stuff to prove that

 

[That Guy]

Aren't we all stating our opinions then?

Sure, but when you make a claim, you should expect others to believe it, just because you say so.

Prove me wrong; if men and women are equal why don't we have women strategizing wars in the military?

Is it because they're not equal to men? Lol

Liberalism is defunct.

Maybe because they traditionally haven't been allowed to do so, due to the global civilization catering to men more tha women.

Also, liberalism isn't defunct, and you saying otherwise doesn't prove anything.

Also, you made the initial claim that women shouldn't be leaders, explain why.

You made the original claim, so the burden of proof is on you.

I also want to point out that there are actual real world examples of very powerful women in history, leading militaries to victories...

Here's a small list of extremely powerful women in history, who led entire wars...

https://news.usni.org/2016/08/24/survey-results-greatest-woman-military-history

Well, you do know we feel the same way about you, right? You're defending a myth called 'gender equality' for Gods sake

I'm not defending anything, really. What I'm asking is for you to give me an actual argument, which doesn't seem to be happening.

Instead of an actual argument, all I'm getting are a bunch of accusations being thrown at me, disrespectful words, creepy sexual comments, strawman arguments, and opinions pretending to be facts.

At the very least, I didn't resort to using a slur, just because you seem to disagree with me.

There is not wrong in proving the difference tbh, the issue is when I hear "Paks" in the west defend the tenets of Global Homo and unfettered Neo Liberal Capitalism it shows why I could understand why some Paks in Pakistan may mistrust these diaspora types in some instances and NZ isnt a superpower and dont give me GDP growth stuff to prove that

Just so we're on the same page, you do know neoliberal capitalism is a right wing concept, correct?

 

[Desert Fox]

you made the initial claim that women shouldn't be leaders, explain why.

Because they aren't. Had they been fit for the job, they would have dominated the field from a social darwinist secular liberal non-religious standpoint.

Or are you how making a religious emotion-appealing argument?

You made the original claim, so the burden of proof is on you

I already did and you keeping running from it under the excuse of God knows whatever; And the proof is women aren't strategizing wars in ALL liberal countries. Therefore when push comes to shove even Liberals dont believe in gender equality

Now, you provide me a counter argument

what does colonialism have to do with this?

Everything. You're defending the modern equivalent of the colonial notion of the 'White man's burden', ie Liberalism and its subsets like "gender equality".

 

[That Guy]

Because they aren't. Had they been fit for the job, they would have dominated the field from a social darwinist secular liberal non-religious standpoint.

Once again, you're making a claim without evidence. You cannot just use strawman arguments to suit your own interests.

Or are you how making a religious emotion-appealing argument?

I am not.

Here's a small list of powerful women military and national leaders...

https://news.usni.org/2016/08/24/survey-results-greatest-woman-military-history

I already did and you keeping running from it under the excuse of God knows whatever; And the proof is women aren't strategizing wars in ALL liberal countries. Therefore when push comes to shove even Liberals dont believe in gender equality

That's a terrible argument to make, and you know it. Stop pretending that's a valid argument, when you know that it isn't.

Even so called "liberal" nations are quite conservative. The US in particular still had segregation laws not too long ago. Hell, just a hundred years ago, women weren't allowed to vote.

Now, you provide me a counter argument

You've made no argument for me to counter.

All you've done is use strawman arguments.

Everything. You're defending the modern equivalent of the colonial notion of the 'White man's burden', ie Liberalism and its subsets like "gender equality".

I am not, stop making such strawman arguments.

Stop it.

We're supposed to be talking about US elections and who should, or is likely going to win.

That literally has nothing to do with what you're claiming.

I hate we're even having this conversation now. In one thread I have to argue against literal white supremacists, and in this thread I'm being accused of defending white privilege.

Just stop.

 

[Desert Fox]

Just so we're on the same page, you do know neoliberal capitalism is a right wing concept, correct?

Capitalism is NOT a right wing concept.

It is a left wing materialist Liberal concept.

This is why Occasio Cortez and Bernies ideological father Karl Marx praised Capitalism.

This is why both Trump and Democrats promote LGBTQ and gender equality, AKA modern equivalent of White man's burden.

Once again, you're making a claim without evidence. You cannot just use strawman arguments to suit your own interests.

That's actually a strawman in itself because now burden is on you to prove your accusation here.

See, even you doubt your own ideology because you cant even defend it.

 

[That Guy]

Capitalism is NOT a right wing concept.

It is a left wing materialist Liberal concept.

This is why Occasio Cortez and Bernies ideological father Karl Marx praised Capitalism.

This is why both Trump and Democrats promote LGBTQ and gender equality, AKA modern equivalent of White man's burden.

Karl Marx was a communist, what on earth are you talking about. In fact, Karl Marx condemned capitalism, and wrote a document called the communist manifesto.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Communist_Manifesto

Cortez and Sanders are socialists.

 

[Desert Fox]

I am not.

Here's a small list of powerful women military and national leaders...

https://news.usni.org/2016/08/24/survey-results-greatest-woman-military-history

Then why aren't women dominating the field of leadership all across Liberal countries in the world? Since they are such brilliant military commanders on par with men

 

[That Guy]

Capitalism is NOT a right wing concept.

It is a left wing materialist Liberal concept.

This is why Occasio Cortez and Bernies ideological father Karl Marx praised Capitalism.

This is why both Trump and Democrats promote LGBTQ and gender equality, AKA modern equivalent of White man's burden.


That's actually a strawman in itself because now burden is on you to prove your accusation here.

See, even you doubt your own ideology because you cant even defend it.

Holy shit, is this real? Is this really happening?

Do you not know what a strawman argument is?

I've had enough.

The fact that you said karl marx was a capitalist proves you know nothing.

Then why aren't women dominating the field of leadership all across Liberal countries in the world? Since they are such brilliant military commanders on par with men

I already addressed this.

One more stupid comment from you, and I start handing out negative ratings, and contact the mods about your behavior.

 

[Desert Fox]

Karl Marx was a communist, what on earth are you talking about. In fact, Karl Marx condemned capitalism, and wrote a document called the communist manifesto.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Communist_Manifesto

Cortez and Sanders are socialists.

Karl Marx praised Capitalism as a step towards Communism. Have you even read his work??

Capitalism --> Socialism --> Communism as per Marx. Therefore Cortez, Trump and Marx are not really opposed lol

Holy shit, is this real? Is this really happening?

Do you not know what a strawman argument is?

I've had enough.

The fact that you said karl marx was a capitalist proves you know nothing.


I already addressed this.

One more stupid comment from you, and I start handing out negative ratings, and contact the mods about your behavior.

Theres the personal attacks, emotionalism and threats; the last resort of the irrational

I already addressed this.

No you didn't, you posted a strawman. From social darwinist secular liberal non-religious standpoint which is your ideology women should have been dominating this field.

The fact that you said karl marx was a capitalist proves you know nothing.

Praise=/= was

Learn basic English grammar at least.


I already addressed this.

One more stupid comment from you, and I start handing out negative ratings, and contact the mods about your behavior.

Lol, like I actually care. Dont get emotional just because you stand on a shaking ground invented by some white supremacist from the 19th century.

 

[That Guy]

Karl Marx praised Capitalism as a step towards Communism. Have you even read his work??

Capitalism --> Socialism --> Communism as per Marx. Therefore Cortez, Trump and Marx are not really opposed lol

He never praised capitalism, he said that capitalism would eventually lead to communism, because of the flawed system that capitalism is. He said that the e plloitative nature of capitalism would make workers realize that communism is a better choice.

He never praised capitalism.

And yes, I actually have studied karl marx. In fact, during my college studies, we had a marx week, where we had to do a 200 page report on him for one of my electives.

Karl Marx praised Capitalism as a step towards Communism. Have you even read his work??

Capitalism --> Socialism --> Communism as per Marx. Therefore Cortez, Trump and Marx are not really opposed lol


Theres the personal attacks, emotionalism and threats; the last resort of the irrational

Says the person who called karl marx a capitalist.

No you didn't, you posted a strawman. From social darwinist secular liberal non-religious standpoint which is your ideology women should have been dominating this field.

That's not true, you are literally making things up. Where on earth has that ever been written?

Praise=/= was

A distinction without a real difference.

Learn basic English grammar at least.

Learn not to make stupid, gnorant comments first, as well as racial slurs.

Lol, like I actually care. Dont get emotional just because you stand on a shaking ground invented by some white supremacist from the 19th century.

Your choice. I'm gonna be contacting the mods.

I will no longer tolerate your slurs and accusations.[/Quote]

 

[Desert Fox]

And yes, I actually have studied karl marx.

No you haven't because had you, then you would know this:

He never praised capitalism.

He never praised capitalism,

According to Engels, he did and was in favor of Capitalism as he viewed Liberalism on the same side as Socialism and Communism in terms of revolution against the old order:

"To him [Marx], Free Trade is the normal condition of modern capitalist production. Only under Free Trade can the immense productive powers of steam, of electricity, of machinery, be full developed; and the quicker the pace of this development, the sooner and the more fully will be realized its inevitable results; society splits up into two classes, capitalists here, wage-labourers there; hereditary wealth on one side, hereditary poverty on the other; supply outstripping demand, the markets being unable to absorb the ever growing mass of the production of industry; an ever recurring cycle of prosperity, glut, crisis, panic, chronic depression, and gradual revival of trade, the harbinger not of permanent improvement but of renewed overproduction and crisis; in short, productive forces expanding to such a degree that they rebel, as against unbearable fetters, against the social institutions under which they are put in motion; the only possible solution: a social revolution, freeing the social productive forces from the fetters of an antiquated social order, and the actual producers, the great mass of the people, from wage slavery. And because Free Trade is the natural, the normal atmosphere for this historical evolution, the economic medium in which the conditions for the inevitable social revolution will be the soonest created – for this reason, and for this alone, did Marx declare in favour of Free Trade."- F. Engels, Preface to Marx, On the Question of Free Trade (1888).

Also, some more from Marx himself where he favors overthrowing the aristocracy and praised capitalism as the mechanism of this overthrow:

"By Free Trade they mean the unfettered movement of capital, freed from all political, national and religious shackles. The soil is to be a marketable commodity, and the exploitation of the soil is to be carried on according to the common commercial laws. There are to be manufacturers of food as well as manufacturers of twist and cottons, but no longer any lords of the land. There are, in short, NOT to be tolerated any political or social restrictions, regulations or monopolies, unless they proceed from ‘the eternal laws of political economy’, that is, from the conditions under which Capital produces and distributes. The struggle of this party against the old English institutions, products of a superannuated, an evanescent stage of social development, is resumed in the watchword: Produce as cheap as you can, and do away with all the faux frais of production (with all superfluous, unnecessary expenses in production). And this watchword is addressed not only to the private individual, but to the nation at large principally’."- Karl Marx, ‘Free Trade and the Chartists’, New-York Daily Tribune, August 25, 1852.



So, again, Capitalism/Liberalism are as left wing as Karl Marx and Occasio Cortex and LGBTQ and Donald Trump, what do you know?

Holy shit

stupid comment from you

@WebMaster @waz @The Eagle @Irfan Baloch

Is profane language and emotionally charged personal attacks and slander allowed on this forum?

Holy shit, is this real? Is this really happening?

Do you not know what a strawman argument is?

I've had enough.

The fact that you said karl marx was a capitalist proves you know nothing.


I already addressed this.

One more stupid comment from you, and I start handing out negative ratings, and contact the mods about your behavior.

Anyhow, my work here is done. Cant debate with someone resorting to personal attacks and slander because he's lost the argument

@OsmanAli98 @Omar Al-Deek