There is nothing to win, we are having a discussion and you are behaving like an angry toddler, so I am trying to teach you how to be normal, so you do not alienate people and you are able to have gainful conversation.
That does not mean it is popular here
Factually untrue, as the data shows. Furthermore if you think “I win” then that does mean it is popular there. Why do you lie?
Until we all see that, we will generally bounce between unregulated capitalism and (what I favor) which is well regulated capitalism with worker and environmental protections.
Completely vibes-based statement with nothing supporting it. Read Reform or Revolution.
Then why don’t we have this as our current form of government? How to you propose to get everyone to buy in to this in the US? If you can’t reduce it to practice, this is just impractical Internet bullshit talk.
I assert that that’s all this will ever be. We have zero chance of this being implemented here.
We do however have a chance of getting back to regulated capitalism. All we need is a new TR.
Then why don’t we have this as our current form of government? How to you propose to get everyone to buy in to this in the US? If you can’t reduce it to practice, this is just impractical Internet bullshit talk.
Finish your argument before you start a new one sweetie.
For us to be able to go deeper into discussion we need to first agree on the facts that form the basis of the discussion, which we do not at the moment. You have to either accept that your point was wrong and integrate that acceptance into your line of argument or argue for your point being correct - This is done by either supplying sufficient empirical data that helps create some synthesis with the rest of the data or you go through the given data and explain why it is faulty or insufficient as a basis for a rebuttal.
As the rest of the comment you are responding to explains, you have still yet to do this.
Finish your argument before you start a new one sweetie.
This is condescending and intended to distract from the main point by being inflammatory You keep dodging because you don’t have an answer.
You have to either accept that your point was wrong and integrate that acceptance into your line of argument or argue for your point being correct - This is done by either supplying sufficient empirical data that helps create some synthesis with the rest of the data or you go through the given data and explain why it is faulty or insufficient as a basis for a rebuttal.
As the rest of the comment you are responding to explains, you have still yet to do this.
Nah. It can’t be popular enough to work here. If it could, you would have said how. You’re just diverting from that fact because you don’t actually have an answer.
Lmk when you want to actually make progress on anything regarding this topic and not just nitpick tediously. The main point is that there’s no way to get those political systems to fly here because people don’t want them currently.
There is nothing to win, we are having a discussion and you are behaving like an angry toddler, so I am trying to teach you how to be normal, so you do not alienate people and you are able to have gainful conversation.
Factually untrue, as the data shows. Furthermore if you think “I win” then that does mean it is popular there. Why do you lie?
Completely vibes-based statement with nothing supporting it. Read Reform or Revolution.
https://lemmy.world/comment/26373832
What do you feel this link provides?
Evidence of the impracticality of what you propose.
Then why don’t we have this as our current form of government? How to you propose to get everyone to buy in to this in the US? If you can’t reduce it to practice, this is just impractical Internet bullshit talk.
I assert that that’s all this will ever be. We have zero chance of this being implemented here.
We do however have a chance of getting back to regulated capitalism. All we need is a new TR.
Finish your argument before you start a new one sweetie.
For us to be able to go deeper into discussion we need to first agree on the facts that form the basis of the discussion, which we do not at the moment. You have to either accept that your point was wrong and integrate that acceptance into your line of argument or argue for your point being correct - This is done by either supplying sufficient empirical data that helps create some synthesis with the rest of the data or you go through the given data and explain why it is faulty or insufficient as a basis for a rebuttal.
As the rest of the comment you are responding to explains, you have still yet to do this.
This is condescending and intended to distract from the main point by being inflammatory You keep dodging because you don’t have an answer.
Nah. It can’t be popular enough to work here. If it could, you would have said how. You’re just diverting from that fact because you don’t actually have an answer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity
Lmk when you want to actually make progress on anything regarding this topic and not just nitpick tediously. The main point is that there’s no way to get those political systems to fly here because people don’t want them currently.