Being "liberal"... what's it REALLY mean now a days?

[Jack V Savage]

It is not 100% of the reason but you take those elements, the leaked e-mails, and mix it with the Clinton foundation it lead to center-left leaning people voting for Trump.

I think it was more far-left people voting for Trump or staying home/voting third party. Note that Trump only got 46% of the vote.

 

[Steve-French]

Really, to be a "liberal" today means supporting opportunity for people all over the economic spectrum; healthcare availability for everyone; full participation in civic society and equal protection under the law for people regardless of ethnicity, religion, or sexuality; and strong public-goods provision, paid for with progressive taxation. There's a lot of differences within people who are liberal and that doesn't really get deep into the ideology, but that sums it up.

These are things (if done correctly) that most people can get on board with. This is how Obama very charismatically ran his campaign and it worked. There were a few things he didn't handle well, but overall he did a good job as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Steve-French]

I think it was more far-left people voting for Trump or staying home/voting third party. Note that Trump only got 46% of the vote.

I agree with 3rd party votes and people staying home, but far left? Wouldn't far left be Antifa, BLM, Over the top LGBQ activists, 3rd wave feminists, etc... Those groups were definitely not voting for Trump. If anything some Bernie Sanders supporters may have voted Trump, but I wouldn't lump them into the far-left, just as I wouldn't label all Trump all supporters far right.

Also if you take away California Hillary would have not won the popular vote. She also won New York. I know we're going to disagree on this, but one or two states shouldn't have a voice over the entire country. This is the purpose of the electoral college.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I agree with 3rd party votes and people staying home, but far left? Wouldn't far left be Antifa, BLM, LGBQ activists, 3rd wave feminists, etc...

I wouldn't group BLM in there, and "LGBQ activists" is too vague. But you think those other people were Clinton supporters? They hate her.

Also if you take away California Hillary would have not won the popular vote. She also won New York. I know we're going to disagree on this, but one or two states shouldn't have a voice over the entire country. This is the purpose of the electoral college.

That's irrelevant. If you take away states that Trump won, he would have lost the popular vote by even more than he did. Should be one person, one vote, anyway.

These are things (if done correctly) that most people can get on board with. This is how Obama very charismatically ran his campaign and it worked. There were a few things he didn't handle well, but overall he good job as far as I'm concerned.

Those are actually divisive issues. But, yeah, more than half the public supports them.

 

[sub_thug]

These threads have been done to death.

"Conservatives are being dishonest and aren't championing the stuff they used to!"

"Liberals are being dishonest and aren't standing up for the principles that defined them!"

Jesus, this shit is tired...

 

[Steve-French]

I wouldn't group BLM in there, and "LGBQ activists" is too vague. But you think those other people were Clinton supporters? They hate her.






Those are actually divisive issues. But, yeah, more than half the public supports them.

3rd wave Feminists and Antifa hate Hillary? How could a feminist not be on board with the first female president? I can see the old school Antifa not being on board with Clinton, but the whole reason we're seeing their presence is because she lost the election.

That's irrelevant. If you take away states that Trump won, he would have lost the popular vote by even more than he did. Should be one person, one vote, anyway.

Not irrelevant at all imo. The fact is that Trump won 30 States and Clinton won 20. The United States is a union and this an example of how unions can operate, but like I said I know we're not going to agree on this, so there's no sense in beating a dead horse.

 

[lilelvis]

If you boil it down to it's simplest traits, you either hate men or take it in the ass.

 

[Jack V Savage]

3rd wave Feminists and Antifa hate Hillary? How could a feminist not be on board with the first female president? I can see the old school Antifa not being on board with Clinton, but the whole reason we're seeing their presence is because she lost the election.

Very wrong about the whole reason we're seeing the (microscopic) presence of Antifa. And ideology is not the same as identity. If you read what these people say, they hate Clinton with a passion.

Not irrelevant at all imo. The fact is that Trump won 30 States and Clinton won 20. The United States is a union and this an example of how unions can operate, but like I said I know we're not going to agree on this, so there's no sense in beating a dead horse.

Not sure what it being a union has to do with your idea that some voters should get much more say than others.

 

[HomerThompson]

If you boil it down to it's simplest traits, you either hate men or take it in the ass.

 

[Rational Poster]

These threads have been done to death.

"Conservatives are being dishonest and aren't championing the stuff they used to!"

"Liberals are being dishonest and aren't standing up for the principles that defined them!"

Jesus, this shit is tired...

Well, ultimately, I think there is a lot more nuance in the liberal demographic, and their ideology, than the conservatives.

Democrats are more of a federation when compared to conservative voters. Conservatives tend to line up together on the same issues, especially when you're talking about fiscal conservatism.

 

[Streeter]

Anyone that disagrees with Trump is now a liberal

everyone that takes anything he does and spins it by taking that statement to furthest extreme they can ....... n saying see se see hes,a racist commie that hate women....

 

[Deleted member 457759]

Liberal=Marxist/Progressive, post modernist

Conservative=moderate/libertarian

LIbertarian=Liberal

 

[JonnyRingo84]

Obviously it's drifted very far from classical liberal.

When I was a teenager (2000s), it was the Conservatives who were the bullies. They were shutting people down, censoring language, ruining the careers of those who dare speak ill of George Dubya (Dixie Chicks), etc. They were the ones enacting violence on fellow citizens.

Now it seems the shoe is on the other foot. As I stand here in my early 30s, all I see is liberals trying to censor and shut down free speech. I see liberals trying to ruin careers over language and differing beliefs. And I see far left groups like Antifa going out and sucker punching peaceful citizens on account of who they voted for and support.

When I was a teenager and early 20s I was a proud liberal. Liberals were the ones who encouraged debate and spoke truth that was unpopular but needed to be said. Now if you speak that same truth, it's liberals who slip the noose around your neck.

What happened to liberals, and what does it mean to be a Liberal/progressive now a days?

really? its only the liberals?

what about those trying to get NFL kneelers fired?

the liberals are for sure guilty more often, but thats because trump was elected. guess where we'd be if clinton had been?

 

[Devout Pessimist]

Anyone who approves this video

That was scripted and Trudeau practiced that for days. He actually ignored an important question so he could spew that gargage. Normally, Trudeau makes Trump sound like he is speaking a Shakespearean monologue.


This is how, ummm, Trudeau normally, uhhh, speaks:

 

[woodguyatl]

Also if you take away California Hillary would have not won the popular vote. She also won New York. I know we're going to disagree on this, but one or two states shouldn't have a voice over the entire country. This is the purpose of the electoral college.

A California vote is worth much less than a vote in other states with respect the Presidential election. If you divided California into smaller states up it might actually make things worse for the Republicans.

 

[Jack V Savage]

A California vote is worth much less than a vote in other states with respect the Presidential election. If you divided California into smaller states up it might actually make things worse for the Republicans.

Yeah, I can't see any reasonable justification for either A) counting citizens in bigger states' vote less or B) discounting any particular voters when calculating the total. People like @Lionel Mandrake are just expressing tribal allegiances with no regard to whether their views make any sense. Clinton wins if you throw out both CA and TX.

 

[sub_thug]

Well, ultimately, I think there is a lot more nuance in the liberal demographic, and their ideology, than the conservatives.

Democrats are more of a federation when compared to conservative voters. Conservatives tend to line up together on the same issues, especially when you're talking about fiscal conservatism.

Well, ultimately, I think there is a lot more nuance in the liberal demographic, and their ideology, than the conservatives.

Democrats are more of a federation when compared to conservative voters. Conservatives tend to line up together on the same issues, especially when you're talking about fiscal conservatism.

I think this has historically been true. It partially speaks to the ideological variety that I think that is inherent to the idea of "progressivism." , use quotes because it really is a collective banner, not something more specific. For some, it's about social issues, others economic, others environmental, some are more peacenicks, etc. Ideologically, conservatism has less different factions. You have the Wall Street economic yuppies, the Bible Belt fundamentalists, the rugged individualists, and the "law and order/support the troops" groups, but there tends to be a fair amount of overlap between two or more groups. Liberal groups seem to have less overlap.

I don't know if it's a chicken/egg thing here, but you used to see this manifest itself in the political parties as well. Once upon a time, the Republicans were super well organized, and the Democrats just weren't. It's part of the reason why the Republicans won elections when the Democrats struggled. It wasn't that their platforms were significantly more popular than the ones espoused by the Democratic Party, but the Republicans were able to organize their members much, much better to get everyone on the same sheet of music. Now, the Republican Party is in total disarray. You have all the classic groups that I mentioned in the first paragraph, but you also have elements that are more in line with the Tea Party sect, and of course, you have what is known as the Alt-Right that rallies around the President. I think a lot of the Republican overlap has largely disintegrated as well, so the party is looking a lot like the Democrats did years ago: No clear direction moving forward. The Democratic Party, at least for now, is still united under a few things. For one, they are the party of opposition, so they can all agree to say "No" to whatever comes out of the GOP, so that helps. I think it's also worth noting that Barack Obama did a better job of uniting that party than anyone since at least JFK, maybe FDR. He took a very disorganized party and turned it into a well-oiled machine, and I give him a lot of credit for that. Even though he's out of office, I think a lot of the Democrats are still united under that banner. It won't last forever, so someone will have to pick up the mantle or else the party will lose that relative advantage, but they've still got a little gas left in the tank. It will be interesting to see how that ebbs or flows in the next primary season when different factions step forward, looking to get "their guy" as the nominee. That will either unite the party or pull it apart, so time will tell. Analogously, support for Trump will either give the GOP a banner under which to temporarily unify, or members will be looking to distance themselves from him in an attempt to save themselves from their constituents. Again, we will see.

 

[Fawlty]

Liberal=Marxist/Progressive, post modernist

Conservative=moderate/libertarian

LIbertarian=Liberal

I don't understand. Are you asking for assistance here?

 

[Jack V Savage]

You have all the classic groups that I mentioned in the first paragraph, but you also have elements that are more in line with the Tea Party sect, and of course, you have what is known as the Alt-Right that rallies around the President.

Good post overall, but isn't the Tea Party completely dead? Supposedly, they were driven by fear of debt, but all elected Republicans who identified with them voted to support massive debt increases, and there were no grassroots protests about it.

 

[HomerThompson]

Good post overall, but isn't the Tea Party completely dead? Supposedly, they were driven by fear of debt, but all elected Republicans who identified with them voted to support massive debt increases, and there were no grassroots protests about it.

They're just working on their policy proposals. They should be ready to go about the time a Democrat is elected President.