Are Liberals really liberal any more?

I propose a new name for those who pretend to be liberal, call themselves liberal, but are nothing like a liberal.

Fascists. Will that work? I'd like to come up with something more original, but no other label I can think of works as well.

A true liberal doesn't force their opinions or beliefs onto others and they most certainly don't require a person to think a certain way.

A fascist forces their opinion onto others and always require that you think the way they do.

These people are hiding under the guise of liberalism. When all proof points to them being nothing close to "liberal".

 

They support democratic socialism. No reason to refer to them anything else.

 

Hell, John McCain is a liberal in the eyes of Trump FanBoys. All depends on how far right or left your meter starts.

 

True, but they go even further. Socialists demand my money. Fascists demand my mind AND money.

- - - Updated - - -

Not true in the least. Do some on the Right think so? Sure. However, some on the Left think Hillary is a conservative. We could play that game all day.

The question, however, is why do today's liberals behave like fascists?

 

It's all so confusing. One day liberals are fascists, the next Marxists, then terrorists, and lots of other 'make them go away' labels, so many I forget.

They seem multi-faceted, these liberals of yours. To the untrained eye they might seem like everyone but you.

 

Under certain forms of socialism, people who disagree with their platform get sent to re-education camps.
Here, they avoid this through the public school system.

 

John McCain is a chameleon. He just blends into whatever environment he's in.

 

Democratic party loyalist are loyal to the party and not any principals on any given day. You have no control what they call themselves, only what you decide to call them. I personally think of them as Deluded.

 

These current Democrats aren't liberals. Liberals love America and the Constitution. Authentic liberals disagree respectfully. These Democrats today for the most part are Marxists. They see the American people as pawns to be manipulated by controlling the media and framing the argument with exaggerated hyperbole and hateful insults.

- - - Updated - - -

John McCain is a classic example for why the House and Senate need term limits.

 

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

Great points. I especially like the "public school" reference. So very true.

 

I completely agree. If you look the way things are now the republican party or the right wing side of politics is much more liberal in the classical sense than the left right now. I am finding a lot more intellectual diversity and a lot more classical liberal principle on the right than on the left.

 

Didn't liberals start calling themselves progressives a few years back when being liberal became confused with being a kook? I bet they still hate it.

 

So you have a problem with anyone who tells you what you should think or do or say?

Me too. And I'm a liberal. So when people tell me to shut up and accept Trump, I politely, well not so politely, say no. Is that OK with you? Is it OK when I point to the historical evidence that shows much of the right wing agenda has already been tried and failed hence why we moved to something different? Or should I shut up and agree with you? Please show me your vastly open mind. So far, you have made a closed minded statement and your Bannon quote only confirms what you really want is people to agree with you.

And facists are and always will be right wing. Sorry, that's just reality getting in the way. Disagree if you want, but you will always be wrong on that point. Always wrong. Let those words sink in.

 

I believe that the Democrat party has made a huge tactical mistake by choosing Muslims over homosexuals. The riots at Berkeley is the beginning of the shift of homosexuals to the Republican party. Homosexuals are waking up to the fact that conservative Christians may disagree with them, but the Muslims actually want to kill them. They're not going to support a political party that's importing and supporting those that seek their demise.

 

Trump is, in fact, President. He won the election.
Disagree if you want, but you will always be wrong on that point. Always wrong. Let those words sink in.

 

It seems you're highly confused.

No one is calling for you to shut-up and accept Trump. What's being done by so-called liberals, however, is they are telling those who support Trump to shut-up and think like them.

Failed? Is that why Obama ushered in a long line of Dem/Left Presidents to follow him? He made such a great impression on the American people that they voted for someone who disagreed with him on nearly everything.

I think your history is revisionist..at best.

My Bannon quote, it seems, is something you also don't understand.

I think you're most confused about fascism, however. On the political spectrum, the furthest to the left, the more totalitarian the government is. Centralized planning and governmental control over the lives of individuals is characteristic of all forms of socialism, whether Communist or Fascist, and the state assumes control over individual rights when taken to the extreme.

The furthest to the right on the political spectrum, you will find more individual liberty. To the farthest is anarchy. When looked at logically, then, Socialism and fascism are incompatible with the right side of the spectrum.

- - - Updated - - -

If I could thank this post 100 times I would.

 

Good point...I will call them fascist dems.

 

Oh no, they are. They say it this way, give him a chance. But this is giving him a chance. I give him a chance and when he does something I don't like, I say so. People are saying to those of us doing that to stop saying so. That's the "polite" way of saying shut up, we won, you don't get a say. But that's wholly un-American.

Well, again, let's look to history. Name a time when a long line of presidents from either party were ushered in by the actions of a previous two term president. Go on, I'll wait. There aren't any.

The American mindset is 8 years is usually enough for one party to hold the White House. That's a much stronger push than most realize. So I'm not sure what you intended to point out, but again, history disagrees with you.

I understand it quite well. It's his way of trying to legitimize his out of mainstream views on race. The man has one agenda, his and it's one of white supremacy. He is not complicated nor sneaky. You can deny this all you want, but again, you are wrong. Those are facts, not alternative ones, actual ones. That said, I don't think he's a raging, murdering racist. I'm just saying his agenda isn't part of the institutional Republican party for good reason, it's not shared by the majority of Americans or even republicans.

Wrong. Anarchy is an absence of government. There is no right or left political spectrum in such a system because without government there is no political system either.

Your simple one axis schema is false. The traits you identify, conservative, liberal, authoritarian, libertarian, nationalist, socialist, free market, among many others exist on multiple axises. Fascism is a combination of traits, the two chief ones being nationalism and authoritarianism. You said so above, you left off the nationalism part, but please look at Nazi Germany or Italy during World War 2. Oh, and one of the main opponents of fascism is liberalism. So I can't be fascist but good try. I think you are confused because instead of studying these things, you listened to what people, like Steve Bannon, told you. Ironically, you believe you are a free mind when in reality you are just marching along to what the authoritarians are telling you.

Hmm, I wouldn't thank an inaccurate quote.

No doubt, there are homosexuals who are republicans. But your argument that Muslims want to kill them isn't true. The vast majority of Muslims don't want to kill anyone including homosexuals. Terrorists and ISIS may say they do and they may do, but homosexuals have been killed by non-Muslims in this country for being homosexual. What religion were the killers of Matthew Shepard? Please google the history of violence against the LGBT and provide me all the Muslims killers compared to all the non-Muslim ones. Don't bother, I already did. There aren't any in the US. And since the homosexuals in the US are the only ones who can vote in the US and they don't live where ISIS is, what ISIS thinks of homosexuality matters to them much less than what the republican party both thinks and how they treat them. Thus far, your party and Trump and his followers have done nothing to entice more votes. Milo's outspoken entertainment is just that, entertainment to get ratings. Look at how he dresses and talks to the media, like a celebrity. He's in it for himself, not any higher political ideology.

 

If you disagree with Trump and don't do so in the form of arson, assault, or attempts of coercion on those that do agree with Trump, then this post doesn't apply to you. Maybe you are a real liberal?

It was your assertion that, and I quote, "much of the right wing agenda has already been tried and failed hence why we moved to something different". Are you implying that Trump is something different? If you are, I agree, something different than Obama and the left's agenda.

Of course. Bannon is racist. Really? This? Maybe you're not a true liberal.

Your teachers have failed you.

Because the political spectrum is a continuum, from one extreme to the other, it is a straight line. It doesn’t curve around. It is a continuous range from one extreme to the other. And with individual freedom, there are only two absolute points of reference: maximum freedom (anarchy), or no freedom (totalitarianism). With those absolutes established at the ends of the spectrum, all systems of governance can be placed on the spectrum, and based upon the level of individual freedom or the level of control over the individual. Fascism is to the left.

 

I think all that means is that I'm not someone who let's their anger get the better of them. But I don't think one's judgement says anything about their politics. Just their judgment.

I meant to say that as a whole, the world is getting less conservative and is progressing towards a more liberal way of thinking. That said, it's not to say that one is better than the other. We used to deny women the right to vote. Now we don't. That sort of shift of thinking that women isn't a conservative one. It's a liberal one. Conservative thinking would be something akin to, we have never allowed women the right to vote, why start now? There's a heavy element of traditionalism in conservatism. History has shown that long periods of conservative dominated governments have failed to progress and have hurt their countries. Look at China. The Great Wall was the most conservative act it ever undertook. Nothing says passive, maintaining tradition like walling your country in and others out. And by the end of it, China was one of the poorest countries on the planet. Note that this example that I looked into came from a conservative opinion writer on fox news. I don't have the link, but he was dead right about that aspect of world history and he rightfully pinned responsibility on conservative elements clinging to the tradition that those born in China were better and all China needed. They were wrong. There are other examples.

And there are examples of liberal policies that failed, no doubt. But in general, the world moves towards liberalism, not away.

I said he believes in the supremacy of white people. I then said I don't think he's a raging, murdering, racist. Not sure what you are trying to say above at all.

Must have been that dang charter school. We should really get rid of those.

Again, it's not a continuum. I never said it was. I said it's a series of traits that add up to a political system.

YOU are saying that a political continuum is based on two points, one being maximum freedom and the other being minimum. What YOU are doing is creating a continuum of freedom, NOT of politics. And Fascism allows plenty of freedom, for those who agree with the fascists. The majority of Nazi party members enjoyed many freedoms. The things they couldn't do was criticize their leaders openly or declare anything their government did as wrong, but again, the only sitting president I know who has done anything like that so far is...Trump. So enjoy your freedoms I guess.

You need to really understand how complex political systems are. I recommend a class at your local college. It's much more advanced than a line drawn between absolute freedom and no freedom.

 

Do you realize how ignorant and self serving your post Is? Why? You can say exactly what you just did about conservatives as you just said about liberals. Look at how thetecare the so called conservatives who claim they believe in the Constitution yet are ready to if given a chance to impose their thinking and belief that everyone should live under the rules of Jude's-Christian Bible.

There is another fundamental flaw in your rant and that is your contention that you can force a believe on soneone. You cannot but what can do is force a behavior through authoritarian government. You will of course immediately but sadly falsely claim that it's the left thatbuscauthoritarian. Wrong again. The left and the right can and have been authoritarian.

But you have a right to your opinion but you do not have the right to your own facts. The facts are that neither the left nor the right can claim to be saints.

 

So not supporting a man whose desire is to commit war crimes, is fascist? We have fought wars to defeat scumbags like Trump.

 

Extremists on both sides are pulling people out of the center...

 

The extreme left is emerging in response to a right wing that has been out of control, out of touch with reality, fantasy based, conspiracy theory driven, and finally elected a man whose goal it is to commit war crimes.

What did people expect?