Liberalism is Just a Liability Shield

a reply to: Lumenari

In reality you can define it even further.

There are authoritarian douche-bags, and there is really no one else.

a reply to: Lumenari

We need to take our parties back, is all.

Libertarians are looking better by the day for me.

I've always been more in agreement with them than the two parties... They just haven't gotten traction, and I don't know if they will. Truth be told a lot of people think the government should be big in one way or another.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Lumenari

We need to take our parties back, is all.

Libertarians are looking better by the day for me.

I've always been more in agreement with them than the two parties... They just haven't gotten traction, and I don't know if they will. Truth be told a lot of people think the government should be big in one way or another.

I’ve always had some libertarian leanings but now I’m basically a full convert because - as you astutely pointed out - both parties seem to view government as the solution.

While I agree government is part of the solution in some instances, those instances are also far fewer in scope than the current parties think it is IMO.

It won’t get traction though because you’re basically saying to grow the base of a party that will shrink government - which isn’t exactly what you want if you’re a career politician.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Lumenari

We need to take our parties back, is all.

Libertarians are looking better by the day for me.

I've always been more in agreement with them than the two parties... They just haven't gotten traction, and I don't know if they will. Truth be told a lot of people think the government should be big in one way or another.

Not too long ago in our past both Liberals and Conservatives wanted less governmental intrusion and more economic freedom for the citizenry.

Look where we are now.... LOL

Politically in 2020 I am a social liberal, fiscal conservative...

So the Libertarian Party is the only one that fits me.

a reply to: EnigmaChaser

I think one of the problems is the amount of money in politics, and in the end, that is usually the deciding factor of who wins.

91% of time the better funded candidate wins. (I'm sure we could debate that number, but I'm sure we'd all agree it's a vast majority of the time).

So where do the two parties really differ? To me they differ largely in their rhetoric. Because if you compare all the recent administrations, we've been moving in the same general direction.

Maybe I'm bias because I really only am focused on a few issues right now with the country, and have been for some time. A lot of debates are moot to me when we have problems that supersede them IMO.

a reply to: Lumenari

Hard to take them seriously when they put someone like Gary Johnson up though.

If they ever do get some traction though, I bet they'd have more allegations of sexual misconduct like the main two parties

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Lumenari

Hard to take them seriously when they put someone like Gary Johnson up though.

If they ever do get some traction though, I bet they'd have more allegations of sexual misconduct like the main two parties

LOL!!!

Gary "I'm a natural loser!!" Johnson.

If the party can pick a candidate that I wouldn't personally swerve off the road to hit with my truck, they may have better luck with their actual platform.

originally posted by: Edumakated
Most liberals dont actually live their lives as a liberal. They are conservative.

The use liberalism to virtue signal to others while being conservative behind closed doors.

This is why you see such hypocrisy from them on any number of issues.

You can substitute consevative for liberal and that statement would be correct.


Funny how very few of you know what the actual defination of liberal is. It is as if you have been conditioned to think being liberal is a bad thing.

It is often thrown around like a deragotary term not that dissimilar from racial slurs

a reply to: TheLead

People are easily influenced and want to be led. I posit this is the single biggest reason for the disdain for Trump, too many are unconvinced of his person. Not to say he is worthy of total trusts, its just the boisterousness of conviction without proper articulation.

Either that or they know Trump is much of what he appears to be, and they hate him for it. It takes a true strength to stand up to so much hatred directed at you constantly.

And no one hates that kind of person more than the ones who couldn't take it.

And often, no one is more vicious in their scolding and vitriol than the one who cannot live up to the ideals they espouse but only parrot the line because they couldn't take the peer pressure when they didn't conform right away. It's the internal shame that eats them up and makes them mean.

a reply to: Lumenari

Libertarians need to pick someone who thinks it's more than just legal hookers and weed piled on top of government free stuff. Someone who thinks that isn't a libertarian; they're a libertine who wants the government to subsidize their vices.

a reply to: jrod

The Founders *were* liberal, but these days, they're evil, racist conservatives. True liberalism of the progressive style means being liberated from all responsibility so that you can become like an Eloi ... until the day the Morlocks come for you.

a reply to: Lumenari

It depends on what you means by "social liberal". Usually people who say that mean they want an expansive welfare state which is the complete enemy of fiscal conservative.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Lumenari

Libertarians need to pick someone who thinks it's more than just legal hookers and weed piled on top of government free stuff. Someone who thinks that isn't a libertarian; they're a libertine who wants the government to subsidize their vices.

Thank you and EXACTLY.

Johnson didn't represent Libertarian values at all.

He just picked and chose sound bites that resonated with... nobody, really, once you put them together.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Lumenari

It depends on what you means by "social liberal". Usually people who say that mean they want an expansive welfare state which is the complete enemy of fiscal conservative.

Social liberal in my case means I'm pro choice with some sanity injected into the mix (abortion isn't birth control), I'm fine with anyone sleeping with whomever they want to as long as it is safe, sane and consensual, life partners don't NEED to be married in a church but FFS at least give them the same tax and legal benefits as married heterosexuals. Christians need to understand that the Constitution spells out freedom OF religion and not think that because they are the majority religion in the USA that doesn't mean that it is their way or the highway.

You know, the SOCIAL part of that.

An expansive welfare state is by definition fiscal.

You know, since it costs the taxpayer money.

I've no issue with certain social safety nets but they by no means need to be generational.

Did that help?

originally posted by: Edumakated
Most liberals dont actually live their lives as a liberal. They are conservative.

The use liberalism to virtue signal to others while being conservative behind closed doors.

This is why you see such hypocrisy from them on any number of issues.

In which country ?

a reply to: Lumenari

I don't care who a person lives with or what contracts they get from the government, and I don't care if they call that a marriage. To me, that's just a license for legal niceties. My marriage, the real thing, is vows before God.

Where the government screwed us all over is to presume to use the word marriage is if they had any right to usurp a sacred thing unto themselves. We all have a different idea what a marriage is in every religion, and not every religion has the same idea what that should be. But when government took it upon itself to use that word, they presumed it was theirs to define for all of us. That made if a legal fight which shouldn't ever have happened, but you know politicians. They never met a power they didn't want to grab for themselves.

a reply to: Lumenari

Some, but every time I hear that social liberal, fiscal conservative thing happen ... I next start to hear the talking about how health care is a right. Then I hear about Global Warming ... but they believe in free markets and low taxes, so it's all OK! Trust me. That's usually the kind of person I hear make the statement about social liberal, fiscal conservative.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Lumenari

I don't care who a person lives with or what contracts they get from the government, and I don't care if they call that a marriage. To me, that's just a license for legal niceties. My marriage, the real thing, is vows before God.

Where the government screwed us all over is to presume to use the word marriage is if they had any right to usurp a sacred thing unto themselves. We all have a different idea what a marriage is in every religion, and not every religion has the same idea what that should be. But when government took it upon itself to use that word, they presumed it was theirs to define for all of us. That made if a legal fight which shouldn't ever have happened, but you know politicians. They never met a power they didn't want to grab for themselves.

You are assuming my marriage did not include a vow to a God, so isn't an actual "real" marriage.

That's the problem with Christians... it's all or nothing and they are always right because their God is the only God.

While missing the point that on this planet called Earth, they are not the major religion.

While also missing that in America, we have freedom OF religion.

As for marriage certificates, you are entirely correct.

The government got into it to make money and never should have gotten into it at all.

That you think my marriage isn't a real thing because it doesn't conform to your particular religion is just tells me you're a bigot.

But that's on you.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Lumenari

Some, but every time I hear that social liberal, fiscal conservative thing happen ... I next start to hear the talking about how health care is a right. Then I hear about Global Warming ... but they believe in free markets and low taxes, so it's all OK! Trust me. That's usually the kind of person I hear make the statement about social liberal, fiscal conservative.

Then you have no understanding of what I am talking about.

Judging by your posts on marriage in this thread, I understand where you are coming from.

You are intellectually stunted and conform to a certain viewpoint.

Then judge everyone else based on your viewpoint.

a reply to: Lumenari

No, I'm actually not. I am well aware that there are sects of Christianity that will marry any two people, just as there are other religions that will.

My point is that two me, it's the religious vow that makes the marriage, not the government paper. So to me, government violated its place in usurping that word -- marriage.

My brother-in-law and sister are married through the JoP only, and it's not a marriage. I could say my vows to the priest and not have the license and I would be. That's what I'm saying. Same with you. I don't care who you made your vows to, where, or why ... or what religion even. That's the part that counts in my mind ... not the license, but the license is what set up the fight over marriage and all the legal battles that followed.

So long as we left it up to the various religions to decide whom they would marry and how, people were more prone to respect that we all saw this differently and there was nothing to force when different groups saw it different ways. But as soon as government, "This is the marriage license ... " certain groups saw a means to take it all to court and start forcing the issue in ways that created some big problems.