Right Wing Site To GOP: Confirm Garland Before Hillary Makes It Worse

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

Just now, rpggal said:

No, it isn't. Socialism has no rules dictating who makes laws and how laws are interpreted and enforced (i.e. a system of governance).

Socialism has its own form of political ideologies.

 

[rpggal 332]

Just now, LebaneseDude said:

Socialism has its own form of political ideologies.

 

Yes, so do liberalism and conservativism and libertarianism. That does not make them forms of government. 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

2 minutes ago, rpggal said:

Yes, so do liberalism and conservativism and libertarianism. That does not make them forms of government. 

Oh right. I never called them forms of government though.

I said liberalism in the USA is a way of connecting socialist ideas into the capitalist democratic framework. At least in its current state.

I find it odd that you are making the implication that one has to be extreme if they are to be considered liberal, otherwise they'd be conservative.

I'm treating the USA differently from other countries. What constitutes liberal for them may not be liberal for other places, much like the most liberal people in Lebanon fall under conservatism in the USA.

Bernie is so far to the left that he's the exception, not the rule, regarding what constitutes liberalism in the USA.

Perhaps that's where our opinions differ?

[rpggal 332]

3 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

Oh right. I never called them forms of government though.

I said liberalism in the USA is a way of connecting socialist ideas into the capitalist democratic framework. At least in its current state.

I find it odd that you are making the implication that one has to be extreme if they are to be considered liberal, otherwise they'd be conservative.

I'm treating the USA differently from other countries. What constitutes liberal for them may not be liberal for other places, much like the most liberal people in Lebanon fall under conservatism in the USA.

Bernie is so far to the left that he's the exception, not the rule, regarding what constitutes liberalism in the USA.

Perhaps that's where our opinions differ?

You said liberalism bridges the gap from democracy to socialism, thereby preserving democratic freedoms, which implies that socialism does not preserve democratic freedoms, which would only be reasonable if you had the common misconception that socialism us a form of government with its own rules contrary to democracy. Why is it strange to you that I use "liberal" as left of center in the political spectrum? That's what it means. The spectrum is very broad and won't often align with the specific spectrums going on in each country, but the word has a clear non-contextualized definition that i think is appropriate to use on a forum that is international. I agree that Bernie is very very very far to the left of the US democratic party, I'm just trying to explain why people in this thread are coming to different conclusions about the issue than you are. You're all using words differently, and in cases like that I think it's best to stick with the strict definitions of things so everyone knows what the other person is talking about. In the broader scope of things, all US politics (including Hillary) is to the right, with the exception of Bernie and maybe Elizabeth Warren who are to the left. 

[notamember 667]

2 hours ago, Azor Ahai said:

I thought Hillary and Obama were  in the centrist wing of the democratic party. Aren't they "new democrats" ? 

American politics are so confusing jesus...

You are correct. Neo-liberals. 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

16 minutes ago, rpggal said:

You said liberalism bridges the gap from democracy to socialism, thereby preserving democratic freedoms, which implies that socialism does not preserve democratic freedoms, which would only be reasonable if you had the common misconception that socialism us a form of government with its own rules contrary to democracy. Why is it strange to you that I use "liberal" as left of center in the political spectrum? That's what it means. The spectrum is very broad and won't often align with the specific spectrums going on in each country, but the word has a clear non-contextualized definition that i think is appropriate to use on a forum that is international. I agree that Bernie is very very very far to the left of the US democratic party, I'm just trying to explain why people in this thread are coming to different conclusions about the issue than you are. You're all using words differently, and in cases like that I think it's best to stick with the strict definitions of things so everyone knows what the other person is talking about. In the broader scope of things, all US politics (including Hillary) is to the right, with the exception of Bernie and maybe Elizabeth Warren who are to the left. 

Ah I see where you may have gotten that implication.

Well honestly I think it's actually more confusing to impose ultra-general definitions of the terms on all of society. Liberalism varies between countries and cultures. The point of the liberal and conservative spectrum is to provide context for the population for where their policies stand in terms of values. In general, liberalism itself deals with civil liberties and equality in the framework of social justice and a relatively mixed bag of economic ideologies. So in the USA, liberal is liberal according to USA political and cultural values.

The liberalism being discussed on these forums is actually modern American liberalism. You're right that it's far different than what Europeans for example refer to as liberalism The liberals that you are referring to are part of classical Liberalism, and are often attributed to the Libertarians in the USA.

In any case, your reasons stated are why many Democrats prefer to use the term progressive as opposed to liberal when discussing their profiles on the world stage.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

1 hour ago, notamember said:

You are correct. Neo-liberals. 

No ... it is not neo-liberalism...not at all.

Neo-liberalism aims for a true capitalism economy, complete removal of all socialist systems, and eliminating any notion of community. Neo-liberalism is the complete opposite of socialism. 

Her actions and policies stand in direct opposition to many of their main points.

Hillary may have had some poor decisions in the economic field such as unfortunate free trade deal decisions that she now regrets, but has advocated for bumps to minimum wage (pay in general) across the board. Furthermore, a lot of her platform is based on providing new jobs for Americans. Not to mention that she wants to normalize tax rates to benefit the low and middle class.

But that's not where it ends. Her life's work has been dedicated to providing socialist systems for communities across the world, particularly when it comes to women and children. She laid the foundation of national healthcare, which Obama later used to form the ACA.

Her entire platform has been about unity across the population. Americans from all demographics support her. She's building the sense of community, all while being trashed by those who wish to promote divisiveness.

What you are doing is labeling her as a neo-liberal simply because she isn't willing to follow the extreme path that Sanders wishes to in regards to economic field only, while completely ignoring the remainder of what constitutes a neo-liberal to fit your own agenda.