Shocking
1 Boost
68 Likes
These are all reasonable common sense standpoints that should represent the political center in a sane society.
These should be unquestioned facts in a sane society regardless of politics.
Yeah, this is at best wish casting and at worst deliberately disingenuous propaganda. Obama was a liberal or not, because he opened the US to the largest expansion of for-profit fossil fuel extraction in history, and championed fracking, and even presided over the militarized police beatings of indigenous protestors of oil pipelines.
Liberals don’t believe any of this
He had the trifecta and the best they could do was continue expanding the profits of the insurance companies. They could have done literally anything else and it would have been better but they fundamentally believe in the markets, they believe everyone should work, they believe benefits should be means tested and they believe that only compliant people should be given any benefits, and that anyone getting benefits should be in full poverty.
@frisbird still better than "a concept of a plan." The insurance industry is criminal.
Things liberals believe in but will do nothing to implement, and in some cases actively impede.
Liberals, or the left?
It’s economic liberalism vs social liberalism. It’s the fucked up political language of the US. They mean what the rest of the world would call left. But unfortunately due to our misuse of the term it allowed neoliberals to come in, take over, and work against the people.
Sorry but the liberals in governments all over don’t act like they believe much of this at all.
NO ONE, ESPECIALLY VETERANS, SHOULD BE HOMELESS
Would be better without the ‘especially veterans’ part. WTF makes veterans so special? Why is a homeless veteran more concerning than any other homeless person?
I am a veteran, by the way. But fuck this shit.
I didn’t make it, if I did it would have been that way.
You made it leftist but forgot to change the title.
Normies don’t generally understand this distinction.
That means you support a robust system of social safety nets to treat the root causes of violence: poverty, homelessness, unemployment, and mental health, right?
That’s not coded language for, “We’re going to pass a feel-good ban that’s logistically unenforceable and only applies to citizens, not our over-militarized police force, further entrenching the police state, and declare the problem solved, regardless of whether it actually stops the violence,” right?
Right?