Shocking
1 Boost
182 Likes
Liberal in the US seems to mean something different than anywhere else. Most classifications don’t line up that way, though the far right extremism seems to be aligning across countries since 2016.
Yes, but that would make this make even less sense. The US sometimes uses liberal as a stand in for left-leaning. The more common definition is against regulation, so sometimes socially liberal, but also, and more importantly market liberal (think Argentine’s predisent for an extreme example). So this is very us liberal coded, just with goals far exceeding what most us “liberal” politicians currently try to achieve.
There are many definitions of the word “liberal”. Which one are you using?
The political ones, pick any used commonly in the US and they won’t match up with their use in other countries.
It’s so lovely watching pedantic, ideologically uncompromising nitwits “scorpion and frogging” us to the end of civilization.
See you all in hell!
I thought you were overreacting. I’m sorry.
Healthcare should be available for all, not a luxury for the rich
Politicians should not dictate medical decisions for any person
Ignoring the shameless virtue signaling, it’s amazing to me how so many people can honestly think these two ideas can exist together.
I can think of any number of ways to reconcile them. But they all require a functioning government.
Which is why all developed countries do this, except the U.S.
It means that the government should fund healthcare, and have no place in the treatment of any individual. That is a conversation between doctors and patients
Easy: government pays doctors to work … and then fucks off, does nothing else.
Got any more unsolvable dilemmas for me? I have a few minutes to spare.
![PM_ME_VINTAGE_30S [he/him]](https://anarchaos.s3.eu-central-003.backblazeb2.com/users/l8/6J/l86JmmX0dt2lfs4.jpeg "PM_ME_VINTAGE_30S [he/him]")
😁
So everyone knows who here stands against this:
Updated
The ninja person was just bragging about being a Nazi a couple days ago actually
Yeah, that dude is trying hard to be on the wrong side of everything.
This is just empty talk until the proletariat seizes the means of production.
no child should fear being shot at school
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?
“There is no way to prevent this” says only country in the planet where it happens - as the famous onion article says.
The guns are part of the problem. The rest is a problem to, and I support broad social policies as a matter of principle, but the guns need to be part of this.
nah. i think he means to lobotomize the children. only way to keep em unafraid of anything.
Sure, but how do you propose the portion of society who’s entire personality is guns be brought to a reasonable place? So many people who proclaim they’re all about 2A are the ones actively supporting the current state of affairs because ‘muh freedoms’ overrides all else regardless of any detriments to others.
logistically unenforceable
So true, no other country has radically reduced the rates of gun ownership & gun crimes & gun injuries via those stinky unenforceable ‘laws’ or whatever.
I also support the other stuff you suggested but I won’t live in your fantasy world.
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.
How I wish we lived in a sane society. 🫡
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?
Nah, actual leftists would be much more extreme.
There are a couple modified versions in the comments here. Check those out for what actual leftists want.
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.
They mean what the rest of the world would call left
🤡
In the rest of the world there are middle of the road Catholic parties you can get behind half of this at least. The U.S. is unusually cruel.
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’m not pro military by any stretch of the imagination, but I see this fundamentally as an employer’s duty of care.
If you hire people to do a job, and that job results in lasting damage, you should be liable (morally and civilly) for fixing there damage. Anything else is just pushing the externalities off to society at large.
I mean honestly, as a non veteran, they risked more than most of us civilians have ever had to risk for our nation’s security. And by Nation I mean the people, not the country. So yes I do believe all veterans should be entitled to certain benefits above and beyond the average citizen. The same was true for soldiers in ancient Rome.
MAGA & GOP view themselves as the pro-military party, which is really important because it means veterans often vote for them. The reality is MAGA & GOP is happy to vote for more military spending of the variety that puts money into the military industrial complex. They are way less willing to spend it in ways that benefit actual veterans.
I’m against war & the military and do not think highly of those that join. That said they are, technically, a public servant. And public servants should be granted public resources such as housing & healthcare & food. So yes, ‘especially veterans’, should get housing.
But also yes, everyone should.
Because it frames the homeless issue in an undeniably harsh light. “If even vets end up homeless, WTF are we doing?!”
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.
Sorry but the liberals in governments all over don’t act like they believe this at all.