😁Can I get a fuck yeah?!??
FUCK YEAH!
Much better
Cosigned
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.
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 the damage. Anything else is just pushing the externalities off to society at large.
Then why specifically talk about Veterans and not, for example, Firemen. Surelly the contributions for society of the latter are vastly better than the former - in fact, in the US the former have always been used to pillage the resources of foreign nations (there has literally not been a military attack on the US for over a century, so it sure ain’t Defense), resources then overwhelmingly captured by a select elite which is thus made even richer, hence more powerful, hence more politically influent, the very opposite of the “Liberal thinking” that document claims to portray.
It looks to me like either the author of that is American and that shit is them leaking their lifelong brainwashing about the Military or it’s a piece of political propaganda whitewashing Liberalism (what’s in that list sure as hell does not match the actual policies of Liberal Politicians) which targets Americans hence blowing the “Veterans” dog-whistle, which pretty much only works in America.
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.
I didn’t make it, if I did it would have been that way.
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.
Because it frames the homeless issue in an undeniably harsh light. “If even vets end up homeless, WTF are we doing?!”
Fixed it
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 much of this at all.
The Liberals here just want to burn coal in peace.
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.
Look mate, if you go check the definition of “Liberalism” in Wikipedia it’s literally self contradictory.
For example, the whole Private Property Rights shit collides with the Freedom part - give people the right to own Land and to do whatever they want with their Land (which includes keeping other people out of it or from using it) and that lowers Freedom for everybody else who now can’t access that Land.
Ditto for other shared resources - if somebody owns them, others can’t use them.
Ownership of those for which “no more of it is being made” (most notably Land) is probably the keystone of inequality, not just modern day but all the way back to the time when Monarchs took ownership of the Commons.
Liberalism is like the Bible - there’s something in there for everybody but the whole thing is a self-contradictory fable promising people that they too will one day be in bliss (one promises Heaven, the other promises the possibility of becoming Rich) as long as they keep being obedient sheep.
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 Argentina’s president 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.
I’ve lived many years in 3 different countries in Europe.
In none of them were Liberal politicians making policies in accordance with the ideas listed in your post.
Worse, the more openly “Liberal” the party the harder they defended the very opposite of most of what’s there.
I literally do not know of a single “Liberal” party anywhere in the West which does not practice pretty much the opposite of that - they’re all pro-privatisation, pro-deregulation and more broadly their policies generally increase the Power of Money whilst decreasing the Power of the entities controlled by the Democratically Elected representatives of the citizens (i.e. the State, which is controlled by the elected representatives of citizens).
In practice every single on of them has policies which de facto reduce the powers controled by voting - which is equal(-ish) for everybody - and increase the powers controlled by Money and Asset Ownership - which is spectacularly unequal, with some having literally billions of times more power than others - or in other words, to replace Democracy with Oligarchy.
The political ones
Its the difference between classical liberalism and modern liberalism. Classic liberals believe in laissez-fare policies and the free market, while modern liberals still believe in a market economy but support more social policy and government involvement in things like infrastructure, health, education etc.
In most places “liberal” refers to classical liberal, whereas a modern liberals would more likely be termed progressives or the centre left. In the US liberal tends to refer to modern liberals while classical liberals are referred to as conservatives.
The example of the US Democrats (and pretty much every single western mainstream party which is supposedly left-of-center) doesn’t show a Modern Liberalism that matches what you claim is the modern one.
I think you’re confusing Left-wing Liberalism with “Modern”.
Left-wing Liberalism is basically Social Democracy - trying for Equality of Opportunity rather than trying for Equality of Outcomes like Socialism, totally accepting of private ownership and favoring mechanisms like Public Education and Progressive Taxation rather than more Autoritarian ones to try and make for a more equal world.
Right-wing Liberalism is Neoliberalism - basically “the Power Of Money should be above the Power Of The State”, only it’s all wrapped up as “the State should not own anything and should not interfere in the Free Market”. A nation where Money sits above the State in the power hierarchy can’t a Democracy even with a vote and elected representatives since what those elected representatives control - the State - sits below what Money controls, and such power structure is actually known as an Oligarchy.
(If I remember correctly there is actually an MIT study for the US that shows that it is in fact and Oligarchy and has been so for more than a decade)
In the modern days Right-wing Liberalism has been dominant in the West, something you can see even in Scandinavia which were maybe some of the last western nations were social-democracy was still dominant (until maybe a decade ago).
All this to say that in practice the present day (hence, “modern”) Liberalism in pretty much all of the West is the right-wing take on Liberalism - Free Market Liberalism, aka Neoliberalism.
The meme and Wikipedia both disagree with you
Please tell me where the Right To Private Property in the Wikipedia definition ends and the Freedom one starts.
Specifically, were do the rights of Land Ownership stop and the Freedom of all human beings to access and use the very surface of the planet they live in starts.
Because without that contradition in the very definition of Liberalism in Wikipedia solved, you don’t actually have a concrete workable political ideology with actual policies.
I think that if you honestly look at it with a logical and analytical eye you’ll find that the various different modern political ideologies which claim to be liberal differ mainly in how they chose to handle the conflict between Right To Private Property and Freedom.
The ‘modern liberals’ in the US government have been resisting social policies like single-payer healthcare and ~50% of OPs image though. Aside from like 4 people who’ve been outnumbered or just paying lip-service. Is what I meant in my comment.
Yeah that’s fair, sounds like they have ditched their modern liberal roots and are just acting as classic liberals, so just conservatives in liberal clothing
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. 🫡
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.
The problem is that the Right To Private Property in Liberalism clashes with the Freedom part.
In simple terms, if people own limited resources such as for example Land and have the right to do whatever they want with it, that reduces the Freedom of everybody else (since they can’t go into that Land much less do what they want with it). If landowners have unlimited “right to private property” then the more Land is owned, the less Freedom there is (since you can’t just make more Land for use by everybody else).
(And there are further practical considerations that need to take in account in actual policy making anchored on Liberalism due to real world having things like Negative Externalities and Tragedy Of The Commons situations - if you let individuals do whatever they want with what they own, in aggregate they can destroy the very things required for the survival of everybody)
So that inherent contradiction creates a lot of room for interpretation and actual Liberal political teories with actual policies have to chose their own balance between the Right To Private Property and Freedom in their interpretation of Liberalism.
From what I’ve seen Neoliberals are Liberals which chose a balance between the two were Right To Private Property is VASTLY more important than Freedom, whilst at the other end of the scale Social Democrats have Freedom be as much or maybe even more important as Right To Private Property.
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.
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.
What? Again, the ACA made the insurance industry HUGE profit increases. It was essentially a custom crafter byzantine program that was designed to enrich them with some scraps thrown to the people to make them OK with it. Obama ALSO bailed out all the big banks during the GFC and let the masses rot.
Obama ALSO bailed out all the big banks during the GFC and let the masses rot.
Yep.
The right way to do that would be to let the shitty big companies fail, and then bail out the workers and other actual people who suffer in the fallout.
When I’m elected King of the World, all future economic bailouts will only go to individual workers who are impacted by the economic problems. Banks and other companies can go fuck themselves. They’re easily replaced, as long as the actual people are doing okay.
You got my vote
Disagree.
The right way to do it would have been to nationalize the banks.
Eh … national banks can still be shitty.
This is just empty talk until the proletariat seizes the means of production.
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.
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 too, and I support broad social policies as a matter of principle, but the guns need to be part of this.
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 (unlike maga) but I won’t live in your fantasy world.
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.
Bravo.
nah. i think he means to lobotomize the children. only way to keep em unafraid of anything.
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.
