Anyone else becoming terrified of Liberals.

DrumSteve

Makes me a bit sad they way the word liberal has been hijacked by american politics.

Whats actually wrong with being liberal in its truest sense?

Hank Scorpio

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

No, I abhor violence.

It's not helpful for a presidential candidate to be encouraging it.

No moral ground, Hillary Clinton's team along with Bob Creamer paid mentally ill people to go and incite violence at Trump rallies, which is far worse than anything Trump has ever done.

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/18/politics/project-veritas-action-robert-creamer-donald-trump-rallies/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3850226/Democratic-strategist-steps-post-video-surfaced-purportedly-showing-hired-people-incite-violence-Trump-rallies.html

Hank Scorpio

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

So it's OK for people to beat up mentally Ill people at Trump rallies? Can't say I'm surprised.

Yeah, that's exactly my point. Thanks for clearing that up.

ancapailldorcha

Crap posts deleted. Any more posting pics for comedic effect or below standard posts may elicit mod action.

alastair

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

No moral ground, Hillary Clinton's team along with Bob Creamer paid mentally ill people to go and incite violence at Trump rallies, which is far worse than anything Trump has ever done.

No they didn't. As has been pointed out repeatedly.

https://theintercept.com/2016/04/03/trump-campaign-spread-dirty-meme-paid-protesters/

Hank Scorpio

alastair wrote: »

No they didn't. As has been pointed out repeatedly.

https://theintercept.com/2016/04/03/trump-campaign-spread-dirty-meme-paid-protesters/

Are you missing something? The videos of Creamer and such came out much later.

This thread is getting dragged off topic now, violence is bad no matter where it comes from, but I'll stand by what I said - It's only one side who has shown throughout the campaign to have a mob mentality of attacking people and rioting without reason, and as proven with the Berkeley riots, continue to do so.

open_minded

Liberals certainly seem to have very few arrows in their armoury. They resort to name calling and violence very quickly. Liberals seek to shut down free speech and debate as they perform poorly in those areas.
Liberals perform well in emotions and in feelz, but those things have very little objective value and relying on them leads you to make silly decisions.

Liberalism is now a sinking ship. Neo-racists are in the ascendency.

ancapailldorcha

If people want to discuss the state of modern liberalism then by all means please do so. If this thread is going to degenerate into a pit of lazy tarring and cherrypicking links then I'll have to close it. Please bear the charter in mind.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

jimmycrackcorm

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Do you really want to go down the route of posting video clips to try and prove a point? For every clip of a gobsh/te at a Trump rally there's 50 videos on the other side.

Have you actually got 50 video examples to support what you say or can we take it as another example of alternative facts?

oscarBravo

OleRodrigo wrote: »

It seems to me that societies remain healthy with a mix of conservative and liberal policies. Right now the pendulum is swing back to conservatism, until some of the problems of liberalism ( or neo-lberalism ) have been addressed. It will then probably swing back again.
That liberals are taking so much offense with this is astonishing.

It's not so astonishing. If the pendulum swings liberal, giving women a say over their reproductive health and gay people civil rights, and then it swings conservative, removing civil rights and allowing rapists to sue their victims for having an abortion, there's plenty to take offence at.

Brian?

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

One side during the election were extremely violent and continue to be so, and it wasn't Trump supporters

The radical alt left terrorists like antifa need to be labeled as such

What acts of terror have they committed exactly?

Sofa Spud

open_minded wrote: »

Liberals certainly seem to have very few arrows in their armoury. They resort to name calling and violence very quickly. Liberals seek to shut down free speech and debate as they perform poorly in those areas.
Liberals perform well in emotions and in feelz, but those things have very little objective value and relying on them leads you to make silly decisions.

Liberalism is now a sinking ship. Neo-racists are in the ascendency.

I think some of the criticisms above are completely fair and valid but would just make the differentiation that it is Liberalism in its current distorted form that is maybe a sinking ship. The focus has been too much on style and superficial emotional distractions that play well on social media - but there is still substance underneath all of that guff, it's just harder for the message to gain traction in the current media-scape of instant gratification and short attention spans.

Consider some of the policies that both Bernie and Trump put forward - Bernie focused a lot on wealth distribution, education and Health Care and even Trump went big on infrastructure projects for highways and airports - something the Democrats have repeatedly backed away from for fear as being seen as tax and spenders. There is an appetite out there for what could be seen as centrist or progressive economic policies, even if the campaign promises made where clearly heavy on aspirational niceties and low on realistic economic costings. There was little or no economic debate in the campaign and there's no culture of it - Clinton's first run in '92 when Perot was also running was probably the last time economics was the central theme of a campaign. Now it's Twitter.

So, for Liberalism, or the ideals that can be labeled as such, to survive, it needs to learn to be self-critical again, remember the benefit of analysis, critical thinking and respecting other opinions - not to be polite, but to be open to learning from different perspectives.

To be fair, the alt:right do not exactly appear at times to be open to reasoned dialogue, but to put it bluntly, whether they get to have nice conversations with conservatives or not, Liberals need to get their heads out of their a%%'es, and quickly, and try to recognise that their thinking has become stale and their outlook is increasingly intolerant and too rigid.

alastair

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Are you missing something? The videos of Creamer and such came out much later.

And they didn't change a thing. They were sending people in to disrupt campaign rallies with loud dissenting viewpoints, but that's nothing new, and far from 'inciting violence'. Can you point to an instance of violence that was actually provoked by those people? Because all the actual violence doled out to those at Trump rallies is notably unconnected with Creamers operation.

Brian?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You know what makes it more confusing? Calling left wing people liberals. It's rampant on this board thanks to exposure to US media. Liberals are not now and never have been left wing.

I too despair of some of the "New left" in the US. They seem to be a hodgepodge of different agendas who are becoming increasingly shrill. However I don't have an issue with the anti Trump protests. They are standing up to intolerance, not being intolerant. I'd prefer more peaceful methods myself though.

I think a great response to alt right speakers would be to stand silently with your back to them. I have a feeling it would drive them demented. Especially a mouth piece like Milo who considers himself an agent provocateur. Don't get provoked by him and he loses his power. Turn up to his talk, stand up and turn your back on him. He wants violent protests, he wins when it turns nasty. Because he's a nasty piece of work. Same goes for most other alt right darlings. Ignore them. Attention is like the air they breathe.

The push back against "political correctness" really get me, it's like a bold child crying because they can't have their way anymore. No, I won't tolerant discrimination. But let's do it smart instead of screaming at them.

alastair

Sofa Spud wrote: »

Consider some of the policies that both Bernie and Trump put forward - Bernie focused a lot on wealth distribution, education and Health Care and even Trump went big on infrastructure projects for highways and airports - something the Democrats have repeatedly backed away from for fear as being seen as tax and spenders.

The Trump infrastructure plan is conveniently, an Obama / Hillary / Democrat plan:

But Trump has been vague what about he'd do and what it would cost. During the campaign he said he'd double the $275 billion boost in government infrastructure spending proposed by his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton. A recent paper by Trump advisers calls for using federal tax credits to generate $1 trillion in private sector infrastructure investment over a decade. To offset the cost of the credits, U.S. corporations would be encouraged to bring home profits parked overseas to avoid taxes, in exchange for a low tax rate.

If that corporate tax "repatriation" idea sounds familiar, it's probably because Obama has been urging Congress to do that, and Clinton cited repatriation as the way she would pay for her infrastructure plan.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-donald-trump-infrastructure-spending-20161111-story.html

Hank Scorpio

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Have you actually got 50 video examples to support what you say or can we take it as another example of alternative facts?

Sure.

http://pastebin.com/2YDyAMzM

alastair

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Sure.

http://pastebin.com/2YDyAMzM

Assuming that these are valid videos (couldn't be bothered), that's only going to cover a single Trump supporter idiocy video, so you've got a ways to go to maintain that 50:1 ratio.

Hank Scorpio

alastair wrote: »

And they didn't change a thing. They were sending people in to disrupt campaign rallies with loud dissenting viewpoints, but that's nothing new, and far from 'inciting violence'. Can you point to an instance of violence that was actually provoked by those people? Because all the actual violence doled out to those at Trump rallies is notably unconnected with Creamers operation.

So you don't think people were paid to make trouble at Trump events?

This says otherwise.

http://abcnews.com.co/donald-trump-protester-speaks-out-i-was-paid-to-protest/

When asked about the other protesters at the rally, Horner said he saw most of them during the interview and training for the rally.

“Almost all of the people I was protesting with I had seen at my interview and training class. At the rally, talking with some of them, I learned they only paid Latinos $500, Muslims $600 and African Americans $750. I don’t think they were looking for any Asians. Women and children were paid half of what the men got and illegals received $300 across the board. I think I was paid more than the other protesters because I was white and had taken classes in street fighting and boxing a few years back”

AnGaelach

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

In an American context there isn't as much violence and intimidation tactics being used at at protests by the right, no where near as much. They are being egged on by the likes of this-

To be fair to her, she's spent her life trying to be a comedian and the funniest thing she did was back Bernie for President.

alastair

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

So you don't think people were paid to make trouble at Trump events?

This says otherwise.

http://abcnews.com.co/donald-trump-protester-speaks-out-i-was-paid-to-protest/

When asked about the other protesters at the rally, Horner said he saw most of them during the interview and training for the rally.

“Almost all of the people I was protesting with I had seen at my interview and training class. At the rally, talking with some of them, I learned they only paid Latinos $500, Muslims $600 and African Americans $750. I don’t think they were looking for any Asians. Women and children were paid half of what the men got and illegals received $300 across the board. I think I was paid more than the other protesters because I was white and had taken classes in street fighting and boxing a few years back”

You're really buying that guff? Honestly?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/nov/17/blog-posting/no-someone-wasnt-paid-3500-protest-donald-trump-it/

Asked by the Post’s Caitlin Dewey why he posted the fake story, Horner responded, "Just ’cause his supporters were under the belief that people were getting paid to protest at their rallies, and that’s just insane. I’ve gone to Trump protests — trust me, no one needs to get paid to protest Trump. I just wanted to make fun of that insane belief, but it took off. They actually believed it."

Umm. Job done. I guess.

Hank Scorpio

alastair wrote: »

Assuming that these are valid videos (couldn't be bothered), that's only going to cover a single Trump supporter idiocy video, so you've got a ways to go to maintain that 50:1 ratio.

Not hard to keep up the 50.1 ratio when it's literally MOBS doing the violence.

infogiver

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

She is using her fame to reach an audience in order to call for violence. She has something like 10 million Twitter followers and she is calling for violence. Is that acceptable?

I would imagine that the majority of Silvermans "followers" are in their "safe space" i.e. their beds, crying and eating Ben &Jerrys so, no, I wouldn't let it bother me really.

AnGaelach

Brian? wrote: »

You know what makes it more confusing? Calling left wing people liberals. It's rampant on this board thanks to exposure to US media. Liberals are not now and never have been left wing.

The mix-up seems to be over the definition of liberal. Economic liberals would've been right-wing, but the modern definition of "liberal" seems to hinge upon whether you're socially liberal or not (since centre-right economic policies have been the de facto rule for most Western democracies for the last few decades).

I'd have no problem calling the left "liberals" in that context, but I also recognise that classical liberals aren't left-wing.

Brian? wrote: »

The push back against "political correctness" really get me, it's like a bold child crying because they can't have their way anymore. No, I won't tolerant discrimination. But let's do it smart instead of screaming at them.

The push-back hasn't come from people not being able to legitimately discriminate. It's come from people using "discrimination!" as a way to shut down any viewpoint they don't like (which thankfully isn't an issue in Ireland, and probably why there's no push-back here).

Political correctness had a point and has a point, but using it for everything you dislike or find rude isn't what it's supposed to be used for, and that is what most people dislike.

Gbear

Zillah wrote: »

You see comments to this effect a lot of the time and they really seem to miss the point. Liberalism is about tolerance of difference, not tolerance of intolerance, or tolerance of hatred and discrimination.

Things a liberal should tolerate:
- Different religions
- Different political preferences
- Different races, sexual orientations, etc

Things a liberal shouldn't tolerate:
- Racism
- Fascism
- Authoritatianism
- Xenophobia

Liberalism doesn't mean "anything goes". I'm not going to catch someone stabbing someone else in an alleyway and go "Well, who am I to judge?"

So no, don't go treating people like they are horrible goblins for voting conservative, but yes, be very intolerant of people preaching racism and xenophobia.

It really depends what you mean by tolerance here though.

For classical liberalism, as I understand it, tolerance means tolerance.

It doesn't mean celebration.
It doesn't mean even having to listen to it.
It just means being capable of coexisting in the same society and that doesn't require much of anything of either party except not attacking one another.

Plenty of racists are perfectly tolerant of black people. They manage to live in the same society, even if they avoid the focus of their hatred.
They don't go around murdering them or generally denying them their rights.

Preventing free speech is intolerant, and a lot of the people who claim that we should be intolerant of intolerance, are talking ****e and what they actually mean is being intolerant of nasty views they don't like.

Authoritarianism is authoritarianism, no matter how much hand-holdy bull**** you dress it up in and is fundamentally antithetical to liberalism.

The core of liberalism isn't everyone getting along. It's everyone being free.
It's right there in the name.
That's something a lot of so-called liberals seem to miss.

And there's nothing particularly wrong with that either. They're entitled to their views. They shouldn't call themselves liberals though.

alastair

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Not hard to keep up the 50.1 ratio when it's literally MOBS doing the violence.

I believe that about as much as your last fake news item.

Hank Scorpio

alastair wrote: »

You're really buying that guff? Honestly?

.

I don't base my logic on that link at all, because I've never seen it before. If it's untrue fine.

Fact remains that Bob Kremer said those things on camera along with other democratic operatives - just because the liberal media likes to smear and discredit O'Keefe doesn't make it untrue, he had to step down.

Craigslist I don't know what to believe, it's very easy to create ads to provoke a reaction or to smear people, the DNC themselves were doing it.

https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/12803

listermint

This thread is basically started with the concept.

If you can't defend trump's recklessness then attack his opposers.


Straight out of Conways playbook.


Laughable

alastair

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

I don't base my logic on that link at all, because I've never seen it before. If it's untrue fine.

Fact remains that Bob Kremer said those things on camera along with other democratic operatives - just because the liberal media likes to smear and discredit O'Keefe doesn't make it untrue, he had to step down.

Craigslist I don't know what to believe, it's very easy to create ads to provoke a reaction or to smear people, the DNC themselves were doing it.

https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/12803

You're to blame for your own gullibility tbh.

The 'things said on camera' were remarkably unremarkable. If you were not aware that campaigns send disrupters to their opponents meetings, then I'll welcome you to the 19th century at the latest.

Hank Scorpio

alastair wrote: »

You're to blame for your own gullibility tbh.

The 'things said on camera' were remarkably unremarkable. If you were not aware that campaigns send disrupters to their opponents meetings, then I'll welcome you to the 19th century at the latest.

If you think inciting violence at rallies is of the norm, good for you. I don't and neither do others as he had to step down.

alastair

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

If you think inciting violence at rallies is of the norm, good for you. I don't and neither do others as he had to step down.

Nobody was inciting violence at the rallies. Don't really know how else to say this in a simpler fashion. He never said they were either.

Wanderer78

im more terrified of world leaders that posse complex behavioural traits such as narcissism, or show signs of sociopathic and psychopathic personality disorders!

sabat

Try not looking at the internet for a week

ancapailldorcha

Wanderer78 wrote: »

im more terrified of world leaders that posse complex behavioural traits such as narcissism, or show signs of sociopathic and psychopathic personality disorders!

Cut out the petty insults.

sabat wrote: »

Try not looking at the internet for a week

Post more constructively please.

Wanderer78

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Cut out the petty insults.



Post more constructively please.

my comment is exactly how i feel. we truly do have some very dangerous people in power or on the cusp of it. thank you

ancapailldorcha

Wanderer78 wrote: »

my comment is exactly how i feel. we truly do have some very dangerous people in power or on the cusp of it. thank you

I don't care. No more insults and no more questioning moderation on thread.

Hank Scorpio

alastair wrote: »

Nobody was inciting violence at the rallies. Don't really know how else to say this in a simpler fashion. He never said they were either.

Foval was subsequently fired and he was contracted and actively working with Creamer. Both were in cahoots and Foval does multiple times specifically outline which rallies they were attending, how many people they had and what methods they were using to start violence, led by Creamer. You can either fill in the blanks or continue to believe two people got booted for doing nothing wrong, which is fine. I have a different opinion.

red ears

OleRodrigo wrote: »

Great post in Linkedin this week reminding us of what previous generations, not so long ago, put up with moving to the US.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/my-jewish-irish-asian-italian-friends-joshua-brown

The attitudes to other races back then was shocking, you can see how nazism took hold in Germany when you see human beings being compared to rats in America back then. We just find it hard to fathom those attitudes these days.

alastair

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Foval was subsequently fired and he was contracted and actively working with Creamer. Both were in cahoots and Foval does multiple times specifically outline which rallies they were attending, how many people they had and what methods they were using to start violence, led by Creamer. You can either fill in the blanks or continue to believe two people got booted for doing nothing wrong, which is fine. I have a different opinion.

Your opinion was also that Horner's story was plausible, in fairness.

alastair

red ears wrote: »

The attitudes to other races back then was shocking, you can see how nazism took hold in Germany when you see human beings being compared to rats in America back then. We just find it hard to fathom those attitudes these days.

Not really. You don't need to look too far.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Havockk

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Classical Liberalism is the notion that everyone should be completely free and completely equal, that's what the original thinkers believed anyway. It's ironic of course that liberalism is inherently anti-capitalist yet it is championed by the capitalists. The markets were only the device by which this complete freedom was to be delivered.

johnp001

Havockk wrote: »

Classical Liberalism is the notion that everyone should be completely free and completely equal, that's what the original thinkers believed anyway. It's ironic of course that liberalism is inherently anti-capitalist yet it is championed by the capitalists. The markets were only the device by which this complete freedom was to be delivered.

On the contrary classical liberalism was the belief in the equality of opportunity which is completely consistent with free market capitalism.

A belief in equality of outcome however requires an economic system that is anti-capitalist.

Hank Scorpio

alastair wrote: »

Your opinion was also that Horner's story was plausible, in fairness.

Yeah and I also said Trump would win the election whilst you were calling Clinton Madam President.

Havockk

johnp001 wrote: »

On the contrary classical liberalism was the belief in the equality of opportunity which is completely consistent with free market capitalism.

A belief in equality of outcome however requires an economic system that is anti-capitalist.

Guys like Smith would fall into the latter camp there.

um7y1h83ge06nx

This thread seems like great craic.

I feel these US Liberals have completely got out of hand, not a very nice bunch of people at all. The worst thing is their air of superiority in what they do. Criticise them and you're likely to be branded a fascist, racist or something similar. All a bit immature.

Hank Scorpio

Reuben Flabby Magazine wrote: »

This thread seems like great craic.

I feel these US Liberals have completely got out of hand, not a very nice bunch of people at all. The worst thing is their air of superiority in what they do. Criticise them and you're likely to be branded a fascist, racist or something similar. All a bit immature.

Sure look at the main Trump thread, I got labeled a racist because I have conservative views and I don't buy into the liberal media mania.

johnp001

Havockk wrote: »

Guys like Smith would fall into the latter camp there.

There is a fascinating series of articles about Adam Smith in relation to Classic Liberal/Libertarian positions at Was Adam Smith a Libertarian?

Havockk wrote: »

Classical Liberalism is the notion that everyone should be completely free and completely equal, that's what the original thinkers believed anyway. It's ironic of course that liberalism is inherently anti-capitalist yet it is championed by the capitalists. The markets were only the device by which this complete freedom was to be delivered.

To go back to the previous post about complete freedom and complete equality. The fact is that these are mutually exclusive if the type of equality you mean is equality of outcome.
You are not free, in that you don't possess rights to your own property, if you must share with me everything you have in excess of my possessions to make our outcomes equal.

WinnyThePoo

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Sure look at the main Trump thread, I got labeled a racist because I have conservative views and I don't buy into the liberal media mania.

Aren't you a birth conspiracy believer?

alastair

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Yeah and I also said Trump would win the election whilst you were calling Clinton Madam President.

The difference is that one example is plausible, and the other isn't. The issue isn't being wrong, it's being a dupe.