-->
@HistoryBuff
Is republican the opposite of liberal or the same?
Next election in the states : history in the making
Posts
Total:
73
-->
@Mall
Definitely opposite as in republican-stupid and liberal-smart.
-->
@FLRW
Liberal is freedom and Republican is fascist. I know this from the dictionary.
-->
@Greyparrot
Liberal is freedom and Republican is fascist. I know this from the dictionary.
Tru-dat!
-->
@Mall
Is republican the opposite of liberal or the same?
neither. republican is a member of specific political party. There are lots of different beliefs within that group. Some of those beliefs are fascist, some of them are theocratic, some of them are libertarian, some of them are liberal. You are kind of comparing apples and oranges.
-->
@FLRW
Right so liberals are progressing changes things which is the opposite of Republican. But you call it evil even when you agree with leaving some things as is.
So I rest my case there .
So I rest my case there .
-->
@HistoryBuff
So republicans can be liberal.
-->
@Mall
So republicans can be liberal.
of course. With only 2 real political parties, there are a huge variety of beliefs and opinions inside both parties. There are liberal Republicans and there are conservative Democrats. But the leadership of the republican party lately is mostly fascists and theocrats these days. There are few conservatives leading the republicans any more.
-->
@Mall
Why do you particularly vote democrat or republican?
I fundamentally believe that we as a society should be coming together to solve our problems. We won't always get things right, but if we're approaching issues in good faith then we will learn from our mistakes and continue to improve.
Government is the vehicle by which this happens, so I believe government is the instrument by which our problems get solved. So when I Iook up and I see one party who believes in finding solutions through government, and one party who seems to want nothing more than to destroy the government so that it can't accomplish anything, I will vote for the former and diametrically oppose the latter.
Times have changed though. The above applies moreso to the pre Trump era, today's republican party is nothing more than an authoritarian cult of personality. Until that changes I would never consider voting republican.
-->
@Mall
So republicans can be liberal.
The republican party at it's inception was the liberal party of our government, the democrats were the conservative party. During the civil rights era however the parties realigned and switched sides.
-->
@FLRW
When it comes to the 1st, and 2nd Amendment and the overall economy, the Democrat party is the party of freedom.
-->
@Greyparrot
.." At nearly every campaign stop and in all-caps screeds on social media, he is unequivocal: The only way he will lose the presidential election on November 5 is if his Democratic rivals cheat. "
....ergo, all of the conservative states putting in new laws ---ex GA-- or electoral officers --ex AZ-- who will do everything possible to disavow any vote count that says Harris wins.
This is why Trumpet is saying " we dont need votes ", cause their plan is to cheat in anyway they can to disavow a Harris win and make Trump the winner.
Political morals went out the window every since Trumpet and MADA cult have moved in to rope in what remains of the Republican party.
Political morals went out the window every since Trumpet and MADA cult have moved in to rope in what remains of the Republican party.
Sic-n-the head, just as it is so sic-n-head to remove a pregnant womans right to bodily autonomy.
We have a bunch of political nutters egg on by evangelical nutters.
..." Final answer:
In UK politics, the term 'nutter' is a colloquial term used to describe a politician with extreme or unconventional views. It is a derogatory term and should not be used when discussing politics professionally.
Explanation:
In UK politics, the term 'nutter' is a colloquial term used to refer to a politician who holds extreme or unconventional views, often considered as eccentric or irrational. It is a derogatory term and is frequently used to dismiss or ridicule the ideas or actions of a political figure. However, it is important to note that using such derogatory language is not professional or respectful when discussing politics or any other subject. "..
In UK politics, the term 'nutter' is a colloquial term used to describe a politician with extreme or unconventional views. It is a derogatory term and should not be used when discussing politics professionally.
Explanation:
In UK politics, the term 'nutter' is a colloquial term used to refer to a politician who holds extreme or unconventional views, often considered as eccentric or irrational. It is a derogatory term and is frequently used to dismiss or ridicule the ideas or actions of a political figure. However, it is important to note that using such derogatory language is not professional or respectful when discussing politics or any other subject. "..
-->
@HistoryBuff
Ok so there may as well not be two distinct political parties.
Liberalism blurs the lines. Conservatives are not liberal. They believe in conserving, not progressing.
Liberalism is for evolving and changing just about accepting anything new that comes along like same sex marriage, abortion, permitting illegal aliens, allowing transgenderism, pushing it on children, allowing transgender restrooms, transgender locker rooms and in military and sports.
-->
@Double_R
Do you believe in more things changing or remaining as is or reverting?
-->
@Double_R
So republicans are not liberal now .
If they were you'd be Republican.
-->
@Mall
Liberalism is for evolving and changing just about accepting anything new that comes along like same sex marriage, abortion, permitting illegal aliens, allowing transgenderism, pushing it on children, allowing transgender restrooms, transgender locker rooms and in military and sports.
lol where did you get this definition? The definition of liberalism is "a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise."
The idea that being liberal means accepting "anything new that comes along like" is just silly.
-->
@Mall
Do you believe in more things changing or remaining as is or reverting?
This question is way too vague to offer a meaningful answer.
Change is not the goal, it's the practical effect of living in a society that is still learning. A century and half ago we were just reconciling with the idea that we shouldn't own people as property. A century ago we still hadn't figured out that women and black people should have equal rights. Now we're finally coming to grips with the fact that many people in our society aren't born into the manly man girly girl dichotomy we have always assumed. These changes will continue as we continue to learn more about who we are as human beings.
You'll need to be more specific if you want to know how I feel about any given issue.
So republicans are not liberal now .If they were you'd be Republican.
Correct. If I were voting in the late 1800's I'd probably vote republican straight down the ballot. Today's republican party is a disgrace to its historical stature.
-->
@HistoryBuff
Definition comes from the liberals themselves and their views.
If you listen to interviews with liberals, particularly the ones that Jesse Lee Peterson has interviewed, you'll know.
-->
@Mall
Definition comes from the liberals themselves and their views.
no, it comes from how you choose to perceive their views. There is a very big difference. Especially if you get all your news from fox news or newsmax.
If you listen to interviews with liberals, particularly the ones that Jesse Lee Peterson has interviewed, you'll know.
it sounds like you've heard a small number of people talk about very specific topics and are using that to define all liberals. That's dumb. The people talking might not have actually been liberals for all you know. Lots of theocratic fascists describe themselves as "conservative", it doesn't make it true.
-->
@Double_R
So you're liberal looking for constant change while claiming liberal is actually conservative.
Owning people or the law to make it legal didn't have to change. Just the way ownership was ran needed to be changed or reverted really.
Besides it is highly disputed that slavery ever ended anyway.
-->
@HistoryBuff
I don't have to choose how to perceive. I just listen to every word they use and hear them explain it and it's just as definitive as that.
If people believe in what they do , that's them. I'm not disputing it. If you don't believe me or them, ah well.
-->
@Mall
I don't have to choose how to perceive. I just listen to every word they use and hear them explain it and it's just as definitive as that.
lol you're describing how you perceive them. And unless you have heard every single liberal in the world say that, then you can't say that is what liberals believe. The best you can say is that a tiny percent of liberals believe that.
If people believe in what they do , that's them. I'm not disputing it. If you don't believe me or them, ah well.
and if you told me about specific people who said those things and provided proof, I would believe that's who they are. But that is not "liberals". that is the specific people you are talking about. That's like saying all Republicans are pedophiles because a few of them have been convicted of it. That wouldn't be fair would it?
-->
@HistoryBuff
"lol you're describing how you perceive them. "
You're not acknowledging what I'm saying. I'm not perceiving. I'm listening to the person or persons exact words. You make a point about me hearing every single one when you haven't confirmed whom I've heard express their own views.
"And unless you have heard every single liberal in the world say that, then you can't say that is what liberals believe. The best you can say is that a tiny percent of liberals believe that. "
That is not the best because I don't know if there is a tiny percent. You talking about proof but contradict yourself with these statements.
"and if you told me about specific people who said those things and provided proof, I would believe that's who they are. But that is not "liberals". that is the specific people you are talking about. That's like saying all Republicans are pedophiles because a few of them have been convicted of it. That wouldn't be fair would it?'
Nobody said ALL did they? I'm talking about whom I've heard which is more than one making it plural. You can take it or leave it. It doesn't negate what these people believe in.
-->
@Mall
So you're liberal looking for constant change while claiming liberal is actually conservative.
Please explain how "change is not the goal" = "looking for constant change".
while claiming liberal is actually conservative.
You're completely making this up, I said nothing like this.
Owning people or the law to make it legal didn't have to change. Just the way ownership was ran needed to be changed or reverted really.
What are you talking about?
Besides it is highly disputed that slavery ever ended anyway.
No, it's not. Why would you say something so ridiculous?
-->
@Mall
You're not acknowledging what I'm saying. I'm not perceiving. I'm listening to the person or persons exact words.
and their exact words were "I believe in accepting anything new that comes along like same sex marriage, abortion, permitting illegal aliens, allowing transgenderism, pushing it on children, allowing transgender restrooms, transgender locker rooms and in military and sports."
Because if those weren't their exact words, then you are inferring meaning from their words. Thus what you infer is your perception which could be radically different from what they actually believe or meant.
You make a point about me hearing every single one when you haven't confirmed whom I've heard express their own views.
why would that matter? You are saying all liberals believe specific things. If you haven't heard from all liberals, you obviously cannot know that. The best you can say is the handful of people you've heard talk about it believe those things.
That is not the best because I don't know if there is a tiny percent. You talking about proof but contradict yourself with these statements.
I'm not the one generalizing, you are. you are saying "all liberals believe this". your proof is the tiny sample of people you've heard from on whatever right wing podcast you referenced. If you want to say all liberals believe something, the onus is on you to prove that. And there is no way you could possibly do that because there is vast differences in what different liberals believe.
Nobody said ALL did they? I'm talking about whom I've heard which is more than one making it plural. You can take it or leave it. It doesn't negate what these people believe in.
ok, you said "Liberalism is for evolving and changing...". you didn't say "some liberals believe in". You said that is what liberalism is. that is a lie. That might be what some liberals believe, but you cannot make such sweeping declarations about what liberalism is based on the opinions of a couple of people. there are "conservatives" who don't think women should be allowed to vote. Should I say that Conservatism is for suppressing women?
-->
@Double_R
No, it's not. Why would you say something so ridiculous?
Debt slavery.
-->
@Double_R
"Please explain how "change is not the goal" = "looking for constant change"."
Basically liberals are more open or always open and progressive so much so that they leave the foundation and fundamentals.
i.e. the acceptance of same sex marriage leaving the fundamentals of sexuality between man and woman alone.
"Owning people or the law to make it legal didn't have to change. Just the way ownership was ran needed to be changed or reverted really."
"What are you talking about?"
I'm talking about the law of slavery didn't need to change or end except the way it was ran.
"Besides it is highly disputed that slavery ever ended anyway."
"No, it's not. Why would you say something so ridiculous?"
It's because there are people apparently you're just learning this now that believe slavery has never ended but transitioned. Now these are typically minority groups speaking this so it's understandable from their perspective they'll feel this way seeing prisons filled with a lot of their own. Seeing a lot of their own hunted and shot down behind a so called traffic stop by a suspected "race" soldier. Experiencing discrimination still, being not called back from an interview or job application. Even when hired, kept at the lowest role in the company as if they're still out in the field while the higher ups sit back on their porch.
Anyway, if you think slavery is just ships, whips and shackles, you're more conservative than liberal.
If not mistaken, conservatives are the ones that tend to gaslight, marginalize or euphemise the past and say "pull yourself up by your boot straps, the man ain't holding you back".
-->
@HistoryBuff
"Because if those weren't their exact words, then you are inferring meaning from their words. Thus what you infer is your perception which could be radically different from what they actually believe or meant. "
Nope I go by their exact words which would include their exact words to their meanings and definitions to their words. I don't know if you just don't want to accept that I go by exact words as oppose to other people particularly on this platform.
You may not believe me but I am the individual that will do the most to listen to exact words and not read into things. If you follow my debates, you'll see I quote exactly what people say and argue based on using the individual's own words. I don't hardly try to even rephrase or contrive an interpretation. This is what I stress many of you to do is to go by exact words.
Maybe you don't believe these type of people exist. I don't bother with the existence part. I just declare what I hear or read which is exactly by the way and report so and so said this, wrote that, believes this, argues that.
"why would that matter? You are saying all liberals believe specific things. If you haven't heard from all liberals, you obviously cannot know that. The best you can say is the handful of people you've heard talk about it believe those things."
Why would it matter? Are you playing dumb?
Have we not been talking about proof?
Please quote where I said "all liberals". See this is what I'm saying. You're telling me about my perception and you have your own of my words instead of going by exact words of mine. This is case and point right here . Then you continue to contradict yourself arguing for saying things with proof behind them but have I no proof for a tiny or handful. You have no proof I've heard a "handful". You're not committing to your own talk points.
"I'm not the one generalizing, you are. you are saying "all liberals believe this". your proof is the tiny sample of people you've heard from on whatever right wing podcast you referenced. If you want to say all liberals believe something, the onus is on you to prove that. And there is no way you could possibly do that because there is vast differences in what different liberals believe. "
You're not being honest here. Either that or ignorant, one of the two. Maybe you don't realize your hypocrisy, but you're being more assumptive then factual. Just straight up .
"ok, you said "Liberalism is for evolving and changing...". you didn't say "some liberals believe in". You said that is what liberalism is. that is a lie. That might be what some liberals believe, but you cannot make such sweeping declarations about what liberalism is based on the opinions of a couple of people. there are "conservatives" who don't think women should be allowed to vote. Should I say that Conservatism is for suppressing women?"
You don't know what you're talking about. Actually pay attention to what you're saying. You say that is a lie in that what liberalism is , then turn around and say "might be what some liberals believe". If that's not what liberalism is, how might there be this is what some believe?
Further to that, I didn't say that's all what it is. I didn't even say that's what it is there. Again paying attention to exact words. I specifically said what it is for which is evolving and change.
So if this not true? This would mean liberalism is not for change. Is change something that occurs with a thing to liberate or be liberated?
You have to stop reading the word "all" into this . You can't quote it so don't read it.
As far as for conservatism, do your research, find out and you get the answers to your questions about conservatives.
-->
@Mall
Anyway, if you think slavery is just ships, whips and shackles, you're more conservative than liberal.If not mistaken, conservatives are the ones that tend to gaslight, marginalize or euphemise the past and say "pull yourself up by your boot straps, the man ain't holding you back".
Amen.
-->
@Mall
Nope I go by their exact words which would include their exact words to their meanings and definitions to their words. I don't know if you just don't want to accept that I go by exact words as oppose to other people particularly on this platform.
I don't just accept it because you haven't quoted them. You have given me your interpretation of their words. It would be extremely odd for multiple people to phrase their beliefs in identical words. So i find it to be extremely unlikely that lots of people have described their beliefs exactly that way. Which means you are lying to me. You are inferring their meaning and repeating back to me what you inferred. You are then denying that is what you are doing.
Why would it matter? Are you playing dumb?Have we not been talking about proof?
We have. we have been talking about proof what liberals believe. IE what ALL liberals believe. Even if you can prove to me that 1 or 10 or 100 liberals believe that, it does nothing to prove that this is what liberals believe. It just tells me what those specific individuals believe.
Please quote where I said "all liberals".
"Liberalism is for evolving and changing just about accepting anything new". You are defining what liberalism is. you aren't saying what specific liberals believe. you are trying to say all liberals are like this. That is bullshit.
You say that is a lie in that what liberalism is , then turn around and say "might be what some liberals believe". If that's not what liberalism is, how might there be this is what some believe?
lol I've already done that. Some conservatives believe women shouldn't be allowed to vote. But that doesn't mean all conservatives believe that. It doesn't mean that is what conservatism is. So why are you trying to define liberalism by the actions or beliefs of a few people? If that is how it works, then I can say conservatism is for pedophiles, anti-semites and misogynists.
o if this not true? This would mean liberalism is not for change.
Liberalism is about being open to change. It does not mean accepting any and all change. I'm open to hearing about how something new might be better that what I have now. But if I decide it isn't an improvement, I will reject it. Conservatism is about rejecting change without bothering to see if it's good or not.
You have to stop reading the word "all" into this . You can't quote it so don't read it.
lol you are defining terms that apply to 10's or 100's of millions of people and saying "stop reading the word all into this". Do you not see how that's dumb? You want to define a broad term that applies to huge numbers of people, but you only want to define that term by a handful of people that you get to pick.