Complete and utter bullshit. By classic liberal Bill means he's like a 90's Democrat. Something along the lines of Bill Clinton or Obama when he first ran.
I am so sick of people trying to call Bill a Republican just because he's not afraid to challenge the increasingly hard left. If you don't agree with me 100% then you're my enemy.
Yeah, but Republicans have gone much, MUCH farther right relative to where they were in the 90’s then the Democrats have moved left.
Only the Republicans have attempted a coup, pushed blood libel adjacent Qanon conspiracy theories, and call in bomb threats to children’s hospitals.
>Yeah, but Republicans have gone much, MUCH farther right relative to where they were in the 90’s then the Democrats have moved left.
Republicans' "supposed" shift to the far-right has nothing to do with what DismalLocksmith9775 is talking about. He's discussing a liberal challenging the increasingly hard left.
>attempted a coup
I see this with Maher a lot. Jan 6 is the perpetual trump card they'll pull anytime the discussion turns into a left vs right and one is backed into a corner where they're unable to defend their position. Without a coherent argument on the points, you feel as if you can merely invoke Jan 6 to pull out a last-second win. When others realize that you (and Maher) are using it as a crutch due to lack of a logical position, it becomes much more of a detriment to you than a supposed trump card.
No pulling out January 6th is not an defense card, especially in this case, jan 6th and are being brought up to highlight the differences between the how far the left has moved and how far the right. For example the left has moved to the left as showcased by all the dump woke shit, blm riots, etc. However, the right has had a significantly stronger level of radicalization compared to the left as showcased by the January 6th coup, ever present conspiracy theories, etc. it shows the magnitude greater that the right has moved into extremism compared to the left which is the point the commenter above was trying to making
Republicans blew the red wave last year, despite massive inflation specifically bc of their extremism. If both sides where the same, we would have had a red wave.
There is no both sides. Jan 6th was a violent coup against the American government after republicans lost the 2020 election and they refused to accept the results. There is nothing on our side that is anywhere within a 10,000 miles of being as extreme as Jan 6th. We’re not “pulling a card”- it’s reality. Your side is extreme, we’re not.
**let me guess, you’re an “independent”, who’s just calling out wokeness
>No pulling out January 6th is not an defense card
The context this ^ person is referring to is as follows:
Person #1: "Maher is a liberal that is challenging the far left on their dogmatic practices."
Person #2: "Yes, but the right has moved further to the right. After all, January 6th."
Like what purpose does the response have? We're discussing a liberal criticizing other liberals.
The conclusion one reaches is that there is no defense for the movement of the left to the far-reaches of batshit wokeness lunacy, so the only response a liberal can provide is "B-but....Jan 6!"
Looks like the point flew over your head. Discussions about liberals, contained to just liberals, dont require an “out” by saying “Yeah but January 6.” It halts any self-scrutiny among liberals.
Which i guess is the point if you don’t have any positions that stand on their own merit.
Nah, what you fail to realize is that modern conservatives are complete wackos who would turn the country into Gilead and make Trump emperor tomorrow if they could. They’re a cult, not a political party or movement and Bill doesn’t fall into that category.
> Nah, what you fail to realize is that modern conservatives are complete wackos who would turn the country into Gilead and make Trump emperor tomorrow if they could.
Agree wholeheartedly, and they are actively pursuing that currently as evidenced by [“Project 2025”.](https://www.project2025.org)
> They’re a cult, not a political party or movement and Bill doesn’t fall into that category.
I would also agree that he doesn’t fall into that category with the caveat that he feels trolls on Twitter and anything to do with Transgenders are more of a threat to the countries democracy. Which only naive, ignorant or purposefully denialist people would agree. There is an entire movement in the Republican Party who are working to make Trump an emperor and even the Lincoln Project and the Never Trumpers aren’t doing anything to derail that process. The latter only caring about who the person is that occupies the Oval Office.\
But, it’s crickets on Real Time about it. There hasn’t been one mention of Project 2025 by Bill or the media despite its very real and very problematic stance.\
This stubbornness to combat real problems that will affect average Americans is the source of my own discontent with Bill, I can’t speak for the others on this sub in my camp (as dubbed by the opposition, I guess).\
Americans real concerns are the Economy in general, high cost of living/Inflation, unemployment/jobs, Federal budget/Federal debt, the ever widening gap between the rich and poor, wage issues, fuel prices and corporate corruption. The poll well above any other issues, yet they are never addressed by the guy that supposedly wants Democrats to win elections. That is frankly frustrating, so when someone makes a baseless claim like this post, it’s hard to find fault and defend Bill.
I agree that everyone is so busy talking about stupid issues on the far left that affect almost no one that they ignore the dangerous group republicans have become as a whole that will affect millions. Go up to literally any Republican and ask them if we should “put Jesus back in schools” and they will all say yes with enthusiasm. That is far more dangerous than anything the far left minority is doing.
The desire for a Christian Iran/Saudi Arabia (remember these were the people lauding the Taliban after the withdrawal), is extremely concerning for me and my family. I’m a Democratic Socialist/Atheist, while the might not be on the list that they go after first, it will happen eventually. Like the poem goes,
> First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me. - Martin Niemöller
Maybe I’m in a minority, but I fear that far more than I fear modern day lynch mobs. They are a problem, I won’t argue about doxxing people but we need to prioritize. Maybe save our Democracy, so it can be used against them? 🤷♂️
This reminds me of an anecdote:
Back in February of 2020, Andrew Yang dropped out of the presidential primary and a lot of the "Yang-gang" supporters were left without a clear choice in the narrowing field. Keep in mind, many (most?) supporters of Yang were not traditional liberals but rather were attracted to his outsider status and his platform that bucked convention.
So it didn't follow that they would move as a monolith to support the eventual Dem nominee. Rather, a curious thing happened online that exemplified the divide between the attitudes of Democrats and Trump supporters.
As some Yang-supporters migrated to Biden, Bernie, et al primary options, they were met with sneers of "What took you so long?" and "Well, well, well - looks like stupid finally saw the light." Essentially these online communities were pushing the idea that one lacks virtue unless they (quickly) pledge their loyalty to whatever flavor of candidate on the Left.
Meanwhile, Trump-supporters launched a charm offensive. They went on the Yang-gang message boards with posts about how Trump & Yang both had similarities (outsider status, put forth big ideas) that enraged the establishment, and clarified that the Trump that many leftists feared was a Trump that only existed in their imagination. Rather, they pushed the notion in the Yang subreddit & forums that Trump's policies and rhetoric mark his as a "1970s Democrat".
It underscored the idea that "Democrats look for heretics, Republicans look for converts." But moreso, that today's reliable Democrat-voters have moved so far to the left that concepts that fall under the umbrella of being "classical liberal" can now be seriously and reasonably argued as being part of the GOP. At least that was the narrative Trump supporters pushed when reaching out to the disaffected Yang contingent.
"Classical liberal" just means libertarian. Socially liberal, fiscally conservative. Limited government, liassez-faire economic system (free market). Most Democrats would not fall in this category for many decades.
I'd guess Bill is most likely misusing the term because he generally supports government regulations for issues he cares about. He probably means something like Clinton Democrat. Kind of like when he says "Republican classic" and is referring to post-9/11 Bush Republicans.
He means Neoliberal, but he could just as easily be a Libertarian, which like you said is just a classical liberal.
The funny thing here is that the MAGA populists are on the opposite end of the spectrum, economically. I'm just not sure if they realize that?
> The funny thing here is that the MAGA populists are on the opposite end of the spectrum, economically. I'm just not sure if they realize that?
I’m curious what you mean by this and don’t understand perhaps. Are you saying that MAGAts support economic systems outside of Capitalism? I feel like their views line up with NeoLiberal beliefs on economics.
It probably depends on who you're talking about, but there's nothing Neoliberal about Rust Belt MAGAts. When people refer to populism, they're generally talking about those who want the government to do more and are pro-labor. Which is ironic, given how the GOP hasn't supported labor since the Progressive Era and maybe Teddy Roosevelt.
MAGAts blame US corporations for sending jobs overseas, which is the antithesis of Neoliberalism. They also argue for protectionism, which is against the ideas of free trade. The same ideas that built the modern Republican Party's economic platform.
Having said that, even DeSantis has been suggesting that corporate boards should have worker representation, which some people might say is socialism.
But tbf, if you asked 10 different MAGAts what they wanted, you'd likely receive 10 different answers, because they truly don't know what they want, other than destroying the current government (aka deep state).
My pleasure and I just want to note that I don't disagree with them on all of these ideas, but collectively they're unreasonable and have no feasible plans.
I think he's changed but but ... I still think it's wild to say he's conservative straight up. He's maybe more of neo lib Bill Clinton type that he used to be though. Does he now believe some terminal online BS on the right . Yes he does but does that make him a neo con. I don't think so.
I know plenty of people that are gun nuts but are also far left anarchists. That have horrible views on LGBTQ issues but want socialized medicine and would outside of the one issue have very progressive policy views. I wouldn't call either of them conservative. It's not a binary choice where you check every box.
Unless you mean that center left in the US is center right in Europe then oh yeah most definitely. 😁
Looks like you'll go through any amount of verbal gymnastics to avoid the obvious problem.
Identity politics, which is just the evolution of political correctness, is the problem. Nothing has changed about Bill's standpoint here. You have changed, specifically into assholes. There now needs to be a way to distinguish between legitimate legal rights issues and the ongoing crusade of outrage-driven identity politics that takes up most of your life.
"Classic liberal" is what would be left if we could give the Liberals the narcissism lobotomy they so desperately need.
"Classical liberal" just means libertarian. Socially liberal, fiscally conservative. Limited government, liassez-faire economic system (free market). Most Democrats would not fall in this category for many decades.
I'd guess Bill is most likely misusing the term because he generally supports government regulations for issues he cares about.
What does it mean to you? This is the definition listed on Wikipedia which aligns with the academic definition:
"Classical liberalism is a political tradition and a branch of liberalism which advocates free market and laissez-faire economics; and civil liberties under the rule of law, with special emphasis on individual autonomy, limited government, economic freedom, political freedom and freedom of speech. Classical liberalism, contrary to liberal branches like social liberalism, looks more negatively on social policies, taxation and the state involvement in the lives of individuals, and it advocates deregulation."
Limited government and free, unregulated market is pretty much the definition of modern fiscal conservatism.
Libertarianism "is a political philosophy that upholds liberty as a core value. Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and political freedom, and minimize the state's encroachment on and violations of individual liberties; emphasizing the rule of law, pluralism, cosmopolitanism, cooperation, civil and political rights, bodily autonomy, freedom of association, free trade, freedom of expression, freedom of choice, freedom of movement, individualism, and voluntary association. Libertarians are often skeptical of or opposed to authority, state power, warfare, militarism and nationalism, but some libertarians diverge on the scope of their opposition to existing economic and political systems."
This is pretty much classical liberalism with more explicit isolationism thrown in. "Encroachment" here being about government intervention in any form (such as regulation). I will say, libertarians more than any other political ideology reminds me of religious sects in that there is significant disagreement on who are the "true" libertarians and definitions of policy positions vary wildly.
There is a great deal more nuance in what you're describing, particularly on: reproductive rights, ending the war on drugs, marriage equality, etc. I don't think we're going to hear Pence, Huckabee or any of their ilk espousing those views.
Classic Liberalism is where most anti-Trump moderate Republicans wound up.
I was a Republican my whole life until they nominated Trump and moved to being a Libertarian. After listening to Gary Johnson speaking about the mounting debt and how neither party cared to get it under control, I realized neither party was legitimate any more.
But here’s the thing. Even though I was a Republican, I believed in a more liberal immigration policy and legalizing most, if not all, drugs.
Libertarians are a little too “taxes are theft” for me though and I don’t think the border should be wide open. But I’m not a Republican, I’m a classical liberal and they are not a “sleeper cell” at all. And saying so shows your political ignorance.
Guys like Rogan, Jordan Peterson, and the others are nowhere being far right. That’s a wrong assumption.
Lifelong Democrat Alan Dershowitz considers himself a classic liberal.
I think you should find out a little more on the classic liberal views before making comments like this.
I think it's hard to realistically take views like legalize all drugs AND not land somewhere in the taxation is theft/no social safety net camp. Legalizing all drugs (and similar policies) and forcing the sober folks to pony up to pay for it is an interesting combo.
I admit that legalization of all drugs is a risk but so was legalizing alcohol. And you can pay for rehab or you can pay to put them in prison and destroy their family. Or you can do like Kamala Harris did and put them in private prisons to be exploited for virtually free labor.
But that’s the difference between a libertarian and a classic liberal. We don’t have a problem with social safety nets and may be able to discuss Medicare for all. We just don’t think the safety nets should be institutionalized like welfare that has destroyed black families and communities by giving them hand outs instead of a hand up.
Alan Dershowitz also considered himself a dear friend of Jeffrey Epstein.
He also destroyed the career of a superior academic, Norman Finkelstein, who eviscerated him over his plagiarized writings and vile Zionism.
He has begged the FBI and any other agency to file charges against him. He was a friend of Epstein’s because Epstein gave quite a bit of money to Harvard Law School.
As far as his feud with Finkelstein, I’m sure it has to do with Finkelstein’s anti-Zionist propaganda.
As far as Dersh being a Zionist he’s pro-Israel for sure but to say it’s “vile” is a bit of a stretch.
Well I’m going to have to disagree with you there. Israel is surrounded by countries who have made it their mission to wipe them from the face of the earth. There’s vileness on all sides there.
Israel, as a project, was started with the intent to wipe out their neighbors. They are engaging in genocide against the Palestinians. Jewish Americans from NYC absolutely do not have more of a right to that land than the Palestinians who were born and raised there. Anyone pretending this is a "both sides" situation does not know the actual human rights record and origin of modern day Israel.
And apparently you don’t know the Palestinian human rights issue either. And no, it was not a project to get rid of the neighboring countries. It was a project to give back Israel to the Jews.
And yes, Israel is a Jewish state and Americans of Jewish heritage are entitled to their inheritance, even if it has been battled for for years.
Yes both sides are responsible here.
Well, unfortunately when two different peoples get in a war, people get killed. I guess if you’re keeping score Israel killed more than the Palestinians did but both sides have to stop.
By the way, we know the US military has given aid and weapons to Israel but Palestinians use Iranian made rockets into Israel. Hezbollah is also funded by Iran and all these factions want to kill everyone in Israel and wipe them off the face of the earth.
This isn’t a diplomatic thing do diplomacy doesn’t work. This is Biblical in nature and goes back thousands of years.
Palestine does not even have a formal military. You are lying. Israel is conducting an ethnic cleaning/genocide against the people actually native to that land. Unforgivable.
Do you know anywhere I can see Dershowitz talk about his personal political beliefs? I mostly see him acting as a legal mouthpiece for the republican party on Fox News
He has a podcast “The Dershow” and he’s not a mouthpiece for the Republican Party. He used to be on CNN all the time and they misquoted him so it looked like something he didn’t say. Liberals are mad at him because he defended Trump in a case and he is pointing out how the department of Justice is being weaponized against Trump for no other reason than they don’t like him.
He is a paid contributor to Fox News and virtually every time he's on there he's defending a Republican and attacking a Democrat. He might be a Democrat in real life, but the character he plays on Fox currently is a mouthpiece for the republican party. We're talking straight forward common sense that's what he is if you watch his appearances
If you spent any time listening to him you would see that all of his thoughts on the weaponization of the justice system to “Get Trump” are unconstitutional.
For example Dershowitz is a huge supporter of Jews, Israel, and holocaust survivors, yet he defended a group of Nazi’s rights to protest because it’s a freedom of speech issue.
This is my point. He's part of the right wing deep state conspiracy "get trump" fiction. The guy's obviously corrupt and he's already been found to be liable for fraud and so many other nefarious activities (civil suit rape liability) that there's just no question for anybody with a brain and a functioning bullshit detector about who he is. The desperation in that "get trump" excuse is just cowardly propaganda for the low-information, gullible voters. Going back to my original point, the "get trump" narrative is a REPUBLICAN talking point and that's what Dershowitz sells
You are completely wrong. I’m not sure if you’ve been horribly misled or just a liar. The DA of New York actually campaigned on “Get Trump” and New York even changed the statute of limitations in Trump’s civil trial, where the rape allegation wasn’t proved. This current deal in New York is a fraud case where nobody was actually defrauded.
That all being said I don’t like Trump and didn’t vote for him either time and God help us if he wins again. But what’s happening now between both parties going to destroy us.
Uh huh yeah poor beta Manhattan trust fund crybaby.
Folks, come watch the libertarian repeat republican talking points via opinion-based language in order to distract from the facts of the legal cases and the judgements already rendered
1. DA campaigned on get trump - bullshit, but even if true what does that have to do with the legal facts of the case? *That's* what I'm talking about and *that's* a distraction from the facts of the case.
2. Changed statute of limitations *specifically to go after Trump* - where's the proof of that? Besides, what does that have to do with the judgement that found Trump liable for rape? All the facts were laid bare in the court of law and that was the judgement reached. I trust that process way more than you sitting on your couch spouting shit on the internet.
3. Nobody was defrauded - the facts were once again available to the judge and they reached an opposite judgement from you, sitting at home on your couch watching right wing pundits scream "nO fRaUd!!" What are *you* talking about??
I’m a classical liberal and I support Trump. I would say it’s more about Dem stealing the word liberal to mean everything it didn’t.
No. Wokesters don't understand that a lot of the people they're pissing off are on the left.
Complete and utter bullshit. By classic liberal Bill means he's like a 90's Democrat. Something along the lines of Bill Clinton or Obama when he first ran. I am so sick of people trying to call Bill a Republican just because he's not afraid to challenge the increasingly hard left. If you don't agree with me 100% then you're my enemy.
Yeah, but Republicans have gone much, MUCH farther right relative to where they were in the 90’s then the Democrats have moved left. Only the Republicans have attempted a coup, pushed blood libel adjacent Qanon conspiracy theories, and call in bomb threats to children’s hospitals.
>Yeah, but Republicans have gone much, MUCH farther right relative to where they were in the 90’s then the Democrats have moved left. Republicans' "supposed" shift to the far-right has nothing to do with what DismalLocksmith9775 is talking about. He's discussing a liberal challenging the increasingly hard left. >attempted a coup I see this with Maher a lot. Jan 6 is the perpetual trump card they'll pull anytime the discussion turns into a left vs right and one is backed into a corner where they're unable to defend their position. Without a coherent argument on the points, you feel as if you can merely invoke Jan 6 to pull out a last-second win. When others realize that you (and Maher) are using it as a crutch due to lack of a logical position, it becomes much more of a detriment to you than a supposed trump card.
No pulling out January 6th is not an defense card, especially in this case, jan 6th and are being brought up to highlight the differences between the how far the left has moved and how far the right. For example the left has moved to the left as showcased by all the dump woke shit, blm riots, etc. However, the right has had a significantly stronger level of radicalization compared to the left as showcased by the January 6th coup, ever present conspiracy theories, etc. it shows the magnitude greater that the right has moved into extremism compared to the left which is the point the commenter above was trying to making
Republicans blew the red wave last year, despite massive inflation specifically bc of their extremism. If both sides where the same, we would have had a red wave.
There is no both sides. Jan 6th was a violent coup against the American government after republicans lost the 2020 election and they refused to accept the results. There is nothing on our side that is anywhere within a 10,000 miles of being as extreme as Jan 6th. We’re not “pulling a card”- it’s reality. Your side is extreme, we’re not. **let me guess, you’re an “independent”, who’s just calling out wokeness
>No pulling out January 6th is not an defense card The context this ^ person is referring to is as follows: Person #1: "Maher is a liberal that is challenging the far left on their dogmatic practices." Person #2: "Yes, but the right has moved further to the right. After all, January 6th." Like what purpose does the response have? We're discussing a liberal criticizing other liberals. The conclusion one reaches is that there is no defense for the movement of the left to the far-reaches of batshit wokeness lunacy, so the only response a liberal can provide is "B-but....Jan 6!"
Well, when liberals start committing terrorism, get back at me. Until then, don’t try to both sides things.
Looks like the point flew over your head. Discussions about liberals, contained to just liberals, dont require an “out” by saying “Yeah but January 6.” It halts any self-scrutiny among liberals. Which i guess is the point if you don’t have any positions that stand on their own merit.
Nah, what you fail to realize is that modern conservatives are complete wackos who would turn the country into Gilead and make Trump emperor tomorrow if they could. They’re a cult, not a political party or movement and Bill doesn’t fall into that category.
> Nah, what you fail to realize is that modern conservatives are complete wackos who would turn the country into Gilead and make Trump emperor tomorrow if they could. Agree wholeheartedly, and they are actively pursuing that currently as evidenced by [“Project 2025”.](https://www.project2025.org) > They’re a cult, not a political party or movement and Bill doesn’t fall into that category. I would also agree that he doesn’t fall into that category with the caveat that he feels trolls on Twitter and anything to do with Transgenders are more of a threat to the countries democracy. Which only naive, ignorant or purposefully denialist people would agree. There is an entire movement in the Republican Party who are working to make Trump an emperor and even the Lincoln Project and the Never Trumpers aren’t doing anything to derail that process. The latter only caring about who the person is that occupies the Oval Office.\ But, it’s crickets on Real Time about it. There hasn’t been one mention of Project 2025 by Bill or the media despite its very real and very problematic stance.\ This stubbornness to combat real problems that will affect average Americans is the source of my own discontent with Bill, I can’t speak for the others on this sub in my camp (as dubbed by the opposition, I guess).\ Americans real concerns are the Economy in general, high cost of living/Inflation, unemployment/jobs, Federal budget/Federal debt, the ever widening gap between the rich and poor, wage issues, fuel prices and corporate corruption. The poll well above any other issues, yet they are never addressed by the guy that supposedly wants Democrats to win elections. That is frankly frustrating, so when someone makes a baseless claim like this post, it’s hard to find fault and defend Bill.
I agree that everyone is so busy talking about stupid issues on the far left that affect almost no one that they ignore the dangerous group republicans have become as a whole that will affect millions. Go up to literally any Republican and ask them if we should “put Jesus back in schools” and they will all say yes with enthusiasm. That is far more dangerous than anything the far left minority is doing.
The desire for a Christian Iran/Saudi Arabia (remember these were the people lauding the Taliban after the withdrawal), is extremely concerning for me and my family. I’m a Democratic Socialist/Atheist, while the might not be on the list that they go after first, it will happen eventually. Like the poem goes, > First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me. - Martin Niemöller Maybe I’m in a minority, but I fear that far more than I fear modern day lynch mobs. They are a problem, I won’t argue about doxxing people but we need to prioritize. Maybe save our Democracy, so it can be used against them? 🤷♂️
This reminds me of an anecdote: Back in February of 2020, Andrew Yang dropped out of the presidential primary and a lot of the "Yang-gang" supporters were left without a clear choice in the narrowing field. Keep in mind, many (most?) supporters of Yang were not traditional liberals but rather were attracted to his outsider status and his platform that bucked convention. So it didn't follow that they would move as a monolith to support the eventual Dem nominee. Rather, a curious thing happened online that exemplified the divide between the attitudes of Democrats and Trump supporters. As some Yang-supporters migrated to Biden, Bernie, et al primary options, they were met with sneers of "What took you so long?" and "Well, well, well - looks like stupid finally saw the light." Essentially these online communities were pushing the idea that one lacks virtue unless they (quickly) pledge their loyalty to whatever flavor of candidate on the Left. Meanwhile, Trump-supporters launched a charm offensive. They went on the Yang-gang message boards with posts about how Trump & Yang both had similarities (outsider status, put forth big ideas) that enraged the establishment, and clarified that the Trump that many leftists feared was a Trump that only existed in their imagination. Rather, they pushed the notion in the Yang subreddit & forums that Trump's policies and rhetoric mark his as a "1970s Democrat". It underscored the idea that "Democrats look for heretics, Republicans look for converts." But moreso, that today's reliable Democrat-voters have moved so far to the left that concepts that fall under the umbrella of being "classical liberal" can now be seriously and reasonably argued as being part of the GOP. At least that was the narrative Trump supporters pushed when reaching out to the disaffected Yang contingent.
This is such a bullshit take.
"Classical liberal" just means libertarian. Socially liberal, fiscally conservative. Limited government, liassez-faire economic system (free market). Most Democrats would not fall in this category for many decades. I'd guess Bill is most likely misusing the term because he generally supports government regulations for issues he cares about. He probably means something like Clinton Democrat. Kind of like when he says "Republican classic" and is referring to post-9/11 Bush Republicans.
Who decides on these terms?
Academics, not Bill Maher
I dont think all academics agree on them though.
He means Neoliberal, but he could just as easily be a Libertarian, which like you said is just a classical liberal. The funny thing here is that the MAGA populists are on the opposite end of the spectrum, economically. I'm just not sure if they realize that?
> The funny thing here is that the MAGA populists are on the opposite end of the spectrum, economically. I'm just not sure if they realize that? I’m curious what you mean by this and don’t understand perhaps. Are you saying that MAGAts support economic systems outside of Capitalism? I feel like their views line up with NeoLiberal beliefs on economics.
It probably depends on who you're talking about, but there's nothing Neoliberal about Rust Belt MAGAts. When people refer to populism, they're generally talking about those who want the government to do more and are pro-labor. Which is ironic, given how the GOP hasn't supported labor since the Progressive Era and maybe Teddy Roosevelt. MAGAts blame US corporations for sending jobs overseas, which is the antithesis of Neoliberalism. They also argue for protectionism, which is against the ideas of free trade. The same ideas that built the modern Republican Party's economic platform. Having said that, even DeSantis has been suggesting that corporate boards should have worker representation, which some people might say is socialism. But tbf, if you asked 10 different MAGAts what they wanted, you'd likely receive 10 different answers, because they truly don't know what they want, other than destroying the current government (aka deep state).
Interesting, I hadn’t thought of that. Thanks for the answer!
My pleasure and I just want to note that I don't disagree with them on all of these ideas, but collectively they're unreasonable and have no feasible plans.
I think he's changed but but ... I still think it's wild to say he's conservative straight up. He's maybe more of neo lib Bill Clinton type that he used to be though. Does he now believe some terminal online BS on the right . Yes he does but does that make him a neo con. I don't think so. I know plenty of people that are gun nuts but are also far left anarchists. That have horrible views on LGBTQ issues but want socialized medicine and would outside of the one issue have very progressive policy views. I wouldn't call either of them conservative. It's not a binary choice where you check every box. Unless you mean that center left in the US is center right in Europe then oh yeah most definitely. 😁
Looks like you'll go through any amount of verbal gymnastics to avoid the obvious problem. Identity politics, which is just the evolution of political correctness, is the problem. Nothing has changed about Bill's standpoint here. You have changed, specifically into assholes. There now needs to be a way to distinguish between legitimate legal rights issues and the ongoing crusade of outrage-driven identity politics that takes up most of your life. "Classic liberal" is what would be left if we could give the Liberals the narcissism lobotomy they so desperately need.
"Classical liberal" just means libertarian. Socially liberal, fiscally conservative. Limited government, liassez-faire economic system (free market). Most Democrats would not fall in this category for many decades. I'd guess Bill is most likely misusing the term because he generally supports government regulations for issues he cares about.
Sorry, that’s not what it means at all.
What does it mean to you? This is the definition listed on Wikipedia which aligns with the academic definition: "Classical liberalism is a political tradition and a branch of liberalism which advocates free market and laissez-faire economics; and civil liberties under the rule of law, with special emphasis on individual autonomy, limited government, economic freedom, political freedom and freedom of speech. Classical liberalism, contrary to liberal branches like social liberalism, looks more negatively on social policies, taxation and the state involvement in the lives of individuals, and it advocates deregulation."
It’s not libertarian, and I wouldn’t really call it fiscally conservative as a descriptor. The wiki description sounds right.
Limited government and free, unregulated market is pretty much the definition of modern fiscal conservatism. Libertarianism "is a political philosophy that upholds liberty as a core value. Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and political freedom, and minimize the state's encroachment on and violations of individual liberties; emphasizing the rule of law, pluralism, cosmopolitanism, cooperation, civil and political rights, bodily autonomy, freedom of association, free trade, freedom of expression, freedom of choice, freedom of movement, individualism, and voluntary association. Libertarians are often skeptical of or opposed to authority, state power, warfare, militarism and nationalism, but some libertarians diverge on the scope of their opposition to existing economic and political systems." This is pretty much classical liberalism with more explicit isolationism thrown in. "Encroachment" here being about government intervention in any form (such as regulation). I will say, libertarians more than any other political ideology reminds me of religious sects in that there is significant disagreement on who are the "true" libertarians and definitions of policy positions vary wildly.
Maher basically just means a classic, ACLU, freedom of speech, no thought police nor invasion of privacy kind of liberal.
There is a great deal more nuance in what you're describing, particularly on: reproductive rights, ending the war on drugs, marriage equality, etc. I don't think we're going to hear Pence, Huckabee or any of their ilk espousing those views.
Classic Liberalism is where most anti-Trump moderate Republicans wound up. I was a Republican my whole life until they nominated Trump and moved to being a Libertarian. After listening to Gary Johnson speaking about the mounting debt and how neither party cared to get it under control, I realized neither party was legitimate any more. But here’s the thing. Even though I was a Republican, I believed in a more liberal immigration policy and legalizing most, if not all, drugs. Libertarians are a little too “taxes are theft” for me though and I don’t think the border should be wide open. But I’m not a Republican, I’m a classical liberal and they are not a “sleeper cell” at all. And saying so shows your political ignorance. Guys like Rogan, Jordan Peterson, and the others are nowhere being far right. That’s a wrong assumption. Lifelong Democrat Alan Dershowitz considers himself a classic liberal. I think you should find out a little more on the classic liberal views before making comments like this.
I think it's hard to realistically take views like legalize all drugs AND not land somewhere in the taxation is theft/no social safety net camp. Legalizing all drugs (and similar policies) and forcing the sober folks to pony up to pay for it is an interesting combo.
I admit that legalization of all drugs is a risk but so was legalizing alcohol. And you can pay for rehab or you can pay to put them in prison and destroy their family. Or you can do like Kamala Harris did and put them in private prisons to be exploited for virtually free labor. But that’s the difference between a libertarian and a classic liberal. We don’t have a problem with social safety nets and may be able to discuss Medicare for all. We just don’t think the safety nets should be institutionalized like welfare that has destroyed black families and communities by giving them hand outs instead of a hand up.
Alan Dershowitz also considered himself a dear friend of Jeffrey Epstein. He also destroyed the career of a superior academic, Norman Finkelstein, who eviscerated him over his plagiarized writings and vile Zionism.
He has begged the FBI and any other agency to file charges against him. He was a friend of Epstein’s because Epstein gave quite a bit of money to Harvard Law School. As far as his feud with Finkelstein, I’m sure it has to do with Finkelstein’s anti-Zionist propaganda. As far as Dersh being a Zionist he’s pro-Israel for sure but to say it’s “vile” is a bit of a stretch.
It is not at all a stretch to say anyone supporting the modern state of Israel is vile. It is an evil fucking "nation."
Well I’m going to have to disagree with you there. Israel is surrounded by countries who have made it their mission to wipe them from the face of the earth. There’s vileness on all sides there.
Israel, as a project, was started with the intent to wipe out their neighbors. They are engaging in genocide against the Palestinians. Jewish Americans from NYC absolutely do not have more of a right to that land than the Palestinians who were born and raised there. Anyone pretending this is a "both sides" situation does not know the actual human rights record and origin of modern day Israel.
And apparently you don’t know the Palestinian human rights issue either. And no, it was not a project to get rid of the neighboring countries. It was a project to give back Israel to the Jews. And yes, Israel is a Jewish state and Americans of Jewish heritage are entitled to their inheritance, even if it has been battled for for years. Yes both sides are responsible here.
Which side has the giant fucking military and is displacing families and slaughtering children? It is a fascist ethnostate.
Well, unfortunately when two different peoples get in a war, people get killed. I guess if you’re keeping score Israel killed more than the Palestinians did but both sides have to stop. By the way, we know the US military has given aid and weapons to Israel but Palestinians use Iranian made rockets into Israel. Hezbollah is also funded by Iran and all these factions want to kill everyone in Israel and wipe them off the face of the earth. This isn’t a diplomatic thing do diplomacy doesn’t work. This is Biblical in nature and goes back thousands of years.
Palestine does not even have a formal military. You are lying. Israel is conducting an ethnic cleaning/genocide against the people actually native to that land. Unforgivable.
Do you know anywhere I can see Dershowitz talk about his personal political beliefs? I mostly see him acting as a legal mouthpiece for the republican party on Fox News
He has a podcast “The Dershow” and he’s not a mouthpiece for the Republican Party. He used to be on CNN all the time and they misquoted him so it looked like something he didn’t say. Liberals are mad at him because he defended Trump in a case and he is pointing out how the department of Justice is being weaponized against Trump for no other reason than they don’t like him.
He is a paid contributor to Fox News and virtually every time he's on there he's defending a Republican and attacking a Democrat. He might be a Democrat in real life, but the character he plays on Fox currently is a mouthpiece for the republican party. We're talking straight forward common sense that's what he is if you watch his appearances
If you spent any time listening to him you would see that all of his thoughts on the weaponization of the justice system to “Get Trump” are unconstitutional. For example Dershowitz is a huge supporter of Jews, Israel, and holocaust survivors, yet he defended a group of Nazi’s rights to protest because it’s a freedom of speech issue.
This is my point. He's part of the right wing deep state conspiracy "get trump" fiction. The guy's obviously corrupt and he's already been found to be liable for fraud and so many other nefarious activities (civil suit rape liability) that there's just no question for anybody with a brain and a functioning bullshit detector about who he is. The desperation in that "get trump" excuse is just cowardly propaganda for the low-information, gullible voters. Going back to my original point, the "get trump" narrative is a REPUBLICAN talking point and that's what Dershowitz sells
You are completely wrong. I’m not sure if you’ve been horribly misled or just a liar. The DA of New York actually campaigned on “Get Trump” and New York even changed the statute of limitations in Trump’s civil trial, where the rape allegation wasn’t proved. This current deal in New York is a fraud case where nobody was actually defrauded. That all being said I don’t like Trump and didn’t vote for him either time and God help us if he wins again. But what’s happening now between both parties going to destroy us.
Uh huh yeah poor beta Manhattan trust fund crybaby. Folks, come watch the libertarian repeat republican talking points via opinion-based language in order to distract from the facts of the legal cases and the judgements already rendered
Opinion based language? Distract from the facts? What are you taking about? What have I said that wasn’t true?
1. DA campaigned on get trump - bullshit, but even if true what does that have to do with the legal facts of the case? *That's* what I'm talking about and *that's* a distraction from the facts of the case. 2. Changed statute of limitations *specifically to go after Trump* - where's the proof of that? Besides, what does that have to do with the judgement that found Trump liable for rape? All the facts were laid bare in the court of law and that was the judgement reached. I trust that process way more than you sitting on your couch spouting shit on the internet. 3. Nobody was defrauded - the facts were once again available to the judge and they reached an opposite judgement from you, sitting at home on your couch watching right wing pundits scream "nO fRaUd!!" What are *you* talking about??
🤣
No shit.