TheFonz

.... And?

Your paraphrasing and retelling is doing a lot of lifting. While it's true that her messaging sucks, policy wise it was never a 1:1 with Trump. I'm too tired to argue about it though if you've made up your mind about which reality is true already.

Yea. I agree. There is a nice median and really strong extremes. But those extremes sometimes hog up the convo.

Yea you know what: I stand corrected. Classic liberalism is closely aligned with conservatism in the sense that it is shuttered from regulation. My mind is on the social liberal aspect.

I agree with all of this. However, and I could be wrong, my understanding of classic liberalism is that it was never directly opposed to regulation or social services. My initial understanding is that it's by necessity tied to free markets and private property.

But if it is then I'm learning something new.

We don't have to have an argument over it. It's ok to have a conversation. I'm familiar with the 'liberals are right wing' talking point.

I'm just trying to understand what exactly it is that defines 'right wing' and how we define 'liberalism' . You're right, it IS a semantic discussion, but clearly the implication is that liberalism is on par with being right wing. So, nonetheless, a semantic relabeling which is not devoid of consequences.

So I'm wondering, at what point do those two overlap (liberalism and right wing politics)? Is it the right to private property? Beyond that, what exactly makes liberalism 'right wing'?

We're all familiar with the Leahy law talking point. I get it. Thank God Biden wasn't running for president, and Kamala was on the ticket. I see we are still stuck on equating Kamala with Trump in terms of IP policy. This understanding is juvenile and betrays any chance for moving forward into a meaningful conversation. Have a good one.

I think my issue is with the usage of the phrase "right wing" because we need something scathing to label liberals. It doesn't really contribute anything to the discourse except create layers of exclusion.

Liberalism, broadly, is not interested in supporting or enabling hierarchies. The only thing they share in common with right wing conservatism is the ownership of private property -but that's it. So lumping them all in the same bucket isn't doing much for anyone except creating more exclusion at the risk of pushing forward socialist policies. The reality is liberals are probably more likely to favor equality, even if it's just ideological. Shouldn't we strive to bring more people on board and build bridges rather than continue this bizarre war of artrition?

Wikipedia: Right Wing Politics

If they weren't going to vote for the party focused on brokering a peace deal and instead chose to enable the one that wants to effectively glass all of Palestine, then it wasn't ever going to be an issue regardless of what K said.

I know it's comfortable to sit and call anything slightly right of ultra socialism as 'right wing' but a spectrum exists.

To conflate republican evangelical dominionist Christians with liberals is peak hubris.

There is a saying: 'when you're a hammer, every problem is a nail'. When you reduce everything to class warfare you're not engaging in an effective discourse to reduce harm in the world. You're just pontificating on the merits of socialism, which yea, we all agree are neat. But so what? You think folding everyone else into a basket gives you credence or helps the discourse in any way?

Engage with the points or move on. This whole "i won't be baited" reeks of so much hubris and but hurt

What are you talking about... This is the experience of most of us that dare slightly disagree on anything. It shouldn't be this way