https://pics.me.me/wah-wah-fuckingwa...y-54388279.png

none of them, is my boring as fuck reply :upsidedow

Then you don't understand it :winkwink: maybe that just needs re-labelling to 'alt-libertarian', unless we can now take the extreme left positions and call those 'liberal'

disclaimer I'm 'soft' libertarian I guess, with a dash of Classic Liberal. Much like all political parties, I agree with some positions, disagree with others, and certain aspects stop me from ever actually voting for any of them.

'Curb gov't overreach' is the main reason if I had a gun to my head I'd vote libertarian above any of the others.

dude, this is exactly what has happened in the US - this is what happens on here every day.

mention you are a liberal person and half of the Americans want to shoot you cause to them you are a Communist :winkwink:

Well, Classic Liberalism is far different than what liberalism means in the US today. But.. yeah, and mention you have conservative outlooks on any given subject, and half of the americans want you dead because you are a 'nazi'.

I say 'half', but ofc it's just the vocal extreme idiots on either side, like crockett or that other tool optics or whatever the handle is here as examples from both extremes, and the outliers than the media love to splash all over the news because 80% of everyone else says 'w t f.. so *thats* what the 'other side' is like'.

As for that wikipedia article.. that's basically presenting people with opposing viewpoints (and not even mentioning the viewpoints, or the opposing ones), as some sort of factual info on the person themselves.

fact: hitler ordered millions of jews killed

opinion on some website: many who agreed with hitler said he had the right idea.

Weeelll.. it's true that those who shared his ideas, shared his ideas, but to read just that opinion gives zero info on who or what he was.

I can go to multiple sites if I so wished, and read about those who disagree with obama, or bernie sanders, or any other person that the left warm to, saying 'person x disagreed with many of person y's views and policies blahblahthismeansjackshit'.

Then I can post somewhere that 'when I hear 'democrats' my understanding is that they want to spend trillions they don't have on illegal immigrants and druggies and scroungers as long as those trillions are taken from the big bad corporations who pay NO tax, and they want to spend it all on safe spaces so they don't hear words that may injure them, and also some other disingenuous stuff here'.

Whereas if I actually looked, I'd find that there were plenty of things I agree with them on, even though there are plenty I don't - instead of listening to media sound bites and trying to blast everyone on the right or left, no matter how moderate, and contributing to the divide :)

I can't recommend it unless you're as high as a kite.

then your understanding is flawed.

so is yours on liberals :2 cents:

one thing is sure - and that is not limited to either side of the political spectrum - is that media has become far too biased.

we wouldn't have this kind of divide if not both sides had their outlets and those only riding certain talking points that suit their agenda.

if then someone tends to listen/read/watch a single source of news only, we end up where we are now.

I don't know how the world will end, but it looks like it's going to be brought on by greed and hubris.

No, I know exactly what liberals are. The shit the democratic candidates are out there selling backs that up.