Those are progressives you're describing. We liberals don't care. We just want everyone to do well, for all to have good health, and make a fair wage. Whatever someone chooses to believe is their business so long as they don't try and make me believe it. Progressives on the other hand are about power, the collection of it, and the abuse of it against those they don't like.
Progressives are scum.
Interesting
westwall I've been using liberals to mean the ones following along with the politicized corporate Democrats,
and progressives to mean the independent Democrats and Greens trying to set up the right programs directly instead of relying on govt which isn't happening.
I was told progressive actually came from conservative types imposing reforms.
Since I align more with Constitutionalists seeking to reform govt by enforcing
common principles to streamline and reorganize resources, I thought this progressive
label better fits me, as most of the active Constitutionalists I find are conservative.
However I don't believe in coercing people either by political or religious groups, but believe in making policies and reforms by consent of parties affected. So that part is more Green.
For the inclusion of diversity and prochoice position, this aligns with Democrats, as well
as helping the poor and disadvantaged "minority interests." With enforcing the Constitution to check govt, that aligns with Libertarians and Republicans. I can't find that with most Democrats.
I am a liberal. And you guys can keep trying to divide us until it is meaningless.............for you. Classification, classification, classification.
OK
Disir and
westwall so which way are we going to refer to the REAL liberals/progressives and the COMMERCIAL/CORPORATE sellouts?
Since people complain more about "liberals pushing social agenda through govt" I was using Liberal for that type, the Clinton type that's really corporate
but CALLED "liberal" in the media so everyone CALLS them liberals.
Fewer people call the REAL liberal/left movement by progressive which really came from a conservative reform movement that was seen as rather oppressive.
But when I meet "liberal left" activists who are really pushing on the GRASSROOTS level, that is the right way, to set up your own programs
and then it trickles up to the govt by catching with people and spreading by free choice and voluntary adoption of better solutions.
So I was using "progressive" to mean the REAL left.
Disir if you object to dividing people by "denomination" what do you call the two groups:
1. one is like how the Conservatives complain about -- the sheep who follow the leader who imposes liberal BELIEFS through govt as MANDATES FORCED ON the Public
2. the other are the REAL meaning and purpose, but it's not done by imposing unconstitutionally, it's implemented by consensus and INCLUSION where
people of all diverse groups CHOOSE to collaborate by free will and reason, by proving SECULARLY these solutions work better (not faith based, imposed like a religion)
A. First, do we all agree there are the corporate sell out types that push agenda for power and
it goes against the principles of prochoice and inclusion of diversity by coercion/exclusion
And this is the public image created by imposing liberal BELIEFS on others who disagree and contest these social policies as unconstitutional
B. versus people who LIVE and IMPLEMENT the liberal principles by example (and don't force it on others against their will by bullying)
Do we agree there are two types?
And do we need a term to distinguish these two?
Thanks!
A. Do we agree that people that use divisional tactics to place people in tribes and groups are out to profit and obtain power?
You mean propaganda and shills? You know, like pretending a business is like "artistic expression" to attempt to make it a violation of rights? Like repeating it makes it any true-er. Do you know choosy moms choose Jiff?
We have names for these tactics. It's the same tactic used by the right to label people as unAmerican or pejoratively using the term Socialist and the left uses racist, homophobic and Socialist. It's propaganda, Emily. That's what you call it.
I get it. You're mad. It isn't necessary to reinvent the wheel. The only way to fight it is to follow the money.(Usually to Delaware where there is a plethora of shell companies, but I digress.) You either buy into the propaganda or you don't. The more you try to reclassify individuals the more you play right into their hands. Divide, divide, divide and hide behind a party like the Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians and, apparently, the Constitutional party.
No
Disir you DON'T get it I'm not mad, I'm accepting of people's beliefs.
If people have different denominations, even within a party, that's NOT going to change.
I ask to INCLUDE people's beliefs AS THEY ARE. I believe in ISONOMY -- if people are going to be equal in rights and responsibilities, we NEED to organize by like beliefs so we can RESPECT each other's LIMITS. That's just natural, like organizing by State, and letting people govern themselves that way. Then put all the States together to represent the collective union.
That's does supplant the laws per state, just because each one is localized.
So sure, if people BELIEVE in using majority rule to impose THEIR beliefs on the beliefs of others,
whether left over right as in ACA/right to health mandates
or right over left as in right to life regulations or restrictions, let's be honest about that.
How can we include that instead of reject it. If Nevada has legalized prostitution, can't that group keep that and not impose it on other states; and if so, why not organize by parties?
Where do you get that I am using division to reject?
I'm using it to INCLUDE like finding out who you've got in a band or a choir.
You don't just label everyone the same voice or instrument: you map out who
is in the tenor or bass section, the soprano or alto so you can organize your choir to sing in harmony!
Yes it takes "dividing in groups" but it's to align people so you can work with EVERYONE.
Do you get it now,
Disir?
I'm a Constitutionalist, and believe in equal INCLUSION to protect everyone's beliefs equally,
so I am ASKING what beliefs people identify with, so I can INCLUDE not reject them!
NOTE: What makes me "mad" is when people bully and exclude each other
and cause the other side to do that, so it blocks democratic due process
and the right to petition for EVERYONE, like how our courts get backlogged for months or years
because too many people didn't resolve conflicts. Or DOMA or ACA get passed and don't
get corrected because people won't sit down and find a mutual way to write out the laws they both WANT.
Disir what I think may happen here, is a third "unofficial house" or network of reps by party, similar to the Senate, where all people can organize representation per party and per issue. Just because it INCLUDES all parties doesn't mean it is RESTRICTED to that. But just allow citizens to make sure all sides of a conflict over beliefs is Represented and Included in MEDIATION to spell out both Consensus points and points of separation. Lay out all the positions and make sure everyone is represented. Then present these lists of DOs and DONTs to the OFFICIAL Congress and Govt as Blueprints for what laws/rulings are consistent with public interest, beliefs and consent on issues that involve BELIEFS that people aren't going to change. Just spell them out along with Agreed solutions, and work WITH govt to write out neutral or inclusive laws/rulings that we already AGREE with so no overreaches go unfixed. ALL objections and concerns are included and resolved in advance, BEFORE writing proposing or passing such laws/reforms/rulings. If we don't agree, then spell that out where and why groups object, and what we propose to separate or resolve those differences in BELIEFS.
