Is Tulsi Gabbard a closet Republican?

An authoritarian such as yourself doesn't understand libertarianism since you're the opposite of libertarian (you despise libertarianism) and, also, I'm using the word libertarian as a verb and not a noun. For example, my father who was libertarian steadfastly considered himself Republican and always voted Republican because he believed in capitalism and not because of politicians like Bush, Cheney, Romney, McConnell and Ted Cruz, for examples...Donald Trump is another politician who is libertarian but steadfastly calls himself Republican (because he believes in capitalism).

You're the one who has the skewed view of capitalism, democracy and free speech, for examples.

 

Yes of course because anyone who is not a good little Democrat is obviously a Russian operative..

 

Maher believes in democracy except for economy then, in economic aspects, Maher believes in socialism/communism. Maher chides neocommunists on their social policy but doesn't chide them on their economic policy. Maher's favorite 'founding father' was FDR who was just about as anti-capitalist, anti-democratic and authoritarian as US presidents come. BTW, being an authoritarian president like FDR isn't new. There's been, for example, Lincoln, G.W. Bush, Biden and others.

A neocommunist is a new communist. In other words, a person who uses the existing framework of capitalism in the US to further their communistic goals like the entirety of the dem party in the US, Barack Obama and George Soros, for examples.

 

Libertarianism exists on the authoritarian/libertarian axis and is independent of leftness or rightness. Authoritarians and libertarians can be left, center or right since right means someone who adores capitalism as a method of distributing goods and services and left mean someone who adores socialism as a method of distributing goods and services.

Authoritarians uses the phrase, for example, 'it's my way or no way' and libertarians use the phrase, for example, 'let's work things out and let free speech, for example, reign'.

 

Libertarian/authoritarian are both components of the left to rgiht spectrum, authoritarianism is just the opposite. Neither dominate either side. You can have extreme leftism, which is authoritarian, (communism) or extreme rightism (fascism) which is authoritarian.
Extreme libertarianism on either side is anarchy, where anarchy on the left is anarcho-syndicalism, and anarchy on the extreme right is just chaos.

 

Well, you are wrong on all counts. Maher is a capitalist, as am I, and we both vote for democrats and liberals. All democrats are capitalist, but we believe in regulated capitalism. FDR wasn't anti-capitalist, he was a capitalist regulator. FDR was a social democrat. The FDIC, for example, is to smooth out roughness in capitalism, gaurantee private deposit.

Democratic Socialists are only socialists on the strategic industries, such as military, raw materials, and all democrats support the social safety net. non-democratic Socialism has nothing to do with 'government programs', in truth, it' merely the state ownership of all means of production and distribution. Democrats and Social Democrats is a framework for policy, not a state takeover over private enterprise.


And don't tell me what I am, I've been a democrat since '86 -'88 and in the 60s. I was a repub from nixon through Carter.. Never in my entire life, mysefl, my party. my social circles, did anyone ever, not even once, mention 'neocommunism' and neo-nazis are morons. Bush isn't a neo-nazi, Colon Powell isn't a neonazi, etc.

That you'd make these claims means I can't take you seriously. THe claims are absurd.

I asked you to substantiate your claims, all you did was repeat your vacious claims, you have provided NOTHING to substantiate the claims.

I repeat, I asked you to substantiate your claims, you have provided NOTHING to substantiate

What do I mean by 'substantiate'

How about 'evidence'?

Proof.

Anything but repetition of your vacious claims.

 

I almost thought of responding to your specifics but your post is just so funny...

Nope sorry, you've gotten everything wrong, but at least it's in an entertaining way! Keep it up!

 

Your dissertation on labels was fun. Why can't we just have our elected representatives do the job we elected them to do... all labels aside?

 

Extreme libertarianism on the right isn't any different or more toxic than extreme libertarianism on the left. To think otherwise shows some sort of bias against capitalism.

 

Dude, do you think that communism, for example, just sprang out of nowhere in imperialist, Czarist Russia? No. It didn't. The forces for communism in Russia used the existing imperialist economic system in Czarist Russia to fund their communist goals...Just as the dem party in the US is now doing when they use capitalism. Just as George Soros is doing on the world stage when he uses capitalism. Just as Barack Obama did and is doing on the American stage when he uses capitalism.

 

Your 'conservative' ideology was invented by Bill Buckley Jr. in the mid 1960s. My understanding of conservative ideology (I'm not conservative, I'm centrist) was invented by the founding fathers.

 

Do you know that in your several posts of attempting to analyze me and my ideology, you've never once came even close to the target? In spite of the rather voluminous amount of posts I've made on this forum contradicting you?

That's why it's funny!

 

I don't know if toxic is the correct term, but unlike extreme libertarianism on the right, which is anarchy, on the left, it would at least have syndicalism, which is some sort of democratic organization at the worker level, which would be absent under total anarchic libertarianism on the right.

That is how I base that opinion, it has nothing to do with bias, it has only to do with logic applied to theoretical states.

 

This isn't about the history of communism. Let's get back to the point under discussion:

You made a claim that all dems are 'neocommunist'.

You provided NO evidence of that claim. That means you have made vacuous claim, and empty allegation, lacking substance, lacking foundation.

So, since I'm not taking your word for it, I ask for evidence, proof, something that you think substantiates that claim.

Well?

 

Bill Buckley JR. came up with your authoritarian version of 'conservativism' as a reaction to the Barry Goldwater for president nomination by the GOP in 1964. Goldwater was right libertarian by most standards. I remember the left libertarian Gore Vidal crushing Buckley Jr. on a TV debate on ABC during the 1968 presidential election cycle. I remember Buckley being furious at Vidal and cursing him on the air.

 

Extreme libertarians on the right only incite violence if they're first attacked. They're isolated and want to be left alone and will only attack if provoked by the government like the Waco attack by Bill Clinton's FBI.
Extreme authoritarians on the right want never ending wars, want to rule the world and don't want citizens to have rights extended beyond the rights and beliefs of the extreme right authoritarian.

Extreme libertarians on the left only incite violence if they're first attacked. Examples of left libertarians are Gandi and Russell Brand.
Extreme authoritarians on the left want to burn down cities, deface statues, trap presidents in the White House, take away all guns and teach kids to be fluid on their gender identity.

Leftness and rightness has nothing to do with authoritarian behavior. Authoritarianism has everything to do with authoritarian behavior...Authoritarianism is on the left, center and the right. Libertarianism is on the left, center and right. Unfortunately, in America, there are very, very, very few libertarians in the dem party.

 

Most dems are neocommunist because most dems are authoritarian. By definition, a far-left authoritarian (the dem party) is communist.

 

What a wonderful, and irrelevant precious memory of TV you have.

 

SYNDICALISM!!! A NEW WORD!!!! How about "Open Architecturalized Organizational Equality of Logistics Supportism"? (It means sharing pens and pencils at work)