How can someone spend so much time studying history and still be a libtard?

Why the heck would you turn communist after "learning about warfare and diplomacy"?

>posts about liberalism
>image is about socialism
you should let your handler post for you user

Liberalism as in the classic liberal tradition, yes. Modern American liberalism? No.

>Le liberalism is communism meme

I seriously doubt the conservatives on this board even have a cohesive definition of liberalism between all of them. It's just some imaginary political other that they can pretend they're smarter than.

Because he looks until he finds the facts that support his beliefs

Dan Carlin doesn't actually study history, he's a complete amateur who frequently gets things wrong and embellishes

How does someone study history and still be a conservatard?

>as you post someone who would be considered a far right extremist today

How can one spend any time at all studying history and be a subscriber of any "left-right" or "conservative-liberal" spectrum?

kys

That's because there is no cohesive definition. There are three definitions for the word 'liberal.'
1. A modern America liberal
2. A classical liberal
3. A progressive
The problem is that modern liberals took their name from the classical liberals but they share very few things in common. It's even more complicated when some modern liberals can be progressives and some not. This is the same for modern American conservatives. Conservatives don't hate liberals, they hate specific attributes about liberals. If you ask a conservative why he hates liberals he'll be able to give you a bunch of reasons.

>Doesn't support universal health care
>Doesn't support globalism
>Supports a flat tax
>Only major candidate he ever endorsed on his show was Ron Paul
>Strict constitutionalism
How is he a libtard? Because he isn't a republican?

>If you ask a conservative why he hates liberals he'll be able to give you a bunch of reasons.

lol no

It's because he doesn't agree with Sam Harris.

I guess I'm also a libtard

You have a strange definition of libtard.

Like?

Funny that anyone would think that Sam Harris is more conservative than Dan Carlin

>Dan Carlin
>Liberal

Literally what?

>They're weak
>They are lazy
>They are anti-freedom
>They want to take my guns
>They think handouts are a good thing for society
Etc...

>preferred hillary
>Not a libtard

I don't care how dangerous you think trump was if you actually thought Hillary was a better option you don't get to LARP as some kind of libertarian who's above it all

Bitch would have destroyed the constitution

I don't think he ever said that.

Right, but those are fake reasons.

Not at all. Jefferson is extremely liberal for the Evangelical and Authoritarian right, the former of which constantly tries to reenvision him of as a devout christian theist and the later which blatantly disregards his enlightenment vision. They also like to claim that he was classical liberal by modern standards, which is hardly a tenable position for a man who envisioned the US as being a protectionist agrarian utopia.

Nice try though. Were you actually thinking of Jefferson Davis?

>definition of "libtard" is being against donald trump, the worst candidate of all time

Or maybe you're just a retard.

>the worst candidate of all time
There is another

>Bitch would have destroyed the constitution
go on...

>preferred hillary
When the other candidate is a fake tan meme factory, Hillary was the only sane option.

Plenty of reasons to hate Hillary, but if you think Trump will respect the constitution any more than she would have, you're insane.

Carlin never once said he preferred her. All he ever said is that it was ridiculous and depressing that it was either going to be her or Trump

Protip: Hillary is not liberal or left-wing. Neither is most of the Democratic Party if we're being real. I'm afraid you've been horribly misinformed.

But these are fake reasons? Granted the left will also say unfounded things about the right but every conservative I've talked to IRL has difficulty expressing exactly why or how these accusations are founded in reality.

I'm not even going to go into hillarys record on things like the first and second amendment. Look it up yourself

B-BUT MUH INFOWARS
MUH REDPILLPHILOSOPHY
MUH SARGON ON GONORREA

>Oh no, not my memes

Hillary Clinton was a completely conventional candidate.

>>They're weak
>>They are lazy
>>They are anti-freedom

This sounds more like a pathological personal critique rather than an actual empirical critique of millions of people.

Really makes ya think

>it's a /pol/ poster thinks he has even a high school level idea of politics or political history thread

Oh boy.

Don't fuck with Dan, I don't agree with him all the time but he always has a rational and understanding opinion on issues

Please post one example
This right here

Which was exactly the problem. Candidates who run against new, regimes with promise, no matter what reality those promises compose, is going to win if that promise resonates.

The DNC should have known that, because it's exactly how Obama won against McCain in 08.

Also, Hillary may have held the policies of a standard Democrat, which in itself is arguable as she played more to the fringe Democrats, not the mainstream, but she herself was just a terrible public figure.

She was very distant and awkward, almost Robotic.

This is all to say nothing regarding her scandals, as they don't really matter, considering both candidates were neck deep in them, and the MSM totally covered hers.

>Please post one example
He says that Lucius Brutus was complicit with Killing Tarquinius Superbus, when he was simply exiled, and outlived Lucius.

>Bernie Sanders
>Socialism

>Which was exactly the problem. Candidates who run against new, regimes with promise, no matter what reality those promises compose, is going to win if that promise resonates.

Holy shit what? That should read:

Candidates who run against new regimes with promise, no matter what reality those promises compose, is going to lose if that promise resonates.

>receiving foreign payment
>flag burning= year in prison
>threatens to jail his political opponent if he wins
>less freedom of the press
>waterboarding and a lot more
>religious test to enter the country
>take out their families

come on user

>claims the opposition to his candidate are the real dictators but refuses to go into detail...
Wansee a magic trick liberals?

>receiving foreign payment
From which Nations?
>flag burning= year in prison
Ok
>less freedom of the press
What freedom would be loss? Bias, or a war against "Fake News"
>waterboarding and a lot more
Like what?
>religious test to enter the country
>Do you hate Women
>Do you have ISIS affiliations?
>Do you agree with Islamic Extremists?
>take out their families
If Mom is Illegal, mom has to go back. It's Mom's fault for being such a cunt as to not take her babe back home, and trying to use its, generously given, citizenship to keep her illegal residence

Because reality has a liberal bias :^)

Then why does Reality not make resources equally and abundantly accessible?

Why is the driving force of the Universe Natural Selection, and not Group macramé and karaoke?

More or less the same thing Tbh

>When the other candidate is a fake tan meme factory

The world is a meme factory, user. We, all of us, all things have become meme. Forever.

>Trump has business interests in many foreign nations
"no person holding any office of profit or trust shall accept of any present, emolument, office or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince or foreign state"
>Promised to increase the penalties for libel specifically to go after any news org that trashed him
>religious test for citizenship
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
>take out their families
I was reffering to when Trump said we should kill the families of suspected terrorists, which would be a war crime

>Do you hate Women
>Do you have ISIS affiliations?
>Do you agree with Islamic Extremists?

Except that isn't the type of test he said was it? He literally said "no more Muslims"

>no person holding any office of profit or trust shall accept of any present, emolument, office or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince or foreign state
He's not holding an office
>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances
Applies to Citizens, not prospective citizens, or those seeking refuge.
>I was reffering to when Trump said we should kill the families of suspected terrorists, which would be a war crime
Ok, depending on context.

If he refers to assassinating them, I agree. If he's defending Civilian Bombing, I disagree

Okay, but the official line from his campaign is a ban on Muslims entering the country from high risk areae until vetting procedures can be secured.

You can study plenty of history and still be liberal/left-wing, without being an idiot. I understand this statement may be controversial, but I stand by it.

On the other hand, as there is with the right wing, there is obviously a faction of complete fucking morons, and these people are utterly unfixable, no matter how much history you shove down their throats.

>Applies to Citizens, not prospective citizens, or those seeking refuge.
No, if you say "you can't be a citizen if you hold to a certain religious faith" that is creating a law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion

>reddit the thread
americans please go drink your ration of diet coke. hillary and her celebrity resistance will be along to save you soon.

This seems fucking reasonable to me.

But you can bar people from entering the country based on relevant criteria, such as having ethnographic ties to terrorism.

>lel, le epin quips forever
>le politically incorrect quips forever
I just want memes to die. Please, come sweet NWO and intern all memsters in FEMA camps. Where are the Illuminati when we need them? Why can't Hillary just use her cosmic reptiloid contacts and delete memes from existence? What have we done to deserve this crap?

>I was reffering to when Trump said we should kill the families of suspected terrorists, which would be a war crime

did he seriously say this?

He didn't say "ethnographic ties to terrorism" He said ban muslims. I don't know why this is so hard for you people to grasp. I hate Islam just as much as the next person, but the constitution is the constitution and you can't make laws that limit religious freedom. If the fucking president doesn't get that, it tells me he lacks a fundamental understanding/respect for the constitution, which is a big fucking problem

You have something to fear, Omar?

youtube.com/watch?v=WWiaYQUV2oM

Yeah, he's talking about civilian bombing, like Dresden or any Allied bombing.

I have no problem with this on a political, objective scale.

n-no

a-allahu ackba- I mean good day to you

>study the 19th century intensively
>not becoming a liberal

Alternatively,
>studying interwar politics
>not becoming a liberal/social democrat

Pretty sure you need congress to declare war against that city's government to do such things

War would be declared with ISIS, wouldn't it?

In a full scale conflict of nations, then bombing strategic civilian targets like munitions factories, is allowed. The war on terrorism is police action. You aren't fighting a nation, you're fighting criminals and I don't believe you should target civilians in any way.

But even if I bought into your logic, he doesn't say "we have to do whats necessary, and civilian casualties are an unfortunate risk we have to take". He said "We have to take out their families" He thinks it is legitimate to target civilians on purpose.

>liberalism=leftism

for fuck sake

but that's objectively wrong. Modern american liberalism diverges heavily from classical liberalism on several key points, they're barely connected as far as ideals go.

ISIS isn't a nation. They are criminals. Is it allowed to bomb cities sheilding mexican cartels or neighborhoods controlled by the crips?

I have a Masters in history (Magister actually, since I'm from Europe). I guess I consider my self sort of liberal/social democrat. What mostly led me to it was studying philosophy (B.A., and yes, I know I'm useless). Ethics, political philosophy and anything related.

Although history might have played a part. Reading more about history of different cultures made me be more appreciative and understanding of them.

Congress hasn't declared war since WW2

Yes, among many of the outlandish things he said during the campaign, he said, in utter disregard of humanitarian law, "The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don't kid yourself. When they say they don't care about their lives, you have to take out their families,"

And his supporters listened,
youtu.be/2n5gLLgpbls?t=1m44s

Go to about a 1m40s and listen one his supporters say we should bomb terrorists homes because, "people will continue to reproduce".

Then it would merely be a campaign or an operation, whatever BS has been letting us bomb whomever wherever for the past 70 years

No, he's not. Do not lie to justify a crime against humanity, we will only suspect Trump supporters of harboring fascist sympathies even more. He stated, in no ambiguous terms, that once you capture terrorists you have to kill their families, in flagrant violation of humanitarian law.

His supporters are also on record understanding and harboring these statements, so the damage is done even if it was 'an exaggeration'. The historical record is there and on video whether you cowards like it or not.

>conservatard
>libtard
Why can't we all just get along and turn our attention to the real swine, leftists and fascists

I don't know if you're experiences have been different with liberals and leftists, but everyone I've ever talked to on politics has been completely ignorant

Bernie was a socialist running on more moderate policies

I don't understand why you have the emphasis on the right when you've practically said the exact same thing twice

When leftists start carrying pictures of Chairman Mao and Joseph Stalin as much as conservatives carry pictures of Hitler and Mosley, then I'll start worrying about them. Complaining about man-spreading is an issue, but I'm more worried about the people who 'joke' about being sympathetic to Trump/Putin being Fascist God-Emperors.

> much as conservatives carry pictures of Hitler and Mosley,
Literally what

Whom does this sound like today?

It's a Beatles reference. By carry pictures I'm referring to /pol/ and the alt-right.

I suppose you're right, what makes the difference for me is the unchained vehemence I see from the right side of American politics. Democrats at least attempt to keep their rabid SJW factions at arm's length, while conservatives in the last couple of years openly campaign on a basis of blind xenophobia and otherization.

Veeky Forums itself could be an example, liberals and conservatives both say stupid shit but it's only the /pol/tards who will unironically defend murder and stigmatization based on race/religion/affiliation alone, acting like edgy self-assured teenagers whenever somebody points out basic shit like the human right to life or legal guarantees like habeas corpus.

Sounds like a quote taken out of context that can be used to justify political extremism. Sound about right? A let you guess how the pic is related.

easy cliche everyone says about their point of view. Dumb thing to say

/thread

We are literally posting in a thread based on the same claim in the opposite direction. Of course anybody can use the cliche "history is on our side" bullshit without being correct on any level. The proof was there before the first reply.

>be the average american conservative in the past eight years
>go through a recession and either lost job or almost lose job. Don't have time or interest to do much but maintain personal status quo
>Other, extant issues like social politics suddenly come to the forefront.
>You have two media sources which you have both the time and interest to subscribing to. The liberal X and the conservative Y TV channels.
>Liberal X ridicules your region as "flyovers", calls you smallminded, and informs you that you must care about social politics or else become a Bad Person. If you are a conservative you are 'dumb' and 'a racist hick'
>Conservative Y tells you that these people are after you, and intellectual yuppies. They're on 'your side' and informs you that the other side is after traditional values. You are now boxed into a side.
>Time passes and this worsens, you're constantly ridiculed by one side and covered with blanket statements of various isms, being conservative is now conflated with hating various social issues.
>Meanwhile, your side is constantly affirming you, telling of how bad you have it because the liberal X runs the country, that those social issues are guises for malicious changes that harm your wellbeing or way of life.
>Eight full years of this go by; being conservative now makes you (in the eyes of the world) a racist, a xenophobe, a homophobe, and a meanspirited bigot in general. By way of this, these words have lost all meaning.
>Cue the election season. There is one candidate who is on both Conservative Y and Liberal X, every hour of every day. Everyone tells you that this man is a racist, a xenophobe, a homophobe, and a bigot in every way, shape or form. Constant ridicule and disbelief.

>both sides of the media now attack a singular candidate with the same rhetoric conservatives have been heaped for the past eight years, and then act surprised when they back eachother.

rmyt

>the working class is retarded regardless of time or place

All you had to say