>>1289
>Classic Liberals, Neoliberals, whatever you want to call them I have always thought were treated unfairly being lumped togather with either the left or the right. Whichever was convenient for partisan classification
It´s because it´s the one that attracts common sense and reality the most. IT IS NOT PERFECT, I repeat, it is not a view that solves things like the panacea. However, it takes ideas from both and such combination or lack of duel ruins their interests.
>It annoys me when people both become to obsessed with labels and misrepresent smaller groups that have their own distinct idealogical foundation and goals separate from the larger ones
well yeah, but while there are some slight variations between each other, some are capable to digest certain things that they don´t like but still support the project. I don´t like labels either because one could change perspectives overnight all of a sudden or vote to another party that doesn´t fit their ideals but still do for some reason (for example, people voting to the far right, are they necessarily fascists?Not all of them but they do because of a certain appealing idea).
However, like labels are so frequently applied and they are unavoidable...the ones I don´t like much is using the terms nazi and fascists so carelessly without checking. But I prefer using the labels of liberal,socialist, communist, conservative, national socialist than simply using left and right.
>I think your example of saying that you were like centrist in US terminology is good or political laymen I think it still misrepresents the group since it only implies they are in the middle of two sides rather then being a side on there own as a whole though there is some overlap
Yep, I perfectly knew liberal in the US is considered like a socialist or progressive person, so I used the term classic liberal or centrist. It fits in the middle and definitely overlaps with the ideas shared between the main parties. Not all ideas are good or acceptable but analysis from any idea or project should be judged despite the intentions.

Yep, the socialist progressive ideas are from a certain side of the Republican Party.
>there is a distinct branch of hard core socialist who have also entered into the democratic party who even consider Sanders a softy
radicals judging him as a soft guy in comparison to his view. That should explain where they come from.
>Classic Liberals being in a completely separate corner that until recently was only the last remaining holdouts of the old liberal republicans who didn't hold elective office (they had a presence in some publications and think takes.)
Well, I haven´t followed the US politics during these two years. The only bits of US that I have followed are some Trump actions and the 2016 US elections. Since then, I am a bit out of touch. I didn´t know that the term liberal was actually receiving the image it has for other countries in the US. I guess that comes because of tiresome shitshows and saying that´s it.

Anyway, posting a nice bat between the political posts.