Originally Posted by lljadw

That's theory, but in reality it's the opposite :US liberals attack the first and second amendment.

One example : last year US Attorney-general Lauretta Lynch proposed to sue those who doubted climate change .

She was looking into a civil suit against the fossil fuel industry for their questionable science of the climate change. Quite similar as how the tobacco industry claimed smoking wasn't a health hazard. But that's is not what the TS said, he probably wants a more social liberal United States.

Originally Posted by I3BrigPvSk

She was looking into a civil suit against the fossil fuel industry for their questionable science of the climate change. Quite similar as how the tobacco industry claimed smoking wasn't a health hazard. But that's is not what the TS said, he probably wants a more social liberal United States.

And, what is social liberal ? More taxes? Thus more power for the state ,thus less freedom for the people ?

Social liberals say that social liberalism means more social justice, but this can only be done by the state , which means that more social justice results in more state intervention and less freedom .

There was more social justice in Germany between 1933 and 1945, but less liberty .

Originally Posted by lljadw

And, what is social liberal ? More taxes? Thus more power for the state ,thus less freedom for the people ?

Social liberals say that social liberalism means more social justice, but this can only be done by the state , which means that more social justice results in more state intervention and less freedom .

There was more social justice in Germany between 1933 and 1945, but less liberty .

The Nazi Germany had very little in common with all forms of liberalism. All national states have what is called the social contract between the state and the citizens. This contract stipulate the safety among people (the rule of law, welfare etc) on the other side of the contract the citizens must give up some part of their freedom to get education, welfare, health care, and protection. The social liberals want the citizens to have the opportunity to choose between different kinds of education, health care etc if the citizen wants. The other side of liberalism is the nightwatchman state. That is a national state with only the government, the police, the military, and the courts of law, that's it. This perception of the liberal ideology is rather unpractical. If there is a need for a road, the citizen must build it by themselves. Preferably without any taxes at all. The social liberals have moved away from this perception and have borrowed a lot from the social democratic ideology with one major difference, the individual freedom to make their own decision about their own future.

The godfather of American Liberals, who call themselves now Progressives , was Woodrow Wilson . And it was Woodrow Wilson who wrote : "All that progressives ask or desire is permission .....to interpret the Constitution according to the Darwinian principle."

We know what Darwinism means : the survival of the fittests and the elimination of those who don't pass in the new world, in the melting pot . Those who are unworthy to live as was written and claimed in Germany between 1933 and 1945 .

Progressives, (social ) liberals are arrogant totalitarians who want to create an ideal world and who stick at nothing to reach their aim . History has learnt us that they are doomed to fail : classic example is marxisme that has failed with as legacy millions of deaths .

But the liberals(Obama, McCain,etc)are never discouraged and will not allow reality to block their phantasms .When there were riots in the ME ,their imagination ran wild : the Arab Spring arrived and the ME would becoma the new Eden . And when very soon, it was obvious that there was no Arab Spring, but that ISIS arrived, they closed their eyes for reality and supported ISIS .

Originally Posted by I3BrigPvSk

The Nazi Germany had very little in common with all forms of liberalism. All national states have what is called the social contract between the state and the citizens. This contract stipulate the safety among people (the rule of law, welfare etc) on the other side of the contract the citizens must give up some part of their freedom to get education, welfare, health care, and protection. The social liberals want the citizens to have the opportunity to choose between different kinds of education, health care etc if the citizen wants. The other side of liberalism is the nightwatchman state. That is a national state with only the government, the police, the military, and the courts of law, that's it. This perception of the liberal ideology is rather unpractical. If there is a need for a road, the citizen must build it by themselves. Preferably without any taxes at all. The social liberals have moved away from this perception and have borrowed a lot from the social democratic ideology with one major difference, the individual freedom to make their own decision about their own future.

Safety for the people is not welfare, but the rule of law : the first and dominant mission of a state is to protect its inhabitants against domestic and foreign dangers . All the rest is secundary .

Originally Posted by lljadw

Safety for the people is not welfare, but the rule of law : the first and dominant mission of a state is to protect its inhabitants against domestic and foreign dangers . All the rest is secundary .

That is not liberalism, that's conservatism, or one of the other grand political theories, the realism. Welfare is a part of the safety for the social liberals, it's part of the safety-net they want. American liberals and conservatives differ a bit from their European counterparts. The Republicans are more classical liberals than being social liberals, the Democrats are social liberals.

The social conservatism is very close to the classical liberalism in many aspects, but the roots are different. Social conservatism embrace the individual freedom and so do the classical liberalism. The social conservatives oppose all social policy programs and so do the classical liberalism. There aren't many classical liberals left in Europe and elsewhere, but they still exist in the US.

So calling McCain a liberal is correct if you call him a classical liberal or a social conservative, but he isn't a social liberal.

Liberalism, Conservatism, and Socialism are all grand theories/ideologies and they all contain a huge variety of beliefs within them. They have different roots and social liberalism share some parts with the socialism, but it is far from being a socialistic ideology. Conservatism shares some traits with Nazism and Fascism, but it is far from being any of the two totalitarian ideologies. They all share some historical traits, but to call conservatives for being supporters of Nazism and Fascism is very wrong and rather stupid to do. The same goes for the liberals, they cannot be compared or associated with Marxist-Leninist-Maoist nor any other socialistic ideology.

Realism is the only political theory (it's not an ideology) without being attached to any of the ideological theories. National states tend to be close to Realism in matters close to defense, security, and international relations. Therefore, liberal states tend to following the Realism in foreign policy matters and defense. But they are very ad hoc about it. A state's relation with a neighbor depends on how they perceive each other. Are they hostile, then they are Realists and if they have friendly relations, they aren't Realists.

Trump is a New York Liberal, has been his whole life. Still 10x better than a Marxist Obama or Clinton. US economy has made great strides forward since the election. Personally I'd like to see him bring all the troops home, leave Europe for the Muslims, leave Korea to figure out what to do with Kim, they will probably surrender without the US to back them up.

I was really naive!