Why do liberals think that Nazism is right wing extremism?
Nazism grew out of and was aligned with conservative movements. Read a history book instead of online comments; there was no disagreement.Germany was a multiparty democracy before the Nazis took power, and Hitler rose to power with the help of the other more-moderate conservative party inside Germany, opposed by the left while the moderates mumbled.Internationally, the Nazis were openly allied with conservatives and in conflict with the left.* There was some degree of mutual respect between many of the conservative parties and the Nazis. Fascist sympathies in France are arguably one of many reasons for France’s poor preparations. The left-right positioning was especially obvious and important in the Spanish Civil War. In the US, the Nazis were most vociferously opposed by the left, opposed by FDR — while the “America First”** movement (including, most famously, Charles Lindbergh) were typically mildly pro-Nazi conservatives (with a range from actively Antisemitic pro-Nazi right-wing to people who were just against the war … it’s not entirely simple.)It’s really bizarre — a symptom of feeding off some very bad news sources — that anyone would take this completely non-controversial basic history and get it bungled. Everyone from right to left knew this, before the internet. Stalin was left-wing extremism, Hitler right-wing extremism, as basic as you can get.* briefly with some really bizarre garbage-politics when Stalin signed a non-aggression pact with Germany that both leaders knew was a lie but not all the pro-Soviet far-far-left was clueful was lie. WWII saw a much greater degree of consensus in the US, at least until now — before the war, there were significant Americans who thought Nazi Germany was cool, others thought that Stalin’s USSR was cool.** it’s very strange to hear Trump using terms previously used by people who though the Nazis were pretty much ok and definitely not worth fighting.
Why do liberals call Republicans warmongers?
Nearly every major US war was entered under Democratic leadership. Liberals claim free-speech-suppressing Lincoln as one of their own, so I'll give them him as well. Democrats were also wildly in favor of going to Iraq in 04. They're on the record expressing support. So, democrats are pretty much responsible for every major American war. I win, forever and ever.
If Liberals are for women's rights how can they be so vicious towards Sarah Palin, Michelle Malkin, etc?
I have always wondered about this. Liberals claim the moral high ground in support of women's rights and harp on Republicans waging a "war on women". Yet, look at the hateful, sexist things they've said about Sarah Palin. Look at how they degrade Ann Coulter as a "bimbo" or when they call Michelle Malkin a "mail order bride". Many of them even threw Hillary Clinton under a bus in 2008 with the whole "bros before hoes" campaign. Is this really the behavior of the people who claim to be pro-woman?!?!?!
Does Tulsi Gabbard, a war veteran, have an appeal to the right-wing despite running for President as a Democrat?
Does Tulsi Gabbard, a war veteran, have an appeal to the right-wing despite running for President as a Democrat?I'm not a right wing person, but my educated guess is that it won't matter to Republicans, since she is pro-choice and favors Medicare For All [1], among other liberal policies.However, it is possible that right leaning independents, who are unhappy with Trump and more socially liberal, could find Tulsi Gabbard very appealing.Only time will tell. We will probably have at least 10 candidates running for President in 2020, so it's a long way to the nomination.Edit: March 13, 2019. I have listened to Rep. Gabbard on the CNN Town Hall. I am extremely impressed, and am 100% confident that any right leaning independent voter can happily vote for her. Disgruntled Trump voters can happily vote for her.She is a decorated war hero who will never put our troops into harm's way; unless absolutely necessary. No made up fake wars!She has excellent judgment, understands the sacrifice of serving our country. She is an infinitely better choice than the current Trump/Bolten duo, which I don't trust to keep our soldier's out of harm's way.My hope is that no matter who gets the Democratic nomination for president, that Tulsi Gabbard will be in the VP slot, if she doesn't receive the nomination herself.Footnotes[1] Americans spend the most on health care, get worst outcomes?