Are most potheads, hippies and atheist nowadays Liberals or Libertarians?
How could anybody know this Einstein?
Why do anti-vaxxers seem to be liberals or far leftists who do not trust scientists and doctors?
I never thought of it as a liberal or conservative matter because I'm not much into labels. Although if I had to pick one it would certainly be conservative. But for my part it is definitely not a religious choice. It is first a medical & then a philosophical choice.Sometime back there was a survey published which determined that people who question vaccines are more interested in liberty & purity. I think that is true. The idea being that some of us want to take responsibility for our own health & well being & not have the government dictating in our personal lives, certainly not in our private medical choices. And we are selective in what we put into our bodies & environment. If there is a simpler, cleaner way to do something then we expect to be free to make that choice whether it be about vaccines or about cutting weeds rather than poisoning them.That doesn't amount to being against doctors or science. Modern medicine can do some amazing things. But it isn't equally good at everything it does - like managing chronic conditions by only treating symptoms. And medical mistakes are the 3rd. Leading cause of death behind heart disease & cancer. So some caution & some questioning is always in order. Sometimes we do as much as possible for ourselves because the doctors just don't have an answer. And they say things like “what you eat doesn't matter” because they aren't schooled in nutrition but you can go right home & prove otherwise.True science is wonderfully helpful & interesting but it goes astray sometimes. Like the glyphosate in everything now. Science listened too much to industry & was short-sighted in terms of safety & long range side effects. Very possibly some safety studies were “manipulated” in order to get a promising, high profit product onto the market. In our generation it was DDT in everything - seems like we never learn!
Trump and his supporters are not affected by the hatred of Liberals, however it is eating the Democratic party like a cancer. Hate kills the hater, so why do they hate?
Original Question: Trump and his supporters are not affected by hatred of the Liberals, However it is eating the Democratic party like a cancer. Hate kills the hater, so why do they hate?Maybe there are multiple reasons? Maybe the liberals are so angry that rational behavior has been abandoned? Maybe the liberals hatred is their answer to losing an election to an unqualified candidate? Maybe the liberals did not start hatred recently?Why did an angry democrat shoot up a Congressional baseball game? Why does a group supported by a democrat president in the White House kill police, Black Lives Matter.JealousyIgnoranceFearHyper-partisanshipWhen a candidate runs for president twice and loses, after being in government for generations, and loses to a first timer, who under spent the opponent, I can see from where the anger comes. A practical group would make an assessment—the liberals made excuses.It was the Russians?It was FBI Director Comey?It was the Electoral College, they did win the popular vote?It was the lying and the email scandal?It was a failed privileged candidate with too much baggage that exceeded the “electorate” limit to cruise into the White House?The problem is that their anger is their only message! It was anti-Trump then and has not changed. Their campaign mantra was not fiscal, not jobs, not education, not defense, not borders, not opportunity. It was “I'm With Her” vs. “Make America Great Again”; one inward directed the other outward directed.When you focus on the negative you become “the negative”. It is a Freudian transferal of blame, this absolves one of guilt, as in: “It wasn't my fault!!”It's what haters do…
Will the liberals and democrats actually take away the second amendment and ban all guns in the USA permanently?
No.And the reason is simple - most of the country is absolutely opposed to the idea.The politics of guns is pretty simple. There are some few hard-left areas of the country where political support for strict gun control is strong. And all of the rest of the country where support from gun control ranges from tepid to absolute raging opposition.What this means is that Democrats elected in these few hard-left areas can push strict gun control without cost. And everywhere else, it costs them dearly at the polls.And the consequence of this is that when the Democrats are in the minority they can push gun control all they like, and it counts for nothing because they’re in the minority.When they gain a majority, they find it much harder because the politicians on their side of the isle - that they needed to gain a majority - are in a position where they can’t support gun control without losing their seats.And if the Dem leadership manages to push the caucus into backing gun control, despite this, the representatives in marginal districts lose, and the Dems lose their majority.The only reason we’re seeing the sort of extremism advocacy we’re seeing on guns, right now, is because the Dems are politically weak.
What, according to liberal women, are some challenges that Muslim women face today?
Women are forced by their government to wear the Hijab and not allowed to drive i.e Iran and Saudi ArabiaWomen are forced by their government not to wear the Hijab in government offices surprisingly in “progressive” EU countries.And yes, there are liberal women that wants to wear the Hijab for religious reasons (which they are not forced to) and for aesthetic purposes.Women should have the right to wear what they want. Nobody should dictate what they should or shouldn’t wear. But there’s no harm in propagating secular or religious styles dressing. Propagate and not dictate
What do libertarians/classic liberals think of France's proposal to regulate the advertising market by requiring that models be of a minimum body-mass index to prevent anorexia?
For the groups you pose this to the issue would not be with the sentiment of the action, but the source of the action.Companies could of their own free will, or under pressure from other groups enact similar protocols. Other groups could set up competing organizations that take on via the marketplace the engrained notion of beauty. Both of these would be completely acceptable to the groups you mention, indeed they might even outright support such action with time and money.Where this notion runs a foul is the fact that the government itself is dictating what is socially acceptable. Such action is almost universally derided as socially conservative non-sense. Oddly in more liberal places social legislation often comes from the left, not the right. Libertarians generally deride ALL FORMS of social legislation, this would be no exception.