Please No More Complaints About Trump From Canada

[BotanyBoy]

You know that's bullshit.

Not according to the media or the DNC or even most of the people involved.

They all just watch Schultz give a "my bad" speech and step down as DNC chairlady and decided that was good enough.

 

[Oblimo]

I do, but we aren't doing analysis, we are just defining.

Well, at least you admitted it.

This has been my point: “just defining” is a fucking stupid waste of time. It’s all you keep doing. You refuse to analyze, which would lead to actual substantive discussion of liberalism, which I keep trying to drag out of you.

What a colossal waste of my time.

You seem very confident on your idea that liberalism is all about supporting a government/collectively managed economy who's primary goal is eliminating poverty through wealth redistribution.

I never said that. You just keep going back to your little boxes.

And the dictionaries/encyclopedias all have it wrong.

The Standford University article of liberalism is quite good, actually. And the bibliography of the sources is fantastic.

I called bullshit, because the dictionaries, encyclopedias, Stanford University, and about 30 noteworthy liberal and socialist philosophers including Marx and Mill who all say that you are incorrect about that.

See, this is what happens when you define what you perceive is my position by stating something obviously false.

Not that any of those are valid reference sources obviously. What the fuck do any of them know anyhow right?

You say otherwise so clearly the academic world is wrong and the Soviet Union and red China among others are all hardcore liberals.

Do you enjoy making shit up?

Get specific, show me where I did such a thing and what is "it" ?

Here is what you said:

you can't name one that supports your authoritarian equity seeking leftism as liberalism

I am not saying “authoritarian equity seeking leftism as liberalism”. That’s you setting up bullshit straw men again.

Or nationalize our entire HC industry, US Dept. of Health, does it ALL!! Ohhh get rid of profit, nobody should profit off of human suffering!! That's just outright authoritarian/totalitarian leftism. Uber-anti liberal.

I’m not proposing that. Even Bernie isn’t proposal that. Even Obama care wasn’t that. You are making shit up again.

Capitalism is economic liberalism...socialism is the opposite, economic authoritarianism.

More bullshit absolutism. There’s a difference between Maoism and subsidizing healthcare through taxation. If you can’t see the difference, I give up.

 

[Oblimo]

I knew you notice that he had zero problem with the other poster quoting TV Tropes as a source as long as it agreed with his preferred narrative.

Wow, you sure know how to simper and suck up.

I had a huge problem with it. It doesn’t have a bibliography or cites. Why do you think I recommended the Stanford article instead?

 

[BotanyBoy]

Well, at least you admitted it.

This has been my point: “just defining” is a fucking stupid waste of time. It’s all you keep doing. You refuse to analyze, which would lead to actual substantive discussion of liberalism, which I keep trying to drag out of you.

What a colossal waste of my time.

No it's not, because we can't analyze until we agree what liberalism is.

I think it's what the EB, Stanford, all the dictionaries and liberal philosophers say it is.

You think it's a government managed economy that redistributes wealth to fight poverty.

I am not saying “authoritarian equity seeking leftism as liberalism”. That’s you setting up bullshit straw men again.

You said liberalism was created to fight poverty through wealth redistribution and social welfare did you not?

It's not a strawman.

If I'm wrong about that then I'm glad you agree with EB/Stanford and all their sources as well as me, wealth redistribution is not liberal, it's socialistic.

More bullshit absolutism. There’s a difference between Maoism and subsidizing healthcare through taxation. If you can’t see the difference, I give up.

It's not bullshit it's accurate.

The is a difference and I never said there wasn't.

Now are you ready to agree to the dictionary/encyclopedia definitions/concepts behind these words? Or are you still needing to say "bullshit!!" at me with nothing to back it up some more?

 

[Kirkrapine]

Not according to the media or the DNC or even most of the people involved.

They all just watch Schultz give a "my bad" speech and step down as DNC chairlady and decided that was good enough.

If you're talking about this, there's really no there there, so far as undermining democracy is concerned.

 

[Kirkrapine]

You said liberalism was created to fight poverty through wealth redistribution and social welfare did you not?

It's not a strawman.

Neither is it authoritarian. Several distinct characteristics distinguish authoritarian states; that is usually not one of them.

 

[BotanyBoy]

If you're talking about this, there's really no there there, so far as undermining democracy is concerned.

I know, you're a-OK with ANYTHING as long as they got a (D) in front of or behind their name.

Plenty here are, it's all good.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Neither is it authoritarian.

REALLY?

Then why does it need so much control and authority over so much??

It doesn't get much more authoritarian than taking over the economy and robbing some people so they are equally as poor as the others.

 

[Kirkrapine]

REALLY?

Then why does it need so much control and authority over so much??

It doesn't get much more authoritarian than taking over the economy and robbing some people so they are equally as poor as the others.

What you are mischaracterizing is no more than Euro social democracies do, and I've never heard them called "authoritarian."

Authoritarianism:

Authoritarianism is a form of government characterized by strong central power and limited political freedoms. Individual freedoms are subordinate to the state and there is no constitutional accountability under an authoritarian regime.[1] Juan Linz's influential 1964 description of authoritarianism[2] characterized authoritarian political systems by four qualities:

1. Limited political pluralism, that is such regimes place constraints on political institutions and groups like legislatures, political parties and interest groups;
2. A basis for legitimacy based on emotion, especially the identification of the regime as a necessary evil to combat "easily recognizable societal problems" such as underdevelopment or insurgency;
3. Minimal social mobilization most often caused by constraints on the public such as suppression of political opponents and anti-regime activity;
4. Informally defined executive power with often vague and shifting powers.[3]

 

[BotanyBoy]

What you are mischaracterizing is no more than Euro social democracies do,

It's not a mischaracterization.

Euro social democracy doesn't mean they don't have some highly authoritarian economic policies/systems....because most of them do. That's how wealth redistribution happens....authoritarian oppression.

and I've never heard them called "authoritarian."

Overall they aren't....just their economics, they tend to be very liberal as far as social controls, but even that is starting to backslide to a more authoritarian leftist nature.

Locking up comedians for being offensive and students for refuting "progressive" ideals and firing/prosecuting professors for not checking their pronouns....tisk tisk...that kinda authoritarian speech/thought censorship is a slippery slope to a rough time for Euro social democracies comrade.

 

[Kirkrapine]

It's not a mischaracterization.

Euro social democracy doesn't mean they don't have a highly authoritarian economic systems....because most of them do.

[shrug] So much the better for authoritarianism, then. What works, works. There is nothing going on in Western Europe these past 50 years to draw any sane person's tears over a property owner's rights being violated.

 

[BotanyBoy]

[shrug] So much the better for authoritarianism, then.

Sure...but it's anti-American and in direct opposition to the core ideological beliefs of the USA.

What works, works.

I works for Europe...it's attempt has been a fucking shit show in the USA, mostly because that pesky ass Constitution keeps commie blocking that bullshit.

There is nothing going on in Western Europe these past 50 years to draw any sane person's tears over a property owner's rights being violated.

That's a nice opinion, not shared by everyone but if you really think that you should TYA and get on over to the European social utopia.

Nothing wrong with it, I love Scandinavia myself, fucking stunning every time I go....the land and the people. Didn't care much for France/Germany but Spain was sweet and all of them are far closer to your taste in governments.

 

[Kirkrapine]

I works for Europe...

And we ain't so different.

 

[BotanyBoy]

And we ain't so different.

Historically and currently our political cultures are though.

That may change one day....but that day is not today and not anytime soon.

 

[Kirkrapine]

It's not a mischaracterization.

Euro social democracy doesn't mean they don't have some highly authoritarian economic policies/systems....because most of them do. That's how wealth redistribution happens....authoritarian oppression.

The mischaracterization was the "equally poor" part, which is, of course, the only part that really matters. A redistributive tide lifts most boats.

 

[Kirkrapine]

Sure...but it's anti-American and in direct opposition to the core ideological beliefs of the USA.

Apart from the proposition that the USA should be a republic independent of Britain, there are really are no such things as "the core ideological beliefs of the USA." You will find them neither in the DoI nor in the Preamble.

 

[Oblimo]

No it's not, because we can't analyze until we agree what liberalism is.

No. You analyze the sources first so you can understand what liberalism is. You don’t define something first and go find evidence of your definition. Christ, man, what was your major?

You said liberalism was created to fight poverty through wealth redistribution and social welfare did you not?

No, boy, I did not. I said that poverty was one of the evils liberalism came about to fight. But I did not say by “wealth redistribution” or “social welfare”. In fact, I remember saying that the 18 and 19th century liberals wanted to make the poor richer but not the rich poorer.

If I'm wrong about that then I'm glad you agree with EB/Stanford and all their sources as well as me, wealth redistribution is not liberal, it's socialistic.

*sigh*

You keep making that false dichotomy. Socialism as in Communism, Maoism, actual wealth distribution where farmland is confiscated from wealthy landholders by the government and reassigned to otherwise penniless tenant farmers — that is Socialism with a capital S and that is the opposite of liberalism.

But socialism with a lower case “s” is not the opposite of liberalism and is just one of many tools liberals employ. Unless you are a member of the Chicago School.

I don’t know how many times I can stress that until I put you on ignore.

 

[DMBFFF]

[size=+2]First off, my compliments to Oblimo, BotanyBoy, and now Kirkrapine on the debate. It is far worthier than this thread.[/size]

 

[DMBFFF]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Trudeau

If you think that that is how Indians dress on a day-to-day basis, then there are two options, ignorant or racist.

Might be more like Sunday clothes here in North America.

Tell us N----- ...,

I'll leave this post of your racist buddy to you, Rightguide, to deal with.

"CBC’s Poll Tracker, which aggregates and weights the results of a dozen opinion surveys, reported in late March that the opposition Conservative Party is now in the lead, at 37.7 percent of voting intentions, compared with Trudeau’s Liberals, at 33.7 percent. The left-of-center New Democratic Party was third at 18.5 percent."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ustin-trudeau-is-over/?utm_term=.46ee37b877b3

This Canadian never had a love affair with Trudeau, or Jean Chrétien before him.

(from WP)

In February 2018, Trudeau was criticized when his administration invited Khalistani nationalist Jaspal Atwal to the Canadian High Commission's dinner party in Delhi. Atwal had previously been convicted for the shooting and attempted murder of Indian Cabinet Minister Malkiat Singh Sidhu in 1986, as well as the assault on former B.C. Premier Ujjal Dosanjh in 1985. Following the dinner, the PMO rescinded the invitation, and apologized for the incident.[197][198][199][200]

That's what probably ticked off the Indian government more.


There are a fair amount of reports saying he's not as popular. However, keep in mind a few things:

1. While the NDP and Liberals (and to a certain extent, the Greens) split each other's vote—which is why Mulroney and Harper to be PMs as long as the have, Canada's political Right has done the same.

From about 1993 until 2002, Liberal—and Trudeaucrat—Jean Chrétien was elected 3 times and his intra-party rival got a few more years for the Liberals as the Progressive Conservative party's vote was split by the Reform/Allaince party and the Bloc Quebeccois.

and it has happened again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxime_Bernier

He ran in the 2017 Conservative Party of Canada leadership election, and came in a close second with over 49% of the vote in the 13th round, after leading the eventual winner, Andrew Scheer, in the first 12 rounds. On August 23, 2018, citing disagreements with Scheer's leadership, he resigned from the Conservative Party to create his own party.[2][3] The party's name, the People's Party of Canada, was announced on September 14.

has left the Conservative party—of which he was a big leadership contender— to form his own—the People's Party.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People**7s_Party_of_Canada

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Maxime_Bernier.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/Maxime_Bernier.jpg

[size=+1]Maxime Bernier: many say this ex-Conservative will help Trudeau win in 2019 by splitting the right wing vote.[/size]


Trump fans will note that he's the only notable Canadian saying Canada should get rid of supply management of milk and is most vocal against multiculturalism.

Maxime Bernier on his dramatic exit from the Conservative Party | Power & Politics
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IcrO1ynBfI
11:46
27,544 views (at the time)
The comments seem pretty favourable.

Phil Rackus
4 weeks ago
You are assuming that Scheer and his milquetoast approach is capable of producing a win. Based on the past performance, it seems rather probable that Scheer would not beat Trudeau even if Bernier had not left the Party. For the past 10 months Trudeau has hopped from one disaster to the next. He chased away 85 billion in new capital projects and made a fool of himself on the international scene. Notwithstanding his incompetence, the polls show him to be about 10 points ahead of Scheer and would form another majority government. So if Scheer could not gain a lead in the polls during that disasterous period, there is no reason to believe he will gain a lead in the polls during the election when all the mainstream media are promoting Trudeau and the Liberals. The reality is that Scheer can't beat Trudeau and that is not Bernier's fault.

2. When Liberals win the federal government, they tend to stay.

1962 to 1984 (minus most of 1979 when PCs had a minority)
1993 to 2004 (and arguably to 2011 when the Tories only had minority status)
Justin will soon be completing just his 3rd year.


3. (my own pet theory) When Liberals have Parliament, Tories have Queens Park (the Ontario Provincial Parliament), and vice-versa. This has been true for over 60 of the past 73 years.


4. (another my own pet theory) When Liberals have Parliament, Republicans tend to have the White House, and vice-versa; but while this has been true for over 27 of the past 58 years, since Mulroney (1992) the Tories had a majority for only 4 years, the Liberals for 3x that, and every Tory PM since 1980 (Mulroney and Harper) were and are staunce supporters of free trade and globalism, got along well with Obama, and are still married to their first wives. Lest the term "cuck-servative" be used, their sons arguably look more like their fathers than Trump his.


So no, I don't see Andrew Sheer becoming PM in the next few years, and while I predected the 2016 US Presidential election wrong, I didn't in 1996, 2004, 2008, 2012 (, I don't remember making a prediction for 2000), and pretty well got the Canadian ones right. (For the Record, I think Trump has a decent chance in 2020).

This thread was a tongue in cheek jab at the Canadians here who disparage Donald Trump as unfit for office while their own leader goes around the world looking like a friggin' idiot. That's all it was. A joke.

Somewhat fair enough. I think Hillary joked about an Middle Easterner—a gas bar owner?—I'm not sure.

Trudeau ain't great, Trump is worse; nor has Trudeau sucked up to Un, defended Putin, or praised Xi's dictatorship.

To a bunch of people who think the USA is the worst scourge to ever stain the soul of humanity.....(leftist and democrats) they find nothing funny about it.

I like the US and I find pretty well nothing funny about the joke—not offended, but not amused either.

They want a POTUS who hates the US and bends it over for the world to fuck just like all the "progressive" leaders have done for Canada and Europe.

How have we fucked the US?

It'd be nice to have a POTUS who isn't bellicose and believes in free trade and yes, freedom.

Because that's how they think, create a welfare state and then open it up to everyone except those who are paying for the shit....PROGRESS!!!

Most Canadian taxpayers—and I dare say 10s of millions of American taxpayers—kinda like at least a bit of a welfare state: not much worse than government infrastructure or the millitary-industrial complexes—does the American military have planes whose cost divided by mass exceeds that of gold?

Fucking morons. I just wish I could dump 30 or 40 million anti-western jihadis off around Europe so they can all enjoy that diversity!!

To hurt the Europeans or the anti-Western jihadis?

because he believes this person doesn't look like an idiot.

---

https://guce.oath.com/collectConsen...2b5-bdd9-0d463b7ae1d0&lang=en-gb&inline=false

https://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/5b4e2e431900002900c65f21.jpeg?ops=scalefit_630_noupscale

War mongers sure.

They aren't liberals though....all three were way big on government authority and control.

It'd have been nice if Hillary and Obama said a few things for Egyptian liberals and called what happened in Egypt a coup. Is it true that Hillary doesn't refer to the Armenian genocide?

 

[DMBFFF]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Harper

Stephen Joseph Harper PC (born April 30, 1959) is a Canadian economist, entrepreneur, and retired politician who served as the 22nd Prime Minister of Canada, from February 6, 2006, to November 4, 2015.

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada...ack_on_indias_warnings_of_sikh_extremism.html

Stephen Harper pushes back on India’s warnings of Sikh extremism
By Bruce Campion-SmithOttawa Bureau Chief
Thu., Nov. 8, 2012

BANGALORE, INDIA—Prime Minister Stephen Harper has pushed back against Indian government warnings of Sikh extremism in Canada, saying that the federal government won’t interfere in the right to free expression.

Separatist calls from within Canada’s Sikh community for the creation of the state of Khalistan in India’s Punjab region may be objectionable to governments but won’t be silenced, Harper said Thursday.

https://images.thestar.com/XrAWbyJUSm_DDX84BbcpsIZonBc=/1086x886/smart/filters:cb(1519181485944)/https://www.thestar.com/content/dam/thestar/news/canada/2012/11/08/stephen_harper_pushes_back_on_indias_warnings_of_sikh_extremism/harper.jpeg




https://www.darpanmagazine.com/news...ouvers-ross-street-gurudwara-amidst-protests/

https://media.darpanmagazine.com/news/content/modi-gurudwara.jpg

https://media.darpanmagazine.com/news/content/modi-canada10.jpg




https://www.thespec.com/news-story/2190416-harper-wraps-up-indian-visit-at-golden-temple/

 

[DMBFFF]

Harper wraps up Indian visit at Golden Temple
News Nov 18, 2009 Hamilton Spectator

https://dynamicmedia.zuza.com/zz/m/original_/8/a/8af1f280-4f7e-45b4-97ac-4e7a04b3d8d8/1de17f55430a89950bcf2b3acbc0_Gallery.jpeg




https://www.theglobeandmail.com/new...p-with-chaotic-tour-of-temple/article4292701/

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/resizer/0guDBfI5fDq6-dBKhBn5LT6qPmc=/480x0/filters:quality(80)/arc-anglerfish-tgam-prod-tgam.s3.amazonaws.com/public/D66OSLO3ERATJNG54BXWHEM6YA




http://blog.bennelms.ca/post/10292706069

https://78.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lrn26dc5Gz1qclswso1_1280.jpg




https://howlingpixel.com/i-en/Sikhism_in_Canada

(my bold)

Population

According to the 2011 National Household Survey, the number of Sikhs living in each of the Canadian provinces and territories is as shown in the following table. Unlike in India, Sikhs form the main religious group among South Asian immigrants in Canada. In India, Sikhs comprise 1.72% of the population, while Hindus make up the largest religious group at close to 79.8%. Among the Indo-Canadian population, the religious views are more evenly divided with Sikhs representing 28% and Hindus 28%.[4]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/ce/RMC_Sikh_cadets_at_annual_SIkh_Remembrance_Day_service.jpg/970px-RMC_Sikh_cadets_at_annual_SIkh_Remembrance_Day_service.jpg




https://torontosun.com/2012/11/07/i...tics/wcm/606b9b3b-c6d8-479a-8bfd-6f5cb238e984

http://storage.torontosun.com/v1/dynamic_resize/sws_path/suns-prod-images/1297335859685_ORIGINAL.jpg?size=520x


2.bp.********.com/_wAK2AbRU4ds/SwVrKCnm7KI/AAAAAAAADuI/uryUAogTspw/s1600/Harper+and+Singh-GIF.gif

True, Canada has much bigger problems. They can't win back their Stanley Cup. I mean, it even went to Tampa

It has nothing to do with racism. Culture isn't necessarily defined by race.

Did you know that despite the color of their skin, at least Northern Indians (India) are for the most part Caucasoid?

I agree with your first statement. I somewhat agree with your second statement; but most bigots—and I assert that the political right and particularly Trumpsters have a greater proportion of bigots—would disagree.

Mocking cultures of people who tend to have more who are darker.

*chuckle*

Call any of them Liberals and Liberals go crazy calling them centrists, pragmatic centrists even.
Liberals avoid the label as if it were the black death...

Untrue. I consider myself somewhat a Liberal, and unlike many Americans, in some parts of the world, "liberal" isn't an insult.

tee hee

Land of ice and snow...

Toronto is south of perhaps a third of the US.

Canadians are highly embarrassed to have a Prime Minister who wears false eyebrows. Unbelievable. Plastic ambitious politician.

Huh?

It's what you clowns like to refer to as "cultural appropriation."

But, he was a moron before he virtue signaled and engaged in that silly "appropriation."

The "cultural appropriation" issue might be something we might have some aggreement on. The loudest tend to be American (and Canadian) PC-types.

but any (R)'s who support voter ID are evil Nazis for subverting democracy!!

de facto poll tax, perhaps.

RightGuide, please respond to my questions.

Thanks.

Yeah.






and now for some of Toronto's Kiran Ahluwalia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiran_Ahluwalia

What every woman wants from a man—or maybe not.
(not sexual)

Kiran Ahluwalia - Koka
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRSBoj4oyas
3:59

 

[DMBFFF]

2.bp.********.com/_wAK2AbRU4ds/SwVrKCnm7KI/AAAAAAAADuI/uryUAogTspw/s1600/Harper+and+Singh-GIF.gif

2.
bp.
********.
com
/_wAK2AbRU4ds/SwVrKCnm7KI/AAAAAAAADuI/uryUAogTspw/s1600/Harper+and+Singh-GIF.gif[/img]

2.huh
bp.huh
bloghuhspot.
com/_wAK2AbRU4ds/SwVrKCnm7KI/AAAAAAAADuI/uryUAogTspw/s1600/Harper+and+Singh-GIF.gif[/img]



(it ain't obscene)

 

[Kirkrapine]

But Harper wearing that cap, it's not really cultural expropriation; it's more like Trump joining with the Arab royals in putting his hands on the Great Glowing Globe of Petrodollar Power.

 

[BotanyBoy]

The mischaracterization was the "equally poor" part, which is, of course, the only part that really matters. A redistributive tide lifts most boats.

It does lift most boats, until they go too far biting the hand that feeds and run out of other peoples money to spend.

Then tens of thousands if not millions starve to death and you've got a no-shit cannibal holocaust going on.

We've seen it happen REPEATEDLY through the last century and it's going on right now most famously in Venezuela and about starting in S. Africa, though they might pull back before things get too bad.

Good thing Greece had people to pick them up off the ground too or they would have just gone through a horrifying collapse.

Apart from the proposition that the USA should be a republic independent of Britain, there are really are no such things as "the core ideological beliefs of the USA." You will find them neither in the DoI nor in the Preamble.

Yes there are.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

https://billofrightsinstitute.org/f...lqVaLOsJdKKXEssdd47X94G1DoKAhkr0aAqTKEALw_wcB

^^ Radical liberalism....still radical today.

The Constitution itself is a testament to this by way of the governmental structure that it outlines and the BoR which on top of a government who's authority is hamstrung from the start is a list of shit the government isn't allowed to do. Sending leftist to the fucking moon with rage for quite some time now.

 

[BotanyBoy]

No. You analyze the sources first so you can understand what liberalism is. You don’t define something first and go find evidence of your definition. Christ, man, what was your major?

That process is called defining liberalism.

Undergraduate in Chem/Biology and graduate studies in molecular biology with a focus in plant science.

99% of which is fuckin' worthless shit, but fun.

No, boy, I did not. I said that poverty was one of the evils liberalism came about to fight. But I did not say by “wealth redistribution” or “social welfare”.

Ohhhh....so you just support wealth redistribution and social welfare and decided to consider it liberal?

In fact, I remember saying that the 18 and 19th century liberals wanted to make the poor richer but not the rich poorer.

Yes and refused to recognize they almost all if not all agreed one of the primary and most effective ways to do that was chaining oppressive, authoritarian government to the fuckin' wall with some really short chains in most areas concerning its own citizenry. Especially when it came to respecting private property and allowing if not facilitating and promoting economic liberty.

*sigh*

You keep making that false dichotomy. Socialism as in Communism, Maoism, actual wealth distribution where farmland is confiscated from wealthy landholders by the government and reassigned to otherwise penniless tenant farmers — that is Socialism with a capital S and that is the opposite of liberalism.

It's not a false dichotomy.

And that's no more "actual wealth distribution" than taking peoples income and or property every year to hand it over to other people is "actual wealth distribution"....either way at the end of the day you got jacked at gunpoint by the state.

But socialism with a lower case “s” is not the opposite of liberalism and is just one of many tools liberals employ.

H Socialism with a lower case "s" is different than socialism with a capital S?

And how is it suddenly acceptable to the liberal ideology because of that?