>>17978319
>I *do* think that libtards are closer to the spirit of our country's original founders.
The main difference as I see it between the classical liberalism historically espoused by Americans and the modern "libtard" is that the latter is only an imitation of the former.
The modern "libtard" takes their orders from nightly television broadcasts, and they regularly fall victim to basic rhetorical fallacies meant to convince them to give up their liberties, such as the Second Amendment. This is done at the same time as pretending that they are representing "liberal" values. In this sense, the "libtard" mimics classical liberalism and often takes the name "liberal," while in practice being subverted and turned into opponents that actually contribute to undermine freedoms of themselves and everyone else. Such people uniformly fall for very simple fallacies that are presented to them couched in liberal-sounding rhetoric, and they do so in a very stupid and gullible herdlike manner by those who write the television scripts that the libtards all watch.
The "libtards" would be precisely the people who started hyperventilating if they saw anyone not following the orders repeated by talking heads on television that everyone had to wear a mask during COVID.
>>17978319
>There's a consistent emphasis on freedom and liberty, at least among many of them.
Only superficially, in words. In practice they support the opposite of classical liberalism and have a herd mentality, taking their orders primarily from television such as the mainstream press and late night comedy shows, which is functionally their unifying principle.
>This is much harder to rationalize from the far right point of view.
I wouldn't consider the founders "far right" though. That would better fit the monarchists of Europe at the time. I don't think the founders were extremists for either side. Far left and far right both think violence is needed to enforce their order, while classical liberals do not.
