USA elections 2020 - 2021

[Coughdrop addict]

Except the "threaten to murder them part" which never happened of course. Please find me some proof that a Republican politician threatened to murder any of Trump's accusers.

When I say Republicans I don't just me politicians, I also mean the voters. Ford received death threats. Trump accusers have had to go into hiding.

Also, Except for apologizing to Hillary for the lock-her up, since even Republican state department didn't find anything to blame her for after years of investigations. Lock-her-uppers should be sending emails to Hillary's private account with their apologies by the tens of thousands.
Hillary was crucified and lost the election over a nothingburger scandal that ended up not even being criminal.

I should have added apologizing for accusing her at various times of being a traitor, murderer, cannibal, and child rapist (though to be fair the last two accusations are still mostly confined to the Qanon cultists.)

[alhoon]

When I say Republicans I don't just me politicians, I also mean the voters. Ford received death threats. Trump accusers have had to go into hiding.


I should have added apologizing for accusing her at various times of being a traitor, murderer, cannibal, and child rapist (though to be fair the last two accusations are still mostly confined to the Qanon cultists.)

To be fair, trying to hold the whole GOP (or democrats) responsible over the actions of some idiots that offer their vote to that party is very bad.
There are probably people that voted for Democrats that sent death threats to Trump supporters and some crappy comedian that posted a photo with Trump's severed head etc. I don't think the democrats should apologize for that incident neither it would be reasonable to do so.
A few democrats took part in the neonazi rally in Charlottesville despite that being a mostly far-right gathering. Members of black gangs in NYC were trying to bully perceived McCain voters to stay home in 2008 to influence the election in favor of Obama.

Is cannibalism illegal? Or it falls under the umbrella of disrespecting a dead body?


However, the PotUS having whole stadiums chanting lock-her-up about his political opponent is a veeeeery different issue.
A senator and democratic nominee in the 2020 primaries grating Kavanaugh in 2018 while she supports Biden in 2020 against Reade is also different issue.
Biden's 2018 words should come back to haunt him. That's what Trump should be blasting over his rallies over and over.


And before you say "There are tons of accusers against Trump"... Trump's base doesn't give a crap though. He was caught on mic saying that as a star he could grab them by the genitals and all the "this is the end of Donald Trump" rhetoric was proven false. I.e. people voted Trump for PotUS while such allegations against him were known and public. Sure, bring the accusers up against Trump. I frankly support this as I do believe such claims should be investigated.
But they should also be investigated against Biden. It is not often that I agree with AOC, but I agree with her on that.

Democrat brass including Biden have 3 choices when it comes to the scandal with Reade:
- Say "I stand by Biden's 2018 words so Biden should be assumed to be guilty." (AOC, some #MeToo era celebrities and journalists)
- Say "I changed my mind about Believe all women, I now believe in Due process and as such, I want to apologize to Supreme Justice Kavanaugh and admit I was an idiot with views that didn't serve justice." (I really hope there are some that admit their stance in 2018 was wrong)
- Prove they are hypocrites. (Most of the democrats from midrank and up and of course the #MeWho? movement)


I really wish the journalists to grill the Kavanaugh-crucifiers when they say "When we said Believe Women, we meant with a due process" and ask the follow-up question "So, do you offer an apology to Kavanaugh and his family for what you said in A-date, B-date and C-date of 2018?"

I also really wish for people to grill the Biden-crucifiers that also changed their stance from 2018. The Republicans that demand Biden to be held over the fire over allegations not yet investigated while they were decrying the absence of due process in 2018.
That coin with the hypocrites has two sides.

I would dare say there are posters in this forum that were tooooo ready to jump on the "Kavanaugh is innocent! Ford is Fraud!" train while now they seem easily convinced that Biden has done naughty things. Here is the thread from 2018 for anyone interested to see how opinions on either side change when your guy is the one accused (there are sources about politicians, op-eds etc in there that are on the side of "Believe immediately" or "Due process!").

[Lord Thesaurian]

I suppose this bears repeating in an election year:

Trump’s claims about building the best economy rang hollow even before the coronavirus knocked out the service sectors


Trump’s claim of “the best economy in the history of the world,” which he repeats every chance he gets, is based on two metrics: the civilian unemployment rate, which was hovering near a half-century low of 3.5% until February; and the stock market, which hit an all-time high in February.

And he didn’t build it. The unemployment rate had been on a downward trajectory since peaking at 10% in October 2009. It had already dropped to 4.7% when Trump took office in January 2017, so the trend was already in place.


Under the circumstances, “as good as it gets” is closer to the truth than “the greatest in the history of the world.”

As for Trump’s forecast for a “tremendous comeback” and a “spectacular” third and fourth quarter, don’t count on it.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/tr...ors-2020-04-30

[Heathen Hammer]

Blaming Trump for external factors totally outside of his control (outbreak of Chinese virus caused by China and WHO) is a great way to discredit already very discredited stance of TDS crowd. I'm sure journos and their handlers in liberal elites will get more and more deranged as the election comes closer. This will be fun. And a bit scary, given how antifa types tend to embrace terrorism more and more.

Putin is a centrist and a liberal now? Dude, Russia is supporting all far right movements in EU right now. The Golden Dawn of Greece (neo-Nazis that openly state they don't believe in democracy and want a dictatorship) is very close to Putin's circle.

And Ukrainian regime and various openly Nazi-like groups such as Azov that fought on pro-American side against Novorussian secession were very close to Democratic party and EU and NATO by the same logic. Putin's Russia is what happens when you let centrist liberals do their thing - authoritarian oligarchy, with no free speech and very limited individual freedoms.

The core principle of Centrist Liberalism is not being authoritarian or liberal. Nothing to do with lack of principles, nothing to do with "play to win". It just happens that Centrism is usually the best path so that path mostly wins.
I.e. it's not that the people that are centrists "play to win" it's that people that are centrists tend to win because their ideology allows them to win. I.e. they are the wisest people.

Except that they don't really have principles and they can get very authoritarian, if they are allowed to do so. Luckily, unlike Blair's UK or Putin's Russia, USA has a system of checks and balances that prevents such politicians from abusing their power as much, but boy do the try.
Not to mention that centrism is practically the worst path and isn't very popular- hence why we say current crop of Democrat contenders for primaries went full wingnut, demanding things like free health care for illegal aliens, gun confiscations and other things that are are not centrist at all, trying to appeal to "democratic socialists" and other very non-centrist demographics. Heck, Trump is much closer to the center then Democrats are. Not that being a centrist is a good thing and Trump should be criticized for that.

[Gaidin]

Democrat brass including Biden have 3 choices when it comes to the scandal with Reade:
- Say "I stand by Biden's 2018 words so Biden should be assumed to be guilty." (AOC, some #MeToo era celebrities and journalists)
- Say "I changed my mind about Believe all women, I now believe in Due process and as such, I want to apologize to Supreme Justice Kavanaugh and admit I was an idiot with views that didn't serve justice." (I really hope there are some that admit their stance in 2018 was wrong)
- Prove they are hypocrites. (Most of the democrats from midrank and up and of course the #MeWho? movement)

So. Curiousity. What day in 1993 did Biden sexually assault Reade? Where in the Senate Building?

It's some real good amnesia there. I mean, I understand reluctance to come forward and all. But, "sometime in 1993" doesn't cut it if you want more than "It absolutely did not happen" in response. Let's have a date. Let's have a time. Let's have a location. Maybe Biden was on the Senate floor. Or at the dentist.

As long as the best we get is eh..."some time in 1993" this goes no further than "he said, she said". And you're not getting any further than Juanita Broaddrick.

Of course, if you want another Duke LaCrosse team...go have fun.

[Heathen Hammer]

So. Curiousity. What day in 1993 did Biden sexually assault Reade? Where in the Senate Building?

It's some real good amnesia there. I mean, I understand reluctance to come forward and all. But, "sometime in 1993" doesn't cut it if you want more than "It absolutely did not happen" in response. Let's have a date. Let's have a time. Let's have a location. Maybe Biden was on the Senate floor. Or at the dentist.

As long as the best we get is eh..."some time in 1993" this goes no further than "he said, she said". And you're not getting any further than Juanita Broaddrick.

Of course, if you want another Duke LaCrosse team...go have fun.

Democrats during Kavanaugh scandal: #believe women, it was a while ago, so contradictions in accusation don't matter
Democrats during Biden scandal: If the accuser can't describe the tiniest detail of the building it didn't happen

Way to show everyone how you are willing to throw any principles you have down the toilet under slightest pressure.

[Gaidin]

That was actually a specific night with a story and hearings for the press to hoard off of. If you can’t spot the difference I can’t help you.

Tell me Heathen where were you between the hours of 12:00 am January 1 1993 and 11:59 pm December 31 1993. Details for the timeline now.

[Heathen Hammer]

That was actually a specific night with a story and hearings for the press to hoard off of. If you can’t spot the difference I can’t help you.

Tell me Heathen where were you between the hours of 12:00 am January 1 1993 and 11:59 pm December 31 1993. Details for the timeline now.

The only difference is that libs have different sets of standards and women's rights and all that feminist stuff that libs claimed to defend is tossed by them in the gutter as soon as it is threatening their own side. Also didn't really see you demand same amount of detail from Kavanaugh accuser.

[Gaidin]

The only difference is that libs have different sets of standards and women's rights and all that feminist stuff that libs claimed to defend is tossed by them in the gutter as soon as it is threatening their own side. Also didn't really see you demand same amount of detail from Kavanaugh accuser.

Tell me Heathen where were you between the hours of 12:00 am January 1 1993 and 11:59 pm December 31 1993. Details for the timeline now.

[tgoodenow]

Tell me Heathen where were you between the hours of 12:00 am January 1 1993 and 11:59 pm December 31 1993. Details for the timeline now.

He's going to have to release all transcripts from that time though. With the Washington Post calling for it, he'll be unable to resist.

Here's a Democrat state Senator from New Hamsphire's take on the allegations:

“Judging by the position of the female vagina, it will not be easy for just anyone to put their finger into the vagina unless their is some Cooperation from the female herself. That is why I believe Tara Reade’s allegations is false. She is looking for attention.”

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...out-tara-reade

I feel like Democrat operatives are driving this so they can kick Biden off the ticket.

[Heathen Hammer]

Tell me Heathen where were you between the hours of 12:00 am January 1 1993 and 11:59 pm December 31 1993. Details for the timeline now.

This selective skepticism is the reason why your side isn't taken seriously by the rational part of the left as well. Enjoy the landslide in November.

[alhoon]

Putin's Russia is what happens when you let centrist liberals do their thing - authoritarian oligarchy, with no free speech and very limited individual freedoms.

Do you know what Centrist Liberal means, or you call that way everything you don't agree with?
Authoritarian oligarchy is the exact opposite of Liberalism. Liberals = free market, globalism, socially progressive. Authoritarian oligarchy is completely opposite. Putin's Russia is conservative and not progressive, Putin's Russia is a practically an economic oligarchy (no real Free Market), Putin's Russia is nationalist and not globalist.

Also, the spectrum is "Left - Right" and "Authoritarian - Liberal". I mean, It's a complete antithesis.
Saying "Authoritarian Liberal" is like saying "those leftist rightwings" or "Pious atheist"

So. Curiousity. What day in 1993 did Biden sexually assault Reade? Where in the Senate Building?

What this has to do with the horrible double standards of #MeeToo treatment between Kavanaugh and Biden? Or the horrible hypocrisy of Senator Gillibrand?

[Heathen Hammer]

Do you know what Centrist Liberal means, or you call that way everything you don't agree with?
Authoritarian oligarchy is the exact opposite of Liberalism. Liberals = free market, globalism, socially progressive. Authoritarian oligarchy is completely opposite. Putin's Russia is conservative and not progressive, Putin's Russia is a practically an economic oligarchy (no real Free Market), Putin's Russia is nationalist and not globalist.

Um, no. Putin's Russia is run by oligarchs and its main ideology is neo-Soviet internationalist BS. Putin is as nationalist as Merkel or Trudeau.

Also, the spectrum is "Left - Right" and "Authoritarian - Liberal". I mean, It's a complete antithesis.
Saying "Authoritarian Liberal" is like saying "those leftist rightwings" or "Pious atheist"

Because classical liberals of today are libertarians. People that call themselves "liberal" today are supporters of authoritarian oligarchy peppered with pseudo-egalitarian virtue-signalling. I guess you can start a debate about change of meaning of certain terminology, but in the current context it means what it means.

[Gaidin]

What this has to do with the horrible double standards of #MeeToo treatment between Kavanaugh and Biden? Or the horrible hypocrisy of Senator Gillibrand?

I wouldn't know given I'm neither a democrat nor a person trying to turn a twitter tag into a movement. I just know that if you want more than a denial, you need more than a year. I know the Larry King interview happened on August 11th, and her payments stopped in August as well so we could say she was fired in August as well, so that narrows it down to January to July. Seven month window there. Again, bit broad to get anything other than "not me" from Biden.

Here's the real world alhoon. I don't bite on vague accusations. You expect a detailed response, give a detailed accusation. #MeToo is about listening to the accusation. That's fine. But the social contract is a two way street. The two way street is hard. You learned that in September 2018. Real people listen. But real people ask questions. Be ready to answer.

[Heathen Hammer]

I wouldn't know given I'm neither a democrat nor a person trying to turn a twitter tag into a movement. I just know that if you want more than a denial, you need more than a year. I know the Larry King interview happened on August 11th, and her payments stopped in August as well so we could say she was fired in August as well, so that narrows it down to January to July. Seven month window there. Again, bit broad to get anything other than "not me" from Biden.

Here's the real world alhoon. I don't bite on vague accusations. You expect a detailed response, give a detailed accusation. #MeToo is about listening to the accusation. That's fine. But the social contract is a two way street. The two way street is hard. You learned that in September 2018. Real people listen. But real people ask questions. Be ready to answer.

Did you even read his post you replied to? Whether accusations against Biden are real or not is irrelevant. The point is that hyperpartisan journos treat same situations differently. They demanded that Kavanaugh accuser is believed and immediately denounced woman, that accused Biden, as liar in literally same circumstances. That's as hypocritical as it gets.

[Gaidin]

So again. Out of curiousity. What were you doing between the hours of 12:00am January 1st 1993 and 11:59pm December 31st 1993 HH?

[Heathen Hammer]

So again. Out of curiousity. What were you doing between the hours of 12:00am January 1st 1993 and 11:59pm December 31st 1993 HH?

That has nothing to do with hypocrisy of Democratic alphabet agitprop.

[alhoon]

I wouldn't know given I'm neither a democrat nor a person trying to turn a twitter tag into a movement. I just know that if you want more than a denial, you need more than a year. I know the Larry King interview happened on August 11th, and her payments stopped in August as well so we could say she was fired in August as well, so that narrows it down to January to July. Seven month window there. Again, bit broad to get anything other than "not me" from Biden.

Here's the real world alhoon. I don't bite on vague accusations. You expect a detailed response, give a detailed accusation. #MeToo is about listening to the accusation. That's fine. But the social contract is a two way street. The two way street is hard. You learned that in September 2018. Real people listen. But real people ask questions. Be ready to answer.

I am not expecting a detailed accusation. I believe both Ford and Reade should be heard and then without a media circus, their testimonies and evidence should be examined by appropriate people that have more info and not just the few things they read here and there.
BUT... that is me. And that's what I was saying back in 2018 too, when the democrat media circus was going for Kavanaugh's head without waiting for the due process.

Alissa Milano demanded Ford to be auto-believed and now Auto-believes Biden. Double Standards.
Senator Gillibrand was hitting Kavanaugh hard and strong and now sides with Biden asking for due process. The same Due Process that she didn't wait for, before hitting Kavanaugh with full-on broadside barrages.
Biden said in 2018 that "when a woman alleges sexual assault, presume she is telling the truth". And now for some reason doesn't want people to presume that Tara Read is telling the truth, but look at the evidence without previous assumptions.

Yes, all Biden's supporters are now right. Soooo... one would expect them to offer their heartfelt apologies to Kavanaugh and his family and beg his forgiveness for their rush actions in 2018. Or, if they keep believing in trials-by-media, they should be crucifying Biden with the same fervor they attacked Kavanaugh. Or ... they could be branded as the hypocrites they are.
Also, the coin has two sides. All the Republicans that were "Wait and see!" and "Due process!!!111" and "Trials by media hypes are unfair!" 1 1/2 years ago, should remember their words now that are attacking Biden. And there's no shortage of those side-flippers either.

Half of #MeToo, the real ones not the fakes, point at the double standards and ask for Tara Reade to be believed. Do I agree that Tara Reade should be auto-believed? No. I think that her accusations should be very carefully examined away of the media circus. As it should have happened with Ford's accusations.
The [B]OTHER HALF/B] of #MeToo turned, as mentioned to #MeWho? and looks the other side because OrangeManBaaad so OldToucher=good.

I wouldn't know given I'm neither a democrat nor a person trying to turn a twitter tag into a movement.

And you will notice that my post didn't address people that hold your beliefs, but the Media Circus that Attacked Kavanaugh as a rapist in 2018 without waiting for evidence and now changed sides (and the equivalent Circus that defended him without waiting for evidence and now also changed sides).

Um, no. Putin's Russia is run by oligarchs and its main ideology is neo-Soviet internationalist BS.

Nope. His Neo-Soviet BS is not globalist, it is nationalistic. Also, globalism doesn't equal internationalism the same as nationalism doesn't equal isolationism.
Being run by oligarchs means he's not liberal. Being run by banks though could be argued to be pro-globalism. But Russia is not run by banks, but by Putin's clique and despite their many crimes and flaws, I really believe most of them want the best for Russia, even if I don't agree with their view for Russia.
They also think their view on what's best for Russia is not up to debate and use authoritarian means to pursue what they view as the best route. And line their pockets on the way, but that's just the "perks" not the goal.

People that call themselves "liberal" today are supporters of authoritarian oligarchy peppered with pseudo-egalitarian virtue-signalling. I guess you can start a debate about change of meaning of certain terminology, but in the current context it means what it means.

Here is the thing: The above definition of liberals you give makes sense. I don't agree with it, but it makes sense. Many leftwings say the exact same thing (sorry to bring it to you, but a ton of leftwings are anti-globalist because they are anti-bank and anti-corporations and anti-multinationals).
However look at the words you used and their meaning.
The Oligarchy you talk about is Oligarchy1: Banks, liberals (the classic liberal definition), neoliberals, globalists, multinationals, Western world Billionaires etc. Throw in Soros and stuff if you want.

That is not the only Oligarchy!
Putin's Oligarchy is Oligarchy2: Nationalists, Raw-resources multinationals, Eastern Europe / Caucasus Billionaires, Mobster-turned-oligarchs, European Anti-Americanism, isolationists etc.

There's also Oligarchy3: Chinese Communist Party, Anarchocapitalists, Raw-resources multinationals #2, Asian and African Chinese-sphere warlords, Asian Anti-Americanism etc.

And of course, there's Oligarchy4: Saudi Sheiks, UAE emirs, South-Asian Sunnis, Oil-rich muslims, Islamic extremism puppet-masters, Middle East Sunni warlords etc.


(Important note: I don't agree with the terms laid out above. For starters, unlike leftwings and far-rights, I don't consider the Western World to be in the grabs of a few hundred evil, profit-oriented billionaires and bankers - but that's the terms often used when they are grouped together as "the evil EU!" or "the fascist USA!" etc).

NOW... Oligarchy1 is top at the time. Oligarchy4 is making a comeback after Bush2 hit them at the behest of Oligarchy1.
Oligarchy4 is currently partially allied with Oligarchy1 but not completely of course. A lot of oil money get to anti-Oligarchy1 and anti-Oligarchy3 extremist organizations and they use their oil muscle to hit Oligarchy2 hard.
Oligarchy2, Putin's Oligarchy, is currently in a weird dance with Oligarchy3. They have conflicting interests in some areas but aligning interests in others.


But to call Putin a centrist Liberal = putting him in Oligarchy1.
That, aside of completely not true (he's neither centrist nor liberal in any sense) is also confusing for people that really try to understand your posts! Simply put, you speak a different language than the people you try to discuss with.

[Heathen Hammer]

[QUOTE=alhoon;15907779]
Nope. His Neo-Soviet BS is not globalist, it is nationalistic. Also, globalism doesn't equal internationalism the same as nationalism doesn't equal isolationism.
Being run by oligarchs means he's not liberal. Being run by banks though could be argued to be pro-globalism. But Russia is not run by banks, but by Putin's clique and despite their many crimes and flaws, I really believe most of them want the best for Russia, even if I don't agree with their view for Russia.
They also think their view on what's best for Russia is not up to debate and use authoritarian means to pursue what they view as the best route. And line their pockets on the way, but that's just the "perks" not the goal. [/quot]
If Russia was nationalist, it would not be an oligarchy. I mean with that logic Trudeau isn't liberal, since he is basically puppet of the oligarchy. Same applies to pretty much every centrist liberal out there.
Also to be nationalist requires... nationalism. Which lacks in modern Russia, plagues by "anti-extremism" laws and apologism for politicians like Lenin. In leaked words of RT's head Margaret Simonjan "If we allow democratic elections in Russia, Russians will come to power and punish us".

Here is the thing: The above definition of liberals you give makes sense. I don't agree with it, but it makes sense. Many leftwings say the exact same thing (sorry to bring it to you, but a ton of leftwings are anti-globalist because they are anti-bank and anti-corporations and anti-multinationals).
However look at the words you used and their meaning.
The Oligarchy you talk about is Oligarchy1: Banks, liberals (the classic liberal definition), neoliberals, globalists, multinationals, Western world Billionaires etc. Throw in Soros and stuff if you want.

That is not the only Oligarchy!
Putin's Oligarchy is Oligarchy2: Nationalists, Raw-resources multinationals, Eastern Europe / Caucasus Billionaires, Mobster-turned-oligarchs, European Anti-Americanism, isolationists etc.

There's also Oligarchy3: Chinese Communist Party, Anarchocapitalists, Raw-resources multinationals #2, Asian and African Chinese-sphere warlords, Asian Anti-Americanism etc.

And of course, there's Oligarchy4: Saudi Sheiks, UAE emirs, South-Asian Sunnis, Oil-rich muslims, Islamic extremism puppet-masters, Middle East Sunni warlords etc.


(Important note: I don't agree with the terms laid out above. For starters, unlike leftwings and far-rights, I don't consider the Western World to be in the grabs of a few hundred evil, profit-oriented billionaires and bankers - but that's the terms often used when they are grouped together as "the evil EU!" or "the fascist USA!" etc).

NOW... Oligarchy1 is top at the time. Oligarchy4 is making a comeback after Bush2 hit them at the behest of Oligarchy1.
Oligarchy4 is currently partially allied with Oligarchy1 but not completely of course. A lot of oil money get to anti-Oligarchy1 and anti-Oligarchy3 extremist organizations and they use their oil muscle to hit Oligarchy2 hard.
Oligarchy2, Putin's Oligarchy, is currently in a weird dance with Oligarchy3. They have conflicting interests in some areas but aligning interests in others.


But to call Putin a centrist Liberal = putting him in Oligarchy1.
That, aside of completely not true (he's neither centrist nor liberal in any sense) is also confusing for people that really try to understand your posts! Simply put, you speak a different language than the people you try to discuss with.

I do agree with you in part, but oligarchies aren't different types as much as different stages. So Democrats aren't as far down the rabbit hole as Putin is. But they are heading to the same direction. Same applies to other politicians like Trudeau. Slowly, but inevitably, ideology is used to erode individual freedoms (speech, gun rights, property rights, etc), people protesting are shamed via emotional propaganda and pocket media, and if they persist, they are branded "extremists" and repressed. Liberalism here is ideology that was used to get there, same can be said in case of Putin as his predecessor Yeltsin positioned himself as "liberal democrat" despite the fact that in 1993 he brutally suppressed Russia's Democratic Parliament to give himself dictatorial powers.

[alhoon]

Here's the issue with what you say about Putin: You can be a nationalist and a patriot and still be an authoritarian jerk. Loving your country and wanting what you think is the best for this country Does not mean you are right in what is best of the country!!! Aslo, It will often lead you to be authoritarian if you think that you and only you know what is best for the country. That's why so many of the dictators are nationalists.
You can also be an oligarch if you think that your clique is all that keeps your country together.
Being a nationalist does not equate you are pro-liberty. On the contrary, most nationalists are authoritarian jerks.

And you know what? Putin is right. He is an authoritarian Jerk but his authoritarian and underhanded ways enabled him to pull Russia out of the Yeltsin Mire. Yeltsin... that was a globalist of the Oligarchy1 like Turd-eau and Macron that chose an adulterous pedophile for his wife.
Back in the 90s, saying "Russian Girl" in Greece was more or less the equivalent of saying "prostitute" as so many have flooded our strip clubs following the collapse of the Soviet Union. Putin, for all his faults pulled Russia out of that mire. Russia is not Western-values society. They kinda need their strongmen. Same with the Middle East. Remove the strongman and a zealot will take his place.

Anyway, back to Nationalists: Being nationalist doesn't mean you're pro-free speech for example. Or that you're above feeling your pockets with money as a "bonus" for a job well done. Or that you won't sell drugs in the back alleys of Moscow to finance your raise to power. Or that you will respect the right of others to disagree with you. Or that you will allow them gun rights.
Being a nationalist just means you are a nationalist, not other traits.

THAT is the crux of the issue. You assume that the people you discuss with realize that for you (and only you) nationalist = patriot that is pro-guns and individual freedoms. That is simply not what nationalist is. You could call those patriotic, non-interventionist, pro-individual freedom people pilots or hairdressers and you would be equally confusing.
So, please, use terminology that the rest of us use. It takes... several posts to translate what you say to what you mean.

I can't keep a "Heather Hammer Dictionary" that says "Nationalist means patriotic, non-interventionist with respect to individual freedoms in Heathen Hammer's language".
Or "Leftwing = Globalist, often in the pockets of banks and multinationals in HH's language".
It is simply too difficult.