From your linked pdf:

Ukraine is the only country in the world where cluster munitions are being used as of August 2022.

• Russia has used cluster munitions extensively since invading Ukraine on 24 February 2022.

• Ukrainian forces appear to have used them at least three times during the conflict.

• There were no reports of new cluster munition use in any other country during the reporting period (from August 2021 to July 2022).

149 cluster munitions casualties recorded in 2021; a 59% decrease from 2020 total (360).

• Civilians accounted for 97% of all casualties.

• Children accounted for 66% of all casualties where the age was known.

• 2021 was the first year in a decade that there were no new casualties resulting from cluster munition attacks.

• Cluster munition remnant casualties recorded in: Azerbaijan | Iraq | Lao PDR | Lebanon | Mauritania | Nagorno-Karabakh Sudan | Syria | Tajikistan | Western Sahara |Yemen

• Preliminary data indicates at least 689 civilian casualties during cluster munition attacks in Ukraine during the first half of 2022.

So to summarize:

1. Nearly every cluster bomb being used worldwide is being used by Russians in Ukraine
2. Nearly every cluster bomb casualty is a civilian

Considering that Russia has an extremely well-documented history of specifically targeting civilians, regardless of munitions type, this seems like more of a Russia problem than a cluster bomb problem (at least to the point that it renders these specific statistics moot in a discussion about the general risks of cluster munitions, when used by militaries that are not as barbarous and murderous as the Russian military)

So is your definition of “liberal” just “someone who wants to maintain the status quo”, full stop? If so, that’s a very strange definition.

As I understand it, Classical liberalism, as described in the link you provided generally just prioritizes individual liberty. It’s not full on anti-government libertarianism, but it favors a limited government.

And again, as I understand it, Neoliberalism is essentially the orthodoxy of the west, post WW2. It’s still largely focused on individual liberty but perhaps not to the same extreme, and it’s largely based on the idea that capitalism (regulated, and with social safety nets) can be harnessed as a global force for good.

I don’t see how anyone who adheres to either of those ideas could use them to justify an anti-abortion position, aside from deranged religious based arguments about fetal personhood.

Right, it seems pretty likely that he’s just going to run as a third party to try to spoil Biden’s vote, because at least some percentage of left-leaving people might be likely to vote for a candidate just because they see the Kennedy name on the ballot, without knowing anything about him. It’s already been reported that his biggest donors are also major donors to GOP candidates.