What will it take (2 Viewers)

[The Commish]

I agree with this, though I’d go further and wonder if the social constructs we were taught in HS were even valid then.  I’m of similar age, and I got an extremely white washed version of US history, social structure, and basic economics back in my HS days.  

Agree 100% on the history and social structure part...that was my experience too.  I can only speak to my personal experience with economics though.  We were well prepared coming from my school, but there was an intentional focus on that subject as well as personal finance etc, so I might be the exception.  I feel like what I was taught in high school pretty much rang true and proved itself often until the mid 2000s.  Though what I will say is what I learned in high school economics class was very different than what they were teaching in my college level classes.  College had already started to make changes to constructs.

The overall problem here is, the people running this country are still relying on what THEY learned in high school and college.  That means they are using constructs that were antiquated even by my experience in high school.  Trying to apply them now is akin to putting a model T out on the drag strip against a current day top fuel dragster.

 

[glock]

More "that was then, this is now" if I may- from a learned buddy of mine:

"Because democracy and capitalism are inherently op-positional and each runs counter to the other's aims, the rise of corporate power is slowly killing democracy in the United States. American politics have always revolved around the tension between democratic principles and the public good on the one hand, and the lust for plunder, profit and empire on the other. We've morphed over the past 30 years into a corporatist oligarchic kleptocracy run by pointy headed technocrats and lackeys.

Since the mid 1970s when corporate power merged with the state, a new imperial complex was formed at the expense of representative democracy. Not only would corporations exercise public authority, but the state would serve corporate activity. To construct this new order elections needed to be drained of any remaining democratic content. Both Republicans and Democrats are complicit in this endeavor. Neither party wants election or campaign finance reform because fair and free elections would topple the system.

Corporations now have the power to control content and information and aren't shy about managing the First Amendment. The corporate media broadcasts propaganda to sway public opinion. The fact is that both political parties are worthless because they offer only austerity and the worst kind of identity politics. Without government subsidies, tax breaks and political protection, corporations would cease to function and corporate power would cease to pervade government at the highest levels.

The Reagan Administration empowered bankers, revised the tax code in favor of corporations and redistributed wealth. By the early 1990s the corporatization of the American government was a fait accompli. Corporations are a law unto themselves and in direct command of the power of the state. Corporate lobbyists spend billions of dollars each year trying to get Congress to rewrite the law to make it more corporate friendly. They simply want more for themselves and less for everybody else.

There is nothing "free" about the market. It's politically driven every step of the way. Workers worldwide continue to be exploited for profit by corporations who appropriate technologies for their own private use. Most discretionary spending in the US budget goes to the miltary-corporate-industiral complex, the second largest centrally planned economy in the world. The tax codes permit corporations to evade tax liability and hoard cash. Corporation and billionaires as of 2017 shelter $31 trillion, a sum larger than the GDP of the United States and Japan combined.

Corporations plunder the environment and our natural resources whose extraction destroys the natural world. Pollution costs to the tune of $2 trillion per year are "externalized" and taken off corporate books. Risk is also externalized and we end up paying for it. The government bailed out the banks in 2008 to the tune of $16 trillion. The fusion of the corporation and the state is our political economy, not free market capitalism."

Sooo- how do we get back where we belong?

 

[jon_mx]

The question posed was: "what will it take for working class and poor whites to figure out they have more in common with working class or poor people no matter the color of their skin than they do with rich white folks?"

Is it your position that working class/poor whites know the bolded things but working class/poor minorities do not?  Because that is what you are saying when you reply to the question posed in this manner.

You and I have certainly had our differences, but that doesn't sound like you.  Can you clarify?

Know is probably not the correct word, value is better.  Most poor whites value limited government and economic freedom/capitalism much more.  While most minorities value equality and economic justice more.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Know is probably not the correct word, value is better.  Most poor whites value limited government and economic freedom/capitalism much more.  While most minorities value equality and economic justice more.

Thanks for the clarification.

I disagree with your black and white characterization of the "sides" and capitalism vs socialism, in fact I think both "sides" are at almost identical points of the capitalism/socialism spectrum with only minor disagreements that don't always cut the same way. But given your perspective, why do you think poor whites value economic freedom/capitalism over economic justice if they are, by definition, on the losing end of the equation?  I think that's the question the OP is asking. Do you think poor white people believe they deserve to be poor?

 

[Hawkeye21]

Thanks for the clarification.

I disagree with your black and white characterization of the "sides" and capitalism vs socialism, in fact I think both "sides" are at almost identical points of the capitalism/socialism spectrum with only minor disagreements that don't always cut the same way. But given your perspective, why do you think poor whites value economic freedom/capitalism over economic justice if they are, by definition, on the losing end of the equation?  I think that's the question the OP is asking. Do you think poor white people believe they deserve to be poor?

I've seen it first hand where poor white people do not support what actually benefits them.  The ones I know are the most vocal conservatives I know yet they are not helped by what conservatives stand for and take advantage of things like welfare.  I have a friend who is like that it just seems crazy.  He is what gives Trump supporters a bad name and he fits the stereotype well.

 

[jon_mx]

Thanks for the clarification.

I disagree with your black and white characterization of the "sides" and capitalism vs socialism, in fact I think both "sides" are at almost identical points of the capitalism/socialism spectrum with only minor disagreements that don't always cut the same way. But given your perspective, why do you think poor whites value economic freedom/capitalism over economic justice if they are, by definition, on the losing end of the equation?  I think that's the question the OP is asking. Do you think poor white people believe they deserve to be poor?

Probably culture and perspective and is argueably the result of political rhetoric.  The poor white realize/accept the reason for their situation is they probably did not take education and carreer seriously until it was too late.  Minorities are told and tend to believe it is due to their race.   

 

[FF Ninja]

Of course the liberal-think is that the only answer is they must be racist.

However, the correct answer is they know that big government is not the answer.   Free health care, free education, guaranteed income, etc. is a social utopia that will eventually fail.   Government does not produce anything.  People have to work and produce so that there are enough good and services.   As evil, scary and cold-hearted as big corporations are, big government will become far far worse.  Until liberals grasps that not everyone believes in their socialist utopia fantasies, they will never appeal to people who understand that like corporations, government must be limited and kept in check.  But go back to it's all racism and other derogatory beliefs.  

Of course the conservative-think is that anyone who opposes Republican candidates (who clearly don't vote to represent their constituents, but rather their lobbyists) must be a socialist liberal. 

We desperately need more than a 2 party system, but it should be abundantly clear by now that it's the far right and everybody else, so please stop disingenuously labeling everyone else a liberal and disingenuously labeling all liberals as socialists.   

What grinds my gears the most is "conservatives" crying about how Democrats will spend money when the sitting president is on pace to set a record for greatest federal deficit. I don't agree with most of these expensive social programs, but I firmly believe anyone who takes office next will spend less money than Trump AND spend it more efficiently. 

 

[FF Ninja]

Sooo- how do we get back where we belong?

I don't agree with all her proposed plans, but this is your answer and the primary reason I'm rooting for her.

END WASHINGTON CORRUPTION

Washington works great for the wealthy and the well-connected, but it isn’t working for anyone else. Companies and wealthy individuals spend billions every year to influence Congress and federal agencies to put their interests ahead of the public interest. This is deliberate, and we need to call this what it is—corruption, plain and simple. That’s why Elizabeth has proposed the most ambitious set of anti-corruption reforms since Watergate to fundamentally change the way Washington does business.

We will start by ending lobbying as we know it by closing loopholes so everyone who lobbies must register, shining sunlight on their activities, banning foreign governments from hiring Washington lobbyists, and shutting down the ability of lobbyists to move freely in and out of government jobs.

 

[jon_mx]

Of course the conservative-think is that anyone who opposes Republican candidates (who clearly don't vote to represent their constituents, but rather their lobbyists) must be a socialist liberal. 

We desperately need more than a 2 party system, but it should be abundantly clear by now that it's the far right and everybody else, so please stop disingenuously labeling everyone else a liberal and disingenuously labeling all liberals as socialists.   

What grinds my gears the most is "conservatives" crying about how Democrats will spend money when the sitting president is on pace to set a record for greatest federal deficit. I don't agree with most of these expensive social programs, but I firmly believe anyone who takes office next will spend less money than Trump AND spend it more efficiently. 

The whole premise of this thread is to discuss generalizations.  I noticed you were not offended by several who suggested the reason white poor votes that way is because of racism.    Is it a bigger insult to call a group of people racists or socialists?  The term socialist is all relative as our country already has embraced socialism to a degree.  So it is just a matter of those who want more of it (usually liberals) or those who want less (usually conservatives).  I hate Trump's spending, BTW.  

 

[FF Ninja]

The whole premise of this thread is to discuss generalizations.  I noticed you were not offended by several who suggested the reason white poor votes that way is because of racism.    Is it a bigger insult to call a group of people racists or socialists?  The term socialist is all relative as our country already has embraced socialism to a degree.  So it is just a matter of those who want more of it (usually liberals) or those who want less (usually conservatives).  I hate Trump's spending, BTW.  

I am not offended by you calling people liberals or socialists. I just find it annoyingly disingenuous. Your logic is flat out wrong and propagating it could lead to a Trump reelection.

As for other people's opinions about why poor whites vote against their own interests... I don't find that topic particularly interesting or impactful. But I can't say that I'm surprised you are resorting to deflection and whataboutism: "I may have said something wrong and disingenuous but what about what THOSE people said." That's not how productive discussions work. 

If you hate Trump's spending, you need to vote against him in the coming election. I seriously doubt our federal deficit, our trade deficit, or foreign relations could get WORSE than they are now no matter who is president. Appointing someone actually intelligent and well-spoken, even if we don't like her social programs (which won't get passed through a Republican Senate anyway), would be better for the nation in every regard. Bigly better, one might say. 

 

[wikkidpissah]

More "that was then, this is now" if I may- from a learned buddy of mine:

"Because democracy and capitalism are inherently op-positional and each runs counter to the other's aims, the rise of corporate power is slowly killing democracy in the United States. American politics have always revolved around the tension between democratic principles and the public good on the one hand, and the lust for plunder, profit and empire on the other. We've morphed over the past 30 years into a corporatist oligarchic kleptocracy run by pointy headed technocrats and lackeys.

Since the mid 1970s when corporate power merged with the state, a new imperial complex was formed at the expense of representative democracy. Not only would corporations exercise public authority, but the state would serve corporate activity. To construct this new order elections needed to be drained of any remaining democratic content. Both Republicans and Democrats are complicit in this endeavor. Neither party wants election or campaign finance reform because fair and free elections would topple the system.

Corporations now have the power to control content and information and aren't shy about managing the First Amendment. The corporate media broadcasts propaganda to sway public opinion. The fact is that both political parties are worthless because they offer only austerity and the worst kind of identity politics. Without government subsidies, tax breaks and political protection, corporations would cease to function and corporate power would cease to pervade government at the highest levels.

The Reagan Administration empowered bankers, revised the tax code in favor of corporations and redistributed wealth. By the early 1990s the corporatization of the American government was a fait accompli. Corporations are a law unto themselves and in direct command of the power of the state. Corporate lobbyists spend billions of dollars each year trying to get Congress to rewrite the law to make it more corporate friendly. They simply want more for themselves and less for everybody else.

There is nothing "free" about the market. It's politically driven every step of the way. Workers worldwide continue to be exploited for profit by corporations who appropriate technologies for their own private use. Most discretionary spending in the US budget goes to the miltary-corporate-industiral complex, the second largest centrally planned economy in the world. The tax codes permit corporations to evade tax liability and hoard cash. Corporation and billionaires as of 2017 shelter $31 trillion, a sum larger than the GDP of the United States and Japan combined.

Corporations plunder the environment and our natural resources whose extraction destroys the natural world. Pollution costs to the tune of $2 trillion per year are "externalized" and taken off corporate books. Risk is also externalized and we end up paying for it. The government bailed out the banks in 2008 to the tune of $16 trillion. The fusion of the corporation and the state is our political economy, not free market capitalism."

Sooo- how do we get back where we belong?

throw in a little about the media's role in subverting dissent & elevating greed above citizenship and you have the Playboy Centerfold of my political philosophy *picks staple out of teeth*. thank your buddy for me.

we are on a crash track which i dont believe is preventable or divertable at this point. next time around - if real people can rescue a decent slice of America from the Sarah Palins in MadMax turret jeeps who will scour the land for a a gen or two - democracy must focus on being the referee, not the provider, of power & production and declaratively focus on limiting the size of institutions and creating an economic science of measuring & employing equilibriums by which to keep venture & governance in balance.

 

[jon_mx]

I am not offended by you calling people liberals or socialists. I just find it annoyingly disingenuous. Your logic is flat out wrong and propagating it could lead to a Trump reelection.

As for other people's opinions about why poor whites vote against their own interests... I don't find that topic particularly interesting or impactful. But I can't say that I'm surprised you are resorting to deflection and whataboutism: "I may have said something wrong and disingenuous but what about what THOSE people said." That's not how productive discussions work. 

If you hate Trump's spending, you need to vote against him in the coming election. I seriously doubt our federal deficit, our trade deficit, or foreign relations could get WORSE than they are now no matter who is president. Appointing someone actually intelligent and well-spoken, even if we don't like her social programs (which won't get passed through a Republican Senate anyway), would be better for the nation in every regard. Bigly better, one might say. 

Besides claiming my logic is wrong, you have done nothing to refute it.  My logic is correct and Democrats would be smart to listen to it unless they want to keep on ticking off the white vote.  

I neither deflected or provided whataboutisms.  I presented my honest and informed opinion on why people vote the way they do.  Hint, it has nothing to do with racism.  

I did not vote for Trump, nor would I ever.  But I am also not going to vote for people who proposed gross expansion of government without significant offsets elsewhere. 

 

[jonessed]

The party of white privilege, racial quotas, affirmative action, BLM, religious mocking, and reparations doesn’t understand why working class white people don’t vote for them.  How completely tone deaf.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Probably culture and perspective and is argueably the result of political rhetoric.  The poor white realize/accept the reason for their situation is they probably did not take education and carreer seriously until it was too late.  Minorities are told and tend to believe it is due to their race.   

But poor white people are also told that their poverty is not their own fault. It is frequently blamed on a variety of other factors- free trade (see 2016 election), immigration (see 2016 election and multiple posts above) affirmative action (see post immediately above), and so on. Not one politician has ever gone to a poor/rural area of the United States and told the people there that their lot is life is their own damn fault.

Do you think poor white people are able to see through these things and "realize/accept" what you consider to be the true cause of their predicament, while poor minorities are not?

 

[TobiasFunke]

The party of white privilege, racial quotas, affirmative action, BLM, religious mocking, and reparations doesn’t understand why working class white people don’t vote for them.  How completely tone deaf.

Hillary Clinton didn't embrace a single one of these things as part of her message, and yet she performed worse with white working class voters than pretty much any Dem politician ever has. So your theory simply doesn't hold water. Which makes it even weirder that you're so smug about it, but

 

[Gary Coal Man]

Hillary Clinton didn't embrace a single one of these things as part of her message, and yet she performed worse with white working class voters than pretty much any Dem politician ever has. So your theory simply doesn't hold water. Which makes it even weirder that you're so smug about it, but

Hillary explicitly embraced BLM, and used it to potentially galvanize black voter turnout.

'Black lives matter!' chants erupt as Mothers of the Movement take the stage at the DNC

As the "Mothers of the Movement" came on stage to talk about the deaths of their children and endorse Hillary Clinton at the Democratic National Convention, chants emerged from the crowd: "Black lives matter!" ...

So many of our children gone but not forgotten," Reed-Veal said. "I'm here with Hillary Clinton because she is a leader and a mother who will say our children's names. Hillary knows that when a young black life is cut short, it's not just a personal loss. It is a national loss. It is a loss that diminishes all of us."

The short speeches, which followed a video of Hillary Clinton meeting and praying with the mothers, who have joined her at campaign events across the country, gave the Black Lives Matter movement one of its highest-profile moments. Officially, Black Lives Matter has not endorsed a presidential candidate, but the women are among the movement's best-known names.

 

[jon_mx]

But poor white people are also told that their poverty is not their own fault. It is frequently blamed on a variety of other factors- free trade (see 2016 election), immigration (see 2016 election and multiple posts above) affirmative action (see post immediately above), and so on. Not one politician has ever gone to a poor/rural area of the United States and told the people there that their lot is life is their own damn fault.

Do you think poor white people are able to see through these things and "realize/accept" what you consider to be the true cause of their predicament, while poor minorities are not?

You have a point.  Trump did transform the GOP from the party of personal responsibility to blame immigrantion and trade party.  Reagan had the most libertarian rheotric of personal responsibility of any recent President.  I think there is a lot more fear-mongering concerning racism which makes it is more difficult to see through.  

 

[jon_mx]

Hillary Clinton didn't embrace a single one of these things as part of her message, and yet she performed worse with white working class voters than pretty much any Dem politician ever has. So your theory simply doesn't hold water. Which makes it even weirder that you're so smug about it, but

Most of that was due to Trump targeting that voting block.  

 

[Jayrod]

Hillary Clinton didn't embrace a single one of these things as part of her message, and yet she performed worse with white working class voters than pretty much any Dem politician ever has. So your theory simply doesn't hold water. Which makes it even weirder that you're so smug about it, but

I assume you have some wiggle room under your definition of "embrace....as part of her message", but she certainly was pro all of them, as was her party which was his point. 

He was dead on accurate and not half as smug as your reply is.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Hillary explicitly embraced BLM, and used it to potentially galvanize black voter turnout.

'Black lives matter!' chants erupt as Mothers of the Movement take the stage at the DNC

As the "Mothers of the Movement" came on stage to talk about the deaths of their children and endorse Hillary Clinton at the Democratic National Convention, chants emerged from the crowd: "Black lives matter!" ...

So many of our children gone but not forgotten," Reed-Veal said. "I'm here with Hillary Clinton because she is a leader and a mother who will say our children's names. Hillary knows that when a young black life is cut short, it's not just a personal loss. It is a national loss. It is a loss that diminishes all of us."

The short speeches, which followed a video of Hillary Clinton meeting and praying with the mothers, who have joined her at campaign events across the country, gave the Black Lives Matter movement one of its highest-profile moments. Officially, Black Lives Matter has not endorsed a presidential candidate, but the women are among the movement's best-known names.

They also protested her candidacy and her and her husband's past statements and policies.  It was a complicated relationship.

Not that it matters. The larger point stands- the 2016 election exit polls as compared to previous polling and party affiliations make for pretty clear evidence that the things jonessed listed are not what drives poor/working class whites to vote Republican. You could argue Fox News whipping up hysteria about those things to draw in viewers and then offering right-leaning news and opinion plays a role, but the idea that those are actually important longstanding Democratic positions and that is what drives poor/working class white people away from Dems is nonsense.

 

[Jayrod]

Probably culture and perspective and is argueably the result of political rhetoric.  The poor white realize/accept the reason for their situation is they probably did not take education and carreer seriously until it was too late.  Minorities are told and tend to believe it is due to their race.   

I've recently researched suicide trends after hearing that middle aged white males are the #1 demographic for suicide in the US.

From what I've read, the majority of it points to the bolded as the reason.  White men feel mostly responsible for their own failures and when it gets to be too much, they'd rather kill themselves than seek help because they don't actually believe they deserve any help and are too embarrassed to ask.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I assume you have some wiggle room under your definition of "embrace....as part of her message", but she certainly was pro all of them, as was her party which was his point. 

He was dead on accurate and not half as smug as your reply is.

Can you give me some evidence that Clinton embraced the idea of "white privilege," racial quotas, religious mocking and reparations?  TIA

BTW "religious mocking" is particularly ironic given that one of the candidates actually did mock an organized religion on a regular basis and poor white people sure didn't seem to have a problem with it.

 

[Gary Coal Man]

They also protested her candidacy and her and her husband's past statements and policies.  It was a complicated relationship.

Not that it matters. The larger point stands- the 2016 election exit polls as compared to previous polling and party affiliations make for pretty clear evidence that the things jonessed listed are not what drives poor/working class whites to vote Republican. You could argue Fox News whipping up hysteria about those things to draw in viewers and then offering right-leaning news and opinion plays a role, but the idea that those are actually important longstanding Democratic positions and that is what drives poor/working class white people away from Dems is nonsense.

You should read some Thomas Edsall from The Atlantic.  He’s been providing fair, in-depth analysis as to why the Democrats have been losing the the white working class voter since well before the advent of Fox News.  Edsall would agree with Jonessed that the items he listed certainly play a factor.

Here’s a good Edsall starter article on this topic.

 

[tommyGunZ]

You have a point.  Trump did transform the GOP from the party of personal responsibility to blame immigrantion and trade party.  Reagan had the most libertarian rheotric of personal responsibility of any recent President.  I think there is a lot more fear-mongering concerning racism which makes it is more difficult to see through.  

Trump didn't "transform" anything.  He co-opted the message being drilled into Republican voters heads for the last 40 years via Reagan, Rush, and FoxNews and amplified it.  

 

[FF Ninja]

Besides claiming my logic is wrong, you have done nothing to refute it.  My logic is correct and Democrats would be smart to listen to it unless they want to keep on ticking off the white vote.  

I neither deflected or provided whataboutisms.  I presented my honest and informed opinion on why people vote the way they do.  Hint, it has nothing to do with racism.  

I did not vote for Trump, nor would I ever.  But I am also not going to vote for people who proposed gross expansion of government without significant offsets elsewhere. 

Your logic was basically:

Not voting Republican -> Liberal -> Socialist

Do I even need to refute such ridiculous logic? I would gladly vote Republican if they actually stood for the values they claim to, but as I showed, they are all clearly party over country right now and/or bought and paid for.

And you clearly deflected with a whataboutism. I paraphrased it for you to make it clear. 

I voted third party last year, but I won't do it again. Trump expanded the government spending in gross and inefficient ways while giving the rich tax cuts. Might as well let someone else have a go at it. Don't forget to vote against Trump in the Republican primaries. Or maybe vote for the most fiscally conservative Democrat.

 

[Jayrod]

Can you give me some evidence that Clinton embraced the idea of "white privilege," racial quotas, religious mocking and reparations?  TIA

BTW "religious mocking" is particularly ironic given that one of the candidates actually did mock an organized religion on a regular basis and poor white people sure didn't seem to have a problem with it.

Like how you trimmed the list down even though you said, "a single one of these things".  She certainly embraced BLM and white privilege messages.  Couldn't find anything on racial quotas or religious mocking and she is reportedly against reparations.

That said, again, the point given was that those are policies purported by the Democratic party in general.  You are the only one trying to pigeon hole it to be about Hillary and then try to make your not-so-subtle jab at him being smug, despite that being your entire MO.

 

[Jayrod]

I voted third party last year, but I won't do it again. Trump expanded the government spending in gross and inefficient ways while giving the rich tax cuts. Might as well let someone else have a go at it. Don't forget to vote against Trump in the Republican primaries. Or maybe vote for the most fiscally conservative Democrat.

Ditto.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Like how you trimmed the list down even though you said, "a single one of these things".  She certainly embraced BLM and white privilege messages.  Couldn't find anything on racial quotas or religious mocking and she is reportedly against reparations.

That said, again, the point given was that those are policies purported by the Democratic party in general.  You are the only one trying to pigeon hole it to be about Hillary and then try to make your not-so-subtle jab at him being smug, despite that being your entire MO.

I trimmed the list because I presume she supported some sort of affirmative action and obviously made her peace with some of the BLM leadership.  But none of it was central to her message.

You seem to have missed the argument. I wasn't pigeon-holing it to be about Hilary. I was using the 2016 election results, an election in which poor and working class white voters turned away from the Democratic candidate in greater numbers than ever before despite the fact that the candidate mostly shied away from the far left social policies jonessed listed, as strong evidence that his theory was incorrect.

If his theory was correct, then working class white voters would have embraced Clinton more so than they did Obama, who was further to the left on race relations and who, unlike Clinton, actually did famously mock religion at one point. However, those voters actually trended the other way. I'm not trying to explain why, I'm simply pointing out that the explanation offered doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

Also, I don't get your hostility towards me. As far as I can remember I've always been decent and friendly towards you. You don't have to reciprocate of course, just find it odd.

And calling people tone deaf and suggesting they're missing the obvious answer to their question that you can see is smug.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Like how you trimmed the list down even though you said, "a single one of these things".  She certainly embraced BLM and white privilege messages.  Couldn't find anything on racial quotas or religious mocking and she is reportedly against reparations.

That said, again, the point given was that those are policies purported by the Democratic party in general.  You are the only one trying to pigeon hole it to be about Hillary and then try to make your not-so-subtle jab at him being smug, despite that being your entire MO.

Hillary was widely criticized by BLM during the campaign.  I don't think that as an organization BLM ever endorsed HRC, although I think a couple of their leaders endorsed her individually just before the election. 

The fact that she wasn't scared to say it doesn't = "embraced".  

 

[The Commish]

Um.....Trump didn't transform the GOP in terms of personal responsibility.  He took the rock they were hiding behind when making that claim, but their actions over the past decades have shown quite clearly the talk was just that.....talk.  This is the major realization I had during the early Bush years as I began to pay the slightest bit of attention to the party and saw just how full of it they really were.  Been without a party ever sense.  Kudos to Trump for taking it up a notch though.  Never thought I'd see the day where the GOP was gleefully spending tax payer dollars they didn't have on their rich buddies right out in the open...for all to see and being completely unapologetic about it.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Um.....Trump didn't transform the GOP in terms of personal responsibility.  He took the rock they were hiding behind when making that claim, but their actions over the past decades have shown quite clearly the talk was just that.....talk.  This is the major realization I had during the early Bush years as I began to pay the slightest bit of attention to the party and saw just how full of it they really were.  Been without a party ever sense.  Kudos to Trump for taking it up a notch though.  Never thought I'd see the day where the GOP was gleefully spending tax payer dollars they didn't have on their rich buddies right out in the open...for all to see and being completely unapologetic about it.

  Commish has been on fire lately.

Honest question, as it seems our political "upbringings" may be similar.  I was brought up in a non-political family, but because my parents didn't pay attention to politics they bought into the surfacey conservative message and  supported Reagan and Republicans in general.  In my 20s when I started following politics, I had a LOT of preconceived bias that I had to overcome to reach the point I have arrived at today.  My question is, do you think had you been raised in an objectively neutral home in an objectively neutral area, do you think you would be where you are today on the political spectrum, or do you think you would be further to the left?    

 

[NCCommish]

Um.....Trump didn't transform the GOP in terms of personal responsibility.  He took the rock they were hiding behind when making that claim, but their actions over the past decades have shown quite clearly the talk was just that.....talk.  This is the major realization I had during the early Bush years as I began to pay the slightest bit of attention to the party and saw just how full of it they really were.  Been without a party ever sense.  Kudos to Trump for taking it up a notch though.  Never thought I'd see the day where the GOP was gleefully spending tax payer dollars they didn't have on their rich buddies right out in the open...for all to see and being completely unapologetic about it.

Trump isn't the disease he's a symptom of a disease. And that disease is driven by policies that benefit the few and use wedges to keep the many apart. He is the creation of two parents. Neoliberals and whatever the hell it is conservative politicians have become.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Trump isn't the disease he's a symptom of a disease. And that disease is driven by policies that benefit the few and use wedges to keep the many apart. He is the creation of two parents. Neoliberals and whatever the hell it is conservative politicians have become.

Oh come on.  

 

[The Commish]

  Commish has been on fire lately.

Honest question, as it seems our political "upbringings" may be similar.  I was brought up in a non-political family, but because my parents didn't pay attention to politics they bought into the surfacey conservative message and  supported Reagan and Republicans in general.  In my 20s when I started following politics, I had a LOT of preconceived bias that I had to overcome to reach the point I have arrived at today.  My question is, do you think had you been raised in an objectively neutral home in an objectively neutral area, do you think you would be where you are today on the political spectrum, or do you think you would be further to the left?    

My parents didn't talk politics ever.  I'd watch bits and pieces on the nightly news, but I knew nothing about politics and I didn't really care about politics until around 2008.  I was in my early 30s before I started forming opinions.  As a result, I was in control over how I decided to form my opinions.  I don't think a lot of people come from that path.  With the complete benefit of hindsight, the area I grew up was NOT objectively neutral.  I grew up in Asheville, NC and oddly enough, looking at that area today, it's almost a complete 180 from the way it was when I was younger.  But since I didn't pay attention, the early years didn't really have an impact on me.  My parents were the old school definition of "conservative".  They believed in working hard, helping where you could, but not doing everything for people not interested in helping themselves.  That is a muddled message today given the polarization we have.  In today's world it seems like "do everything for everyone" or "you have to help yourself" are the options and I simply don't believe that philosophy.  I still think that position is relatively neutral, but I am biased.

The focus in our family was never politics, it was faith.  "What would Jesus do?" was a real question to us well before all the merch around it came out.  That's how I continue to set my bar.  I don't know if I am "left" or "right" anymore.  I can only tell you I think the government has a role in our lives.  It has to in the current world we live.  That might not have been the case decades a go, but it's true today.  My problem is, I feel like the government has its hands in all the things it shouldn't and isn't paying enough attention (if any at all) to the things I think they should.  In today's world I feel myself agreeing more with concepts Democrats are coming up with, but that seems to be simply because the GOP isn't coming up with anything.  Best I can tell there hasn't been a significant change to the platform since I was a kid.  It's like they think the world works the same way it did in 1985.  If there's a single thing that has driven me away from "conservatives" and the current GOP it's their lack of empathy.  This is a big thing I work hard on in my life and while the Dems may just be paying lip service to that concept (time will tell on that), that's significantly better than completely abandoning it and dismissing it at every turn.  Thing 1B on that list is the concept of self awareness.  Something else that has been completely ignored.

Anyway, enough of my babbling.  That's probably more than you'd ever want to know about me and 99% of it should probably be in another thread.  Sorry for the hijack...back to your regular scheduled programming  

 

[FF Ninja]

My problem is, I feel like the government has its hands in all the things it shouldn't

Great overall post, but my problem is that people who shouldn't, have their hands in the government.

Lobbying as we know it and super PACs gotta go. It's the only explanation for how some of these "representatives" vote in spite of the interests of their constituents or how some laws are crafted and passed.

 

[The Commish]

Great overall post, but my problem is that people who shouldn't, have their hands in the government.

Lobbying as we know it and super PACs gotta go. It's the only explanation for how some of these "representatives" vote in spite of the interests of their constituents or how some laws are crafted and passed.

I could write another 5-10 paragraphs on how our representatives don't represent us  

 

[tommyGunZ]

My parents didn't talk politics ever.  I'd watch bits and pieces on the nightly news, but I knew nothing about politics and I didn't really care about politics until around 2008.  I was in my early 30s before I started forming opinions.  As a result, I was in control over how I decided to form my opinions.  I don't think a lot of people come from that path.  With the complete benefit of hindsight, the area I grew up was NOT objectively neutral.  I grew up in Asheville, NC and oddly enough, looking at that area today, it's almost a complete 180 from the way it was when I was younger.  But since I didn't pay attention, the early years didn't really have an impact on me.  My parents were the old school definition of "conservative".  They believed in working hard, helping where you could, but not doing everything for people not interested in helping themselves.  That is a muddled message today given the polarization we have.  In today's world it seems like "do everything for everyone" or "you have to help yourself" are the options and I simply don't believe that philosophy.  I still think that position is relatively neutral, but I am biased.

The focus in our family was never politics, it was faith.  "What would Jesus do?" was a real question to us well before all the merch around it came out.  That's how I continue to set my bar.  I don't know if I am "left" or "right" anymore.  I can only tell you I think the government has a role in our lives.  It has to in the current world we live.  That might not have been the case decades a go, but it's true today.  My problem is, I feel like the government has its hands in all the things it shouldn't and isn't paying enough attention (if any at all) to the things I think they should.  In today's world I feel myself agreeing more with concepts Democrats are coming up with, but that seems to be simply because the GOP isn't coming up with anything.  Best I can tell there hasn't been a significant change to the platform since I was a kid.  It's like they think the world works the same way it did in 1985.  If there's a single thing that has driven me away from "conservatives" and the current GOP it's their lack of empathy.  This is a big thing I work hard on in my life and while the Dems may just be paying lip service to that concept (time will tell on that), that's significantly better than completely abandoning it and dismissing it at every turn.  Thing 1B on that list is the concept of self awareness.  Something else that has been completely ignored.

Anyway, enough of my babbling.  That's probably more than you'd ever want to know about me and 99% of it should probably be in another thread.  Sorry for the hijack...back to your regular scheduled programming  

Thanks for the thoughtful response.  I honestly appreciate it.  We are far more similar than different - much of what you write is my story as well, simply substitute Southern Virginia towns for your North Carolina towns.   

My parents didn't talk politics either, they simply bought into the narrative (false as it turns out) that "work hard, helping where you could, but not doing everything for people not interested in helping themselves" was more of a reflection of conservative values than liberal values.  They were wrong - "do everything for people not interested in helping themselves" is not now, and never has been a plank of the Democratic party.  That's the narrative that Republicans have pushed for decades, and it's been unbelievably effective, regardless of how incorrect it is.  I would assert that even though you may not admit it or realize it, by believing that was actually true in the '80s you're proving a slight bias toward conservatism and the GOP.  I only say that because one of the next steps I predict you'll take as an extremely well informed, smart dude is you'll start to wonder "gee, if the GOP is so brazenly lying to me now, what makes me think that all that stuff I heard and believed in the '80s and '90s was on the up and up?  Maybe they were lying and manipulating and suffered from the same lack of empathy back then - I just was too young and not paying attention to understand it".   That's a step I finally took, and although it meant admitting personally that lots of what I previously believed was wrong and not true, it made far more sense to me that the current GOP is actually a continuation of decades of GOPism than this silly idea that somehow the party of old white men, which is still the party of old white men, suddenly became less empathetic overnight.  I think it's far more likely that this is a reflection of who the GOP has always been. 

Anyway, again, appreciate the personal insights.  Keep up the great work on the boards, I'm loving your work lately.  Cheers!

 

 

[NCCommish]

Oh come on.  

Look around the world 

 

[timschochet]

Look around the world 

My understanding of neoliberal is it's a derogatory term, created by leftists, do define liberals who support capitalism. Is that how you use the term? And do you support capitalism?

 

[NCCommish]

On the subject of politics growing up my interest started with the Watergate hearings. I was 8 or 9. Grandma told me this was history unfolding and we were going to watch. So we did,  every day every minute. Grandpa as well and he didn't really watch much TV so I got the idea this was important. And I was an only child so I hung out with adults a lot. And just took in what they were saying. I came from a very blue, very union family. Thus I became team Democrat. And stayed that well past its expiration date. Now I'm team what are your policies and who do you serve.

 

[NCCommish]

My understanding of neoliberal is it's a derogatory term, created by leftists, do define liberals who support capitalism. Is that how you use the term? And do you support capitalism?

Unfettered capitalism? No. Properly regulated capitalism,  sure. And no being ok with capitalism doesn't make you a neoliberal to me. Believing that transferring public interest to private actors coupled with a laissez fare approach is what makes you a neoliberal.

 

[timschochet]

Unfettered capitalism? No. Properly regulated capitalism,  sure. And no being ok with capitalism doesn't make you a neoliberal to me. Believing that transferring public interest to private actors coupled with a laissez fare approach is what makes you a neoliberal.

I don't think we're as far apart as you think.

 

[NCCommish]

I don't think we're as far apart as you think.

Probably not. I think I'm for far more regulation than you are and I would probably favor a higher tax rate. I would guess I would also be looking at trade deals differently as well although I'm not against trade I just believe we need to do a far better job on workers rights, environmental issues and taking far better care of displaced workers. 

 

[msommer]

Probably not. I think I'm for far more regulation than you are and I would probably favor a higher tax rate. I would guess I would also be looking at trade deals differently as well although I'm not against trade I just believe we need to do a far better job on workers rights, environmental issues and taking far better care of displaced workers. 

On the bolded, can you unpack what actions should be included in deals? I think I know roughly what you mean, and think that would be a very good discussion to take.

 

[The Commish]

Thanks for the thoughtful response.  I honestly appreciate it.  We are far more similar than different - much of what you write is my story as well, simply substitute Southern Virginia towns for your North Carolina towns.   

My parents didn't talk politics either, they simply bought into the narrative (false as it turns out) that "work hard, helping where you could, but not doing everything for people not interested in helping themselves" was more of a reflection of conservative values than liberal values.  They were wrong - "do everything for people not interested in helping themselves" is not now, and never has been a plank of the Democratic party.  That's the narrative that Republicans have pushed for decades, and it's been unbelievably effective, regardless of how incorrect it is.  I would assert that even though you may not admit it or realize it, by believing that was actually true in the '80s you're proving a slight bias toward conservatism and the GOP.  I only say that because one of the next steps I predict you'll take as an extremely well informed, smart dude is you'll start to wonder "gee, if the GOP is so brazenly lying to me now, what makes me think that all that stuff I heard and believed in the '80s and '90s was on the up and up?  Maybe they were lying and manipulating and suffered from the same lack of empathy back then - I just was too young and not paying attention to understand it".   That's a step I finally took, and although it meant admitting personally that lots of what I previously believed was wrong and not true, it made far more sense to me that the current GOP is actually a continuation of decades of GOPism than this silly idea that somehow the party of old white men, which is still the party of old white men, suddenly became less empathetic overnight.  I think it's far more likely that this is a reflection of who the GOP has always been. 

Anyway, again, appreciate the personal insights.  Keep up the great work on the boards, I'm loving your work lately.  Cheers!

 

I sort of elude to this possibility in my initial comment about Trump completely blowing up the rock the GOP has been hiding behind all this time.  But, I'll reiterate, that I didn't really pay any attention at all to politics in my younger years, so the only things I know about the 80s and 90s are academic and with the complete benefit of hindsight.  My struggle is and has always been just because the GOP has confirmed their ####iness doesn't make the issues I have with the Dems go away.  As I said above, I don't do comparison politics between the parties.  I compare them to my expectations and see how they measure up.  If they are found wanting, so be it.  If one is close enough, then that's how I roll. 

I don't pay attention to national politics as much as I do local.  I seem to gravitate towards conservatives locally, but that is changing as the ####storm filters down from the leaders of the current GOP.  I have gotten into the habit of looking for info on independents and libertarian types first locally.  Then I work my way out.  This is the first election where I am actually considering voting against someone rather than for someone.  That's how bad I think it's gotten.  I would happily vote for  Klobuchar or Mayor Pete.  I wouldn't bat an eye.  All the others give me pause and I am LEAST excited by Biden.  It's not a personal thing.  It's a policy thing.  For me, his choice for VP is going to be a really important one.  I'd like to see someone who has a shot of turning around and winning after he's gone should he get the nomination and if I am being completely honest, I don't think I'd want more than one term out of him.

 

[jon_mx]

I think he mostly meant that it increases emissions in the short term which then kills us all in 10 years instead of 12. 

I meant long term.  The GND is an extremely inefficient way to tackle global warming.  Fixing homes, infrastructure, water supplies, replacing nuclear plants, guaranteeing full employment, demanding equality for everyone are all great things.  But not one of the reduces greenhouse emissions one bit.   All the construction projects she promises will produce massive amounts of CO2 while doing nothing to offset them or reduce future CO2 emissions.  We have limited resources and if we expend all our efforts on useless projects, where does that leave real projects that will have real benefits towards reducing our carbon footprint?  Our total GDP is under $20 Trillion a year and the GND would require about $10 Trillion a year to be committed towards all these side jobs unrelated directly to developing and producing green energy.  It is the absolute stupidest plan I ever heard of which no one seems to want to put any real thought into.  

 

[tommyGunZ]

I meant long term.  The GND is an extremely inefficient way to tackle global warming.  Fixing homes, infrastructure, water supplies, replacing nuclear plants, guaranteeing full employment, demanding equality for everyone are all great things.  But not one of the reduces greenhouse emissions one bit.   All the construction projects she promises will produce massive amounts of CO2 while doing nothing to offset them or reduce future CO2 emissions.  We have limited resources and if we expend all our efforts on useless projects, where does that leave real projects that will have real benefits towards reducing our carbon footprint?  Our total GDP is under $20 Trillion a year and the GND would require about $10 Trillion a year to be committed towards all these side jobs unrelated directly to developing and producing green energy.  It is the absolute stupidest plan I ever heard of which no one seems to want to put any real thought into.  

Just so we’re clear, your claim is that “not one” part of the GND would reduce greenhouse gas emissions “one bit”, even though one of the pillars or the GND is “meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources”.  

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

My understanding of neoliberal is it's a derogatory term, created by leftists, do define liberals who support capitalism. Is that how you use the term? And do you support capitalism?

That's how some people on the left intend to use the term, but every time they call a policy "neoliberal" (free trade, market-based reform, etc.) it ends up being a really good policy, so they've inadvertently turned it into a term of praise.

 

[timschochet]

That's how some people on the left intend to use the term, but every time they call a policy "neoliberal" (free trade, market-based reform, etc.) it ends up being a really good policy, so they've inadvertently turned it into a term of praise.

Well I think so too. 

But now I’m confused, because I always thought that a “classic liberal” was somebody who was pro-capitalism. 

 

[jon_mx]

Just so we’re clear, your claim is that “not one” part of the GND would reduce greenhouse gas emissions “one bit”, even though one of the pillars or the GND is “meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources”.  

That is not what I said at all.  The concrete actions she calls for already expend all of the resources and more we could possibly throw at fixing greenhouse gases.  So there are no reasources for meaningful action.   You can't spend your entire available workforce on projects like roads, water system repairs, bridges upgrades, home upgrades, high speed rail, and then still have people left to build and install solar panels.  The side projects she calls out are so massive by themselves there is nothing left over.  I am saying the majority of stuff has nothing to do with greenhouse gases and those alone are of such enormous size we could not even hopefully accomplish in the stated time frame.  You can't have everything.   It is just a bunch of fantasy proposals that only Pelosi was brave enough to mock.