The democrats are a waste

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The democrats are a waste

Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed.
B	77	25.50%
K	160	52.98%
M	65	21.52%
Total:	229 votes

[Edit Poll (moderators only)]

Yeowch!!! My Balls!!!: May 31, 2006

NewForumSoftware posted:

drat turns out the intolerant ones were the centrists the whole time

maybe take a step back from the keyboard friend

Say that we need to build a wall to keep the Mexicans out of our country, but, you know, a smaller one than Trump's, and the centrist liberal smiles approvingly at the Sensible Pragmatism being displayed.

Say that abandoning minorities to Republican rule has a cost measured in tortured people and destroyed human lives, and the centrist liberal demands your death.

Odd.

# ? Apr 20, 2017 23:51

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 10, 2024 07:49

Name Change: Oct 9, 2005

Bernie took way too loving long to kiss the ring, that much is true, leading to a mild embarrassment at the convention (which was quickly overshadowed by Trump's embarrassing convention). Given who won the election despite these conventions, and the fact that most humans have already forgotten all of that, that frames the issue pretty nicely.

# ? Apr 20, 2017 23:53

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Smart leftists remember you have to shoot the rich before you can eat them.

# ? Apr 20, 2017 23:55

Crowsbeak: Oct 9, 2012; by Azathoth; Lipstick Apathy

Nevvy Z posted:

This is an incredibly disgusting mischaracterization of what he said and you are a lovely fuckhead who should kill yourself IRL.

What is it with Centrists and wishing death upon people they don't agree with?

# ? Apr 20, 2017 23:55

Heck Yes! Loam!: Nov 15, 2004; a rich, friable soil containing a relatively equal mixture of sand and silt and a somewhat smaller proportion of clay.

Ytlaya posted:

I mean, technically you'd be correct if you define centrist as "in the center of the American political spectrum." People in this thread (and most leftists in general) are defining leftism by a commitment to specific values, rather than where it stands in relation to the surrounding political climate (in the US that is; when compared with other developed nations our definitions are more accurate). For example, to be a leftist a person must, generally speaking, actively support labor rights/protections as well as social issues like race/LGBT rights/etc.

Gun rights are an example where it's difficult to clearly assign it a position on this spectrum (which is why a single "left <-> right" axis isn't a very accurate way to represent political views). While Republicans almost universally are against gun control, views on the left are rather split. Being strongly in favor of gun control is very much a mainstream Democrat position, which means it can be called either centrist or center-left. Among more ardent leftists, I would say that there isn't really a strong consensus in favor or against gun control.

Another thing to keep in mind is that "far left" is generally defined in two very different ways. When mainstream Democrats think of the "far left" they're often thinking of people like Jill Stein voters, who are motivated most strongly by a somewhat vague "anti-establishment" sentiment and define their views more based upon cultural indicators than actual ideology. For example, someone who is part of this "far left", when thinking of what "defines a leftist" has a certain type of person in mind rather than a certain set of political views. This brand of leftist identifies most strongly with issues like environmentalism and drug legalization and also often holds some bizarre views, like being anti-vaccinations or anti-nuclear power.

When people on this forum (and elsewhere) refer to leftists, they're primarily referring to a specific economic ideology (that is usually also accompanied by support for socially liberal policy as well). Most important to these leftists are issues like a strong safety net, universal healthcare, fighting racism/sexism with concrete policy, increased minimum wage, labor protections, strong regulations (particularly in areas like finance, pharmaceuticals, etc where mainstream Democrats are very weak), etc. Most of these leftists describe themselves as either Social Democrats (this would be like Bernie Sanders or what you see in Nordic countries) or actual Socialists. There are a number of views that can fall under the umbrella of the latter term, but most Socialists are also in favor of pushing for Social Democratic policy until their ideas become more palatable to the general public. This type of leftist is also in favor of stuff like environmentalism or ending the war on drugs, but those issues usually aren't quite as central to their ideology as they are the type mentioned in the previous paragraph.

I'm sure there are some inaccurate things in this post, but I think it gets across the general gist of my point. Of most importance is the fact that the latter type of leftist mentioned has some very serious disagreements with the mainstream Democratic Party. Until very recently, Democrats were almost universally against significant expansions to the safety net, universal healthcare, significant increases to the minimum wage, or any sort of corporate regulation with actual "teeth." Even now, most are weak on these issues, with some only beginning to get tepid support largely as a result of Sanders' performance in the primary. To many of us, certain issues (like universal healthcare, for example) are non-negotiable.

When I think "Far Left" Jill Stein is exactly who I think of.

I am not sure this is an appropriate use of the word, but your description of leftist made me think of Identity Politics. Politics not defined by pragmatism of what can be accomplished, but by ideological stances. That sucks becasse it leads to exactly the problem in this thread. People who refuse to support anything unless it meets their identity requirements. I just find that terrible.

Ze Pollack posted:

There is a way to avoid being accused of not caring about people.

It is to stop saying things that demonstrate that fact.

I get that you did not -mean- to say that the minority population of any state that voted for Trump deserves whatever they have coming. You just forgot that they existed when you said, and I quote, "If someone chooses to suffere, how does me not stopping them make it my fault?"

Welcome to democracy. The people who Cory Booker says are worth less than pharmaceutical industry profits get to vote. This is why Cory Booker saying they are worth less than pharmaceutical profits is a bad thing, strategically.

You're winning hearts and minds my friend. I can feel the country changing its ways because of your strong moral stances.

# ? Apr 20, 2017 23:57

Hail Mr. Satan!: Oct 3, 2009; by zen death robot

dont even fink about it posted:

Bernie took way too loving long to kiss the ring, that much is true, leading to a mild embarrassment at the convention (which was quickly overshadowed by Trump's embarrassing convention). Given who won the election despite these conventions, and the fact that most humans have already forgotten all of that, that frames the issue pretty nicely.

He said he was taking it all the way to the convention, and he did. I don't see how that's taking too long

# ? Apr 20, 2017 23:58

NewForumSoftware: Oct 8, 2016; by Lowtax

Heck Yes! Loam! posted:

People who refuse to support anything unless it meets their identity requirements. I just find that terrible.

lol "why won't you just support indentured servitude being put in place wholesale across america? god!"

"Identity requirements" like "not bombing children in the third world" might also be called... principles? Maybe you should actually have some?

# ? Apr 20, 2017 23:59

Name Change: Oct 9, 2005

Centrist ideology is ignorant garbage for idiots that doesn't pass a laugh test. Centrist governance is historically ineffective, leading us to the weakest economy since the Great Depression. It has also been roundly rejected by democracies in favor of increasingly brazen fascism, because at least it's an ethos, dude.

# ? Apr 21, 2017 00:00

Ytlaya: Nov 13, 2005

Heck Yes! Loam! posted:

I am not sure this is an appropriate use of the word, but your description of leftist made me think of Identity Politics. Politics not defined by pragmatism of what can be accomplished, but by ideological stances. That sucks becasse it leads to exactly the problem in this thread. People who refuse to support anything unless it meets their identity requirements. I just find that terrible.

But that isn't really the case? Most people in this thread would support helpful legislation even if it isn't exactly what they wanted. There's a difference between saying "My goal is X and I would rather Democrats pursue that goal" and "I am specifically against 'less than X' despite it still being beneficial."

Also, there's no such thing as a stance being not ideological. Many more centrist Democrats seem to view their own ideas as "evidence supported/pragmatic/scientific/whatever", when in reality they're just as ideological as anyone else. The minute someone tries to define their own views as non-ideological or unbiased they also create a huge blind spot due to falsely attributing objectivity to what is essentially still an ideological position.

# ? Apr 21, 2017 00:05

GlyphGryph: Jun 23, 2013; Down came the glitches and burned us in ditches and we slept after eating our dead.

Identity politics is sort of the opposite of the values based politics you are describing.

Also centrists, at least politically involved ones, are generally just as ideologically motivated as leftists their ideology just value different things. They wouldnt be so incredibly opposed to leftist policy in so many areas if they were simple self interested pragmatists.

# ? Apr 21, 2017 00:09

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Ytlaya posted:

Also, there's no such thing as a stance being not ideological. Many more centrist Democrats seem to view their own ideas as "evidence supported/pragmatic/scientific/whatever", when in reality they're just as ideological as anyone else. The minute someone tries to define their own views as non-ideological or unbiased they also create a huge blind spot due to falsely attributing objectivity to what is essentially still an ideological position.

I usually take "centrist" to mean "this person wants to win elections above all else" even if it means they cripple their ability to get poo poo done in the process, or they support heinous stuff to win, are constantly shifting positions and undermining their credibility, or they harm the long-term prospects of their party. Basically power for its own sake: because it looks good on a resume / epitaph. I don't know if that's non-ideological but it must be pretty close.

# ? Apr 21, 2017 00:13

GlyphGryph: Jun 23, 2013; Down came the glitches and burned us in ditches and we slept after eating our dead.

Thats not really accurate for the pols in the Democratic party that consider themselves centrists though. They tend to have strong beliefa about the way the world SHOULD work.

# ? Apr 21, 2017 00:15

Heck Yes! Loam!: Nov 15, 2004; a rich, friable soil containing a relatively equal mixture of sand and silt and a somewhat smaller proportion of clay.

Ytlaya posted:

But that isn't really the case? Most people in this thread would support helpful legislation even if it isn't exactly what they wanted. There's a difference between saying "My goal is X and I would rather Democrats pursue that goal" and "I am specifically against 'less than X' despite it still being beneficial."

Also, there's no such thing as a stance being not ideological. Many more centrist Democrats seem to view their own ideas as "evidence supported/pragmatic/scientific/whatever", when in reality they're just as ideological as anyone else. The minute someone tries to define their own views as non-ideological or unbiased they also create a huge blind spot due to falsely attributing objectivity to what is essentially still an ideological position.

I guess i should have considered this, as it is completely true that no position can be non-ideological. I was trying to articulate what I see as hostility to anything that isn't as much X as you are. I feel this thread is extremely representative of it.

Principles are great, and its wonderful when people are able to stick to them. Rigid principles without willingness to accept even those like me, who literally agree with you, is a bit counter productive. I've literally been accused of supporting electrocution of gay people because of my "centrism." It sort of makes it hard to take anything seriously.

Heck Yes! Loam! fucked around with this message at 00:25 on Apr 21, 2017

# ? Apr 21, 2017 00:23

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

GlyphGryph posted:

Thats not really accurate for the pols in the Democratic party that consider themselves centrists though. They tend to have strong beliefa about the way the world SHOULD work.

As individuals they might have a few pet causes, but the organization as a whole supports whatever the consultants tell them they should support if they want a 51% chance to eek out a win in the next election.

I guess another way to put it is that the defining quality of a centrist is that they're not out to change anyone's mind. If raising minimum wage will get them some more votes they're for it, but if it'll put them at a disadvantage and force them to argue the point because it's the right thing to do, then the best you'll get out of them is "now's not the time".

# ? Apr 21, 2017 00:23

Yeowch!!! My Balls!!!: May 31, 2006

Heck Yes! Loam! posted:

I guess i should have considered this, as it is completely true that no position can be non-ideological. I was trying to articulate what I see as hostility to anything that isn't as much X as you are. I feel this thread is extremely representative of it.

Principles are great, and its wonderful when people are able to stick to them. But rigid principles without willingness to accept even those like me, who literally agree with you, is a bit counter productive.

When it comes to things like, say, "are pharmaceutical companies more important than voters" you've signaled very strongly we don't agree, is the thing.

And for those of us who believe that getting the power we had back involves appealing to voters more than we appeal to a package of special interests, agreement there seems to be considerably more important than it is to you.

Hence the hostility, because to us it appears that you are clinging very strongly to an ideological principle that is hopelessly counterproductive to the Democratic Party's goals in both the short and long term.

That you did not realize "gently caress 'em for not voting for us" was an ideological principle that entailed the electrocution of gay people for the crime of not outvoting Republicans is kinda demonstrative of the problem imo

Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! fucked around with this message at 00:31 on Apr 21, 2017

# ? Apr 21, 2017 00:29

Feldegast42: Oct 29, 2011; COMMENCE THE RITE OF SHITPOSTING

In politics something always beats nothing. Hillary had no unifying message (see the CSPAM thread). Trump had MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN and THE WALL.

If you have no convictions then nobody will follow you.

# ? Apr 21, 2017 00:36

Maarek: Jun 9, 2002; Your silence only incriminates you further.

I think you guys are taking the wrong path here. When these people insist that a guy who goes on TV to scold the President for denouncing private equity vultures is firmly part of the Democratic fold you should agree with them. Kissing the rear end of every hedge fund and working hard to privatize education are not fringe positions in the Democratic party, it's pretty much in their DNA.

# ? Apr 21, 2017 00:37

Maarek: Jun 9, 2002; Your silence only incriminates you further.

Ze Pollack posted:

Hence the hostility, because to us it appears that you are clinging very strongly to an ideological principle that is hopelessly counterproductive to the Democratic Party's goals in both the short and long term.

You are a STEM guy in the top 33% of income in America and are exactly the kind of voter that the modern Democratic party targets. Of course you see nothing wrong with the current direction of the party, it's been catering to people like you as it hemorrhaged legislative seats across the country. Hence the hostility.

# ? Apr 21, 2017 00:43

Heck Yes! Loam!: Nov 15, 2004; a rich, friable soil containing a relatively equal mixture of sand and silt and a somewhat smaller proportion of clay.

Ze Pollack posted:

When it comes to things like, say, "are pharmaceutical companies more important than voters" you've signaled very strongly we don't agree, is the thing.

And for those of us who believe that getting the power we had back involves appealing to voters more than we appeal to a package of special interests, agreement there seems to be considerably more important than it is to you.

Hence the hostility, because to us it appears that you are clinging very strongly to an ideological principle that is hopelessly counterproductive to the Democratic Party's goals in both the short and long term.

That you did not realize "gently caress 'em for not voting for us" was an ideological principle that entailed the electrocution of gay people for the crime of not outvoting Republicans is kinda demonstrative of the problem imo

Cory Booker isn't my senator. I didn't support anything. You just assumed that because I support using his vote to get things done that I'm some sort of monster. I have no problem with him as a senator, but I also don't consider his vote on a symbolic amendment on a failed bill as indicative of the quality of his principles. If you can find a better candidate that can beat him, awesome. Until then his vote will be rather useful , and demonizing him doesn't exactly achieve anything.

And to clarify my referenced 'gently caress em' statement, it was directed at those that can't be reached. White nationalists, Jill Stein voters, people that call John McCain a Maverick, etc.

The fact that you are somehow blaming me for the actions of voters that don't agree with you is interesting. Not sure how that works, but I'm sure it will advance your ultimate goals.

# ? Apr 21, 2017 00:47

shrike82: Jun 11, 2005

Why are you guys obsessing about Booker. I can't wait for Chelsea Clinton to start running for office and really poison the well for Democrats.

# ? Apr 21, 2017 00:49

Heck Yes! Loam!: Nov 15, 2004; a rich, friable soil containing a relatively equal mixture of sand and silt and a somewhat smaller proportion of clay.

shrike82 posted:

Why are you guys obsessing about Booker. I can't wait for Chelsea Clinton to start running for office and really poison the well for Democrats.

What views of Chelsea Clinton's do you take issue with?

# ? Apr 21, 2017 00:50

Majorian: Jul 1, 2009; Inverted Offensive Battle: Acupuncture Attacks Convert To 3D Penetration Tactics Taking Advantage of Deep Battle Opportunities

shrike82 posted:

Why are you guys obsessing about Booker. I can't wait for Chelsea Clinton to start running for office and really poison the well for Democrats.

One terrible, terrible self-destructing centrist pick at a time. We'll deal with Chelsea (hopefully) when they feel it's her turn.

# ? Apr 21, 2017 00:52

Harold Fjord: Jan 3, 2004

Ze Pollack posted:

Real slap in the face to be reminded what the human cost of the democratic party abandoning red states is, ain't it.

Is that what you think you are doing? Really?

Should we support identity politician Democrats in Kansas who want equality of opportunity through the free market being genuinely fair to all persons?

Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 00:56 on Apr 21, 2017

# ? Apr 21, 2017 00:53

shrike82: Jun 11, 2005

https://twitter.com/variety_claudia/status/854075323314429952

It's been pretty obvious that she's preparing to run for local office for a while.

# ? Apr 21, 2017 00:53

WhiskeyJuvenile: Feb 15, 2002; by Nyc_Tattoo

Heck Yes! Loam! posted:

What views of Chelsea Clinton's do you take issue with?

What views has Chelsea Clinton?

# ? Apr 21, 2017 00:57

DaveWoo: Aug 14, 2004; Fun Shoe

If being on the cover of Vogue signals a run for political office, than I for one am looking forward to President Zoolander.

# ? Apr 21, 2017 00:57

shrike82: Jun 11, 2005

WhiskeyJuvenile posted:

What views has Chelsea Clinton?

Another pro-banking neoliberal, who is literally married to a hedge fund manager.
I can't wait for you and JC to screech about why being against her is backstabbing the Democrat party in 2024.

# ? Apr 21, 2017 01:00

Harold Fjord: Jan 3, 2004

shrike82 posted:

[Chelsea Clinton]
It's been pretty obvious that she's preparing to run for local office for a while.

Someone convince her to move to a red state and help them get a functioning government again.

Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 01:03 on Apr 21, 2017

# ? Apr 21, 2017 01:00

Name Change: Oct 9, 2005

shrike82 posted:

https://twitter.com/variety_claudia/status/854075323314429952

It's been pretty obvious that she's preparing to run for local office for a while.

There is another Skywalker

# ? Apr 21, 2017 01:11

Yeowch!!! My Balls!!!: May 31, 2006

Heck Yes! Loam! posted:

Cory Booker isn't my senator. I didn't support anything. You just assumed that because I support using his vote to get things done that I'm some sort of monster. I have no problem with him as a senator, but I also don't consider his vote on a symbolic amendment on a failed bill as indicative of the quality of his principles. If you can find a better candidate that can beat him, awesome. Until then his vote will be rather useful , and demonizing him doesn't exactly achieve anything.

Hi, welcome to democracy, I see you're new.

Nancy Pelosi caught some undeserved flak recently for her statement "there are advantages to being the minority party." One of those advantages is that you are freed from the constraints of actually having to implement what you promise. Unless the bill being discussed is something the majority party actively wants to pass, your vote's sole value is what it symbolizes. And Cory Booker, presented with a symbolic choice between signaling his support to the american voter, and signalling his support to the pharmaceutical industry, decided that option B was the superior option.

Freed of any fears that he'd have to take heat for implementing this, presented only the choice between who was more important to appeal to, the american voter or a fat stack of cash, he picked the fat stack of cash.

This is just about as cut-and-dried a statement of principle as you will get from a politician.

And demonizing him helps transmit the very important message that said principle is not a good thing to have in someone who wants to be leader of the Democratic Party.

# ? Apr 21, 2017 01:14

Crowsbeak: Oct 9, 2012; by Azathoth; Lipstick Apathy

Nevvy Z posted:

Someone convince her to move to a red state and help them get a functioning government again.

Hey you going to explain why its fine for you to wish death on others?

# ? Apr 21, 2017 01:22

Yeowch!!! My Balls!!!: May 31, 2006

Nevvy Z posted:

Is that what you think you are doing? Really?

Should we support identity politician Democrats in Kansas who want equality of opportunity through the free market being genuinely fair to all persons?

Well, you're on record as saying no, gently caress 'em, better to leave Kansas bleeding than waste a dollar of Democratic money on the insufficiently morally pure and ungrateful masses. But I like to think of myself as a pragmatist. Miss all the shots you don't take, as it were.

I understand if your principles prevent you from supporting a democratic candidate who hasn't called for a border wall, really, I do, but sometimes in politics you have to make sacrifices like "lifting a goddamned finger in their support" in order to make your preferred policy decisions happen.

Remember, it was not the Blue Dogs who killed the public option. It was the Democratic Party refusing to strip any power from a Republican-in-all-but-name from a solid blue state, and Sensible Centrists deciding it wasn't worth their time to even try to force it by him.

# ? Apr 21, 2017 01:28

LeJackal: Apr 5, 2011

steinrokkan posted:

Nobody will ever use a gun against cops and come out on top.

quote:

A Nueces County jury has delivered a not guilty verdict in a case where a man accused of shooting three CCPD SWAT officers.

Ray Rosas was found to be not guilty in a shooting that happened February 19th, 2015. Police were serving a warrant at his home on Churchill Drive when they say he opened fire and shot three officers.

When the trial began last Wednesday, Rosas faced seven charges. However, the prosecution dropped three counts of attempted capital murder Monday afternoon, and the jury deliberated three counts of aggravated assault.

Before closing arguments were read Tuesday afternoon, Judge Guy Williams told the jury that evidence had not been dealt with appropriately by prosecutors. He read off a list of 22 items of evidence that the state should have preserved or brought forward before the trial started, but did not.

"And the court further instructs the jury that this evidence would be unfavorable to the State of Texas who did not produce or preserve such evidence," Judge Williams told the jury.

As for the evidence the judge said wasn't handled correctly, the defense used that to reinforce their claim that Ray Rosas didn't get a fair trial.

"The defense can't put on a defense, a complete defense," said Terry Shamsie, one of Rosas' attorneys. "We've been cheated if we don't get all the evidence. That's it!"

# ? Apr 21, 2017 01:34

shrike82: Jun 11, 2005

Personal anecdote about the Dems being intertwined with the professional/technocrat class (and consequently lost their way with the working class) -

I caught a flight a couple months before the election from JFK-SFO and ended up chatting to the woman next to me. She ended up being a Columbia-educated Googler (ex-Goldman), whose parents were bundlers for HRC. We had a cool chat but I found it funny how she literally couldn't understand the Sanders movement and why people seemed to be so angry in the election. From her standpoint, Obama had fixed the economy and healthcare, people were better off than they ever were - so why were people on both ends of the political spectrum so angry?

Because times have been pretty good if you're a bi-coastal professional.

"American is already great"

# ? Apr 21, 2017 01:35

Name Change: Oct 9, 2005

LeJackal posted:

Why is it almost every time I hear about a case of police chucklefuckery it's always Texas or Florida?

# ? Apr 21, 2017 01:38

LeJackal: Apr 5, 2011

dont even fink about it posted:

Why is it almost every time I hear about a case of police chucklefuckery it's always Texas or Florida?

It happens all over the place, really.

# ? Apr 21, 2017 01:39

Harold Fjord: Jan 3, 2004

Ze Pollack posted:

Well, you're on record as saying no, gently caress 'em, better to leave Kansas bleeding than waste a dollar of Democratic money on the insufficiently morally pure and ungrateful masses.

Where? You are lying.

Ze Pollack posted:

Remember, it was not the Blue Dogs who killed the public option. It was the Democratic Party refusing to strip any power from a Republican-in-all-but-name from a solid blue state, and Sensible Centrists deciding it wasn't worth their time to even try to force it by him.

You mean the one who won as a third party independent? What exactly should they have done that would have gotten the public option? Extraordinary claims and all that

shrike82 posted:

Personal anecdote about the Dems being intertwined with the professional/technocrat class (and consequently lost their way with the working class) -

Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 01:52 on Apr 21, 2017

# ? Apr 21, 2017 01:43

Agnosticnixie: Jan 6, 2015

Nevvy Z posted:

You mean the one who won as a third party independent? What exactly should they have done that would have gotten the public option? Extraordinary claims and all that

They mean the one who came back to the senate as if the primary hadn't happened and who got every single one of his committee appointments back instead of a more appropriate dem.

The democrats treated Lieberman with kid gloves through the whole ordeal.

# ? Apr 21, 2017 02:06

Mister Facetious: Apr 21, 2007; I think I died and woke up in L.A.,
I don't know how I wound up in this place...

NewForumSoftware posted:

lol "why won't you just support indentured servitude being put in place wholesale across america? god!"

I heard "debtors prison" is a thing in America. Is that true?

And since slavery is legal if you're in prison...

# ? Apr 21, 2017 02:17

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 10, 2024 07:49

Ytlaya: Nov 13, 2005

shrike82 posted:

Personal anecdote about the Dems being intertwined with the professional/technocrat class (and consequently lost their way with the working class) -

I caught a flight a couple months before the election from JFK-SFO and ended up chatting to the woman next to me. She ended up being a Columbia-educated Googler (ex-Goldman), whose parents were bundlers for HRC. We had a cool chat but I found it funny how she literally couldn't understand the Sanders movement and why people seemed to be so angry in the election. From her standpoint, Obama had fixed the economy and healthcare, people were better off than they ever were - so why were people on both ends of the political spectrum so angry?

Because times have been pretty good if you're a bi-coastal professional.

"American is already great"

Yeah, this is basically the mindset of like 90% of the people I went to college with who now have lucrative jobs in finance, consulting, etc. They usually know on an intellectual level that some people live in poverty, but they don't understand just how many people and how unusually high their quality of life is relative to the average American (I think I mentioned in some other thread how at least several people thought ~60k was a normal starting salary for a young adult to make and anything below that was strangely low). In the case of liberals, they don't have malicious intentions, but they are dangerously naive and ignorant.

Another anecdote is this friend of mine who didn't go to an elite school but ended up managing to get a good job with a firm that lobbies the government on the behalf of the financial industry. After working there for a while her views quickly changed to basically assuming that financial professionals knew what they're talking about and everyone who criticizes them clearly doesn't understand the big picture. And it's understandable how this happens; when you know a bunch of people who seem competent and nice and work in a particular field, you'll naturally be biased in favor of them (and against the people who disagree, since it's easy to stereotype them if you don't know them in person).

I was sort of like a reverse version of her. I majored in finance and went to parties with JPMorgan Chase employees and stuff while in school (because of my friend who worked there) and thought "wow these people are so intelligent" and basically took the pro-finance side in discussions with leftists (in my defense, this was before the financial crisis). After moving back to Tennessee to work as a programmer at a state university (in a research setting), I quickly realized that the people I knew from NYC weren't exceptionally intelligent; they were just very good at appearing "professional" and competent due to their upbringing. And, like, I'm sure they were competent in many ways, but they also had a strong bias in favor of the industry they worked for and most of their arguments were just dressed up versions of "this stuff is complex, you should leave it to the professionals."

Though there was this one nice surprise where this Indian dude who works at an investment bank (forget which one) who I thought was a Republican turned out to be a socialist.

Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 04:09 on Apr 21, 2017

# ? Apr 21, 2017 04:06

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The democrats are a waste

«‹›483 »