Support NeoGAF

[The Technomancer]

Wait, what? And what about being a lefty and compromising with racist just because they're more protectionist and populist on some economic policies?

That's ok, but compromising with conservatives on financial and economic issues, but not on social progressivism, is too much?

That's the fucking hypocrisy I hate from some Berniecrats when they accuse others of "compromising".

Either you admit that sometimes you don't get everything you want, or not and just go full on purist and never actually get a majority on anything.

Don't you know that trade is bad and isolationism is now apparently progressive? Heaven forbid we tax the wealth that is filling the country from international trade and use it to provide robust social services without requiring labor, you know, the socialist thing to do

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

This is like the argument from the South Park biker episode about how the f-word isn't exclusively used as a slur anymore and therefore you shouldn't automatically take it as a slur.

The term has a set definition, and it's not used by social scientist at all, just leftists on the internet who needed something to call people less leftward than they are.

Uh, I am a social scientist and it has appeared in my textbooks (which, if anything, have a liberal bias, not a left-bias)

 

[pigeon]

I said all leftists being racists was a myth.

That's really not what you posted, but sure. I'll accept that there was a miscommunication here.

If you are a leftist and a racist then you are not a leftist.

I condemn all so called leftists who do not support equality and civil rights for minorities.

There are people who call themselves leftists that are racists.

Great. Good start! Now you just need to follow this up by actually condemning them when they pop up in conversations, rather than tolerating them because they agree with you.

We'll see how it goes, I guess.

There, now that we're clear, explain to me how you being a rabid attack dog for liberals supports leftist ideals.

Sure! First off, your entire dichotomy is facile and wrong.

Yes, the effect of the two-party system in America is to force disparate and not perfectly aligned interest groups into a single party, where in another country they would be separate parties, possibly in coalition. And yes, in the Democrat's case that means American socialists are forced into the same tent as socially progressive neoliberals.

But it doesn't necessarily follow that all Democratic candidates and politicians are from the latter camp rather than the former camp. If that were true it would be dumb of them to constantly say that they support socialist policies, as Pelosi did like a month ago.

The reason I defend the Democrats is because I believe they're the best path forward for economic and social justice, because it's a two party system, and because I believe they want those things based on their statements and their actions. Lots of people seem to disagree because we didn't get, say, single-payer in 2008. I think those people maybe don't remember what it was like for 8 years under George W. Bush. Social Security privatization was on the table. Gay marriage constitutional bans were popping up all over the country. Incremental progressive victories seemed like the only option. Vocally advocating for socialism seemed politically impossible. That's why the Democrats didn't do it.

But hey, it's 2016 now. It's clear after the events of the last couple years that generational shift means that we can come out of the rentier's closet and start just talking about the moral imperative of socialism again without getting crushed. It's also clear that Dems will vote for Democrats, Republicans will vote for Republicans, and swing voters will vote based on the weather, so we may as well just run outspoken socialists all the time and use that as a mandate to enact socialist policies when we eventually win. And in fact that's the direction the Democratic Party is moving in. Not as quickly as I'd like, but it is moving.

But that doesn't mean that the Democratic Party is fundamentally illegitimate or complicit, it doesn't mean that Nancy Pelosi is somehow incompetent or evil, and it doesn't mean that one special election means we're doomed. All that stuff is just wrong, based on muddled or incoherent understandings of the current situation and the American politican system. Advancing it is detrimental to the movement, because truth and accuracy are values, and all change has costs, so you don't want to change things unnecessarily. And pointing out that people who don't understand things actually don't understand things doesn't make me a neoliberal shill.

 

[kirblar]

I think the arguments from both of you are the same. "Strong regulation" in his case means the socialist ideas you want.

And it's true. It's basic economic theory, at least in Mexico. Both my high school and middle school econ classes taught us that a mixed economy is better in the long run.

Of course, the definition of "center" and "mixed" has been muddled and warped in these last 30 years, so there's the problem.

(Don't worry, that's basic economic theory everywhere!)

 

[Joeytj]

(Don't worry, that's basic economic theory everywhere!)

One wouldn't think based on how the the world keeps fucking the economy up every 10 years or so.

 

[The Technomancer]

Lots of people seem to disagree because we didn't get, say, single-payer in 2008. I think those people maybe don't remember what it was like for 8 years under George W. Bush. Social Security privatization was on the table. Gay marriage constitutional bans were popping up all over the country. Incremental progressive victories seemed like the only option. Vocally advocating for socialism seemed politically impossible. That's why the Democrats didn't do it.

But hey, it's 2016 now. It's clear after the events of the last couple years that generational shift means that we can come out of the rentier's closet and start just talking about the moral imperative of socialism again without getting crushed. It's also clear that Dems will vote for Democrats, Republicans will vote for Republicans, and swing voters will vote based on the weather, so we may as well just run outspoken socialists all the time and use that as a mandate to enact socialist policies when we eventually win. And in fact that's the direction the Democratic Party is moving in. Not as quickly as I'd like, but it is moving.

But that doesn't mean that the Democratic Party is fundamentally illegitimate or complicit, it doesn't mean that Nancy Pelosi is somehow incompetent or evil, and it doesn't mean that one special election means we're doomed. All that stuff is just wrong, based on muddled or incoherent understandings of the current situation and the American politican system. Advancing it is detrimental to the movement, because truth and accuracy are values, and all change has costs, so you don't want to change things unnecessarily. And pointing out that people who don't understand things actually don't understand things doesn't make me a neoliberal shill.

Yup. The bolded parts especially.

 

[kirblar]

One wouldn't think based on how the the world keeps fucking the economy up every 10 years or so.

The Federal Reserve in the US is set up like it is explicitly because having democratic influence (small d, not the party) over monetary policy has historically been a nightmare. (Brexit would be a strong example of this.)

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

Don't you know that trade is bad and isolationism is now apparently progressive? Heaven forbid we tax the wealth that is filling the country from international trade and use it to provide robust social services without requiring labor, you know, the socialist thing to do

Oh come on, the whole problem is that the people aggressively pushing for these free trade deals are the same people that want to privatize education and haven't been funding social services. If Obama said "I'm going to pass the TPP and then use all the wealth it generates to nationalize our healthcare system" I imagine more people might support TPP, but instead TPP exists to enrich the oligarchs, not to fund a bigger welfare state.

 

[Quixzlizx]

Ossoff represents the blockhead mentality of so many of the corporate Democrats," said the National Nurses United spokesperson Charles Idelson. The organization advocates for moving the Democratic party to the left, and Idelson argued Ossoff lost in part by rejecting single-payer health care and by running a scrupulously centrist campaign on economics. ”This is the time to recognize the bankruptcy of the old methods of the Democratic establishment."

I don't think socialism is what affluent white Southerners want.

I mean, you could argue that no Democrat was ever going to win the election anyway, so they should've nominated someone who would've gone down swinging for the workers' revolution, but that person would've been crushed in that particular district.

 

[CrimzonSamurai]

Uh, I am a social scientist and it has appeared in my textbooks (which, if anything, have a liberal bias, not a left-bias)

Yeah but has it appeared in its economic context or the context where it's just a throwaway dismissal of someone who isn't economically liberal enough?

My point was that it isn't used by social scientists in a meaning separate from its original one from the economic scientists who created it.

Oh come on, the whole problem is that the people aggressively pushing for these free trade deals are the same people that want to privatize education and haven't been funding social services. If Obama said "I'm going to pass the TPP and then use all the wealth it generates to nationalize our healthcare system" I imagine more people might support TPP, but instead TPP exists to enrich the oligarchs, not to fund a bigger welfare state.

Well mostly it existed to maintain an economic edge on China in their local market.

But I would imagine it's kind of a given that a Democrat controlled government would use the extra revenue for those types of policies and had it actually been popular to do that people would 1) vote for more Democrats and 2) it wouldn't have just been "bad" according to Bernie but "good when we tax it.

 

[Inuhanyou]

Democrats putting up Republican lite politicians who don't even support leftist causes in the first place is a disaster, and we've been seeing it play out over and over.

You can't out right wing the right wing, but it benefits powerful benefactors to have the terms of the debate always be on the right wing side.

It always benefits those powerful interests regardless of the party in power, whether its to an extreme degree like the GOP or a lesser extent like the Democrats.

These people are the face of a broken system of political governance, and our main obstacle right now is the apologists who cover for it.

 

[The Technomancer]

Oh come on, the whole problem is that the people aggressively pushing for these free trade deals are the same people that want to privatize education and haven't been funding social services. If Obama said "I'm going to pass the TPP and then use all the wealth it generates to nationalize our healthcare system" I imagine more people might support TPP, but instead TPP exists to enrich the oligarchs, not to fund a bigger welfare state.

My problem is that the solutions being proposed, even on the left, seem to be "close off trade, bring back manufacturing jobs".
A.) This is an absolutely fundamental misunderstanding of where manufacturing is at in the US right now (which is pretty damn good) and why the jobs don't exist anymore
B.) Just propose the thing I just said!

 

[Abounder]

cf. minimum wage, single player health care, taxing the rich, etc.

Bingo. Hillary and her voters are the racists of the Dem party, they gotta go...but then again we have a birther in the WH

 

[O Canada Our Home and Native Land]

Because it doesn't mean anything. It's just a slur. I'm not "fighting" it, I'm calling it as a meaningless husk of a phrase that doesn't exist to do anything other than to signal that you're a good person and those other people are bad.

You're not fighting it, but you constantly make posts about it for months since the primaries and as you did in this thread. It maybe is meaningless to you, but that doesn't make it so to everyone else. If your politics aligns with neoliberalism then you should accept it anything else is cowardly. If you feel neoliberalism is such a slight maybe it is time to reevaluate your political positions.

 

[pigeon]

Oh come on, the whole problem is that the people aggressively pushing for these free trade deals are the same people that want to privatize education and haven't been funding social services. If Obama said "I'm going to pass the TPP and then use all the wealth it generates to nationalize our healthcare system" I imagine more people might support TPP, but instead TPP exists to enrich the oligarchs, not to fund a bigger welfare state.

Hey now. You and I both know TPP didn't enrich the oligarchs at all because it didn't have meaningful economic benefits. It was purely a foreign policy initiative to isolate China and force them to simmer down their imperialist ambitions.

Admittedly that's not exactly how it was presented, so, oops on Obama there.

 

[flkraven]

Bingo. Hillary and her voters are the racists of the Dem party, they gotta go...but then again we have a birther in the WH

oh come on....

 

[jakonovski]

I mean if we're going to say that colonial exploitation is continuing you only have to look at China's "investment" in Africa to show that this isn't an exclusively capitalist or post-colonial problem.

I'm not saying capitalism doesn't have problems. It clearly does. But there's never been a better socialist system, or one that actually functions, so I don't really see a need to plunge headlong into that economic doctrine. Social democracy is an entirely different animal, and really isn't even socialism because it doesn't centrally plan the economy it just has a massive welfare state. Which I'm down with no question.

Also I can assure you we have plenty of unions and political battles for favor from said unions dominates most state-level politics in manufacturing based areas here. Some are more important federally like the AFL-CIO. I mean unions definitely need to make a resurgence but a lot of their current problems are the result of their own internal corruption or inept management.

I'm ok with "just" saying capitalism has problems. The context for my ranting was the exclamation here that capitalism is the best for poor people. When it is in fact the excesses of capitalist ideology that the Democrats are trying to battle, and Trump being the embodiment of capital attracting capital regardless of merit.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

Hey now. You and I both know TPP didn't enrich the oligarchs at all because it didn't have meaningful economic benefits. It was purely a foreign policy initiative to isolate China and force them to simmer down their imperialist ambitions.

Admittedly that's not exactly how it was presented, so, oops on Obama there.

uhhh, I'm pretty sure exporting our intellectual property laws to sell more expensive drugs by making cheap generics illegal was not a policy created to oppose Chinese hegemony

it can also be both

but you can insert NAFTA here instead if you'd like

 

[CrimzonSamurai]

I'm ok with "just" saying capitalism has problems. The context for my ranting was the exclamation here that capitalism is the best for poor people. When it is in fact the excesses of capitalist ideology that the Democrats are trying to battle, and Trump being the embodiment of capital attracting capital regardless of merit.

It is better than any other attempted system in human history, though. Like, there has never been a functioning example of another economic system that resulted in even remotely close rates of growth. Capitalism has been shown to be the best for poor people, that doesn't mean it can't be further improved for poor people.

uhhh, I'm pretty sure exporting our intellectual property laws to sell more expensive drugs by making cheap generics illegal was not a policy created to oppose Chinese hegemony

it can also be both

but you can insert NAFTA here instead if you'd like

That's entirely an attempt to shut out the Chinese chemical industry because they'd just bootleg the generics in.

I mean, who do you think supplies the entire world with bath salts? The Chinese chemical industry is a shady shady shady mess.

 

[Big Baybee]

Bingo. Hillary and her voters are the racists of the Dem party, they gotta go...but then again we have a birther in the WH

Do you agree with Bernie that we should stop focusing on "Identity Politics" and focus on the white working class (the only identity that apparently matters).

 

[The Technomancer]

I'm going to stay out of any sort of discussion of if capitalism was "the only social system" that could get us here or whatever. That is, oddly enough, not a topic I'm particularly interested in. I think there are logistical reasons why socialism on a national scale wasn't feasible for economies of the last century and I think those reasons have been or are rapidly being overcome, setting us up for what is possibly a very bright future if we can steer there

 

[FoneBone]

Regarding the malaise of the modern Democratic Party, I cannot recommend this book enough:

It is a widespread belief among liberals that if only Democrats can continue to dominate national elections, if only those awful Republicans are beaten into submission, the country will be on the right course.

But this is to fundamentally misunderstand the modern Democratic Party. Drawing on years of research and first-hand reporting, Frank points out that the Democrats have done little to advance traditional liberal goals: expanding opportunity, fighting for social justice, and ensuring that workers get a fair deal. Indeed, they have scarcely dented the free-market consensus at all. This is not for lack of opportunity: Democrats have occupied the White House for sixteen of the last twenty-four years, and yet the decline of the middle class has only accelerated. Wall Street gets its bailouts, wages keep falling, and the free-trade deals keep coming.

With his trademark sardonic wit and lacerating logic, Frank lays bare the essence of the Democratic Party's philosophy and how it has changed over the years. A form of corporate and cultural elitism has largely eclipsed the party's old working-class commitment, he finds. For certain favored groups, this has meant prosperity. But for the nation as a whole, it is a one-way ticket into the abyss of inequality. In this critical election year, Frank recalls the Democrats to their historic goals-the only way to reverse the ever-deepening rift between the rich and the poor in America.

 

[The Technomancer]

Regarding the malaise of the modern Democratic Party, I cannot recommend this book enough:

I mean, Democrats have controlled the presidency and the house for two years total since 2000 and in that time they passed the ACA. We do not know what, in the modern political landscape, a democratic party with political power would or would not have pursued, frankly

 

[BUNTING1243]

Do you agree with Bernie that we should stop focusing on "Identity Politics" and focus on the white working class (the only identity that apparently matters).

You're being obtuse and I think you know it. Show me where Bernie said white working class was the only identity that matters.

 

[The Technomancer]

You're being obtuse and I think you know it. Show me where Bernie said white working class was the only identity that matters.

Now you're the one who's being obtuse. The point I and many others are making isn't that there's a faction of the left that's white supremacists but that economic progressive populism has a long history with racism and there's a worrying lack of self awareness around this fact that leaves nice shiny "leftism" vulnerable to some nasty turns

 

[jakonovski]

It is better than any other attempted system in human history, though. Like, there has never been a functioning example of another economic system that resulted in even remotely close rates of growth. Capitalism has been shown to be the best for poor people, that doesn't mean it can't be further improved for poor people.

The capitalist system of worker protections, lol. I shall never understand the depth to which Americans are resistant to admitting that something good might not be entirely capitalist. But we agree on how people should be treated, so no worries.

 

[Big Baybee]

You're being obtuse and I think you know it. Show me where Bernie said white working class was the only identity that matters.

I never said only. So you are asking me to prove something I never said. Bernie has said that we should move away from identity politics and focus more on the white working class. Let's start here right after the election:

https://twitter.com/berniesanders/status/798192678785716224?lang=en

 

[Cyrano]

I'm ok with "just" saying capitalism has problems. The context for my ranting was the exclamation here that capitalism is the best for poor people. When it is in fact the excesses of capitalist ideology that the Democrats are trying to battle, and Trump being the embodiment of capital attracting capital regardless of merit.

More to the point, it is capitalism that creates poor people. It also creates wealthy people, but the dichotomy only grows over time, and there will be far more poor people than wealthy people.

 

[Ekai]

I'm going to re-up my hot take from the last, literally identical thread:

The Democrats won a popular vote victory in 2016. They lost the White House by a tiny margin of votes*. In a two-party system, no election is guaranteed; both parties always have a chance to win. They also won seats in both the House and Senate.

The Democrats have a much more popular platform than the opposing party pretty much across the board.

Maybe the Democrats are doing fine and shouldn't change anything.

You might think this argument is dumb. Sure, maybe! I don't actually think the Democrats shouldn't change ANYTHING. But you should probably have a better rebuttal to it than "that doesn't fit my narrative about the universe," because the points above are largely factual. If you want to assert we need huge, unprecedented change or the party will collapse, you should probably be able to overcome the pretty low bar of explaining why everything is not fine.


* Because of an undemocratic system that was designed to privilege the views of rural white people and racists, but that's not key to the argument here.

Ahh, yes, keep compromising with Republicans to the detriment of minorities and the poor. That's working out wonderfully for the past few decades.

 

[jakonovski]

More to the point, it is capitalism that creates poor people. It also creates wealthy people, but the dichotomy only grows over time, and there will be far more poor people than wealthy people.

You have better words than me, thanks!

 

[Ekai]

That's some fucking privilege righ there.

Where did this myth of the racist leftist that Pigeon and Excel keep pushing come from?

The entire point of leftist politics is equality. No one wants to abandon 'identity politics' except a small minority. What's really sad is supporting a party that only seeks to carve out a niche for minorities in an oppressive system and then asks them to shut up.

Liberals fight for more welfare; leftists fight for collective ownership.

Liberals fight for equal pay for women; leftists fight for the the abolition of gender.

Liberals are afraid to tax the wealthy too highly; leftists know that wealth belongs to the nation that built it.

Liberals ask minorities to wait for a more convenient season; leftist ask them help us crush their oppressors.

Liberals are slaves to corporate interests; leftists know they are our enemy.

Liberals say everything thing is fine as their house burns down around them; leftists want to put the fire out.

It's a bit reductive but a spot on post. Growing quite tired of the constant mud slinging at leftists when they're the ones in the party who actually care to help people like me.

Sorry if double post, on mobile.

 

[Abounder]

oh come on....

Inconvenient Truths and all. Hillary still thinks superpredator wasn't a racist term, and the polls shows her voters are the racists of the party.

Do you agree with Bernie that we should stop focusing on "Identity Politics" and focus on the white working class (the only identity that apparently matters).

Fuck no but I do agree with Clinton: "Its the economy, stupid" & I agree with Bernie/Dean/Bill/Barrack/etc that Dems need to actually campaign (as opposed to lazy Hillary who flew home every night, skipped WI, held no press conferences for months, let Trump dominate all media, etc).

 

[pigeon]

Ahh, yes, keep compromising with Republicans to the detriment of minorities and the poor. That's working out wonderfully for the past few decades.

Sorry, I see the confusion. My post was in reference to this universe.

 

[The Technomancer]

More to the point, it is capitalism that creates poor people. It also creates wealthy people, but the dichotomy only grows over time, and there will be far more poor people than wealthy people.

I actually think that this is wrong, and its wrong in a way that leaves one vulnerable. Capitalism does not create inequality. Before capitalism, there was feudalism. Before feudalism the ancient world had a hell of a lot of slaves. Capitalism is responsible for inequality; it exacerbates it and fights attempts to improve it, but it is not the source of the class divide. I feel very strongly that this is ultra important to be aware of because whatever social reorganization you propose has to have robust systems for fighting inequality and if you think capitalism is the source of inequality it can be easy to say "we solved capitalism so its not an issue!"

 

[Ekai]

Sorry, I see the confusion. My post was in reference to this universe.

Ahh, yes, denial of facts and the throwing under the bus centrists have done to minorities in a gambit to appeal to right wing voters to maintain political relevancy since practically frickin Nixon. And especially since Reagan. Center right never happened and the Democrats have always cared about me as a trans person rather than held me hostage as I had no other vote to give, got it.

Not to mention the compromising done to appeal to Republicans that caused the income inequality gap to widen at a more rapid pace. That obviously never happened. Thanks for that erasure of history, pigeon.

 

[Father_Brain]

I never said only. So you are asking me to prove something I never said. Bernie has said that we should move away from identity politics and focus more on the white working class. Let's start here right after the election:

https://twitter.com/berniesanders/status/798192678785716224?lang=en

That says nothing about identity politics. He elsewhere criticized identity politics specifically in the context of the strain of liberal idpol that's primarily concerned with diversifying the ranks of the most powerful rather than what they do with that power.

I will agree that Sanders is not very good at communicating an intersectional message, as reflected by his extremely unfortunate decision to use the phrase "identity politics" in any sort of negative context, but at no point has he argued that the concerns of people who aren't cishet white men are trivial and should take a back seat.

 

[kirblar]

Inconvenient Truths and all. Hillary still thinks superpredator wasn't a racist term, and the polls shows her voters are the racists of the party.

So, this is much more complicated than you think- https://www.voterstudygroup.org/reports/2016-elections/political-divisions-in-2016-and-beyond

see: attitudes towards black people vs feelings towards Muslims. The ""people like me" in decline" thing as well.

 

[Foffy]

That's some fucking privilege righ there.

Where did this myth of the racist leftist that Pigeon and Excel keep pushing come from?

The entire point of leftist politics is equality. No one wants to abandon 'identity politics' except a small minority. What's really sad is supporting a party that only seeks to carve out a niche for minorities in an oppressive system and then asks them to shut up.

Liberals fight for more welfare; leftists fight for collective ownership.

Liberals fight for equal pay for women; leftists fight for the the abolition of gender.

Liberals are afraid to tax the wealthy too highly; leftists know that wealth belongs to the nation that built it.

Liberals ask minorities to wait for a more convenient season; leftist ask them help us crush their oppressors.

Liberals are slaves to corporate interests; leftists know they are our enemy.

Liberals say everything thing is fine as their house burns down around them; leftists want to put the fire out.

Guess I'm a leftist. Goddamn.

 

[plagiarize]

That says nothing about identity politics. He elsewhere criticized identity politics specifically in the context of the strain of liberal idpol that's primarily concerned with diversifying the ranks of the most powerful rather than what they do with that power.

I will agree that Sanders is not very good at communicating an intersectional message, as reflected by his extremely unfortunate decision to use the phrase "identity politics" in any sort of negative context, but at no point has he argued that the concerns of people who aren't cishet white men are trivial and should take a back seat.

Yet just like Joe Biden (who I adore) he does make the kind of arguments about how helping the poor is helping minorities, without showing any self awareness at why minorities don't respond to such messaging.

I don't think Sanders or Biden are racist, but I don't think they understand why black people lined up to support Hillary and don't seem capable of messaging that leaves such minorities feeling anything other than having their votes taken for granted.

 

[Isaac Otherworld]

So, this is much more complicated than you think- https://www.voterstudygroup.org/reports/2016-elections/political-divisions-in-2016-and-beyond


see: attitudes towards black people vs feelings towards Muslims. The ""people like me" in decline" thing as well.

Literally everyone in the country aside from the top 1% are in decline economically. They're not wrong to think that at all.

 

[plagiarize]

So, this is much more complicated than you think- https://www.voterstudygroup.org/reports/2016-elections/political-divisions-in-2016-and-beyond


see: attitudes towards black people vs feelings towards Muslims. The ""people like me" in decline" thing as well.

I'm being dumb, but I can't tell what the scale on the bottom of that graph is meant to mean.

 

[CrimzonSamurai]

Edit: Nevermind, misread the graph.

 

[pigeon]

Guess I'm a leftist. Goddamn.

Wait, did you not know? You're like the most aggressive advocate for automation-driven socialism around here! And it's me saying that!

 

[The Technomancer]

I'm being dumb, but I can't tell what the scale on the bottom of that graph is meant to mean.

Its measuring those attitudes along an axis of "left vs right" basically, i.e more or less accepting of muslims, more or less upset about inequality, etc. Its not labelled very well, its part of a much larger piece

 

[pigeon]

So, this is much more complicated than you think- https://www.voterstudygroup.org/reports/2016-elections/political-divisions-in-2016-and-beyond


see: attitudes towards black people vs feelings towards Muslims. The ""people like me" in decline" thing as well.

Note that the "attitudes towards blacks" question is within the margin of error, while the "attitudes towards Muslims" question isn't. Clinton supporters were unquestionably more supportive of Muslims than Sanders supporters.

 

[kirblar]

I'm being dumb, but I can't tell what the scale on the bottom of that graph is meant to mean.

It's traditionally liberal-associated on the left, traditionally conservative-associated on the right- it's consistent through the whole article so it's not explained in the individual graphs. (and yes, this is using US definitions, duh)

Literally everyone in the country aside from the top 1% are in decline economically. They're not wrong to think that at all.

Good lord this is wrong. Yes, there's a real problem with the runaway train of the top 1% and 20%, but things are going upwards for the rest of us as well. Overall standards of living have massively improved over the past decades.

 

[Foffy]

Wait, did you not know? You're like the most aggressive advocate for automation-driven socialism around here! And it's me saying that!

I considered myself a peopleist, so I never played the game of labels.

I thought I was LIBERAL. Yaknow, progressive in all caps. And that it was that progressivism versus centrism with the Dems and the ends of sociopathy with the Repubs.

Wanting a society on accountability seems intrinsically leftist, if Dr. Benton Quest's post is any metric to go on.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

Note that the "attitudes towards blacks" question is within the margin of error, while the "attitudes towards Muslims" question isn't. Clinton supporters were unquestionably more supportive of Muslims than Sanders supporters.

well unless they lived outside the country

 

[pigeon]

well unless they lived outside the country

I get the joke, drum emoji and all, but the survey didn't include foreign policy except for foreign trade, which, obviously, Sanders supporters hate.

 

[plagiarize]

It's traditionally liberal-associated on the left, traditionally conservative-associated on the right- it's consistent through the whole article so it's not explained in the individual graphs. (and yes, this is using US definitions, duh)

Good lord this is wrong. Yes, there's a real problem with the runaway train of the top 1% and 20%, but things are going upwards for the rest of us as well. Overall standards of living have massively improved over the past decades.

Thanks. I was trying to tell if it was agree / disagree, or whatever.