Being "liberal"... what's it REALLY mean now a days?

[A.S. Deep]

Anyone that disagrees with Trump is now a liberal

And anyone that disagrees with SJWs is now a conservative.

 

[sub_thug]

What's to get? I'm seeing the world through their eyes and then noting where that differs with reality. The gap between those two things is where the con comes in. Further, I totally agree that people who have lost their jobs or are struggling have interests that deserve to be addressed; I think that those interests should be addressed rationally, though. If the economic backbone of your community is dying, what can politicians actually do for you? What traditionally has helped that type of community? I cited an example of a city that has managed to rebuild. Here's another thing:

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-03-30/colleges-can-spark-a-rust-belt-revival

But cutting taxes on mega-rich heirs and real-estate tycoons, cracking down on marijuana, and enabling corporations to pollute more isn't part of any realistic solution to anyone's problems.

I don't personally think that there is much that politicians can do for anyone. The jobs are in the cities, so that is where people go if they have the skill sets to make it there. It just is what it is.

For these communities, I think it's less about marijuana and more about the heroin, meth, etc.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I don't personally think that there is much that politicians can do for anyone. The jobs are in the cities, so that is where people go if they have the skill sets to make it there. It just is what it is.

For these communities, I think it's less about marijuana and more about the heroin, meth, etc.

Heroin is a problem, but I'm saying that people were duped. What have Republicans actually done in office? We haven't seen the opioid problem addressed, but we're seeing a crackdown on marijuana. We haven't seen any action to improve the economy of struggling towns, but real-estate tycoons and very rich heirs got a huge tax cut. Etc. Symbolism for the working class and material benefits for the rich.

And as I pointed out, there are things that can be done to revitalize towns that are seeing a decline in their primary industry. It's just that the people who are running on racial resentment aren't doing them.

 

[grimballer]

It's not necessarily that I think that he's totally wrong or anything. There are some points of contention or counterpoints to be made, but that's politics for you. It's that I think there are legitimate issues at play here, and what is needed is a little empathy. I think that's especially important if we are going to sit here and talk about how all these different groups are disenfranchised and need federal support, and out of the other side of their mouths, they are going to sit there and say that these groups of people don't have legitimate grievances.

I think both major parties have created bases that they are lying to. The Democratic Party doesn't give a flying fuck about people in the inner cities, minorities, women, or the desolately poor at the institutional level. They care about donors, PACs, and anything else that puts money and votes in their column so that they can expand their power base. The Republican Party doesn't give a flying fuck about Middle America. They care about donors, PACs, and anything else that puts money and votes in their column so that they can expand their power base. Government entities cannot be trusted at the institutional level, and that's why I am a fan of smaller government.

I understand that

But I (non American) always viewed Democrats as the party of the working/middle class n republicans as the party of those a bit more wealthy

If you look at the elections from few decades ago you could see southern blue states

Democrat shift to the left over the years probably helped republicans get the support from the religious ppl n pretty much secure the south

Now democracts shifting even further left n pandering to all the “neglected” groups while taking their working class base for granted n telling them: “your issues are not as important to us right now” hurt them in this last election.

Trump was able to connect with those ppl n he won. Ignoring that n continuing with same talking points used before the elections wont help. If anything it will just hurt their cause even more

 

[sub_thug]

Heroin is a problem, but I'm saying that people were duped. What have Republicans actually done in office? We haven't seen the opioid problem addressed, but we're seeing a crackdown on marijuana. We haven't seen any action to improve the economy of struggling towns, but real-estate tycoons and very rich heirs got a huge tax cut. Etc. Symbolism for the working class and material benefits for the rich.

And as I pointed out, there are things that can be done to revitalize towns that are seeing a decline in their primary industry. It's just that the people who are running on racial resentment aren't doing them.

No one is doing them. No one has done a damn thing for 50-60 years in these towns, and people get confused why there is a section of America that hates globalization. And it's not like this issue is unique to Republicans. American ghettos continue to be slums until neighborhoods get gentrified, an all the poor people get pushed out. Harlem is now teeming with working young adults, and Brooklyn is being revitalized in that same way. You're seeing a lot more white faces in those parts of the city, but the poorest of the poor who lived there for years aren't coming up in the world. In DC, it's a joke. The poorest of the poor in Anacostia (southeast DC) move to Prince George's County, MD when DC decides that it needs less crime and a face lift. MD gets worse, and then that area needs to be fixed, so all the poor people are forced to move back across the river, and DC sees a spike in crime. Seriously, you can' make this stuff up. Politicians can't do a thing for you, and they won't. We are all on our own, and honestly, I'm comfortable with that reality. My only request of the government is to stay out of my way, and if they do that for everyone, I think we will all be a lot better off.

 

[sub_thug]

I understand that

But I (non American) always viewed Democrats as the party of the working/middle class n republicans as the party of those a bit more wealthy

If you look at the elections from few decades ago you could see southern blue states

Democrat shift to the left over the years probably helped republicans get the support from the religious ppl n pretty much secure the south

Now democracts shifting even further left n pandering to all the “neglected” groups while taking their working class base for granted n telling them: “your issues are not as important to us right now” hurt them in this last election.

Trump was able to connect with those ppl n he won. Ignoring that n continuing with same talking points used before the elections wont help. If anything it will just hurt their cause even more

Democrats and Republicans can't be viewed accurately as the the "party of the poor and middle class" and the "part of the rich." That's just a talking point, but it's not really true.

The history of the switch of power from the Democrats in the South to a Republican stronghold has been pretty long and complicated. There's not really a good short answer to how that happened, and people who try to give you one are selling you a lie.

Trump was definitely able to connect with people who have been forgotten. There is a huge part of America that politicians never talk about, but Trump addressed them. And he won because of it.

 

[EZShrimpn]

We haven't seen any action to improve the economy of struggling towns.

Shit-canning of TPP and manditory e-verify for employers.

 

[grimballer]

Democrats and Republicans can't be viewed accurately as the the "party of the poor and middle class" and the "part of the rich." That's just a talking point, but it's not really true.

The history of the switch of power from the Democrats in the South to a Republican stronghold has been pretty long and complicated. There's not really a good short answer to how that happened, and people who try to give you one are selling you a lie.

Trump was definitely able to connect with people who have been forgotten. There is a huge part of America that politicians never talk about, but Trump addressed them. And he won because of it.

So democrats = party of the working class

Republicans = party of the wealthy

Wasn’t true for the most part of 20th century?

For the last part...

I guess democraTs found out the hard way that just calling ppl deplorables won’t cut it, or there are more deplorables than they thought

They need to address these ppl concerns n not simply push them on the side n still expect their support

 

[Jack V Savage]

No one is doing them. No one has done a damn thing for 50-60 years in these towns, and people get confused why there is a section of America that hates globalization.

The problem hasn't existed for 50-60 years. Not even close. And we recently saw an increase in the EITC, healthcare reform, environmental reforms (that specifically help those communities), job-training programs designed specifically for people in dying industries (plus programs to create jobs cleaning up abandoned mines). All that is off the table until we get another political turnover. Not to mention additional new ideas (and some of that stuff has to come at the local level).

And it's not like this issue is unique to Republicans. American ghettos continue to be slums until neighborhoods get gentrified, an all the poor people get pushed out. Harlem is now teeming with working young adults, and Brooklyn is being revitalized in that same way. You're seeing a lot more white faces in those parts of the city, but the poorest of the poor who lived there for years aren't coming up in the world.

Old people might not come up, but their kids can. And we have programs for the elderly.

In DC, it's a joke. The poorest of the poor in Anacostia (southeast DC) move to Prince George's County, MD when DC decides that it needs less crime and a face lift. MD gets worse, and then that area needs to be fixed, so all the poor people are forced to move back across the river, and DC sees a spike in crime.

Violent crime in D.C. is down more than 50% since 1995, though. And lead abatement--which is policy-driven--is probably the biggest contributor to that.

Seriously, you can' make this stuff up. Politicians can't do a thing for you, and they won't. We are all on our own, and honestly, I'm comfortable with that reality. My only request of the government is to stay out of my way, and if they do that for everyone, I think we will all be a lot better off.

There's no way to avoid making policy choices. It's just a question of whether we make good ones or bad ones. The gov't cannot stay out of your way except by collapsing and bringing in communism.

 

[sub_thug]

The problem hasn't existed for 50-60 years. Not even close. And we recently saw an increase in the EITC, healthcare reform, environmental reforms (that specifically help those communities), job-training programs designed specifically for people in dying industries (plus programs to create jobs cleaning up abandoned mines). All that is off the table until we get another political turnover. Not to mention additional new ideas (and some of that stuff has to come at the local level).

Old people might not come up, but their kids can. And we have programs for the elderly.

Violent crime in D.C. is down more than 50% since 1995, though. And lead abatement--which is policy-driven--is probably the biggest contributor to that.

There's no way to avoid making policy choices. It's just a question of whether we make good ones or bad ones. The gov't cannot stay out of your way except by collapsing and bringing in communism.

Yes, it has. That's when the steel and glass factories left, and the towns have been on the decline since.

But their kids aren't. This stuff is largely cyclical in nature, and you won't change it until you get the parents involved to make a better life for their children. But parents typically push their kids to live lives akin to their own, so this stuff takes a while to happen, if ever.

They've driven down crime in specific areas of DC, such as Northwest and Northeast. And they've done that by making it extremely expensive to live there. In other parts, you're seeing neighborhood revitalization, but that's just gentrification.

Limiting the scope of government is absolutely possible. And communism is the expanse of government power, not the retraction. The absence of government intervention is anarchy. And I'm not saying that the government should have no scope at all, but I simply prefer the government to have extremely limited scope. The DOD is inefficient, but it should exist because we need a military to defend our borders. We should have DHS for that same reason. A federal court system definitely needs to exist to solve disputes between states. But why the government feels the need to get involved in home mortgages seems to a strange thing to me. I prefer them not to be involved in things like healthcare, my retirement, etc. Those things are my responsibility, and I prefer to have autonomy to conduct them as I see fit. It seems very strange to me that we need the federal government to tell us how to manage those things...

 

[Jack V Savage]

Yes, it has. That's when the steel and glass factories left, and the towns have been on the decline since.

But their kids aren't. This stuff is largely cyclical in nature, and you won't change it until you get the parents involved to make a better life for their children. But parents typically push their kids to live lives akin to their own, so this stuff takes a while to happen, if ever.

They've driven down crime in specific areas of DC, such as Northwest and Northeast. And they've done that by making it extremely expensive to live there. In other parts, you're seeing neighborhood revitalization, but that's just gentrification.

But crime has fallen all over country. Simply not true that it's pushed from one area to another, and if you look deeper at the numbers, you'll see that.

Anyway, we're jumping all over the place. D.C. voters didn't fall for the con that I described. We agree that it was one, right? I get the sense you're trying to defend voters who were conned, but I'm not blaming them. It's also a bit oversimplified. The vast majority of voters in 2016 voted the way the vote every time. We're really talking about probably 5% or so of the population in the specific areas we were talking about.

Limiting the scope of government is absolutely possible. And communism is the expanse of government power, not the retraction. The absence of government intervention is anarchy.

Anarchy=communism. And no, it really isn't possible. Gov't is already defining and enforcing property rights. It's already telling people that productive land is off-limits to them. It doesn't get "smaller" by compensating them less for that loss. Likewise, if the community doesn't want corporations (gov't-created entities, BTW) to dump waste in streams and the corporations want to, the gov't isn't "smaller" if it sides with the corporation against the community. Etc.

 

[sub_thug]

But crime has fallen all over country. Simply not true that it's pushed from one area to another, and if you look deeper at the numbers, you'll see that.

Anyway, we're jumping all over the place. D.C. voters didn't fall for the con that I described. We agree that it was one, right? I get the sense you're trying to defend voters who were conned, but I'm not blaming them. It's also a bit oversimplified. The vast majority of voters in 2016 voted the way the vote every time. We're really talking about probably 5% or so of the population in the specific areas we were talking about.

Anarchy=communism. And no, it really isn't possible. Gov't is already defining and enforcing property rights. It's already telling people that productive land is off-limits to them. It doesn't get "smaller" by compensating them less for that loss. Likewise, if the community doesn't want corporations (gov't-created entities, BTW) to dump waste in streams and the corporations want to, the gov't isn't "smaller" if it sides with the corporation against the community. Etc.

Crime has fallen statistically across the country, yes. And yes, we are jumping all over the place. My point is that poverty in select populations in DC has not decreased in a meaningful way. And those people just continue to be pushed back and forth via gentrification when the area tries to improve (and shove the poor people out).

I absolutely think that DC voters have been conned. I think that any party, when it becomes entrenched in the given area, becomes corrupted. In the case of DC, it's the Democrats. In other places, it's the Republicans. When the party doesn't have a reasonable belief that it can lose there, it no longer represents the interests of the people of that area.

Anarchy is absolutely not communism. They are both nonsense as political theory goes, but one is the absence of government while the other is total submission to the government. In an anarchic system, yes, controlling corporations from doing things like polluting are impossible. Good thing I'm not an anarchist though. In a Communist society, you don't have those problems. You have all the problems associated with authoritarian regimes.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Crime has fallen statistically across the country, yes. And yes, we are jumping all over the place. My point is that poverty in select populations in DC has not decreased in a meaningful way. And those people just continue to be pushed back and forth via gentrification when the area tries to improve (and shove the poor people out).

I feel like there's a bit of whack-a-mole going on here.

I absolutely think that DC voters have been conned. I think that any party, when it becomes entrenched in the given area, becomes corrupted. In the case of DC, it's the Democrats. In other places, it's the Republicans. When the party doesn't have a reasonable belief that it can lose there, it no longer represents the interests of the people of that area.

OK. On the national level, that's not an issue. In the Rust Belt and Coal Country areas, that's not what happened. A portion of voters got conned by people they normally see through.

Anarchy is absolutely not communism. They are both nonsense as political theory goes, but one is the absence of government while the other is total submission to the government.

No gov't = no property-claim enforcement = communism in some form. Note that tyrannical left-wing parties were claiming that they temporarily needed to hold the reins to pave the way for communism.

In an anarchic system, yes, controlling corporations from doing things like polluting are impossible. Good thing I'm not an anarchist though. In a Communist society, you don't have those problems. You have all the problems associated with authoritarian regimes.

No, if there's no gov't, there are no corporations.

 

[Steve-French]

I'm seeing:



https://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president/california/



LOL! This is getting embarrassing. You'd do better just admitting that you want your "side" to win by any means necessary and don't have any principles here. It's 100% certain that if Trump had won the popular vote and lost the electoral vote, you'd be arguing that it's an injustice.

I guess data non bias sources and facts aren't good enough for you. This has nothing to do with sides, just the facts Jack. Sorry but you're are the one that is embarrassing yourself.

My source was from the New York Times was updated in February 2017, while your source was from Dec 2016. It takes a while for all of the numbers to come in.

 

[sub_thug]

I feel like there's a bit of whack-a-mole going on here.

OK. On the national level, that's not an issue. In the Rust Belt and Coal Country areas, that's not what happened. A portion of voters got conned by people they normally see through.

No gov't = no property-claim enforcement = communism in some form. Note that tyrannical left-wing parties were claiming that they temporarily needed to hold the reins to pave the way for communism.

No, if there's no gov't, there are no corporations.

We are definitely going in circles on this point.

I wouldn't say that they were conned by people they normally see through. I view it more as a gamble on someone that was speaking to them when no one had been. I think that gamble was largely a failure for a whole variety of reasons.

Right, it's the acquiescence of private property claims to the government. Means of production and private property becomes owned by "the people" via a representative (ie, the dictator). I agree that pursuits towards anarchist utopia are doomed for the same reasons that Communist efforts are always going to be doomed, but the ends are supposed to be different.

Technically, that's true. I will amend my statement to say "large businesses unchecked by the government." This seems to be the largest fear of the very liberal, while the government itself is the largest fear of the very conservative. Would you agree to that statement?

 

[HomerThompson]

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-03-30/colleges-can-spark-a-rust-belt-revival

But cutting taxes on mega-rich heirs and real-estate tycoons, cracking down on marijuana, and enabling corporations to pollute more isn't part of any realistic solution to anyone's problems.

What if you needed a third yacht?

 

[Jack V Savage]

I guess data non bias sources and facts aren't good enough for you. This has nothing to do with sides, just the facts Jack. Sorry but you're are the one that is embarrassing yourself.

My source was from the New York Times was updated in February 2017, while your source was from Dec 2016. It takes a while for all of the numbers to come in.

Er, OK. Weird defensiveness there. I'm pointing to the data I saw when I looked it up myself; not arguing against your source.

Again, it's silly for you to even pretend that there's any principle here. You obviously cannot defend the notion that some Americans should have less say in governance and you wouldn't try if not for your bias.

Technically, that's true. I will amend my statement to say "large businesses unchecked by the government." This seems to be the largest fear of the very liberal, while the government itself is the largest fear of the very conservative. Would you agree to that statement?

Even large businesses wouldn't be possible with gov't. I understand that you're trying to make it simple, but I think getting that simple makes reality harder rather than easier to understand. Like, it seems to me that "very conservative" types are extremely pro-cops (and generally not sympathetic to people who have concerns about abusive police practices--"just obey and you won't have a problem"). I'm seeing a lot of polling showing that conservatives would be accepting of a military coup or media restrictions. I think a better formula would be that liberals fear abuse of authority more and conservatives fear absence of authority more.

 

[Steve-French]

Er, OK. Weird defensiveness there. I'm pointing to the data I saw when I looked it up myself; not arguing against your source.

Again, it's silly for you to even pretend that there's any principle here. You obviously cannot defend the notion that some Americans should have less say in governance and you wouldn't try if not for your bias.

What are you talking about? You said that Hillary would have one the popular vote if you took away California and Texas and I provided you numbers that proved you wrong. This has nothing to do with bias, just you throwing out a false statement and me correcting you.

Also if we use your source that provided different numbers for California it shows that Trump would have won the popular vote by an even larger margin. This is starting to get stupid btw. There is no need to argue over hypothetical situations, but you were still wrong.

 

[sub_thug]

Even large businesses wouldn't be possible with gov't. I understand that you're trying to make it simple, but I think getting that simple makes reality harder rather than easier to understand. Like, it seems to me that "very conservative" types are extremely pro-cops (and generally not sympathetic to people who have concerns about abusive police practices--"just obey and you won't have a problem"). I'm seeing a lot of polling showing that conservatives would be accepting of a military coup or media restrictions. I think a better formula would be that liberals fear abuse of authority more and conservatives fear absence of authority more.

Without any government, as per the thinking of Thomas Hobbes, nothing is possible due to the war of all against all. In the sense of "small govt vs large govt," it seems that liberals generally favor more government than conservatives do. You can even see on this message board that a number of more liberal posters seem to think that corporate interests are the driver of the country into wars and other extremely bold policies. I think that these personalities are largely brainwashed by a number of individuals and that socialism is pretty stupid, but that's largely immaterial to this discussion that you and I are having. What appears to be the consensus among these people is that businesses should answer to the government to a large extent to the end that the government should be able to tell those businesses what to do, holding them to some sort of "moral" standard based on the "collective good." This stems from a fear that these businesses will do something to harm these posters, and these posters should be able to push back via governmental control and voting. You don't really see conservatives make these same claims about businesses, so this is pretty unique to liberalism in this regard.

In that same capacity, I see a lot less conservatives push back against police and military leadership. But you also see more conservative posters make claims about willing to engage police in armed conflict if the police were an agent of the government to do things like confiscate personal weapons, so this is where things become more complicated. You simply don't hear this willingness to embrace what is effectively violent revolution from liberals, so I don't think "abuse of authority" and "lack of authority" is an appropriate breakdown. There is something else there. Maybe it's about collectivism versus individualism to some extent?

 

[Jack V Savage]

What are you talking about? You said that Hillary would have one the popular vote if you took away California and Texas and I provided you numbers that proved you wrong. This has nothing to do with bias, just you throwing out a false statement and me correcting you.

I looked up the numbers and came up with that. If additional votes came in that flipped it, fine. And what I'm talking about is how in this particular election, you think it's good that some Americans have less say in governance. Had it gone the other way, you would be saying it's bad. You're not arguing out of any principle; you're just hacking it up.

Also if we use your source that provided different numbers for California it shows that Trump would have won the popular vote by an even larger margin. This is starting to get stupid btw. There is no need to argue over hypothetical situations, but you were still wrong.

Incorrect. Do the math with the source I found (the one that shows up on a Google search without sending to a link). I grant that there could be a better source. Not arguing with that. Broader point is that it's a stupid way to evaluate the election that applies both ways. "If you take out areas that Candidate A won by a lot, Candidate B would have won."