Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The smug style in American liberalism

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 435 posts

Re: The smug style in American liberalism

#121

Post by tnmrnis »

ant6n wrote: post #59
xupybd wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the issue. People did not vote Trump to satisfy hateful racism and sexism, they voted Trump despite everyone painting them as racist sexist pigs. The other option was so far from what they wanted they had little choice. Please try to understand why people disagree with you, why the majority disagrees with you.

The problem is, I don't buy it. I don't believe it. I listen to how Trump talks, how Trump supporters talk, all the racism, the sexism, the xenophobia, it's just not right. There's no excuse. It's the beginning of fascism. Btw, I'm German. (I've lived in North America for more than ten years)

I also followed the elections very closely and I don't buy the "racism", "sexism" and "xenophobia". I looked up a lot of scandals and looked at the speeches, videos and leaks itself. Often times I didn't consider the outrage as justified.

Example 1: Trump never called all mexicans racist, what he said was that a lot of the people crossing the border are criminals while other s are decent. Some of the criminals are racist.

Example 2: His "approval" of sexual assault, was nothing but locker room talk. Two guys "out alphaing" each other in a not so nice way.

As a conservative from Germany that has been accused of racism for showing support for the shut down of the balcan route I find it much easier to sympathize with the falsely accused then with the accuser.

That doesn't mean that I agree with Trump, but I would have voted for Trump over Clinton.

Re: The smug style in American liberalism

#122

Post by xherberta »

triplesec wrote: post #103
rorykoehler wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with everything you have said. Obama is a thoughtful type and a great orator. I'm sure he would have liked to enact some of the change he promised but he didn't. In many ways America regressed further under his watch and this is the outcome.

I think it's not that he didn't, but he couldn't, with the most obstructive Congress in modern history

Particularly troublesome is the dynamic where congresspeople need campaign funds, and largely get them from PACs and industry. With ObamaCare (ACA), the insurance and pharma industries were well-represented, coming away with concessions worth billions.

Re: The smug style in American liberalism

#123

Post by rorykoehler »

mrow84 wrote: post #114
rorykoehler wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obama is a huge part of why this happened. He promised change and delivered empire.

I'm no expert on US politics, but wasn't he hidebound by a Republican house and senate?

Promises were made. Why they weren't kept is irrelevant.

Edit: to clarify this is not my personal position but more a reflection on how I see the electorate behaving.

Re: The smug style in American liberalism

#124

Post by germinalphrase »

gozur88 wrote: post #73
slowmotiony wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That... sounds like a better deal to me?

That's what I was thinking. As long as I don't get more than six MRIs a year I come out ahead.

I burned my foot without insurance. Out of pocket this twenty minutes in the doctor's office, two pain pills, and a nurse assuring me that it wasn't quite a third-degree burn cost me $2000+.

It's not six MRI's the uninsured need to worry about, it's incidental injuries and illnesses that potentially cost several month's wages.

God forbid you have a multi-day stay in the ICU.

Re: The smug style in American liberalism

#125

Post by unprepare »

xupybd wrote: post #76
ant6n wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, you say abortion is an issue that feels like a Holocaust to you. To me racism and xenophobia are the the things that fuelled the actual Holocaust. I tried to outline some of the racism inherent to Trump further up. To be honest, I don't understand conservative Christians love for republicans. They preach social darwinism, often they preach fear of others. Is it all based on this notion that "The left also treat…

This is one of the things I don't understand about modern politics, morally conservative always seem to go towards extreme capitalism and morally progressives tend to go towards socialism. Personally I'm more middle of the road on socialism VS capitalism. But I tend to vote and align with parties on their moral stance. Even though Trump appears to have a crappy personal Moral standard his policies at least align more…

>here are actually themes in the Bible that talk about a "worker deserving his wage", and "if a man doesn't work he doesn't eat".

wow some fantastic turns of logic you are using.

Christian means Christ-like. did Christ preach social darwinism, or did he spend his time with prostitutes and lepers?

Did Christ preach having the poor fend for themselves, or did he feed the hungry?

Did Christ praise the wealthy, or does he say "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."

You can of course interpret your religion as you see fit, but in my eyes, right wing politics is incompatible with being Christ-like.

Re: The smug style in American liberalism

#127

Post by czottmann »

tnmrnis wrote: post #113
gadders wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A similar thing happened with Brexit, and the last UK General Election. Right-leaning voters just can't be bothered to identify themselves and get involved in debates about it. They just vote.

The similar thing is happening all over europe right know. Right-leaning voters don't want to identify themselves because the negative social implications can be quite significant. Also the west seem to have lost its debate culture. These days most debates of conservatives and progressives in shouting 'commie' and 'racist' at each other. In a good debate you wanna help your opponent to give the best possible argument…

> Also the west seem to have lost its debate culture.

That, more than anything.

Re: The smug style in American liberalism

#128

Post by jacobolus »

privong wrote: post #118
triplesec wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's not that he didn't, but he couldn't, with the most obstructive Congress in modern history

> I think it's not that he didn't, but he couldn't, with the most obstructive Congress in modern history Ironically, some of that might have been his own doing, though. The healthcare reform was passed essentially without republican support; I think that's a very rare example of major [healthcare] legislation that was not passed with bi-partisan support. Not doing more to bring R's on board likely burned lots of poli…

The GOP congress decided to bring Obama down from the start, and never gave an inch. He tried valiantly to collaborate and compromise but the GOP didn’t have the political capacity to work with Obama for fear of being challenged in primaries from the right.

You’re right that the ACA ended up being a political disaster for the Democrats though.

The ACA was basically the same as “RomneyCare” in MA, and was a style of healthcare reform supported by mainstream center-right Republicans and some center-left Democrats (most Democrats wanted a single payer plan, or at least a public option, but took what they could get because the healthcare system was/is at a breaking point), but once Obama’s name was on it they all decided to throw everything they could against it.

The GOP campaigned hard against the ACA after it passed, and won massively in the midterm elections in 2010 on the back of wall-to-wall anti-ACA messaging on right-leaning media and a huge amount of organizing and spending (the first post-Citizens United election). They took control of the House, Senate, and many state legislatures, following which they redrew all the district boundaries to cut Democrats permanently out of competition in the House and many state legislatures.

After the crushing defeat in 2010, there weren’t enough Senate seats up for grabs in 2012 for the Democrats to regain control. Thus Obama had to deal with 6 years of GOP control, which has been the most obstructionist Congress in US history. As soon as McConnell won in 2010 he publicly declared that his #1 goal was to make Obama a 1-term president. We had multiple government shutdown threats, unprecedented obstruction of executive appointments including judges at every level of the federal court system, bogus investigation after bogus investigation into e.g. Benghazi, and dozens of purely symbolic votes to repeal the ACA.

Re: The smug style in American liberalism

#129

Post by lintiness »

scarmig wrote: post #61
rorykoehler wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obama is a huge part of why this happened. He promised change and delivered empire.

Eh, I do have plenty of foreign policy disagreements in particular with him. But he's the best we've had in living memory. Liberalism has had a smug aspect as long as I've been alive, but at this point that aspect has metastasized to something worse. The norms that have developed are toxic to progressive movements. They certainly alienate people, but beyond that they make it so you don't even have the institutional c…

"He's the best we've had in living memory."

uh, WOW. you must have a short memory because reagan, bush sr, and clinton were all superior in almost every way, and none will eat a terrible policy failure like the aca.

Re: The smug style in American liberalism

#130

Post by lintiness »

mrow84 wrote: post #114
rorykoehler wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obama is a huge part of why this happened. He promised change and delivered empire.

I'm no expert on US politics, but wasn't he hidebound by a Republican house and senate?

he controlled both houses when he took office. he rammed through ideological policy aca with zero opposition party input or support; he quickly lost his majorities.
Post reply on HN