"We're better, smarter, richer, prettier and more compassionate than all you ugly, stupid, poor people. And if you're not as rich and successful as us, you've only got yourself you blame because every white person could be rich if they were as smart, pretty, wonderful and hard-working as us (and it's got absolutely NOTHING to do with being born and raised in a privileged, wealthy and well-connected family with all the right breaks, no siree...). We're just better than you and thus you deserve to perish."

I keep hoping for an earthquake so California will slide into the ocean.

Imagine all the useless eaters disposed of in one fell swoop.

Where is the San Andreas fault when you need it?

Trump should start fracking on the San Andreas.

Did you forget to change accounts, or is that more "rightest" bilge you're trying to pass off as what "true progressives" think?

Sorry, but as a progressive I always thought we should be sticking up for women, ethnic minorities, the LGBT community and the poor. But your type of 'lib' (:?) seems to think the last group doesn't count.

The groups that matter to libs are the ones which vote as they're told.

The poor are cool as long as they vote they way liberals want them to. Otherwise, they're trash.

Cut the crap. You posted an OP straight out of the right-wing reactionary playbook, you got a chorus of "amens" from the far right side of the board and you haven't posted a word to contradict their reactionary garbage.

If that doesn't prove how full of sh!t you are, nothing does.

I don't agree with a lot of people here. I am anti-conservative. But in this case the left and traditional right are united in their hatred of the hypocritical neoliberal centrists who talk liberal but act conservative, at least as far as economic policy goes.

Their panacea for tackling poverty and unemployment is safe-spaces and banning rude words on Twitter.

Sorry, but as a progressive I always thought we should be sticking up for women, ethnic minorities, the LGBT community and the poor. But your type of 'lib' () seems to think the last group doesn't count.
-----
Hey stupid,
Maybe they don't need someone sticking up for them. Did you think of that?
Maybe they can take care of themselves and don't need overseers!
Did you think of that?
Children and sick people need to be taken care of not women, minorities and GLT groups.
So how about you shove your ' sticking up for' crap right up your butt!

If I was right-wing I'd have condemned all libs, including African-Americans and Latinos, but my scorn is specifically reserved for wealthy, complacent white libs, particularly of the neolib variety.

But I apologise if I'm upset some spoiled wealthy elitist sensibilities. How 'unprogressive' of me...

And don't use the word 'comrade' with me. You're no true friend of the true left.

And where is your evidence that I'm a "spoiled wealthy elitist neolib"?

Other than the fact that I defended Amy Schumer the other day, that is.

>>12
While you might not like it, there is a grain of truth among all the hyperbole. Specifically, a lot of small-town and rural working-class white people, whose great-grandparents voted for Roosevelt and whose grandparents voted for Kennedy and Johnson, do see the left-liberal establishment as, if not exactly as the OP portrayed, close enough that the fallout was President Trump.

Realistically, the left has a serious image problem among a lot of people that one would expect to be a natural constituency. But, hey: if the fact that the Democrats have won only five of the last 13 Presidential elections doesn't impress you that something is wrong...

>>13
I've suspected for months that the OP is trolling, role-playing as a (in his words) "true progressive".

All I'm doing here is what I've done elsewhere: calling him out on his ruse.

So he has to agree with everything liberals do, even things he doesn't agree with or go against the movement, to continue calling himself a liberal or progressive? That's some serious culty, groupthink bullshit. Almost religious in nature. Agree or be excommunicated...

Neolibs like >>12 dislike me because I call the 'centre-left' on their fundamentally conservative BS. They despise the true left because they want to play the role of the virtuous liberals without making any sacrifices to their materialistic, privileged, elitist and socioeconomically unjust lifestyles. They basically want to continue having their cake and eating it, by labeling themselves as good libs without actually having to live like good libs.

I never thought of it being about economics. That makes sense.

You're lucky if you can get lefties to agree on what to have for lunch - disagreement is par for the course.

What Harvey is actually saying has always been beside the point. Trolls always give themselves away by HOW they say things, and that's what I'm pointing out here.

Ignore >>18 below post.

You clearly get what I was saying, and why the establishment liberal-left needs to rethink its current position.

Never really thought of >>12 as a neoliberal; if anyone fits that description, it would be me. >>12 always struck me as more of a "mixed economy with an emphasis on heavy government oversight and flattening disparities of wealth" leftist.

Then why is >>12 staunchly defending the neolibs from my attacks?

You're lucky if you can get lefties to agree on what to have for lunch - disagreement is par for the course.

What >>21 is actually saying has always been beside the point. Trolls always give themselves away by HOW they say things, and that's what I'm pointing out here.

How someone says something is besides the point, as long as the eschew racism, misogyny, homophobia and other forms of bigotry towards relatively disadvantaged groups. What matters is, what people are saying.

You clearly get what I was saying, and why the establishment liberal-left needs to rethink its current position.

Well, there are two dimensions to this issue: actual center-left positions, and the often smug, sanctimonious, and self-absorbed way that way too many on the left present their positions.

Here's my "modest proposal" if I was in charge of the DNC:

I would set up a re-education camp in Nebraska. Preferably near a truck stop and a grange hall, so that penitents can work off their time as waitstaff or farm laborers. Nothing out of the Pol Pot playbook, but definitely lacking the niceties of Manhattan and copies of The Nation.

Any reference to "flyover states" gets 3 months.

Using the term "deplorables" gets 6 months.

Attacks on religion in general, without a specific factual predicate related to a narrow issue, gets 9 months.

Showing contempt for any young person who elects to join the military instead of going to college: 12 months.

Any attempt to claim that all gun owners are morally inferior as a class: 6 months.

Any attempt to claim that all hunters are morally inferior as a class: 4 months.

Any attempt to claim that all meat eaters are morally inferior as a class: 24 months.

Bubba Clinton had a point: it is the economy, stupid. If a candidate has any sense, that is what they will hit, and hard.

I *beep* love it!

But I would say:

"Any attempt to claim that anyone is morally inferior as a class, means you start the whole damn thing over again, because you clearly don't have a clue how you got here in the first place."

Jon Stewart and Bill Maher have hinted at what you said in softer terms. Smart liberals know that they can no longer do business as usual.

Jon Stewart and Michael Moore certainly have, but doesn't Bill Maher usually make fun of these people?

C'mon, >>27. What are talking about?

Libs love the poor. Social safety nets exist to help the poor. Liberals are always spouting off on how being poor isn't a result of bad life choices, but, rather, the result of unfair and unrelated circumstances that the poor have no control over.

It's the Conservatives who say the poor have no one to blame but themselves.

Liberals only love poor people if they're black or Latino. Poor whites can drop dead as far as they're concerned.

Islam in the west is like excrement in drinking water. Any amount is too much.

I dislike the conservatives too. I always have.

But the difference is, modern 'liberals' are now even bit as callous and contemptuous towards the poor, especially if they're white, as rich fiscal conservatives.

Just read the recent words of Garrison Keillor and Michael Shannon about how useless and unemployable these people are, and how any white person, if they're smart enough, can achieve the American Dream.

And just witness the liberal response to the Carrier deal. I can understand criticism of corporate welfare/bailouts and the longterm stupidity of the deal, but many of these libs seem very complacent about the 1000 jobs that would have been lost had this deal not been done and, worse, have offered no alternatives. These workers seem to be an inconvenience to anti-Trump pro-globalist 'liberals', who seem to care more about the Chinese than they do about poor workers in their own country.

and how any white person, if they're smart enough, can achieve the American Dream.

I actually would agree with that. Sorry.

You're living in a fantasy world. But congrats for pushing the neoliberal agenda.

The wealth gap has exponentially increased at the same time social mobility has exponentially decreased, over the last forty years, and many studies demonstrate that life chances are determined almost entirely by one's family background/wealth and the education, connections and support, wealth bestows on lucky individuals.

The American Dream isn't always "wealth." It's achieving what you set out to achieve.

Millions of people come here every year, some illegally, risking their lives to do so, because the promise of the American Dream is that strong. If it were an unreachable fantasy, that wouldn't be the case.

The American Dream is unreachable to most. Of course, if you're from a developing nation, a minimum wage cleaning job will seem like the equivalent of winning the lottery, but for the working-class and lower-middle-classes, wages have been stagnating and good jobs are becoming scarcer, especially as the very rich continue to monopolise them with family members.

On the face of it you make a good point here. However, American society and culture - and in a wider sense the rest of the developed capitalist world too - are set up to normalise the pursuit of wealth as a worthwhile aim of itself. Who wants to be a millionaire: everyone does, and there is nothing wrong with that. I agree with you that the dream still attracts, but the chance of the dream becoming reality has never seemed so low as now.

There are many people who have seemingly more attainable and less materialistic ambitions than becoming a millionaire. For them, qualifying as a doctor or lawyer, being able to set up their own small business, or simply being able to afford to take care of their family and own a home, without depending for the rest of their lives on benefits, might constitute the American Dream. Yet in reality, the chances of them attaining these ambitions is now as remote as them becoming millionaires.

And for many who choose those careers, the careers are the means to becoming a multi-millionaire. And I think you need a lot of money to even qualify so that's a class factor right there.

Thank you.

You, seemingly alone among other posters here, understand what I'm saying about class determinism.

That's leftist propaganda intended to dissuade people from taking responsibility for their own lives, and instead put their faith in a big central government that's supposed to take care of them. The more financially independent and self-sufficient you are, the less likely you're going to be to vote for higher taxes and bloated government policies, so it's clear why liberals push this notion that America is a rigid class based aristocracy.

You should read the book "Scratch Beginnings". There's plenty of opportunity for social mobility in the USA. Also check out Penn and Teller's vids on the subject (where they interview lower-middle class workers who still have enough money for yearly vacations and expensive hobbies). The key is not being stupid, and we're raising a generation of highly indebted, stupid people.

That's the thing though, isn't it? We're supposed to have faith in big central government to take care of us because we're too stupid to take care of ourselves. And if we refuse to swallow that hook, line, and sinker, people think we're crazy.

If I fail, then I fail. That's okay. That's on me. I can accept that. But when people fail and then blame it on anyone and everyone but themselves, I just cringe. It's less about raising a generation of stupid people and more about raising a generation of people who don't know how, or refuse to, take accountability for themselves.

People are growing up believing that every mistake in their lives is someone else's fault.

You have no clue how hard some people have worked to rise themselves out of poverty or hardship, and what entitlements, people like you take for granted, have been denied to some of us.

I did very well at highschool, academically, in terms of extracurricular activities and with respect to to discipline, but when I was 14 I had to leave simply because my school was unwilling to support my needs as a disabled person. And do I was deprived of a full education that other teenagers are entitled to, and that deprivation has dogged my entire adult life.

Other people, who were abused, suffered trauma, unfairly discriminated against, and simply treated like crap, thus damaging their self-confidence, are likewise unable to achieve this BS American Dream elitists like you tout.

You have no clue how hard some people have worked to rise themselves out of poverty or hardship, and what entitlements, people like you take for granted, have been denied to some of us.

Working to raise themselves out of poverty and hardship is very commendable. And with the right attitude, lots of folks can accomplish that. But, I'm curious about these entitlements I take for granted? Please, elaborate.

I did very well at highschool, academically, in terms of extracurricular activities and with respect to to discipline, but when I was 14 I had to leave simply because my school was unwilling to support my needs as a disabled person. And do I was deprived of a full education that other teenagers are entitled to, and that deprivation has dogged my entire adult life.

I thought you were a lawyer. If that is true, it sounds like you've done very well for yourself despite your hardships. I would think you of all people would understand where I'm coming from.

Other people, who were abused, suffered trauma, unfairly discriminated against, and simply treated like crap, thus damaging their self-confidence, are likewise unable to achieve this BS American Dream elitists like you tout.

I'm sorry, but do you know anyway who hasn't been kicked in the balls by life? Being treated like crap and being discriminate against happens to everyone at some point.

Everything you are, everything you've accomplished/failed to accomplish is the result of your choices.

Nobody chooses the circumstances of their birth, whether that's for the better or the worse, and sure there are situations that are pretty unavoidably bad, but the point isn't that the US is a perfect place where everyone can get rich just by thinking about it really hard and then going to work, it's a place where social/economic mobility is accessible in some way to the vast majority of people.

The problem with the victim-mentality you subscribe to is that it drags the averages down. The way it is now, the US does have a lot of inequality, but that inequality is all contained within an area of prosperity, which is why someone who only makes like 10 grand a year is still in the top 5% of all people on Earth. But, your ideals would reward weakness and failure and punish success, which is worse for everyone as a whole. We might become more equal, but is everyone equally starving really the kind of equality you want to strive for? That's the only direction that manufactured, centralized government-based equality goes.

I'm not a Communist, but what neolibs don't get is that wealth and poverty is relative. What difference does it matter if you're in the top 5% wealthiest people in the world when in real terms you can't afford the downpayment on a home for your family because of inflated house prices and a market geared towards what millionaires can afford?

And who says I'd punish success? I don't want to punish success; I want more success. But the only reason that neolibs want to maintain current levels of inequality isn't because such a system is in the interests of society? It's because the elite wants to maintain its position as the apex of the social hierarchy. It appeals to their ego and narcissism, just as campaigning for causes like gay rights and abortion, that don't impact on them directly, promotes their self-styled sense of virtue, whilst ignoring socioeconomic justice and promoting improvements in social mobility, which both mitigate against their privileged position. Thus, it's in their interest to limit success and maintain wealth, power and status to a small existing elite and their offspring.

What difference does it matter if you're in the top 5% wealthiest people in the world when in real terms you can't afford the downpayment on a home for your family because of inflated house prices and a market geared towards what millionaires can afford?

Well first of all the housing markets prices aren't dictated by millionaires, since millionaires only buy a tiny percentage of the houses in the country, but anyway, you're entirely missing the point with your relativism. In fact, it's a Western leftist's downfall by being relativistic within their own country instead of looking at the world scale. For example, your complaint. What does it matter if you're top 5% if you can't afford a downpayment on a home? Well, can you afford to rent? Can you rent/own with roommates? Can you put food on the table? Is it healthy food? Maybe not, but it keeps you and your kids fed and alive, right? Do you have access to clean water, hydro, roads, education, medicine, etc? Right, okay, so, that's what being at the top 5% of the world gets you. You live like a king compared to the vast, vast majority of people who not only live right now, but who have ever lived.

I don't want to punish success; I want more success. But the only reason that neolibs want to maintain current levels of inequality isn't because such a system is in the interests of society? It's because the elite wants to maintain its position as the apex of the social hierarchy.

The current inequality is in the interests of society because it's the only system that allows opportunity and overall prosperity while also balancing out the base needs of the average person. Free market capitalism is the only system that has managed to check nature's ultimate rule: survival of the fittest, enough that not many people are dying horribly, but at the same time it has still allowed this rule to persist enough for better people (smarter, stronger, more resourceful, etc) to rise to the top and do things that better all of humankind. You might not like the "inequality" this brings, but it is undoubtedly better for everyone, even the poorest person in the country (proven by the aforementioned fact about poor people here being quite rich compared to all people). In other countries that use big government to try and distribute wealth and control business, people might end up more equal, but that's because they're equally dirt poor and starving.

Thus, it's in their interest to limit success and maintain wealth, power and status to a small existing elite and their offspring.

The division of wealth and power is not restricted to a specific group of people, it is only restricted to a percentage of the population. People move into and out of the 1%, 5%, 10%, etc all the time. There is strong social mobility in the USA and even though not everyone can fit in the top percentiles all at one time, people aren't excluded simply due to the conditions of their birth.

Aren't you yourself a perfect example of this? Didn't you drop out of highschool due to a disability and go on to become a lawyer? What about icons like Arnold Schwarzenegger who came to the USA as a poor immigrant with no English speaking skills and went on to become famous, a multimillionaire, and a governor? Even if these cases are far and few between, the fact that they even exist at all, the fact that, in relative terms, peasants can ascend to nobleman, dukes, even kings, is proof in and of itself of how incredible this system really is. The fact that you even have a hope in hell at being poor and becoming rich is why this is the best system that has ever been created in human history, and always will be.

Sounds to me that you're a Clinton 'liberal'. Obama's rhetoric about US manufacturing jobs being unsustainable and middle-aged workers needing to retrain and re-educate themselves, must have been music to your ears.

The *beep* ?

I've been around white elitist liberals all my life, in fact I used to be one until about 10 years ago.

Your analysis is prefect.

?

The continued desire of modern white liberals to have Nancy Pelosi tell them what to do is all you need to know about modern white liberals.

"We're better, smarter, richer, prettier and more compassionate than all you ugly, stupid, poor people. And if you're not as rich and successful as us, you've only got yourself you blame because every white person could be rich if they were as smart, pretty, wonderful and hard-working as us (and it's got absolutely NOTHING to do with being born and raised in a privileged, wealthy and well-connected family with all the right breaks, no siree...). We're just better than you and thus you deserve to have us tell you exactly how to think, what to do, how to act, and what is right and wrong."

Fixed it for you. You were so close, but went OTT at the very end.

Why didn't you just link to Paul Feig and call it a day?

It is not the poor, it is the anti-intellectuals who you can not reason with I have contempt for.

No, it's the poor and working-class.

I'm a poor working-class intellectual and I feel nothing but contempt from wealthy and successful (and not always particularly bright) neolibs. I feel no love from the elite to poor people like me, even if I've actually read more books and have a wider realm of knowledge than a lot of them.

It's elitism, pure and simple. Not anti-intellectualism. I'm as intellectual as one can get.