Let's be 100% serious here for a moment:

[bedstuy]

The great part was where Sneed criticized Trump for that and said he sounded like a Democrat.

Yes, I'm proud to say the Donald sounded like a Democrat there.  We believe in investing this country.  We believe you have to spend money to make money and we know there is a crumbling infrastructure that needs to be built back up.  America has had these generations where infrastructure took leaps, the building of the transcontinental railroad, the great dams and the TVA in the New Deal, the highway system, etc.  It's time for another. 

And, it's so illustrative that Republicans hate that idea.  They represent these vulture capitalists and old, angry Fox News watchers who will be dead in 20 or less years, so no real investment in the future.  Their vulture capitalist class sees America as a distressed asset, a takeover target for their Republican corporation.  Cut the "labor costs" IE jobs and quality of life for the people, rack up the debt, reward the CEOs and people at the top, use creative accounting, propaganda and lies to win over the media, and then get your golden parachute out when it all goes to hell.  Sneed did that with HP, Romney did that like 50 times at Bain, and Republicans want to do it to America, again.

The worst tactics of corporate America's worst, Enron, Bain Capital, Goldman Sachs, Phillip Morris, those are the tactics of this GOP.  They want short term rewards for the rich people and they believe in creative accounting and fraud, because that's quicker than building it honestly.  It's easier to use creative accounting to make your Q3 earnings look good, than it is to take the hit and deal with your problems.  It's easier to pretend climate change doesn't exist and sweep it under the rug, than it is to deal with it honestly. 

Or, if you don't like the leveraged buy-out and Wall Street metaphor, how about this.  Republicans want to treat the government like a pinata, break it and give all the candy inside to their friends.  Screw Republicans, they're garbage.

[bedstuy]

Simfan, just vote for Clinton you goof-ball. 

If we took political party politics out of it, I bet you and I would agree on most "political" issues.  We would both vote for Bloomberg over De Blasio, so to speak.  You, like me, are socially conservative in some way, but in favor of secular government and legal equality for women, gays, blacks, Muslims, etc.  You, like me, are cosmopolitan and educated, so you don't like buffoons like Trump or rubes like Huckabee.  If you could convince yourself to vote for Rubio for example, it would be by convincing yourself he just buys into that Christian right buffoonery for votes, he doesn't actually believe it. 

On economics, we probably are both somewhat libertarian, in that we want economic freedom and free markets over socialism.  We see the regulatory state and redistribution as a gloss on capitalism that makes it work, rather than an end goal in themselves.  If we were talking on a local level, with these politics of Republican fundamentalism gone, we would agree on things like ending rent regulation, NIMBYism and the overabundance of bureaucracy in city government.  But, on the national, I could never vote Republican because I believe in infrastructure, environmental regulation, medical care for the poor and progressive taxation, and I don't want things like Medicare Part D and using the government as an organ of a few powerful industries.

I think so much of our own political philosophy is whether we hate the straw-man of the left or the straw-man of the right more.  No?  Like, conservatives tend to despise these radical feminists who barely exist in reality, and liberals tend to hate these warmongering neocons who barely exist.  But, I think the facts tell us that if you're a moderate, Clinton will result in more of you want.  She's not a radical feminist, or a socialist, or a 1970s New Leftist.  Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are waaaay closer to being legit radicals.

[bedstuy]

Simfan, just vote for Clinton you goof-ball. 

If we took political party politics out of it, I bet you and I would agree on most "political" issues.  We would both vote for Bloomberg over De Blasio, so to speak.  You, like me, are socially conservative in some way, but in favor of secular government and legal equality for women, gays, blacks, Muslims, etc.  You, like me, are cosmopolitan and educated, so you don't like buffoons like Trump or rubes like Huckabee.  If you could convince yourself to vote for Rubio for example, it would be by convincing yourself he just buys into that Christian right buffoonery for votes, he doesn't actually believe it. 

On economics, we probably are both somewhat libertarian, in that we want economic freedom and free markets over socialism.  We see the regulatory state and redistribution as a gloss on capitalism that makes it work, rather than an end goal in themselves.  If we were talking on a local level, with these politics of Republican fundamentalism gone, we would agree on things like ending rent regulation, NIMBYism and the overabundance of bureaucracy in city government.  But, on the national, I could never vote Republican because I believe in infrastructure, environmental regulation, medical care for the poor and progressive taxation, and I don't want things like Medicare Part D and using the government as an organ of a few powerful industries.

I think so much of our own political philosophy is whether we hate the straw-man of the left or the straw-man of the right more.  No?  Like, conservatives tend to despise these radical feminists who barely exist in reality, and liberals tend to hate these warmongering neocons who barely exist.  But, I think the facts tell us that if you're a moderate, Clinton will result in more of you want.  She's not a radical feminist, or a socialist, or a 1970s New Leftist.  Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are waaaay closer to being legit radicals.

I don't think you're particularly wrong. But I am probably more socially conservative than I usually let on, even if it's less about demonizing certain groups (except for--ah!-- that particular one, and I don't "hate" or even "dislike" them as such), but view of society is decidedly traditionalist; not to mention that I fail the abortion litmus test pretty badly. However, I think that, a few exceptions, we should just ban guns altogether. Although, (largely thanks to TNF and his ilk) those exceptions are for the most part, uh, pretty classist-- e.g., in order to have a hunting rifle, you must keep it in your second home, or that you can only buy a handgun if you pay above a certain (read: large) amount of taxes. (The Dark Knight Rises may have informed that second one; people on Park Avenue need to be able to protect themselves ).

On the local level, we agree on pretty much everything, yes. On the national level I'd say the distance is considerably wider, but not vast. But I do not think you are the average liberal Democrat. The average liberal (read: educated) Democrat is likely to be far more concerned about social issues, in particular, being on the leading edge of those issues. The right has its language for those it wishes to chastise for ideological impurity-- RINO, fake conservative, liberal, and a host of more deranged epithets-- but so does the left; theirs is merely more sophisticated.

The insufficiently progressive are accused of doing bad things, or, more often, enabling bad things to happen. Whereas the right-wing claim makes only one assertion, the left-wing one actually makes two, very nebulous ones: a) that the accused's actions enabled a bad thing, and b) that the thing in question is, in fact, bad and/or is inclusive of what the accused did. For instance, the accusation that telling women not to get drunk perpetuates "rape culture," because it places responsibility on women to not get raped, which is rape apolgism makes two claims-- that preventive advice "assigns responsbility to victims", and that "assigning victims responsibility" contributes to "rape culture". (Even after this time, I cannot tell you what "rape culture" actually entails-- aside from this. That is definitely part of rape culture, whatever it is) To a degree, the strawman leftist is an actual character. And this is without throwing in sex-positivity!

You can say that this kind of leftist is simply reflective of living in a "liberal college bubble", but let's be honest, as far as my generation is concerned, this is what left-wing or progressive politics entails. Sure, not everyone is some kind of activist, but ask the average person here what they think and they probably won't disagree with the radicals in any fundamental way. Throw in intersectionality, and everything is now about oppression, and no one wants to support oppression. Corporations are, of course, still evil, but now they're agents of white male cisgender oppression, too. You'd be surprised how many people, who aren't particularly activist or radical, will talk in these terms. I've talked to friends who've graduated and, I can tell you, their hasn't been any kind of political transformation. Again, you hold a much more sensible view on these sorts of issues, but, from what I've seen, it's not typical of my "progressive" peers. I may have pooh-poohed Bacon King when he said that "we're living in the tumblr generation" but I've realized that he's essentially right. This, in my context, is the mainstream.

Ultimately, though, I can't accept the fundamental principles of modern liberalism: that anything is "moral" (if that word is ever used) as long as people consent to it, and no one, therefore, can object to it; that if people believe in something, we must accept their belief without judgement (unless it's right-wing); that agency, and thus real responsibility, ultimately lies with those with "privilege"; that this extends to the realm of foreign policy; and we all have a basic, inherent, right to live meaningful, emotionally fulfilling lives, which society has an obligation to guarantee. I agree with none of this. My views are predicated on the centrality of authority, morality, and tradition, and a society that respects all three. They're not really consistent with the principles of either party-- I may not support "big government" but I certainly believe in a strong state-- but they are fundamentally conservative. The funny thing is that the second fundamental belief is pretty much this--

They're not "paleoconservatives" or "populists": they're know-nothings and low-info voters.

And yet here you all are, liberal Democrats, while I'm the Republican.

Goodness, this post was way too long. I have a paper to write!

You're pro-gay marriage and pro-choice though?  Right?