How would this forum react if Kamala Harris won the presidency?

[OSR STANDS WITH PALESTINE]

I would scream, cry, and then probably die inside.

[JA]

Bernie supporters will probably irrationally weep over the election of a "corporate Democrat" or "centrist" or something, even though she is neither - and I say this as someone who preferred him over Hillary last year (albeit narrowly, but still).

Yeah, except that she is...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Harris also...

• Championed a state-wide anti-truancy law that she implemented in San Francisco that threatened parents of chronically truant children with $2,000 fines and a year in jail.
• Harris's actions in the Larsen case, which involved a man formerly convicted of burglary had been allegedly seen by police throwing a knife under a car, which caused him to be sentenced to 27 years in prison under the 3 strikes law supported by Harris. Police had wrongfully targeted Larsen, a witness reported that Larsen wasn't the one who threw the knife, and Larsen's later disbarred lawyer never bothered to investigate or present a witness on trial. After 11 years, the conviction was overturned, but Harris appealed that decision on the basis of a technically, causing him, an innocent man, to remain in prison for 2 more years. After 14 years in prison for a crime he didn't commit, he was back in court 5 months after release because Harris challenged his release.
• Harris laughed at pot legalization as California's Attorney General in 2014. Again, her Republican opponent ran to her left on the issue.
• As District Attorney, refused to provide the names of police officers whose testimonies led to convictions despite the officers' arrest records and histories of misconduct. As California's Attorney General, she opposed the statewide use of police body cameras and a bill that'd require her office to investigate fatal police shootings.
• Harris attempted to dismiss a suit by inmates against the state's use of solitary confinement, with her office insisting the practice was not used. The result was a landmark settlement for the inmates.
• Harris attempted to block a transgender inmate's request for gender reassignment surgery.
• This year, Harris joined Rand Paul to write a NYT's editorial opposing the practice of using bail, arguing it unfairly harmed low income people. But in just June 2016 she was defending its constitutionality in court.
• Harris was a proponent and sponsor of a bill that'd allow California prosecutors to seize profits before charges were filed (which is civil asset forfeiture).
• Harris defended the barring of a Sikh man from working as a prison guard due to his religiously-mandated beard supposedly interfering with his ability to wear a gas mask. Yet, California allows guards to have beards for certain medical reasons.
• Harris's well staffed and funded foreclosure fraud Mortgage Fraud Strike Force prosecuted just 10 cases in 3 years, which was fewer prosecutions of foreclosure fraud cases than any other state in America, filed fewer lawsuits than many smaller states with fewer victims, and even less than some counties, despite California leading the nation in the number of complaints since 2010.
• The Intercept obtained a 2013 memo to Harris from prosecutors in the attorney general's office revealing they found evidence of widespread misconduct at OneWest Bank and urging her to conduct a full investigation - Harris never did. Yet, in 2016 she was the only Democratic Senate candidate to receive a donation from Steven Mnuchin, OneWest's former CEO.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Anna Komnene]

^ YIKES. What is it with California senators and being unbearably draconian?

[Kringla Heimsins]

• The Intercept obtained a 2013 memo to Harris from prosecutors in the attorney general's office revealing they found evidence of widespread misconduct at OneWest Bank and urging her to conduct a full investigation - Harris never did. Yet, in 2016 she was the only Democratic Senate candidate to receive a donation from Steven Mnuchin, OneWest's former CEO.

Honestly, this in itself makes her DOA. Her primary opponents would be stupid not to hit her hard with that.

[they don't love you like i love you]

...and that kind of does into my earlier post. What in that record qualifies her for President?

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

...and that kind of does into my earlier post. What in that record qualifies her for President?

California Attorney General, U.S. Senator... More qualifications than the current president.

[The Other Castro]

With relief and weariness. Many will be glad that Trump (or another Republican) lost, though we'll all be three years more jaded by that time and probably skeptical of anything and anyone.

[they don't love you like i love you]

...and that kind of does into my earlier post. What in that record qualifies her for President?

California Attorney General, U.S. Senator... More qualifications than the current president.

With THAT record? Its not like she's the only Democratic US Senator or Democrat more qualified than the current President.

[McGovernForPrez]

I wouldn't be miserable but I'd probably be a little disappointed. Harris is by no means a "corporate Democrat" or a centrist, but I don't find her to be particularly bold or visionary. These are traits which I find important in a leader. Harris is just so milquetoast to me. I'm in no way offended by her presence, but I feel like she lacks a strong message at the center of rhetoric. She's not as charismatic as Clinton or as good at speaking as Obama. She reminds much more of John Kerry, utterly boring. This fact is especially clear when you consider that Democrats have much stronger options on the bench.

The other big problem I have with Harris is her experience. By 2020 she'll only have been a Senator for four years, the same as Obama. Obama did a lot of great things but ultimately his success was hampered by a lack of experience. After having eight years of Obama and four years of Trump, I'd really hope our country would unite around someone who really knows what they're doing. I much prefer Governors to Senators anyway as presidential candidates. Harris' lack of experience makes me worry that she'll have trouble passing any meaningful agenda anyways.

[Da2017]

I wouldn't be miserable but I'd probably be a little disappointed. Harris is by no means a "corporate Democrat" or a centrist, but I don't find her to be particularly bold or visionary. These are traits which I find important in a leader. Harris is just so milquetoast to me. I'm in no way offended by her presence, but I feel like she lacks a strong message at the center of rhetoric. She's not as charismatic as Clinton or as good at speaking as Obama. She reminds much more of John Kerry, utterly boring. This fact is especially clear when you consider that Democrats have much stronger options on the bench.

The other big problem I have with Harris is her experience. By 2020 she'll only have been a Senator for four years, the same as Obama. Obama did a lot of great things but ultimately his success was hampered by a lack of experience. After having eight years of Obama and four years of Trump, I'd really hope our country would unite around someone who really knows what they're doing. I much prefer Governors to Senators anyway as presidential candidates. Harris' lack of experience makes me worry that she'll have trouble passing any meaningful agenda anyways.

I,d never use Harris and Kerry in the same sentence. Harris is nothing like Kerry not even close. She is a lot warmer and personable. She is no Bill Clinton or Barack Obama. Clinton and Obama are rare kinds candidates.

[dw93]

I'd be happy Trump (or Pence) lost. Outside of that, I'd probably feel the same way I did after the 2008 election, which was optimistic but skeptical, given Harris, like Obama and Trump would lack experience. While I have nothing against Harris, I would hope the Democrats would nominate someone better.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

I love Kamala Harris personally, but I don't think america is ready for her yet. I'd rather a candidate with more experience that can pull off a big win, such as Sherrod Brown or Steve Bullock (doesn't have that much more experience than Kam, but being a governor is much better than being a senator for me).

[IceAgeComing]

A lot (maybe most?) White Democrats today, especially on this forum, have the mindset of a typical upper-class person. Poverty is a failure of personal responsibility, people should just uproot their lives and relocate to follow whatever the market says, those without the privilege of a college education are typically deplorables and trash, etc etc... I don't know what people expect having upper and upper-middle-class people running a party that's supposed to be oriented towards the lower and working classes. These folks either have no life experiences associated with a background of struggle or have internalized right-wing rhetoric about "personal responsibility." It's why rural Whites rightfully abandoned the party en masse in 2016; they already know the government only works for the well-off, those in coastal metros, and simultaneously talks down to them and hates them (especially the party that's allegedly for the workers).

Congratulations to the upper classes! You guys have nearly total control over both parties and are still trying your hardest to ensure the working classes have no representation at all (targeting Sanders-style populists and rural Democrats). And yet you'll still sit there and say, "that's not my fault, you guys are just bitter, you should've tried harder, but hahaha now you'll just stay poor."

This is getting off topic, but I'm not upper class (asprirational, perhaps), I have life experiences being middle class in rural America, and I have no dislike towards the poor. (Face it, you don't know my demographic profile at all.) However, I don't think the system is totally rigged, I don't think there is an inherent conflict of interest between people of different classes, and I have no patience for nostalgic people who want the economy and lifestyle of the 50s back. Too bad, the economy has changed. You may deserve government assistance, but if your not willing to fundementally change your lifestyle and outlook to achieve it, then you are not entitled to prosperity.

Let's save this discussion for another thread, however.

sounds exactly like the sort of thing that a tory would say, tbh

[SCNCmod]

If she won- great reaction .... if she is the nominee- worried about elect-ability!

I like Harris- but have been a bit underwhelmed by her thus far ... especially with how warm/ charismatic she comes across (I imagined her to be more charismatic).

[McGovernForPrez]

I wouldn't be miserable but I'd probably be a little disappointed. Harris is by no means a "corporate Democrat" or a centrist, but I don't find her to be particularly bold or visionary. These are traits which I find important in a leader. Harris is just so milquetoast to me. I'm in no way offended by her presence, but I feel like she lacks a strong message at the center of rhetoric. She's not as charismatic as Clinton or as good at speaking as Obama. She reminds much more of John Kerry, utterly boring. This fact is especially clear when you consider that Democrats have much stronger options on the bench.

The other big problem I have with Harris is her experience. By 2020 she'll only have been a Senator for four years, the same as Obama. Obama did a lot of great things but ultimately his success was hampered by a lack of experience. After having eight years of Obama and four years of Trump, I'd really hope our country would unite around someone who really knows what they're doing. I much prefer Governors to Senators anyway as presidential candidates. Harris' lack of experience makes me worry that she'll have trouble passing any meaningful agenda anyways.

I,d never use Harris and Kerry in the same sentence. Harris is nothing like Kerry not even close. She is a lot warmer and personable. She is no Bill Clinton or Barack Obama. Clinton and Obama are rare kinds candidates.

I don't think she's particularly warm or charismatic though. I can't really say whether she'd be as bad as John Kerry, but that doesn't change the fact she reminds me of him.

[GlobeSoc]

A lot (maybe most?) White Democrats today, especially on this forum, have the mindset of a typical upper-class person. Poverty is a failure of personal responsibility, people should just uproot their lives and relocate to follow whatever the market says, those without the privilege of a college education are typically deplorables and trash, etc etc... I don't know what people expect having upper and upper-middle-class people running a party that's supposed to be oriented towards the lower and working classes. These folks either have no life experiences associated with a background of struggle or have internalized right-wing rhetoric about "personal responsibility." It's why rural Whites rightfully abandoned the party en masse in 2016; they already know the government only works for the well-off, those in coastal metros, and simultaneously talks down to them and hates them (especially the party that's allegedly for the workers).

Congratulations to the upper classes! You guys have nearly total control over both parties and are still trying your hardest to ensure the working classes have no representation at all (targeting Sanders-style populists and rural Democrats). And yet you'll still sit there and say, "that's not my fault, you guys are just bitter, you should've tried harder, but hahaha now you'll just stay poor."

This is getting off topic, but I'm not upper class (asprirational, perhaps), I have life experiences being middle class in rural America, and I have no dislike towards the poor. (Face it, you don't know my demographic profile at all.) However, I don't think the system is totally rigged, I don't think there is an inherent conflict of interest between people of different classes, and I have no patience for nostalgic people who want the economy and lifestyle of the 50s back. Too bad, the economy has changed. You may deserve government assistance, but if your not willing to fundementally change your lifestyle and outlook to achieve it, then you are not entitled to prosperity.

Let's save this discussion for another thread, however.

sounds exactly like the sort of thing that a tory would say, tbh

[JA]

A lot (maybe most?) White Democrats today, especially on this forum, have the mindset of a typical upper-class person. Poverty is a failure of personal responsibility, people should just uproot their lives and relocate to follow whatever the market says, those without the privilege of a college education are typically deplorables and trash, etc etc... I don't know what people expect having upper and upper-middle-class people running a party that's supposed to be oriented towards the lower and working classes. These folks either have no life experiences associated with a background of struggle or have internalized right-wing rhetoric about "personal responsibility." It's why rural Whites rightfully abandoned the party en masse in 2016; they already know the government only works for the well-off, those in coastal metros, and simultaneously talks down to them and hates them (especially the party that's allegedly for the workers).

Congratulations to the upper classes! You guys have nearly total control over both parties and are still trying your hardest to ensure the working classes have no representation at all (targeting Sanders-style populists and rural Democrats). And yet you'll still sit there and say, "that's not my fault, you guys are just bitter, you should've tried harder, but hahaha now you'll just stay poor."

This is getting off topic, but I'm not upper class (asprirational, perhaps), I have life experiences being middle class in rural America, and I have no dislike towards the poor. (Face it, you don't know my demographic profile at all.) However, I don't think the system is totally rigged, I don't think there is an inherent conflict of interest between people of different classes, and I have no patience for nostalgic people who want the economy and lifestyle of the 50s back. Too bad, the economy has changed. You may deserve government assistance, but if your not willing to fundementally change your lifestyle and outlook to achieve it, then you are not entitled to prosperity.

Let's save this discussion for another thread, however.

sounds exactly like the sort of thing that a tory would say, tbh

[TheLeftwardTide]

A lot (maybe most?) White Democrats today, especially on this forum, have the mindset of a typical upper-class person. Poverty is a failure of personal responsibility, people should just uproot their lives and relocate to follow whatever the market says, those without the privilege of a college education are typically deplorables and trash, etc etc... I don't know what people expect having upper and upper-middle-class people running a party that's supposed to be oriented towards the lower and working classes. These folks either have no life experiences associated with a background of struggle or have internalized right-wing rhetoric about "personal responsibility." It's why rural Whites rightfully abandoned the party en masse in 2016; they already know the government only works for the well-off, those in coastal metros, and simultaneously talks down to them and hates them (especially the party that's allegedly for the workers).

Congratulations to the upper classes! You guys have nearly total control over both parties and are still trying your hardest to ensure the working classes have no representation at all (targeting Sanders-style populists and rural Democrats). And yet you'll still sit there and say, "that's not my fault, you guys are just bitter, you should've tried harder, but hahaha now you'll just stay poor."

This is getting off topic, but I'm not upper class (asprirational, perhaps), I have life experiences being middle class in rural America, and I have no dislike towards the poor. (Face it, you don't know my demographic profile at all.) However, I don't think the system is totally rigged, I don't think there is an inherent conflict of interest between people of different classes, and I have no patience for nostalgic people who want the economy and lifestyle of the 50s back. Too bad, the economy has changed. You may deserve government assistance, but if your not willing to fundementally change your lifestyle and outlook to achieve it, then you are not entitled to prosperity.

Let's save this discussion for another thread, however.

sounds exactly like the sort of thing that a tory would say, tbh

[White Trash]

A lot (maybe most?) White Democrats today, especially on this forum, have the mindset of a typical upper-class person. Poverty is a failure of personal responsibility, people should just uproot their lives and relocate to follow whatever the market says, those without the privilege of a college education are typically deplorables and trash, etc etc... I don't know what people expect having upper and upper-middle-class people running a party that's supposed to be oriented towards the lower and working classes. These folks either have no life experiences associated with a background of struggle or have internalized right-wing rhetoric about "personal responsibility." It's why rural Whites rightfully abandoned the party en masse in 2016; they already know the government only works for the well-off, those in coastal metros, and simultaneously talks down to them and hates them (especially the party that's allegedly for the workers).

Congratulations to the upper classes! You guys have nearly total control over both parties and are still trying your hardest to ensure the working classes have no representation at all (targeting Sanders-style populists and rural Democrats). And yet you'll still sit there and say, "that's not my fault, you guys are just bitter, you should've tried harder, but hahaha now you'll just stay poor."

This is getting off topic, but I'm not upper class (asprirational, perhaps), I have life experiences being middle class in rural America, and I have no dislike towards the poor. (Face it, you don't know my demographic profile at all.) However, I don't think the system is totally rigged, I don't think there is an inherent conflict of interest between people of different classes, and I have no patience for nostalgic people who want the economy and lifestyle of the 50s back. Too bad, the economy has changed. You may deserve government assistance, but if your not willing to fundementally change your lifestyle and outlook to achieve it, then you are not entitled to prosperity.

Let's save this discussion for another thread, however.

sounds exactly like the sort of thing that a tory would say, tbh

[America Needs R'hllor]

I'm not cynical about Harris in particular, but really about the Democratic Party and American politics in general. Do I think Bel Edwards would be better than Harris in answering the needs of rural Americans? Maybe, I really can't say for certain. I will say that I am slightly more confident in his ability than Harris' due to his background and the state that he governs being largely rural and one of the poorest in the nation. What sort of experience does Harris have that is equivalent to that?

But the fact remains that rural America continues to crumble and not a thing is being done about it. There needs to be serious changes in the system, and I doubt that Harris has the political clout or platform to do. I don't blame Harris for not having a political career laser focused on the plight of the rural poor, it's not her problem. And that's why I would prefer to elect someone with a more class based background and platform, who is experience in dealing with rural issues.

Single payer sounds real nice, and I am willing to give Harris the benefit of the doubt, but she has yet to prove to me that she is anything more than an over hyped Democratic Rubio so far.

With all due respect, what about the just move argument. Some parts of rural (and urban) do not serve a purpose in the modern economy. I moved from rural Oregon to Los Angeles, and I don't have patience for people who won't do the same to find success.

That is easy to say if you are financially comfortable enough to take that risk. Moving, especially to a city, is expensive. And the job prospects for an ex-ruralite with only a high school education (and often times, not even that) are abysmal. The "just move" argument works about as well as the "stop being poor" argument.

I very much agree with this. The "just move" argument is not only terrible and out of touch, but also makes 0 sense. If an area is failing economically, we should work to make it more successful, not abandon it to nature. It seems like Blairite wants to completely abandon rural areas and pack cities with a population too big for them to handle and it can't be justified.

[JA]

A lot (maybe most?) White Democrats today, especially on this forum, have the mindset of a typical upper-class person. Poverty is a failure of personal responsibility, people should just uproot their lives and relocate to follow whatever the market says, those without the privilege of a college education are typically deplorables and trash, etc etc... I don't know what people expect having upper and upper-middle-class people running a party that's supposed to be oriented towards the lower and working classes. These folks either have no life experiences associated with a background of struggle or have internalized right-wing rhetoric about "personal responsibility." It's why rural Whites rightfully abandoned the party en masse in 2016; they already know the government only works for the well-off, those in coastal metros, and simultaneously talks down to them and hates them (especially the party that's allegedly for the workers).

Congratulations to the upper classes! You guys have nearly total control over both parties and are still trying your hardest to ensure the working classes have no representation at all (targeting Sanders-style populists and rural Democrats). And yet you'll still sit there and say, "that's not my fault, you guys are just bitter, you should've tried harder, but hahaha now you'll just stay poor."

This is getting off topic, but I'm not upper class (asprirational, perhaps), I have life experiences being middle class in rural America, and I have no dislike towards the poor. (Face it, you don't know my demographic profile at all.) However, I don't think the system is totally rigged, I don't think there is an inherent conflict of interest between people of different classes, and I have no patience for nostalgic people who want the economy and lifestyle of the 50s back. Too bad, the economy has changed. You may deserve government assistance, but if your not willing to fundementally change your lifestyle and outlook to achieve it, then you are not entitled to prosperity.

Let's save this discussion for another thread, however.

sounds exactly like the sort of thing that a tory would say, tbh

Whatever. I'm not a left-winger. I like some tories, and am by no means a socialist.

Would you admit that if the GOP wasn't so bigoted, religious, and anti-science that you'd feel more comfortable in the party?

[Possiblymaybe]

I love Kamala Harris personally

I assume that you didn't bother to read Jacobin American's post just a few posts above yours, then?

^ YIKES. What is it with California senators and being unbearably draconian?

He's cherry picking her record. I can't even be bothered to go in to it all because that post is so one sided. Anyone familiar with Harris pre 2017, knows that she was widely regarded as one of the most progressive AG's in the country and that along with Schneiderman she was seen as one of the toughest AG's on Wall Street.
"Harris, undoubtedly the woman the banks fear most, who pushed the hardest, and most successfully"
https://www.thenation.com/article/kamala-harris-protecting-and-serving-99-percent/
"The scam ensnared people across the country, although one co-conspirator said in an interview with investigators that Araya avoided California out of fear of then-Attorney General Kamala D. Harris, who is now a U.S. senator."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/honey-youve-been-scammed-she-was-told-she-lost-her-home-of-30-years/2017/07/26/36afedda-7070-11e7-9eac-d56bd5568db8_story.html?utm_term=.0faaa54798d7
She was the progressive choice in California. As far as her voting record goes she's in the top 3 most left leaning senator on every site so far. She should wait until 2024 because she's too green right now, but if she runs make no mistake she will run on a progressive platform. Despite the onewest case (which I won't go into but let's just say it wasn't quite as uncomplicated as some have suggested. You really have to read the documents to get a sense of the whole story) she actually has a pretty good record on Wall Street. (Btw the donation was small and made 3 years after the case had closed, so the timeline doesn't even make sense. And despite what is commonly believed she wasn't the only democrat he donated to. According to records he also made a donation to Jason Kander and some other democrat whose name escapes me right now.)
If we are talking about a primary it has to be remembered that she hasn't got a reputation as "friend of Wall Street" like Gillibrand or "big Pharma" like Booker. Tbh with the exception of Bernie, Warren is the only one of the big names who can legitimately attack her as cooperate without looking like a total hypocrite. But remember warren literally cited her work on the California homeowners bill of rights and the foreclosure crisis as the reason why she endorsed her for senate and has praised her previously precisely for this type of work.

[America Needs R'hllor]

I'm not cynical about Harris in particular, but really about the Democratic Party and American politics in general. Do I think Bel Edwards would be better than Harris in answering the needs of rural Americans? Maybe, I really can't say for certain. I will say that I am slightly more confident in his ability than Harris' due to his background and the state that he governs being largely rural and one of the poorest in the nation. What sort of experience does Harris have that is equivalent to that?

But the fact remains that rural America continues to crumble and not a thing is being done about it. There needs to be serious changes in the system, and I doubt that Harris has the political clout or platform to do. I don't blame Harris for not having a political career laser focused on the plight of the rural poor, it's not her problem. And that's why I would prefer to elect someone with a more class based background and platform, who is experience in dealing with rural issues.

Single payer sounds real nice, and I am willing to give Harris the benefit of the doubt, but she has yet to prove to me that she is anything more than an over hyped Democratic Rubio so far.

With all due respect, what about the just move argument. Some parts of rural (and urban) do not serve a purpose in the modern economy. I moved from rural Oregon to Los Angeles, and I don't have patience for people who won't do the same to find success.

That is easy to say if you are financially comfortable enough to take that risk. Moving, especially to a city, is expensive. And the job prospects for an ex-ruralite with only a high school education (and often times, not even that) are abysmal. The "just move" argument works about as well as the "stop being poor" argument.

I very much agree with this. The "just move" argument is not only terrible and out of touch, but also makes 0 sense. If an area is failing economically, we should work to make it more successful, not abandon it to nature. It seems like Blairite wants to completely abandon rural areas and pack cities with a population too big for them to handle and it can't be justified.

That's not true, but there are a lot of places that don't serve a purpose. Also, I am an urbanist in favor of urban growth, but that doesn't mean I want to force my way of life on others (though I do think a lot of people are too attached to their hometowns.) Rural areas like California's Central Valley are very economically viable, and urban areas like Detroit are not. However, there are many places (more often rural than not) that don't contribute to the economy, and won't be able to sustainability in the future, and they must be abandoned. Honestly, I think this is more compassionate to the people who live there then a mix of populism and welfare that will never produce long-term benefits for anybody.

How can you "abandon" a place? Do you leave it for nature? Do you transfer all the people who live there to other areas? This is really not feasible. But regardless of how feasible it is, saying that you "have no patience for people who won't move to find success" remains a very out-of-touch statement of an elitist who doesn't understand what lack of money means. I'm not going to assume that this is what you are because it's not right, but this is what that statement sounds like.

[America Needs R'hllor]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think that I might be one of the main suspects to be an upper-middle to upper class liberal, so I'm gonna answer this at length

I live in an industrialized city in Israel, and while I really don't feel like I can complain, seeing that I never lacked food or education or comfort, my family is still lower-middle class. Technically, I do live in an urban environment, but in Israel rural areas are mostly wealthy (as I know from many of my friends and former schoolmates, who do live in rural areas), while urban industrialized cities, usually full of Jewish immigrants from the Soviet Union (like my parents) or Arabic states and their children, are the real struggling areas.
Anyway, saying that living in such a place didn't affect my politics would be lying. I know, it's not even close to poverty and I'm grateful for that, but knowing, for example, just how important is the universal healthcare system in Israel for families like mine helped me full-heartedly support such systems elsewhere, including in America. But I still don't think that living in such an area means I need to hold socialist views. On the contrary. For example, my father works in a factory, and an alarming number of workers are being replaced because of both outsourcing and automation. And still, I strongly support free trade because I believe that we only lose a minimal amount of jobs because of it, and families like mine are helped by lower prices along with higher quality products. I believe that automation is an inevitable process we must embrace rather than try to postpone, and that instead of throwing money on poor areas to help struggling families directly we need to invest in new jobs in growing industried like high tech, alternative energy, tourism, and the ever-needed infrastructure, as well as free job training for these. I think that the state should try to offer help to poor populations, but we can't spoon-feed them. Things like subsidized higher education and job training help more in the long run than just giving them money.
I don't believe in the "personal responsibility" argument, though of course there are cases where it's right and there are some very specific populations (like the Haredi Jews in Israel) who are almost directly responsible for their bad economic situation by refusing to teach their children what they need to know to succeed in a modern economy. And I surely do not believe the silly "just relocate lelz" argument, because I know full well how unfeasible it is. So did I still have internalized right-wing rhetoric? Maybe, but I don't think so. These are just my views.

[JA]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think that I might be one of the main suspects to be an upper-middle to upper class liberal, so I'm gonna answer this at length

I live in an industrialized city in Israel, and while I really don't feel like I can complain, seeing that I never lacked food or education or comfort, my family is still lower-middle class. Technically, I do live in an urban environment, but in Israel rural areas are mostly wealthy (as I know from many of my friends and former schoolmates, who do live in rural areas), while urban industrialized cities, usually full of Jewish immigrants from the Soviet Union (like my parents) or Arabic states and their children, are the real struggling areas.
Anyway, saying that living in such a place didn't affect my politics would be lying. I know, it's not even close to poverty and I'm grateful for that, but knowing, for example, just how important is the universal healthcare system in Israel for families like mine helped me full-heartedly support such systems elsewhere, including in America. But I still don't think that living in such an area means I need to hold socialist views. On the contrary. For example, my father works in a factory, and an alarming number of workers are being replaced because of both outsourcing and automation. And still, I strongly support free trade because I believe that isolationism we only lose a minimal amount of jobs because of it, and families like mine are helped by lower prices along with higher quality products. I believe that automation is an inevitable process we must embrace rather than try to postpone, and that instead of throwing money on poor areas to help struggling families directly we need to invest in new jobs in growing industried like high tech, alternative energy, tourism, and the ever-needed infrastructure, as well as free job training for these. I think that the state should try to offer help to poor populations, but we can't spoon-feed them. Things like subsidized higher education and job training help more in the long run than just giving them money.
I don't believe in the "personal responsibility" argument, though of course there are cases where it's right and there are some very specific populations (like the Haredi Jews in Israel) who are almost directly responsible for their bad economic situation by refusing to teach their children what they need to know to succeed in a modern economy. And I surely do not believe the silly "just relocate lelz" argument, because I know full well how unfeasible it is. So did I still have internalized right-wing rhetoric? Maybe, but I don't think so. These are just my views.

Overall, we really don't disagree on most things, based on what you've written. I think the confusion arises in your understanding of Socialism, which is likely due to failure on the part of Socialists to convey their beliefs in a more coherent form. For example, on the issue of trade, it's not a Socialist position to support isolationism or protectionism. Sure, many labor unions and working-class groups agitate for protectionist policies, but protectionism ultimately isn't for the benefit for the workers or their class interests. The most important issue in Socialist politics is simply power and autonomy, by which I mean that the lower, working, and even middle classes seize greater power and are capable of expressing their interests through democratic action. On an issue such as trade, our criticism against present free-trade isn't the free exchange of goods across borders, but rather how it's organized around, focused on, and serve multinational corporate interests, such as how the free flow of capital serves the upper class's interests, whereas the free flow of labor is blocked. Another issue is such as what happened with TPP and TTIP, which would've empowered corporations to actually shape trade and domestic policies in participating countries by taking them to court over policies deemed harmful to their interests. These trade agreements also disregard the exploitation and rampant abuse of workers in foreign countries, the negative effects and downward pressure on wages and benefits in developed countries, and disregard for the environment by taking advantage of lax regulations and corruption in poorer countries.

I'm not, nor are Socialists, as far as I know, opposed to automation and investment. The ideal goal of Socialism is to reduce the amount people have to work, especially menial jobs, thereby freeing up time for other pursuits. That's why UBI is often popular among us. Another goal is to redistribute the profitability of automation away from concentrating wealth into fewer hands (automation enables fewer producers to produce more at greater ROI) towards society-at-large. To oppose automation would be absurd; but to oppose automation that displaces workers while concentrating greater wealth and power into fewer hands, along with enabling greater monopolization of markets, isn't good nor acceptable. As for investment, we should always strive to improve QOL through higher education, increasing skills, and access to means of self-improvement, such as high-speed internet, improved infrastructure, and tackling poverty. Universal access to healthcare, higher education, trade schools, and so on are incredibly important to ensure everyone has equal opportunity and equal access so that upward mobility is available to all who want it. However, most who live in poverty, at least in America, are not those who're full-time workers. It's typically children, the elderly, the disabled, those who help ill family members, and so on; essentially, those unable to fully participate in the labor market. Direct financial assistance from the government is, along with other social programs like paid leave, affordable childcare, improved elderly care, and so on, the only means of achieving elevation out of poverty for these folks.