Anonymous wrote:I'm a former east coast liberal, now a Midwestern liberal. This week, I joined hundreds of other like-minded people from all over our state--rich and poor, urban and rural--at Missouri's state capital to support reproductive rights. This was a rally &a show of public import for testimony in a legislative hearing that would have fit right into any coastal state. We're not so different.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
P.P.S. I used to be a "traditional liberal', but the party has become so awful that I've gone predominately to the conservative side. The liberals will lose a lot of us, and they already have, unless they stop with the intolerance and hatred.

So how predominantly are you on the conservative side these days. It will be quite funny if you admitted to running away from intolerance and hatred into the arms of Donald Trump's Republican party.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:m'eh, she's not saying anything I haven't read here a hundred times already.There is a visceral disdain for middle America among many people here. So much, and so common, that I can't tell if it's a legit post or not. Look at some of the pics in some of the other threads about toning down the hostility. There's actually a photo of a guy holding a sign that says F*ck Middle America". That seems pretty legit to me.

Yeah, how do you tell if it's a troll or not, haha? You can see the same stuff in virtually every post that touches anything related to class, Ivy schools, even driving habits! Urbanites are some catty mofos that like to cast asparagus on people from flyover country.

That's a flipping hilarious autocorrect, I think.

"I toss my asparagus at you, peon."

On another note, there seems to be a concerted effort to cast the Democrat Party as snide and superior elitists. Dems have their problems, but this does not describe not the bulk of the party.

Does anyone have any leads on whether this is a concerted part of Republican talking points? I'm serious -- it has really ramped up, both with overgeneralization criticisms and apparent sockpuppets.

What's up?

I didn't realize how elitists the urban liberals were until I started reading DCUM. (And the disdain, too, even as demonstrated in the post above- what is it that anytime someone has a different opinion than you, they're accused of spitting out Republican talking points? The implication is that we can't think for ourselves.)

For starters, stop castigating successful and educated career people as failures simply because they don't make $200k.

When we try to explain that type of thing to the liberal snobs,

they double down and start calling $100k earners "losers."

The irony of the whole thing is that while the snobs put down average workers (forget $100k...I'm talking $40k) as rednecks, flyover ignoramuses, etc., they defend irresponsible people on welfare who have five illegitimate children and no way to support them.

Why do liberals look down upon hard-working middle Americans who support their families and defend to the death those who don't even work for a living and live off taxpayer largesse?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I grew up in the midwest and I have not experienced anything like what you describe.

?? Michael Moore nailed it perfectly even before the last election.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I didn't realize how elitists the urban liberals were until I started reading DCUM. (And the disdain, too, even as demonstrated in the post above- what is it that anytime someone has a different opinion than you, they're accused of spitting out Republican talking points? The implication is that we can't think for ourselves.)

For starters, stop castigating successful and educated career people as failures simply because they don't make $200k. When we try to explain that type of thing to the liberal snobs, they double down and start calling $100k earners "losers." The irony of the whole thing is that while the snobs put down average workers (forget $100k...I'm talking $40k) as rednecks, flyover ignoramuses, etc., they defend irresponsible people on welfare who have five illegitimate children and no way to support them.

Why do liberals look down upon hard-working middle Americans who support their families and defend to the death those who don't even work for a living and live off taxpayer largesse?

Is this the post you are talking about?
http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/641523.page

How do you know the political affiliations of the posters?

Yes, yes....that's the thread.

I figure they were liberals just by the way they responded to the OP's argument - that liberals lost the election because they are out of touch with average workers, and make them ignored and like losers when educated people making $100k or families making $200k act as if those decidedly above-average incomes are barely allowing them to get by. How, the point was, does that make the "real" family, HHI about $55k, feel?

Instead of acknowledging that there was a point there, these well-paid professionals came out swinging, calling the people in the low six-figure bracket losers, screw-ups, failures, etc. No recognition whatsover on the point just made - that when liberals don't realize how they make aversge earners feel like shit, they lose elections. Who else but liberals would have responded that way, since the message was directed at liberals?

So your predisposition is to assume that it's liberals who don't care about people with 5-figure incomes? Okay, but that's not consistent with the philosophical underpinnings of liberalism, like at all.

FWIW, I'm pretty liberal, and I've got a high 6 figure HHI and supported OP's point many times. Ironically, I thought the people continuing to cry poor at $200K HHI and calling OP a loser were either trolls, self-centered jerks, or the courteous ones were conservatives

I agree that traditionally, the underpinnings of liberalism was to care about five-figure earners, but there's been enough recent examples to throw that into doubt, what with all the nasty remarks about rednecks and flyover country. I see you are one of the "traditional liberals," and I'm glad there are still some around.

But I still think it was liberals who were castigating middle-class earners because that the claim of that arrogant behavior was directed at liberals - and refuted with quite a showing of defensiveness. If it were conservatives posting, they wouldn't have turned themselves inside out to disprove a complaint about liberals.

P.S. Also, this forum is populated overwhelmingly by liberals. Considering the statistics, it's even more unlikely that the conservatives came out of the woodwork to refute a criticism of liberals' elitism as it relates to the average worker in flyover country.

P.P.S. I used to be a "traditional liberal', but the party has become so awful that I've gone predominately to the conservative side. The liberals will lose a lot of us, and they already have, unless they stop with the intolerance and hatred.

So how predominantly are you on the conservative side these days. It will be quite funny if you admitted to running away from intolerance and hatred into the arms of Donald Trump's Republican party.

Two points:

One, I was upset when Trump won the nomination, because I knew how flawed HRC was (under FBI investigation, for starters) and feared he could win. I begged my friends to cross over in the primary and vote for a moderate R (maybe Kasich) just to ensure that we wouldn't end up with Trump as president. But all my liberal friends insisted he couldn't win, and, well....the rest is history.

Two, I'm finding, in recent months particularly, that the intolerance and hatred is emanating much stronger from the left, generally speaking. I would rather associate myself with the conservatives, as bad as some of the extremists are on that side. Mostly, though, the conservatives are less hateful. Sorry!!

It is the liberals fault that the conservatives picked Trump? LOL. I actually did cross over for the primary and voted for Kasich. But the Republican clown car picked Trump because he espoused things that they liked. The wall, birtherism, grabbing women by the genitals, mocking a person with a disability, keeping Muslims out. I don't get it, but the conservatives love that stuff.

No, I told you that story because you asked "how conservative do I I lean" to indicate my moderate position. I was pulling for Kasich.

But you still had to come back with a nasty overgeneralization condemning conservatives as a group. Again, it's that type of demonization of "the other side" that is driving me more and more away from liberals. There was plenty, and in mean PLENTY, not to like about Hillary. I could start outlining all her crap, but there would be no point.

Anonymous wrote:The Midwest is realigning because of the decline of union influence. Midwestern states stayed majority Democratic because of union strength, and labor's clout and MW Democratic Members of Congress kept the Democratic platform somewhat protectionist.

As labor's clout has declined, white blue-collar workers in the MW started voting like white blue-collar workers elsewhere - more white than blue-collar, and Democrats started targeting middle-class suburbanites more and relied more on turning out women, young voters, and minorities to make up for losing white working class men. Generally, the MW has stayed heavily Democratic in urban areas but become more Republican everywhere else, like the rest of the country.

A lot of House Democrats from the MW lost their seats in 2010 including two major committee chairman - Oberstar (MN) was Chairman of Transportation & Infrastructure; Skelton was Chairman of Armed Services; 5 Dems lost in Ohio, 4 lost in Illinois, and one each in several other MW states. (Also 3 losses in central/western PA).

The Democratic caucus became overwhelmingly East Coast, West Coast, and minority Members from the major cities in between. The MW lost a lot of influence in setting the Democratic agenda in Washington, and the states became more difficult for Governor and Presidential elections when there were no longer entrenched Democratic Congressional incumbents on the ballot and campaigning and organizing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This.

The way I see it, landlocked states pretty much cost us the election. I have exactly zero love for red states, or Democrats that choose to live in red states. They should know better. And if they can't figure out that the blue states are where the future is, where the jobs will be, where the growth and investment will be, then they are no smarter than their dumbass trump voting next door neighbor. They all need to be written off.

We need to focus on two things - 1) voter turnout in urban areas. 2) immigration, and bringing new Democrats to America. 3) making sure voter ID laws are struck down in the courts whenever they are passed by racist thug state legislatures.

That is how we will win. Not by courting dumb people who can't figure out they should move

NP. Did you even read the article in the OP? It talks about exactly this. Urban communities feeling forgotten and so apathetic about both parties. I'm not sure I fully understand all of their grievances, since Clinton did visit Flint and make specific promises there, but I'm willing to listen.

FWIW, I grew up in a rich and very red suburb of Detroit. Like, I didn't even really think normal people could be Democrats until I was in HS red. I'm not sure I agree with OP's assessment that this is a coastal Dem vs. Midwestern Dem issue, but everything in the article made perfect sense to me. I think it's more elite Dem vs. working class Dem (a rift that's happening in the Republican party as well, BTW). In the Republican primary, Trump ironically talked to the working class, and he won the nomination and Presidency. Sanders played a similar role in the Democratic primary, but Clinton won...though ironically I think she would have governed in a much more progressive, albeit incremental way. Trump is unabashedly governing to benefit the elites.

My observation based on the fact that I think Hillary had by far the most well thought out and implementable platform that would have measurably improved the lives of working class Americans...but it didn't radically shift the status quo, and she is a terrible campaigner. I wanted to like Sanders, but I disagreed fundamentally with some of his policies and I don't think their effect would have matched his rhetoric.

Ultimately, to me, 2016 revealed some very fundamental rifts in America, most of which do split along racial lines. I know that's the canard that supposedly lost Clinton the election, but I don't think papering over the fact that POC experience America so differently than white people will change that reality. It will just kick the can down the road. I'm as elite as can be, and I'm also brown-skinned. I have experienced bigotry, and I have been haunted my whole life by the specter of not being a "real American". I'm not complaining about my lot in life, but it's the reality. The people quoted in the article did not benefit from my parents' wealth and education, and so they have been truly forgotten in America. Trump did not speak for them, and IMHO Hillary did not connect with them. To me, though, those communities are the natural Democratic base that's been left behind by the Democratic party since the 90s. I don't even think this base cares about trade, since right now their issues are fundamental. Government barely recognizes these people at all, except to criminalize them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I didn't realize how elitists the urban liberals were until I started reading DCUM. (And the disdain, too, even as demonstrated in the post above- what is it that anytime someone has a different opinion than you, they're accused of spitting out Republican talking points? The implication is that we can't think for ourselves.)

For starters, stop castigating successful and educated career people as failures simply because they don't make $200k. When we try to explain that type of thing to the liberal snobs, they double down and start calling $100k earners "losers." The irony of the whole thing is that while the snobs put down average workers (forget $100k...I'm talking $40k) as rednecks, flyover ignoramuses, etc., they defend irresponsible people on welfare who have five illegitimate children and no way to support them.

Why do liberals look down upon hard-working middle Americans who support their families and defend to the death those who don't even work for a living and live off taxpayer largesse?

Is this the post you are talking about?
http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/641523.page

How do you know the political affiliations of the posters?

Yes, yes....that's the thread.

I figure they were liberals just by the way they responded to the OP's argument - that liberals lost the election because they are out of touch with average workers, and make them ignored and like losers when educated people making $100k or families making $200k act as if those decidedly above-average incomes are barely allowing them to get by. How, the point was, does that make the "real" family, HHI about $55k, feel?

Instead of acknowledging that there was a point there, these well-paid professionals came out swinging, calling the people in the low six-figure bracket losers, screw-ups, failures, etc. No recognition whatsover on the point just made - that when liberals don't realize how they make aversge earners feel like shit, they lose elections. Who else but liberals would have responded that way, since the message was directed at liberals?

So your predisposition is to assume that it's liberals who don't care about people with 5-figure incomes? Okay, but that's not consistent with the philosophical underpinnings of liberalism, like at all.

FWIW, I'm pretty liberal, and I've got a high 6 figure HHI and supported OP's point many times. Ironically, I thought the people continuing to cry poor at $200K HHI and calling OP a loser were either trolls, self-centered jerks, or the courteous ones were conservatives

I agree that traditionally, the underpinnings of liberalism was to care about five-figure earners, but there's been enough recent examples to throw that into doubt, what with all the nasty remarks about rednecks and flyover country. I see you are one of the "traditional liberals," and I'm glad there are still some around.

But I still think it was liberals who were castigating middle-class earners because that the claim of that arrogant behavior was directed at liberals - and refuted with quite a showing of defensiveness. If it were conservatives posting, they wouldn't have turned themselves inside out to disprove a complaint about liberals.

P.S. Also, this forum is populated overwhelmingly by liberals. Considering the statistics, it's even more unlikely that the conservatives came out of the woodwork to refute a criticism of liberals' elitism as it relates to the average worker in flyover country.

P.P.S. I used to be a "traditional liberal', but the party has become so awful that I've gone predominately to the conservative side. The liberals will lose a lot of us, and they already have, unless they stop with the intolerance and hatred.

So how predominantly are you on the conservative side these days. It will be quite funny if you admitted to running away from intolerance and hatred into the arms of Donald Trump's Republican party.

Two points:

One, I was upset when Trump won the nomination, because I knew how flawed HRC was (under FBI investigation, for starters) and feared he could win. I begged my friends to cross over in the primary and vote for a moderate R (maybe Kasich) just to ensure that we wouldn't end up with Trump as president. But all my liberal friends insisted he couldn't win, and, well....the rest is history.

Two, I'm finding, in recent months particularly, that the intolerance and hatred is emanating much stronger from the left, generally speaking. I would rather associate myself with the conservatives, as bad as some of the extremists are on that side. Mostly, though, the conservatives are less hateful. Sorry!!

It is the liberals fault that the conservatives picked Trump? LOL. I actually did cross over for the primary and voted for Kasich. But the Republican clown car picked Trump because he espoused things that they liked. The wall, birtherism, grabbing women by the genitals, mocking a person with a disability, keeping Muslims out. I don't get it, but the conservatives love that stuff.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I didn't realize how elitists the urban liberals were until I started reading DCUM. (And the disdain, too, even as demonstrated in the post above- what is it that anytime someone has a different opinion than you, they're accused of spitting out Republican talking points? The implication is that we can't think for ourselves.)

For starters, stop castigating successful and educated career people as failures simply because they don't make $200k. When we try to explain that type of thing to the liberal snobs, they double down and start calling $100k earners "losers." The irony of the whole thing is that while the snobs put down average workers (forget $100k...I'm talking $40k) as rednecks, flyover ignoramuses, etc., they defend irresponsible people on welfare who have five illegitimate children and no way to support them.

Why do liberals look down upon hard-working middle Americans who support their families and defend to the death those who don't even work for a living and live off taxpayer largesse?

Is this the post you are talking about?
http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/641523.page

How do you know the political affiliations of the posters?

Yes, yes....that's the thread.

I figure they were liberals just by the way they responded to the OP's argument - that liberals lost the election because they are out of touch with average workers, and make them ignored and like losers when educated people making $100k or families making $200k act as if those decidedly above-average incomes are barely allowing them to get by. How, the point was, does that make the "real" family, HHI about $55k, feel?

Instead of acknowledging that there was a point there, these well-paid professionals came out swinging, calling the people in the low six-figure bracket losers, screw-ups, failures, etc. No recognition whatsover on the point just made - that when liberals don't realize how they make aversge earners feel like shit, they lose elections. Who else but liberals would have responded that way, since the message was directed at liberals?

So your predisposition is to assume that it's liberals who don't care about people with 5-figure incomes? Okay, but that's not consistent with the philosophical underpinnings of liberalism, like at all.

FWIW, I'm pretty liberal, and I've got a high 6 figure HHI and supported OP's point many times. Ironically, I thought the people continuing to cry poor at $200K HHI and calling OP a loser were either trolls, self-centered jerks, or the courteous ones were conservatives

I agree that traditionally, the underpinnings of liberalism was to care about five-figure earners, but there's been enough recent examples to throw that into doubt, what with all the nasty remarks about rednecks and flyover country. I see you are one of the "traditional liberals," and I'm glad there are still some around.

But I still think it was liberals who were castigating middle-class earners because that the claim of that arrogant behavior was directed at liberals - and refuted with quite a showing of defensiveness. If it were conservatives posting, they wouldn't have turned themselves inside out to disprove a complaint about liberals.

P.S. Also, this forum is populated overwhelmingly by liberals. Considering the statistics, it's even more unlikely that the conservatives came out of the woodwork to refute a criticism of liberals' elitism as it relates to the average worker in flyover country.

P.P.S. I used to be a "traditional liberal', but the party has become so awful that I've gone predominately to the conservative side. The liberals will lose a lot of us, and they already have, unless they stop with the intolerance and hatred.

So how predominantly are you on the conservative side these days. It will be quite funny if you admitted to running away from intolerance and hatred into the arms of Donald Trump's Republican party.

Two points:

One, I was upset when Trump won the nomination, because I knew how flawed HRC was (under FBI investigation, for starters) and feared he could win. I begged my friends to cross over in the primary and vote for a moderate R (maybe Kasich) just to ensure that we wouldn't end up with Trump as president. But all my liberal friends insisted he couldn't win, and, well....the rest is history.

Two, I'm finding, in recent months particularly, that the intolerance and hatred is emanating much stronger from the left, generally speaking. I would rather associate myself with the conservatives, as bad as some of the extremists are on that side. Mostly, though, the conservatives are less hateful. Sorry!!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I didn't realize how elitists the urban liberals were until I started reading DCUM. (And the disdain, too, even as demonstrated in the post above- what is it that anytime someone has a different opinion than you, they're accused of spitting out Republican talking points? The implication is that we can't think for ourselves.)

For starters, stop castigating successful and educated career people as failures simply because they don't make $200k. When we try to explain that type of thing to the liberal snobs, they double down and start calling $100k earners "losers." The irony of the whole thing is that while the snobs put down average workers (forget $100k...I'm talking $40k) as rednecks, flyover ignoramuses, etc., they defend irresponsible people on welfare who have five illegitimate children and no way to support them.

Why do liberals look down upon hard-working middle Americans who support their families and defend to the death those who don't even work for a living and live off taxpayer largesse?

Is this the post you are talking about?
http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/641523.page

How do you know the political affiliations of the posters?

Yes, yes....that's the thread.

I figure they were liberals just by the way they responded to the OP's argument - that liberals lost the election because they are out of touch with average workers, and make them ignored and like losers when educated people making $100k or families making $200k act as if those decidedly above-average incomes are barely allowing them to get by. How, the point was, does that make the "real" family, HHI about $55k, feel?

Instead of acknowledging that there was a point there, these well-paid professionals came out swinging, calling the people in the low six-figure bracket losers, screw-ups, failures, etc. No recognition whatsover on the point just made - that when liberals don't realize how they make aversge earners feel like shit, they lose elections. Who else but liberals would have responded that way, since the message was directed at liberals?

So your predisposition is to assume that it's liberals who don't care about people with 5-figure incomes? Okay, but that's not consistent with the philosophical underpinnings of liberalism, like at all.

FWIW, I'm pretty liberal, and I've got a high 6 figure HHI and supported OP's point many times. Ironically, I thought the people continuing to cry poor at $200K HHI and calling OP a loser were either trolls, self-centered jerks, or the courteous ones were conservatives

I agree that traditionally, the underpinnings of liberalism was to care about five-figure earners, but there's been enough recent examples to throw that into doubt, what with all the nasty remarks about rednecks and flyover country. I see you are one of the "traditional liberals," and I'm glad there are still some around.

But I still think it was liberals who were castigating middle-class earners because that the claim of that arrogant behavior was directed at liberals - and refuted with quite a showing of defensiveness. If it were conservatives posting, they wouldn't have turned themselves inside out to disprove a complaint about liberals.

P.S. Also, this forum is populated overwhelmingly by liberals. Considering the statistics, it's even more unlikely that the conservatives came out of the woodwork to refute a criticism of liberals' elitism as it relates to the average worker in flyover country.

P.P.S. I used to be a "traditional liberal', but the party has become so awful that I've gone predominately to the conservative side. The liberals will lose a lot of us, and they already have, unless they stop with the intolerance and hatred.

So how predominantly are you on the conservative side these days. It will be quite funny if you admitted to running away from intolerance and hatred into the arms of Donald Trump's Republican party.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I didn't realize how elitists the urban liberals were until I started reading DCUM. (And the disdain, too, even as demonstrated in the post above- what is it that anytime someone has a different opinion than you, they're accused of spitting out Republican talking points? The implication is that we can't think for ourselves.)

For starters, stop castigating successful and educated career people as failures simply because they don't make $200k. When we try to explain that type of thing to the liberal snobs, they double down and start calling $100k earners "losers." The irony of the whole thing is that while the snobs put down average workers (forget $100k...I'm talking $40k) as rednecks, flyover ignoramuses, etc., they defend irresponsible people on welfare who have five illegitimate children and no way to support them.

Why do liberals look down upon hard-working middle Americans who support their families and defend to the death those who don't even work for a living and live off taxpayer largesse?

Is this the post you are talking about?
http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/641523.page

How do you know the political affiliations of the posters?

Yes, yes....that's the thread.

I figure they were liberals just by the way they responded to the OP's argument - that liberals lost the election because they are out of touch with average workers, and make them ignored and like losers when educated people making $100k or families making $200k act as if those decidedly above-average incomes are barely allowing them to get by. How, the point was, does that make the "real" family, HHI about $55k, feel?

Instead of acknowledging that there was a point there, these well-paid professionals came out swinging, calling the people in the low six-figure bracket losers, screw-ups, failures, etc. No recognition whatsover on the point just made - that when liberals don't realize how they make aversge earners feel like shit, they lose elections. Who else but liberals would have responded that way, since the message was directed at liberals?

So your predisposition is to assume that it's liberals who don't care about people with 5-figure incomes? Okay, but that's not consistent with the philosophical underpinnings of liberalism, like at all.

FWIW, I'm pretty liberal, and I've got a high 6 figure HHI and supported OP's point many times. Ironically, I thought the people continuing to cry poor at $200K HHI and calling OP a loser were either trolls, self-centered jerks, or the courteous ones were conservatives

I agree that traditionally, the underpinnings of liberalism was to care about five-figure earners, but there's been enough recent examples to throw that into doubt, what with all the nasty remarks about rednecks and flyover country. I see you are one of the "traditional liberals," and I'm glad there are still some around.

But I still think it was liberals who were castigating middle-class earners because that the claim of that arrogant behavior was directed at liberals - and refuted with quite a showing of defensiveness. If it were conservatives posting, they wouldn't have turned themselves inside out to disprove a complaint about liberals.

P.S. Also, this forum is populated overwhelmingly by liberals. Considering the statistics, it's even more unlikely that the conservatives came out of the woodwork to refute a criticism of liberals' elitism as it relates to the average worker in flyover country.

P.P.S. I used to be a "traditional liberal', but the party has become so awful that I've gone predominately to the conservative side. The liberals will lose a lot of us, and they already have, unless they stop with the intolerance and hatred.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I didn't realize how elitists the urban liberals were until I started reading DCUM. (And the disdain, too, even as demonstrated in the post above- what is it that anytime someone has a different opinion than you, they're accused of spitting out Republican talking points? The implication is that we can't think for ourselves.)

For starters, stop castigating successful and educated career people as failures simply because they don't make $200k. When we try to explain that type of thing to the liberal snobs, they double down and start calling $100k earners "losers." The irony of the whole thing is that while the snobs put down average workers (forget $100k...I'm talking $40k) as rednecks, flyover ignoramuses, etc., they defend irresponsible people on welfare who have five illegitimate children and no way to support them.

Why do liberals look down upon hard-working middle Americans who support their families and defend to the death those who don't even work for a living and live off taxpayer largesse?

Is this the post you are talking about?
http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/641523.page

How do you know the political affiliations of the posters?

Yes, yes....that's the thread.

I figure they were liberals just by the way they responded to the OP's argument - that liberals lost the election because they are out of touch with average workers, and make them ignored and like losers when educated people making $100k or families making $200k act as if those decidedly above-average incomes are barely allowing them to get by. How, the point was, does that make the "real" family, HHI about $55k, feel?

Instead of acknowledging that there was a point there, these well-paid professionals came out swinging, calling the people in the low six-figure bracket losers, screw-ups, failures, etc. No recognition whatsover on the point just made - that when liberals don't realize how they make aversge earners feel like shit, they lose elections. Who else but liberals would have responded that way, since the message was directed at liberals?

So your predisposition is to assume that it's liberals who don't care about people with 5-figure incomes? Okay, but that's not consistent with the philosophical underpinnings of liberalism, like at all.

FWIW, I'm pretty liberal, and I've got a high 6 figure HHI and supported OP's point many times. Ironically, I thought the people continuing to cry poor at $200K HHI and calling OP a loser were either trolls, self-centered jerks, or the courteous ones were conservatives

I agree that traditionally, the underpinnings of liberalism was to care about five-figure earners, but there's been enough recent examples to throw that into doubt, what with all the nasty remarks about rednecks and flyover country. I see you are one of the "traditional liberals," and I'm glad there are still some around.

But I still think it was liberals who were castigating middle-class earners because that the claim of that arrogant behavior was directed at liberals - and refuted with quite a showing of defensiveness. If it were conservatives posting, they wouldn't have turned themselves inside out to disprove a complaint about liberals.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I didn't realize how elitists the urban liberals were until I started reading DCUM. (And the disdain, too, even as demonstrated in the post above- what is it that anytime someone has a different opinion than you, they're accused of spitting out Republican talking points? The implication is that we can't think for ourselves.)

For starters, stop castigating successful and educated career people as failures simply because they don't make $200k. When we try to explain that type of thing to the liberal snobs, they double down and start calling $100k earners "losers." The irony of the whole thing is that while the snobs put down average workers (forget $100k...I'm talking $40k) as rednecks, flyover ignoramuses, etc., they defend irresponsible people on welfare who have five illegitimate children and no way to support them.

Why do liberals look down upon hard-working middle Americans who support their families and defend to the death those who don't even work for a living and live off taxpayer largesse?

Is this the post you are talking about?
http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/641523.page

How do you know the political affiliations of the posters?

Yes, yes....that's the thread.

I figure they were liberals just by the way they responded to the OP's argument - that liberals lost the election because they are out of touch with average workers, and make them ignored and like losers when educated people making $100k or families making $200k act as if those decidedly above-average incomes are barely allowing them to get by. How, the point was, does that make the "real" family, HHI about $55k, feel?

Instead of acknowledging that there was a point there, these well-paid professionals came out swinging, calling the people in the low six-figure bracket losers, screw-ups, failures, etc. No recognition whatsover on the point just made - that when liberals don't realize how they make aversge earners feel like shit, they lose elections. Who else but liberals would have responded that way, since the message was directed at liberals?

So your predisposition is to assume that it's liberals who don't care about people with 5-figure incomes? Okay, but that's not consistent with the philosophical underpinnings of liberalism, like at all.

FWIW, I'm pretty liberal, and I've got a high 6 figure HHI and supported OP's point many times. Ironically, I thought the people continuing to cry poor at $200K HHI and calling OP a loser were either trolls, self-centered jerks, or the courteous ones were conservatives