Support NeoGAF

[NickFire]

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You're part of a team that is demonizing conservatives 'values' then lumping their hive mind into a quaint bin to shit on. Your identical attitude has continued this entire time, while our country is falling apart due it being controlled by lobbying, donations, and corporate interests that enjoy pitting us at each other, as while we are arguing, they are just lifting money from our pockets, and children from our families for their wars. Not their own kids, always ours.

This continues to happen, no matter if conservatives, or liberals are in the office.

This continues to happen, no matter if conservatives, or liberals are in the office.

This continues to happen, no matter if conservatives, or liberals are in the office.

And you continue to insult other citizens intellect. Which has no productive outcome besides dividing our nation. The same could be said for liberals and the vaccination issue, or GMOs, or equal rights for victims of the justice system. We've had liberals in office, not much has changed. Rights for people to marry getting traction is superb! Now, what about equal rights? Women are still paid less in the USA. Not much jobs and education is embarrassing. Our diplomacy is non-existent. We are creating more and more enemies with our drone program, that has its own flaws. Everything can be cracked up to waste, lost money, school systems buying IPADS for their schools, only to realize the program is a failure, etc.

There are plenty of modern conservatives. There are plenty of rational people in the USA. They are just played by the Lobby/Media to be reactive and vote against their own interest to allow some coal company to poison west Virginia's water over and over again, on accident. Just like Liberals are played by the same media to have this shitty view of the other team.

Fox news is the most trusted news source in America. This is a problem, as its just political propaganda spun by the same people that pay for our presidents to be in office. We are talking about working with conservatives to get a united voice in the nation that wants our government representatives representing us citizens, and not business or military interests. Our safety, not the safety of someones bank account.

We all need to work together on this. One side can't do it alone.

My mom could be described as conservative, but just speaking with her in respectful ways has really brought her to light on some issues, and the same has happened for me on some of her concerns. We need genuine compromise between the citizens of the nation for a productive government to work. Right now, we just have lobbies and businesses compromising, which means that we get the short end of the stick, always, as the population. No one wants flammable water, or a child to die of measles, they've just been played.

Keep up your mindset, and we will be right back here, with less rights in a few years. Its been proven at this point that this system and the prevailing attitudes isn't working to create a better America. We need to squash a lot of things, re Lib vs Conservative, and the first thing starts with respectful conversations.

That was one of the most insightful things I have read on this forum.

 

[BamfMeat]

But why do voters settle for two party system? The voters don't actually see any of the "$$$$$$$$$$$" that you're referring to.

Oh they see it alright.

"Hi, my name is Barack Obama and let me tell you about my presidential campaign....."

 

[ChronotriggerJM]

Yeah the bullshit two party system needs to die first and foremost. It blows my mind that Al Gore lost because of the green party lol.

Minimum wage can be pathetic for all I care, just make education free and accessible, and I imagine that problem could work itself out.

Bernie Sanders has my vote so far, we'll see how the candidates play out.

 

[Super Nothing]

Republicans should join in scuttling Citizens United

As January 21, the fifth anniversary of the Citizens United decision, approaches, it’s time to outline why conservatives should get behind an amendment to overturn that U.S. Supreme Court ruling, which unleashed an unprecedented flood of money into our elections.

The case for an amendment should not be partisan, as some members of Congress have tried to make it. It should be common sense. After all, it’s not a partisan issue for voters. For them, it is a commonsense solution.

Poll after poll shows that the majority of voters of all political stripes are alarmed at the record amounts of money pouring into elections. Voters feel they are being drowned out.

A bi-partisan poll conducted last year by my firm, Chesapeake Beach Consulting (Republican) and Lake Research Partners (Democratic), found that voters favor a constitutional amendment by a 61-28 percent margin. Presented with arguments for and against an amendment, Republicans strongly favor the amendment – by a 54-36 percent margin. Our poll also found that by a 6-1 margin, voters say that reducing the influence of money in politics is an important issue.
[...]​

If you're looking for one issue to take up which would have a positive domino effect on the current state of politics, then this is it. Repealing CItizens United is a necessary step towards real campaign finance reform, something which citizens all over the political spectrum would benefit from. If we're ever going to hinder the corruption of our elected officials, then the way campaigns are funded needs to be addressed in a substantial way There are non-partisan groups such as Wolf PAC and Mayday which are getting local officials to commit to move towards fairer elections, but there is also serious pressure [read: money] being applied to keep things the way they are. If doing the work to call or write your congressman is too much for you, then at the very least you should look into which of the candidates on your next ballot support campaign finance reform.

EDIT: oh, also #FUCO

The problem with this particular issue is that the parties aren't pitted against each other, they're pitted against the public that they supposedly serve. The citizens from both parties want this changed, but politicians directly benefit from Citizens United. It won't change because it helps the people in power stay in power and get richer. In order to even have a chance of fixing it, we'd have to elect all new congressmen who actually are interested in representing their constituents, but the people that fund the campaigns will never let that happen. The people that fund the campaigns effectively pick who represents everyone else.

 

[Sanke__]

"Modern day mainstream liberal" isnt a real thing

You take fictional media created by corporate america too seriously

Most people painted as "mainstream liberal" are actually conservative but the nation is being pushed so far to the right that they are given that label

 

[JZA]

I hate how people refer to "liberals" as if it's something you're born with and can't change, like it's an ethnicity. People are way more nuanced in their political beliefs to have a simple label like this.

 

[NickFire]

This country needs term limits, a recognition that corporations are not entitled to the same rights as humans, and a prohibition on foreign campaign contributions.

 

[Ninja Of Chaos]

Interesting that a lot of people here seem to think the US has a two party system. it really doesn't.

The democratic and republican "parties" operate much more like coalition governments that agree just enough on certain platforms to pass a bill once in a blue moon.

On the democratic side, compare the "blue dog" democrats of appalachia (though there are way less of these after 2010) to the progressives of the CA west coast. Compare the interests of black voters in the inner cities, hispanics in the southwest, and New England WASPs.

on the republican side, the establishment/tea party divide has been fierce and obvious for a long time- but you also have libertarians and evangelicals trying to get along under the "roof" of the same party, and they frequently disagree.

asking for a third party is useless- they would just end up caucusing with one party or the other in an attempt to actually pass something, which is exactly what happens when independents get elected to the house or senate.

If you want to actually change the platform- vote in primaries. It's the dead simplest way to get the party moving in the direction you support. Even the 'money!' argument falls apart here, since with a few rare exceptions, big money doesn't get dumped into house or senate primary races. This is how the tea party hijacked the republican party in 2010 and sent the republican establishment into a panic. They showed up at polls when no one else would.

But no, I suppose "burn it all down and start a third party! everyone is corrupt!" is just more entertaining.
C

I know I am late...but OMG thank you for this post.

The "Democrats" are a coalition of everything from far left to center-right. And they hold primaries to see which direction this coalition will lean towards. And near nobody fucking votes in them.

 

[ChronotriggerJM]

I know I am late...but OMG thank you for this post.

The "Democrats" are a coalition of everything from far left to center-right. And they hold primaries to see which direction this coalition will lean towards. And near nobody fucking votes in them.

I'd be interested to see how a Representative democracy could/would play out in America. It might put more emphasis on the importance of voting for representation lol.

 

[soleil]

The nuanced differences in political opinions of different liberals doesn't matter when all the politicians pretending to represent liberals are being paid off to help corporations regardless of how nuanced discussions between liberals go.

And we don't need to vote in a third party. Corporations will just lobby the third party. the key is to stop thinking in terms of parties and start thinking in terms of individuals. Vote during the primaries and vote for individual politicians who are NOT in the pockets of the mega corporations. This time around, Bernie Sanders is that option.

 

[SomTervo]

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You're part of a team that is demonizing conservatives 'values' then lumping their hive mind into a quaint bin to shit on. Your identical attitude has continued this entire time, while our country is falling apart due it being controlled by lobbying, donations, and corporate interests that enjoy pitting us at each other, as while we are arguing, they are just lifting money from our pockets, and children from our families for their wars. Not their own kids, always ours.

This continues to happen, no matter if conservatives, or liberals are in the office.

This continues to happen, no matter if conservatives, or liberals are in the office.

This continues to happen, no matter if conservatives, or liberals are in the office.


And you continue to insult other citizens intellect. Which has no productive outcome besides dividing our nation. The same could be said for liberals and the vaccination issue, or GMOs, or equal rights for victims of the justice system. We've had liberals in office, not much has changed. Rights for people to marry getting traction is superb! Now, what about equal rights? Women are still paid less in the USA. Not much jobs and education is embarrassing. Our diplomacy is non-existent. We are creating more and more enemies with our drone program, that has its own flaws. Everything can be cracked up to waste, lost money, school systems buying IPADS for their schools, only to realize the program is a failure, etc.

There are plenty of modern conservatives. There are plenty of rational people in the USA. They are just played by the Lobby/Media to be reactive and vote against their own interest to allow some coal company to poison west Virginia's water over and over again, on accident. Just like Liberals are played by the same media to have this shitty view of the other team.

Fox news is the most trusted news source in America. This is a problem, as its just political propaganda spun by the same people that pay for our presidents to be in office. We are talking about working with conservatives to get a united voice in the nation that wants our government representatives representing us citizens, and not business or military interests. Our safety, not the safety of someones bank account.

We all need to work together on this. One side can't do it alone.

My mom could be described as conservative, but just speaking with her in respectful ways has really brought her to light on some issues, and the same has happened for me on some of her concerns. We need genuine compromise between the citizens of the nation for a productive government to work. Right now, we just have lobbies and businesses compromising, which means that we get the short end of the stick, always, as the population. No one wants flammable water, or a child to die of measles, they've just been played.

Keep up your mindset, and we will be right back here, with less rights in a few years. Its been proven at this point that this system and the prevailing attitudes isn't working to create a better America. We need to squash a lot of things, re Lib vs Conservative, and the first thing starts with respectful conversations.

Yeah, this is amazing.

 

[Princess Carl]

Decided to read through that speech after you mentioned it, and came across an interesting section:

We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace—business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.

They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.

How often I've been told that history does not repeat itself...

It is pretty depressing.

 

[NeoXChaos]

I think you need to look a little past those responses, and look at the ones telling you why the system can't be changed at the moment. It's not just because people feel helpless and defeated, it's for practical reasons too.

Take your disenchantment with the ACA for not going far enough down the path of UHC for example. Suppose you have a Democratic President (for a hypothetical arguments sake, Hillary in 2016) who wants to enact that.

In order to change that, you'd need the Democrats who wanted to change it to control Congress, and not just that but likely have a super majority in the Senate, as they briefly did in Obama's first term. Let's put aside the Senate for now, and look at the challenge of controlling the House for the Democrats.

This is very difficult because of the way so many districts in the House are drawn. Specifically; by State governments in 33 states more often than not controlled by Republicans who gerrymander things to their favour (Democrats do this too of course, when it's in their favour).

So before you could really win the House back for the Democrats, you'd need to re-district large parts of the country, and you'd probably need most of those 33 states that typically vote Republican at the state level to vote Democrat to have that re-districting go in favour of the Democrats.

Now, the soonest this could be done of course is likely after the next census, which according to the Constitution occurs every 10 years, meaning the next opportunity for Democrats to control the House is probably post-2020, unless you want to pass a Constitutional amendment changing how often the Census is conducted I guess, or pass some other piece of legislation that states re-districting can occur earlier (though why would the GOP do this).

This isn't pessimism, it's practicality. There is not going to be a legislative sea change in the next Presidential cycle for the Democrats because of the way things are currently structured in one branch of government. Similarly, the GOP is going to find it very difficult to pass a legislative agenda as long as they don't control the Congress to the extent they can override the Presidential veto.

So we'll come now to why much of Liberal-GAF supports Hillary. Because they know everything I've written above. The big prize for her election would that be not a legislative agenda, but control of Supreme Court nominations, which would mean that the Supreme Court could be actually shifted to the left (where it really is not at the moment as you erroneously assert in your OP).

Those are really the only significant marbles there are to play for in terms of a Democratic Presidency in the next decade or so, and not backing an establishment candidate and voting Greens or Independent would simply jeopardize even that gain due to the way voting is conducted in the US (first past the post).

This^^

Both parties may suck but one is downright awful right now and giving them anymore power than they already have is unwise.

 

[soleil]

I think you need to look a little past those responses, and look at the ones telling you why the system can't be changed at the moment. It's not just because people feel helpless and defeated, it's for practical reasons too.

Take your disenchantment with the ACA for not going far enough down the path of UHC for example. Suppose you have a Democratic President (for a hypothetical arguments sake, Hillary in 2016) who wants to enact that.

In order to change that, you'd need the Democrats who wanted to change it to control Congress, and not just that but likely have a super majority in the Senate, as they briefly did in Obama's first term. Let's put aside the Senate for now, and look at the challenge of controlling the House for the Democrats.

This is very difficult because of the way so many districts in the House are drawn. Specifically; by State governments in 33 states more often than not controlled by Republicans who gerrymander things to their favour (Democrats do this too of course, when it's in their favour).

So before you could really win the House back for the Democrats, you'd need to re-district large parts of the country, and you'd probably need most of those 33 states that typically vote Republican at the state level to vote Democrat to have that re-districting go in favour of the Democrats.

Now, the soonest this could be done of course is likely after the next census, which according to the Constitution occurs every 10 years, meaning the next opportunity for Democrats to control the House is probably post-2020, unless you want to pass a Constitutional amendment changing how often the Census is conducted I guess, or pass some other piece of legislation that states re-districting can occur earlier (though why would the GOP do this).

This isn't pessimism, it's practicality. There is not going to be a legislative sea change in the next Presidential cycle for the Democrats because of the way things are currently structured in one branch of government. Similarly, the GOP is going to find it very difficult to pass a legislative agenda as long as they don't control the Congress to the extent they can override the Presidential veto.

So we'll come now to why much of Liberal-GAF supports Hillary. Because they know everything I've written above. The big prize for her election would that be not a legislative agenda, but control of Supreme Court nominations, which would mean that the Supreme Court could be actually shifted to the left (where it really is not at the moment as you erroneously assert in your OP).

Those are really the only significant marbles there are to play for in terms of a Democratic Presidency in the next decade or so, and not backing an establishment candidate and voting Greens or Independent would simply jeopardise even that gain due to the way voting is conducted in the US (first past the post).

This^^

Both parties may suck but one is downright awful right now and giving them anymore power than they already have is unwise.

Democrats had control of the House at the same time they had the supermajority in the Senate. Stop with the excuses. The ACA sucked because Democrats were bribed by health insurance companies (which give to the GOP most election cycles) while the ACA was on the table. Again, Democrats already had the House when the ACA was passed (which was when they had a supermajority in the Senate).

And you don't have to vote Green. Choose better Democrats in the primaries. Bernie Sanders is running for the Democrat Nomination.

 

[danm999]

Democrats had control of the House at the same time they had the supermajority in the Senate. Stop with the excuses.

And you don't have to vote Green. Choose better Democrats in the primaries. Bernie Sanders is running for the Democrat Nomination.

Yeah they did, for about three weeks in 2009. That's when the ACA was passed incidentally.

After the 2008 election, there was a legal challenge to Al Franken's seat that wasn't solved until July in the middle of the next year, finally bringing the numbers in theory up to 60.

But two Senators, Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd, were too sick to attend a vote by then (and they were very sick; Kennedy would die the next month, Byrd would die the following year).

Kennedy dies in August, and his seat was later filled in the year briefly with a Democratic candidate whilst there's a byelection for Kennedy's empty seat, finally bringing the vote to 60 almost a year after the 2008 election. This is when they pass the ACA.

Congress then went on its Winter recess, and by January Scott Brown had won Kennedy's seat and was in office in Massachusetts, bringing the Democrats down to 59 again, a seat short of 60, a number they would never meet again.

So again, asking why they didn't roll out a legislative agenda in those few weeks is kind of obvious. They had one thing they managed to get through, and even that barely. There would have been no time to push for anything additional or more radical. The system and poor fortune did not allow it.

And none of this really has much of anything to do with why the current or future Democratic Party will struggle to move to universal health care and a single payer system; they won't even have the opportunity to control congress for likely another 5 years, as I've outlined in my original post.

 

[lednerg]

Democrats had control of the House at the same time they had the supermajority in the Senate. Stop with the excuses. The ACA sucked because Democrats were bribed by health insurance companies (which give to the GOP most election cycles) while the ACA was on the table. Again, Democrats already had the House when the ACA was passed (which was when they had a supermajority in the Senate).

And you don't have to vote Green. Choose better Democrats in the primaries. Bernie Sanders is running for the Democrat Nomination.

Democrats had a theoretical "supermajority" for a short while in 2009. Problem was, they weren't all on the same page. There were conservative freshmen Senators in red states, and then you had Joe Lieberman, who would later go on to speak at the Republican Nat'l Convention. Lieberman did everything in his power to keep single payer off of the table. Then of course there was the GOP's unprecedented and unrelenting hostility towards Obama and anything he sought to achieve, driving the public into a frenzy with town hall shenanigans and the birth of the tea party. There wasn't a chance in 2009 of us getting anything more substantial than ACA.

 

[soleil]

Yeah they did, for about three weeks in 2009. That's when the ACA was passed incidentally.

After the 2008 election, there was a legal challenge to Al Franken's seat that wasn't solved until July in the middle of the next year, finally bringing the numbers in theory up to 60.

But two Senators, Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd, were too sick to attend a vote by then (and they were very sick; Kennedy would die the next month, Byrd would die the following year).

Kennedy dies in August, and his seat was later filled in the year briefly with a Democratic candidate whilst there's a byelection for Kennedy's empty seat, finally bringing the vote to 60 almost a year after the 2008 election. This is when they pass the ACA.

Congress then went on its Winter recess, and by January Scott Brown had won Kennedy's seat and was in office in Massachusetts, bringing the Democrats down to 59 again, a seat short of 60, a number they would never meet again.

So again, asking why they didn't roll out a legislative agenda in those few weeks is kind of obvious. They had one thing they managed to get through, and even that barely. There would have been no time to push for anything additional or more radical. The system and poor fortune did not allow it.

And none of this really has much of anything to do with why the current or future Democratic Party will struggle to move to universal health care and a single payer system; they won't even have the opportunity to control congress for likely another 5 years, as I've outlined in my original post.

Democrats had a theoretical "supermajority" for a short while in 2009. Problem was, they weren't all on the same page. There were conservative freshmen Senators in red states, and then you had Joe Lieberman, who would later go on to speak at the Republican Nat'l Convention. Lieberman did everything in his power to keep single payer off of the table. Then of course there was the GOP's unprecedented and unrelenting hostility towards Obama and anything he sought to achieve, driving the public into a frenzy with town hall shenanigans and the birth of the tea party. There wasn't a chance in 2009 of us getting anything more substantial than ACA.

All that and not a single mention of health insurance lobbying?

 

[lednerg]

All that and not a single mention of health insurance lobbying?

Joe Lieberman is your guy.

 

[soleil]

Joe Lieberman is your guy.

You think it was just him?

 

[AlphaDump]

You think it was just him?

Can you show me a chart or something that is objectively reported showing the breakout of money spent?

Im not sure what your argument is?

is this valid? https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=F09

 

[danm999]

All that and not a single mention of health insurance lobbying?

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything I've said with regards to the supermajority.

 

[retrofool1961]

I think this is an excellent thread with awesome contributors.

This is my question...

What (after all the money is given to all the power hungry people) makes a democrat different than a republican, a liberal different than a conservative, a green tea from a 420?

I'm 54 and uneducated.

 

[CloudyTuba]

When I read this post it seems like the intention or tone to begin with was to imply that both sides are fucked, the two party system is not getting us anywhere right now, both sides get us the same result in the rigged system, us-vs-them mentality is bad, stop treating this like sports teams and start treating this like real life. This I can agree with.

But then the whole post goes on to encourage the same us vs them mentality, those damn dirty dishonest liberals with their hillary clintons and their affordable care acts. If only they would do "any real research" and see the one true path. Even the title directly suggests that this is all the damn liberals problem.

In my mind it's contradicted and invalided the entire spirit of the post. Why did you even need to "target those on the left?" What does that have to do with it? Everybody is in this boat together. I think the main problem was with your presentation rather than your sentiment. You need to separate yourself from the issue more to be effective, conservatives are just as fucked as anything else.

I have liberal leanings but I agree that people like Hillary are part of the problem and I refuse to just pick a side because it's easy. The system is broken. I have never voted for anyone just because of their labels and affiliations and I never will. If I think a Republican or independent has better stances then they're going to get my vote, and I dont participate in the "lesser of two evils" mentality.

Yes welfare is a good idea but we wouldn't need it if we would all have the compassion to take care of our own. Medicine has improved greatly but at the same time, there was a time when hospitals would treat anyone in their community regardless of whether or not they had enough money, insurance etc.

You seem very idealistic which explains a lot about your post but the fact is that is not the real world right now. That's the kind of attitude I try to live by though most others are only looking out for themselves. Agreed these types of programs shouldnt need to exist in a perfect world but that's not the world we got so stop pretending it is. You're the one pleading politics to keep it real, so keep it real man.

There are some rumblings about Bernie Sanders going on right now and I haven't done my research yet but from what I gather by word of mouth he sounds pretty good. I'll be looking into that later.

 

[AlphaDump]

I think this is an excellent thread with awesome contributors.

This is my question...

What (after all the money is given to all the power hungry people) makes a democrat different than a republican, a liberal different than a conservative, a green tea from a 420?

I'm 54 and uneducated.

at a 90,000 foot level,

democrats/liberals are much more socially progressive, and put more trust in the government at the fed and state level.


republicans/conservatives are much socially conservative, and xenophobic towards change/outside groups. they dont put trust in the gov at the fed level and want less regulation. basically they want states to ultimately run themselves


i didnt want to use the term fiscally conservative because that term is horse shit. no one is going to admit they are fiscally liberal.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Democrats had control of the House at the same time they had the supermajority in the Senate. Stop with the excuses. The ACA sucked because Democrats were bribed by health insurance companies (which give to the GOP most election cycles) while the ACA was on the table. Again, Democrats already had the House when the ACA was passed (which was when they had a supermajority in the Senate).

And you don't have to vote Green. Choose better Democrats in the primaries. Bernie Sanders is running for the Democrat Nomination.

I keep seeing that statement and I am tired of it. No they didnt. They had 60 votes in the senate from July 2009-February 2010. Kennedy died and was replaced with a placeholder during that time after Al Fraenken took his seat leading up to Scott Brown's election.

Even with that, it was hard getting stuff done. You had the Bill Nelson, Joe Lieberman, Max Baucus, Blance Lincoln's of the world worried about their reelection. Remember Nelson and the Cornhuscker Kickback? They werent gonna sign a bill with single payer. It took the Democrats until December 2009 and Fillbusters to pass a bill with changes that differed from the House bill which thankfully meant reconciliation which only required 50+ votes in the senate and a simple majority in the house.

Funny enough they all either retired or in the case of Blanche Lincoln defeated.

You had House Democrats like Bark Stupak who was called "baby killer" on the house floor because of his previous stance on healthcare and his district lean Republican like many others who either retired fearing their chances after the vote or went down in defeat.

All this with NO Republican support in the senate and House.

 

[lednerg]

You think it was just him?

There didn't need to be any others. He supported the GOP filibuster as long as there was a public option on the table. That shut down the whole discussion in one fell swoop. Keep in mind, he was an Independant, so counting him as a Democrat in terms of adding up to a supermajority was always presumptuous at best. Hell, even Fox News.com got that one right back then. The healthcare industry is a big deal in Joe's home state of Connecticut, yet even their other Senator, Chris Dodd, was still in favor of the public option.

 

[Ikael]

Ask a rich or even middle class black, brown, or Asian folks how much their W-2 helps them when a cop is bearing down on 'em with a handgun and telling them to get on their fucking knees.

A rich anythingbutwhite person can actually afford a strong legal team and lawyers in order to overcome any prejudice of any system in place. I am not denying the existence of said prejudices, but rather than that wealth, being the ultimate privilege, can effectively nulify or at the very least, minimize them.

Allow me to paint a more straightfoward example: Women are horribly discriminted in Saudi Arabia, where they are not legally allowed to drive. But who's going to affect this discrimination more, a rich women that can pay a chauffeur or an average women that actually needs to drive by herself? Wealth is the defacto trump card in this world of ours. The more progressives ignore this fact, the less sympathetic they become.

Yeah, Sally, I know the whole power structure is entirely full of white males. But, you don't want that. You don't want any power in your life. Power is bad (until the revolution). Until then, just be a good solider and fight for the things, I as a male, say is important for you to care about, none of this representation or empowerment rubbish.

It is always dishearting to see how people (not only progressives) clings to the fantasy about how sharing the same gender or skin color with your leader will make him / her feel any sympathy towards you, your identity group, treat your social strata any, better or legislate in favour of your interests. Sympathy by similitude beings in the face to face interaction, and ends at the very moment you gain a position of power.

How did Thacher's reign worked for Britain's women? How did Bush goverment worked for the well-being of impoverished whites that voted him into office in the first place? Did Obama's presidency helped black Americans during its biggest racial riots on its recent history? Tokenism or "empowerment" is not progresivism, it is tribalism and self-delusion of the worst kind.