[cultureswitch]

It's getting sort of ridiculous how much each party is stuck in an electoral strategy where they have to pretend to be on one side of an issue which is objectively against the interests of the people they pretend to be representing.

Dems have to appear to be pro-immigration for reasons (honestly I don't know why this is like this, historically). They are genuinely less xenophobic than the Reps, so they respect the rights of recent immigrants much better. But when it comes to preventing more poor workers coming in, they are just as tough as the Reps. And I believe that's because ultimately they are slightly less captured by capital and therefore more amenable to balance the economy in favor of workers.

Reps on the other hand have to appear xenophobic once again for reasons that aren't super clear to me, but when it comes to actually preventing immigration, they always manage to torpedo their own proposals. And arguably that's because if they passed effective anti-immigration laws, that would negatively affect the interests of capital, the very obvious reason they're in politics for (and Trump is certainly no different).

Maybe now we can resolve this apparent paradox and simply accept that the Democrats are first and foremost the party of the educated, metropolitan and utterly disinterested in matters of material conditions. Whereas the Republicans are the party of people who are bitter towards the first group. Which leads to the conclusion that exceptionally few people in the US are voting according to their own economic interests.

[havblue]

One of my "friends" bragged to me this year about how he threatened to replace one of his underperforming programmers with someone from Pakistan for $10 an hour.

Say you're on the receiving end of this threat. Do you really care what country your replacement is from? Is my "friend" really all that benevolent to fire someone for less money?

[sanderjd]

What is the political salience of this anecdote, in your view?

[havblue]

Parent discusses immigration in terms of xenophobia. The anecdote is an example of how an employee not wanting to be replaced by a lower salary individual isn't xenophobic. The desire to drive down wages though is in the economic interests of employers.

[sanderjd]

Yeah, but what is the political salience of that? It's unclear to me what political party or set of policies this anecdote relates to.

[havblue]

The anecdote would imply that if you're a tech worker, hiring more H1B's or outsourcing development is financially beneficial to shareholders and management while it puts downward pressure on wages for employees.

[sanderjd]

Yes, but again, what political conclusion are you suggesting would be drawn by that?

[tucnak]

I'm sorry, I don't understand either. You use these hundred-dollar words that sound smart, but their meaning escapes me completely.

[markus_zhang]

From an outsider's view (and many of my friends hold the same view), the two parties are not that different. They are different in some minor issues that grab eyeballs so that to create drama, but for the big ones (foreign policy, economics), they are not that different. I mean look at those bi-partisan issues, they are all big ones.

[sanderjd]

This is a common, but fundamentally incorrect, assessment.

[bee_rider]

I think this is sort of the result of looking at any country’s politics as an outsider. For Americans, most of us are in between the parties and so they point in different directions for us. Also, because the specific policies impact our lives, we are more interested in the details (where the parties actually do look pretty different) than some aggregation or big picture view.

In terms of some big issues being bi-partisan… I mean, it would be sort of weird if the broad strokes weren’t somewhat bipartisan, right? Like if we actually switched between having a capitalist and a communist economy every four years… that would not be a feasible way to run a country, haha.

But I mean we’re going to see some pretty big differences: support for our allies in NATO will look different (I don’t think we’re pulling out or anything but the relationships will change). The parties seem to have different visions of how we should try to get semiconductor manufacturing back over here (an industry that basically… determines what a lot the overall economy will look like). Abortion access will probably be determined by states (which will be a life-altering change of circumstance for some folks).

These are big differences.

[TrackerFF]

This is in no way a shot at the Latino population. But they are unfortunately a group that are stuck in a hard place.

On one side, they have a very religious population. Some of their core values align with republican values - i.e., freedom of religion, pro-life, and what have you.

But they're also voting for the very same people that vows to deport them.

And before anyone tries to argue "But they only want the illegal ones deported!" - we all know damn well that the most vocal part of the republican party couldn't care less if thousands of legal immigrants are deported by "accident".

In the end, people vote against their own interest, and rationalize it with "But it wouldn't happen to me!" (or anyone they know or love).

Same goes for the "fiscally conservative, socially liberal" crowd, and what have you.

[valval]

Your portrayal of the majority of republicans wanting to deport all immigrants as some self evident truth might tell us more about you than the group you’re speaking of.

[HumblyTossed]

> Reps on the other hand have to appear xenophobic once again for reasons that aren't super clear to me,

It's not complicated. It's the Christian Nationalist agenda for the last 50 years. They don't want white people to be the minority and most immigrants don't fit that profile.

> but when it comes to actually preventing immigration, they always manage to torpedo their own proposals.

Because they have to win elections. They do this by declaring something bad, doing nothing about it, then blaming democrats so they can get re-elected. Look at Florida. They've been republican for over two decades, they have a super majority and they don't solve any of the problems they run against the democrats on.

[cynicalpeace]

> the Democrats are first and foremost the party of the educated, metropolitan and utterly disinterested in matters of material conditions.

This is absolutely true. Though most people on the Left are terrified to face this fact.

> Whereas the Republicans are the party of people who are bitter towards the first group.

This was true in 2016, probably 2020. But definitely not this election. Just to use myself as an example: I'm an Obama ('12), Clinton ('16), Biden ('20), Trump voter ('24).

I'm not motivated by animosity against Democrats because I was voting for them. Trump's message now is way more positive. It's a message of peace with Russia, making America healthy again, getting competent people in government (Musk), etc.

And that's actually also what a lot of the most influential Trump supporters (Musk, Rogan, RFK, Dana White, Nelk boys, Theo Von, etc) have been espousing too, pretty much all of whom used to be Democrats.

[kelnos]

> Trump's message now is way more positive.

I feel like I've been listening to a very different Trump than you have. Most of what he says involves demonizing various groups of people, becoming a dictator, or putting his political opponents in jail. (And no, I haven't just been listening to sound bites or the most inflammatory short clips.)

> It's a message of peace with Russia

At the expense of Ukraine's sovereignty, appeasing a dictator and emboldening him to take other territory in Eastern Europe. (I bet China is happy with this, too.)

Is peace with Russia going to look like what happened with Afghanistan? The withdrawal plan and timeline was Trump's, not Biden's.

> making America healthy again

Every concrete proposal of his (not that he has many) that I've heard will bring us back on the inflation train, and increase the deficit. And on top of that he'll even further paralyze the federal government. Which is of course the conservative agenda in a nutshell: dismantle the federal government and let the states decide their fates, except where they want to impose their "values" on blue states.

> getting competent people in government (Musk), etc.

I see Musk as a deranged man who has succeeded through luck, timing, and rhetoric, rather than skill or talent. He can't even focus properly on the important things anymore (Tesla, SpaceX), and would prefer to spend his time making sure no one says mean things about him on Twitter. If he were a family member I'd be worried about his mental health. I don't say that to be flippant or cruel; I'm dead serious.

[kelnos]

> Trump's message now is way more positive.

I feel like I've been listening to a very different Trump than you have. Most of what he says involves demonizing various groups of people, cozying up to dictators, or putting his political opponents in jail. His rallies are about stoking outrage and fear.

> It's a message of peace with Russia

At the expense of Ukraine's sovereignty.

Is peace with Russia going to look like what happened with Afghanistan? The withdrawal plan and timeline was Trump's, not Biden's.

> making America healthy again

Every concrete proposal of his (not that he has many) that I've heard will bring us back on the inflation train, increase the deficit, reverse our declining reliance on fossil fuels, and increase income inequality even further. And on top of that he'll even further paralyze the federal government. Which is of course the conservative agenda in a nutshell: dismantle the federal government and let the states decide their fates, except where they want to impose their "values" on blue states.

> getting competent people in government (Musk), etc.

If you think Musk is competent and should be anywhere near government, our fundamentals are so different that there's probably no point in discussing it further.

[newfriend]

> I feel like I've been listening to a very different Trump than you have. Most of what he says involves demonizing various groups of people, cozying up to dictators, or putting his political opponents in jail. His rallies are about stoking outrage and fear.

It sounds more like you've been listening to what the news tells you Trump is.

"cozying up to dictators" is exactly the language used by MSNBC, CNN, CBS, et al. Putting his political opponents in jail is what his opposition tried.

The withdrawal plan is different from the execution, especially when only the high-level is followed. That is on Biden.

> Every concrete proposal of his (not that he has many) that I've heard will bring us back on the inflation train, increase the deficit, reverse our declining reliance on fossil fuels, and increase income inequality even further. And on top of that he'll even further paralyze the federal government. Which is of course the conservative agenda in a nutshell: dismantle the federal government and let the states decide their fates, except where they want to impose their "values" on blue states.

Again, this just sounds like what certain media tells you. I have never heard Trump say his goal is to "paralyze the federal government".

[kelnos]

> It sounds more like you've been listening to what the news tells you Trump is.

I've been listening to the literal words that Trump says, by watching videos of his rallies.

Regardless, I'm not really interested in engaging with someone who's going to argue that "I'm listening wrong" instead of presenting a coherent argument.

[inemesitaffia]

Thanks for actually getting this