Jen Psaki to leave White House in coming weeks

[Calthrina950]

I've said before that Psaki is the epitome of the limousine white liberal, who is college-educated, lives in a nice upper-middle class to upper class suburban area, probably shops at Whole Foods or some other higher-end store, and sends their children to private or elite schools.

This is bizarrely specific, and I feel like this rant isn't really about Psaki.

It seems more like you're just projecting your frustration that "cringe wine moms" are a more influential voting bloc than you'd like them to be.

I've been critical of Psaki before, as I've explained above. But yes, I will say that I don't think the absorption of wealthy suburbanites into the Democratic coalition is necessarily a good thing for the Party or for its policy development.

[Big Abraham]

Hottest WH press secretary who has ever lived.

11 out of 10.

Sean Spicer?

[WV222]

I don't think it should be Bedingfield. I mean in 2019, she fumbled a question on MTP Daily where MSNBC could post a YouTube video title saying this.

Bedingfield: It's Heavy Lift To Try To Suggest...That Biden Is A Segregationist | MTP Daily | MSNBC

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-MpLVmVX_A

I don't think any politican would want a press secretary who during the campaign didn't dismiss the question that they were an segregationist as ridiculous and suggested the host was a idiot for even asking the question.

Personally, I think Karine Jean-Pierre should be the Press Secretary. She has done great briefings filling in for Psaki and would likely at least be there until the end of the term.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Who!?

[Fuzzy Bear]

I've said before that Psaki is the epitome of the limousine white liberal, who is college-educated, lives in a nice upper-middle class to upper class suburban area, probably shops at Whole Foods or some other higher-end store, and sends their children to private or elite schools.

This is bizarrely specific, and I feel like this rant isn't really about Psaki.

It seems more like you're just projecting your frustration that "cringe wine moms" are a more influential voting bloc than you'd like them to be.

I've been critical of Psaki before, as I've explained above. But yes, I will say that I don't think the absorption of wealthy suburbanites into the Democratic coalition is necessarily a good thing for the Party or for its policy development.

What you mention is what Thomas Frank in What's The Matter With Kansasl describes as the Democratic Party's response to their declining fortunes.  Those devising this strategy figured that the working class had nowhere else to go; that the Democratic Party would always be marginally better on economics than the GOP.

The problem with this take is that, over time, the Democratic Party's working class (who are, indeed, more socially conservative, more likely to be churchgoers and hold at least some socially conservative views) saw that Democratic Party go whole hog on social radicalism to the point of sending out dog whistles against THEM.  Over the course of 8 years, Obama's "clinging to guns and religion" became Hillary's "basket of deplorables", and her campaign reflected that attitude toward THEM.  

Once upon a time, there was room for disagreement on the social issues, but it was agreement on the issues important to WORKERS that defined you as an acceptable national Democrat.  The idea that a state such as Virginia could enjoy a trifecta and NOT repeal Right-To-Work laws was unconscionable.  (I'm talking about today's liberal Virginia, and not Harry Byrd's Dixiecrat Virginia.)  Today, it's reversed; there is all sorts of wiggle room on the economic issues for Democrats, but the hard lines on LGBTQ, religious freedom, the 2nd Amendment, etc. are now lines of cleavage for the Democratic Party.  Conformity to the party line on these issues is mandatory.  And while support for consensus Civil Rights legislation has been something that made you a NATIONAL Democrat since 1964, conformity to radical racial agendas (CRT, etc.) are the new Hills To Die On.  The final kick is that the party of "workers" actively slashes jobs in the energy industry which are UNIONIZED jobs, all in the name of "Climate Change".  Their party expects those workers to shoulder the sacrifice.  John Kerry telling Keystone Pipeline workers that they can "better jobs" manufacturing solar panels (which pay less than half that their pipeline jobs earned them) was kind of a "Last Straw" moment that encapsulated the whole shift away of the Democratic Party from the needs of the working class.

Ordinary working people who have seen the Democratic Party compromise on their economics while shoving a social agenda down their throats that causes them to gag have been left without a party.  They will often vote Republican, in that the Democratic Party's offer to them is pretty much offering them a bowl of porridge in exchange for their birthright, but they also recognize that the GOP is not a real opposition to what they oppose and have not significantly changed their postures on issues on WORKPLACE issues.  They're at the point of choosing the party that will maintain their autonomy in their personal lives if they are going to be economically sold out by the Democratic Party that said they were the Working Person's Party.

The working class voters who now support Donald Trump aren't fooled about who he is.  They recognize him as one who hasn't sold them out and one who has at least not supported the elimination of their jobs.  And he's one who has, long before it was fashionable, pointed out the destructive nature of sending our industrial base abroad.  If they can't have Utopia, perhaps they could have a President who at least got it right on what destroyed their livelihoods.  The Democratic Party of today has not offered them better.

Folks like Tim Ryan ACT like they get it, but they've sold out workers on the Keystone Pipeline.  Folks like Grace Meng assume the worst of them, while ignoring the actual people who are doing the violence against Asian Americans.  When it was pointed out that it was African Americans committing a disproportionate number of attacks against Asian Americans, this issue quietly became a non-issue in the broader scheme of things.  The working class notes that Meng criticizes Tim Ryan, but doesn't criticize the individual perpetrators of the anti-Asian violence, because the demographics involve one of the mass constituencies of the Democratic Party (African Americans) who are disproportionately responsible for these attacks.  This is what happens when EVERYTHING is racialized and when an identified "victim" group is "victimizing" another "victim" group; it produces the intellectual dishonesty of Grace Meng's response to Tim Ryan to enable her to avoid the issues between African Americans and Asian Americana (a have vs. have not issue in part).  If Grace Meng could have blamed the WWC voters exclusively for the inexcusable attacks on Asian Americans, there would have been no criticism
of Tim Ryan, period, but "White Supremacy" (the new "wolf-crying) isn't the problem here.

The solution for all of this, of course, would be for the Democratic Party to be honest brokers for ordinary working people of ALL backgrounds, to abhor violence against ALL groups, to balance the very legitimate problems of its mass constituencies regarding racism and how it's impacted lives for the worse with the very legitimate problems of working people and how globalism has trashed their livelihoods.  Perhaps there's not a lot of "soft money" in that, but THIS would be a Democratic Party worth supporting; a party that actually helped working people truly see other working people in the boat with them.  I once imagined a Democratic Party that could actually reduce racial resentment and make the lives of ordinary working people more secure and less vulnerable to economic calamities that cause people to be unable to plan in any way.  The people at the top of today's Democratic Party care for none of this.  While I have no illusions about a GOP utopia swept in by the trouncing the Democrats will likely receive at the polls this year, the rejection of THIS Democratic Party ought to be thorough and complete so that a real Democratic Party that actually advances the well-being of working people can happen.

Jen Psaki's existence is, in many ways, the formal ratification of the ascendency of the kind of Democratic Party that we have today.  A Party that is incapable of recognizing the needs and aspirations of the people who's support once made the Democratic Party "the party of the people".  Jen Psaki conveys contempt for those people, and it's not merely because they voted for Trump; it's because she views herself as better than them and obliged to rub that in, along with telling them that they really don't know what's good for them.  Her existence is grotesque in many ways, in that she typifies someone who's oblivious to the struggles of others.  And she clearly projects that she doesn't care about the America that didn't vote for Biden and the Democrats.  Perhaps Mr. Biden's new appointee can be an improvement in that regard.  Joe Biden promised to be a "uniter".  He's been anything but that, and his Press Secretary bears some responsibility for that, given that she's his mouthpiece.

[Ferguson97]

I've said before that Psaki is the epitome of the limousine white liberal, who is college-educated, lives in a nice upper-middle class to upper class suburban area, probably shops at Whole Foods or some other higher-end store, and sends their children to private or elite schools.

This is bizarrely specific, and I feel like this rant isn't really about Psaki.

It seems more like you're just projecting your frustration that "cringe wine moms" are a more influential voting bloc than you'd like them to be.

I've been critical of Psaki before, as I've explained above. But yes, I will say that I don't think the absorption of wealthy suburbanites into the Democratic coalition is necessarily a good thing for the Party or for its policy development.

What you mention is what Thomas Frank in What's The Matter With Kansasl describes as the Democratic Party's response to their declining fortunes.  Those devising this strategy figured that the working class had nowhere else to go; that the Democratic Party would always be marginally better on economics than the GOP.

The problem with this take is that, over time, the Democratic Party's working class (who are, indeed, more socially conservative, more likely to be churchgoers and hold at least some socially conservative views) saw that Democratic Party go whole hog on social radicalism to the point of sending out dog whistles against THEM.  Over the course of 8 years, Obama's "clinging to guns and religion" became Hillary's "basket of deplorables", and her campaign reflected that attitude toward THEM.  

Once upon a time, there was room for disagreement on the social issues, but it was agreement on the issues important to WORKERS that defined you as an acceptable national Democrat.  The idea that a state such as Virginia could enjoy a trifecta and NOT repeal Right-To-Work laws was unconscionable.  (I'm talking about today's liberal Virginia, and not Harry Byrd's Dixiecrat Virginia.)  Today, it's reversed; there is all sorts of wiggle room on the economic issues for Democrats, but the hard lines on LGBTQ, religious freedom, the 2nd Amendment, etc. are now lines of cleavage for the Democratic Party.  Conformity to the party line on these issues is mandatory.  And while support for consensus Civil Rights legislation has been something that made you a NATIONAL Democrat since 1964, conformity to radical racial agendas (CRT, etc.) are the new Hills To Die On.  The final kick is that the party of "workers" actively slashes jobs in the energy industry which are UNIONIZED jobs, all in the name of "Climate Change".  Their party expects those workers to shoulder the sacrifice.  John Kerry telling Keystone Pipeline workers that they can "better jobs" manufacturing solar panels (which pay less than half that their pipeline jobs earned them) was kind of a "Last Straw" moment that encapsulated the whole shift away of the Democratic Party from the needs of the working class.

Climate change deniers like you should not be taken seriously.

[The Dowager Mod]

Jen was in the same sorority as me (different chapter). 

[Fuzzy Bear]

I've said before that Psaki is the epitome of the limousine white liberal, who is college-educated, lives in a nice upper-middle class to upper class suburban area, probably shops at Whole Foods or some other higher-end store, and sends their children to private or elite schools.

This is bizarrely specific, and I feel like this rant isn't really about Psaki.

It seems more like you're just projecting your frustration that "cringe wine moms" are a more influential voting bloc than you'd like them to be.

I've been critical of Psaki before, as I've explained above. But yes, I will say that I don't think the absorption of wealthy suburbanites into the Democratic coalition is necessarily a good thing for the Party or for its policy development.

What you mention is what Thomas Frank in What's The Matter With Kansasl describes as the Democratic Party's response to their declining fortunes.  Those devising this strategy figured that the working class had nowhere else to go; that the Democratic Party would always be marginally better on economics than the GOP.

The problem with this take is that, over time, the Democratic Party's working class (who are, indeed, more socially conservative, more likely to be churchgoers and hold at least some socially conservative views) saw that Democratic Party go whole hog on social radicalism to the point of sending out dog whistles against THEM.  Over the course of 8 years, Obama's "clinging to guns and religion" became Hillary's "basket of deplorables", and her campaign reflected that attitude toward THEM.  

Once upon a time, there was room for disagreement on the social issues, but it was agreement on the issues important to WORKERS that defined you as an acceptable national Democrat.  The idea that a state such as Virginia could enjoy a trifecta and NOT repeal Right-To-Work laws was unconscionable.  (I'm talking about today's liberal Virginia, and not Harry Byrd's Dixiecrat Virginia.)  Today, it's reversed; there is all sorts of wiggle room on the economic issues for Democrats, but the hard lines on LGBTQ, religious freedom, the 2nd Amendment, etc. are now lines of cleavage for the Democratic Party.  Conformity to the party line on these issues is mandatory.  And while support for consensus Civil Rights legislation has been something that made you a NATIONAL Democrat since 1964, conformity to radical racial agendas (CRT, etc.) are the new Hills To Die On.  The final kick is that the party of "workers" actively slashes jobs in the energy industry which are UNIONIZED jobs, all in the name of "Climate Change".  Their party expects those workers to shoulder the sacrifice.  John Kerry telling Keystone Pipeline workers that they can "better jobs" manufacturing solar panels (which pay less than half that their pipeline jobs earned them) was kind of a "Last Straw" moment that encapsulated the whole shift away of the Democratic Party from the needs of the working class.

Climate change deniers like you should not be taken seriously.

I'm not a "Climate Denier".  I'm a realist.  There is no substitute for Fossil Fuels as of now.  There is not likely to be a substitute for Fossil Fuels fully in my lifetime. 

China is not going to reduce THEIR carbon emissions, nor is India.  Nor is Russia, which depends on Fossil Fuels for its economy moreso than most nations.

The Climate has always been changing.  The Climate Change Apocalypse Pushers are both unconvincing and unrealistic.  Your proposals involve the West essentially disarming while China doesn't.  I'll pass on that.  I'm a China Realist.  And you're likely not.

[Bootes Void]

I've said before that Psaki is the epitome of the limousine white liberal, who is college-educated, lives in a nice upper-middle class to upper class suburban area, probably shops at Whole Foods or some other higher-end store, and sends their children to private or elite schools.

This is bizarrely specific, and I feel like this rant isn't really about Psaki.

It seems more like you're just projecting your frustration that "cringe wine moms" are a more influential voting bloc than you'd like them to be.

I've been critical of Psaki before, as I've explained above. But yes, I will say that I don't think the absorption of wealthy suburbanites into the Democratic coalition is necessarily a good thing for the Party or for its policy development.

Wait why would you care if it’s a good or bad thing anyway, shouldn’t you look at the content of what parties have to offer rather than care about their coalitions?

[Calthrina950]

I've said before that Psaki is the epitome of the limousine white liberal, who is college-educated, lives in a nice upper-middle class to upper class suburban area, probably shops at Whole Foods or some other higher-end store, and sends their children to private or elite schools.

This is bizarrely specific, and I feel like this rant isn't really about Psaki.

It seems more like you're just projecting your frustration that "cringe wine moms" are a more influential voting bloc than you'd like them to be.

I've been critical of Psaki before, as I've explained above. But yes, I will say that I don't think the absorption of wealthy suburbanites into the Democratic coalition is necessarily a good thing for the Party or for its policy development.

Wait why would you care if it’s a good or bad thing anyway, shouldn’t you look at the content of what parties have to offer rather than care about their coalitions?

The party coalitions can have an effect upon the policies promoted by that Party. Wealthy, college-educated suburbanites, for the most part, don't truly understand or sympathize with the difficulties faced by working-class Americans of all stripes on a daily basis.

[Bootes Void]

I've said before that Psaki is the epitome of the limousine white liberal, who is college-educated, lives in a nice upper-middle class to upper class suburban area, probably shops at Whole Foods or some other higher-end store, and sends their children to private or elite schools.

This is bizarrely specific, and I feel like this rant isn't really about Psaki.

It seems more like you're just projecting your frustration that "cringe wine moms" are a more influential voting bloc than you'd like them to be.

I've been critical of Psaki before, as I've explained above. But yes, I will say that I don't think the absorption of wealthy suburbanites into the Democratic coalition is necessarily a good thing for the Party or for its policy development.

Wait why would you care if it’s a good or bad thing anyway, shouldn’t you look at the content of what parties have to offer rather than care about their coalitions?

The party coalitions can have an effect upon the policies promoted by that Party. Wealthy, college-educated suburbanites, for the most part, don't truly understand or sympathize with the difficulties faced by working-class Americans of all stripes on a daily basis.

I'm not sure why would you care care if their wealthy white suburbanites as upper class suburbanites of any race can be out of touch with the working class. But anyways if you are talking about wealthy suburbanites, if it was somebody who grew up working class and made them successful through working hard then I'll applaud them for it but if it was somebody who was born into wealthy family(or basically a trust fund baby) then it's understandable to question to their worldview. But anyways I dont do classist attacks on people without their context of their upbringing and what their values are

[Calthrina950]

I've said before that Psaki is the epitome of the limousine white liberal, who is college-educated, lives in a nice upper-middle class to upper class suburban area, probably shops at Whole Foods or some other higher-end store, and sends their children to private or elite schools.

This is bizarrely specific, and I feel like this rant isn't really about Psaki.

It seems more like you're just projecting your frustration that "cringe wine moms" are a more influential voting bloc than you'd like them to be.

I've been critical of Psaki before, as I've explained above. But yes, I will say that I don't think the absorption of wealthy suburbanites into the Democratic coalition is necessarily a good thing for the Party or for its policy development.

Wait why would you care if it’s a good or bad thing anyway, shouldn’t you look at the content of what parties have to offer rather than care about their coalitions?

The party coalitions can have an effect upon the policies promoted by that Party. Wealthy, college-educated suburbanites, for the most part, don't truly understand or sympathize with the difficulties faced by working-class Americans of all stripes on a daily basis.

I'm not sure why would you care care if their wealthy white suburbanites as upper class suburbanites of any race can be out of touch with the working class. But anyways if you are talking about wealthy suburbanites, if it was somebody who grew up working class and made them successful through working hard then I'll applaud them for it but if it was somebody who was born into wealthy family(or basically a trust fund baby) then it's understandable to question to their worldview. But anyways I dont do classist attacks on people without their context of their upbringing and what their values are

I'm not saying that people who work hard and who climb up the economic ladder should be condemned. But I fail to understand why some on here are so "in love" with this particular woman.

[T'Chenka]

I'm not a "Climate Denier".  I'm a realist.  There is no substitute for Fossil Fuels as of now.  There is not likely to be a substitute for Fossil Fuels fully in my lifetime. 

China is not going to reduce THEIR carbon emissions, nor is India.  Nor is Russia, which depends on Fossil Fuels for its economy moreso than most nations.

The Climate has always been changing.  The Climate Change Apocalypse Pushers are both unconvincing and unrealistic.  Your proposals involve the West essentially disarming while China doesn't.  I'll pass on that.  I'm a China Realist.  And you're likely not.

If climate change is real then action is required. Period. It isn't more complicated than that. If other countries aren't taking it seriously then everything and anything needs to be done to convince them to change their policies. Deciding to do nothing because "it doesn't matter what we do anyways" is disgusting, because it could very well be literal life or death for our species.

[T'Chenka]

I'm not saying that people who work hard and who climb up the economic ladder should be condemned. But I fail to understand why some on here are so "in love" with this particular woman.

Personally, I'm just simping really really hard, but I can't speak for anybody else.

[Turning Point Liyue]

This is bizarrely specific, and I feel like this rant isn't really about Psaki.

It seems more like you're just projecting your frustration that "cringe wine moms" are a more influential voting bloc than you'd like them to be.

There used to be an era when ostensible "progressives" were rather perturbed by the possibility of privileged high-income individuals monopolizing all political power, until they eventually got the memo about why that's what liberalism is actually about.

It is of course potentially frustrating for progressives to accept such fact if they still believe that "liberal democracy" is a desirable system, but I avoid having to deal with such cognitive dissonance by simply not believing that.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I'm not a "Climate Denier".  I'm a realist.  There is no substitute for Fossil Fuels as of now.  There is not likely to be a substitute for Fossil Fuels fully in my lifetime. 

China is not going to reduce THEIR carbon emissions, nor is India.  Nor is Russia, which depends on Fossil Fuels for its economy moreso than most nations.

The Climate has always been changing.  The Climate Change Apocalypse Pushers are both unconvincing and unrealistic.  Your proposals involve the West essentially disarming while China doesn't.  I'll pass on that.  I'm a China Realist.  And you're likely not.

If climate change is real then action is required. Period. It isn't more complicated than that. If other countries aren't taking it seriously then everything and anything needs to be done to convince them to change their policies. Deciding to do nothing because "it doesn't matter what we do anyways" is disgusting, because it could very well be literal life or death for our species.

The questions, of course, are "How real" and "What action?".

Here's the basic reality:  We have ALTERNATIVES to Fossil Fuels but no SUBSTITUTE for Fossil Fuels.  That's the bottom line.  Our standard of living in America (and Canada, for that matter) WILL (not "may", but WILL) drop drastically when the price of energy goes up (as it will) under the current Biden plans.  And we will have other Third World features such as "Rolling Blackouts" (all to "conserve" energy).  Just imagine if you're medically needy how that will work for you.  People will not be able to afford travel to work, while public transportation becomes progressively more unsafe in terms of the behavior of people on common carriers and in train stations.  (Are you up for being pushed onto subway tracks by mental patients?)

And the people pushing this aren't cutting back THEIR lifestyles.  I can't afford an electric car.  Nor can most of Working Class Americas.  John Kerry still flies by private jet; what example does that set?  He's just one example.  And NONE of this even begins to take into account military preparedness.

Sound selfish?  The people pushing Climate Change Radicalism are either the wealthy (who can afford it) and the non-working poor (who don't really lose by this).  The people who lose the most in effecting "Climate Change" measures are the people who actually do the work of our society. 

[T'Chenka]

I'm not a "Climate Denier".  I'm a realist.  There is no substitute for Fossil Fuels as of now.  There is not likely to be a substitute for Fossil Fuels fully in my lifetime. 

China is not going to reduce THEIR carbon emissions, nor is India.  Nor is Russia, which depends on Fossil Fuels for its economy moreso than most nations.

The Climate has always been changing.  The Climate Change Apocalypse Pushers are both unconvincing and unrealistic.  Your proposals involve the West essentially disarming while China doesn't.  I'll pass on that.  I'm a China Realist.  And you're likely not.

If climate change is real then action is required. Period. It isn't more complicated than that. If other countries aren't taking it seriously then everything and anything needs to be done to convince them to change their policies. Deciding to do nothing because "it doesn't matter what we do anyways" is disgusting, because it could very well be literal life or death for our species.

The questions, of course, are "How real" and "What action?".

Here's the basic reality:  We have ALTERNATIVES to Fossil Fuels but no SUBSTITUTE for Fossil Fuels.  That's the bottom line.  Our standard of living in America (and Canada, for that matter) WILL (not "may", but WILL) drop drastically when the price of energy goes up (as it will) under the current Biden plans.  And we will have other Third World features such as "Rolling Blackouts" (all to "conserve" energy).  Just imagine if you're medically needy how that will work for you.  People will not be able to afford travel to work, while public transportation becomes progressively more unsafe in terms of the behavior of people on common carriers and in train stations.  (Are you up for being pushed onto subway tracks by mental patients?)

And the people pushing this aren't cutting back THEIR lifestyles.  I can't afford an electric car.  Nor can most of Working Class Americas.  John Kerry still flies by private jet; what example does that set?  He's just one example.  And NONE of this even begins to take into account military preparedness.

Sound selfish?  The people pushing Climate Change Radicalism are either the wealthy (who can afford it) and the non-working poor (who don't really lose by this).  The people who lose the most in effecting "Climate Change" measures are the people who actually do the work of our society. 

Biden could do more with green energy and stimulate faster innovation and progress more if the Republicans and Manchin didn't try to slow him down at every chance. I don't drive, I take the bus, and all the mental patient type people also can't afford to drive, so they also take the bus. I haven't been pushed onto train tracks yet. The logic of what you're saying is that people who drive now won't be able to afford to drive and will take the bus and train instead. So, people who have good enough jobs to be able to afford cars, not mental patients.

The people pushing climate radicalism are people who care about our planet. Period. You mentioned the wealthy being one of the groups pushing it the hardest... that's very funny. Some of the Hollywood lib types sure, but most rich people want lower taxes and less regulations. Claiming the rich are a main driver behind pushing climate activism is bordering on conspiracy theory.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Like all Press Secretaries she spins more than a midwestern tornado.