Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Starver]

The Hillary Campaign never addressed the issue dead on. If anything, she had made it worse by suggesting she would kill what little bit of the coal industry was left.

That was what her opoosition isolated from her bigger message, not actually what she said, of course

[birdy51]

They would rather see an America that is working; one that is in action. Chiefly, that's probably why I am a Republican.

And I maintain, until that core issue is addressed, they are going to latch onto the candidate that plays into their fears and insecurities. They've been left vulnerable to hatred; now it becomes work helping them to step forward with the rest of us.

The Hillary Campaign never addressed the issue dead on. If anything, she had made it worse by suggesting she would kill what little bit of the coal industry was left.

That was what her opoosition isolated from her bigger message, not actually what she said, of course

Not going to lie that I might have unintentionally straw manned her. What I will say is that if she had placed far more emphasis on developing new industries in rural America, she might have been more successful.

[Telgin]

TL:DR - Collapse of Industry makes people desperate. Desperate people support idiots. Desperate people need help to not be desperate, so that they stop floundering and make real social progress instead of clinging to a bloated life boat in a toupee.

Which makes it so damned annoying when they fight against national health care, education, climate science, general science, and (in my case at least) outright wealth distribution.

Trump says 'lol maga,' and people eat it up. Democrats and liberals actually makes proposals to help people, and we get told we're "SJWs that want to control what I think" and "evil socialists bound to destroy the economy."

If it will make you feel any better... This might lead to a huge Liberal/Democrat swing next election.

Assuming Trump doesn't win again due to America's fear of change.

I can dream, but remember that most believed that the current election would turn out the same way.  At this point I'm betting on Trump not only winning again but managing to repeal the restriction on presidential terms so he can keep making America great again.

I jest only slightly.  I'm done underestimating what he can accomplish.

Democrats and liberals actually makes proposals to help people, and we get told we're "SJWs that want to control what I think" and "evil socialists bound to destroy the economy."

This is what I always hear in person, and each time I hear it it's driving me closer to snapping: "The liberals want everyone to be dependent on the government so it can control them!"  That's usually followed by vaguely racist comments and the mention of welfare queens.

Unrelated to your comment, but maybe only the southeast has that racist undertone and unspoken resentment of a falsely perceived foe in the lazy liberal who only wants handouts and doesn't want to work.

Then again, if I ever look at Fox News and its comment section, about 50% of the comments that respond to anyone disagreeing with the article are, "Get a job, libtard!"  That implies it's a national thing.  The "Chimp in Chief" comments up through Trump's inauguration imply the racism is pretty national too.

Fox News and Brietbart comments (I must be a masochist, truly) also strongly imply that support for Trump is at least very strongly supported by the "Haha we beat the liberals start so crying you sissies!" mindset.  By that logic it really almost doesn't matter what Trump does.

[Starver]

Not going to lie that I might have unintentionally straw manned her. What I will say is that if she had placed far more emphasis on developing new industries in rural America, she might have been more successful.

If only she had said something like:

So for example, I'm the only candidate which has a policy about how to bring economic opportunity using clean renewable energy as the key into coal country. Because we're going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business, right?

And we're going to make it clear that we don't want to forget those people. Those people labored in those mines for generations, losing their health, often losing their lives to turn on our lights and power our factories.

Now we've got to move away from coal and all the other fossil fuels, but I don't want to move away from the people who did the best they could to produce the energy that we relied on.

So whether it's coal country or Indian country or poor urban areas, there is a lot of poverty in America.  We have gone backwards. We were moving in the right direction. In the '90s, more people were lifted out of poverty than any time in recent history.

Because of the terrible economic policies of the Bush administration, President Obama was left with the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, and people fell back into poverty because they lost jobs, they lost homes, they lost opportunities, and hope. 

So I am passionate about this, which is why I have put forward specific plans about how we incentivize more jobs, more investment in poor communities, and put people to work.

...

[Max™]

So apparently, Bannon being in National Security Council maaaaay be actually outright illegal:

You left out the extra part!

Also fun: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/3021

...
The [National Security] Council shall be composed of—
(1) the President;
(2) the Vice President;
(3) the Secretary of State;
(4) the Secretary of Defense;
(5) the Secretary of Energy; and
(6) the Secretaries and Under Secretaries of other executive departments and of the military departments, when appointed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to serve at his pleasure.

*scribbled handwriting underneath which seems oddly familiar*
(7) and my homeboy Bannon!

[birdy51]

Not going to lie that I might have unintentionally straw manned her. What I will say is that if she had placed far more emphasis on developing new industries in rural America, she might have been more successful.

If only she had said something like:

So for example, I'm the only candidate which has a policy about how to bring economic opportunity using clean renewable energy as the key into coal country. Because we're going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business, right?

And we're going to make it clear that we don't want to forget those people. Those people labored in those mines for generations, losing their health, often losing their lives to turn on our lights and power our factories.

Now we've got to move away from coal and all the other fossil fuels, but I don't want to move away from the people who did the best they could to produce the energy that we relied on.

So whether it's coal country or Indian country or poor urban areas, there is a lot of poverty in America.  We have gone backwards. We were moving in the right direction. In the '90s, more people were lifted out of poverty than any time in recent history.

Because of the terrible economic policies of the Bush administration, President Obama was left with the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, and people fell back into poverty because they lost jobs, they lost homes, they lost opportunities, and hope. 

So I am passionate about this, which is why I have put forward specific plans about how we incentivize more jobs, more investment in poor communities, and put people to work.

...

Noting quietly, how she said "those people."

As in, separate from me. Them. That's alienation. That's what helps contribute to the idea of 'them' vs. 'us'. She does make remarkable use of the word 'we', but only when referring to America as a whole. As in, we're all stepping in the right direction; when there was already remarkable discord between her and 'common' people.

So, no. I don't really consider that to have been a strong speech. It was a talking point.

[PTTG??]

[Redacted due to me being an idiot]

[Puzzlemaker]

Sorry her speech triggered you.

Dude.  No.  He has a point, don't demean him.

[hector13]

Or "those people" being... the people what she's referring to?

Sounds like nitpicking, frankly. If she said "we used to work in the mines for generations", I imagine there'd be folk saying "no pal, you didn't work in the mines, we did!" so yeah, she's losing in your eyes irrespective of what she says.

[Puzzlemaker]

Or "those people" being... the people what she's referring to?

Sounds like nitpicking, frankly. If she said "we used to work in the mines for generations", I imagine there'd be folk saying "no pal, you didn't work in the mines, we did!" so yeah, she's losing in your eyes irrespective of what she says.

This is also a good point, but one of the things that lost the democrats the election was the failure to address these issues. 

[Neonivek]

Or "those people" being... the people what she's referring to?

Sounds like nitpicking, frankly. If she said "we used to work in the mines for generations", I imagine there'd be folk saying "no pal, you didn't work in the mines, we did!" so yeah, she's losing in your eyes irrespective of what she says.

This is also a good point, but one of the things that lost the democrats the election was the failure to address these issues.

I think it is because this election wasn't won through issues.

"Emails, Emails, Emails emails"

[Starver]

This is also a good point, but one of the things that lost the democrats the election was the failure to address these issues.

Whatever the complaint, I don't think you can consider Clinton's addressing of the issues any more of a failure than Trump's.

But there were none so deaf as would not hear, could not hear, were selectively misinformed about what they ought to have heard...

[birdy51]

Noting here, that I did support Hillary and still believe that her heart continues to be in the right place.

I am, without a doubt, nitpicking, but only because I would prefer to see a Democratic agenda that is more sensitive to rural sentiments. Talking from the top is ok when people are united, but when they don't consider themselves to be part of the 'in' crowd, they'll flock to anyone waving a banner they're familiar with.

I feel if rural areas are to be won over to productivity, they have to been done so on the ground floor. Not from someone postulating from the top, but as someone whose been to these regions and has actively fought to improve conditions in rural areas. Once their lives have stabilized, that's when they can start considering new ideas and real progress can be made.

[Neonivek]

I think Rural locations feel, and I could be wrong, that they are the ones putting in the work and making their opportunities.

I am not sure Hillary's speech would appeal to them. "We will take away your jobs and put you on welfare!" (ok that isn't what she meant, but that is what it might come out as)

[birdy51]

I think Rural locations feel, and I could be wrong, that they are the ones putting in the work and making their opportunities.

I am not sure Hillary's speech would appeal to them. "We will take away your jobs and put you others on welfare!" (ok that isn't what she meant, but that is what it might come out as)

Fix'd.