Those people in the upper midwest

[Eric the Green]

Those people in the upper midwest; who gave us Trump, Ryan and McConnell on Tuesday Nov.8, what do we make of them?

First of all, I don't know how they are surviving at all. Not only are their small and medium-town industries gone, and their big city industries gone, but they vote themselves out of any government assistance, because they resent others getting benefits.

What do they live on, then? How do they make a living? Industries are gone; small family farms are mostly gone. They get no benefits. What are they doing out there? And most of all, why do they stay out there?

Maybe Classic Xer and Odin have some sense of this. I really don't just want to put them down. Obviously they make stupid political decisions, many of them. As I said, they are not inherently dumber than me, and I'm not inherently any better than them. I feel for their plight. But I don't understand what's going on with them that they can't see even for themselves what's happening to them, what to do about it, or even why they stay there in such large numbers-- large enough to vote, overwhelm the urban vote, put up signs and drive long distances to Trump rallies, and give us a dufus, con-man president and an oligarchical congress over and over again.

They insist that they are self-reliant, and oppose government assistance for themselves or those folks they don't like, and fear taking over their country. So they blame them, instead of the oligarchs who have actually taken over the country and ruined their lives and society. Somehow some of them think that their problems exist because women have abortions, or because people in the big city want to regulate guns. They can't see; they don't know.

They voted self-destructively, over and over again. What's going to happen to these unhappy folks, as their plight gets worse and worse under the clowns they keep voting for?

[Odin]

Scared, desperate people are easy prey for demagogues promising easy solutions, scapegoats, and a return to the "good old days". The blame falls on the Dems for not putting forward a populist message to counter Trump's BS.

Indeed, the Dems did the exact WRONG things, putting up a candidate who is the embodiment of the establishment in an election year when the electorate was out for the establishment's blood. Praising years of economic growth that folks in Middle America are not seeing because all that new wealth is concentrated among the wealthy and middle class on the coasts, sounding completely tone-deaf in the process and reinforcing sentiments that the Dems have become the party of the "coastal elites", representing Wall Street and Silicon Valley rather than the average American. Not restraining over-the-top activist types who imply that working class whites have no right to complain about their problems because of "white privilege". Telling older blue collar workers that they just need "retraining", ignoring that older workers would still struggle to find work because of effectively ageist hiring practices, and also ignoring that many of these new jobs mean moving across the country, destroying the bonds of community these people and their families have built up over the years.

In the long term some form of guaranteed minimum income is the only answer, but that requires overcoming centuries, millennia even, of cultural conditioning involving the belief that the only valid source of income is from one's own labor. In the mean time, folks here in the heartland need jobs. and folks in the big cities on the coasts need to quit treating folks out here as objects of contempt and scorn. You might not agree with their religious convictions and what you perceive as "backward" social attitudes, but they are still human beings who deserve respect.

[Ragnarök_62]

Odin Wrote:Scared, desperate people are easy prey for demagogues promising easy solutions, scapegoats, and a return to the "good old days". The blame falls on the Dems for not putting forward a populist message to counter Trump's BS.

Yes, exactly.

Quote:Indeed, the Dems did the exact WRONG things, putting up a candidate who is the embodiment of the establishment in an election year when the electorate was out for the establishment's blood.

I completely agree. I'd add the DNC's stacking the deck for Hillary played a large roll. The arrogance shown by Wikileaks is astounding.  They just thought they'd never get caught, ever. They just thought they could shill themselves off to special interests and never get caught, they just thought the super delegate system would get a pass THIS TIME!  would get a pass, they just thought outrageous speakers fees for their "chosen one" would get a pass.  They just thought identity politics  plays in Peoria would be the magic formula this time. Here's the deal, I don't give a rat's ass about pandering to assorted group identities.  Guess what?  They left out some groups. No mention of desperate white males, no mention of Asians???!!!! no mention of Natives Americans even. When you pander to identity groups, you're gonna leave out some stuff.

Quote:Praising years of economic growth that folks in Middle America are not seeing because all that new wealth is concentrated among the wealthy and middle class on the coasts, sounding completely tone-deaf in the process and reinforcing sentiments that the Dems have become the party of the "coastal elites", representing Wall Street and Silicon Valley rather than the average American.

For fuck sake Odin, stop reading my mind!

Quote:Not restraining over-the-top activist types who imply that working class whites have no right to complain about their problems because of "white privilege".

]

Yes, there's nothing like ignoring folks to piss 'em off.

Telling older blue collar workers that they just need "retraining", ignoring that older workers would still struggle to find work because of effectively ageist hiring practices, and also ignoring that many of these new jobs mean moving across the country, destroying the bonds of community these people and their families have built up over the years.

Quote:In the long term some form of guaranteed minimum income is the only answer, but that requires overcoming centuries, millennia even, of cultural conditioning involving the belief that the only valid source of income is from one's own labor. In the mean time, folks here in the heartland need jobs. and folks in the big cities on the coasts need to quit treating folks out here as objects of contempt and scorn. You might not agree with their religious convictions and what you perceive as "backward" social attitudes, but they are still human beings who deserve respect.

I totally agree.  And... forget this stupid "job training" shit that folks have to go through to get unemployment insurance.  Hey Washington, there's no fucking jobs to go to after said training and it leaves folks with a bunch of fuckshit student loan debt.

P.S.

You might want to send your post to the New York Crimes, The Washington Boast, etc.  I mean it. Those idiots need that sort of info.

---
Rags

[Warren Dew]

Eric, let's not forget that there are more deer than people in the Upper Peninsula. Take away their guns, as Clinton was on track to do, and maybe they don't eat.

[Eric the Green]

(11-15-2016, 04:32 PM)Odin Wrote: Scared, desperate people are easy prey for demagogues promising easy solutions, scapegoats, and a return to the "good old days". The blame falls on the Dems for not putting forward a populist message to counter Trump's BS.

They DID put forward a populist message. But for some reason it did not communicate. Hillary wasn't a strong enough advocate, and her surrogates could not compensate for the weakness of the candidate. Also Trump made trade a big issue, and Hillary having supported some of the past trade deals was not a strong enough advocate for fair trade, even though she opposed the TPP. Also, the heartland folks were not that interested in feminism, apparently. It's true that the message did not come through strongly enough. And at the end, Hillary's advertising concentrated on how bad Trump was, not what she offered them. That happened when Comeygate threw them off message.

Quote:Indeed, the Dems did the exact WRONG things, putting up a candidate who is the embodiment of the establishment in an election year when the electorate was out for the establishment's blood. Praising years of economic growth that folks in Middle America are not seeing because all that new wealth is concentrated among the wealthy and middle class on the coasts, sounding completely tone-deaf in the process and reinforcing sentiments that the Dems have become the party of the "coastal elites", representing Wall Street and Silicon Valley rather than the average American. Not restraining over-the-top activist types who imply that working class whites have no right to complain about their problems because of "white privilege". Telling older blue collar workers that they just need "retraining", ignoring that older workers would still struggle to find work because of effectively ageist hiring practices, and also ignoring that many of these new jobs mean moving across the country, destroying the bonds of community these people and their families have built up over the years.

Hillary was a member of the political establishment, but the pundits kept putting forward the idea that this really makes her a member of the "establishment," when it doesn't at all. So, poorly educated folk are easy prey to such nonsense as calling Hillary part of "the establishment." Out for the Establishment's blood? That rings hollow when they voted for the worst sort of Establishment greed. And when things were getting better in spite of what the same Republicans had done to them by blocking the recovery and making it tepid. There's no excuse for the "uneducated" not to know that. And when you say "the Dems put up a candidate," that's more of the same loose talk. The "Dems" were millions of voters who elected Hillary as their nominee in primary elections and caucuses.

The Dems did none of the things you accuse them of, but the Republicans and the media were able to tag them with all this nonsense. Hillary had to mention that recovery had happened under Obama; there was no choice about that. She mentioned over and over, and so did Obama, that there was more to do, that America needed to be made whole, and often specifically mentioned the areas that voted for Trump such as the upper midwest and appalachian states. Her appeals fell on deaf ears, just because the pundits and Republicans made her out to be some kind of crook or establishment elitist, which she wasn't at all. Just because she made some money because of what she had done? By concentrating on the fact that she gave a speech on Wall Street, instead of seeing through Trump's lousy proposals, the less-educated whites proved their status by not being able to follow the facts and make the right decision. In some ways, it might be interesting that Hillary did as well as she did.

And I'm sorry if she had to tell coal miners that retraining is necessary, but there is no alternative if we are to have a liveable planet. Their jobs are probably not coming back, even under Trump, and again if they can't see that it's their own damn fault. Maybe Silicon Valley can be faulted for all their innovation that is putting old blue collar workers out of work, but it's a stretch to blame "Democrats" or "Hillary Clinton" for this.

And I don't think you answered my questions about these people at all. I honestly don't know how these white people survive out there in those small towns and continue to exist in such numbers. If their farms and factories are gone, why don't they move to the cities? Why do they support cutting off any benefits to themselves? What do they do out there? I'm not putting them down for all that, I just find it hard to imagine.

You call the people on the coasts elites, but that's bull. We outvoted you, so what is "average American" then? We just were not allowed to get the president that we and all Americans voted for by majority vote. It's nothing but a power play by you folks, this electoral college.

Quote:In the long term some form of guaranteed minimum income is the only answer, but that requires overcoming centuries, millennia even, of cultural conditioning involving the belief that the only valid source of income is from one's own labor. In the mean time, folks here in the heartland need jobs. and folks in the big cities on the coasts need to quit treating folks out here as objects of contempt and scorn. You might not agree with their religious convictions and what you perceive as "backward" social attitudes, but they are still human beings who deserve respect.

Admittedly your first sentence is true IMO. But you keep repeating that nonsense in your second and third sentences above. Get over it. There are no Democratic politicians who scorn the folks out there. That's not what Democrats do, or even Republicans. Politicians don't scorn people to get their vote. They don't even come out to the coasts anyway, since there are no swing states there. So no, they don't come out here and scorn people out there. NO, that's just not what politicians do; certainly not Obama or Hillary; they did the opposite. It's just a complete non-issue, but you like so many on internet forums just plain repeat the same nonsense after you are corrected and corrected over and over again. It is insane, to be polite about it. And no we don't agree with their religious convictions, and if they want respect, then they need to stop imposing them on the rest of us, and yes we're going to tell them to stop doing it.

If the folks out there need jobs, which of course they do, then they need to stop voting for the folks that take them away. It's up to them to see through the nonsense. They failed. The failure is largely their own. And no, the politicians don't say that. I say that.

You can't blame the elites for what the people did. The heartland people voted for the elites--- again! It's on them.

[Eric the Green]

(11-15-2016, 08:06 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Eric, let's not forget that there are more deer than people in the Upper Peninsula. Take away their guns, as Clinton was on track to do, and maybe they don't eat.

Where are you from Warren? Why are you afraid someone will take your guns that you need for hunting?

It's not Clinton's fault if people don't listen to what she proposed about guns.

[Eric the Green]

(11-15-2016, 05:05 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: In the case of Macomb County I suspect a confluence of various factors.

First thing is, Macomb was a prime destination for white flight from south of 8 Mile (yep, that famous road, same one the movie is about). It was especially a destination for Polish, Italian and Irish whites, many of whom are affiliated with the Big 3 Auto makers. Beyond that, were alll sorts of people working for suppliers - both parts suppliers as well as tool and die services, etc.

While the industry is not gone, it's been hurt. There are many underemployed, even if unemployment is not horrendous. Lots of pressure on pensions and general pay rates. This is especially true of Boomers and Xers who are kids of auto workers and who were groomed to follow in Dad's footsteps.

Now, add to all of this ... demographic changes. Whites are not the only ones who have been fleeing Detroit proper. There have also been Hmong, Chaldeans, Mexicans, Vietnamese, Bangladeshis ... you get the idea. Their once completely white suburbs are browning. The old biscuits and gravy place was replaced by a pho house (shout out the EtG ... you've witnessed a lot of this down in the South Bay, no?).

Interesting, thanks. Are you from Macomb County?

[Warren Dew]

(11-16-2016, 12:48 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-15-2016, 08:06 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Eric, let's not forget that there are more deer than people in the Upper Peninsula.  Take away their guns, as Clinton was on track to do, and maybe they don't eat.

Where are you from Warren? Why are you afraid someone will take your guns that you need for hunting?

It's not Clinton's fault if people don't listen to what she proposed about guns.

Clinton supported a ban on so called "assault weapons" - basically any rifle with plastic parts instead of a wooden stock - that would have banned many rifles used for hunting.

Although my reply was tongue in cheek insofar as the Upper Peninsula has, as has been pointed out, virtually zero electoral power due to low population.

[Odin]

(11-15-2016, 05:28 PM)taramarie Wrote: Of course I commend Odin for noting all this and posting it here. Well said, Odin.

Thanks!

[Ragnarök_62]

(11-16-2016, 12:41 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: They DID put forward a populist message. But for some reason it did not communicate. Hillary wasn't a strong enough advocate, and her surrogates could not compensate for the weakness of the candidate. Also Trump made trade a big issue, and Hillary having supported some of the past trade deals was not a strong enough advocate for fair trade, even though she opposed the TPP. Also, the heartland folks were not that interested in feminism, apparently. It's true that the message did not come through strongly enough. And at the end, Hillary's advertising concentrated on how bad Trump was, not what she offered them. That happened when Comeygate threw them off message.


Bernie did, Clinton did not.  Try, "I keep a public position and a private position".



Hillary was a member of the political establishment, but the pundits kept putting forward the idea that this really makes her a member of the "establishment," when it doesn't at all. So, poorly educated folk are easy prey to such nonsense as calling Hillary part of "the establishment." Out for the Establishment's blood? That rings hollow when they voted for the worst sort of Establishment greed. And when things were getting better in spite of what the same Republicans had done to them by blocking the recovery and making it tepid. There's no excuse for the "uneducated" not to know that. And when you say "the Dems put up a candidate," that's more of the same loose talk. The "Dems" were millions of voters who elected Hillary as their nominee in primary elections and caucuses.


A member of the  establishment is always a member of the establishment...  Besides, again, things are not better here.  Methinks folks either chose 3rd party or Trump who was never in Washington before.  Yes, the Democrats put up a candidate and he won Oklahoma.  That person was Sanders who the DNC ass raped.

The Dems did none of the things you accuse them of, but the Republicans and the media were able to tag them with all this nonsense. Hillary had to mention that recovery had happened under Obama; there was no choice about that.

A better wording would have been there has been a recovery in some places but not in others, which is true.


She mentioned over and over, and so did Obama, that there was more to do, that America needed to be made whole, and often specifically mentioned the areas that voted for Trump such as the upper midwest and appalachian states. Her appeals fell on deaf ears, just because the pundits and Republicans made her out to be some kind of crook or establishment elitist, which she wasn't at all.

1. Have you ever checked out Wikileaks?
2. What proposals were made for rural America.  In fact what proposals were made for Mississippi valley Blacks, Native Americans, Asians?   Poverty is not an urban issue, right?


Just because she made some money because of what she had done? By concentrating on the fact that she gave a speech on Wall Street, instead of seeing through Trump's lousy proposals, the less-educated whites proved their status by not being able to follow the facts and make the right decision. In some ways, it might be interesting that Hillary did as well as she did.


Geez, it looks bad, that's why. Those who pay the piper get their tune played. The Democrats had someone who got it, but again, dirty tricks.  The DNC can't deny this.


And I'm sorry if she had to tell coal miners that retraining is necessary, but there is no alternative if we are to have a liveable planet.

She said she was going to put the coal mining business out of business and put coal minors out of work.
And again, what retraining?  Retraining for what jobs?  There are no jobs.

Their jobs are probably not coming back, even under Trump, and again if they can't see that it's their own damn fault. Maybe Silicon Valley can be faulted for all their innovation that is putting old blue collar workers out of work, but it's a stretch to blame "Democrats" or "Hillary Clinton" for this.


Yes, those jobs are gone. I don't blame Clinton or the government even. It's shitty "Free Trade".  That's why the TPP and other crap needs to crash and burn.

And I don't think you answered my questions about these people at all. I honestly don't know how these white people survive out there in those small towns and continue to exist in such numbers. If their farms and factories are gone, why don't they move to the cities?


What a stupid question. Here's the answer. It costs money to move and folks in small towns own their shacks. Said shacks aren't perfect and look awful, but they are paid for and they do provide shelter. How on earth are folks in say Appalachia going to afford shelter in say California? I mean, where I live in rural America, a shack can be had for about $12,000. The property tax rent is around $100/year. That means one can do what I do and make a go of it in minimum wage America. If simply moving to an urban area, then why does poverty exist in Detroit, Compton, and East LA?  Does San Jose have some jobs handy? If so, can some immigrant make enough swag to afford decent shelter?  I mean, could even myself move to San Jose and get a job that pays out enough to afford the type of house I have here? [2 bedroom/1 batch, basement, etc?]

Why do they support cutting off any benefits to themselves? What do they do out there? I'm not putting them down for all that, I just find it hard to imagine.

Now that's a valid question. I have no idea about this shooting oneself in the foot.

You call the people on the coasts elites, but that's bull. We outvoted you, so what is "average American" then? We just were not allowed to get the president that we and all Americans voted for by majority vote. It's nothing but a power play by you folks, this electoral college.


Uh, I think that's because the US is a constitutional republic, not a plebiscite democracy. I think the founders set things up that way to prevent tyranny of the majority.

Quote:In the long term some form of guaranteed minimum income is the only answer, but that requires overcoming centuries, millennia even, of cultural conditioning involving the belief that the only valid source of income is from one's own labor. In the mean time, folks here in the heartland need jobs. and folks in the big cities on the coasts need to quit treating folks out here as objects of contempt and scorn. You might not agree with their religious convictions and what you perceive as "backward" social attitudes, but they are still human beings who deserve respect.

Admittedly your first sentence is true IMO. But you keep repeating that nonsense in your second and third sentences above. Get over it. There are no Democratic politicians who scorn the folks out there. That's not what Democrats do, or even Republicans.


How about this "basket of deplorables"?

Politicians don't scorn people to get their vote.

Clinton did.

They don't even come out to the coasts anyway, since there are no swing states there. So no, they don't come out here and scorn people out there.

See above.

NO, that's just not what politicians do; certainly not Obama or Hillary; they did the opposite. It's just a complete non-issue, but you like so many on internet forums just plain repeat the same nonsense after you are corrected and corrected over and over again.

Pot, kettle, black.  It is Eric who goes on over and over about trickle down economics.  I guess Odin did what he did for the same reason.

It is insane, to be polite about it. And no we don't agree with their religious convictions, and if they want respect, then they need to stop imposing them on the rest of us, and yes we're going to tell them to stop doing it.

I'm not into the "old time religion" myself.  Who is pontificating about religion?  Dunno, maybe I just go immune and it just gets default ignored.

If the folks out there need jobs, which of course they do, then they need to stop voting for the folks that take them away. It's up to them to see through the nonsense. They failed. The failure is largely their own. And no, the politicians don't say that. I say that.

I'm not sure.  Even Oklahoma went for Bernie. But then again Bernie never did the other "old time religion" of political correctness.

You can't blame the elites for what the people did. The heartland people voted for the elites--- again! It's on them.

I bet Bernie would have won.  Prairie populism is alive and well. Hopefully the DNC will learn from this experience and not choose winners and losers.  I also hope it gets rid of its cabal of political hacks, AKA "super delegates".

[pbrower2a]

(11-15-2016, 04:32 PM)Odin Wrote: Scared, desperate people are easy prey for demagogues promising easy solutions, scapegoats, and a return to the "good old days". The blame falls on the Dems for not putting forward a populist message to counter Trump's BS.

But there is no all-powerful Party boss in either party deciding who can run and who must not. The alleged Establishment of the GOP would have rather had Mitt Romney, who is much less abrasive and more likely to make deals. Guess where that went? Romney did not run.

I would feel far better knowing that Mitt Romney were President-elect. Disappointed that my side lost -- but much would be safe that is in gross peril now. I might contrast Donald trump from the primaries and say "at least we did not get that".

If America goes bad next year with a President acting like the despot that his character suggests, then maybe the Republicans are as much at fault for failing to stop Donald Trump than Democrats are for having a nominee with some vulnerabilities. It would have not taken much for Hillary Clinton to have won.

In the unlikely event that the 2015 election were to be invalidated, I would accept Mitt Romney as the next President as a compromise. We get conservatism, but we also get some steadiness of character and some moral principle.

Quote:Indeed, the Dems did the exact WRONG things, putting up a candidate who is the embodiment of the establishment in an election year when the electorate was out for the establishment's blood. Praising years of economic growth that folks in Middle America are not seeing because all that new wealth is concentrated among the wealthy and middle class on the coasts, sounding completely tone-deaf in the process and reinforcing sentiments that the Dems have become the party of the "coastal elites", representing Wall Street and Silicon Valley rather than the average American. Not restraining over-the-top activist types who imply that working class whites have no right to complain about their problems because of "white privilege". Telling older blue collar workers that they just need "retraining", ignoring that older workers would still struggle to find work because of effectively ageist hiring practices, and also ignoring that many of these new jobs mean moving across the country, destroying the bonds of community these people and their families have built up over the years.

But are Illinois, Minnesota, Colorado, and New Mexico "coastal"?

It would have been reasonable to offer such a solution to the health care costs of older workers with "Medicare at 50"; such would negate the biggest spur to age discrimination. Employers would find virtue in hiring older workers who have some stability and some people skills that younger workers have yet to develop.

OK, there is no such thing as 'white privilege' if one is a poor white person in rural areas. West Virginia is poor and very rural, and it has few minorities. It is not and never has been Jim Crow country. I could explain how things went wrong in West Virginia, but that involves excessive dependence upon coal for an economic base and miners for the political base of the Democratic Party while Democratic Party pols neglected the hazard that coal seams would be worked out.

Quote:In the long term some form of guaranteed minimum income is the only answer, but that requires overcoming centuries, millennia even, of cultural conditioning involving the belief that the only valid source of income is from one's own labor. In the mean time, folks here in the heartland need jobs. and folks in the big cities on the coasts need to quit treating folks out here as objects of contempt and scorn. You might not agree with their religious convictions and what you perceive as "backward" social attitudes, but they are still human beings who deserve respect.

Throughout most of the twentieth century, economic growth corresponded with improving lives for working people. Strong unions forced wages to keep pace with increases in productivity; that kept consumption high. {Don't blame imports; the material objects imported are now far less important than the services that one pays for to make those objects valuable. Ask yourself whether you have spent more on cable television than on the television sets that you have watched cable TV on. Ask yourself whether you have paid more on a cell phone than you can expect to pay for cell phone access or for your computer than for the Internet access).

We may be stuck with a larger potential workforce than there is work for it to do. Such is not overpopulation; it is progress. We might push formal education, especially liberal formal education.

[Warren Dew]

(11-16-2016, 11:51 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(11-15-2016, 04:32 PM)Odin Wrote: Scared, desperate people are easy prey for demagogues promising easy solutions, scapegoats, and a return to the "good old days". The blame falls on the Dems for not putting forward a populist message to counter Trump's BS.

But there is no all-powerful Party boss in either party deciding who can run and who must not. The alleged Establishment of the GOP would have rather had Mitt Romney, who is much less abrasive and more likely to make deals. Guess where that went? Romney did not run.

The establishment choice this time around was Jeb Bush.  Fortunately the Republican primary voters realized that Bush v Clinton was not what the electorate was looking for, even if Democratic primary voters did not.

Quote:I would feel far better knowing that Mitt Romney were President-elect. Disappointed that my side lost -- but much would be safe that is in gross peril now. I might contrast Donald trump from the primaries and say "at least we did not get that".

Pity he wasn't elected in 2012, eh? Romney would have been a great president.

Quote:Throughout most of the twentieth century, economic growth corresponded with improving lives for working people. Strong unions forced wages to keep pace with increases in productivity; that kept consumption high. {Don't blame imports; the material objects imported are now far less important than the services that one pays for to make those objects valuable. Ask yourself whether you have spent more on cable television than on the television sets that you have watched cable TV on. Ask yourself whether you have paid more on a cell phone than you can expect to pay for cell phone access or for your computer than for the Internet access).

What kept wages high was limited immigration.  Once the floodgates were opened, wages plummeted.

[Eric the Green]

(11-16-2016, 12:31 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(11-16-2016, 11:51 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(11-15-2016, 04:32 PM)Odin Wrote: Scared, desperate people are easy prey for demagogues promising easy solutions, scapegoats, and a return to the "good old days". The blame falls on the Dems for not putting forward a populist message to counter Trump's BS.

But there is no all-powerful Party boss in either party deciding who can run and who must not. The alleged Establishment of the GOP would have rather had Mitt Romney, who is much less abrasive and more likely to make deals. Guess where that went? Romney did not run.

The establishment choice this time around was Jeb Bush.  Fortunately the Republican primary voters realized that Bush v Clinton was not what the electorate was looking for, even if Democratic primary voters did not.

If Trump is not the establishment choice, then he is worse than any establishment choice. Hitler was not the establishment choice when he ran either. Being the establishment choice or not is not the sole basis for judging a candidate, unless you are being irrational, which clearly many voters in 2016 were.

Quote:

Quote:I would feel far better knowing that Mitt Romney were President-elect. Disappointed that my side lost -- but much would be safe that is in gross peril now. I might contrast Donald trump from the primaries and say "at least we did not get that".

Pity he wasn't elected in 2012, eh? Romney would have been a great president.

Quote:Throughout most of the twentieth century, economic growth corresponded with improving lives for working people. Strong unions forced wages to keep pace with increases in productivity; that kept consumption high. (Don't blame imports; the material objects imported are now far less important than the services that one pays for to make those objects valuable. Ask yourself whether you have spent more on cable television than on the television sets that you have watched cable TV on. Ask yourself whether you have paid more on a cell phone than you can expect to pay for cell phone access or for your computer than for the Internet access).

What kept wages high was limited immigration.  Once the floodgates were opened, wages plummeted.

No, higher population is a net positive for economic growth. The market is larger, so business increases, wages rise. What helped to keep wages low was flattening the minimum wage as Reagan-Bush and Bush did, along with the other trickle-down policies, including the decline of unions. Kennedy opened immigration; that's not when wages started to go flat and decline relative to inflation. Reagan did that; the record is clear.

[Eric the Green]

(11-16-2016, 12:15 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: Eric part of your problem is you seem stuck in the 1960s meme of "the radicals" against "The Establishment."

This is not your father's establishment, so to speak.

The subset of people who came of age during the 1960s and who turned out successful - became the establishment.

I don't think that's a problem. Whether someone would think that's a problem for me, just depends on their views, and what you define as establishment. To me it's clear that politicians are not necessarily part of "the establishment." It depends on what they are doing in office. If they support progress, according to my definition of it, then they are not "establishment." That mostly applies to Hillary R. Clinton, and more to Elizabeth Warren, and more still to Bernie Sanders. They are not "establishment" because they are working to help the people, not the powerful. If you want to call them "1960s radicals," be my guest. I agree with them and I support them no matter what year it is.

And who are the powerful? Who is the Establishment? The wealthy people who use their wealth to boost their wealth and power at the expense of the rest of us. That was true in 1968 and it's true today. Nothing has changed at all, except of course they are now far more powerful thanks to Republican policies these last 40 years. What is progress? Advancing the needs of the people and the environment the people depend on.

[Warren Dew]

(11-16-2016, 01:06 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

Quote:

Quote:I would feel far better knowing that Mitt Romney were President-elect. Disappointed that my side lost -- but much would be safe that is in gross peril now. I might contrast Donald trump from the primaries and say "at least we did not get that".

Pity he wasn't elected in 2012, eh?  Romney would have been a great president.

Quote:Throughout most of the twentieth century, economic growth corresponded with improving lives for working people. Strong unions forced wages to keep pace with increases in productivity; that kept consumption high. (Don't blame imports; the material objects imported are now far less important than the services that one pays for to make those objects valuable. Ask yourself whether you have spent more on cable television than on the television sets that you have watched cable TV on. Ask yourself whether you have paid more on a cell phone than you can expect to pay for cell phone access or for your computer than for the Internet access).

What kept wages high was limited immigration.  Once the floodgates were opened, wages plummeted.

No, higher population is a net positive for economic growth. The market is larger, so business increases, wages rise. What helped to keep wages low was flattening the minimum wage as Reagan-Bush and Bush did, along with the other trickle-down policies, including the decline of unions. Kennedy opened immigration; that's not when wages started to go flat and decline relative to inflation. Reagan did that; the record is clear.

Higher population of course increases the overall size of the economy, benefiting the economic and political elites.  The Warren Buffetts and George Soroses of the world make out like bandits.

However, as far as average welfare is concerned, that increase in size does the individuals no good when it's spread out over an equal or greater increase in the number of people.  Wages stagnate or decline.

Now you know why the billionaires are supporting open borders Democrats, while the actual working class has voted Trump and the Republicans in.

[Skabungus]

Michigan.............where men are men and sheep are nervous.

My town was featured on local and national news in the two days following the election.....because it is the model for what happened in "small towns across America." We are white, working class (according to U.S. Census data I am part of the 1% in my county educationally: I have a graduate degree) rural and definitely "post industrial". We are in the nether world between the Rust Belt and agricultural America. Ted Nugent is considered a hometown hero. Amway is considered an example of good Christian business practices and a stalwart employer through thick and thin.

What do these people even do to survive?

- Auto suppliers have gone away, reduced the work force and in all cases reduced their paid wages, so, people fight for these fewer jobs, at lower wages, with mandatory over time, and no union protection. All the appliance manufacturers have left for Sweden, Mexico or the far east, and will not likely return as they are owned overseas as well. Factory jobs are now few and far between, and not likely to return. I know a fellow who is an engineer for a local plant that makes plastic interior parts for the Big Three. He complains thusly, "They shipped these jobs to Mexico, where they can employ two Mexicans for $10/hr. each and the quality is poor. Many of the parts are rejected. Here at our plant, we can employ one guy for $20/hr. and his production is flawless! Trump will help bring those jobs back here and we will not have to worry about shitty parts from Mexico, and we can employ more Americans to make better products." While I would love to swallow his simplistic reasoning whole and believe more factory jobs will come about due to said logic, I cant buy it. The waste he is talking about is not really a factor. Those low skilled jobs will stay in Mexico, or, go elsewhere before they come back here. Even if they did come back here, they will only be at most 50% of what was originally exported.

- Agricultural work is still available, if you want to make $10/hr. with no benefits moving apples from storage to shipping. Really, we have a large migrant (mostly Mexican and Honduran) population that does the seasonal fruit and vegetable harvest. Grains are grown and harvested by increasingly fewer and fewer hands. Beef in Michigan is reduced to a hobby farming scale. Yea, some work in farming...if you want part time, seasonal, dangerous work.

- Self-employment. Fire wood; handy man; house cleaning; pet sitting; large animal pet sitting (farm sitting); Ebay; work from home rackets; licensed day cares; scrapping metals and a variety of other hand-to-mouth work occupies a lot of time and may help you make the bills, maybe. I know and use a lot of these types of services and when I talk to these people, they are quite proud of the fact that they are "small business" truly believing that they are part of that "backbone of the American economy" Whether this is just a mantra they tell themselves to keep from feeling like White Trash, or something they truly believe I am not sure. In most instances, at some point in the discussion they talk about finding steady work some day. Clearly what they are doing is a needs-based survival strategy rather than the fulfillment of some romantic dream.

- Crime. Poaching, drug trafficking, petty theft, food stamp fraud, public assistance fraud, disability fraud, etc. Yep. You want to find some professional welfare queens and fraudsters dwell? Don't think it is exclusive to the inner city. It is out in the country man. Out where everyone considered it a righteous strike against the big bad government. You got that right.

- The Government. County road commissions; the village; the city; the township; the state and even the federal government! Yep, with factory jobs and agricultural jobs stripped away, and little opportunity elsewhere in the economy, a goodly number of people in these communities work for the man! In my area we have five (5) prisons that employ corrections officers, clerks, etc. which amounts to a good number of jobs. Add in school bus drivers, and all local units of government and you have easily 1/3 of the workforce.

I'm from Ohio, and aside from the larger share of agricultural activity here in Michigan, Ohio's situation is much the same.

[Skabungus]

X_4AD_84 Wrote:

Skabungus Wrote:Michigan.............where men are men and sheep are nervous.

My town was featured on local and national news in the two days following the election.....because it is the model for what happened in "small towns across America."  We are white, working class (according to U.S. Census data I am part of the 1% in my county educationally: I have a graduate degree) rural and definitely "post industrial".  We are in the nether world between the Rust Belt and agricultural America.  Ted Nugent is considered a hometown hero.  Amway is considered an example of good Christian business practices and a stalwart employer through thick and thin.

What do these people even do to survive?  

- Auto suppliers have gone away, reduced the work force and in all cases reduced their paid wages, so, people fight for these fewer jobs, at lower wages, with mandatory over time, and no union protection.  All the appliance manufacturers have left for Sweden, Mexico or the far east, and will not likely return as they are owned overseas as well.  Factory jobs are now few and far between, and not likely to return.  I know a fellow who is an engineer for a local plant that makes plastic interior parts for the Big Three.  He complains thusly, "They shipped these jobs to Mexico, where they can employ two Mexicans for $10/hr. each and the quality is poor.  Many of the parts are rejected.  Here at our plant, we can employ one guy for $20/hr. and his production is flawless! Trump will help bring those jobs back here and we will not have to worry about shitty parts from Mexico, and we can employ more Americans to make better products."  While I would love to swallow his simplistic reasoning whole and believe more factory jobs will come about due to said logic, I cant buy it.  The waste he is talking about is not really a factor.  Those low skilled jobs will stay in Mexico, or, go elsewhere before they come back here.  Even if they did come back here, they will only be at most 50%  of what was originally exported.

- Agricultural work is still available, if you want to make $10/hr. with no benefits moving apples from storage to shipping.  Really, we have a large migrant (mostly Mexican and Honduran) population that does the seasonal fruit and vegetable harvest.  Grains are grown and harvested by increasingly fewer and fewer hands.  Beef in Michigan is reduced to a hobby farming scale.  Yea, some work in farming...if you want part time, seasonal, dangerous work.

- Self-employment.  Fire wood; handy man; house cleaning; pet sitting; large animal pet sitting (farm sitting); Ebay; work from home rackets; licensed day cares; scrapping metals and a variety of other hand-to-mouth work occupies a lot of time and may help you make the bills, maybe.  I know and use a lot of these types of services and when I talk to these people, they are quite proud of the fact that they are "small business"  truly believing that they are part of that "backbone of the American economy"  Whether this is just a mantra they tell themselves to keep from feeling like White Trash, or something they truly believe I am not sure.  In most instances, at some point in the discussion they talk about finding steady work some day.  Clearly what they are doing is a needs-based survival strategy rather than the fulfillment of some romantic dream.

- Crime.  Poaching, drug trafficking, petty theft, food stamp fraud, public assistance fraud, disability fraud, etc.  Yep.  You want to find some professional welfare queens and fraudsters dwell?  Don't think it is exclusive to the inner city.  It is out in the country man.  Out where everyone considered it a righteous strike against the big bad government.  You got that right.

- The Government.  County road commissions; the village; the city; the township; the state and even the federal government!  Yep, with factory jobs and agricultural jobs stripped away, and little opportunity elsewhere in the economy, a goodly number of people in these communities work for the man!  In my area we have five (5) prisons that employ corrections officers, clerks, etc. which amounts to a good number of jobs.  Add in school bus drivers, and all local units of government and you have easily 1/3 of the workforce.  

I'm from Ohio, and aside from the larger share of agricultural activity here in Michigan, Ohio's situation is much the same.

Interestingly your descriptions would also apply to what some refer to as "rural" California, but more properly, I would call it, Inland California. Similar downscaling has been going on for the past 30 years. It's been especially bad the past 15 years. One of the reasons why California shows up such a deep blue is we have two mega cities and two decent sized cities, plus several medium sized ones, all pretty deep blue.

Yep I'll bet.  Around Labor Day I took the train out to Glacier National Park.  Along the way I had the opportunity to talk with a great number of people from all walks of life.  Anger.  Anger. Anger.

Mostly though I will say that much of the rural vote in my area is comprised of :

(A) Red to the core repuglicans who believe in the three G's (God, Guns and Guts) and ascribe to the romantic conservative image of America.  Most of these folks are 60 or older, are not up to speed with what is going on globally or even nation-wide with trends, tech, etc.  They often use Viet Nam examples when they try to explain how they feel.  Think Norman Rockwell.  They are convinced that all those labor jobs (think unskilled but high paid mill helper jobs, or semi-skilled assembly line jobs) are desirable, competitive and needed here in the heart land.  They are convinced that a couple quick changes in the trade policies will bring them flooding back.  They roll their eyes when confronted ideas like a "tech revolution" making the face of employment landscape quite different.  A pat answer is "you have to make things!  You cant be a great country if you don't make anything."

(B) Angry X and Millenials who frankly think the whole system stinks.  What comes through clear when they speak is they really don't give a shit where the answers come from, if the answers are real.  At the store I talk to a young man who goes on about the election, hoping we can get some of America fixed.  As he talks and I listen, I hear come out of his mouth what in any other context would be a solid left/labor position on job creation coupled with a left/libertarian position on weed, immigration and religion.  At a Boy Scout meeting I talk to a 40's something mother that worries about how to pay for her son's college and her fears about future wars taking him away.  Again, what she verbalizes is her fear, and what she seeks is the support network that, if it were written down and read would appear to be a set of centrist Democrat planks.  They are hard core Trump supporters.  They don't believe all that racist stuff, or the stuff about deporting the whole of Islam. "That's just talk to get elected" ..........Right?  Some may harbor bigoted ideas, and some may not, but it isn't really at the front of their thinking.  Instead, they are willing to ignore it or live with it, if it gets them better pay, no wars, and a stable slower changing world.

© The mobilized forces of ignorance and bigotry.  Yep.  Cant avoid it.  I have run into SCORES of rambling fools who are proud that they voted for the very first time ever! ............and they are shocked that you don't congratulate them.  Really, really undereducated people.  Really poorly informed people, many of which get their news from one or two very specific sources like say, their minister and ESPN, or Fox News and maybe Uncle Cletus!  Really, I don't want to be disparaging but for the love of the country, a shit-ton of people that are dangerously stupid registered and turned out to vote in this election.  They did it for two reasons really.  Fear they were being overrun by a changing world, and hope that Trump would make America the 1950's again.  Wait, I forgot there was a third reason.  Hillary Clinton is the Whore of the book of Revelations.  Can't forget that.

In any case, I do believe things will sort themselves out:

Group A will eventually "age out" of the electorate.  A couple good flu seasons will help that along, but they have no choice but to dwindle in impact over time, flu shots or not.

Group B really doesn't have patience or strong ties to leaders.  They don't even really like leaders.  Either the factory doors fly open, they get great health care after Obamacare is repealed and we stay out of wars altogether, or they will be ripe for different approach.  They'll dump Trump, and go with whomever can blend traditionally left labor concerns with middle of the road foreign policy positions.  They'll flip.

Group C.  God help us.  I'm hoping they go back to watching their coon dogs fuck and lose interest.

[Eric the Green]

(11-16-2016, 01:48 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Higher population of course increases the overall size of the economy, benefiting the economic and political elites.  The Warren Buffetts and George Soroses of the world make out like bandits.

However, as far as average welfare is concerned, that increase in size does the individuals no good when it's spread out over an equal or greater increase in the number of people.  Wages stagnate or decline.

Now you know why the billionaires are supporting open borders Democrats, while the actual working class has voted Trump and the Republicans in.

That makes no sense. Most of the immigrants are not like Warren Buffet or George Soros or even the Koch Brothers. They are farm workers and repairmen and yard keepers. Some brought in by rich companies are high tech engineers, like here in Silicon Valley. But you libertarians and supply-siders keep ignoring the demand side. These people buy products that keep people working. That's what "spreads out." The economic elites benefit from growth because of the way the Republicans and their own CEOs structure taxes and wages to benefit themselves. Trump's policies are likely to bring economic growth to a screeching halt, and if Dodd-Frank is repealed or weakened we will have another crash in short order. And as mikebert as pointed out, the cushion of monetary policy is used up; there's nothing that can be done under Republican rule to break the fall or help the victims.

Democrats are not the ones who favor free trade; it's a bi-partisan error, but it's a trickle-down economics program. It's laissez faire: less government interference in the economy. So there's more support for free trade among Republicans than among Democrats. But, Trump persuaded them otherwise, and thus we the people lost the Senate to the billionaires, who now control it.

Since your logic on immigration is incorrect, no, now I don't know why "billionaires are supporting open borders Democrats, while the actual working class has voted Trump and the Republicans in." Blaming immigrants is just racist or xenophobic baloney. Yes, I know why it appeals to under-educated fools who refuse to use what intelligence that they have.

[Eric the Green]

Thanks Skabungus, that gives me a better picture, and it's not pretty or sustainable.

[pbrower2a]

From the Harvard Business Review:

One little-known element of [the class culture] gap is that the white working class resents professionals but admires the rich. Class migrants (white-collar professionals born to blue-collar families) report that “professional people were generally suspect” and that managers are college kids “who don’t know shit about how to do anything but are full of ideas about how I have to do my job,” said Alfred Lubrano in Limbo. Barbara Ehrenreich recalled in 1990 that her blue-collar dad “could not say the word doctor without the virtual prefix quack. Lawyers were shysters… and professors were without exception phonies.” Annette Lareau found tremendous resentment against teachers, who were perceived as condescending and unhelpful.

Michèle Lamont, in The Dignity of Working Men, also found resentment of professionals — but not of the rich. “[I] can’t knock anyone for succeeding,” a laborer told her. “There’s a lot of people out there who are wealthy and I’m sure they worked darned hard for every cent they have,” chimed in a receiving clerk. Why the difference? For one thing, most blue-collar workers have little direct contact with the rich outside of Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous. But professionals order them around every day. The dream is not to become upper-middle-class, with its different food, family, and friendship patterns; the dream is to live in your own class milieu, where you feel comfortable — just with more money. “The main thing is to be independent and give your own orders and not have to take them from anybody else,” a machine operator told Lamont. Owning one’s own business — that’s the goal. That’s another part of Trump’s appeal.

https://hbr.org/2016/11/what-so-many-peo...king-class