Look at the PSAs. The first two are saying 'Dear white people', basically going on with identity politics (saying that whites should acknowledge their privilege, be more sensitive to minorities, blah blah blah) and the rest just talking about how Trump sucks. They seem to be very propaganda like the way that they are made (the recent Trump vid from NBC for goodness sakes!).
Look at the like and dislike ratio on the youtube vids; most very abysmal, at best 50 percent. Maybe condescendingly scolding whites/ preaching identity politics, and outspoken celebs sticking it to Trump isn't an effective way to move the Democrat party forward. Just saying.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LzggK5DRBA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zjj1PmJcRM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2btcifuakCo&t=14s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRp1CK_X_Yw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTYidWBC8-4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Fa9YOPEFbQ
http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/312467-celebs-call-on-congress-to-stand-up-to-trump
White people suck
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_sLS8t-JRerY/SvKchuJ0FSI/AAAAAAAAANQ/3unPYSZewBQ/s400/oh+snap+pelican.jpg)
As touching as it is to see members of the AldermanParkLover's fan club come out of their self-imposed double secret probation it's still puzzling to me how these people have to be constantly reminded that your side for the most part won in 2016. It's like deniability of victory and constantly stewing in misery is the only way you can keep legitimizing your outrage.
Maybe Donald Trump is not your cup of tea but tell me true, would any of you be willing to give up your victories in the Congress, State Houses, the Senate, and the Presidency to take down all these White people need to be more sensitive and are bad when they refuse to acknowledge past unjust acts? Would you give it all up so that the playing field of ideas are finally leveled so that defenders of White people can finally get a word in edgewise? And would you really give it all up so that everyone can just leave Donald Trump the fuck alone?
Yes, there have always been and always will be those that take their message too far and to refuse too acknowledge that is lazy and dumb, but there is a common thread to those obsessed with "keeping score" of all that is said about them and their actions - their grasp of their reigns of power is tenuous. Given that it's no surprise that the present administration and congress are desperately repealing the previous administration's policies. They also seem to bemoan (and see for themselves at some town halls last week, at least those that weren't too chicken-shit scared) how with greater power comes greater targets on their back.
Now we all know that the saying normally goes with greater power comes greater responsibility, but that's only if you want to be the leader of ALL people. The opposition will always look to defend and speak for their own, but what they can't do is set the agenda. We know what this presidency has been trying to do so far, but for someone who claims to be such a great deal maker there are so many groups in this country that he shirks away from that puts that claim in serious doubt. There is no rational reason why bringing different groups to the table to listen to them, make concessions, and ultimately come to some kind of agreement couldn't be part of his agenda as well.
Call me an eternal optimist, but there is still time and I feel it can be done.
Quote from: I-10east on February 25, 2017, 11:21:36 PM
Look at the PSAs. The first two are saying 'Dear white people', basically going on with identity politics (saying that whites should acknowledge their privilege, be more sensitive to minorities, blah blah blah) and the rest just talking about how Trump sucks. They seem to be very propaganda like the way that they are made (the recent Trump vid from NBC for goodness sakes!).
Look at the like and dislike ratio on the youtube vids; most very abysmal, at best 50 percent. Maybe condescendingly scolding whites/ preaching identity politics, and outspoken celebs sticking it to Trump isn't an effective way to move the Democrat party forward. Just saying.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LzggK5DRBA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zjj1PmJcRM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2btcifuakCo&t=14s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRp1CK_X_Yw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTYidWBC8-4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Fa9YOPEFbQ
http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/312467-celebs-call-on-congress-to-stand-up-to-trump
Oh, and I'm sure the YouTube posters appreciate you posting their links so you can try to prove your point. In the end they are making more money for themselves and their causes while you have changed the minds of no one pro or con. Hope they remember you at Christmas.
This is why trump won.
Privilege is taking umbrage when you are told you are doing something wrong rather than acknowledging it and working to correct it.
Quote from: Adam White on February 28, 2017, 02:16:03 PM
Bit simplistic, don't you think?
I don't. I believe trump won because of stuff like this. The SJW movement has pissed off enough people that he won just because he appealed to that. And it's pretty insane, this billionaire, born millionaire (meaning he's always been rich) was able to appeal to the blue collar workin' folk.
In the past few years it has become socially acceptable to tell white people to "check their privilege" and so on, Bernie went so far as to say "white people don't know what it's like to be poor." I guess Bernie has never been to west virginia.
https://www.youtube.com/v/xCHfH0WABTY
How do you think that resonated with the white mother living on food stamps with 4 kids in a trailer or ghetto?
So I think it's as simple as that. People of all races & sexes have had tough times, but Trump played to the the large group of people who have been angry at things in this thread.
Quote from: coredumped on February 28, 2017, 04:58:59 PM
Quote from: Adam White on February 28, 2017, 02:16:03 PM
Bit simplistic, don't you think?
I don't. I believe trump won because of stuff like this. The SJW movement has pissed off enough people that he won just because he appealed to that. And it's pretty insane, this billionaire, born millionaire (meaning he's always been rich) was able to appeal to the blue collar workin' folk.
In the past few years it has become socially acceptable to tell white people to "check their privilege" and so on, Bernie went so far as to say "white people don't know what it's like to be poor." I guess Bernie has never been to west virginia.
https://www.youtube.com/v/xCHfH0WABTY
How do you think that resonated with the white mother living on food stamps with 4 kids in a trailer or ghetto?
So I think it's as simple as that. People of all races & sexes have had tough times, but Trump played to the the large group of people who have been angry at things in this thread.
I think Trump won for myriad reasons and it can't be distilled to one thing. Yes, perhaps a backlash against "elites" or whatever played a significant part. But it would be simplistic (IMO) to say that was
the reason. In fact, it's just as likely that the backlash was due to other factors (like economic ones) more than a bunch of angry white people taking issue with SJWs or BLM protestors or whatever.
^It's certainly simplistic to say that things like people being critical of white privilege or the "SJW movement", whatever that is, led so many white people (and others) to go for Trump. A few more significant factors that spring to mind are Clinton's weaknesses as a candidate, Trump's success making an economic case to working class voters in the Rust Belt, growing dissatisfaction with the "establishment" status quo, and the wonkiness of the Electoral College. In fact, if Trump hadn't managed to pick up 3 Rust Belt states that Clinton basically ignored by 100k votes total, he wouldn't be President today. There's no way that "SJWs" were a the deciding factor in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
That said, it's true that Democrats and other lefties do a poor job speaking to the white working class, especially the rising number who aren't union members. Democrats are often openly derisive of the social values of working class and rural whites, and if they can't compete on the economic messaging, why not vote for Trump?
When I say the reason, I mean it's why he was pushed over the top.
Democrats will always vote blue and Republicans will always vote red (some states allow you to party vote without having to check each box), but he energized people that would have otherwise not voted. He got those by taking advantage of things like what Bernie said above.
You can only push a group of people so far before they've had enough and act, similar to BLM.
And if you don't know what a SJW is, or aren't convinced, you've been living under a rock.
Quote from: coredumped on February 28, 2017, 07:34:29 PM
When I say the reason, I mean it's why he was pushed over the top.
Democrats will always vote blue and Republicans will always vote red (some states allow you to party vote without having to check each box), but he energized people that would have otherwise not voted. He got those by taking advantage of things like what Bernie said above.
You can only push a group of people so far before they've had enough and act, similar to BLM.
And if you don't know what a SJW is, or aren't convinced, you've been living under a rock.
I know what "SJW" means. I don't know what the "SJW movement" is supposed to refer to. "SJW" is a (very silly) slur, not a movement. Whatever it is, it's not a significant factor compared to others such as those I mentioned. The race was so close in key areas that changing virtually anything would have led to a different result.
It's incorrect that Trump energized people who wouldn't have voted otherwise - or if he did, it was only by alienating an almost equivalent number of Republican-leaning voters. He only got 2 million more votes than Romney did when losing in 2012; Clinton got virtually the same number of votes as Obama (and obviously beat Trump in overall votes). What did change is that Trump flipped 6 states that had gone for Obama in 2012 (several of which rarely go for Republicans). 5 of those are Rust Belt states. Trump's pitch there to working folks in a very depressed and declining economy, saying things that no Republican or Democrat had ever said before, is a much bigger factor.
Now, I would agree that many people consider that the general "PC" culture promoted by the left (or said to be promoted by them) is used as a bludgeon against them, and the left can be very dismissive and even openly derisive of the concerns of the white working class. Of course, most Republicans are as well, but Trump is a different story. If that's what you're trying to say, then I agree. But it's just one factor among many.
Quote from: Tacachale on March 01, 2017, 10:20:11 AM
Quote from: coredumped on February 28, 2017, 07:34:29 PM
When I say the reason, I mean it's why he was pushed over the top.
Democrats will always vote blue and Republicans will always vote red (some states allow you to party vote without having to check each box), but he energized people that would have otherwise not voted. He got those by taking advantage of things like what Bernie said above.
You can only push a group of people so far before they've had enough and act, similar to BLM.
And if you don't know what a SJW is, or aren't convinced, you've been living under a rock.
I know what "SJW" means. I don't know what the "SJW movement" is supposed to refer to. "SJW" is a (very silly) slur, not a movement. Whatever it is, it's not a significant factor compared to others such as those I mentioned. The race was so close in key areas that changing virtually anything would have led to a different result.
It's incorrect that Trump energized people who wouldn't have voted otherwise - or if he did, it was only by alienating an almost equivalent number of Republican-leaning voters. He only got 2 million more votes than Romney did when losing in 2012; Clinton got virtually the same number of votes as Obama (and obviously beat Trump in overall votes). What did change is that Trump flipped 6 states that had gone for Obama in 2012 (several of which rarely go for Republicans). 5 of those are Rust Belt states. Trump's pitch there to working folks in a very depressed and declining economy, saying things that no Republican or Democrat had ever said before, is a much bigger factor.
Now, I would agree that many people consider that the general "PC" culture promoted by the left (or said to be promoted by them) is used as a bludgeon against them, and the left can be very dismissive and even openly derisive of the concerns of the white working class. Of course, most Republicans are as well, but Trump is a different story. If that's what you're trying to say, then I agree. But it's just one factor among many.
Perfect response.
QuoteThe anger is only going to grow among the former working and middle class. And their anger couldn't be easier for politicians to hijack for their own interests. The pieces are in place for some very scary outcomes over the next few decades.
The key then is to acknowledge and address the causes of the anger rather than dismissing the middle and working class as unsophisticated rubes and racists in fly over country. I noticed in Trumps speech last night that much of it was directed at Union rank and file and I think he was at least partially successful in pulling voters from that pool in the last election... 8)
Quote from: jlmann on March 01, 2017, 01:09:38 PM
Flyover country will get virtually nothing from Trump but a few months of feeling vindicated*
*If they do get any benefit it will be due to programs that have been proposed and designed by democrats for many years yet have been obstructed by the GOP. But now that the GOP can get credit for an infrastructure program or whatever? Perfect idea Don!
This may be the perfect leftist quote.
He will not do anything for the middle class but if he does it will be because of democrats. Bravo
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 01, 2017, 12:45:50 PM
QuoteThe anger is only going to grow among the former working and middle class. And their anger couldn't be easier for politicians to hijack for their own interests. The pieces are in place for some very scary outcomes over the next few decades.
The key then is to acknowledge and address the causes of the anger rather than dismissing the middle and working class as unsophisticated rubes and racists in fly over country. I noticed in Trumps speech last night that much of it was directed at Union rank and file and I think he was at least partially successful in pulling voters from that pool in the last election... 8)
That is certainly true. And it's something a lot of Democrats miss entirely.
However, as jlmann says above, I doubt there's really a fix for the core problems of places like the Rust Belt, which is the decline of manufacturing that once provided good income and benefits. Some of it has been lost to outsourcing (which neither most Democrats nor the vast majority of Republicans will stop), but automation and technological changes are a big part too. I once read that Kodak used to employ 145,000 people. Today that number's 6400. Unless they start putting film in our smart phones, those jobs ain't coming back. Someone like POTUS can make a show of bringing a few thousand jobs back from Mexico or whatever here and there, but it's not going stem the tide. It's like King Canute trying to command the waves.
Quote from: bill on March 01, 2017, 01:35:28 PM
Quote from: jlmann on March 01, 2017, 01:09:38 PM
Flyover country will get virtually nothing from Trump but a few months of feeling vindicated*
*If they do get any benefit it will be due to programs that have been proposed and designed by democrats for many years yet have been obstructed by the GOP. But now that the GOP can get credit for an infrastructure program or whatever? Perfect idea Don!
This may be the perfect leftist quote.
He will not do anything for the middle class but if he does it will be because of democrats. Bravo
Doesn't sound anything like any self-respecting leftist would say.
Well if those jobs "aint coming back" then no wonder the democrats have abandoned the unions... well except for the public sector and teachers... where there will always be job growth...lol
Quote from: bill on March 01, 2017, 01:35:28 PM
Quote from: jlmann on March 01, 2017, 01:09:38 PM
Flyover country will get virtually nothing from Trump but a few months of feeling vindicated*
*If they do get any benefit it will be due to programs that have been proposed and designed by democrats for many years yet have been obstructed by the GOP. But now that the GOP can get credit for an infrastructure program or whatever? Perfect idea Don!
This may be the perfect leftist quote.
He will not do anything for the middle class but if he does it will be because of democrats. Bravo
This is the perfect leftist quote:
QuoteMost political pundits predicted that Donald Trump would face defeat in the Presidential Elections. Likewise with the European Referendum in June, they were confident that the Remain side would win. On both counts, they were wrong.
In next year's French Presidential elections the Front National, led by Marine Le Pen, is expected to make major gains. In Germany, the Alternative für Deutschland, a far right populist group, may be in a position to challenge the ruling Christian Democrats. The Freedom Party of Austria gained most votes in the first round of the Austrian Presidential elections in April 2016.
Clearly, there is a surge in support for populist parties and politicians across Europe and in the USA who peddle nationalism, xenophobia and racism and pose as champions of the people against the establishment. Widespread disaffection with and mistrust of the mainstream political parties have emerged. It is not too difficult to see why this discontent has come about.
Over the years, due to the deregulation by governments of financial markets, capital has been able to flow more freely around the globe. Thus many relatively well-paid jobs in manufacturing and in industry have moved from richer to poorer countries where the labour costs are lower. At the same time, we have witnessed the erosion of trade union power. There has been increased impoverishment in former industrial areas, such as the 'rustbelts' in the USA. Impersonal market forces have penetrated into the everyday lives of working class people resulting in a feeling of powerlessness. Governments of whatever persuasion appear at best set against these forces or at worst conniving with them. Supranational institutions, that embody these impersonal market forces, like the European Union, have become increasingly unpopular.
Concomitant with this process of 'globalisation' has been the rise of immigration of workers to the richer countries. This has fostered unease among workers in the host countries who fear increased competition for jobs and scarce resources. Populists, like Donald Trump, UKIP and the Front National, exploit these anxieties for their electoral gain.
Over this period, there has been a rise in Islamophobia resulting from terrorist attacks such as the September 11 attacks, the London bombings and more recently the attacks in France and Belgium. Populists have not been slow in latching onto this fear of Islamic terrorism. Banning Muslims from entering the US was a central plank of Trump's electoral platform.
There is no doubt that the social and economic effects of the 2008 financial crash have increased the discontent of the working class. While workers have had to endure austerity imposed on them, the rich minority continue to become richer. Governments are seen to be complicit in this increasing inequality.
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union and its Eastern European satellites and the failure of social democratic parties like the Labour Party to reform capitalism, socialism and communism have been seen by many workers to have failed. Therefore, when workers become angry with the effects of capitalism, many of them turn to right-wing populist parties. Ironically these parties usually champion the same free market capitalism which ultimately lies behind working class discontent. They offer no solution to working class problems, and like the Social Democratic Parties before them, they will inevitably fail in their efforts to transform capitalism should they come to power. Socialism is the only solution to working class problems.
https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2016/no-1348-december-2016/editorial-life-after-trump (https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2016/no-1348-december-2016/editorial-life-after-trump)
That can be shortened to... "Socialism is the only solution to working class problems."
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 01, 2017, 01:47:41 PM
That can be shortened to... "Socialism is the only solution to working class problems."
It could be, if you wanted to ignore the analysis. That's like saying, "sunlight is good for you" without explaining why.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 01, 2017, 01:43:34 PM
Well if those jobs "aint coming back" then no wonder the democrats have abandoned the unions... well except for the public sector and teachers... where there will always be job growth...lol
I wouldn't say the Democrats have abandoned the unions. I'd say unions are declining along with the workforce they used to represent. I'd say the Democrats' bigger problem by far is with white working class folks who *aren't* in Unions. And of course the Republicans are pretty staunchly anti-union and are widely perceived as favoring the wealthy. That includes POTUS, though he's better at talking to the working class about those types of things than most Republicans.
Quote from: Tacachale on March 01, 2017, 01:52:14 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 01, 2017, 01:43:34 PM
Well if those jobs "aint coming back" then no wonder the democrats have abandoned the unions... well except for the public sector and teachers... where there will always be job growth...lol
I wouldn't say the Democrats have abandoned the unions. I'd say unions are declining along with the workforce they used to represent. I'd say the Democrats' bigger problem by far is with white working class folks who *aren't* in Unions. And of course the Republicans are pretty staunchly anti-union and are widely perceived as favoring the wealthy. That includes POTUS, though he's better at talking to the working class about those types of things than most Republicans.
Hmm... those rust belt states that Hillary ignored/lost are very union. The dems certainly pay lip service to them but even those unsophistacated flyover folks know when they are being used and ignored... and it cost the democrats the presidency the house and the senate... oh and the governers. Pelosi looked like she ate a turd last night...lol
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 01, 2017, 02:24:30 PM
Hmm... those rust belt states that Hillary ignored/lost are very union. The dems certainly pay lip service to them but even those unsophistacated flyover folks know when they are being used and ignored...
Wow. Now it's like you're practically quoting that editorial.
Quote from: Adam White on March 01, 2017, 02:31:38 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 01, 2017, 02:24:30 PM
Hmm... those rust belt states that Hillary ignored/lost are very union. The dems certainly pay lip service to them but even those unsophistacated flyover folks know when they are being used and ignored...
Wow. Now it's like you're practically quoting that editorial.
Which one? It is a fairly common sentiment...
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 01, 2017, 02:24:30 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on March 01, 2017, 01:52:14 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 01, 2017, 01:43:34 PM
Well if those jobs "aint coming back" then no wonder the democrats have abandoned the unions... well except for the public sector and teachers... where there will always be job growth...lol
I wouldn't say the Democrats have abandoned the unions. I'd say unions are declining along with the workforce they used to represent. I'd say the Democrats' bigger problem by far is with white working class folks who *aren't* in Unions. And of course the Republicans are pretty staunchly anti-union and are widely perceived as favoring the wealthy. That includes POTUS, though he's better at talking to the working class about those types of things than most Republicans.
Hmm... those rust belt states that Hillary ignored/lost are very union. The dems certainly pay lip service to them but even those unsophistacated flyover folks know when they are being used and ignored... and it cost the democrats the presidency the house and the senate... oh and the governers. Pelosi looked like she ate a turd last night...lol
I agree with this. But Trump isn't exactly a traditional Republican. Romney, McCain, and even GW Bush lost most of Rust Belt states that Trump picked up, despite the fact Republicans had increasing success in Congress and the governorships. However, my Democratic friends would point out that on the congressional level, gerrymandering had as much to due with Republicans taking control as political positions.
http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2017/03/01/trump_is_selling_snake_oil_to_the_rust_belt.html
QuoteTrump Is Selling Snake Oil to the Rust Belt
By David Ignatius March 01, 2017
WASHINGTON -- Donald Trump boasts that his "America First" trade and economic policies are bringing well-paid manufacturing jobs back to America. That's probably his biggest "deliverable" to Trump voters. But is this claim true?
Trump won the presidency partly because he voiced the anger of American workers about lost jobs and stagnant wages. But in the process, he fundamentally misled the country by claiming that trade is the major cause of job losses, and that renegotiating trade agreements would save the middle class.
What Trump is offering is a palliative that has raised false hopes. He implies that a few good trade deals will refurbish the Rust Belt and restore the good old days of manufacturing. It won't happen, and to pretend otherwise is a hoax.
Trump campaigned on a false argument that global trade was taking away American jobs. So he killed the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) his first week in office, and is now demanding changes in NAFTA and other trade agreements. He has dressed up a few announcements from jittery U.S. corporations to argue that doomed manufacturing plants are being saved and that jobs are "already starting to pour back."
Stephen Bannon, Trump's chief strategist, has inflated this economic nationalism into a full-blown ideology that posits a battle between workers who are being hurt by globalization and an elite that benefits. Referencing the TPP at last week's Conservative Political Action Conference, Bannon said that Trump "got us out of a trade deal and let our sovereignty come back to ourselves."
But the numbers show that Trump and Bannon are fighting the wrong battle. Manufacturing employment has indeed declined in America over the past decade, but the major reason is automation, not trade. Robots are taking most of the disappearing American jobs, not foreign workers. Rather than helping displaced blue-collar workers, Trump's promises of restoring lost jobs could leave them unprepared for the much bigger wave of automation and job loss that's ahead.
The most persuasive numbers were gathered in 2015 by Michael J. Hicks and Srikant Devaraj at Ball State University. They showed that manufacturing has actually experienced something of a revival in the United States. Despite the Great Recession, manufacturing grew by 17.6 percent, or about 2.2 percent a year, from 2006 to 2013. That was only slightly slower than the overall economy.
But even as manufacturing output was growing, jobs were shrinking. The decade from 2000 to 2010 saw "the largest decline in manufacturing employment in U.S. history," the Ball State economists concluded. What killed those jobs? For the most part, it wasn't trade, but productivity gains from automation. Over the decade, the report notes, productivity gains accounted for 87.8 percent of lost manufacturing jobs, while trade was responsible for just 13.4 percent.
Robotics allows manufacturers to create more output with fewer people. That's not a conspiracy imposed by Bannon's global elite. It's simply a fact of economic life and progress. And it's not just blue-collar workers who are suffering. Smarter machines kill jobs in finance, law and, yes, even journalism.
To see how Trump is mislabeling the causes of workers' anger, take a look at job losses in various industries. In motor-vehicle manufacturing, 85.5 percent of job losses came from productivity gains; in steel and other primary metals, 76.7 percent; in paper products, 93.2 percent; in textiles, 97.6 percent.
Trump proposes that we "buy American." But in a world of globalized supply chains, what's an American car? Does a Toyota Camry made in Kentucky count? Is a Ford F-150 truck assembled in Kansas City American even if some of its parts were made in Mexico? The interdependence of global manufacturing is part of why Ford and Toyota stay healthy and profitable, for workers and shareholders both. How does Trump propose to unthread this subtly woven quilt?
Trump wants to deliver on his campaign promises. Good for him. But by misidentifying the source of the Rust Belt's woes, he is doing his supporters a double disservice. He's giving them false hope that jobs replaced by machines will be reclaimed by people. Alas, economic history doesn't move in reverse. Perhaps worse, Trump is giving people reasons to avoid the job retraining that would prepare them for the next tsunami of automation, which consultants predict could destroy more than half of all current jobs.
What will Trump say then to the workers in Michigan, Ohio and West Virginia who believed in him -- who thought the old jobs were coming back -- and are savaged in the next round of job losses?
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 01, 2017, 02:34:39 PM
Quote from: Adam White on March 01, 2017, 02:31:38 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 01, 2017, 02:24:30 PM
Hmm... those rust belt states that Hillary ignored/lost are very union. The dems certainly pay lip service to them but even those unsophistacated flyover folks know when they are being used and ignored...
Wow. Now it's like you're practically quoting that editorial.
Which one? It is a fairly common sentiment...
The one I posted from the Socialist Party.
Quote from: Tacachale on March 01, 2017, 02:41:13 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 01, 2017, 02:24:30 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on March 01, 2017, 01:52:14 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 01, 2017, 01:43:34 PM
Well if those jobs "aint coming back" then no wonder the democrats have abandoned the unions... well except for the public sector and teachers... where there will always be job growth...lol
I wouldn't say the Democrats have abandoned the unions. I'd say unions are declining along with the workforce they used to represent. I'd say the Democrats' bigger problem by far is with white working class folks who *aren't* in Unions. And of course the Republicans are pretty staunchly anti-union and are widely perceived as favoring the wealthy. That includes POTUS, though he's better at talking to the working class about those types of things than most Republicans.
Hmm... those rust belt states that Hillary ignored/lost are very union. The dems certainly pay lip service to them but even those unsophistacated flyover folks know when they are being used and ignored... and it cost the democrats the presidency the house and the senate... oh and the governers. Pelosi looked like she ate a turd last night...lol
I agree with this. But Trump isn't exactly a traditional Republican. Romney, McCain, and even GW Bush lost most of Rust Belt states that Trump picked up, despite the fact Republicans had increasing success in Congress and the governorships. However, my Democratic friends would point out that on the congressional level, gerrymandering had as much to due with Republicans taking control as political positions.
Yeah... he certainly is not a traditional republican. Wayyy to untraditional for me... BUT... I think his success where the others failed was the poor candidate he was running against... and giving voice to those forgotten flyovers... Gerrymandering?? really?? May as well add in Putin then...
Quote from: Adam White on March 01, 2017, 02:47:17 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 01, 2017, 02:34:39 PM
Quote from: Adam White on March 01, 2017, 02:31:38 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 01, 2017, 02:24:30 PM
Hmm... those rust belt states that Hillary ignored/lost are very union. The dems certainly pay lip service to them but even those unsophistacated flyover folks know when they are being used and ignored...
Wow. Now it's like you're practically quoting that editorial.
Which one? It is a fairly common sentiment...
The one I posted from the Socialist Party.
Good god I'm infected... ;D I even quoted the last line in the article...
"Socialism is the only solution to working class problems."
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 01, 2017, 02:50:17 PM
Quote from: Adam White on March 01, 2017, 02:47:17 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 01, 2017, 02:34:39 PM
Quote from: Adam White on March 01, 2017, 02:31:38 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 01, 2017, 02:24:30 PM
Hmm... those rust belt states that Hillary ignored/lost are very union. The dems certainly pay lip service to them but even those unsophistacated flyover folks know when they are being used and ignored...
Wow. Now it's like you're practically quoting that editorial.
Which one? It is a fairly common sentiment...
The one I posted from the Socialist Party.
Good god I'm infected... ;D I even quoted the last line in the article... "Socialism is the only solution to working class problems."
One of us! One of us!
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 01, 2017, 02:47:34 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on March 01, 2017, 02:41:13 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 01, 2017, 02:24:30 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on March 01, 2017, 01:52:14 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 01, 2017, 01:43:34 PM
Well if those jobs "aint coming back" then no wonder the democrats have abandoned the unions... well except for the public sector and teachers... where there will always be job growth...lol
I wouldn't say the Democrats have abandoned the unions. I'd say unions are declining along with the workforce they used to represent. I'd say the Democrats' bigger problem by far is with white working class folks who *aren't* in Unions. And of course the Republicans are pretty staunchly anti-union and are widely perceived as favoring the wealthy. That includes POTUS, though he's better at talking to the working class about those types of things than most Republicans.
Hmm... those rust belt states that Hillary ignored/lost are very union. The dems certainly pay lip service to them but even those unsophistacated flyover folks know when they are being used and ignored... and it cost the democrats the presidency the house and the senate... oh and the governers. Pelosi looked like she ate a turd last night...lol
I agree with this. But Trump isn't exactly a traditional Republican. Romney, McCain, and even GW Bush lost most of Rust Belt states that Trump picked up, despite the fact Republicans had increasing success in Congress and the governorships. However, my Democratic friends would point out that on the congressional level, gerrymandering had as much to due with Republicans taking control as political positions.
Yeah... he certainly is not a traditional republican. Wayyy to untraditional for me... BUT... I think his success where the others failed was the poor candidate he was running against... and giving voice to those forgotten flyovers... Gerrymandering?? really?? May as well add in Putin then...
Yes, gerrymandering is how Republicans are able to control several states (like Florida) on the congressional level despite the votes being about even. It's also true in the state legislatures. In Michigan last year, Democratic candidates actually got more votes but won fewer seats (http://www.metrotimes.com/detroit/once-again-michigan-dems-receive-more-votes-in-the-state-house-but-republicans-hold-onto-power/Content?oid=2472685) because of the ways Democratic voters have been "packed" into certain districts. Of course Democrats also use gerrymandering to their advantage in some states, but they aren't nearly as good at it currently.
You are absolutely right that Clinton's weaknesses and Trump's ability to speak to "flyover America" in a way that other politicians don't are the reasons he won. Virtually any other serious Democrat - Obama, Uncle Joe, even John Kerry - would have thwomped Trump. On the other hand many of the other Republican contenders could probably have beaten Clinton, even without winning as much of the Rust Belt as Trump.
Quote from: Tacachale on March 01, 2017, 03:08:13 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 01, 2017, 02:47:34 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on March 01, 2017, 02:41:13 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 01, 2017, 02:24:30 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on March 01, 2017, 01:52:14 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 01, 2017, 01:43:34 PM
Well if those jobs "aint coming back" then no wonder the democrats have abandoned the unions... well except for the public sector and teachers... where there will always be job growth...lol
I wouldn't say the Democrats have abandoned the unions. I'd say unions are declining along with the workforce they used to represent. I'd say the Democrats' bigger problem by far is with white working class folks who *aren't* in Unions. And of course the Republicans are pretty staunchly anti-union and are widely perceived as favoring the wealthy. That includes POTUS, though he's better at talking to the working class about those types of things than most Republicans.
Hmm... those rust belt states that Hillary ignored/lost are very union. The dems certainly pay lip service to them but even those unsophistacated flyover folks know when they are being used and ignored... and it cost the democrats the presidency the house and the senate... oh and the governers. Pelosi looked like she ate a turd last night...lol
I agree with this. But Trump isn't exactly a traditional Republican. Romney, McCain, and even GW Bush lost most of Rust Belt states that Trump picked up, despite the fact Republicans had increasing success in Congress and the governorships. However, my Democratic friends would point out that on the congressional level, gerrymandering had as much to due with Republicans taking control as political positions.
Yeah... he certainly is not a traditional republican. Wayyy to untraditional for me... BUT... I think his success where the others failed was the poor candidate he was running against... and giving voice to those forgotten flyovers... Gerrymandering?? really?? May as well add in Putin then...
Yes, gerrymandering is how Republicans are able to control several states (like Florida) on the congressional level despite the votes being about even. It's also true in the state legislatures. In Michigan last year, Democratic candidates actually got more votes but won fewer seats (http://www.metrotimes.com/detroit/once-again-michigan-dems-receive-more-votes-in-the-state-house-but-republicans-hold-onto-power/Content?oid=2472685) because of the ways Democratic voters have been "packed" into certain districts. Of course Democrats also use gerrymandering to their advantage in some states, but they aren't nearly as good at it currently.
You are absolutely right that Clinton's weaknesses and Trump's ability to speak to "flyover America" in a way that other politicians don't are the reasons he won. Virtually any other serious Democrat - Obama, Uncle Joe, even John Kerry - would have thwomped Trump. On the other hand many of the other Republican contenders could probably have beaten Clinton, even without winning as much of the Rust Belt as Trump.
Im glad you agree that gerrymandering is not ideology specific. Apparently whoever is in power at the time does it... legally of course. That said... the process certainly helps certain democrat gerrymandered districts as well. There are certain areas of the country that will just never have a republican anything... Apparently even these evil geniuses can be overcome as evidenced by the infamous four state revolt...
Quote from: jlmann on March 01, 2017, 03:12:10 PM
QuoteGerrymandering?? really??
the ignorance is alarming. if you pay attention to politics AT ALL at times other than during the presidential cycle you would know this is so very true. tremendous GOP resources were directed to state level elections during 2010 specifically to gerrymander
Those darn republicans...rofl...
^Dude, mellow out.
Quote from: Tacachale on March 01, 2017, 03:34:10 PM
^Dude, mellow out.
He is right though, Bridge Troll is literally trolling cause his argument is not based in facts or reality.
I don't wish to speak for BT, but I think the crux of his argument is that both parties do it when they get the opportunity to.
Quote from: jlmann on March 01, 2017, 03:26:34 PM
QuoteThose darn republicans...rofl...
you really don't know jack shit about anything political. Some guy by the name of Karl Rove spelling out the exact strategy I describe in the WSJ:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703862704575099670689398044 (https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703862704575099670689398044)
http://www.rove.com/article/the-gop-targets-state-legislatures-16130 (http://www.rove.com/article/the-gop-targets-state-legislatures-16130)
There was literally a GOP initiative called REDMAP (Redstricting Majority Project) built exactly for this purpose. It has a website if you care to see:
http://www.redistrictingmajorityproject.com/ (http://www.redistrictingmajorityproject.com/)
but please regale us with some alternative facts
Oh the victimization... no strategy to pack or crack districts on the dem side? awwww someone is not doing their job...
Quote from: Snufflee on March 01, 2017, 03:39:01 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on March 01, 2017, 03:34:10 PM
^Dude, mellow out.
He is right though, Bridge Troll is literally trolling cause his argument is not based in facts or reality.
Im not trolling anything... please refute or debate
Quote from: jlmann on March 01, 2017, 03:48:55 PM
right right BT, somehow I was thinking elected officials jobs included something about serving their constituents and working to solve the problems those people experience
All... I am saying is... If you are going to blame Trumps election on gerrymandering you may as well add Putin to the list of poor excuses for the loss.
Quote from: jlmann on March 01, 2017, 03:50:37 PM
Quoteplease refute
well that's been done. still waiting on your for something besides pithy, empty, ill-informed BS.
you present nothing but the delusions in your head
meh... ok bro...
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 01, 2017, 03:51:47 PM
Quote from: jlmann on March 01, 2017, 03:48:55 PM
right right BT, somehow I was thinking elected officials jobs included something about serving their constituents and working to solve the problems those people experience
All... I am saying is... If you are going to blame Trumps election on gerrymandering you may as well add Putin to the list of poor excuses for the loss.
For the record, when I brought up gerrymandering, I was talking about the Republican Congressional wins that you brought up. And the state legislatures. It doesn't have anything to with Trump's election since people don't vote by district except in Maine and Nebraska.
I know... not sure what jlmann is all frothy about. Apparently he thinks I am unaware gerrymandering exists... gee thanks jl... thanks again for being the smartest guy in the room...lol