UPNetwork  

Go Back   UPNetwork > General Forums > Debate

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 04-08-2017, 12:01 AM   #3751
Snorby
Soon™
 
Snorby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Too damn far down the legend queue.
Posts: 2,523
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shuckle View Post
https://thinkprogress.org/how-anti-c...y-ca1a06fa0ec6

You're trying to compare Bernie vs. Trump when we're actually comparing Bernie vs. Hillary and Trump vs. Hillary. In both cases, Hillary (who was extremely vocal about green energy and climate change, not to mention stolidly anti-gun) was the salient factor, not her opponent. You said it yourself later on:
Don't get me wrong. I'm not making this about Bernie vs Trump. What I'm saying is that for Trump and Bernie to have both been the better option than Hillary there has to be some sort of link between the two that makes them a better alternative. One that goes beyond not being named Hillary Rodham Clinton. And I'm not looking for "they're men and people in rural America are awful and sexist(tm)" either. This is where trade comes in. Sure, in West Virginia Coal being the #1 issue is a given, because coal actually has an absolutely massive impact on their economy. Citing West Virginia's primary results admittedly blurred my message, but I think I should make clear when I talk about trade being the make-or-break issue, I'm talking about states you cited that have big manufacturing markets that have lost jobs to overseas manufacturers and America's trade deals, like Michigan and Pennsylvania. Sanders won Michigan. Trump won Michigan too. I think there's a whole lot stronger of an argument that ties Trump's Michigan win to his anti-trade stance than to Clinton's anti-coal stance.

Quote:
Bernie also won by not being Hillary, but that's not to say that his position on coal had anything to do with it. Hillary made a lot of enemies by verbally attacking Republicans and mining companies. Sanders was not nearly as vocal or rude.

With Trump vs. Hillary, the difference was even more stark: Bernie was 51% of the WV democrat vote and Trump was 68%. Exit polls revealed that the economy was the #1 biggest issue in voters' minds in WV. Not the US economy, the WV economy. Hillary lost sight of that and got punished hard for it. Sure, women may make 77 cents on the dollar compared to men, but West Virginians are in an even worse position at 75 cents on the dollar compared to the average income in the US.
Gonna take a quote from your own article and point out that Bernie literally said "To hell with the fossil fuel industry". I sort of understand what you mean- Bernie's resting state is crotchety old geezer railing against something whereas Hillary is more composed, making her fervor against the coal industry more notable- but during the primary, as someone who follow the democratic primary more closely than most voters did, Sanders was much more vocal about his support for clean energy- and his policies for fighting climate change were much more progressive than Hillary's. And in response to the notion that people were just voting against Hillary rather than for Bernie in WV- I want to remind you of the Senator's Town Hall in McDowell County, WV last month. I'm sure you've already heard things about it considering how highly publicized it was, but it was publicized for good reason. Most people would be shocked to see all these people- in a county that went for Trump 75-25- so avidly supporting such a progressive, anti-coal politician. I was surprised too, but with the writing on the wall like this I find it hard to unequivocally claim that Bernie's win in the state was solely because everyone hated Hillary. If that was the case, now that the elections over his support there would have dried up. I'm sure some people voted against Hillary rather than for Bernie, but I think many more of the Bernie voters were legitimately enthused about him. Again, I'm not saying West Virginia didn't vote because of coal in the general election. I'm saying that about Michigan and Pennsylvania, but not West Virginia. All I'm doing with West Virginia is making the somewhat off-topic but I think very interesting point that Sanders has a real core of support among red state Trump voters in it and states like it. Do you have any thoughts on why this might be?

Quote:
Coal mining brings in a lot more jobs than that - you need food, housing, government, utilities, entertainment (alcohol??), schools, and infrastructure for the miners. Miners also buy cars and plants and nice things for their homes. It's a dangerous job with plenty of union involvement, so it pays really well and brings a lot of money to mining families. The mining businesses also make a lot of money which does actually get invested into the area - it's basically just as good as investing globally, only you see huge dividends in worker productivity and your local area is a lot nicer which attracts more people and more money which provides great return on investment and provides you with a stable source of labor esp. in a technological age where you need tech-savvy people to help you run your company. Hiring accountants, IT, managers, engineers, etc. locally is very good for your company both economically and in terms of public image.

The more I think about it the more clear it is how Trump was elected and what kind of problems we as a country actually face. It's not about race relations or sexism, it's about being able to support a healthy local economy in places that are heavily reliant on dirty energy.
You seem to be trying to have your cake and eat it too here. Either mining towns are tiny, poor, struggling areas of the country, or massive and well-off economic hubs. They can't be the latter and yet have no small businesses for Hillary's policies to help because their economy doesn't support them. That just doesn't make any sense xp

Maybe there's something I'm missing there that you can explain to me though, in which case by all means go ahead because as far as I can see right now your argument is more than a bit hypocritical xp
__________________


Click on Blooky for Mark's WF Quest Log, Sans for my ASB Squad Summary, and Flowey for Mark's WF Adventure. Ted's WF links coming soon!
Snorby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2017, 12:27 AM   #3752
Talon87
Shenmue III, baby!
 
Talon87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 19,981
Send a message via AIM to Talon87
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snorby View Post
Don't get me wrong. I'm not making this about Bernie vs Trump. What I'm saying is that for Trump and Bernie to have both been the better option than Hillary there has to be some sort of link between the two that makes them a better alternative. One that goes beyond not being named Hillary Rodham Clinton.
I don't think you understand what West Virginia is like at all.

http://www.cc.com/video-clips/cnuv8c...-west-virginia

The video above takes us back to a time, 2008, when West Virginians rallied behind Senator Clinton 3:1 over her primary adversary Barack Obama. The reason they voted for Clinton? Not because she was Hillary Clinton -- but because she was not Barack Obama.

The political players may have changed, but the setting's still the same. West Virginians are one of the Fox News empire's bastions of loyal viewers. These people have been inundated over the past eight years with "BARACK OBAMA IS THE DEVIL" and "HILLARY EATS BABIES" rhetoric, and by the time of the 2016 primary it's no fucking surprise that they would go with populist Bernie over the She-Devil known as Clinton. Hillary was to 2016 what Barack was to 2008: the not candidate, the rejected choice, the "I'll vote for the other guy just so that I don't have to vote for you."

tl;dr you tell Shuckle he's not allowed to say West Virginians voted for Sanders simply because he was the Not Clinton choice when that was precisely the major factor at play in their primary election
Talon87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2017, 01:00 AM   #3753
Snorby
Soon™
 
Snorby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Too damn far down the legend queue.
Posts: 2,523
I'm not exactly sure how I can make what i'm saying much clearer. What I'm saying is: if we're assuming that Sanders won not off of his own merit but simply because he's not Hillary, then why is he still popular there today? I'm not saying West Virginians don't hate Clinton. They do. What I'm saying is that considering how shockingly popular Bernie Sanders is in West Virginia after the election is over, when he's not merely the box you can check to protest Hillary Clinton and is instead just some Senator from another state, I find it hard to believe that there aren't West Virginians who supported Bernie... because they like Bernie, rather than exclusively because they hate Hillary and he was the only viable alternative.

Moreover, i have no idea why everyone's so damn hung up on this. The actual point I'm making (Trade was more important than Coal this election) is focused NOT ON WEST VIRGINIA, but on Michigan, Pennsylvania, and to a lesser extent Wisconsin. I'm only talking about WV at all because Shuckle's focusing very heavily on it and I think it's interesting that Bernie's still popular there even now that Hillary's a nonfactor and was wondering if anyone had any opinions as to why that might be.
__________________


Click on Blooky for Mark's WF Quest Log, Sans for my ASB Squad Summary, and Flowey for Mark's WF Adventure. Ted's WF links coming soon!
Snorby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2017, 01:14 AM   #3754
Talon87
Shenmue III, baby!
 
Talon87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 19,981
Send a message via AIM to Talon87
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snorby View Post
I'm not exactly sure how I can make what i'm saying much clearer. What I'm saying is: if we're assuming that Sanders won not off of his own merit but simply because he's not Hillary, then why is he still popular there today?
First I've seen you frame it in terms of today. Missed the town hall portion in your second paragraph. Sorry.

I would still argue that Clinton lost to Sanders primarily because of who she is rather than because of what either of them stumped on, ...

... but as for the current day, if I had to surmise why Sanders is seeing support out of pockets of West Virginia ...

... Well, for starters, let's look at McDowell County. Wikipedia says it only has around 20,000 people living there today. In the entire county. Suburbs of Indianapolis have more people than that, and the small city of Lafayette (coupled with sister city West Lafayette) has just shy of 100,000 residents. So we're talking real, real small here. Even if all 20,000 people supported Sanders, it wouldn't mean much for West Virginia as a whole.

But forget about that, because that distracts from your question somewhat. Why does any percentage of McDowell County want to support an anti-coal man like Sanders?

Blind, uninformed speculation:
  • could it be because of his (as campaigned on) "outsider status" relative to other Washington insiders?
  • could it because he's proposed a plan for bringing jobs back to the county? (Its population in the '50s was 100,000. It was at least 50,000 in the '70s.)
  • could it be because they've finally awoken to whose side they ought to be on re:healthcare?
That last one gets my optimistic vote for now, given this tidbit:
"Of 3,142 counties in the United States in 2013, McDowell County ranked 3,142 in the life expectancy of both male and female residents." - Wikipedia
Jesus H. Christ. They're in last fucking place. Not just for West Virginia but for the whole of the United States. Daaaaaaaaaaayum.

And this, kids, is why no one wants to personally mine coal.
Talon87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2017, 01:29 AM   #3755
Snorby
Soon™
 
Snorby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Too damn far down the legend queue.
Posts: 2,523
Oh damn. Last place in the country? I didn't know that o.0

But yeah, you're right insofar as McDowell is a small county that surely doesn't speak for all of West Virginia in it's widespread love of Senator Sanders. Still, I think it's relevant for not only the reason you said (Why the hell is anybody backing him there?) but also because it's important to couple it with the polling that implies Bernie's currently the most popular politician in America.

Being an Optimistic Young'n™ makes me think, or at least hope, this is indicative of a shift from the xenophobic populist rhetoric of Trump toward the populist economics purported by Sanders in the minds of the American people now that they've seen the Donald's White House crashing and burning so spectacularly while Ryan and the Congressional GOP tries to take their health care. But it could just as easily be something else, and I suppose it doesn't matter even if it is what with the Democratic Party staying so strongly under the thumb of the establishment wing. I hesitate to say the moderate wing, because there are some very good, progressive policies touted by establishment democrats, but the (perhaps unfortunate) fact is that people like Chuck Schumer and Tom Perez simply don't resonate with the public the way Bernie and Elizabeth Warren do, and without people like them at the helm we might not be able to capitalize on this kind of fervor.
__________________


Click on Blooky for Mark's WF Quest Log, Sans for my ASB Squad Summary, and Flowey for Mark's WF Adventure. Ted's WF links coming soon!
Snorby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2017, 02:01 AM   #3756
Talon87
Shenmue III, baby!
 
Talon87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 19,981
Send a message via AIM to Talon87
50% of US workers make $30,000/yr or less, the latest numbers show.
Talon87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2017, 04:34 AM   #3757
Doppleganger
100% Lawful Evil
 
Doppleganger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Yukinomiya City, Fukushima Prefecture
Posts: 11,007
Send a message via AIM to Doppleganger
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snorby View Post
You realize that illegal immigrants can only be CNAs in California​, right? Or did the laws change recently?
That's not my point exactly, the point was the disproportionately high wage for unskilled or lower skill labour.

At Walmart up here, my starting hourly wage is $14.50. Walmart's average is $10 and the national average for comparable work is $13, which is heavily biased against by places with a high cost of living.

My county has a far lower cost of living than the national average, with a then disproportionally higher pay for unskilled labour. And this is just Walmart - manual labour, a job that doesn't even exist in California anymore due to illegals, pays $16+ starting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerichi View Post
I can't really speak for home care professionals as that's not really the same thing, but I highly doubt there's a flood of illegally working nurses. If anything, there's a shortage of nurses altogether.
The reason for this is gender bias IMV. Most working illegals tend to be male, and there is a clear, anecdotally supported preference for customer service oriented jobs for females, especially Asians who are perceived to be "non-threatening". Whoever is in charge of a nursing home is going to have intrinsic prejudices against hiring illegal men to care for the elderly.

In California, most of the sub-CNA "home care professionals" as you term it, tend to be either Filipino or Mexican, and female. This is just personal observation from when I visited or volunteered for convalescent/nursing homes.
__________________
あなたの勇気が切り開く未来
ふたりの想いが見つけだす希望
今 信じあえる
あきらめない 心かさね
永遠を抱きしめて
Doppleganger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2017, 11:36 AM   #3758
Shuckle
Mage of Mind
 
Shuckle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Land of Thought and Melody
Posts: 3,025
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snorby View Post
Don't get me wrong. I'm not making this about Bernie vs Trump. What I'm saying is that for Trump and Bernie to have both been the better option than Hillary there has to be some sort of link between the two that makes them a better alternative.
Not necessarily.

Hillary was very unapologetically blue this election, a break from her moderate tendencies. Sanders may be essentially a Commie, but he's not really a Democrat. Trump is not a Democrat either. Already you have people voting with their beer guts.

I hate to bring this in, too, since it changes the conversation, but Bernie is pro-gun, Hillary is VERY anti-gun. PA and WV like their guns. MI does not, but MI saw a close race between Bern and Hill that ended up being Hill only because of Detroit. Guns were probably why. Rural democrats needed a candidate who they felt would fight for their interests and rights, and were probably rejoicing that they can finally have their democrat cake and eat it too by keeping their gun rights.

My argument is less about coal in specific and more about jobs and industry. Hillary Clinton seems to think that jobs are created by small businesses and global corporations apropos of nothing. In reality, money needs to flow into an area before that area can start supporting businesses - this is the role of industry, and industry has not been active in Appalachia or in the rust belt.

Quote:
You seem to be trying to have your cake and eat it too here. Either mining towns are tiny, poor, struggling areas of the country, or massive and well-off economic hubs. They can't be the latter and yet have no small businesses for Hillary's policies to help because their economy doesn't support them. That just doesn't make any sense xp

Maybe there's something I'm missing there that you can explain to me though, in which case by all means go ahead because as far as I can see right now your argument is more than a bit hypocritical xp
Small towns are tiny, struggling economic hubs, so it's both. Their problem is only solvable by the market (unless you use mincome) because their problem isn't taxes or regulations or operating costs or anything that government can help with directly, it's the time-honored "No Customers." If people can't buy your shit, you don't make money. GG no re.

As mentioned, welfare programs are not popular in red leaning states. While welfare is a solution for economic stagnancy in small towns with small businesses (we are talking literal mom n pop shops), it's just a stopgap and everyone is better off with actual money instead of food stamps and social security.
__________________
Spoiler: show
[The Sorcerer's Ambition]A handy link, to be sure.
Level Acquisitions, sorted by level instead of name.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phoopes View Post
Shuckle's awesomeness level continues to rise.
Shuckle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2017, 01:01 PM   #3759
Snorby
Soon™
 
Snorby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Too damn far down the legend queue.
Posts: 2,523
Minor nitpick there Shuckle- Bernie won Michigan and lost Pennsylvania xp
__________________


Click on Blooky for Mark's WF Quest Log, Sans for my ASB Squad Summary, and Flowey for Mark's WF Adventure. Ted's WF links coming soon!
Snorby is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Lower Navigation
Go Back   UPNetwork > General Forums > Debate


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:11 PM.


Design By: Miner Skinz.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.