So why did Donald Trump win? Flipside to the Clinton/lose thread

[vi edit]

Regarding turnout, an illustration:

I'm trying to find the chart, but I saw a graph this morning that showed the 2016 election had the lowest percentage voter turnout in modern history. The chart went back to the 1930's. Roughly 47% of eligible voters exercised their rights to do so. Compare that to 57% in '08 when Obama first ran. Low turn outs will almost always favor GOP candidates as mid term elections show us.

Now a myriad of reasons can be put forth as to why turnout was low. But ultimately these were historically low voter turnouts and that gave the whitehouse and a full house of power to the GOP. Dems put out a lame duck candidate that turned off 10% of the voting base from 8 years ago. The only thing keeping this from being a total bloodbath was the total unappealing idea of Trump and him losing a pile of votes to minorities and educated white people.

 

[sxr7171]

Good post. I want to add even if there are programs, even if they are free and realistic there are two problems. First I kind of liked that factory job, I kinda don't like the idea of being a home health aid. Another important point is what does a 52 year old guy do? Again we'll assume College is free. First he has to back to school which is going to be difficult since some of the basic foundation stuff is forgotten, second he needs to graduate (see the first item), third who the hell is going to hire a 56 year old app developer or Cisco Certified Network guy with next to zero industry experience. Age discrimination happens all the time.

No easy answers for sure here. As one ages the cost of upkeep (healthcare) starts to exceed one's production capability assuming the person didn't go down a career path that required a high education to start.

Gone are the days a "janitor's assistant" can become the CEO of Goldman Sachs. Yes that is a true story.

But at the end of the day I think the only way to try to help these people is retraining. Testing again for apitiude and experience and try to find an educational program that would allow them a desk job. It doesn't have to be the hardest program but even training someone for the trades like electrician or plumber nets them a near six figure job.

We need to develop some kind of robot assisted manufacturing that could make us somewhat price competitive with china and tariff the rest until it is fully price competitive. A 52 year old controlling these robots would be a good place for that person. It reminds of the Jetsons life where your job is pressing butttons - basically controlling the robots.

 

[buckshot24]

Regarding turnout, an illustration:

Strangely, if you take Obama's vote totals from 2012 and Trump's from this year, Trump would have won enough states to get 273 EC votes. Which tells me that turnout was up a tick in states that were competitive this year.

 

[realibrad]

Sorry but that's a dodge. Who you preferred has nothing to do with this, what you said was just wrong. He had virtually no articulated positions and the positions he did articulate changed constantly as they were attacked on the merits. (That or he simply denied he had ever had them)

He had positions, but they were not well articulated. I listed some of his positions. Those were 100% his positions. He is very light on details because politically that is usually better to do. Take the trade deal that Hillary was for until Sanders attacked it and she switched. By doing that, she had nothing to fight Trump on when he argued for going back to isolation. If she thought trade was so good, then why did she not support the TPP? She would have to either explain specific details, or say she is not for trade. Instead she choose to say nothing, that benefited Trump.

If you really believed that his stances were vapid, then that should have been the focus. Look around and see that the vast majority of criticism was about him personally and not what he was arguing for. This allowed people to buy into his nothingness. By attacking him so hard, you took your eye off the ball. Trump is an asshat, but that was the only thing the Left was focusing on at the end.

What you are suggesting was done constantly. He and his supporters simply falsely claimed that he did have positions on those issues. When asked he would reiterate the same factless positions or make up new ones and then deny he ever had the old ones. Go back to the debates, to countless articles written, his lack of proposals is criticized everywhere. Maybe you didn't see it because it wasn't what you wanted to see.

This is why I brought up that I did not like and do not like Trump. What reason would I have for not wanting to see it? Personally, I saw that he was saying a lot of nothing. I knew he was running a platform that was mostly empty. Much of the media also did not cover it. That said, you know just as well as I that the only outlets that would push back were ones ignored by most people that would want to support him. People are where most get their info from, not news. If the people are not pushing back, then it gets missed. Again, the anger and personal attacks were the main thing. I pointed this out a while ago, that people should focus on the issues and not the man. You may think that they were stupid for buying into his shit, but it was easy to see even then.

I've noticed people would frequently try the same tack with Obama. They would ask why, in the spirit of compromise, Obama didn't propose certain policies. These would turn out to be the policies he had already proposed. They never realized it because they thought they had developed a sober and fair evaluation of the situation. In reality they had been duped.

So why is it that you cant see that here? Trump said things, and nobody seemed to focus on his policies, even if they were vapid. For as much hate as Obama got for being who he was, Trump had the same. Granted, the hatred for Obama was mainly racist, and Trump was being called on him being a bad person, but the outcome is the same. When you focus on the man and not the issues and positions he represents, you lose.

Actually that's not true, Trump won because he retained a greater percentage of self identified Republicans than Clinton did self identified Democrats. If you're citing some evidence that independent voters decided to vote for Trump based on the left attacking him personally I would love to see it. It would be particularly ironic considering Trump focused his campaign on personal attacks, haha.

In 2008 Obama got 52% vs McCain's 44% of IND. Trump got 49% of IND women to 41%, and 57% of men IND to 31%

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/election-exit-polls.html

He gained more IND votes. He got more Hispanic votes vs what Romney or McCain did.

 

[zinfamous]

Good post. I want to add even if there are programs, even if they are free and realistic there are two problems. First I kind of liked that factory job, I kinda don't like the idea of being a home health aid. Another important point is what does a 52 year old guy do? Again we'll assume College is free. First he has to back to school which is going to be difficult since some of the basic foundation stuff is forgotten, second he needs to graduate (see the first item), third who the hell is going to hire a 56 year old app developer or Cisco Certified Network guy with next to zero industry experience. Age discrimination happens all the time.

yup. The Democratic ideas focus on turning around these forgotten communities and their people into workers that are more suitable for the oncoming type of jobs that are available in a more advanced economy and society. That, kinda maybe works but it obviously takes time. It is a message and a plan fraught with problems, though:

--those 40-56 year old workers aren't in a position to significantly change their skills, much less move out of a community where they grew up to go find those jobs that flat out don't exist there, and certainly aren't coming any time soon. They are out of the picture for this message, so it doesn't help them at all.
--this sort of thing maybe works for the children of these people, but probably more their grandchildren. This theory only works if these kids can get a good education where they grow up and manage to get out of town for several years to earn an advanced degree. ...but are those kids going to come back if there are no opportunities to utilize their advanced degrees? Are there going to be resources for maintaining quality K-12 education in these communities if there are no jobs for their parents, no way to support these schools, no dedicated PTA?
A lot of these communities need new companies to show interest in their towns, or to simply wait for the closest city to expand far enough for their town to become the new suburb, so that young, highly educated new residents can inject new income and new needs for mechanics, grocery stores, boutique "hipster whatever" stores...but the problem here is, do these people want this to happen to their towns? I doubt it. It probably sounds more like an occupying force. It's not that both groups hate each other or dislike each other's "backward ways," it's just that they are very different.

 

[sxr7171]

I'm trying to find the chart, but I saw a graph this morning that showed the 2016 election had the lowest percentage voter turnout in modern history. The chart went back to the 1930's. Roughly 47% of eligible voters exercised their rights to do so. Compare that to 57% in '08 when Obama first ran. Low turn outs will almost always favor GOP candidates as mid term elections show us.

Now a myriad of reasons can be put forth as to why turnout was low. But ultimately these were historically low voter turnouts and that gave the whitehouse and a full house of power to the GOP. Dems put out a lame duck candidate that turned off 10% of the voting base from 8 years ago. The only thing keeping this from being a total bloodbath was the total unappealing idea of Trump and him losing a pile of votes to minorities and educated white people.

If ever there were a threatening GOP candidate to get the Dems out to vote this was it. But I suppose we've proven that a charismatic candidate gets people to vote and one who is not keeps them in bed.

The MSM should be credited 100% for his victory. All the free publicity and all the reassurances he could never win. All the dems stayed at home.

But mostly it's just that she couldn't really get people out of bed to vote for her. It seems that even those that did just did so to prevent what would be a worse evil from taking office.

Lots of great lessons to be learned here. Charisma is number one. Your race, your gender, even your age doesn't matter. Only charisma matters.

 

[sxr7171]

yup. The Democratic ideas focus on turning around these forgotten communities and their people into workers that are more suitable for the oncoming type of jobs that are available in a more advanced economy and society. That, kinda maybe works but it obviously takes time. It is a message and a plan fraught with problems, though:

--those 40-56 year old workers aren't in a position to significantly change their skills, much less move out of a community where they grew up to go find those jobs that flat out don't exist there, and certainly aren't coming any time soon. They are out of the picture for this message, so it doesn't help them at all.
--this sort of thing maybe works for the children of these people, but probably more their grandchildren. This theory only works if these kids can get a good education where they grow up and manage to get out of town for several years to earn an advanced degree. ...but are those kids going to come back if there are no opportunities to utilize their advanced degrees? Are there going to be resources for maintaining quality K-12 education in these communities if there are no jobs for their parents, no way to support these schools, no dedicated PTA?
A lot of these communities need new companies to show interest in their towns, or to simply wait for the closest city to expand far enough for their town to become the new suburb, so that young, highly educated new residents can inject new income and new needs for mechanics, grocery stores, boutique "hipster whatever" stores...but the problem here is, do these people want this to happen to their towns? I doubt it. It probably sounds more like an occupying force. It's not that both groups hate each other or dislike each other's "backward ways," it's just that they are very different.

I honestly wonder about the sustainability of the "hipster" economy. It's just like the other poster said a majority of our GDP is coming from services to each other.

Haircuts, pedicures stuff like that.

The hipster economy basically is exactly that. Just people who should have paid attention in school deciding to become a "fancy pants" "mixologist" meaning bartender. The same applies to all those hipster activities like coffe shops, fancy salons, fancy restaurants etc. They all require people with disposable income to stay afloat. Which means there needs to be a source of income outside the hipster world to keep the hipster world afloat.

I don't think it's sustainable for too much longer.

 

[fskimospy]

He had positions, but they were not well articulated. I listed some of his positions. Those were 100% his positions. He is very light on details because politically that is usually better to do. Take the trade deal that Hillary was for until Sanders attacked it and she switched. By doing that, she had nothing to fight Trump on when he argued for going back to isolation. If she thought trade was so good, then why did she not support the TPP? She would have to either explain specific details, or say she is not for trade. Instead she choose to say nothing, that benefited Trump.

See you've been duped right here. When people said Trump was for trade isolationism he simply denied it. He said he wasn't against trade, he just wanted a mythical 'better deal'. What does that mean? Nothing. He occupied a space where his position meant the opposite of whatever you attacked his position for being. That's called not having any position at all. It's also bizarre that you think Clinton chose to say nothing on the matter as she attacked him for his trade position hundreds of times.

If you really believed that his stances were vapid, then that should have been the focus. Look around and see that the vast majority of criticism was about him personally and not what he was arguing for. This allowed people to buy into his nothingness. By attacking him so hard, you took your eye off the ball. Trump is an asshat, but that was the only thing the Left was focusing on at the end.

You are confusing what the media chose to cover with what liberals attacked him for. You can find reams and reams and reams of criticisms of his policies from liberals. You could spend days or weeks reading them. The media didn't care about that though, they cared about the salacious things as they always do. You've made a terrible mistake in thinking that what the media covers is what the left focused on.

This is why I brought up that I did not like and do not like Trump. What reason would I have for not wanting to see it? Personally, I saw that he was saying a lot of nothing. I knew he was running a platform that was mostly empty. Much of the media also did not cover it. That said, you know just as well as I that the only outlets that would push back were ones ignored by most people that would want to support him. People are where most get their info from, not news. If the people are not pushing back, then it gets missed. Again, the anger and personal attacks were the main thing. I pointed this out a while ago, that people should focus on the issues and not the man. You may think that they were stupid for buying into his shit, but it was easy to see even then.

People get an idea in their heads and try to twist the facts to fit it... we all do this. I don't think you were doing it consciously, I just think you're suffering from confirmation bias.

So why is it that you cant see that here? Trump said things, and nobody seemed to focus on his policies, even if they were vapid. For as much hate as Obama got for being who he was, Trump had the same. Granted, the hatred for Obama was mainly racist, and Trump was being called on him being a bad person, but the outcome is the same. When you focus on the man and not the issues and positions he represents, you lose.

Very few voters understand or care about the issues. This has been proven times without count.

 

[zinfamous]

I honestly wonder about the sustainability of the "hipster" economy. It's just like the other poster said a majority of our GDP is coming from services to each other.

Haircuts, pedicures stuff like that.

The hipster economy basically is exactly that. Just people who should have paid attention in school deciding to become a "fancy pants" "mixologist" meaning bartender. The same applies to all those hipster activities like coffe shops, fancy salons, fancy restaurants etc. They all require people with disposable income to stay afloat. Which means there needs to be a source of income outside the hipster world to keep the hipster world afloat.

I don't think it's sustainable for too much longer.

I agree, it isn't. But even when hipsters show up to town and want to purchase property, you still have traditional businesses that get a boost: mechanics, bakers, microbreweries (the last two being "hipstery" these days, but certainly provide good sustaining work for blue collar types; and are relatively easy to pivot to, imo). I'm trying to think of some classic mechanic-like businesses that would also benefit, but I'm fresh out. How about local plumbers, electricians, contractors, materials folks?

A lot of jobs aren't ever coming back, but rather than try to convince those middle aged blue collar laborers that they can move into IT or some other desk job (that doesn't exist in their town) or some nonsense server job at the new trendy vegan pho cafe (barf), maybe they can get into contracting and make niche, customized, backyard smoking devices for $5k a pop of hipster money, welding their fancy new fixtures, apprenticing/working in the new brewery to learn the craft, etc...

 

[fskimospy]

I honestly wonder about the sustainability of the "hipster" economy. It's just like the other poster said a majority of our GDP is coming from services to each other.

Haircuts, pedicures stuff like that.

The hipster economy basically is exactly that. Just people who should have paid attention in school deciding to become a "fancy pants" "mixologist" meaning bartender. The same applies to all those hipster activities like coffe shops, fancy salons, fancy restaurants etc. They all require people with disposable income to stay afloat. Which means there needs to be a source of income outside the hipster world to keep the hipster world afloat.

I don't think it's sustainable for too much longer.

The majority of almost every economy comes from services and services are frequently much more than being a bartender. Finance is a 'service', Google is a service, etc.

Manufacturing sucks. It's dangerous and it fucks up the environment. If we can replace it with services that's a plus. That's one big reason why most advanced economies move in that direction.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I agree, it isn't. But even when hipsters show up to town and want to purchase property, you still have traditional businesses that get a boost: mechanics, bakers, microbreweries (the last two being "hipstery" these days, but certainly provide good sustaining work for blue collar types; and are relatively easy to pivot to, imo). I'm trying to think of some classic mechanic-like businesses that would also benefit, but I'm fresh out. How about local plumbers, electricians, contractors, materials folks?

A lot of jobs aren't ever coming back, but rather than try to convince those middle aged blue collar laborers that they can move into IT or some other desk job (that doesn't exist in their town) or some nonsense server job at the new trendy vegan pho cafe (barf), maybe they can get into contracting and make niche, customized, backyard smoking devices for $5k a pop of hipster money, welding their fancy new fixtures, apprenticing/working in the new brewery to learn the craft, etc...

Please watch this

http://southpark.cc.com/clips/2hodov/the-lofts-at-sodosopa

 

[zinfamous]

The majority of almost every economy comes from services and services are frequently much more than being a bartender. Finance is a 'service', Google is a service, etc.

Manufacturing sucks. It's dangerous and it fucks up the environment. If we can replace it with services that's a plus. That's one big reason why most advanced economies move in that direction.

So, still no answer for the 45-52 year-olds that don't have jobs and are in no position in life to pivot from steel smelting or car building to get into the "finance" service or "google-coding superstar" service while they wait for these advanced service industries to find their way to town and maybe provide a life for their children or grandchildren?

I think there are good service opportunities that work in these communities--construction is pretty awesome--but how do we rebuild these communities and get the new people moving there that make construction jobs sustainable? Sitting in the big city and disparaging these people for not living the awesome life that we have doesn't really help. These communities need schools and new businesses and a lot less methanphetamine. Most of them are now too far from any major city to gain any kind of halo effect improvement.

 

[bshole]

You are confusing what the media chose to cover with what liberals attacked him for. You can find reams and reams and reams of criticisms of his policies from liberals. You could spend days or weeks reading them. The media didn't care about that though, they cared about the salacious things as they always do. You've made a terrible mistake in thinking that what the media covers is what the left focused on.
.

Well on this board it seemed to be entirely attacks on his character and most of the stuff on Hillary was the same.

I never paid much attention to Trump because I was completely convinced he would never win and I do not find him that interesting (perhaps that will change now). I don't believe Trump has any real ideology or really cares much about anything other than self-worship. He craves power/money and thus he will make laws that will benefit himself financially, of that there can be no doubt whatsoever. His announced plan will remove 6 trillion out of the budget and rechannel it to the 1%ers. This is what he said he wanted to do and the American people said.... hell yeah..... RAPE US SOME MORE!

 

[fskimospy]

So, still no answer for the 45-52 year-olds that don't have jobs and are in no position in life to pivot from steel smelting or car building to get into the "finance" service or "google-coding superstar" service while they wait for these advanced service industries to find their way to town and maybe provide a life for their children or grandchildren?

I think there are good service opportunities that work in these communities--construction is pretty awesome--but how do we rebuild these communities and get the new people moving there that make construction jobs sustainable? Sitting in the big city and disparaging these people for not living the awesome life that we have doesn't really help. These communities need schools and new businesses and a lot less methanphetamine. Most of them are now too far from any major city to gain any kind of halo effect improvement.

I mean there are lots of potential answers for this, but there are also some people who are probably going to be left behind and that sucks. That's also what the social safety net is for.

The thing is that these manufacturing jobs are going away because they are no longer needed due to automation. That's technological progress and it's a good thing. What America sucks at unfortunately is using the fruits of that progress to aid those displaced by it.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I mean there are lots of potential answers for this, but there are also some people who are probably going to be left behind and that sucks. That's also what the social safety net is for.

The thing is that these manufacturing jobs are going away because they are no longer needed due to automation. That's technological progress and it's a good thing. What America sucks at unfortunately is using the fruits of that progress to aid those displaced by it.

Then the Democratic Party stays where it is. Personally I don't think this is an acceptable plan.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

So, still no answer for the 45-52 year-olds that don't have jobs and are in no position in life to pivot from steel smelting or car building to get into the "finance" service or "google-coding superstar" service while they wait for these advanced service industries to find their way to town and maybe provide a life for their children or grandchildren?

I think there are good service opportunities that work in these communities--construction is pretty awesome--but how do we rebuild these communities and get the new people moving there that make construction jobs sustainable? Sitting in the big city and disparaging these people for not living the awesome life that we have doesn't really help. These communities need schools and new businesses and a lot less methanphetamine. Most of them are now too far from any major city to gain any kind of halo effect improvement.

Dammit another post I want to "like" but I'll get cut

 

[sxr7171]

The majority of almost every economy comes from services and services are frequently much more than being a bartender. Finance is a 'service', Google is a service, etc.

Manufacturing sucks. It's dangerous and it fucks up the environment. If we can replace it with services that's a plus. That's one big reason why most advanced economies move in that direction.

Yes I agree and the US went from an agricultural economy to a service based economy decades ago.

What you are saying means that we can import all our consumer goods from elsewhere - let's say China for argument's sake. So all our cars, phones, chairs, clothes, shoes everything comes from China. Let them deal with all the externalities. In the meantime everyone lives well here trading services all day with each other.

How are we going to pay them back? Ok we can export some services like aircraft, banking, business consulting, software. For how long? A time will come when a country like China could develop these things internally. We already import not only goods but actually a lot of services like customer support etc.

Basically what I'm saying is that if you want goods at all and you're not making it here we need something to export. Our biggest export right now is basically our real estate. Thank heaven it still has some value so we can get iPhones for it.

At what point does this real estate not have any value anymore? If we can't export enough then all those mini Williamsburgs that we built will not have the cash flow to keep going. All that stuff in the coffee shop came from China especially every single last MacBook in there. Every fixture, appliance, POS system. If this isn't sustainable the property values will drop and the Chinese will pull out so fast that the real estate market crashes further. Already the signs of both real estate and rents going lower have shown up.

How do we sustain everyone getting their condos granite, stainless steeled out? Everyone ordering some fancy drink that only locals would want? Is that skill exportable?

You can build as many mini Williamsburgs you want and people will shop there and things will be fine to a point. Mostly we are training people to sell us luxury services. A $14 mixed drink is a luxury service. So is a $35 plate of food. I mean we can develop these areas with a hunger for luxury services instead of luxury goods. That's a great thing.

But where is the money ultimately coming in to sustain this local luxury service market? It's has to be legacy money ultimately. Basically 1% money. What about everyone else? They'll budget for the occasional splurge but they can't afford this all the time.

What I'm saying is that disposable income is a finite resource that requires people to provide more and more valuable services to each other. It's great that the consumption side has a lot of new businesses and those require some capital investment to start and run and thus helps the economy. But if we take this to the logical conclusion we would exchange services all day and never need any goods. Which isn't true.

I'm just having a hard time finding what use in the world a country that produces the best bartenders and chefs would have. We need to have a product or service that other countries want if we want them to manufacture for us. Right now it's the land we live on which has value only because of the expectation that the natives can afford that land. Maybe we can rent all our land back from China in exchange for spending all our money on developing sazerac and old fashioned recipes.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes I agree and the US went from an agricultural economy to a service based economy decades ago.

What you are saying means that we can import all our consumer goods from elsewhere - let's say China for arguments sake. So all our cars, phones, chairs, clothes, shoes everything comes from China. Let them deal with all the externalities. In the meantime everyone lives well here trading services all day with each other.

How are we going to pay them back? Ok we can export some services like aircraft, banking, business consulting, software. For how long? A time will come when a country like China could develop these things internally. We already import not only goods but actually a lot of services like customer support etc.

You could make the same argument about manufacturing. We can export our goods only until a country like China develops the ability to manufacture them internally, as they have. Our services are head and shoulders above theirs and as in all things they continue to improve all the time. It never ends.

Basically what I'm saying is that if you want goods at all and you're not making it here we need something to export. Our biggest export right now is basically our real estate. Thank heaven it still has some value so we can get iPhones for it.

At what point does this real estate not have any value anymore? If we can't export enough then all those mini Williamsburgs that we built will not have the cash flow to keep going. The property values will drop and the Chinese will pull out so fast that the real estate market crashes further.

That's not really how imports and exports work though. China was buying US assets in order to devalue their currency, not because we needed to sell them real estate to pay for their imports. If they stopped buying US assets (as they largely have now, btw) their currency would substantially appreciate vis a vis ours if a trade deficit continued. Absent intervention trade deficits solve themselves.

How do we sustain everyone getting their condos granite, stainless steeled out? Everyone ordering some fancy drink that only locals would want? Is that skill exportable?

You can build as many mini Williamsburgs you want and people will shop there and things will be fine to a point. Mostly we are training people to sell us luxury goods. A $14 mixed drink is a luxury good. So is a $35 plate of food. I mean we can develop these areas with a hunger for luxury services instead of luxury goods. That's a great thing.

But where is the money ultimately coming in to sustain this local luxury service market? It's has to be legacy money ultimately. Basically 1% money. What about everyone else? They'll budget for the occasional splurge but they can't afford this all the time.

What I'm saying is that disposable income is a finite resource that requires people to provide more and more valuable services to each other. It's great that the consumption side has a lot of new businesses and those require some capital investment to start and run and thus helps the economy. But if we take this to the logical conclusion we would exchange services all day and never need any goods. Which isn't true.

I'm just having a hard time finding what use in the world a country that produces the best bartenders and chefs would have. We need to have a product or service that other countries want if we want them to manufacture for us. Right now it's the land we live on which has value only because of the expectation that the natives can afford that land. Maybe we can rent all our land back from China in exchange for spending all our money on developing sazerac and old fashioned recipes.

The US exports an enormous amount of goods and services, but you've touched on a point that most people forget: trade is actually a tiny fraction of our economy and the vast majority of economic activity that occurs in our country is internal. That's not a problem though as that's basically true everywhere.

 

[bshole]

I mean there are lots of potential answers for this, but there are also some people who are probably going to be left behind and that sucks. That's also what the social safety net is for.

The thing is that these manufacturing jobs are going away because they are no longer needed due to automation. That's technological progress and it's a good thing. What America sucks at unfortunately is using the fruits of that progress to aid those displaced by it.

Some people would argue that China going from less than 1/6 the manufacturing of the US to surpassing the US in a few decades could have had an impact. It is useful to note that China's manufacturing R&D research is rising at a far higher rate than the United States. The state of the art will eventually migrate to Asia. Without engineering or manufacturing, a country can no longer pretend to be relevant.

 

[realibrad]

See you've been duped right here. When people said Trump was for trade isolationism he simply denied it. He said he wasn't against trade, he just wanted a mythical 'better deal'. What does that mean? Nothing. He occupied a space where his position meant the opposite of whatever you attacked his position for being. That's called not having any position at all. It's also bizarre that you think Clinton chose to say nothing on the matter as she attacked him for his trade position hundreds of times.

How have I been duped? He had positions. They may not have been thought out, or good ideas, but he had positions.

Why did he want to ban all muslims? You would say because he hates muslims and only focus on that. His argument was that religious terrorism has a big connection to muslisms vs other religions. He is right in that there is a connection, but his solution is dumb. Further, muslim terrorism is not a big deal in the US and we have more important things. The left just called him racist and that was that.

He said that he wanted to build a wall. He was called racist and that was the end from the left. His position was that illegal immigrants raised crime, and they were taking jobs. Very little was done on arguing that those ideas are wrong, and was just called a racist.

He had positions. They were bad positions, but they were positions. The people that I know who were on the left were too busy calling him a racist bigot to talk about anything else.

You are confusing what the media chose to cover with what liberals attacked him for. You can find reams and reams and reams of criticisms of his policies from liberals. You could spend days or weeks reading them. The media didn't care about that though, they cared about the salacious things as they always do. You've made a terrible mistake in thinking that what the media covers is what the left focused on.

First, let me point out that you are now arguing that there were reams and reams of criticisms for policies that you were just arguing he did not have. Either he had positions that liberals attacked him for, or he did not have positions and he was not attacked on those. Can't be both.

Now, my point about the media was that those on the Right ignore all but Fox news for TV. The left gets their news from all but FOX. The middle gets their news from people and little bits of TV. When you have one side simply yelling that Trump is a racist bigot for every thing said regardless of what he said, those in the middle tune out the Left. That is what I saw happening with every argument I saw. Most on the left that I know thought everyone knew Trump would lose.

People get an idea in their heads and try to twist the facts to fit it... we all do this. I don't think you were doing it consciously, I just think you're suffering from confirmation bias.

Confirmation bias of what? Again, I think Trump's positions were mostly empty and bad. I thought people were too busy attacking him personally. How did I come up with that idea any other way than observing? I don't recall anyone making that point at the time of forming my opinion. Its not like I was ever pro Trump and willing to make excuses.

Very few voters understand or care about the issues. This has been proven times without count.

And yet you made the argument that those on the Left were attacking him on the issues. You are arguing conflicting things.

Also, dont forget the main reason I think he won. People want to become rich and they think Trump will do it. They are wrong.

 

[fskimospy]

How have I been duped? He had positions. They may not have been thought out, or good ideas, but he had positions.

Why did he want to ban all muslims? You would say because he hates muslims and only focus on that. His argument was that religious terrorism has a big connection to muslisms vs other religions. He is right in that there is a connection, but his solution is dumb. Further, muslim terrorism is not a big deal in the US and we have more important things. The left just called him racist and that was that.

No they didn't, in fact this was explicitly brought up during the debates. It was mentioned that his solution was unconstitutional and logistically impossible to do, not to mention the fact that the percentage of immigrants that cause any problems are vanishingly small. The left repeatedly said literally ALL OF THOSE THINGS. You can use the internet and find endless analyses of the constitutionality and practicality of this Muslim ban. Somehow you've ignored it and continue to say that they just called him racist. Why?

Oh and what was the Trump campaign's response? They said he never claimed that and that's not their position. Again, a nonexistent position.

He said that he wanted to build a wall. He was called racist and that was the end from the left. His position was that illegal immigrants raised crime, and they were taking jobs. Very little was done on arguing that those ideas are wrong, and was just called a racist.

He had positions. They were bad positions, but they were positions. The people that I know who were on the left were too busy calling him a racist bigot to talk about anything else.

Again this is ludicrously false. I can link you to half a dozen pieces as to why the wall was a bad idea in addition to being racist. Hell, John Oliver devoted almost twenty full minutes of air time to examining the feasibility of the wall, and in broadcast time that is an eternity.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...u-s-mexico-border-wall-for-18-brutal-minutes/

First, let me point out that you are now arguing that there were reams and reams of criticisms for policies that you were just arguing he did not have. Either he had positions that liberals attacked him for, or he did not have positions and he was not attacked on those. Can't be both.

I think you may not be understanding my terminology here. He would say something, which people took as having a position. They would then attack that position on the merits, at which point he would declare that wasn't his position. So he was not only attacked on the merits of his positions while they existed, he then withdrew them, making them not exist.

Now, my point about the media was that those on the Right ignore all but Fox news for TV. The left gets their news from all but FOX. The middle gets their news from people and little bits of TV. When you have one side simply yelling that Trump is a racist bigot for every thing said regardless of what he said, those in the middle tune out the Left. That is what I saw happening with every argument I saw. Most on the left that I know thought everyone knew Trump would lose.

I think you're substituting anecdotal evidence for what can be easily verified.

Confirmation bias of what? Again, I think Trump's positions were mostly empty and bad. I thought people were too busy attacking him personally. How did I come up with that idea any other way than observing? I don't recall anyone making that point at the time of forming my opinion. Its not like I was ever pro Trump and willing to make excuses.

Again, your position on Trump is irrelevant. You have formed a narrative in your head where Trump was only attacked personally and not on the issues. There's lots and lots of evidence out there that clearly shows this is wrong, but you're ignoring it. It's not because you favor Trump, it's because you favor the position you already have. That's confirmation bias.

And yet you made the argument that those on the Left were attacking him on the issues. You are arguing conflicting things.

Also, dont forget the main reason I think he won. People want to become rich and they think Trump will do it. They are wrong.

How on earth are those conflicting things? Just because the left attacked him on the issues doesn't mean that was the most effective way to attack.

 

[zinfamous]

I mean there are lots of potential answers for this, but there are also some people who are probably going to be left behind and that sucks. That's also what the social safety net is for.

The thing is that these manufacturing jobs are going away because they are no longer needed due to automation. That's technological progress and it's a good thing. What America sucks at unfortunately is using the fruits of that progress to aid those displaced by it.

I don't disagree with any of this. But these are the problems that Democrats face when trying to convince those "unfortunate data points" in the middle of technological progress, that their plan is the best:

--You can offer them a social safety net, but many of them don't want it. They think of it as welfare, while they actually have a lot of pride earning their keep. This doesn't mean they are always judging people that are on assistance or always think that the lot of them are "welfare queens" (some do, of course), it is just that for them, personally, not working and receiving a simple pay check to keep you going is its own sort of prison. And this is the common criticism of welfare--depend on it long enough and it becomes a necessity. I think it does work better as a temporary program to aid people through transition, but that sort of model isn't going to fit everyone. And, well, welfare reform is a different discussion.
--They are people, not data points. Displaced people are going to be righteously pissed when they are the victims of progress. No one today mourns the unemployed stagecoach-tilters or fragmented stable boy union c 1910-1920, but I'm sure they had a lot to complain about when the Model T started rolling out and no one was listening then. Eventually, that generation will pass as will the successive generation and again, no one will mourn the non-existent coal miners or steelworkers replaced by robots and cleaner, better energy sources. But right now, those people have to live through it and bring their children up into some new paradigm that their parents probably don't understand and can't predict.

The Democratic party hasn't had much of an answer for the generations caught in the middle. It doesn't help that the Republicans are running batshit though states like Wisconsin and destroying unions left and right. It used to be that the democrats were the party that had those worker's backs. You can argue that it was just republican legislature and power that let these things happen, but the reality is that the democrats, c. 1988, stopped being the populist working-class party that supported unions, and became their own brand of high-minded, consultancy-driven, big data elitists, applying republican-level thinking and solution-eering to their own demographic base. These voters stuck around patiently and, primarily out of loyalty, respect and generational memory, watched these new grand plans keep them happy enough. But by 2000 or so, when these communities started dissolving, jobs started leaving, Unions started their dissolution (hey--what happened to that party that at least would protect my job while their great plans would work to make a better life for my kids?), drugs and crime took over, I think they started to realize that these grand plans were never going to make their lives better. Modern, advanced jobs weren't showing up in their towns (but hey, they sure did improve big city life, didn't they!), and so naturally they start looking elsewhere.

Simply, the democratic party stopped caring for their core base. Offering them great solutions from afar and asking them to be patient while the solutions come along is not caring. It's the same empty promise of "trickle-down" stupid-nomics (and well, here we go again with that one! )

 

[zinfamous]

Dammit another post I want to "like" but I'll get cut

It's OK. If you believe I've actually gone around cutting 837 other people, then you think less of me than most do.

 

[sxr7171]

You could make the same argument about manufacturing. We can export our goods only until a country like China develops the ability to manufacture them internally, as they have. Our services are head and shoulders above theirs and as in all things they continue to improve all the time. It never ends.



That's not really how imports and exports work though. China was buying US assets in order to devalue their currency, not because we needed to sell them real estate to pay for their imports. If they stopped buying US assets (as they largely have now, btw) their currency would substantially appreciate vis a vis ours if a trade deficit continued. Absent intervention trade deficits solve themselves.



The US exports an enormous amount of goods and services, but you've touched on a point that most people forget: trade is actually a tiny fraction of our economy and the vast majority of economic activity that occurs in our country is internal. That's not a problem though as that's basically true everywhere.

I agree with you. But yes China wants to devalue their currency so they can sell to us for cheap. Let's say they don't do that. What would happen to the prices of goods at Walmart? Our already non living minimum wage would go that far less. People would literally see their dollar go only $0.80. What would that do to people?

We would have to find another source for our goods. China doesn't want that so they will devalue their currency.

No doubt the majority of our economic activity is internal. Finding new and novel ways to keep that going is great and also to involve everyone.

But a lot of these service jobs are not providing a living wage and hence we have a support system to make up the gap. How big can that get and still be workable?

A point will come when there is no incentive to go to school and work hard as people will see it's better to just live off that support system than to go to school and take on enormous debt.

Companies are looking for ways constantly to save on labor by outsourcing to other countries. As this happens our standards of living will converge. Which necessarily means ours will drop. That just will happen unless we have products or sevices that other countries want to outsource to us.

You touched upon that point saying that we have an advantage and it behooves us to maintain that advantage. We can if we invest in our people and our people are incentivized to invest in themselves. But if we keep going towards a world of basic income and handouts then that incentive is no longer there. The only people who would want to participate would be foreigners who came from low standard of living countries. They want to enjoy a better living here. But as their home countries offer a better standard of living that tap will also go dry.

Basically I feel that maintain our advantage and to keep it would involve training people to perform those services that are desired by the world. Right now it seems Hollywood is a big one and American restaurants and bars and entertainment are among the most sought after in the world.

So maybe you're right and it isn't all doom and gloom for us. I have no problem at all being served by a 52 year old that his food and drink knowledge up to the best.

 

[sxr7171]

Some people would argue that China going from less than 1/6 the manufacturing of the US to surpassing the US in a few decades could have had an impact. It is useful to note that China's manufacturing R&D research is rising at a far higher rate than the United States. The state of the art will eventually migrate to Asia. Without engineering or manufacturing, a country can no longer pretend to be relevant.

You're absolutely right that even if we wash our hands of manufacturing goods at least our engineering needs to be top notch. And currently it is thanks to our universities. We can only hope that this generation of weak willed kids can handle the pressure of a high level engineering education. When I see them stage a cry a thon over anything and everything I wonder if those sturdy resilent kids from Asia will just do the work and get their degrees while our kids just take up women's studies and cry. What can we do for them? Tell them it's okay and just send them to mixology school instead?