Thought provoking read

[Long Run]

If Clinton was emphasizing solutions to dislocation and problems in the regions/industries hurt over the past 30-40 years, then she did a poor job of it (as opposed to 2008 when that was her platform in the primary). Right or wrong, she appeared beholden to the new economy, full-on environmental agenda (rather than a balanced approach), social causes, and similar "special" interests, which primarily appeals to people in well-off areas who can afford to worry about having free-range, organic-vegetarian-fed, chickens, and non-GMO rice. Those areas are concentrated on the coasts and a few big cities in the middle of the country. Essentially, she espoused more of the same -- the agenda that sounds good to an insulated population that has it good, but doesn't play in Peoria. Trump, for all of his faults, saw the disenchantment, and with his considerable energy appealed to enough people to win. And the anger/disinclination toward that "elite" view was not just a Trump phenomenon since the R's have effectively used it to gain control of the House, the Senate, and the vast majority of states. To refuse to understand the authenticity of the winning viewpoint, simply proves the point of the original post.

[ex-khobar Andy]

Coal is disappearing for the same reason we have fewer farriers and ostlers and whalers than we did in great grandpa's day: it no longer makes economic sense. Trucking and taxi driving will be gone in 20 years (or at least as uncommon as butlers) so the 'carnage' wrought by automation will continue. I pulled this from Wikipedia but I have not checked the source: In 1870, almost 50 percent of the US population was employed in agriculture. As of 2008, less than 2 percent of the population is directly employed. Those who say Trump is doing what he said he would do are missing the point. He is certainly (actually not, but for the sake of this argument I will give him a pass) building a wall and banning Muslims as he said he would: but if you remember the purpose of all this was to protect Americans and their jobs. Walls and abolition of TPP and protectionism will, even if he is successful at achieving these thing, do neither.

[Guinevere]

To refuse to understand the authenticity of the winning viewpoint, simply proves the point of the original post.

Using it as a successful political lever and actually creating more old economy jobs are two different things. The World has changed and moved on. We aren't going backwards, no matter how much some people would like that. At the end of the day, I'll bet that the regime doesn't create any new old economy jobs, and the only way it keeps any existing ones in place is by paying some type of subsidy (including extreme tariffs). A strategy that may work for an election cycle but isn't a long term solution.

[wesw]

one little EMP weapon usage and we will go backwards faster than you can say the "dark age"

one little release of some genetically modified pathogen and all hell will break loose.

this utopian fantasy where machines do all the work and humans are left to navel gaze and evolve into some higher form is just pie in the sky fantasy.

I m sure that guin would love to be able to exterminate all the inferior "little people" and let technology unplug her toilet or roof her house, but it just ain t gonna happen...

...and if it does happen it ain t gonna last.

there are barbarians at the gate and the gate is open.

unfortunately for guin she is getting a bit long in the tooth to be kept as a comfort woman.....

there is always the laundry.

maybe they ll keep her to do the laundry.....

if anarchy does break out the cities will be slaughter houses.

the crips or the bloods or ms13 would love a nice beach house.....

so "rise up" , guin.....

if it really ever happens you will regret your part in bringing about the revolution

you surely will.

standing on your porch and yelling about how liberal and enlightened you are will not make a damned bit of difference.

be careful what you wish for and what you facilitate.

your attack dogs might just turn on you .....

[Lord Jim]

Some observations:

I believe just as many voted for Trump because he was had a prick and she didn't.

I believe that's a fairly limited group for this reason:

If a person votes solely based on gender, that means they not only would vote for Trump over Clinton on that basis, but that they would also vote for a liberal Democratic male candidate over a conservative Republican female candidate.

Are there men who voted for Trump over Clinton who would also vote for a liberal male Democrat over a conservative Republican female? I'm sure there are some in a nation this large, but I seriously doubt that it's a very substantial percentage.

Frankly I suspect there's probably a much higher percentage of voters (male and female) who voted for Trump who wouldn't have if they thought he was actually going to win. People who didn't really want Trump but who also didn't like Hillary and didn't want her to win by a landslide so she could claim a "mandate". (I know a couple of people personally in that category.)

I saw a poll recently that showed that the voters who said they didn't like either one of them, (about 20% of the voters overall; frankly I was surprised it wasn't higher) broke for Trump by 60%-40%. I have to believe that in that percentage of the vote Trump got are a significant number of people who thought they were casting a protest vote against a big Hillary win, and never really wanted Trump elected. (I'd really like to see some polling on that.)

Just look at the crap the King Trumpanzee is doing that would be generating screams of outrage if it was HRC

In all fairness, during the campaign Trump got away with saying and doing all kinds of shit that would have forced just about any other candidate from the race, male or female, Democrat or Republican...

There is a double standard, but the double standard seems to be "Donald Trump versus anybody else"...

(It's true that Hillary's work schedule as President might have received more scrutiny than Trump's has, but that could be logically explained by the "health issue" that got introduced in the campaign and got amplified by her stumble getting into that car)

The use of the term "elites" is a contentless intended insult.

Spoken like a true elitist...

People can have an elitist attitude without actually being a part of any elite...(You're a superb example)

Wasn't it you who said calling people ignorant wasn't insulting, and that being condescending was unavoidable? (Yeah, it was.)

Fast, quiet, efficient, safe and no annoying security checks. Hop out of a cab, validate your TGV ticket at the station, hop on the train and it takes off. No checkin, no security checks. Voila!

Do try to keep up:

A year after the Thalys attack, how has European train security changed?

France has implemented the tightest controls. Security checkpoints, similar to the metal detectors at airports, have been put in place in Lille and the Gare du Nord railway station in Paris. Passengers must be present at least 20 minutes before their departure; wait times have increased accordingly. These changes, however, apply only to the high-speed Thalys train. Other trains are monitored by random searches from an increased number of security personnel.

Police and plainclothes security officials move through the train cars to apprehend suspicious individuals. At several stations, passengers are required to go through a document check before boarding. Separate name tickets to supplement the travel tickets, as once proposed by European interior and travel ministers, are not in place as of yet.

http://www.dw.com/en/a-year-after-the-t ... a-19489053

Belgium, France and the Netherlands Will Check IDs on High-Speed Trains

Belgium has sealed an agreement with France and the Netherlands to draw up passenger lists and introduce passport checks on Thalys and Eurostar international rail services.

Interior Minister Jan Jambon told VRT broadcaster Friday that the move will tighten security on the high-speed trains and help track criminals who might be using them.

https://skift.com/2017/01/28/belgium-fr ... ed-trains/

Germany Open to Discussing Name Records for Train Travelers

BERLIN — Germany says it is willing to discuss with Belgium the possibility of recording passenger data for travelers on international trains.

Belgium, France and the Netherlands reached an agreement last week to draw up passenger lists and introduce passport checks on cross-border rail links. The move was described as an effort to tighten security on Thalys and Eurostar high-speed trains and help track criminals who might be using them.

https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2017/0 ... urity.html

Security on high speed rail in Europe hasn't yet reached airport levels, but it's clearly headed in that direction, (probably one more terrorist attack on a train away) and it's already far from the idyllic situation that you erroneously described.

[Crackpot]

The fact that coal is dying doesn't s change the fact that it is causing regions of the country to hurt. What about funding retraining as well as incentives to companies that locate in affected areas? Something to show that you recognize that thier fading livelihood is a problem. Seriously is it that fucking hard?

[Crackpot]

I also note how instead of addressing the problem you resorted to ad hominem.

[Guinevere]

The fact that coal is dying doesn't s change the fact that it is causing regions of the country to hurt. What about funding retraining as well as incentives to companies that locate in affected areas? Something to show that you recognize that thier fading livelihood is a problem. Seriously is it that fucking hard?

CP, if not explicit enough that's certainly included within the scope of what I said. Retraining would be funded. What kind of company incentives are you looking for? To whom do they accrue, the corporation? The employees? The communities?

What else do you think would be helpful? I think there are tons of good jobs if we could get off our asses and fund infrastructure improvements. Obama did some of that and the work funneled all the way down to cities and towns. But we need lots lots more. How does it get funded? What's the revenue source?

[Crackpot]

The problem is it isn't and hasn't been included in what has been said. The recovery has been extremely regional and has largely been centered on large population areas. There are regions in my state that have been waiting since al least the Clinton recession to see some of this "recovery" both parties have been talking about. Vague platitudes about a rising tide lifts all boats isn't going to cut it any more. (Most rural areas feel miles away from shore with no water in sight)

I do think tax incentives to companies that build and provide jobs in troubled areas are something worth looking into. As for funding if all else fails raise taxes.

My entire point is those in small cities to rural areas feel left behind by the policies of the government. One party completely ignores them, the other at least acknowledges there is a problem (even though it is then ignored). Guess who gets the votes.

[Guinevere]

That's why I asked. I don't want to ignore those feeling cut off, nor do I want my party to ignore them either. Help me understand so I can be better informed, share that information, and help come up with solutions.

[rubato]

If Clinton was emphasizing solutions to dislocation and problems in the regions/industries hurt over the past 30-40 years, then she did a poor job of it (as opposed to 2008 when that was her platform in the primary). Right or wrong, she appeared beholden to the new economy, full-on environmental agenda (rather than a balanced approach), social causes, and similar "special" interests, which primarily appeals to people in well-off areas who can afford to worry about having free-range, organic-vegetarian-fed, chickens, and non-GMO rice. Those areas are concentrated on the coasts and a few big cities in the middle of the country. Essentially, she espoused more of the same -- the agenda that sounds good to an insulated population that has it good, but doesn't play in Peoria. Trump, for all of his faults, saw the disenchantment, and with his considerable energy appealed to enough people to win. And the anger/disinclination toward that "elite" view was not just a Trump phenomenon since the R's have effectively used it to gain control of the House, the Senate, and the vast majority of states. To refuse to understand the authenticity of the winning viewpoint, simply proves the point of the original post.

Goodness, you do lard things up with the kind of bullshit ideas Rush Limbaugh promotes.

The winning rhetoric was effective but not authentic and it will harm the middle classes just as badly as it did when Bush carried out that agenda and caused the worst economic disaster in 80 years. The winning rhetoric is based on convincing people of things which are false.

The "new economy" is the world we all live in calling it a "special interest" is lunatic.

Environmentalism is important to everybody who does not want their children's brains permanently damaged by lead exposure; it is a universal not a 'special' interest.

"Free Range" chickens cannot be vegetarian. you can have one or the other but not both.

yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

"Free Range" chickens cannot be vegetarian. you can have one or the other but not both.

free-range, organic-vegetarian-fed, chickens,

Read much?

[Joe Guy]

Actually, a chicken or any other animal couldn't be a vegetarian, free range or not, since being one is a choice someone makes.

That's like saying a kangaroo can choose to become an American citizen.... or something....

[liberty]

The coastal "elites" are all for the underdog, the down trodden, the minority except for when they are a white male redneck in bumfuck middle America. Then he is called stupid and told with his white privelege he should be in much better financial shape.

Small areas (aka middle America) forgotten, ignored, ridiculed by the "coastals" and/or washington elite.

Who exactly are these "coastal elites" who are ignoring, insulting and ridiculing middle America? Because I call bullshit. This is yet another boogeyman invented by the right-wing punditocracy specifically to induce a sense of resentment and fuel a myth of grievance. Did Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders or Martin O'Malley or Elizabeth Warren or Harry Reid or Chuck Schumer or Nancy Pelosi or anyone in the Democratic Party leadership call "white male rednecks in bumfuck middle America" stupid? Or is it just the right-wing media weasels like Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and Steve Bannon who spread the lie that "those liberals think you're stupid," and "those liberals don't care about you, they only care about The Blacks and The Mooselimbs and destroying America by persecuting Christians with Sharia law."

you, enemy

[liberty]

To refuse to understand the authenticity of the winning viewpoint, simply proves the point of the original post.

Using it as a successful political lever and actually creating more old economy jobs are two different things. The World has changed and moved on. We aren't going backwards, no matter how much some people would like that. At the end of the day, I'll bet that the regime doesn't create any new old economy jobs, and the only way it keeps any existing ones in place is by paying some type of subsidy (including extreme tariffs). A strategy that may work for an election cycle but isn't a long term solution.

may be you

[liberty]

That opinion piece is mostly BS, with a salting of outright lies

I'm pretty much inclined to agree with that description regarding this article...

But I think I'll also save that quote to use as a descriptor for the next time I see something posted here written by Jim Wrong...

Or Paul Krugman...

Or Brad DeLong...

Definitely an elite, but may be not an enemy. Some born and raised in the big house have been helpful and understanding of the lower classes.

[liberty]

I am sure there are others here that hate despise, the middle, but I don't have time to go on with this. Who was it who said, " There are two kinds of people in this country, liberals and Americans".

[Joe Guy]

I am sure there are others here that hate despise, the middle, but I don't have time to go on with this. Who was it who said, " There are two kinds of people in this country, liberals and Americans".

That was James Watt, Secretary of Interior under Reagan. In 1995 he was indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice. He was the guy who described an advisory panel as ideally balanced for including ''a black, a woman, two Jews and a cripple.''

I can see why you can relate to him.

link

link

[BoSoxGal]

Bravo on that comeback, Joe.

[rubato]

Actually, a chicken or any other animal couldn't be a vegetarian, free range or not, since being one is a choice someone makes.

That's like saying a kangaroo can choose to become an American citizen.... or something....

There are, or at least there were, laying hens which are raised on a vegetarian diet for some supposed health benefit. Back in the early 70s I tried the eggs and they were pretty tasteless.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... ba2184224b

“Chickens are the furthest thing from vegetarians,” Harris said. “That advertising is ridiculous. It’s like people going to the zoo and saying they only want to see the vegetarian tiger.”

yrs,
rubato