Support NeoGAF

[Box of Kittens]

Hillary won it by 3 million votes; but GOP fuckery, voter suppression and disinformation crowned the victor to Fuckface Von Clownstck.

If we're going to discuss Trump telling blatant and easily debunked lies in the context of strategy, then it seems pointless not to account for the Electoral College. That having been said, he won MI, PA, and WI (and therefore the election) by a combined margin of less than 40K votes and this is with an unpopular opponent and both the FBI and Russia interfering on his behalf, not to mention that by all accounts he was as surprised as anyone to have won. It still seems to me like a lot of people are falling into the trap of deciding after the fact that everything the winning candidate did was brilliant and everything the losing candidate did was wrong. Such misinterpretations are likely to lead to strategic errors.

 

[Plinko]

Sorry, but the sacrifice of Jesus it's a not such a thing. We have been conditioned to think of it as such. But Jesus never really sacrificed his life. He always knew he would be back in an even more perfect body. So where's the sacrifice there?

If I give all my money today with the certainty of getting an even greater sum am I sacrificing something?

It was God's sacrifice of a son, not Jesus'. But this is probably the wrong thread for this discussion.

 

[TestOfTide]

So I've been thinking about a way to tackle the anti-free-trade rhetoric, as well as automation, and I wanted to hear PoliGAF's thoughts on it:

Basically the idea would be to have Democrats focus on proposing investing in jobs that CAN'T easily be replaced by robots. There are 5 areas that desperately need more workers in the US:

- Healthcare. In fact I would go far far as to say that the WORLD needs more healthcare workers, so investing in creating a huge healthcare workforce could be economically beneficial to the US, the world, and free trade.

- Education. The US desperately needs more teachers.

- Civil Engineering and Infrastructure. There are always more roads to fix. Plus the US desperately needs to replace all the lead pipes in our water systems.

- Green Energy. And not just for environmental reasons, but for economic reasons as well. There is lots of economic benefit to not relying on the volatility and dangers of fossil fuels.

- Cyber Security. Malware, Adware, Social Media Bots, Identity Theft, and DDOS vulnerability are all becoming bigger and bigger problems. The world desperately needs more people who can tackle these problems.

You can also have a big chunk of it be connected to military. This would enable the US to do more positive foreign intervention like the Marshall Plan, which would also flank all the pro-isolationist rhetoric that has been infecting the western world. Rather than "US goes into the Middle East" causing everyone to groan and say "oh great more shit for the war industry" it could change it so that the reaction becomes "It's good to know the US has their backs".

Finally, it needs the right kind of campaign rhetoric to get people on board. Maybe have a bunch of slogans that refers to these job investments as "The New American Workforce". Positive phrases like "We will make the New American Workforce" and "I want YOU to be a key part of the New American Workforce". It changes patriotism from ultranationalist rhetoric to rhetoric about positive changes.

Thoughts?

 

[thehypocrite]

It was God's sacrifice of a son, not Jesus'. But this is probably the wrong thread for this discussion.

It's not a sacrifice. Jesus never experienced death. Just upgrades.

 

[Plinko]

It's not a sacrifice. Jesus never experienced death. Just upgrades.

Speaking from a father's perspective, even if I knew I would see my son again, giving him up to watch him die would be a horrible experience and something I would label a sacrifice. I see your viewpoint, though.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Sorry, but the sacrifice of Jesus it's a not such a thing. We have been conditioned to think of it as such. But Jesus never really sacrificed his life. He always knew he would be back in an even more perfect body. So where's the sacrifice there?

If I give all my money today with the certainty of getting an even greater sum am I sacrificing something?

You're correct, it was a Trump like "sacrifice."

And if the Jews killed Christ, they saved humanity and should be worshipped, but instead they're hated, it makes no sense.

(and "The Jews" obviously didn't kill Christ)

 

[thehypocrite]

Speaking from a father's perspective, even if I knew I would see my son again, giving him up to watch him die would be a horrible experience and something I would label a sacrifice. I see your viewpoint, though.

I agree that's an awful, horrible thing that no parent or child should experience ever.

 

[B-Dubs]

https://twitter.com/TheOnion/status/823265701544726528

This is good, but it's no Diamond Joe or Secret Agent John Kerry.

 

[CygnusXS]

My central theory for Trump's FP is that the only "alliances" that matter are the ones that allow US capitalists to plunder other countries. Nothing else matters in FP beyond what they need to appear to care about to appease their base, and those things can be managed through lies, shouting, threats of (and possible actual) invasion or nuclear attacks.

I call it "realism for assholes."

 

[thehypocrite]

You're correct, it was a Trump like "sacrifice."

And if the Jews killed Christ, they saved humanity and should be worshipped, but instead they're hated, it makes no sense.

(and "The Jews" obviously didn't kill Christ)

Religion it's just a huge social pacifier that's imperfect and prone to violence.

 

[sphagnum]

Christianity started with God splitting a part of himself off that became human so that part could be sacrificed to end a law God created.

No split, the Son coexists eternally though he is begotten by the Father.

Sorry, but the sacrifice of Jesus it's a not such a thing. We have been conditioned to think of it as such. But Jesus never really sacrificed his life. He always knew he would be back in an even more perfect body. So where's the sacrifice there?

If I give all my money today with the certainty of getting an even greater sum am I sacrificing something?

The fully human part of him doubted (edit: and died).

You guys need to bone up on your theology!

 

[thehypocrite]

No split, the Son coexists eternally though he proceedeth from the Father.



The fully human part of him doubted.

You guys need to bone up on your theology!

The human part of him doubted indeed. But Jesus wasn't just human, which he was aware. Thus I fail to see how it undermines my core point.

 

[sphagnum]

The human part of him doubted indeed. But Jesus wasn't just human, which he was aware. Thus I fail to see how it undermines my core point.

Because hypostatic union *obfuscates with Greek philosophy*

 

[CygnusXS]

If you didn't know the Bible was a religious text and you just found it and read it, would you think it was better or worse than Lord of the Rings?

 

[Deleted member 231381]

From Aryanism to Arianism.

 

[sphagnum]

If you didn't know the Bible was a religious text and you just found it and read it, would you think it was better or worse than Lord of the Rings?

Well considering LotR wouldn't exist without Catholicism...

 

[Grexeno]

So I've been thinking about a way to tackle the anti-free-trade rhetoric, as well as automation, and I wanted to hear PoliGAF's thoughts on it:

Basically the idea would be to have Democrats focus on proposing investing in jobs that CAN'T easily be replaced by robots. There are 5 areas that desperately need more workers in the US:

- Healthcare. In fact I would go far far as to say that the WORLD needs more healthcare workers, so investing in creating a huge healthcare workforce could be economically beneficial to the US, the world, and free trade.

- Education. The US desperately needs more teachers.

- Civil Engineering and Infrastructure. There are always more roads to fix. Plus the US desperately needs to replace all the lead pipes in our water systems.

- Green Energy. And not just for environmental reasons, but for economic reasons as well. There is lots of economic benefit to not relying on the volatility and dangers of fossil fuels.

- Cyber Security. Malware, Adware, Social Media Bots, Identity Theft, and DDOS vulnerability are all becoming bigger and bigger problems. The world desperately needs more people who can tackle these problems.

You can also have a big chunk of it be connected to military. This would enable the US to do more positive foreign intervention like the Marshall Plan, which would also flank all the pro-isolationist rhetoric that has been infecting the western world. Rather than "US goes into the Middle East" causing everyone to groan and say "oh great more shit for the war industry" it could change it so that the reaction becomes "It's good to know the US has their backs".

Finally, it needs the right kind of campaign rhetoric to get people on board. Maybe have a bunch of slogans that refers to these job investments as "The New American Workforce". Positive phrases like "We will make the New American Workforce" and "I want YOU to be a key part of the New American Workforce". It changes patriotism from ultranationalist rhetoric to rhetoric about positive changes.

Thoughts?

No one wants to be part of a "New American Workforce."

They want the old workforce back exactly as they remember it.

 

[CygnusXS]

Well considering LotR wouldn't exist without Catholicism...

Two Towers > Fellowship > The Bible > RotK

 

[sphagnum]

Two Towers > Fellowship > The Bible > RotK

Uh excuse me, if you're going to break it down like this then you need to separate and judge each book of the Bible, from each canon .

 

[CygnusXS]

Uh excuse me, if you're going to break it down like this then you need to separate and judge each book of the Bible, from each canon .

RotK is worse than all of them

 

[nitronite]

So I've been thinking about a way to tackle the anti-free-trade rhetoric, as well as automation, and I wanted to hear PoliGAF's thoughts on it:

Basically the idea would be to have Democrats focus on proposing investing in jobs that CAN'T easily be replaced by robots. There are 5 areas that desperately need more workers in the US:

- Healthcare. In fact I would go far far as to say that the WORLD needs more healthcare workers, so investing in creating a huge healthcare workforce could be economically beneficial to the US, the world, and free trade.

- Education. The US desperately needs more teachers.

- Civil Engineering and Infrastructure. There are always more roads to fix. Plus the US desperately needs to replace all the lead pipes in our water systems.

- Green Energy. And not just for environmental reasons, but for economic reasons as well. There is lots of economic benefit to not relying on the volatility and dangers of fossil fuels.

- Cyber Security. Malware, Adware, Social Media Bots, Identity Theft, and DDOS vulnerability are all becoming bigger and bigger problems. The world desperately needs more people who can tackle these problems.

You can also have a big chunk of it be connected to military. This would enable the US to do more positive foreign intervention like the Marshall Plan, which would also flank all the pro-isolationist rhetoric that has been infecting the western world. Rather than "US goes into the Middle East" causing everyone to groan and say "oh great more shit for the war industry" it could change it so that the reaction becomes "It's good to know the US has their backs".

Finally, it needs the right kind of campaign rhetoric to get people on board. Maybe have a bunch of slogans that refers to these job investments as "The New American Workforce". Positive phrases like "We will make the New American Workforce" and "I want YOU to be a key part of the New American Workforce". It changes patriotism from ultranationalist rhetoric to rhetoric about positive changes.

Thoughts?

Unfortunately, it seems to me that to increase the number of jobs in most of the areas you mentioned you would need drastically increased taxation, which is often quite unpopular even on sites like neogaf (just look at any old thread where posters calculate the effects of Bernie's tax plan). You would, obviously, have to sweeten the message by saying that most of the burden would fall on the rich and corporations or something to that effect.

I agree with the slogan, though, and it sounds effective.

 

[thehypocrite]

Because hypostatic union *obfuscates with Greek philosophy*

Lol

If you didn't know the Bible was a religious text and you just found it and read it, would you think it was better or worse than Lord of the Rings?

Well, if I compare their fandom I would say I prefer LOTR. The books are really hard to compare.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

If we're going to discuss Trump telling blatant and easily debunked lies in the context of strategy, then it seems pointless not to account for the Electoral College. That having been said, he won MI, PA, and WI (and therefore the election) by a combined margin of less than 40K votes and this is with an unpopular opponent and both the FBI and Russia interfering on his behalf, not to mention that by all accounts he was as surprised as anyone to have won. It still seems to me like a lot of people are falling into the trap of deciding after the fact that everything the winning candidate did was brilliant and everything the losing candidate did was wrong. Such misinterpretations are likely to lead to strategic errors.

Yeah, I think enough people are saying "Don't underestimate the GOP" but we do need to make sure we don't overestimate them. That sort of thinking could lead to future decisions like "We lost 3 traditional blue states, guess we should make sure we don't lose more by campaigning in Vermont!"

We only have finite resources. Strategy is meaningless otherwise (since with infinite resources, you just invest them everywhere).

So I've been thinking about a way to tackle the anti-free-trade rhetoric, as well as automation, and I wanted to hear PoliGAF's thoughts on it:

Basically the idea would be to have Democrats focus on proposing investing in jobs that CAN'T easily be replaced by robots. There are 5 areas that desperately need more workers in the US:

- Healthcare. In fact I would go far far as to say that the WORLD needs more healthcare workers, so investing in creating a huge healthcare workforce could be economically beneficial to the US, the world, and free trade.

- Education. The US desperately needs more teachers.

- Civil Engineering and Infrastructure. There are always more roads to fix. Plus the US desperately needs to replace all the lead pipes in our water systems.

- Green Energy. And not just for environmental reasons, but for economic reasons as well. There is lots of economic benefit to not relying on the volatility and dangers of fossil fuels.

- Cyber Security. Malware, Adware, Social Media Bots, Identity Theft, and DDOS vulnerability are all becoming bigger and bigger problems. The world desperately needs more people who can tackle these problems.

You can also have a big chunk of it be connected to military. This would enable the US to do more positive foreign intervention like the Marshall Plan, which would also flank all the pro-isolationist rhetoric that has been infecting the western world. Rather than "US goes into the Middle East" causing everyone to groan and say "oh great more shit for the war industry" it could change it so that the reaction becomes "It's good to know the US has their backs".

Finally, it needs the right kind of campaign rhetoric to get people on board. Maybe have a bunch of slogans that refers to these job investments as "The New American Workforce". Positive phrases like "We will make the New American Workforce" and "I want YOU to be a key part of the New American Workforce". It changes patriotism from ultranationalist rhetoric to rhetoric about positive changes.

Thoughts?

I like all of this, especially the military part. But I'd go further and tie in infrastructure to the military. Right now, we're letting people out of their contracts early because we've got so many people getting recruited. Let's not release those contracts, and instead put these people into some civil engineering courses, and then get them out there during peacetime building shit.

No one slashes the military's budget, so just start finding ways to sneak stuff into that as a national security issue. It's why we have the interstate.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

It's not a sacrifice. Jesus never experienced death. Just upgrades.

Literally part of the Apostles' Creed is that Jesus went to Hell for three days.

But whatever, again, GAF isn't the place to talk about this. And I'm not even that religious anymore!

RotK is worse than all of them

Someone clearly hasn't tried reading Leviticus.

 

[sphagnum]

A better question might be the Book of Mormon vs. The Hobbit (films).

 

[Oblivion]

Thought I'd get in on the fun with the Richard Spencer thing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zv_3F1e68C0&feature=youtu.be

Quick and dirty, but WHATEVER.

 

[thefro]

A better question might be the Book of Mormon vs. The Hobbit (films).

South Park guys + EGOT winning Avenue Q/Frozen composer > Bloated Peter Jackson trilogy.

 

[Dan]

https://twitter.com/andrewbeatty/status/823272109946404866

I do hope there's video of that.

Without audio, Trump calling Comey over: https://twitter.com/richardhine/status/823275097909817344

 

[TestOfTide]

No one wants to be part of a "New American Workforce."

They want the old workforce back exactly as they remember it.

Nostalgia is a powerful thing, but:

1) This issue is not just affecting old Rust Belt workers, but also affects a lot of millennials who exit college only to find their degrees aren't getting the great jobs they were hoping for.

2) I forgot the part that a key aspect of this would be emphasizing that the jobs will be brought to them, not the other way around. As in actually investing in building up parts of America quite literally with schools, hospitals, and places to train people for those 5 job fields.

Unfortunately, it seems to me that to increase the number of jobs in most of the areas you mentioned you would need drastically increased taxation, which is often quite unpopular even on sites like neogaf (just look at any old thread where posters calculate the effects of Bernie's tax plan). You would, obviously, have to sweeten the message by saying that most of the burden would fall on the rich and corporations or something to that effect.

I agree with the slogan, though, and it sounds effective.

True. I guess the best way to tackle this problem would be the following:

- Emphasize that the jobs themselves will ease the burden of our national debt by having a stronger economy
- Don't get too specific about taxes during the campaign, but just hint at it with rhetoric about taxing "special interest groups"
- "Hiding" some of this spending by putting it under the umbrella of "military spending", because when it's military spending conservatives tend to suddenly not care about reducing spending.

I like all of this, especially the military part. But I'd go further and tie in infrastructure to the military. Right now, we're letting people out of their contracts early because we've got so many people getting recruited. Let's not release those contracts, and instead put these people into some civil engineering courses, and then get them out there during peacetime building shit.

No one slashes the military's budget, so just start finding ways to sneak stuff into that as a national security issue. It's why we have the interstate.

Good idea. I'll make sure to add that. And yeah, one of the reasons it would be great to have part of it under the umbrella of "military spending" is because it would make it easier for conservative legislators to vote for it.


I also think my jobs idea could be tied to immigration reform. I'll go into my ideas for immigration reform campaigning another time, but maybe as a way to flank the GOP's rhetoric, particularly about how amnesty supposedly would piss of legal immigrants and how illegal immigration supposedly shouldn't go unpunished, would be by having amnesty but making the program somewhat exclusive towards those given amnesty. Yes it's kind of harsh, but it's not saying that those given amnesty are not allowed to get jobs in those fields but rather that they can't use the training and employment programs of the plan.

 

[1.21Gigawatts]

I heard some channels I subscribed to on Youtube talking about a liberal/libertarian alliance recently. I've heard it a lot on TYT and Secular Talk for example.

I wanted to know what you guys opinions are on that.


I personally think its a really, really dangerous idea.
The only issues liberals and libertarian overlap is social issues.
Liberal believe in marriage equality, LGBTQ rights and a right to choose.
Libertarians, in my experience, don't. They just don't give a fuck and think that government should fuck off and as a result everyone can do whatever they want.

But thats not really the problem, the problem is that other than for social issues, liberal and libertarian goal are quite the opposite.
As a liberal I believe in fairness, meaning that the government should make sure that we all have equal opportunities. This make free universal healthcare, free quality education until University, a tight social net preventing homelessness and many more things necessary.
As a liberal I believe in big government. A big government for and by the people. Social democracy.

These things are the polar opposites of what libertarians believe.

I am sure many of you have seen this picture:

Its simplified but I think it illustrates the basic problem pretty good.


Whenever I encountered libertarians I heard insanely crude view about government and how evil it is. Weird concepts of freedom and equality.
Especially as a European, I just don't get this philosophy. It seems so misguided and misinformed and fearful and I think that very dangerous and I hope democrats don't make the mistake to try to cater to that crowd one bit.

Less government is exactly the wrong way to go for the US. Even if that sounds weird now with Trump and his autocratic antics at the top.

 

[thepotatoman]

Reincarnation for people who died too young seems like a much better retcon than Purgatory also.

Even better might be universalist christians who believe everyone will be saved, sooner or later.

But Purgatory and reincarnation are much better retcons than predestination and prosperity theology that many american evangelicals believe in, which really enables people to use religion as an excuse to be assholes.

 

[Oblivion]

A liberal/libertarian alliance will never, ever happen solely due to the fact that 90% of libertarians tend to be Republicans.

 

[kirblar]

A liberal/libertarian alliance will never, ever happen solely due to the fact that 90% of libertarians tend to be Republicans.

It's the same issue you have with the leftists- they're largely white/male and are personally unaffected by social issues.

"Liberaltarianism" (aka using Libertarian methods to achieve liberal policy goals) does actually tend to work well, however. One understated advantage of bringing the insurance companies in on the ACA- do you think they're quietly sitting around while the GOP threatens to destroy the marketplace? (answer: no, they're providing pressure to keep it)

 

[nitronite]

Without audio, Trump calling Comey over: https://twitter.com/richardhine/status/823275097909817344

With sound

 

[TestOfTide]

I heard some channels I subscribed to on Youtube talking about a liberal/libertarian alliance recently. I've heard it a lot on TYT and Secular Talk for example.

I wanted to know what you guys opinions are on that.


I personally think its a really, really dangerous idea.
The only issues liberals and libertarian overlap is social issues.
Liberal believe in marriage equality, LGBTQ rights and a right to choose.
Libertarians, in my experience, don't. They just don't give a fuck and think that government should fuck off and as a result everyone can do whatever they want.

But thats not really the problem, the problem is that other than for social issues, liberal and libertarian goal are quite the opposite.
As a liberal I believe in fairness, meaning that the government should make sure that we all have equal opportunities. This make free universal healthcare, free quality education until University, a tight social net preventing homelessness and many more things necessary.
As a liberal I believe in big government. A big government for and by the people. Social democracy.

These things are the polar opposites of what libertarians believe.

I am sure many of you have seen this picture:

Its simplified but I think it illustrates the basic problem pretty good.


Whenever I encountered libertarians I heard insanely crude view about government and how evil it is. Weird concepts of freedom and equality.
Especially as a European, I just don't get this philosophy. It seems so misguided and misinformed and fearful and I think that very dangerous and I hope democrats don't make the mistake to try to cater to that crowd one bit.

Less government is exactly the wrong way to go for the US. Even if that sounds weird now with Trump and his autocratic antics at the top.

Depends on what you mean by "libertarian":

- If by "libertarians" you mean moderate conservatives like Bill Weld, then I think there is very good potential, particularly in using Trump as something to unify everyone against.

- If by "libertarians" you mean nut-cases who actually believe in extremist libertarian ideology, those people are Trump fans and there is NO potential for an alliance.

- If by "libertarians" you mean certain kinds of rural voters who tend to like voting for less taxes but aren't actively social conservative (rather they tend to be very "it don't hurt me so I don't see a problem with it"), I think alliance would be the wrong word but I think there is potential to get those kind of people to vote for Blue Dog Democrats again.

 

[CygnusXS]

Paleolibertarians want nothing to do with the Left. They think liberal states interfere in the proper social ordering created by God. Hence the racism.

 

[sphagnum]

It's the same issue you have with the leftists- they're largely white/male

This is ridiculous.

 

[tedrotheredro]

With sound

I thought Paul Ryan's shit-eating grin would trigger me the most this weekend, but this takes the cake.

 

[UberTag]

I thought Paul Ryan's shit-eating grin would trigger me the most this weekend, but this takes the cake.

He even had his train seals clap in unison while he blew a kiss to the man who helped steal the election for him.
You SHOULD be triggered. Trump is FLAUNTING the fact that he compromised the will of the people. FLAUNTING it.

 

[thepotatoman]

So I've been thinking about a way to tackle the anti-free-trade rhetoric, as well as automation, and I wanted to hear PoliGAF's thoughts on it:

Basically the idea would be to have Democrats focus on proposing investing in jobs that CAN'T easily be replaced by robots. There are 5 areas that desperately need more workers in the US:

- Healthcare. In fact I would go far far as to say that the WORLD needs more healthcare workers, so investing in creating a huge healthcare workforce could be economically beneficial to the US, the world, and free trade.

- Education. The US desperately needs more teachers.

- Civil Engineering and Infrastructure. There are always more roads to fix. Plus the US desperately needs to replace all the lead pipes in our water systems.

- Green Energy. And not just for environmental reasons, but for economic reasons as well. There is lots of economic benefit to not relying on the volatility and dangers of fossil fuels.

- Cyber Security. Malware, Adware, Social Media Bots, Identity Theft, and DDOS vulnerability are all becoming bigger and bigger problems. The world desperately needs more people who can tackle these problems.

You can also have a big chunk of it be connected to military. This would enable the US to do more positive foreign intervention like the Marshall Plan, which would also flank all the pro-isolationist rhetoric that has been infecting the western world. Rather than "US goes into the Middle East" causing everyone to groan and say "oh great more shit for the war industry" it could change it so that the reaction becomes "It's good to know the US has their backs".

Finally, it needs the right kind of campaign rhetoric to get people on board. Maybe have a bunch of slogans that refers to these job investments as "The New American Workforce". Positive phrases like "We will make the New American Workforce" and "I want YOU to be a key part of the New American Workforce". It changes patriotism from ultranationalist rhetoric to rhetoric about positive changes.

Thoughts?

How much of that can you with only a high school education? I think a big reason for the educated split is trump was the only one promising well paying jobs you don't have to go to college for. Hillary's answer was debt free college, which doesn't sound great to people that just aren't academic, or feel that the time to go to school has passed for them.

The other thing it's missing is something that will help wages. Hillary's answer for that was minimum wage hikes, where 12 dollars an hour still doesn't sound so great for a thankless career with no benefits. I think her profit sharing plan was onto something, but it was flawed in some details and never promoted outside deep dark corners of her website.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

How much of that can you with only a high school education? I think a big reason for the educated split is trump was the only one promising well paying jobs you don't have to go to college for. Hillary's answer was debt free college, which doesn't sound great to people that just aren't academic, or feel that the time to go to school has passed for them.

The other thing it's missing is something that will help wages. Hillary's answer for that was minimum wage hikes, where 12 dollars an hour still doesn't sound so great for a thankless career with no benefits. I think her profit sharing plan was onto something, but it was flawed in some details and never promoted outside deep dark corners of her website.

Well, this is my thing again, where publicly candidates need to say this a lot softer than I do, but there simply aren't jobs for people with no degree beyond high school. That level of education is now no different than telling people that you made it all the way to 6th grade. It's certainly something worth striving for (versus dropping out), but it's never going to get you a real career.

Hell, even some of the stats on this (depressing as they are for folks in this situation) are actually telling a better story than reality. A lot of people working in high-paying STEM jobs (specifically comp sci/code stuff) don't have college degrees and they wildly inflate (especially depending on the area) the salary for non-college workers.

Remove those people, and it's pretty dire for people that want to work a job that requires no extra training or mental component.

 

[JesseEwiak]

This is ridiculous.

Even other DSA members have tweeted out issues with DSA meetings being 70% "dirtbag left" white dudes.

 

[hawk2025]

Alright, y'all.

I know that most of you probably don't remember that I was posting here, but I've licked my wounds from that fucking November blow and I'm back on PoliGAF.

I will start by saying that the idea of a Libertarian "alliance" -- whatever that means -- is ridiculous.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

Alright, y'all.

I know that most of you probably don't remember that I was posting here, but I've licked my wounds from that fucking November blow and I'm back on PoliGAF.

I remembered! Time to resist.

And yes, people that go the distance and call themselves libertarians are not good looks for votes. I'd rather (if we're going to maintain our Hillary-style strategy for places like Texas and Arizona) focus on people that say the same shit as libertarians in private ("I don't care if you're gay or not!" types) who don't worship business as a god. We flipped a lot of those people this year, and to keep the push for the Sun Belt going strong, I think you need to keep up the Suburbia takeover.

 

[Vixdean]

Libertarians are Republicans who don't want to admit they hate minorities and women. I can't understand how some people haven't figured this out yet.

 

[TestOfTide]

How much of that can you with only a high school education? I think a big reason for the educated split is trump was the only one promising well paying jobs you don't have to go to college for. Hillary's answer was debt free college, which doesn't sound great to people that just aren't academic, or feel that the time to go to school has passed for them.

The idea is that you bring training programs to these people. Obviously you don't start them with the top tier jobs in these fields, but instead with jobs that you can train these people for within 6 months to a year depending on the area (with the exception being education which would best involve hiring those with college degrees looking for work).

The other thing it's missing is something that will help wages. Hillary's answer for that was minimum wage hikes, where 12 dollars an hour still doesn't sound so great for a thankless career with no benefits. I think her profit sharing plan was onto something, but it was flawed in some details and never promoted outside deep dark corners of her website.

I'll try to figure out how to fit wage rhetoric into it.

Well, this is my thing again, where publicly candidates need to say this a lot softer than I do, but there simply aren't jobs for people with no degree beyond high school. That level of education is now no different than telling people that you made it all the way to 6th grade. It's certainly something worth striving for (versus dropping out), but it's never going to get you a real career.

Hell, even some of the stats on this (depressing as they are for folks in this situation) are actually telling a better story than reality. A lot of people working in high-paying STEM jobs (specifically comp sci/code stuff) don't have college degrees and they wildly inflate (especially depending on the area) the salary for non-college workers.

Remove those people, and it's pretty dire for people that want to work a job that requires no extra training or mental component.

You don't think there are any jobs in any the five fields I mentioned that low-education workers could be trained for?

 

[UberTag]

The idea is that you bring training programs to these people. Obviously you don't start them with the top tier jobs in these fields, but instead with jobs that you can train these people for within 6 months to a year depending on the area (with the exception being education which would best involve hiring those with college degrees looking for work).

In other words, frame the conversation around apprenticeships. Seems sensible to me.

 

[Aaronology]

Alright, y'all.

I know that most of you probably don't remember that I was posting here, but I've licked my wounds from that fucking November blow and I'm back on PoliGAF.

I will start by saying that the idea of a Libertarian "alliance" -- whatever that means -- is ridiculous.

Congrats on the bounce back. It took me a second to do so, as well. I relate!

 

[AntraxSuicide]

The idea is that you bring training programs to these people. Obviously you don't start them with the top tier jobs in these fields, but instead with jobs that you can train these people for within 6 months to a year depending on the area (with the exception being education which would best involve hiring those with college degrees looking for work).



I'll try to figure out how to fit wage rhetoric into it.



You don't think there are any jobs in any the five fields I mentioned that low-education workers could be trained for?

"Trained" is the operative word there. I totally agree with you, but that comment was directed at the assertion of "what can you do with a high school diploma?" Adding training on top of that removes you from the groups that this election typically talks about. The people that are really going to have to adapt or die are the people that don't even want to go back and get tech certs and stuff like that. These are the people that basically want a unicorn.

 

[TestOfTide]

In other words, frame the conversation around apprenticeships. Seems sensible to me.

Exactly. And the government benefits being apprenticeships flanks the anti-entitlement rhetoric. I know because during my campaign canvassing I found that whenever I found a voter who said they didn't like the government giving "handouts" I found lots of success responding with suggestion of apprenticeship programs.

"Trained" is the operative word there. I totally agree with you, but that comment was directed at the assertion of "what can you do with a high school diploma?" Adding training on top of that removes you from the groups that this election typically talks about. The people that are really going to have to adapt or die are the people that don't even want to go back and get tech certs and stuff like that. These are the people that basically want a unicorn.

I doubt that all of those Rust Belt voters are that stubborn that they would refuse a training program if it was literally brought to their local area.