Support NeoGAF

[Averon]

No Ragrets

Jesus Christ.

I feel angry reading that. How can you help these people when attitudes like this is so dominate?

They continue stabbing themselves and are getting pissy that other people aren't stepping in to get them to stop. How about dropping the knife and get help?

 

[Valhelm]

LOL - wut? I mean, at least put some effort into being a contrarian. This doesn't even make sense.

Hillary Clinton ran on a very detailed plan for re-purposing these old industry towns and retraining their workers to lead the world in clean energy production. That had everything to do with not wanting to leave these old coal towns behind. Even a cursory knowledge of what Hillary actually ran on, and not sipping the Bernie kool aid, would tell you this.

But you know what happened? Republicans actually ran on her plans as being proof that "Democrats want to sink America's great coal industry! Coal would be BOOMING if it weren't for those damn liberal coastal elites!"

Hillary's plan was obviously a lot better than what Trump shat out, but being better than the Republicans isn't a very high bar. Clinton's plan may have been well-thought out, but it was both insufficient and poorly marketed. Her strategy for revitalizing coal communities was very right-wing, relying mostly on the benevolence of investors rather than actually bringing jobs to these communities. There was little certainty to her proposal, because so much of it depended on private-sector activities encouraged by some meager funding.

I don't see why a Democratic candidate cannot guarantee employment, or at least a lifetime pension, for people with no job prospects facing unemployment.

 

[bachikarn]

I'm a little skeptical of the claims that these small coal towns contributed a lot of electricity to Seattle. Hydroeletric is huge here, and I don't think it was a recent boom.

The most recent official fuel mix statistics by the state of Washington for Seattle City Light show approximately 89.6% hydroelectric, 4.3% nuclear, 3.6% wind, 0.9% coal, 0.9% other (including biomass, natural gas, petroleum and waste), and 0.7% landfill gases.

 

[TwEE-N-Toast]

Ah upperclass liberal empathy. Beautiful to behold.

 

[TyrantII]

Ah upperclass liberal empathy. Beautiful to behold.

Empathy runs dry when you refuse help, and spit in the face of those trying to help.

 

[Got]

Ah upperclass liberal empathy. Beautiful to behold.

much edge.

i'm drying my tears with my wads of cash while these dirty poors suffer.

 

[devilhawk]

Hillary's plan was obviously a lot better than what Trump shat out, but being better than the Republicans isn't a very high bar. Clinton's plan may have been well-thought out, but it was both insufficient and poorly marketed. Her strategy for revitalizing coal communities was very right-wing, relying mostly on the benevolence of investors rather than actually bringing jobs to these communities. There was little certainty to her proposal, because so much of it depended on private-sector activities encouraged by some meager funding.

I don't see why a Democratic candidate cannot guarantee employment, or at least a lifetime pension, for people with no job prospects facing unemployment.

I truly wonder if people read a fraction of the bills or plans they stump for here. Things like promoting the arts, extra money to the schools, broadband access, tax credits for those who hire trainees... that's all great, but none of that means a damn when the factory or mine that employs 80% of the town closes.

 

[Oblivion]

So let me get this straight.

1. Coal town used to be booming and sold coal to places like Washington.
2. Coal is of course, about to die, and Obama/Hillary wanted to soften the blow by helping out these people in various ways.
3. Unfortunately, Trump won, so whatever cushion Obama/Hillary would have provided has been turned into a pile of jagged rocks instead.
4. Some people are happy about this turn of events cause Trump likes coal, and therefore the town will achieve a new coal Renaissance. Others however are angry at the fact that Obama's/Hillary's plans to help them no longer exist, even though they still voted for Trump.
5. So while Trump figures out how to bring this coal town back from the dead, the denizens of this fine city seem to feel (for some odd reason) that Washington is OBLIGATED to continue paying this town for coal that it doesn't want or need because..uh...because!

I think that covers everything.

Instead, you have coal workers and companies that just want to mine coal forever and have a government prop up coal through falsehoods and subsidy, but also won't take a "buyout" because "dur hur that's living on government"

No, apparently they're even dumber than that. They still want to be supported by the government. It's just, the government of Washington state and not Washington D.C. Because I guess welfare is only bad if you're receiving it federally, but not if you receive it through interstate commerce.

 

[TwEE-N-Toast]

Empathy runs dry when you refuse help, and spit in the face of those trying to help.

Do you feel this way about all post industrial areas? Or just this particular town?

 

[adamsappel]

Heard this on NPR and the people they interviewed made never to want to support coal again. It was like they felt owed.

I'm fine with owing coal miners. I grew up in West Virginia. Miners work a dangerous job that has great national significance, but the mining that poisons the planet and ruins the natural wonder of a beautiful state deserves a sunset.

Let the government buy out coal companies; coal owners would love to get out at a non-market government price. Fund pensions for miners that are commensurate for the years worked. (Edit: turns out this not so modest climate proposal is already a thing.)

When the Democrats take interest in plans that a place higher import on welfare than profits, please let me know.

Hillary Clinton says hi.

 

[Mr_Antimatter]

Do you feel this way about all post industrial areas? Or just this particular town?

Depends on how the citizens in those areas act. If they try to attract new bsuiness, or migrate to fidn employment, it's fine, and I say do all we can.

But when they resist change, clinging to dying industries and demand others purchase their unwanted product so they can maintain their lifestyle? I'm sorry, but I see no obligation there.

I'm from such a small town. My father was as well. You learn to adapt, move, or die, that's really all there is to it.

 

[TyrantII]

Do you feel this way about all post industrial areas? Or just this particular town?

I live in the northeast where old Mill towns went through something similar. We elected good leaders and diversified our economics, finding a path out of the wilderness.

There's plenty of post industrial and post resource economy towns doing the hard work and seeing the fruits of that labor.

Those that are struggling keep electing terrible leadership while spitting on any outside help. They're bleeding out and refusing medical attention.

So yeah, I shrug my shoulders. I'll save the patient I can and that doesn't refuse help.

 

[Valhelm]

Let the government buy out coal companies; coal owners would love to get out at a non-market government price. Fund pensions for miners that are commensurate for the years worked. (Edit: turns out this not so modest climate proposal is already a thing.)

Hillary Clinton says hi.

See:

Hillary's plan was obviously a lot better than what Trump shat out, but being better than the Republicans isn't a very high bar. Clinton's plan may have been well-thought out, but it was both insufficient and poorly marketed. Her strategy for revitalizing coal communities was very right-wing, relying mostly on the benevolence of investors rather than actually bringing jobs to these communities. There was little certainty to her proposal, because so much of it depended on private-sector activities encouraged by some meager funding.

I don't see why a Democratic candidate cannot guarantee employment, or at least a lifetime pension, for people with no job prospects facing unemployment.

Your own proposals would have been much more comprehensive than Clinton's plan.

 

[Oblivion]

I truly wonder if people read a fraction of the bills or plans they stump for here. Things like promoting the arts, extra money to the schools, broadband access, tax credits for those who hire trainees... that's all great, but none of that means a damn when the factory or mine that employs 80% of the town closes.

What's your point, though? Because the way I see it, we currently have three options:

A. We offer these people some kind of maybe-not-so-generous pensions that won't match up to what they used to be getting working in coal.
B. Invest in their communities with publicly financed jobs in some kind of renewable energy (or hell, it could probably even be in something that has nothing to do with energy whatsoever).
C. Kill every single regulation imaginable in the hopes that these nimrods get some jobs back.

I honestly don't see why we should go with option C, because even if you feel just so gosh darned DESPONDENT about the the plight of these people, we have to realize that they don't live in a vacuum. Allowing them to go back to work also results in polluting the surrounding areas. Should the people effected by such pollution not have a say in the matter? Why do we have to argue that these entitled, hypocritical coal miners have more of a right to an enjoyable life than anyone else?

 

[Angry Grimace]

Coal is a dying industry that's even more subject to automation than people realize. We shouldn't be trying to make platitudes about saving coal. We need to retrain these people to do different jobs.

 

[Brinbe]

Fuck off and adapt. Re-educate yourselves and get on top of new and emerging industry/technology.

 

[Valhelm]

Fuck off and adapt. Re-educate yourselves and get on top of new and emerging industry/technology.

You can hold this conviction, but you need to recognize that it's a right-wing attitude which punishes people for factors beyond their control.

Personally, I don't believe it's appropriate to allow folks to suffer because they were born in communities with less economic viability than others.

 

[NoblesseOblige]

Why not turn that coal town into a wind and solar town?

Wind and solar causes autism in frogs.

 

[Vicetrailia]

See:


Your own proposals would have been much more comprehensive than Clinton's plan.

Click the hillary says hi link and scroll down to the bullet points.

 

[Oblivion]

You can hold this conviction, but you need to recognize that it's a right-wing attitude which punishes people for factors beyond their control.

Personally, I don't believe it's appropriate to allow folks to suffer because they were born in communities with less economic viability than others.

That's not why we're telling them to fuck off, though.

 

[Seraph_Nicholas]

Yes indeed, we should feel some burden of debt to these people who supplied us with ABSOLUTELY FREE energy for so long, at NO PROFIT to themselves. Their customers are surely to blame for this crisis, not the bosses that bled them dry and tossed their deflated bodies to the side of the road.

 

[TheBryanJZX90]

You can hold this conviction, but you need to recognize that it's a right-wing attitude which punishes people for factors beyond their control.

Personally, I don't believe it's appropriate to allow folks to suffer because they were born in communities with less economic viability than others.

Absent a universal income available to all Americans equally or something to that effect, why should solidly right-leaning areas such as this one receive massive government assistance rather than left-leaning populations in urban areas that also need help?

 

[devilhawk]

What's your point, though? Because the way I see it, we currently have three options:

A. We offer these people some kind of maybe-not-so-generous pensions that won't match up to what they used to be getting working in coal.
B. Invest in their communities with publicly financed jobs in some kind of renewable energy (or hell, it could probably even be in something that has nothing to do with energy whatsoever).
C. Kill every single regulation imaginable in the hopes that these nimrods get some jobs back.

Sure, but you list of options stumbles because A and B aren't actually what ends up being proposed in the bill like in the OP.

 

[Carcetti]

The lesson from this thread is that apparently some right-wingers believe that some people are more entitled to unemployment benefits than others. "Shit on the poor people in inner cities, pour gold on the poor people in coal towns ... it all makes sense somehow".

 

[cdyhybrid]

You can hold this conviction, but you need to recognize that it's a right-wing attitude which punishes people for factors beyond their control.

Personally, I don't believe it's appropriate to allow folks to suffer because they were born in communities with less economic viability than others.

That's a nice sentiment, but when they refuse to entertain the notion of transitioning to a more modern industry they lose the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Valhelm]

Absent a universal income available to all Americans equally or something to that effect, why should solidly right-leaning areas such as this one receive massive government assistance rather than left-leaning populations in urban areas that also need help?

Every area that needs help deserves help. This shouldn't be up for debate. Denying state aid to communities because of their perceived political attitudes is selfish, inhumane, and politically foolish.

If Democrats deliberately refuse help, these blighted communities will be even more right wing.

 

[cdyhybrid]

If Democrats deliberately refuse help, these blighted communities will be even more right wing.

Good thing they didn't.

 

[Kettch]

Typical conservative mindset. "Why don't we get a say about you not using coal anymore?" "Why don't we get a say about you having gay marriages?" "Why don't we get a say about you having abortions?"

Here's a thought. You like using coal? Power your town with coal, have fun.

 

[Saucycarpdog]

Hillary's plan was obviously a lot better than what Trump shat out, but being better than the Republicans isn't a very high bar. Clinton's plan may have been well-thought out, but it was both insufficient and poorly marketed. Her strategy for revitalizing coal communities was very right-wing, relying mostly on the benevolence of investors rather than actually bringing jobs to these communities. There was little certainty to her proposal, because so much of it depended on private-sector activities encouraged by some meager funding.

I don't see why a Democratic candidate cannot guarantee employment, or at least a lifetime pension, for people with no job prospects facing unemployment.

Her plan was right-wing because it was the only plan she could sell to towns and D.C. The money would have to come from private investors because it really couldn't come from anywhere else.

Do you think this pension and employment funds could come from the federal government? Lol, good luck getting such a stimulus through congress. Even if the government had the funds to appropriate to such a fund, why do these people deserve those funds more than people who receive food stamps or military veterans on disability benefits?

Her plan could never be a certainty because, unfortunately, she could never guarantee funding for such a program even if she were president.

 

[TwEE-N-Toast]

A lot of the posts in this thread mirror those you would find being made by some of the more shitty Canadian conservatives in regards to the Atlantic provinces. So eerily similar.

 

[Balphon]

I truly wonder if people read a fraction of the bills or plans they stump for here. Things like promoting the arts, extra money to the schools, broadband access, tax credits for those who hire trainees... that's all great, but none of that means a damn when the factory or mine that employs 80% of the town closes.

Federal job-training programs don't have a great track record, but we can't just write federally-directed assistance off completely. Things like rural broadband and training programs that actually attempt to shunt people into in-demand fields could be a pretty crucial component of revitalization in these areas. It just requires everyone involved to have the political will to do it.

Besides, if we're just talking about coal miners, that's only 80,000 or so people who are highly geographically concentrated in Appalachia and Wyoming. It's a solvable problem.

What will really be complicated is figuring out what to do with the 1 million+ truck drivers who might lose their jobs to automation in the next decade or so.

 

[Carcetti]

I don't see why a Democratic candidate cannot guarantee employment, or at least a lifetime pension, for people with no job prospects facing unemployment.

If you're talking policy, you should start with a basis that's in this world and not an alternate reality. Even the social democratic Nordic states can't guarantee employment for everyone.

 

[Valhelm]

Good thing they didn't.

I don't think the Democrats in 2016 offered anywhere near substantial help to coal communities (or any working class communities, for that matter), but some of the posts in this thread are really troubling. People born into coal families didn't choose to live in a blighted and fading community. Treating them like sinners who somehow deserve this misery is both unnecessarily brutal and a very bad look.

Her plan was right-wing because it was the only plan she could sell to towns and D.C. The money would have to come from private investors because it really couldn't come from anywhere else.

Do you think this pension and employment funds could come from the federal government? Lol, good luck getting such a stimulus through congress. Even if the government had the funds to appropriate to such a fund, why do these people deserve those funds more than people who receive food stamps or military veterans on disability benefits?

Her plan could never be a certainty because, unfortunately, she could never guarantee funding for such a program even if she were president.

Pragmatism is the death knell of progress. Had Hillary Clinton brought forward an energized and actually left-wing platform offering proactive solutions to the decline of coal, or any problem, she would have won the election and brought a hell of a lot of Democratic legislators with her.

The attitude that liberal politicians must buckle to the obstructionism of the right is defeatist and plays directly into Republican hands.

A lot of the posts in this thread mirror those you would find being made by some of the more shitty Canadian conservatives in regards to the Atlantic provinces. So eerily similar.

Many Democrats are just right-wing liberals who make vague and noncommittal overtures toward social justice causes. This thread contains some choice examples.

If you're talking policy, you should start with a basis that's in this world and not an alternate reality. Even the social democratic Nordic states can't guarantee employment for everyone.

Why the fuck not? America is the richest country on earth with more billionaires and millionaires than anybody else. Guaranteeing the welfare of our citizens needs to be the top priority of government policy, especially by the self-described progressive opposition.

 

[Imperfected]

Every area that needs help deserves help. This shouldn't be up for debate. Denying state aid to communities because of their perceived political attitudes is selfish, inhumane, and politically foolish.

If Democrats deliberately refuse help, these blighted communities will be even more right wing.

There's a difference between deserving help and deserving empathy.

If a terrorist who was wounded in the process of carrying out a public mass homicide is taken to a hospital, they deserve and will receive treatment to save their life. That doesn't mean anyone there does, or should, feel the slightest bit sorry for them or coddle them for their behavior.

The coal mining towns deserve the same benefits and protections that everyone else does, but when they're the ones who stridently voted against everyone else receiving those protections and benefits, in addition to themselves, the level of empathy they deserve is a tiny thimble full of fuck-all.

 

[NoblesseOblige]

Had Hillary Clinton brought forward an energized and actually left-wing platform offering proactive solutions to the decline of coal, or any problem, she would have won the election and brought a hell of a lot of Democratic legislators with her.

Yeah I'm sure that'd have won the minds of all the racists, sexists, and other bigots who didn't vote for her.

 

[cdyhybrid]

I don't think the Democrats in 2016 offered anywhere near substantial help to coal communities (or any working class communities, for that matter), but some of the posts in this thread are really troubling. People born into coal families didn't choose to live in a blighted and fading community. Treating them like sinners who somehow deserve this misery is both unnecessarily brutal and a very bad look.

They didn't choose to live there, but they chose to vote for representatives that will continue to fuck them over.

Oh, and they also chose to give a giant fuck-you to pretty much every disadvantaged group in this country in the process.

They should get help, because letting these towns rot and die isn't really smart when these people could be contributing to society if they were trained in other fields. But there are a lot of communities that need help, and they didn't seem to have any problem with voting for the guy who would continue to fuck *those* communities over.

Votes have consequences. A lot of us have to live with them everyday, I don't see why they deserve more empathy than anyone else.

 

[Valhelm]

Yeah I'm sure that'd have won the minds of all the racists, sexists, and other bigots who didn't vote for her.

If bigotry alone was the problem, Obama wouldn't have won many of these same communities.

The US is an exceptionally bigoted nation built upon white supremacist values. Overcoming this bigotry in elections requires offering proactive solutions to persons who might hold reactionary views. Only after achieving power can we seriously challenge the potentially harmful attitudes of people in these communities.

Making their lives more difficult won't help.

 

[TemplaerDude]

They do have a say. The problem is everything they want goes against what the world needs.

 

[Mr_Antimatter]

I don't think the Democrats in 2016 offered anywhere near substantial help to coal communities (or any working class communities, for that matter), but some of the posts in this thread are really troubling. People born into coal families didn't choose to live in a blighted and fading community. Treating them like sinners who somehow deserve this misery is both unnecessarily brutal and a very bad look.

Read the article. The one who saw the troubles, who was thankful for the safety net offered, was all but ignored in favor of the idea that trump will somehow make a dying industry revive, despite no clear plan on how that will be.

And we see this all over the place. The places that need to adapt and change refuse to do so. They don't want to, the industry is their identity. It's their way of life.

This has been going on for decades. Smart communities see change coming, and make a choice. Refusing to adapt means your community dies. The federal government cannot change that fact. It could help, sure, but you have to want that help. Constantly voting against your own interests, then blaming the left for your failures is what isn't healthy. Yet, we see this time and time again.

At some point, you cut your losses, and redirect aid to those communities that want it. But this shouldn't mean propping up dead industry.

My home town bet the farm on a soda factory. When they lost it due to their own hubris, they lost their entire identity. Their children fled to greener pastures, leaving naught but a town ruled by bitter old people who long for the control they once had. They actively resist any further change.

The next town over? Constantly was on the look for new industry, new opportunity. They looked after their people, and as a result, they have slow, but steady growth.

I do not fault them as 'sinners', but I do ask that they answer for their own mistakes. There is always a way out, a way forward, it is not my concern if they do not want to search for it.

 

[Opto]

Wait...didn't they get money for that coal as well?

Let's not pretend miners were well compensated. Mining companies and energy companies took the lion's share.

But yes, there is a cult of coal that permeates through the country that makes people feel that it is the only job for them (often, mostly, it's the highest paying job around if they get a lot of overtime.)

Honestly I think we need to put another New Deal into place to stimulate these areas.

 

[Angelus Errare]

Read the article. The one who saw the troubles, who was thankful for the safety net offered, was all but ignored in favor of the idea that trump will somehow make a dying industry revive, despite no clear plan on how that will be.

And we see this all over the place. The places that need to adapt and change refuse to do so. They don't want to, the industry is their identity. It's their way of life.

This has been going on for decades. Smart communities see change coming, and make a choice. Refusing to adapt means your community dies. The federal government cannot change that fact. It could help, sure, but you have to want that help. Constantly voting against your own interests, then blaming the left for your failures is what isn't healthy. Yet, we see this time and time again.

At some point, you cut your losses, and redirect aid to those communities that want it. But this shouldn't mean propping up dead industry.

My home town bet the farm on a soda factory. When they lost it due to their own hubris, they lost their entire identity. Their children fled to greener pastures, leaving naught but a town ruled by bitter old people who long for the control they once had. They actively resist any further change.

The next town over? Constantly was on the look for new industry, new opportunity. They looked after their people, and as a result, they have slow, but steady growth.

I do not fault them as 'sinners', but I do ask that they answer for their own mistakes. There is always a way out, a way forward, it is not my concern if they do not want to search for it.

Nailed it.

 

[Saucycarpdog]

Pragmatism is the death knell of progress. Had Hillary Clinton brought forward an energized and actually left-wing platform offering proactive solutions to the decline of coal, or any problem, she would have won the election and brought a hell of a lot of Democratic legislators with her.

The attitude that liberal politicians must buckle to the obstructionism of the right is defeatist and plays directly into Republican hands.

And clinging to a fantasy is the death knell of logic and practicality. It has nothing to do with giving in to republicans more as it is basing it in reality. Would I like for the government to divert funds to these communities to help them? Sure! I would also like it if we diverted all the money we subsidize oil corporations with to creating a national solar energy project for putting a colossal solar farm in the Arizona desert. Is that likely to happen anytime soon? No, so while we cultivate the time to get that to pass, how about we pass bills that, while only having small benefits, have the most realistic chance of passing right now? Some benefit is better than none.

 

[cdyhybrid]

And clinging to a fantasy is the death knell of logic and practicality. It has nothing to do with giving in to republicans more as it is basing it in reality. Would I like for the government to divert funds to these communities to help them? Sure! I would also like it if we diverted all the money we subsidize oil corporations with to creating a national solar energy project for putting a colossal solar farm in the Arizona desert. Is that likely to happen anytime soon? No, so while we cultivate the time to get that to pass, how about we pass bills that, while only having small benefits, have the most realistic chance of passing right now? Some benefit is better than none.

A lot of people seem to subscribe to the idea that unless you completely flip everything overnight you'll never get to where you're going. It's odd because 1) history tells you this isn't how things work, and 2) a lot of these same people will correctly acknowledge that this country has a lot of deeply-rooted issues that are very difficult to undo.

 

[adamsappel]

Ah upperclass liberal empathy. Beautiful to behold.

I sent a car, a rowboat, a motorboat and a helicopter. At some point, you have to get in.

See:

Your own proposals would have been much more comprehensive than Clinton's plan.

Yeah, but my proposals would probably never pass. One of Hillary Clinton's faults is she doesn't over-promise.

 

[Imperfected]

Let's not pretend miners were well compensated. Mining companies and energy companies took the lion's share.

Wasn't the median income in this specific town $80k+?

That's pretty damn well compensated. I think people in this thread are confusing the entirety of the coal industry with soot-faced, black-lunged miners in the Kentucky backwoods. There was a lot of money going around, and not all of it wound up in the pockets of the plutocracy (though, admittedly, a more-than-fair amount did).

 

[Shaanyboi]

Do you feel this way about all post industrial areas? Or just this particular town?

This particular town slapped away a hand that offered them a way forward, and they instead jumped in the lap of a fucking idiot making promises based on... nothing. All to return to some mirage of "the glory days" that are never coming back.

Yeah, this shit ain't on anybody but them.

 

[iammeiam]

Since the article hints at the mindset but doesn't clearly spell it out, I did do a little checking and it's worth noting that this is the position of the activist group they mention:

MISSION STATEMENT:

To inform and inspire the citizens of Colstrip and other mining communities, and to bring these communities together toward the goal of protecting our way of life. To inform the outside world about Colstrip, coal mining, and coal-fired power generation. We strive to fight the lies and ignorance surrounding coal with positivity and solid facts.

In our city's case, quality of life and coal go hand in hand. We don't have one without the other, and so we fight for coal. But there is also the bigger picture that we support coal energy for our entire state and country, not JUST for our little city. We believe that the responsible use of fossil fuels helps humanity flourish as only a reliable and affordable energy source like coal can.

And then clicking through their news section, they link a paper by a local student that is just straight-up climate change denial:

When asked about what inspired her to choose this subject for her paper, Rachel says "I choose this subject because it was a contraversial topic that could hurt my home and our reliable electricity. I figured that to fight this, we need to not only point out the good qualities of coal, but our assumptions of fossil feuls being the cause of climate change and that climate change is a huge threat. Young people today need to question the assumptions that are being fed to them and find out the real facts. (Sometimes those facts can be very difficult to uncover.)"

Way to go Rachel! Thanks for sharing your paper with us! 👍

It's important in context of the discussion, I think, because the frame of reference for a lot of the discussion accepts that they acknowledge their way of life is not long-term sustainable, but embracing climate change denial means you'll never get them to agree to a transition plan because the mindset is the transition itself is invalid.

 

[Valhelm]

And clinging to a fantasy is the death knell of logic and practicality. It has nothing to do with giving in to republicans more as it is basing it in reality. Would I like for the government to divert funds to these communities to help them? Sure! I would also like it if we diverted all the money we subsidize oil corporations with to creating a national solar energy project for putting a colossal solar farm in the Arizona desert. Is that likely to happen anytime soon? No, so while we cultivate the time to get that to pass, how about we pass bills that, while only having small benefits, have the most realistic chance of passing right now? Some benefit is better than none.

Right, but to pass any bills people we have to actually take power. This is especially difficult when you turn your nose at communities which have historically been important blocs of the Democratic coalition.

Yeah, but my proposals would probably never pass. One of Hillary Clinton's faults is she doesn't over-promise.

Lofty goals don't over-promise, but instead set the agenda for years or decades to come. One of the Democrats' biggest problems is their allergy to hope ideology. Every policy proposal should be connected into a consistent and positive vision of the future. Obama didn't do this per se, but instead inspired many voters through his vague promise of change. By offering no long-term goals and laughably suggesting that "America is already great", Hillary did basically the opposite of this. Technocratic reforms are boring and bad for electability, especially when they primarily benefit a wealthy few.

 

[reckless]

Well now they gotta pull themselves up, by their own bootstraps. Just getting what they voted for.

 

[necrosis]

oh well.

.