Ocasio-Cortez beats Crowley (NY-14 Democratic Primary)

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT
 

Meiam:

Alright we're clearly talking about different things here. What you seem to describe seems no different than the current system where anyone can apply to a governmental job... which is completely different than guaranteed federal job.

Does she actually have a document where she explain what her definition of guaranteed federal job is? Like a real technical document rather than a vague promise at a rally.

What I'm describing is the notion of a federal jobs guarantee in the vaguest sense. What I'm describing is a system in which the federal government creates positions in line with demand. Now, certainly, some of this work will not be strictly necessary (for instance, beautifying public spaces, off the top of my head), but it will still be valuable.

As it is now, there's plenty of good work that could be done, for which vacancies do not exist. There's a great deal of work to be done for which nobody is hiring, because it's not profitable... but the work should still be done. Hence, investment on the part of the federal government.

Silvanus:

What I'm describing is the notion of a federal jobs guarantee in the vaguest sense. What I'm describing is a system in which the federal government creates positions in line with demand. Now, certainly, some of this work will not be strictly necessary (for instance, beautifying public spaces, off the top of my head), but it will still be valuable.

As it is now, there's plenty of good work that could be done, for which vacancies do not exist. There's a great deal of work to be done for which nobody is hiring, because it's not profitable... but the work should still be done. Hence, investment on the part of the federal government.

But that's completely different from a guaranteed federal job program. You're describing an increase in the federal government responsibility, that's fine and easy to argue for. But that's the exact opposite approach of a guaranteed job. That's creating jobs based on needs. A guaranteed federal job is about creating needs based on jobs.

My point is, what happen when all the jobs that a candidate could fill are filled? That's the crux of the question because that's literally the situation that will be run into very quickly

So you talk about beautification, so you pay someone roughly 32 000$ a years, plus all the equipment, transportation supervision and so on they need so maybe 50 000$/yr to do random beautification (of dubious quality, again you're not hiring the best here, your mostly dealing with high school dropout) that serves no real purpose and will be redone very quickly (since more people need to work so they'll also need to be given random beatification job that will quickly involved just repainting things that have just been painted). But at the same time you have to explain to the tax payer why the local highway isn't being paved because you can't afford it since you're paying for all the beautification (and the people doing the beautifying aren't formed to pave highway so they can't do that). So sure the highway will look pretty-ish, but it'll be in pitiable state. Yay?

Meiam:

Silvanus:

What I'm describing is the notion of a federal jobs guarantee in the vaguest sense. What I'm describing is a system in which the federal government creates positions in line with demand. Now, certainly, some of this work will not be strictly necessary (for instance, beautifying public spaces, off the top of my head), but it will still be valuable.

As it is now, there's plenty of good work that could be done, for which vacancies do not exist. There's a great deal of work to be done for which nobody is hiring, because it's not profitable... but the work should still be done. Hence, investment on the part of the federal government.

But that's completely different from a guaranteed federal job program. You're describing an increase in the federal government responsibility, that's fine and easy to argue for. But that's the exact opposite approach of a guaranteed job. That's creating jobs based on needs. A guaranteed federal job is about creating needs based on jobs.

My point is, what happen when all the jobs that a candidate could fill are filled? That's the crux of the question because that's literally the situation that will be run into very quickly

So you talk about beautification, so you pay someone roughly 32 000$ a years, plus all the equipment, transportation supervision and so on they need so maybe 50 000$/yr to do random beautification (of dubious quality, again you're not hiring the best here, your mostly dealing with high school dropout) that serves no real purpose and will be redone very quickly (since more people need to work so they'll also need to be given random beatification job that will quickly involved just repainting things that have just been painted). But at the same time you have to explain to the tax payer why the local highway isn't being paved because you can't afford it since you're paying for all the beautification (and the people doing the beautifying aren't formed to pave highway so they can't do that). So sure the highway will look pretty-ish, but it'll be in pitiable state. Yay?

It's pretty clear that you're intending to make up a problem; there are many jobs that are not capital intensive and there is absolutely no reason to think that a highway budget would lose funding because of a separate job guarantee program.

Meiam:

But that's completely different from a guaranteed federal job program. You're describing an increase in the federal government responsibility, that's fine and easy to argue for. But that's the exact opposite approach of a guaranteed job. That's creating jobs based on needs. A guaranteed federal job is about creating needs based on jobs.

Uhrm... no, it's not. It's about creating vacancies based on demand. That does not entail "creating need" (how on earth would anybody create need?)-- it entails hiring people to perform duties which are currently not deemed necessary, but which nonetheless may be valuable.

Meiam:

My point is, what happen when all the jobs that a candidate could fill are filled? That's the crux of the question because that's literally the situation that will be run into very quickly

Vacancies do not simply pop up when a need exists: They are created when an institution deems that the value of the job getting done outweighs the value of the worker's wage. If no vacancy exists, that does not mean that no work is required.

The situation you describe above is one which no society has ever run into before. Imagine, for a moment, a society in which no work needs to be done. It's utterly unreachable. So, no, this is not a situation that will be run into quickly at all; I would imagine it would take centuries.

Meiam:
My point is, what happen when all the jobs that a candidate could fill are filled? That's the crux of the question because that's literally the situation that will be run into very quickly

Not really. You can always build more infrastructure (or certain kinds of infrastructure). More well-built roads, for example. They aren't just make-work (which isn't necessarily a bad thing anyway), they will benefit your society long term.

The take of an excellent columnist:

The take of a dog:

I like this lady.

bastardofmelbourne:

I like this lady.

she looks like the " Anti-Trump" LOL!

bastardofmelbourne:

I like this lady.

wait what. this lady won ANYTHING in the US?
she looks like a left wing candidate from Sweden or what republicans have nightmares about.
what the hell is going on with American politics.

lionsprey:

bastardofmelbourne:

I like this lady.

wait what. this lady won ANYTHING in the US?
she looks like a left wing candidate from Sweden or what republicans have nightmares about.
what the hell is going on with American politics.

What's going on? Capitalism is in crisis. That's what's going on.

lionsprey:

wait what. this lady won ANYTHING in the US?
she looks like a left wing candidate from Sweden or what republicans have nightmares about.
what the hell is going on with American politics.

This lady won a Democratic primary in a safe New York congressional district. But hopefully, she'll win the general, and hopefully other people running in other primaries will realise that "socialist" is neither an insult nor an anchor around the neck.

It is very telling that Fox News tried to scare people about O-C's platform by...accurately listing O-C's platform, as if viewers were supposed to think that "supporting seniors" and "clean campaign finance" were bad things that needed to be stopped, rather than blindingly fucking obvious proposals that any sane person from either party should be in favor of.

The only exception to that is "abolish ICE," and even that doesn't mean what Fox News is trying to tell everyone it means. There's a whole discussion you could have about what "abolish ICE" means, but really it just means reforming immigration enforcement.

Hmm. Maybe I'll make an ICE thread.

I mean, she says she wants to do all of this, but is she really going to? Cause from my expertise, all politicians lie. No matter what party they're in, they just want your vote so they can have a very easy, cushy job.

RaikuFA:
I mean, she says she wants to do all of this, but is she really going to? Cause from my expertise, all politicians lie. No matter what party they're in, they just want your vote so they can have a very easy, cushy job.

I mean, she is running for one seat in the House of Representatives. On her own, there isn't much power to get the things done that she wants to get done. The hope is that her winning the primary will inspire others with politics much like hers to run and get into Congress as well, so that there is an actual left-wing block in the House and Senate.

Its going to be so sad when she's assassinated. Trump will just say 'Can you believe the Democrats are running an illegal immigrant who hates babies and the flag in New York? Someone should do something about that!' and she'll be shot and killed either right before or right after the election and Trump will go 'Well the shooter must have had his reasons, everyone has done something'

BreakfastMan:

RaikuFA:
I mean, she says she wants to do all of this, but is she really going to? Cause from my expertise, all politicians lie. No matter what party they're in, they just want your vote so they can have a very easy, cushy job.

I mean, she is running for one seat in the House of Representatives. On her own, there isn't much power to get the things done that she wants to get done. The hope is that her winning the primary will inspire others with politics much like hers to run and get into Congress as well, so that there is an actual left-wing block in the House and Senate.

Even if they get into Congress, they'll only care about lining their pockets. Ive lost all hope in any politician.

RaikuFA:

BreakfastMan:

RaikuFA:
I mean, she says she wants to do all of this, but is she really going to? Cause from my expertise, all politicians lie. No matter what party they're in, they just want your vote so they can have a very easy, cushy job.

I mean, she is running for one seat in the House of Representatives. On her own, there isn't much power to get the things done that she wants to get done. The hope is that her winning the primary will inspire others with politics much like hers to run and get into Congress as well, so that there is an actual left-wing block in the House and Senate.

Even if they get into Congress, they'll only care about lining their pockets. Ive lost all hope in any politician.

That seems like a pretty short-sighted and fatalistic view to take.

I would argue it's also a lazy view to take. No easier way to absolve yourself from responsibility in being part of a solution than to declare wholesale that the very act of getting into politics makes you corrupt and money grubbing, so there's no point in trying to fix anything.

BreakfastMan:

RaikuFA:

BreakfastMan:

I mean, she is running for one seat in the House of Representatives. On her own, there isn't much power to get the things done that she wants to get done. The hope is that her winning the primary will inspire others with politics much like hers to run and get into Congress as well, so that there is an actual left-wing block in the House and Senate.

Even if they get into Congress, they'll only care about lining their pockets. Ive lost all hope in any politician.

That seems like a pretty short-sighted and fatalistic view to take.

It's what happens when you see politicians saying one thing, then doing the opposite or ignoring what you promised you'd do.

bastardofmelbourne:

lionsprey:

wait what. this lady won ANYTHING in the US?
she looks like a left wing candidate from Sweden or what republicans have nightmares about.
what the hell is going on with American politics.

This lady won a Democratic primary in a safe New York congressional district. But hopefully, she'll win the general,

Her Republican opponent is not a serious candidate.

As for red districts, take a look at this guy who won his Democratic primary with substantially more votes than any of the Republicans in a district that is very red:

Seanchaidh:

As for red districts, take a look at this guy who won his Democratic primary with substantially more votes than any of the Republicans in a district that is very red:

Hot freakin' damn I like this guy, and this is the first I know of him.

aegix drakan:

Seanchaidh:

As for red districts, take a look at this guy who won his Democratic primary with substantially more votes than any of the Republicans in a district that is very red:

Hot freakin' damn I like this guy, and this is the first I know of him.

He is... interesting. He also voted for Trump which, if you're in coal country, I guess made sense?

Seanchaidh:

aegix drakan:

Seanchaidh:

As for red districts, take a look at this guy who won his Democratic primary with substantially more votes than any of the Republicans in a district that is very red:

Hot freakin' damn I like this guy, and this is the first I know of him.

He is... interesting. He also voted for Trump which, if you're in coal country, I guess made sense?

...so what is YOUR opinion of him exactly?

Cause if he voted for Trump, then I definitely do not like him, and it just makes me distrust him as a 'democrat'. Looking through his twitter, he is pandering to coal people. Seems to me he is a Republican in Democrat's clothing, something you seem to claim is most Democrats.

Saelune:
Looking through his twitter, he is pandering to coal people.

WTF is wrong with addressing the issues of coal miners and current/former coal mining communities?

BreakfastMan:

Saelune:
Looking through his twitter, he is pandering to coal people.

WTF is wrong with addressing the issues of coal miners and current/former coal mining communities?

For one, most of them are apparently Trump supporters, and coal mining needs to go away. Look, I don't wish to see large swaths of people be left in the coal dust, but its easier to stomach knowing how easily they will throw everyone else under the bus.

Saelune:

Seanchaidh:

aegix drakan:

Hot freakin' damn I like this guy, and this is the first I know of him.

He is... interesting. He also voted for Trump which, if you're in coal country, I guess made sense?

...so what is YOUR opinion of him exactly?

Cause if he voted for Trump, then I definitely do not like him, and it just makes me distrust him as a 'democrat'. Looking through his twitter, he is pandering to coal people. Seems to me he is a Republican in Democrat's clothing, something you seem to claim is most Democrats.

He's the best candidate in his district. Some of his statements strike me as far more jingoistic/patriotic than I'm comfortable with (which is understandable given his military background), but on the substance he's a fine representative of any place with a legacy of coal mining, and he's got the right idea about campaign finance.

What you have to understand is that Hillary Clinton was an atrocious candidate in general and even more so in West Virginia specifically.

Saelune:

BreakfastMan:

Saelune:
Looking through his twitter, he is pandering to coal people.

WTF is wrong with addressing the issues of coal miners and current/former coal mining communities?

For one, most of them are apparently Trump supporters

Considering the average income in those areas I highly doubt that, but even I did accept that assumption... So what?

and coal mining needs to go away.

Agreed, but that doesn't necessarily then translate to ignoring the plight faced by current and former coal mining communities. Quite the opposite.

Seanchaidh:
Her Republican opponent is not a serious candidate.

Hah!

That guy sounds like the only reason he's running for a federal seat is to try and get back at the state court judges who handled his divorce fifteen years ago. That's a pretty goddamn ridiculous revenge scheme.

Seanchaidh:
As for red districts, take a look at this guy who won his Democratic primary with substantially more votes than any of the Republicans in a district that is very red:

Yes, I read a Politico profile of him a few months back.

He's a complicated character, sort of like the perfect encapsulation of West Virginian political dissonance. On the one hand, he did vote for Trump. On the other hand, he openly regrets doing so and he's now running explicitly against him. On the other other hand, he's a bit of a warhawk. On the other other other hand, he's pro-union. On the other other other other hand, he panders to coal miners. On the other^5 hand, he wants to raise taxes on energy companies and use the money to pay teachers more and improve the state education system. (We're up to like, six hands.)

Overall - it's West Virginia, he's the best Democrat you're going to get and if West Virginia is going to go blue again, there need to be more Democrats like him. The district he's running in is one of the most pro-Trump districts in the state. It's not even considered competitive. For him to be making waves there is pretty dang impressive. And he's legit, too. All the shit that Trump pretended to be in order to win West Virginia - a pit-fighter, a hard worker, an anti-establishment firebrand, a guy who knows what needs to be done and doesn't give a shit what you think - Ojeda is that, but for real.

Here's a nice quote from that Politico piece:

Politico:
Now, pulling into Charleston, the gold dome shrouded in fog, hitting traffic, looking down from the interstate at a usually mostly empty parking lot filled with cars packed with sign-toting teachers, he dipped down onto surface streets, and the teachers saw his red Jeep and started waving and screaming, and he honked and pumped his fast before swinging into the Senate parking area.

"Hooah," he said to the guard at the guard shack and then whipped into a reserved spot.

"This your spot?" I said.

"You didn't see the sign that said ninja on it? Pay attention," he told me.

Yeah, I'll admit it; I kinda like him.

Saelune:
...so what is YOUR opinion of him exactly?

Cause if he voted for Trump, then I definitely do not like him, and it just makes me distrust him as a 'democrat'. Looking through his twitter, he is pandering to coal people. Seems to me he is a Republican in Democrat's clothing, something you seem to claim is most Democrats.

He did vote for Trump, but he regrets doing so. I think that's important. Voting Trump out of office and undoing the damage he's done is going to require convincing a lot of 2016 Trump voters that they made a mistake.

There are people who voted for Trump in 2016 because they were lightly informed or because they just made the mistake of trusting him. I don't hate those people. I feel sorry for them, because they're the victims of Trump's con-job; they're the guys who got gulled by his fake populism and hollow promises. And if one of those voter has the guts to admit that they were wrong, I welcome them. Better late than never.

Plus, his platform is like a wish-list of Shit West Virginians Need. He panders to coal miners, but he bashes the energy companies that exploit them and wants to invest in renewable energy sources to replace the jobs that coal lost. He wants public healthcare and addiction treatment, he wants better pay for state teachers and nurses, he supports DACA and a path to citizenship for any immigrant, and most importantly - he wants to legalise marijuana. Overall, he's exactly the kind of candidate Democrats need to win places like West Virginia.

Seanchaidh:
What you have to understand is that Hillary Clinton was an atrocious candidate in general and even more so in West Virginia specifically.

The West Virginia paradox is that despite the fact that Hillary Clinton had a fully-priced and well-defined plan for helping West Virginian coal miners, West Virginian voters hated her largely because they were under the mistaken impression that the Obama administration's environmental regulations were responsible for "killing" coal jobs, and that Clinton literally intended to destroy the coal industry in the name of meaningless cruelty. In fact, she had $30 billion earmarked specifically for paying the pensions of the older ex-miners and providing job retraining for the younger ones. She simply failed spectacularly at getting that point across to the voters in the face of fierce bullshittery coming from industry lobbyists whose sole objective was getting rid of those pesky regulations so that the coal companies could go back to cutting corners and stiffing workers.

And despite Donald Trump providing no detailed plan and no solid commitment of federal funding, they all voted for him because they were under the mistaken impression that the only thing holding the coal industry down were those tyrannical Obama regulations, and that once Trump repealed them, they would unleash the slumbering power of Real American Coal and return to a coal-powered (and slightly sooty) golden age. And of course, all Trump actually did was continue sucking up to the energy lobbyists that created the lie in the first place while not doing anything at all about West Virginia's problems. (Because he is a liar, and he lied.)

The foundation of West Virginia's problems is that they keep voting for the guys that are screwing them over. Ojeda has an opportunity to change that.

bastardofmelbourne:
In fact, she had $30 billion earmarked specifically for paying the pensions of the older ex-miners and providing job retraining for the younger ones

Pensions are fine, but job retraining is very unimpressive when those jobs simply won't exist in West Virginia. Clinton's approach to West Virginia is an example of the 'education will solve every economic problem' pathology of modern liberalism.

Seanchaidh:
It's pretty clear that you're intending to make up a problem; there are many jobs that are not capital intensive and there is absolutely no reason to think that a highway budget would lose funding because of a separate job guarantee program.

From personal experience in real communism with jobs for everyone:

Those problems are in fact real.

I am more in favor of some basic income than trying to pretend you can find something even remotely useful to do for everyone. It is less waste of time for and overall cheaper.

bastardofmelbourne:

He did vote for Trump, but he regrets doing so. I think that's important. Voting Trump out of office and undoing the damage he's done is going to require convincing a lot of 2016 Trump voters that they made a mistake.

No, it requires convincing a small amount of Trump voters they made a mistake.

Probably some 80%+, even 90%+ of Trump's votes were Republican Party loyalists. People who year in year out vote Republican, because that's just what they do.

Of the remainder, they ultimately need to be convinced they made a mistake, but they don't need to be beaten over the head with it. The argument that people need to be convinced of is simply that Trump and the Republicans have been a failure. They will come to their own conclusions that they made a mistake, without the messy complications of feeling that they're being accused of doing a bad thing.

He's a complicated character, sort of like the perfect encapsulation of West Virginian political dissonance. On the one hand, he did vote for Trump. On the other hand, he openly regrets doing so and he's now running explicitly against him. On the other other hand, he's a bit of a warhawk. On the other other other hand, he's pro-union. On the other other other other hand, he panders to coal miners. On the other^5 hand, he wants to raise taxes on energy companies and use the money to pay teachers more and improve the state education system. (We're up to like, six hands.)

And political parties need these people. Ideological consistency can be a plus in many situations, but the left is currently struggling by only managing to get across a limited dogma. As you say, Hillary had a plan to solve real economic and social woes in West Virginia, but failed to get it across. This, I'm sure, is because the Democratic Party is institutionally overrun with middle class, metropolitan, liberals whose expertise and mindset is communicating to middle class, metropolitan liberals.

Seanchaidh:

bastardofmelbourne:
In fact, she had $30 billion earmarked specifically for paying the pensions of the older ex-miners and providing job retraining for the younger ones

Pensions are fine, but job retraining is very unimpressive when those jobs simply won't exist in West Virginia. Clinton's approach to West Virginia is an example of the 'education will solve every economic problem' pathology of modern liberalism.

That's why you also invest in renewable energy and train the ex-miners to install and maintain solar panels. West Virginia is a sound candidate for wind and solar investment, largely because it's so heavily polluted from decades of coal overuse that there are significant short-term health benefits to be made from cleaning up the energy grid.

It's not a silver bullet, but in my experience, no one solution solves everything. But steadily chipping away at a problem is better than what Trump's doing, which is just...ignoring it entirely.

Satinavian:

I am more in favor of some basic income than trying to pretend you can find something even remotely useful to do for everyone. It is less waste of time for and overall cheaper.

A UBI is a lot simpler, a lot more efficient, and a lot cheaper overall, but you're overlooking one important factor: people, especially Americans, do not like the idea of other people getting money for nothing. There's a sort of fundamental, cultural/moral opposition to the idea of every citizen - the diligent and the lazy alike - just getting ten or twelve grand a year with no strings attached.

Part of that is that Americans like to think that hard work pays off in terms of economic prosperity - it doesn't always, but they like to think it does because it makes the work easier - and the idea of simply being supplied money in order to exist without having to do any work in exchange undermines that belief.

Americans venerate the industrial economy of the past century, when everybody earned a wage by going out and working shifts at factories and farms that actually made shit that people could use. If you were an average Joe, you could work at a factory making cars or at a mine digging coal or at a mill cutting wood. If you were a filthy capitalist pig-dog, you still operated those factories and mines and mills, and therefore provided all those people with a steady wage.

That system - the system where honest work is rewarded with a comfortable salary - is long dead. It died in the 80s, with the nationwide shift from an industrial economy to a financial economy - to a world where people make money by making deals rather than by making things. Under the new system, the salaried workers find themselves working for failing businesses at lower wages with thinner benefits, with the constant threat of redundancy hanging overhead. The capitalist pig-dogs themselves found a new, less socially beneficial way to get rich - borrowing huge amounts of cash from banks, then shuffling the debt around so that it landed on someone else's head and served as a tax credit to boot. The old contract where capitalists enriched the workers by making jobs and giving them a fair wage turned into a new system where the capitalists impoverished the workers by killing jobs and trading in debt.

So Americans want to not be poor anymore, but they also want that prosperity to come from employment. They don't want to see Lazy Larry get paid a UBI for sitting on his mum's couch any more than they want to see Gordon Gecko plunder a family-owned business and strip its assets. Both scenarios just look like a person getting money that they don't deserve. So if you were trying to sell them on a huge basic income plan, it would be easier to base it around a jobs guarantee than to just promise everybody a check. Paradoxically, the more generous option - the one where everybody just gets a slice of cash every year and the Gordon Geckos of the world foot the bill for the first time in their lives - is going to trigger the most backlash, and that backlash will be fanned and exploited by the Gordon Geckos.

So the safer option is to recast the plan as a guarantee of the hard-work-pays-off social contract; as a system where literally anybody can just go to the federal government, say "I want to work," and be rewarded with a salary in exchange for work. This system seems more "fair" to Americans because they believe that prosperity needs to be tied to labor, in some kind of neo-religious ritual sacrifice - burn eight hours a day five days a week for the rest of your life, and in return the gods of capitalism reward you with enough money to live and maybe also pay for a Netflix subscription.

I don't agree with any of that; I think a UBI just makes more sense, not to mention it'll cost less and be less complicated. I think it's even more absurd and meaningless to create busywork for people so you have an excuse to pay them than it is to just give them a check for existing. But on the other hand, the world always needs infrastructure, and infrastructure needs manpower to build. So maybe the solution is to just do both; combine a baseline UBI with a guarantee of a higher-paying 9-to-5 job working for the federal government.

The more time goes by, the more I start seeing trump getting elected is a good thing. not because I think he's a good president, GOD NO! but the fact that people actually paying attention to democracy now. There is no way this woman would have won if trumped and get into office. Trump was the bitter reminder of what happens if we don't vote. 2018 midterm is going to be in interesting.

Seanchaidh:

Saelune:

Seanchaidh:

He is... interesting. He also voted for Trump which, if you're in coal country, I guess made sense?

...so what is YOUR opinion of him exactly?

Cause if he voted for Trump, then I definitely do not like him, and it just makes me distrust him as a 'democrat'. Looking through his twitter, he is pandering to coal people. Seems to me he is a Republican in Democrat's clothing, something you seem to claim is most Democrats.

He's the best candidate in his district. Some of his statements strike me as far more jingoistic/patriotic than I'm comfortable with (which is understandable given his military background), but on the substance he's a fine representative of any place with a legacy of coal mining, and he's got the right idea about campaign finance.

What you have to understand is that Hillary Clinton was an atrocious candidate in general and even more so in West Virginia specifically.

Why are you willing to give this guy the benefit of the doubt but not Hillary? I honestly do not understand your line. Why aren't you complaining he is not left wing enough?

BreakfastMan:

Saelune:

BreakfastMan:

WTF is wrong with addressing the issues of coal miners and current/former coal mining communities?

For one, most of them are apparently Trump supporters

Considering the average income in those areas I highly doubt that, but even I did accept that assumption... So what?

and coal mining needs to go away.

Agreed, but that doesn't necessarily then translate to ignoring the plight faced by current and former coal mining communities. Quite the opposite.

Coal miners are the poster child for 'I voted for someone who actively hurt me and I still don't care'

I will never forgive Trump voters.

bastardofmelbourne:

Saelune:
...so what is YOUR opinion of him exactly?

Cause if he voted for Trump, then I definitely do not like him, and it just makes me distrust him as a 'democrat'. Looking through his twitter, he is pandering to coal people. Seems to me he is a Republican in Democrat's clothing, something you seem to claim is most Democrats.

He did vote for Trump, but he regrets doing so. I think that's important. Voting Trump out of office and undoing the damage he's done is going to require convincing a lot of 2016 Trump voters that they made a mistake.

There are people who voted for Trump in 2016 because they were lightly informed or because they just made the mistake of trusting him. I don't hate those people. I feel sorry for them, because they're the victims of Trump's con-job; they're the guys who got gulled by his fake populism and hollow promises. And if one of those voter has the guts to admit that they were wrong, I welcome them. Better late than never.

Plus, his platform is like a wish-list of Shit West Virginians Need. He panders to coal miners, but he bashes the energy companies that exploit them and wants to invest in renewable energy sources to replace the jobs that coal lost. He wants public healthcare and addiction treatment, he wants better pay for state teachers and nurses, he supports DACA and a path to citizenship for any immigrant, and most importantly - he wants to legalise marijuana. Overall, he's exactly the kind of candidate Democrats need to win places like West Virginia.

When people keep complaining about Democrats not being left-wing enough, I think someone who claims to be a Democrat but voted Trump is the last person to be lax on.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here