4 ms·

Obama is also a neoliberal. While it was a mistake for her not to visit Wisconsin, in terms of actual issues she's not that different from Obama.

muninn_ 10y ago
This is true. I live in the Midwest, voted for Obama twice, but saw that for the most part the government just kept on screwing the rest of us. Didn't matter who we elected, we never got "change". I didn't vote for Trump, but the people I know who did, voted for him because he appeared to be a serious wrench that we could throw into the machine. People are tired of bombing campaigns, corporate welfare, and feeling like they don't have a say or don't have control over their government. These states Hillary lost: Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, she lost because they didn't feel like she was going to do anything different than her predecessor. And it's true. She wouldn't have.
- jpgvm 10y ago
  Though it begs the question, was there anything Obama/Clinton should have done? Why is the onus on the government to bring change? All I hear from that side of the debate is that somehow the government should restore prosperity to these regions. Why aren't these people moving to do something for themselves if they want change? If all you can imagine your state being good for is low-skilled labor there is nothing the government can do long term to protect that. Protectionism might bring some "jobs" back but it will come at a long term cost of reducing the USA's competitiveness in the global market (this is exactly why globalisation is a thing). Personally I think policy in Middle America needs to embrace the state of the world (putting aside petty coast vs interior bullshit) and think about what they can do to compete on a global scale. Then maybe their lives would be better.
  - muninn_ 10y ago
    Well, what do you think they should do? I'm not proposing a solution, but I do think what I said is true. Even if we equal out everything else, and assume that the government is woefully unable to help poor people or those who have lost jobs, at least one of the candidates is giving those people the illusion of change or hope that things can change. Is that not true? In regard to the competitiveness of the USA. I'm not schooled well enough in economics to completely understand everything that is going on, or without speaking about specifics argue for or against your point, but if we need to maintain "competitiveness", and the resulting insanely high profits and income inequality across the board, how are we going to ensure that this fortune is spread throughout the country and not concentrated in the hands of the few? If we can't do that, then we also can't begrudge the poor and those left behind by globalization the change to elect people that will enact policies that will benefit them, even if it's to the detriment of people who, quite frankly, don't care about them because they're just a bunch of poor dumb hicks, or poor black people in the ghetto. Please keep in mind I'm just open for discussion and expressing a view. I respect what you have to say here, and my goal isn't to cause an argument but to listen to what you have to say, ask questions, and state my opinion as well. :)
  - nqzero 10y ago
    they're not asking for the gov't to provide answers - they're asking for reduced taxes, reduced red tape, something about breaking up banks that i don't totally understand, and assurance that their guns are safe (i'm sure i'm missing a lot, but it's that sort of stuff). of my perhaps 12 non-liberal friends here, 4 have started businesses (including one that is pretty innovative). none of them went to more than a year of college, none started with well to do parents, they're making solid money by ohio standards, and employing 15 people in total. not sure if they're an anomaly, but the belief is widespread that if the govt loosens the shackles, new small businesses will blossom i'm not interested in arguing about whether that belief is well founded or self-consistent, or whether their vision of a hands-off gov't is sustainable (i'd argue that neither is sound, but they're not so obviously wrong as to be equivalent to asking for a handout)

muninn_ 10y ago

This is true. I live in the Midwest, voted for Obama twice, but saw that for the most part the government just kept on screwing the rest of us. Didn't matter who we elected, we never got "change". I didn't vote for Trump, but the people I know who did, voted for him because he appeared to be a serious wrench that we could throw into the machine. People are tired of bombing campaigns, corporate welfare, and feeling like they don't have a say or don't have control over their government. These states Hillary lost: Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, she lost because they didn't feel like she was going to do anything different than her predecessor. And it's true. She wouldn't have.

jpgvm 10y ago
Though it begs the question, was there anything Obama/Clinton should have done? Why is the onus on the government to bring change? All I hear from that side of the debate is that somehow the government should restore prosperity to these regions. Why aren't these people moving to do something for themselves if they want change? If all you can imagine your state being good for is low-skilled labor there is nothing the government can do long term to protect that. Protectionism might bring some "jobs" back but it will come at a long term cost of reducing the USA's competitiveness in the global market (this is exactly why globalisation is a thing). Personally I think policy in Middle America needs to embrace the state of the world (putting aside petty coast vs interior bullshit) and think about what they can do to compete on a global scale. Then maybe their lives would be better.
- muninn_ 10y ago
  Well, what do you think they should do? I'm not proposing a solution, but I do think what I said is true. Even if we equal out everything else, and assume that the government is woefully unable to help poor people or those who have lost jobs, at least one of the candidates is giving those people the illusion of change or hope that things can change. Is that not true? In regard to the competitiveness of the USA. I'm not schooled well enough in economics to completely understand everything that is going on, or without speaking about specifics argue for or against your point, but if we need to maintain "competitiveness", and the resulting insanely high profits and income inequality across the board, how are we going to ensure that this fortune is spread throughout the country and not concentrated in the hands of the few? If we can't do that, then we also can't begrudge the poor and those left behind by globalization the change to elect people that will enact policies that will benefit them, even if it's to the detriment of people who, quite frankly, don't care about them because they're just a bunch of poor dumb hicks, or poor black people in the ghetto. Please keep in mind I'm just open for discussion and expressing a view. I respect what you have to say here, and my goal isn't to cause an argument but to listen to what you have to say, ask questions, and state my opinion as well. :)
- nqzero 10y ago
  they're not asking for the gov't to provide answers - they're asking for reduced taxes, reduced red tape, something about breaking up banks that i don't totally understand, and assurance that their guns are safe (i'm sure i'm missing a lot, but it's that sort of stuff). of my perhaps 12 non-liberal friends here, 4 have started businesses (including one that is pretty innovative). none of them went to more than a year of college, none started with well to do parents, they're making solid money by ohio standards, and employing 15 people in total. not sure if they're an anomaly, but the belief is widespread that if the govt loosens the shackles, new small businesses will blossom i'm not interested in arguing about whether that belief is well founded or self-consistent, or whether their vision of a hands-off gov't is sustainable (i'd argue that neither is sound, but they're not so obviously wrong as to be equivalent to asking for a handout)