5 ms·

What matters more is we don't create an environment where a facist government can thrive. I am not calling Trump a facist but hand-waving away racist policies

What matters more is we don't create an environment where a facist government can thrive. I am not calling Trump a facist but hand-waving away racist policies like deporting all Mexicans (Trump didn't say that, but it was taken that way) or disallowing all Muslims (again, Trump didn't say that but it was taken that way) as "SJW" is irresponsible. I think we can have a country where both can co-exist. Maybe people need to realize they can't work 35-hour weeks at "the factory" anymore. Those jobs are long gone. That sucks and we need to figure out how to get those people back to work but this whole "bringing back the jobs" is complete political BS.

r_smart 10y ago
>I am not calling Trump a facist but hand-waving away racist policies like deporting all Mexicans (Trump didn't say that, but it was taken that way) or disallowing all Muslims (again, Trump didn't say that but it was taken that way) as "SJW" is irresponsible. It was taken that way by people opposed to him or trying to cut him down. I've never heard a supporter represent those as his positions, but rather constantly try to accurately represent what was said. If people decide to create absurd straw men, what responsibility do his supporters have to address them? And how does the wildly inaccurate view of his opponents make him or his supporters irresponsible? A system where a fascist government can thrive is one wherein the press is in collusion with the government, and where people prop up ideological narratives in lieu of the truth. When we constantly push to dehumanize our opponents and their supporters, we start taking the first small steps down the ideological road that leads to the horrors of totalitarian governments.
- madamelic 10y ago
  Yeah, I agree with like 99% of what you are saying. All of that is right. >(From my parent comment) But in the end, what matters more: "some democrat love-relationship with LGBT, environmental stuffs, SJWs, or whatever" -or- "food on your plate, and a place to live in with your family"? What I disagree with is that we have to decide between denigrating others and fixing the economy. We can have both and it is irresponsible to pretend like we have to choose. I am just hoping Trump and Senate Republicans understand that. But my guess is that they'll throw LGBT people under the bus when they need a distraction, which every politician eventually needs. Politicians aren't dumb, their entire livelihood is dependent on knowing how to cater to their base. (Sorry, I feel like my thoughts are becoming a little disjointed from what we are talking about. I buy into like 95% of what Trump supports but I don't buy we need to tear down 'SJW' so the economy can thrive, it is completely illogical to me)
  - r_smart 10y ago
    I'm not sure I understand where the Trump is against gays things comes from. He's probably the most pro LGBT Republican candidate in the history of the country, and arguably has a better track record than Clinton. Personally, I think political correctness is a problem, but that seems like a conversation for another time.
    - madamelic 10y ago
      I would definitely agree with the political correctness comment. I think the big issue with Trump isn't that he is anti-LGBT (He is actually quite LGBT friendly... the same cannot be said for Pence though), the issue is that his campaign has signaled that it is okay to not be. It doesn't matter what you believe, you still have to be civil and respectful of others. It doesn't matter what Trump's position is, the issue is his spoken beliefs have somehow morphed into supporting alt-right beliefs.
      - r_smart 10y ago
        I feel like on the LGBT issue, you might be falling into an echo chamber trap. If you have some campaign points that support your claim, I'd be happy to hear them. Points for consideration, particularly as far as campaign messaging goes: -He had Peter Thiel speak at the RNC -During his speech at the RNC he talked about defending LGBT rights and said that it felt good to say that at a Republican gathering and get cheers. Think about that. He has the Republican party cheering for gays. I never thought I'd see the day. -When asked about the bathroom row in N.C. he said he doesn't care what bathroom people use. -He said if Caitlin Jenner visits Trump Tower, she can use any bathroom she wants. Mike Pence is an obvious appeal to the Republican base. I think it's important to keep in mind the the VP tends to not be all that important. Unless the president dies. If you got any friends planning a Trump assassination, remind them of that :) I'd also like to point out that there's a decent chance his stance on this isn't a contrivance (though it might be). The LGBT population isn't considered part of the Republican base, and generally they either ignore or campaign against gays. In a lot of ways, being as openly pro-gay was probably considered a risk by establishment Republicans.
aclsid 10y ago
The work at the factory is working wonders for the economy of Mexico and China. Add to that, the fact that US labor laws are pretty strict and you should have a steady source of jobs right there. I'm sorry but bringing back the jobs is not bs. How do you justify that Ford and GMC took TARP funds but they still preferred to let Detroit rot? I did not like Clinton or Trump. Bernie Sanders probably had a better platform, but socialist policies rarely do something good for the economy. But on this point, Trump is absolutely right, to the point where Ford backed down from their plans to move a factory to Mexico.
- madamelic 10y ago
  I just don't know. Do we really want to stagnate just for the nostalgia of the past? I see letting go of these jobs as a freedom to move onto the next evolution of work. Maybe that is incredibly idealistic but maybe it is better to accept that maybe NAFTA and letting jobs go to foreign countries was wrong and move onto building the future. Corporations are definitely shitty but I am hesitant to cheer on bringing back the past just for the sake of thumbing our nose at people.
  - bduerst 10y ago
    Why aren't people lamenting more over the loss of agricultural jobs? We went from 33% Agricultural jobs to just 2%, thanks to automation, yet we love one form of manual labor more than the other. Even in China and other outsourced countries, manufacturing jobs are being replaced by automation. This romancing of manufacturing jobs is a strange cultural obsession in the U.S. Maybe it's because our "American" identity is tied to working hard to producing physical things, but I digress.
    - candiodari 10y ago
      Easy, back then: heavy back-braking vastly underpaid agricultural jobs with inconsistent hours were replaced on a voluntary basis by offering people higher pay in factories. Aside from agricultural employers, no complaints. Now: we'll take that $30 per hour job you've been doing for 15-20 years thank you. Oh you need a job ? How about this 10$ per hour (with unpaid overtime and a horrible boss) burger flipping job ? No ? How about these 3 part time $8.75 per hour jobs that will require you to commute between them, at least once per day, cannot be done without a car (that your employer is not paying for) ... Better job ? You do have a masters or phd, right ? No ? Well don't expect them to even call back. There is no romancing of manufacturing jobs, I believe that's a misunderstanding. There is a romancing of reliable, long-term, well-paying jobs. Once you get that, it's very easy to understand. If the service economy cannot provide that, it's just not a replacement of the manufacturing jobs. The leftist/democrat point of view used to be that if the "new economic reality" can't provide that, it needs to be legislated out of existence, attacked and opposed at every turn. Now Trump is the one providing that viewpoint on the republican side. I seem to remember that in the late 80s we had a similar push. Everyone pushed to be "little entrepreneurs" (ha!). Doing package delivery. Cold calling sales. Pyramid schemes. It was legislated out of existence, rightfully. And yes, I get it. This is hacker news. "Legislated out of existence, attacked and opposed at every turn", we're taking about airbnb, uber, sprig, delivery hero, ... and by extension about google, yahoo, facebook, etc ... You really don't want those companies opposed, or god help us, destroyed, for obvious reasons. You don't get why that people feel that needs to happen, because none of your friends are confronted with reality like this, and there aren't any family members providing a perspective of what manufacturing brings. I just hope I can bring some more viewpoints in the picture here.

r_smart 10y ago

>I am not calling Trump a facist but hand-waving away racist policies like deporting all Mexicans (Trump didn't say that, but it was taken that way) or disallowing all Muslims (again, Trump didn't say that but it was taken that way) as "SJW" is irresponsible. It was taken that way by people opposed to him or trying to cut him down. I've never heard a supporter represent those as his positions, but rather constantly try to accurately represent what was said. If people decide to create absurd straw men, what responsibility do his supporters have to address them? And how does the wildly inaccurate view of his opponents make him or his supporters irresponsible? A system where a fascist government can thrive is one wherein the press is in collusion with the government, and where people prop up ideological narratives in lieu of the truth. When we constantly push to dehumanize our opponents and their supporters, we start taking the first small steps down the ideological road that leads to the horrors of totalitarian governments.

madamelic 10y ago
Yeah, I agree with like 99% of what you are saying. All of that is right. >(From my parent comment) But in the end, what matters more: "some democrat love-relationship with LGBT, environmental stuffs, SJWs, or whatever" -or- "food on your plate, and a place to live in with your family"? What I disagree with is that we have to decide between denigrating others and fixing the economy. We can have both and it is irresponsible to pretend like we have to choose. I am just hoping Trump and Senate Republicans understand that. But my guess is that they'll throw LGBT people under the bus when they need a distraction, which every politician eventually needs. Politicians aren't dumb, their entire livelihood is dependent on knowing how to cater to their base. (Sorry, I feel like my thoughts are becoming a little disjointed from what we are talking about. I buy into like 95% of what Trump supports but I don't buy we need to tear down 'SJW' so the economy can thrive, it is completely illogical to me)
- r_smart 10y ago
  I'm not sure I understand where the Trump is against gays things comes from. He's probably the most pro LGBT Republican candidate in the history of the country, and arguably has a better track record than Clinton. Personally, I think political correctness is a problem, but that seems like a conversation for another time.
  - madamelic 10y ago
    I would definitely agree with the political correctness comment. I think the big issue with Trump isn't that he is anti-LGBT (He is actually quite LGBT friendly... the same cannot be said for Pence though), the issue is that his campaign has signaled that it is okay to not be. It doesn't matter what you believe, you still have to be civil and respectful of others. It doesn't matter what Trump's position is, the issue is his spoken beliefs have somehow morphed into supporting alt-right beliefs.
    - r_smart 10y ago
      I feel like on the LGBT issue, you might be falling into an echo chamber trap. If you have some campaign points that support your claim, I'd be happy to hear them. Points for consideration, particularly as far as campaign messaging goes: -He had Peter Thiel speak at the RNC -During his speech at the RNC he talked about defending LGBT rights and said that it felt good to say that at a Republican gathering and get cheers. Think about that. He has the Republican party cheering for gays. I never thought I'd see the day. -When asked about the bathroom row in N.C. he said he doesn't care what bathroom people use. -He said if Caitlin Jenner visits Trump Tower, she can use any bathroom she wants. Mike Pence is an obvious appeal to the Republican base. I think it's important to keep in mind the the VP tends to not be all that important. Unless the president dies. If you got any friends planning a Trump assassination, remind them of that :) I'd also like to point out that there's a decent chance his stance on this isn't a contrivance (though it might be). The LGBT population isn't considered part of the Republican base, and generally they either ignore or campaign against gays. In a lot of ways, being as openly pro-gay was probably considered a risk by establishment Republicans.

aclsid 10y ago

The work at the factory is working wonders for the economy of Mexico and China. Add to that, the fact that US labor laws are pretty strict and you should have a steady source of jobs right there. I'm sorry but bringing back the jobs is not bs. How do you justify that Ford and GMC took TARP funds but they still preferred to let Detroit rot? I did not like Clinton or Trump. Bernie Sanders probably had a better platform, but socialist policies rarely do something good for the economy. But on this point, Trump is absolutely right, to the point where Ford backed down from their plans to move a factory to Mexico.

madamelic 10y ago
I just don't know. Do we really want to stagnate just for the nostalgia of the past? I see letting go of these jobs as a freedom to move onto the next evolution of work. Maybe that is incredibly idealistic but maybe it is better to accept that maybe NAFTA and letting jobs go to foreign countries was wrong and move onto building the future. Corporations are definitely shitty but I am hesitant to cheer on bringing back the past just for the sake of thumbing our nose at people.
- bduerst 10y ago
  Why aren't people lamenting more over the loss of agricultural jobs? We went from 33% Agricultural jobs to just 2%, thanks to automation, yet we love one form of manual labor more than the other. Even in China and other outsourced countries, manufacturing jobs are being replaced by automation. This romancing of manufacturing jobs is a strange cultural obsession in the U.S. Maybe it's because our "American" identity is tied to working hard to producing physical things, but I digress.
  - candiodari 10y ago
    Easy, back then: heavy back-braking vastly underpaid agricultural jobs with inconsistent hours were replaced on a voluntary basis by offering people higher pay in factories. Aside from agricultural employers, no complaints. Now: we'll take that $30 per hour job you've been doing for 15-20 years thank you. Oh you need a job ? How about this 10$ per hour (with unpaid overtime and a horrible boss) burger flipping job ? No ? How about these 3 part time $8.75 per hour jobs that will require you to commute between them, at least once per day, cannot be done without a car (that your employer is not paying for) ... Better job ? You do have a masters or phd, right ? No ? Well don't expect them to even call back. There is no romancing of manufacturing jobs, I believe that's a misunderstanding. There is a romancing of reliable, long-term, well-paying jobs. Once you get that, it's very easy to understand. If the service economy cannot provide that, it's just not a replacement of the manufacturing jobs. The leftist/democrat point of view used to be that if the "new economic reality" can't provide that, it needs to be legislated out of existence, attacked and opposed at every turn. Now Trump is the one providing that viewpoint on the republican side. I seem to remember that in the late 80s we had a similar push. Everyone pushed to be "little entrepreneurs" (ha!). Doing package delivery. Cold calling sales. Pyramid schemes. It was legislated out of existence, rightfully. And yes, I get it. This is hacker news. "Legislated out of existence, attacked and opposed at every turn", we're taking about airbnb, uber, sprig, delivery hero, ... and by extension about google, yahoo, facebook, etc ... You really don't want those companies opposed, or god help us, destroyed, for obvious reasons. You don't get why that people feel that needs to happen, because none of your friends are confronted with reality like this, and there aren't any family members providing a perspective of what manufacturing brings. I just hope I can bring some more viewpoints in the picture here.