Hate is pure emotional, but I suppose there is some logic to it. I'll refer you something Penn Jillette said: "I know a lot of people who donate enough money to Hillary that they could hang out with her and share tables at dinners, but no one wants to actually hang out with her." He then goes on to say that she is the only president since Nixon that, once you meet her, you end up hating her. This is not true for Bill Clinton, Obama, Bush, etc.

America wasn't built on dynasties, monarchies, etc. I'm sure you know this from Treason Day.

Clinton is corrupt. No one, even government officials, would stand in her defense over the email scandals. Any citizen would be facing jail time. Two people have already stepped down from the DNC over corruption. In some emails, even her own daughter, Chelsea, was saying that the Clinton Foundation is going a bit too far into the corrupt category. Of course, this point is all found under headings where an aide calls Chelsea a spoiled brat. I don't know... is that a case of liberal media bias?

She is also seen as a total self-serving politician. No self-respecting woman would stand beside a man who cheated on her, much less one who did so publicly on multiple occasions.

The only thing that is saving her is Obama. Back in '08, the Democrats could have had Trump with all his warts and I'm convinced he would have won in a landslide as Obama did. The difference is that Obama didn't do enough to truly piss off the country.

People are afraid that Clinton will just go to war with everyone. Not sure how this is a logical reason to vote for Trump, but I digress.

Americans like a good underdog story. Trump is definitely an underdog.

And yes... there is sexism. Just as people argued that America wasn't ready for a black president, people feel the country isn't ready for a woman. Well, I think that another woman would be fine for even Hillary haters, but Clinton as the "first female president" seems more of a footnote than a major accomplishment. I'm writing that under "be careful," since I don't want to make it that I'm promoting sexism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgz3p4cEXZU

Better than I can explain it.

But for those who aren't going to watch the 5 minute video. Red used to be democrat, but Red ended up being a "Red is for Reagan."

Very nice.

I wish they'd leave things alone.

I hope you won't take much offense to this, but stuff like this shows an absolutely incredible ignorance about a lot of things on your part.

If you're somehow thinking it's okay not to vote, there's something not right with you. A ton of people lost their lives for the right to vote, and you're willing to throw that right away for those people, because reasons???

You're somehow saying Obama winning in 2008 was a landslide. It wasn't. It's almost like you stuck your head in the sand and ignored everything around you until a few months ago. I find it amazing that you think Obama didn't do enough to "piss off" the country. This is pure head in the sand stuff. Where do you think the Tea Party came from? How do think the Tea Party, the radical wing of the Republican Party, managed to grab a huge amount of power in regard to influencing policy?

You and "people" are afraid Clinton's going to go to war with everyone? Wat? Trump has basically said he's going to go to war with anyone he disagrees with regardless of political, diplomatic, or humanitarian collateral damage. You won't find any Democrat who doesn't consider Clinton to be a hawk, but she's not driving us into any wars. She would certainly not want her legacy to be tied to war. Again, this is head in the sand type stuff. Your misrepresentations of her are ridiculous. She is the status quo. If you don't like the status quo, or want chaos, vote for Trump. But don't be surprised if a Trump Presidency results in WWIII or things you've never seen in this country before.

My assumption, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that you either don't vote or are an "Independent". Anyone who calls themselves an Independent, in my opinion, is someone who's really a Republican but doesn't want to associate with them (except in Sanders' case where he didn't want to associate with Democrats, which is extreme irony). So much of your language I've read in this thread is seemingly you essentially trying to talk yourself into voting for Trump (we get it, you think Clinton is the devil or something). You say incredibly ridiculous things about Clinton, and completely ignore that Trump is objectively worse on all levels than her.

Finally, Trump is an underdog? Wow, I just don't even know what to say. He's a bully, a villain, and thinks he's always a winner. He perceives himself as the favorite, even when he's going to lose in a landslide. That's like saying "America loves an idiot". He's nothing like any typical American, and it's a great snowjob for anyone to think otherwise. His public history is "on tap", and there is zero pretty about it. Acting like this is some hold your nose proposition is insane. One candidate isn't a great one. One is objectively horrific.

Hi, nunnehi;

I guess you haven't really followed this thread or even understood the entire point I've been making in creating this thread. I personally think the whole election is nuts and I believe both sides are illogical and I've been making this point over and over in this thread. Heck, even on this very page, you will see maps showing how the election would look if only men or women voted, which only shows more divisions and craziness. I didn't write what I wrote as a presentation of my own opinions, but as a light analysis of what I think people think of Clinton.

The results of Obama -vs- McCain was popular vote: 52.9 -vs- 45.7; electoral college: 365 -vs- 173 respectively. I wouldn't be surprised if Trump / Clinton isn't closer.

If it makes you feel any better, I did say upthread that, objectively, Clinton is possibly the most qualified person to ever run for president.

As for being okay to vote or not vote... I think the Mike Rowe article above is a decent summary of my thoughts. I also live in Texas, so my vote effectively doesn't matter thanks to the Electoral College.

People died for all of our free choice and our freedom to have opinions. They didn't die because they wanted anyone to be forced to do anything. No part of the Constitution says or implies that anyone is forced to vote on any issue or for any person.

Using your logic of "voting for appreciation," I suppose I should vote on every single person on the ballot, regardless if I know their name, the position they are running for, or have any clue of why my vote for them matters. I'm simply choosing to not vote for one extra name. I don't think the founders or all the people who died wanted everyone to vote on pure ignorance, which is exactly the argument you are making, even though I know you didn't intend to make said argument.

I guess I should call into question the point about "Independent." I honestly don't know what "Independent" means in political terms, except that you don't show a particular preference towards either party. If the Democrats have a better candidate, let them win. I don't care. I personally think it is a waste to "always vote Republican" as many people do, but to each their own. That is their right.

If you really need my perspective:

1- Extremely social liberal, but definitely not SJW. I personally do not do drugs or care to enter into a gay marriage, and I wouldn't demand my wife have abortion, but I support everyone's right to do drugs (I'm pro legalization), for gay marriage, and pro choice. I do, however, have a problem with *forcing* ministers to do gay marriages if it is against their beliefs.

2- I'm fiscally conservative, for states rights (as long as this right isn't confused with pro-slavery or whatever oppressive thing you want to bring up), and against government waste and spending.

3- I do believe that the government should be there for regulating certain industries, and in fact, I do believe that there isn't enough regulation in many cases. I do believe that the government should provide welfare, and I don't think they are doing this completely right.

4- Strong believer in the separation of Church and State, or any X and State than infringes on personal choices that don't hurt anyone else.

5- Very much against war and especially against any "War on [drugs | terrorism | etc]."

I think I'm just a centrist who has a bunch of shades of both sides, as I believe most Americans are. The problem is that we are currently facing extreme choices, and the loudest voices are the extremists, and the news are catering to these echo chambers. I have a massive issue with extremism, and I'm calling foul on both sides by a) showing that they are both happily eating lies and b) that it is dead simple to call the other hypocrite when the argument is basically calling the other a hypocrite. Sorry, the extremes are both moronic and I have no problems with calling out mythology.

While I understand that your use of a label is a short-cut for you, please don't assume that I use any label for myself. I don't have time for labels because I don't want the baggage associated with any label. Unfortunately, you are choosing to pin a label with all of its baggage onto me, which is highly presumptuous. I'd rather you not use a label; I'd rather you not attempt to smear me with the baggage.

I don't have a problem with them saying we should bring jobs back. The problem is when they say we need to bring back manufacturing jobs specifically. It doesn't make sense to value manufacturing jobs over others.

Do we also need to bring back agricultural jobs too or just manufacturing because "we don't make stuff anymore"?

It's about pressure. Fewer voters are complaining about agriculture because the jobs that were taken are "ones no one wants anyways." Agriculture, unfortunately, is basically legalized slavery. So is construction in many areas, etc. These people, if they could vote and weren't risking deportation, would be a pretty powerful voice.

Manufacturing is easier to understand and more visible. "Everything" is made in China. We don't make TVs here anymore. We had to bail out the auto industry as well. If food was labeled "picked by a pregnant illegal immigrant earning $3 / day and living in a leaky shack with 50 others," I'm sure we'd be talking about it.

But, I'm not sure if you are more concerned with manufacturing per se or manual labor per se. From your above post, I think you believe these people are moving on to office jobs. This isn't true. Many of these towns have one sit down job: the woman who interviews people for disability. The rest either stand up or collect off the government.

Now, you may wonder why they don't just do office work. The first reason is they have to uproot and leave behind friends and family, but there are other reasons as well, and this sounds horrible (since I can't exclude Cleveland / Detroit / etc), but bear with me: there are people who simply aren't capable or interested in working in front of a computer. Some are too dumb, but others used to work in offices and went back to working manual labor. Ever hear of the term "fluorescent suntan?"

Why is labor such a bad thing? It gives the technophobes and "macho" D students a chance at doing something productive. It also give people who are passionate about doing manual work a sense of self-purpose, even if they could "do better." You have to accept that everyone has a ceiling. For many, that ceiling isn't much higher than flipping burgers, but drilling out screw holes pays more. Others just have different interests, and that is fine as well.

I almost never agree with bahbahmickey but he is completely correct here.

We need manufacturing jobs as much as we need blacksmith jobs or scissor sharpening jobs, both of which were in abundance many years ago. The manufacturing job is mostly obsolete. Even third world Manufacturing jobs paying $1 an hour are in the process of being replaced by machines.

To focus on manufacturing jobs would be such a step backwards in innovation and development.

That said, much can be done to ease the transition for former manufacturing workers in to new industries. Make no mistake though, the transition must be made, as painful as it is.

Well, okay...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqceHviNBC4

Can I ask how you think these people are going to do anything but manufacturing? At some point, yo have to accept that we aren't all capable or interested in doing rocket engineering. Even today, 70% of Americans don't go to college, even with guaranteed student loans.

We aren't paying people $1 / hour to do manufacturing overseas. The days of buying product X for $1 and selling it for $20 hasn't happened since the 90s.In fact, Foxconn was thinking of opening an iPhone factory in either LA or Detroit because it would be cheaper due to labor costs in China.

I don't know where you got that info about foxconn opening a factory in LA or Detroit but there is no way labor costs in the US are lower than in China. Maybe it's lower when shipping costs are included. But what is the solution when automation replaces these workers?

The point is that keeping around outdated industries for the job protection of a selective minority is a step backwards.

As to what will they do? They will train for whatever they can make a good living at and is in demand while the state supports them during this training period.

What did telephone switch operators do when their jobs got outdated? Gold miners? They did something else. Much like the subsistence farmers who moved in to manufacturing at the turn of the century.

I think you are grossly underestimating the human capacity for learning.

If some guy wants to get paid to dig a hole when a machine can, in one scoop, do an entire days work for about 50 cents for of fuel - the value of his labor is almost zero.

After the value of their labor dips below a certain point the argument for trade protectionism is basically just a cry for a lucrative welfare program that requires recipients to perform arbitrary tasks. It's actually significantly worse since you're sending the signal to future generations that it's ok to shirk off the responsibility of investing in skills that society actually needs, because the government is going to keep paying you to carry out low skill tasks for massively inflated wages. And then a new generation will inevitably get stuck in the same situation where they're too old to learn new tricks.

It sucks when peoples skillsets are made obsolete, but that's why having a social safety net is important.

She is so far above him in this debate, it's hilarious.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn#United_States

and more...

https://encrypted.google.com/search?...+factory+in+us

The Port Unions have actively blocked automation and protected outdated employees, but no one is crying foul over their 6 figure nepotism jobs. The difference is that you can't move the entire ports of the US off shores, for some fairly obvious reasons.

There are a lot of industries that fall into the category.

This is going to be me educating you on many levels I don't feel like getting into, but as a little start, a factory worker may start by mopping up floors (this is actually a very important job, but I know you don't know about this stuff), then he goes to learn how to work a punch press (costs him money while still working 12 hour days), then that is obsoleted and he has to go learn a computerized CNC mill (more time off, more education), then he has to learn... it's an endless loop, and these people work for 40 years and retiring while earning $35k / year.

This only scratched the surface, but you realize how much money this will cost to keep up labor skills in this live or die environment? Are you willing to pay another 50% taxes to support this system?

Telephone switch operators were women living in the 1950s. What do you think they did?

I think you are grossly overestimating the human capacity to learn and grossly underestimating the culture of poverty.

I think you are overestimating the quality of education in many parts of the country. Where I went to school, no one, and I mean no one, in the entire 100+ history of the system ever went to an Ivy League, sister ivy, or any top rated school. I know, because I was trying to get into Washington & Lee. My guidance counselor told me to give that wonderful stat because that's the reality, then advised me to go to community college instead and not bother. Isn't that something?

I think you are overestimating the culture of "trying" to get into a "better workforce."

I think you are assuming that every single person actually wants to work in a cubicle or wants to gain some odd skills, which is plain absurd.

I think you are overestimating the quality of education that comes from going to trade school. The trade school -> job ratio is horrifyingly bad. ITT Tech is the poster child, but it is actually nearly universal. Oh right, a lot of these trade schools focus on manual labor, which you think should be obsoleted.

Don't put words in my mouth. Never said manual labor is obsolete. The market determines what jobs will be obsolete and what jobs aren't obsolete.

As to the cost of retraining and supporting out of work workers, I am much more willing to pay higher taxes to do that as opposed to shutting down trade and be forced to buy expensively and inefficiently made products while lowering US product competitiveness in the world market.

As to your port union example, I am crying foul. Does the fact that no one cries foul make the act of blocking automation a good idea?

But ok, if we're going to give examples about creating jobs at the expense of introducing inefficiencies and higher cost in to the system, what is your view on states like New Jersey mandating that you can't pump your own gas?

On the subject of education,i never said education in this country is great but the solution should be to improve education rather than being happy with the status quo and not providing the uneducated an incentive to get more education.

Your guidance counselor's attitude is precisely what we need less of around here.

Are you for free will and free choice? What if these people don't want to be educated? I just linked to a video where the guy said point-blank that half the people in his county can't read. The other people are saying straight-up that there are no jobs and some 50 yo woman is picking up cans at 45c / lb. Walmart closed down, even. You can educate these people all day, but there are no jobs.

The products made in the USA are not more expensive and definitely not less efficiently made than Chinese products. You are paying a huge web of middle people when you buy products from America. The BOM price of USA made products are on par with China. I know this because I've had to do the research, worked in B2B and B2C sales, and I used to personally buy / sell online. The prices aren't what people think... not even close. That $25 product you bought online was, more often than not, $15 landing and the extraneous cost to get it to you cost another $5. That $5 profit has to pay for buildings, equipment, salaries, etc. This issue is far too complex for soundbites, and the lies in "It is cheaper to have it done in China" are as abundant and egregious as "Bottled water is better than tap water."

If the residents of NJ don't want to lift the ban, that is on them. I personally feel it is strange, but apparently the people are choosing to keep it around, the price of gas in NJ is supposedly cheaper than neighboring states, and it gives people who can't or won't be educated a stable income.

The difference in our opinion is that, as I'm understanding it, you think that every person wants some education, and I'm telling you that this is so not the case.

If someone chooses to get an education, they should have that right, and I have no qualms about the government helping these people get a leg up, but ONLY if they actually want to do it. Some people are truly happy pushing a punch press for 12 hours then going home and plopping in front of the TV with a 6 pack. I'm not going to force this person to learn algebra or learn to read Dr Seuss if they have no desire to. A well balanced economy has to be able to take care of all walks of life. The current solution is handing these people disability, which I'm sure is far worse for the economy than the upkeep of jobs that make some profit.

I don't think every person wants education just as I don't think the people who started out manufacturing don't want to all manufacture. Lots of kids don't want to go to school but k-12 is mandatory for a reason. High school probably wasn't mandatory at some point in US history but due to the increased knowledge base needed to be a productive member of society, high school became mandatory.

You seem to either think manufacturing is the dream job choice and that's the only job type the rest of America should aim to keep around or you think the industry in which you start out in should be the only industry you are happy to stay in.

What about coal miners losing work due to cheap domestic natural gas? What's your solution there?

With regards to the NJ station agent topic, let's say the citizens of NJ vote to remove that law and most gas stations become self pump. What happens then under your plan?

I used to work in manufacturing, construction, and quite a few other industries that took heavy hits in jobs, pay, and benefits. These are "dream jobs" for some people, but not everyone. While you and I agree these are horrible jobs, our opinions on dream jobs don't matter.

Clinton said that green tech will create new jobs for the coal miners. Of course, green tech is also a massive money pit that's propped up by the government.

The demand for natural gas employees is very high, and any coal minor can move from VA to TX, ND, SD, work on an ocean rig and probably have a good living.... but that's the problem. Moving 20 miles is a far cry from moving 1500 miles.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articl...ying-Positions

If the residents vote to change the law, the jobs won't vaporize overnight and the entire state won't face economic decimation. The stats say that an overwhelming majority of NJ residents prefer not to pump their own gas, especially in inclimate weather.

You don't seem to have a solution for the coal miner case and just seem to be pointing out problems in coalminers changing industries.

If we were to go with your solution for manufacturing and apply it to coal, it would be for the government to subsidize the coal industry and mine more coal than the market demands.

I don't know if green energy will pan out economically. I do know with any new technology, it takes many years for investments to pan out and out of the 10 things you invest in, maybe 3 things will work out. That doesn't mean you don't invest and experiment in the future. So maybe green enery will be self sustainable , maybe it won't but we are fairly sure coal in its current form isn't coming back.

I also don't understand your repeated outcry of the horrors of having to move to a place with better opportunities. That is a basic tenet of the foundation of this country. People coming here to find better opportunities. Sure there is some pain in uprooting families and taking kids out of schools but if schools in these single industry towns are as bad as you say, a move to a developing economically vibrant city will be an upgrade.

The problem with keeping around out of date industries in an effort to keep the status quo is that if applied at too wide of a scale, eventually no industry will be competitive and you won't even have the option of moving.

I don't have a total solution. It would likely be a combination of guaranteeing continuing education to those who want it and guaranteeing that there is work for those who do not. The problem isn't so much that industry is leaving, but that there is nothing staying. NAFTA and other trade agreements were built on the thought that America would become a service-oriented economy, which is becoming somewhat true, but regardless, everyone can't become an eloi.

Yes, the government does this for a load of industries, and these industries are hardly isolated to mining, factories, and agriculture.

In the last paragraph, you said something about government intervention being inefficient, but in this paragraph, you support the government as an investor. History hasn't shown the government to be good investors of innovation. If there is some mixture of private and public funding, I'm comfortable with that: SpaceX has private investors and help from NASA and DARPA. Boston Dynamics was, in part Google and DARPA. This will sound a bit liberatarian, but I don't think the government is well-qualified to solely decide what to invest in, at least not in today's world.

Well... the US actually imports more coal from other countries than it produces. US mines are shutting down because it is cheaper to import and wait for coal from overseas.

I'm not really sure why paying overseas miners, truckers, shippers, and then local truckers is cheaper than digging it here and shipping direct, but I guess there is some global exploitation going on here. It is only a matter of time before labor conditions will be fought for overseas.

In personal cases, it makes sense. A person can choose to move to California to be an actor or software developer.

In the case of manufacturing towns clearing out, this is a crazy plan. You are talking about a mass move of 20+ million* people to... where exactly?

*Ohio, Michigan, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, every manufacturing town along the Mississippi River...

This style of mass relocation has been done in US history. It didn't go very well... or at the least, there was a very painful recovery process (see the ghetto in your local city).

As for schools in single industry towns, no... I'm talking about inner city schools, where I went. Wouldn't think these single room schools are the bees knees either.

Has it occurred to you that people don't want to move? The weather in West Virginia is way better than the weather in North Dakota.

I can't really fathom all the reasons people want to stay home, as I'm a wanderlust and traveled more than healthy. I do know that many of my peers growing up never seen anything outside of a few block area: the rest was "scary ****ing suburbia." Hell, my barber back in Ohio never seen south of the freeway and he was in his 70s.

People don't see the world as "well, if I move to X, I will have more opportunity and won't worry about being unemployed and I'll be rich!" Many of these people are more concerned about where they are going to go, moving away from family, not ending up homeless in a strange town with no support system, and no money to grab from mommy and daddy when the **** hits the fan. They know that they were living paycheck to paycheck choosing between food or clothing each time. Why should these people take a risk of moving from a relatively stable (not homeless, not lonely, not without family) situation to venture off to greener pastures with no guarantees, especially when they only have a final paycheck for $400 and no bank account?

The tidbit about US coal imports is very false. Not only does the US produce more coal than it imports, it even exports more coal than it imports.

I am all for the cooperation between government and industry to generate jobs. I am not for forced migration. I have no idea why you would think that. I also do not have it out for manufacturing. The programmers of tomorrow could very well become the manufacturers of today and the farmers of yesterday.

This world is ever changing at a faster rate and it would benefit this country if we put resources towards the future while not casting aside those buffeted by the winds of change.

That in order to create a better life for our citizens, we should aim to increase demand for American labor organically. The only way to do that is to have the American workforce match up skills wise with current and preferably future job needs.

So what did you guys think of that recording of Trump and Billy Bush on the bus? Is that normal locker room talk? It seemed like he was trying to impress Billy Bush.

eh.. you're right on this. I got a factoid mixed up. (hooray political talk. I can be wrong)

Didn't mean to imply that you are for force migration, but this quote bothers me: "I also don't understand your repeated outcry of the horrors of having to move to a place with better opportunities. That is a basic tenet of the foundation of this country. People coming here to find better opportunities. Sure there is some pain in uprooting families and taking kids out of schools but if schools in these single industry towns are as bad as you say, a move to a developing economically vibrant city will be an upgrade."

There are many things wrong with this attitude, as I went into above, but I'll give you a personal story, to make it clearer for you.

I currently live in Austin, but I've been contacted by a few companies from San Francisco to do work for them. I currently work in a restaurant earning below poverty wages (can't find work here, for whatever reason, but that's another subject). Fortunately for me, I pay low rent and can afford to stay afloat while I'm looking for better opportunities.

I don't know what you think of me, but I'd gather you think I'm somewhere around average intelligence and somewhat smarter than a crackhead at Labor Ready, but if I was to get a job in San Francisco, even if it was to pay $110k / year, I'd have to turn it down unless they offer relocation assistance. I simply would not be able to afford anything more than a Greyhound bus to the bay. The next strategy would be heading to the nearest homeless shelter, hoping they have a bed, hoping I don't get booted out into the street for working 12 hour days, then wait until paycheck one, which may be 2 or 3 weeks away. In simple terms, I'd have to turn down very high paying jobs because I can't afford it, which sounds really strange, but it is the truth.

Well, there is that stat that says 50% of all businesses fail in the first 5 years. Unfortunately, they don't tell you the rest of the stats, which are pretty screwed up, but to say the least, many of those surviving businesses are losing money year after year. I suppose it depends on what metric you use for "benefit this country," but "turning a profit" isn't a good one.

I won't be able to understand this because I'm not sure what you think is a net benefit for society. I, for one, don't think that Twitter is a net benefit, but they are still around. I don't think eBay sellers selling trinkets from China are a net benefit, but they are hiring people to pull product off warehouse shelves. There isn't a black and white picture here. What is valuable to you isn't going to be valuable to me, and what is valuable to both of us isn't going to be valuable to a coal miner.

But as I was pointing about above, the educational requirements to level up the work force constantly would ultimately have the CNC machinist doing more years of education than a brain surgeon, while earning 1 / 10th of the pay. The problem here is that, in most professions, more education equates to more money, while for a general laborer, more education equates to simply staying afloat and living paycheck to paycheck.

I'm mixed up about this. I've heard far worse from both men and women, but I guess it is bad if you are going to run this whole country. I think many of the men who are crying foul on this are being hypocritical.

The CEO of buzzfeed said Ivanka was talking about... stuff.

http://www.businessinsider.com/ivank...o-cock-2016-10

What is your take on all of this?