BF2S Forums Presidential Election 2016

trump promised a lot of things he's never going to be able to deliver on. just like all those people who 'care about economics' said. trump seems to think the market and world economy acts upon his wish fulfilment.

and people may care primarily about jobs, but they don't not care about welfare. i think what you mean is that they take for granted the welfare that they do receive; they feel entitled to it, like it's vouchsafed, normal, dependable. this is the blind attitude you have yourself to the welfare that you have received. turn a blind eye to it and talk about how increased welfare is an evil! people quite obviously do care about welfare when it is removed and their loved ones start dying as a direct result. trump forcing a few air con factories in the mid-west to keep their manufacturing in state as a PR exercise is not going to keep people content when they can't pay medical bills.

"no one ever wants to be on the dole" - no shit. it's there as a safety net for people stuck in unfortunate situations. what are you, fucking stupid? stop presenting trite observations as some sort of political acuity. the point is that people take welfare for granted and conveniently discount the welfare and subsidies that do prop up their lifestyle; they're too set on the self-delusions of individualism and 'making it'. you are a great example.

Last edited by uziq (2016-12-21 05:49:19)

uziq wrote:

trump promised a lot of things he's never going to be able to deliver on. just like all those people who 'care about economics' said. trump seems to think the market and world economy acts upon his wish fulfilment.

and people may care primarily about jobs, but they don't not care about welfare. i think what you mean is that they take for granted the welfare that they do receive; they feel entitled to it, like it's vouchsafed, normal, dependable. this is the blind attitude you have yourself to the welfare that you have received. turn a blind eye to it and talk about how increased welfare is an evil! people quite obviously do care about welfare when it is removed and their loved ones start dying as a direct result. trump forcing a few air con factories in the mid-west to keep their manufacturing in state as a PR exercise is not going to keep people content when they can't pay medical bills.

"no one ever wants to be on the dole" - no shit. it's there as a safety net for people stuck in unfortunate situations. what are you, fucking stupid? stop presenting trite observations as some sort of political acuity. the point is that people take welfare for granted and conveniently discount the welfare and subsidies that do prop up their lifestyle; they're too set on the self-delusions of individualism and 'making it'. you are a great example.

My point wasn't that people want to see the existing benefits evaporate, it's that when the choice is between someone offering jobs or someone offering more benefits, the person that is offering jobs will be more palatable. Macbeth constantly rails against poor people voting against their best interests when all he ever offers up are more government welfare schemes. This is the elitist coastal Progressive mentality that people are sick of.

I'm not saying Trump can or will follow through on his promise, but what he offered was what the people wanted to hear. He never said he'd chuck Obamacare, he said he'd repeal and replace it with something better. What is better? Who knows. I doubt he even has any idea. But he did explicitly say he wants to keep the requirement that insurance companies accept all comers regardless of pre-existing conditions, so what Macbeth posted is nonsense.

Jay wrote:

uziq wrote:

trump promised a lot of things he's never going to be able to deliver on. just like all those people who 'care about economics' said. trump seems to think the market and world economy acts upon his wish fulfilment.

and people may care primarily about jobs, but they don't not care about welfare. i think what you mean is that they take for granted the welfare that they do receive; they feel entitled to it, like it's vouchsafed, normal, dependable. this is the blind attitude you have yourself to the welfare that you have received. turn a blind eye to it and talk about how increased welfare is an evil! people quite obviously do care about welfare when it is removed and their loved ones start dying as a direct result. trump forcing a few air con factories in the mid-west to keep their manufacturing in state as a PR exercise is not going to keep people content when they can't pay medical bills.

"no one ever wants to be on the dole" - no shit. it's there as a safety net for people stuck in unfortunate situations. what are you, fucking stupid? stop presenting trite observations as some sort of political acuity. the point is that people take welfare for granted and conveniently discount the welfare and subsidies that do prop up their lifestyle; they're too set on the self-delusions of individualism and 'making it'. you are a great example.

My point wasn't that people want to see the existing benefits evaporate, it's that when the choice is between someone offering jobs or someone offering more benefits, the person that is offering jobs will be more palatable. Macbeth constantly rails against poor people voting against their best interests when all he ever offers up are more government welfare schemes. This is the elitist coastal Progressive mentality that people are sick of.

I'm not saying Trump can or will follow through on his promise, but what he offered was what the people wanted to hear. He never said he'd chuck Obamacare, he said he'd repeal and replace it with something better. What is better? Who knows. I doubt he even has any idea. But he did explicitly say he wants to keep the requirement that insurance companies accept all comers regardless of pre-existing conditions, so what Macbeth posted is nonsense.

ok so what you're saying is that when it's between pie-in-the-sky electioneering promises and vague fantasies of economic regeneration versus actual social policies and practical reforms, people will opt for the former.

just because people jump with both feet into a pool of stupid, doesn't make it right.

i think everyone knows that getting people in work and jobs is the key thing. the problem is that so much of the blue-collar labour market has evaporated because of forces outside of american domestic policy's control. you can't keep an uncompetitive industry afloat unless you subsidise it with public funds. meh. the democrats are stuck in a hold because they're committed to a neoliberal consensus and can't do anything within that framework to seriously address the movement of labour and capital abroad. it is, really, their political ideology working too well. the 'economic recovery' and 'improvement in employment figures' has been characteristically the same here in the uk: people are finding jobs once again, but they're more precarious and poorer paid than ever before. in real terms, people are getting poorer. the problem is that the global economy is tilting this way outside of the neoliberal parties' control. you need social democracy or state capitalism.

i'd rather stick with the progressives who are trying to keep a sinking ship afloat than vote for a demagogue, however.

Last edited by uziq (2016-12-21 10:07:31)

Jay wrote:

Macbeth constantly rails against poor people voting against their best interests when all he ever offers up are more government welfare schemes. This is the elitist coastal Progressive mentality that people are sick of.

Hmm? Clinton's economic plan included subsidies and tax incentives to help corporations set up factories in the U.S. for "green jobs". Blue collar manufacturing jobs creating solar panels, wind turbines, and other energy saving things like home insulation. She just didn't talk about it too much because a lot of blue collar America is turned off by that stuff and rather roll coal.

My patience for these people only go so far. It is not my job to stop these people from killing themselves slowly. If that makes me coastal elitist, then awesome, I'm a coastal elitist.

Jay wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Jay wrote:

Macbeth constantly rails against poor people voting against their best interests when all he ever offers up are more government welfare schemes. This is the elitist coastal Progressive mentality that people are sick of.

Hmm? Clinton's economic plan included subsidies and tax incentives to help corporations set up factories in the U.S. for "green jobs". Blue collar manufacturing jobs creating solar panels, wind turbines, and other energy saving things like home insulation. She just didn't talk about it too much because a lot of blue collar America is turned off by that stuff and rather roll coal.

My patience for these people only go so far. It is not my job to stop these people from killing themselves slowly. If that makes me coastal elitist, then awesome, I'm a coastal elitist.

When a thousand people are laid off in a town, just how many of them can you put to work installing solar panels on each others houses? How many electricians does one town need before you reach saturation? "Green jobs" sounds good on paper because it gets the environmentalists to wag their tails, but it's nonsense.

since we can't get everyone a job we shouldn't even try to get any of them one. makes sense

pirana6 wrote:

Jay wrote:

"Green jobs" sounds good on paper because it gets the environmentalists to wag their tails, but it's nonsense.

Do you feel this way about the term "green jobs" or with all (new) jobs in the 'environmentalist' sector?

How many people fill the factory that creates solar panels? How many people get new jobs installing them?

Should we do away with ATM's because it puts bank tellers out of a job? Should we do away with automatic car washes because it puts car washer out of a job? Should we do away with car factories because it puts farriers out a job?

No, and that wasn't my argument. I'm not a technophobe at all. I'm simply saying that the solution that Progressives propose in this country is "we'll create green jobs and teach people how to install solar panels". That's fine, but out of the 1000 people you train to be installers, the market can bear maybe 10 out that 1000 actually doing the work before it's saturated. And if everyone is out of work who will pay for the installations to even keep those 10 in a job? It doesn't make sense if you actually look at it critically.

Job creation has to be organic otherwise you get stupid misallocations of resources.

SuperJail Warden wrote:

right wingers and a bunch of other blue collar types like jay have just been conditioned to hate anything related to bettering the environment because conservative identity politics has made them feel like environmentalist are tree huggers who look down on them

I dislike them because most of them are vehemently anti-science hippies that are closer to religious zealots than rational human beings.

Jay wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

right wingers and a bunch of other blue collar types like jay have just been conditioned to hate anything related to bettering the environment because conservative identity politics has made them feel like environmentalist are tree huggers who look down on them

I dislike them because most of them are vehemently anti-science hippies that are closer to religious zealots than rational human beings.

total red herring. most environmentalists are serious scientists, for instance researchers in the field with tenure at top universities.

do you believe in god because the dawkins-lite atheist neckbeards annoy you too?

Last edited by uziq (2016-12-21 13:03:12)

uziq wrote:

Jay wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

right wingers and a bunch of other blue collar types like jay have just been conditioned to hate anything related to bettering the environment because conservative identity politics has made them feel like environmentalist are tree huggers who look down on them

I dislike them because most of them are vehemently anti-science hippies that are closer to religious zealots than rational human beings.

total red herring. most environmentalists are serious scientists, for instance researchers in the field with tenure at top universities.

do you believe in god because the dawkins-lite atheist neckbeards annoy you too?

Serious environmentalists? Environmental science is the least rigorous of the sciences and attracts a lot of political types. It is to STEM what Women's Studies is to liberal arts.

Last edited by Jay (2016-12-21 13:13:30)

I think the right's opposition to the environmental movement started when Jimmy Carter suggested American's put on a sweater instead of running the home heater and Ronnie Reagan removed solar panels from the white house on his first day. Ever since then oil companies have used the GOP to scare people into thinking environmentalist were coming for their Ford F-150's and BBQ propane tanks.

Jay wrote:

uziq wrote:

Jay wrote:

I dislike them because most of them are vehemently anti-science hippies that are closer to religious zealots than rational human beings.

total red herring. most environmentalists are serious scientists, for instance researchers in the field with tenure at top universities.

do you believe in god because the dawkins-lite atheist neckbeards annoy you too?

Serious environmentalists? Environmental science is the least rigorous of the sciences and attracts a lot of political types. It is to STEM what Women's Studies is to liberal arts.

economics is the least rigorous of the pretend sciences and you put a lot of stock in your theories.

can't help but feel you're taking minor quibbles with eco-warriors and the technicalities of environmental science and suggesting a nuke-level solution by rooting for trump and his climate change deniers.

uziq wrote:

Jay wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

I think the right's opposition to the environmental movement started when Jimmy Carter suggested American's put on a sweater instead of running the home heater and Ronnie Reagan removed solar panels from the white house on his first day. Ever since then oil companies have used the GOP to scare people into thinking environmentalist were coming for their Ford F-150's and BBQ propane tanks.

The reality is that wealth and energy consumption are inextricably linked. Asking people to go without is the same as asking them to become voluntarily poorer. Raising gas taxes or driving up energy costs will push whichever party that proposes it out of office. See: lame duck New Jersey government.

seems a number of advanced wealthy countries in europe can use renewable energy and not be 'poorer'. germany, portugal, the nordic states – all have tremendous records on renewable energy.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment … ergy-alone

guess giving up fossil fuels means voluntarily becoming somalia.

Germany has already basically reached the limit at which solar can go and they've cut back their subsidies tremendously in the past few years. Solar is very good for meeting commercial peak demand loads i.e. noontime energy use, and very poor the rest of the time. In a place like Las Vegas where noontime temperatures can reach 44C, this works, because there is a tremendous demand placed on the system by air conditioners. In a place like Germany, where the average summer temperature is around 19C, there's no air conditioning load to be met so the energy is kind of wasted. Everyone is at work, so the number of lights being used is low. When everyone gets home at night and runs the lights and the stove and the microwave, this is when you would need the solar power to meet residential peak loads, but it is of course, night.

The Germans build very, very good, very high efficient hot water heaters and boilers though. Expensive, but amazing. Couple one of them with a new house built very tightly against thermal infiltration and you have a real recipe for energy savings.