Life Events Thread

[Technico Support]

10 hours ago, lurkerbelow said:

Hi there. I never post here (as my name implies, I'm a lurker), but with the demagoguery of some certain posters (such as Techico Support and others) ventingly cursing "hicks" and "rednecks" for getting Trump elected, other posters (such as (BP) among others)  declaring that Trump's win is a "last gasp of old white people" (with the - perhaps merely inferred by myself - smugly implied assumption that before too long they will die off and the Progressive Multicultural Communist Dream Paradise can be ushered in), and yet other posters bouncing a whole littany of other ideas off the wall, it's clear that a lot of us are reeling right now and looking for answers as to why Hillary lost and a candidate so widely considered to be so repugnant won. I don't think I have all the answers, but I read these articles and watched this youtube video, and they strike me as perceptive, or at least something to ponder. So, I just thought I'd leave these links here to give you something in the way of food for thought. I probably won't comment anymore, but I hope you read/view the links and consider them carefully.

https://www.propublica.org/article/revenge-of-the-forgotten-class

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/10/democrats-working-class-americans-us-election

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLG9g7BcjKs

 

Thanks for that, man, and welcome.  I'm lashing out blaming "rednecks" but I definitely understand the big picture.  It's just that, when I see a headline in USA Today not 5 minutes ago that racist incidents are on the rise, their perpetrators emboldened by Trump, I can't help feeling he made it to the presidency by relying on the worst of us.  

But I absolutely understand that Hillary was an arrogant, shitty candidate who, it seems, most of us just held her nose and voted for.  NBC news said that, of the voters who identified as not liking either candidate, they voted 3-1 for Trump. Blame Hillary for acting for 8 years like this nomination was her birthright and blame the DNC for being so blindly down for her. 

I also blame the rust belt folks who fell for Trump's bullshit.  I'm sorry, I know it's a sad existence and you'll reach for any life preserver you can, but you need to take a little responsibility and figure out when you're being played.  I don't see how these people could see Hillary as full of shit but not Trump.  Dave Meltzer had a funny line when he said, I'm paraphrasing, "these people were sick of crooked politicians, so they voted for a crook who's not a politician."  

There's more blame to spread but I'm just fucking tired.

I don't know what the solution for Middle America is.  Manufacturing jobs aren't coming back.  And I don't agree at all with my more extreme left wing bretheren who say, "fuck coal, just let that industry die."  These are human beings who work in that industry.  Are you going to put an entire class of people, whole towns, entire families, out of work overnight, cast into the dustbin?  We're supposed to be better than righties, who think people on welfare should be left to just go ahead and die.

Ugh, this whole fucking thing.  Anyway, thanks for posting and leaving lurker status behind!

[JohnnyJ]

Fallacy, I appreciate your perspective. I’m finding that many liberals, such as myself, are insulated from what is actually happening in many communities across the country. 

We look at data and statistics which suggest lower unemployment and increased job opportunities. We look at out friends and neighbors who are employed with stable jobs.
It is so easy to forget that there are many people in this country who are struggling and feel left behind.

Prior to the election, I recall discussing with my brother the success of the economy during the obama years. I started going down the list; months and months of job creation, the housing rebound, the stock market is at an all time high. 

These each make great talking points, but don’t matter a hell of a lot to someone who is hurting. If you’re out of work you don’t care about the unemployment rate. If you’re struggling to get by, whether the market is up or down is meaningless. 

When Trump talked about protectionist policies and starting trade wars, he was mocked as ridiculous. According to the pundits, democrats and republicans all agreed that free trade was good for the country. But if you are living in an old manufacturing community, that sounds far better than the alternative of no jobs and no way to make a living.  

[Greggulator]

I used to write about the energy industry. Coal IS a dying industry. But not solely because of regulation. Or even largely because of regulation. We found a way through fracking to develop an abundance of natural gas to create electricity. It's easier to ship if there are pipelines. It's easy for natural gas to get to the big cities that consume power. You don't have to dig. It's a lot cheaper than coal. It burns more efficiently. Coal is just an out-of-date power source, unless you are in a country with crappy energy infrastructure (like China).

But Hilary openly boasted about cutting coal jobs to pop a Brooklyn audience in her debate against Bernie. That was just the absolute worse thing to say at the worst time. That's the perfect example of HRC and the DNC's obtuseness -- that Brooklyn audience (who are people like me -- over educated creative class types) was more important than someone who lives in a dying town with a heroin problem.

And people in coal country know how fucked up it is. They're the ones who get black lung and die whenever the scumbag company they work for cuts safety rules and leads to a mine collapse, which is the only time people like me pretend to give a shit about them.

They also know the standard liberal line about moving to a "green" economy that will create jobs for them is a lie. Coal is labor intensive. All you do is install a wind turbine or a bunch of solar panels and let nature do the rest. That creates jobs for about a week at a time.

All of the energy producing counties in PA voted for Trump. I wonder why.

People will always vote with their pocketbooks first. There might be some add-ins like Obama's race, HRC's gender, etc. But Reagan won because we had stagflation. Bush 1 lost because of the 92 Recession. Bush 2 won because people (myself included) were swept up in a rise of deregulation. Obama won because of the housing crisis. And Trump won because of the wealth gap based on geography.

[(BP)]

I never prepared myself for this outcome, so I'm surprised at how angry and hurt I am. I've lashed out a lot at acquaintances and blown up relationships with a couple of immediate family members. I never thought I'd do that over politics, but this feels so different. Things have changed and I doubt we recover. 

[NintendoLogic]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/hillary-clinton-aides-loss-blame-231215

Jesus. These people are hopeless.

[Jamal]

Where I am right now:

https://medium.com/@alexyoung_59363/the-pendulum-swings-both-ways-61d50f6608d9#.ukt0jjxkr

 

[Cristobal]

1 hour ago, Greggulator said:

I used to write about the energy industry. Coal IS a dying industry. But not solely because of regulation. Or even largely because of regulation. We found a way through fracking to develop an abundance of natural gas to create electricity. It's easier to ship if there are pipelines. It's easy for natural gas to get to the big cities that consume power. You don't have to dig. It's a lot cheaper than coal. It burns more efficiently. Coal is just an out-of-date power source, unless you are in a country with crappy energy infrastructure (like China).

Even China's trying like hell to get away from it. They cut coal production 15% last year.

[Jiji]

2 hours ago, Greggulator said:

I used to write about the energy industry. Coal IS a dying industry. But not solely because of regulation. Or even largely because of regulation. We found a way through fracking to develop an abundance of natural gas to create electricity. It's easier to ship if there are pipelines. It's easy for natural gas to get to the big cities that consume power. You don't have to dig. It's a lot cheaper than coal. It burns more efficiently. Coal is just an out-of-date power source, unless you are in a country with crappy energy infrastructure (like China).

But Hilary openly boasted about cutting coal jobs to pop a Brooklyn audience in her debate against Bernie. That was just the absolute worse thing to say at the worst time. That's the perfect example of HRC and the DNC's obtuseness -- that Brooklyn audience (who are people like me -- over educated creative class types) was more important than someone who lives in a dying town with a heroin problem.

And people in coal country know how fucked up it is. They're the ones who get black lung and die whenever the scumbag company they work for cuts safety rules and leads to a mine collapse, which is the only time people like me pretend to give a shit about them.

They also know the standard liberal line about moving to a "green" economy that will create jobs for them is a lie. Coal is labor intensive. All you do is install a wind turbine or a bunch of solar panels and let nature do the rest. That creates jobs for about a week at a time.

All of the energy producing counties in PA voted for Trump. I wonder why.

People will always vote with their pocketbooks first. There might be some add-ins like Obama's race, HRC's gender, etc. But Reagan won because we had stagflation. Bush 1 lost because of the 92 Recession. Bush 2 won because people (myself included) were swept up in a rise of deregulation. Obama won because of the housing crisis. And Trump won because of the wealth gap based on geography.

It's very possible to transition to a renewable energy based economy from a fossil fuel and coal (let's throw in LNG while we're doing it) based economy without leaving everybody in the lurch. It just has to be done in a manner that attempts to give people making a living in those fields a chance. Looking to McCain's work on easing the damage on tobacco workers in the '90s and early '00s is probably a good guide. The government can create trust funds and stimulus packages for not just the laborers but also the towns and cities hit hardest by the change in direction. There could be programs set up to give the education needed for people to work in the fields of renewable energy. Plus, there's a lot more to it than just "build some turbines and panels and fuck off". Hilldog did a criminally woeful job of explaining protecting the environment doesn't mean the further decline of the rust belt. There has to be a will in the government to transition away from antiquated forms of energy but to do its best for the people working in those fields too. I admit I didn't give enough empathy to people working in coal mines and oil fields. I just saw the tremendous damage they were doing and thought how can anybody be in favor of that?

[NikoBaltimore]

I was going to respond to some posts the last couple pages, but damn there's a lot that's been said in a short time.  So instead of that I'll talk about the protest in Baltimore last night.

I went enough and initially was going to try to find @Jamal who said he might go.  But there was a ton of people already so it would have been hard to spot him.  We went down to Inner Harbor, around there, then went to Camden Yards and Ravens Stadium.  Funny things is the Ravens were about to start and fans were still filing in.  Where we were at it was easy fans to say stuff and do what they wanted.  Highly doubt it made NFL Network or anything, but it was interesting to be there and not for a game.  All in all it was about 5 miles of walking, but it was quite an experience.

And as soon as I mentioned it on Facebook people were wondering what was the point and why I didn't have anything better to do.  I'm not an activist by any means, but when your friends are getting harassed online (one in particular is gay and really got a lot of grief from who he thought were friends) it really hits home.  So while walking I thought of him, and of an awesome gay couple I know who's worried about their rights being taken away.  And of women who are mortified by what could happen these 4 years.  With that and more there was no way I could sit on the sidelines for this.

I don't even know what good the protests do for a smug piece of shit who couldn't care less.  But I do believe in PEACEFUL public dissent that could potentially grow to numbers that he can't ignore.  I understand there's checks and balances for his batshit ideas, but when you have Republican control across the board I have little faith in that right now.  So unless I can find a more effective way to make a difference that doesn't make go full activist I'll do what I feel is right and hope for the best.

[Rev Ray]

I think my big concerns are:

 

1) Possible war.  Trump is a loud mouth who thinks he knows it all and is easily goaded into a war of words.  And if you think countries hated us during the Bush administration....

2)  The Environment.  Trump claims global warming is a scam.  If you're so confident, we should pick a spot in Florida where he or his offspring have to stand each day.  If when they're eventually drowned, I guess we'll know the answer.  I heard the name Palin floated for Department of Interior.  I wouldn't trust her running a frozen banana stand for fear of it starting the next ice age.  The only good news about that appointment would be she would probably quit in two years, but my fear of what will become of the National Parks system.  I can tell you the a lot of Republicans are anti-environmental protection agency, Living in NJ, I can tell you Christie gutted the funding for a lot of EPA and protection of areas and as someone who's seen what a some of the old non-regulation of an ecosystem with a blind eye turned to industry, this feels like a major step backward.

As a white male, I don't face the perils of people who female, LGBT or Mexican/Muslim/Black, but I can see why they are terrified.  It certainly doesn't feel like we're going towards the all people are equal.

[Gonzo]

3 hours ago, NintendoLogic said:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/hillary-clinton-aides-loss-blame-231215

Jesus. These people are hopeless.

The worst Democratic PotUS campaign since Dukakis, and you can't convince them they did anything wrong.

[RIPPA]

1 hour ago, Rev Ray said:

2)  The Environment.  Trump claims global warming is a scam.  If you're so confident, we should pick a spot in Florida where he or his offspring have to stand each day.  If when they're eventually drowned, I guess we'll know the answer.  I heard the name Palin floated for Department of Interior.  I wouldn't trust her running a frozen banana stand for fear of it starting the next ice age.  The only good news about that appointment would be she would probably quit in two years, but my fear of what will become of the National Parks system.  I can tell you the a lot of Republicans are anti-environmental protection agency, Living in NJ, I can tell you Christie gutted the funding for a lot of EPA and protection of areas and as someone who's seen what a some of the old non-regulation of an ecosystem with a blind eye turned to industry, this feels like a major step backward.

Consider they already named one of the biggest climate change deniers to lead the EPA transition... Ray is spot on.

[John from Cincinnati]

21 minutes ago, Gonzo said:

The worst Democratic PotUS campaign since Dukakis, and you can't convince them they did anything wrong.

If Vince is ever short on douchebag yes-men, look no further. 

[Craig H]

I hope Ray isn't spot on about war.

I again appreciated OSJ's words earlier, but I'd be lying if I haven't spent everyday with my anxiety at an all time high. When Ray says war though, I hope it's of the non-nuclear kind. I also hope that people in Trump's administration won't let the country go to war with China or Russia, but seeing some of the people being speculated for Trump's security detail does worry me. And then on the other hand, I read a well reasoned article about why Trump wouldn't want a war, nuclear or conventional, even if he has a stupid macho stance on things. Unfortunately that article did pain Russia and Putin as a boogeyman, which, if there's anything positive about Trump's relations with Russia, wouldn't it be that he wants to normalize relations with Russia? I get the concern for Putin, but honestly, and this sounds terrible, let Syria be their mess just like Iraq was ours. Different situation entirely, but I never saw the need for our country to once again stick it's nose somewhere and risk American lives. And while I wouldn't be in favor of Nato disbanding, honestly, I do think pulling back from Russia's borders would cause Russia to do the same.

Iran though, I'm not sure about. I have no idea how that's going to go. Same with North Korea.

All I want is for peace, or at the very least, no wars, over the next 4 years. Let us try to take back Congress and Senate in 2018 and try to oust Trump in 2020. Domestically, this will be another turn of the revolving door where one administration improves something while the next makes it worse. As long as Trump doesn't make things considerably worse, then we can try to win back Domestic issues. We can't win anything back from wars.

[odessasteps]

In the long run, the environmental damage in these 4 years could be just as devastating as armed conflict. 

[Craig H]

Well, there's no coming back from some forms of armed conflict.

As far as environmental damage goes, as others mentioned, renewable energy sources are becoming far too cheap to ignore and coal jobs aren't coming back. So there's at least one positive there. My concern there is that we could be a world leader in developing those technologies, but we're lagging behind. With climate change, what's going to slow it other than geoengineering? Every month has been the hottest month on record and much like the thought that no country wants to blow itself up, no country is going to want to get swallowed up. Unfortunately, I'm not sure what stops some places from going underwater.

[Matt D]

I think the most frustrating thing I've been seeing  in the last day or two is the slew of "The other side isn't dumb" sort of articles focused on Trump supporters. You would see these same sort of articles before the election, but they were framed very much in the same way other "understanding  the other" articles were, ones which look at the socioeconomic conditions, that look at why certain opportunities were cut off from them, at the lack of certain privileges that urbanites and people on the coasts might have, etc. Basically, they were examined just like any other minority by elites, using many of the same tools (which is an irony in and of itself).

The only difference now is that they won. There's been a lean towards lionizing them to some extent. I think that's a very American thing, because if they did win, then they had to have some moral sense of superiority. not just a reasonable and understandable causality for why they feel like they do, but an actual superiority to how they feel. That's the mindset, the American way. It's wrong.

It's okay to understand why someone might fear "The Other." It's okay to understand why someone might not trust experts in climate change. It's okay to understand why someone would put the economic needs of their family over the good of many. It's okay to understand why someone might only care about gun rights and nothing else. It's more than okay to want these people to have the same opportunities over generations that others have.

I just don't think it's okay to lionize that sort of xenophobia, ignorance, or anti-intellectualism just because their side happened to win. 

[JohnnyJ]

I'm not ready to come to terms with his foreign policy. It's too much to digest.

During the campaign, the respected Republican foreign policy advisors who would normally turn up  didn't want much to do with him and many even endorsed Hillary. I understand that when the Presidency switches parties you're going to see a lot of different foreign policy faces. That's just the way it is. But I do not see the Republican foreign policy stalwarts being welcomed into his administration with open arms. I just don't think Trump has it in him. Trump is much more likely to surround himself with a weird mish mosh of lackeys and yes men. That's what is terrifying. 

You just have to pray pray pray that someone with a lick of common sense and influence over him enters his inner foreign policy circle. 

 

 

[odessasteps]

10 minutes ago, Matt D said:

I think the most frustrating thing I've been seeing  in the last day or two is the slew of "The other side isn't dumb" sort of articles focused on Trump supporters. You would see these same sort of articles before the election, but they were framed very much in the same way other "understanding  the other" articles were, ones which look at the socioeconomic conditions, that look at why certain opportunities were cut off from them, at the lack of certain privileges that urbanites and people on the coasts might have, etc. Basically, they were examined just like any other minority by elites, using many of the same tools (which is an irony in and of itself).

The only difference now is that they won. There's been a lean towards lionizing them to some extent. I think that's a very American thing, because if they did win, then they had to have some moral sense of superiority. not just a reasonable and understandable causality for why they feel like they do, but an actual superiority to how they feel. 

It's okay to understand why someone might fear "The Other." It's okay to understand why someone might not trust experts in climate change. It's okay to understand why someone would put the economic needs of their family over the good of many. It's okay to understand why someone might only care about gun rights and nothing else. It's more than okay to want these people to have the same opportunities over generations that others have.

I just don't think it's okay to lionize that sort of xenophobia, ignorance, or anti-intellectualism just because their side happened to win. 

How was your overall experience dealing with them when you came up here to see the nxt show? 

[Brian Fowler]

I fear the health insurance I've had the last three years will be gone, and I'll be back where I spent most of my adult life, but now with prescriptions I can't fill.

I'm worried my disabled mother will lose her insurance and social security.

And there's my friend who is terrified of a future without her wife. She can tell you the story several years ago of sitting in a lawyer's office with the woman she loves, and being told, compassionately and regretfully, by the lawyer that there was simply no legal way for her girlfriend to stay in the country right now, shy of marrying some guy.

And the story of that same lawyer calling her the very day same-sex marriage was legalized in Illinois, and helping them start what ended up still being a two year process.

She's not just scared that her marriage will be legally annulled. She's scared her wife will be deported without that marriage as an anchor.

I live in Michigan. Rural Michigan. 63+% of residents voted straight ticket Republican here. (Michigan is one of ten states that still has an actual straight ticket option) I understand the pain as devastation on the rust belt better than most of you likely can.

Voting to make it worse is a mistake. Leaving people this terrified in a legitimate way is indefensible.

[Craig H]

8 minutes ago, JohnnyJ said:

I'm not ready to come to terms with his foreign policy. It's too much to digest.

During the campaign, the respected Republican foreign policy advisors who would normally turn up  didn't want much to do with him and many even endorsed Hillary. I understand that when the Presidency switches parties you're going to see a lot of different foreign policy faces. That's just the way it is. But I do not see the Republican foreign policy stalwarts being welcomed into his administration with open arms. I just don't think Trump has it in him. Trump is much more likely to surround himself with a weird mish mosh of lackeys and yes men. That's what is terrifying. 

You just have to pray pray pray that someone with a lick of common sense and influence over him enters his inner foreign policy circle. 

 

 

I may not like Gen. Flynn for basically picking a side, but he is a Democrat who disagreed with the Clinton way of doing things as far as foreign policy goes, he wasn't necessarily for the Iraq war, and, at least according to what I've read, he was removed from his position because he wanted more intelligence on the ground. He at least seems intelligent enough.

[Jiji]

1 hour ago, RIPPA said:

Consider they already named one of the biggest climate change deniers to lead the EPA transition... Ray is spot on.

Well, the one thing is state and local governments can implement their own policies, as seen in California during the Bush II years.

[JohnnyJ]

15 minutes ago, Craig H said:

I may not like Gen. Flynn for basically picking a side, but he is a Democrat who disagreed with the Clinton way of doing things as far as foreign policy goes, he wasn't necessarily for the Iraq war, and, at least according to what I've read, he was removed from his position because he wanted more intelligence on the ground. He at least seems intelligent enough.

It's entirely possible that the press has turned him into a caricature, but was there ever an adequate explanation of how he ended up regularly appearing on Russian television? If i recall he said it was simply a regular paid speaking gig. Which for me was too simple of an explanation when there were so many strange things going on with Russia and the Trump campaign. Perhaps I'm just paranoid.

[Craig H]

You'd be surprised at the amount of people that are paid to appear on RT. I still have no idea what to make of RT. There are people who work there that sound on the up and up and they will cover stuff that you'd only see on the Guardian or BBC News, but then at the same time, they run what is obviously state sponsored news segments.

[Burgundy LaRue]

2 hours ago, Gonzo said:

The worst Democratic PotUS campaign since Dukakis, and you can't convince them they did anything wrong.

What's amazing is they didn't even listen to Bill.  You know, the guy who had TWO successful presidential campaigns under his belt?  That takes incredible arrogance.