Sanders Wins Over Crowd Of Rural Trump Supporters at West Virginia Town Hall - Polidicks

[QUOTE=MR-X;51957584]Don't see much of Hillary to be honest.[/QUOTE] that's one of the few good things she's done for the democratic party

[QUOTE=Dolton;51957852]If Hillary was out there doing similar things I guarantee you'd see "She cant stay out of the spotlight CAN she?? Doesn't she understand the people dont want her GLOBALIST policies??" on Facepunch.[/QUOTE] If Hillary was out there doing similar things as Bernie instead of being a gigantic turd sandwich she probably would have won tbh. Then people wouldn't complain about her being in the news.

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51958545]Build a new industry there. Wind, solar, if they're viable, or offer tax credits/benefits to major corporations to build manufacturing plants there. Manufacturing jobs need to come back to the US desperately.[/QUOTE] The problem is though all those old manufacturing jobs are gone for once and all. Automation has made many jobs formerly done by line workers redundant. The problem with any government, democrat or republican, is that they've done very little to actually do what was necessary to aid those who lost jobs thanks to the march of progress. They provided little in the way of training to find alternate jobs, never mind the fact that it's simply no longer efficient to retain those jobs in an age of increasing automation. New jobs will be created for new situations it's true but odds on that it will result in a net loss of unskilled or semi-skilled jobs, leading to the replacement by a trained professional. It's already been quoted that it's cheaper to spend 8 dollars an hour on a welding bot than 25 on a worker doing the same thing. The issue is while everybody knows there will be problems of employment in an increasingly mechanized future, most folks have no idea what to do in that situation. For a beginning governments need to look seriously into a UBI for all their citizens. source: [url]https://www.bcgperspectives.com/content/articles/lean-manufacturing-innovation-robots-redefine-competitiveness/[/url]

How do you guys in America deal with these awful "epic" presentations with over-enthusiastic narrators and ludicrously dramatic music? It made me want to shut off the stream. I won't, but it had me itching towards that X button. EDIT: Very interesting stream so far. And it doesn't look like anyone there loves Trump.

Even their documentaries suffer from it but on-topic, I love Bernie.

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51958545]Build a new industry there. Wind, solar, if they're viable, or offer tax credits/benefits to major corporations to build manufacturing plants there. Manufacturing jobs need to come back to the US desperately.[/QUOTE] if hillary had won this was her plan to hold town halls there and do this but since trump won, back to the mines with them, and damn their healthcare we have to save money! seriously, fuck mitch mcconnel for continually holding up their healthcare pension. the whole thing is cronny capitalism leaving us with the bill while the companies that shed their healthcare pensions are now making billions again

I know so many people that realistically would have voted bernie had they been given the chance. The DNC fucked this election up so hard that they still have yet to even realize [I]why[/I] everything went sideways.

[QUOTE=archangel125;51958520]Question: What can realistically be done to help stimulate the economy in towns that once survived on coal mining? We know those jobs aren't really coming back.[/QUOTE] Bernie spoke about bringing new businesses in and attract them with high speed broadband. Possibly turn it into a tech industry area.

Bernie was the hero we needed, but not the one we deserved.

Bernie is more of a leader than most connected to our current administration or the current Dem. party.

[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;51958779]I know so many people that realistically would have voted bernie had they been given the chance. The DNC fucked this election up so hard that they still have yet to even realize [I]why[/I] everything went sideways.[/QUOTE] Do not assume those in power are ignorant. Do not assume incompetence where there could be self-serving actions instead. Not to say the DNC or Hillary's campaign plan was to lose. Rather, the truths that seem clear to us with honest intentions and the best interest of the common person in mind, are likely equally clear to most everyone in power. However, the best interest of the common person is not in their best interest, and many choose themselves over the public they are meant to represent. Of course, to come out and say that is viewed as unwise, so they feign ignorance or stupidity. More to the point, even if some are ignorant and stupid, it is better to assume the worse (that they are actively working against the interest of the common person), then to hope they are simply stupid.

[QUOTE=archangel125;51958520]Question: What can realistically be done to help stimulate the economy in towns that once survived on coal mining? We know those jobs aren't really coming back.[/QUOTE] Well, as with any economic aspect, diversification is literally the key to not fucking your self in the ass so probably any industry that that falls into "Stop being fucking retarded and diversify your economy." as an acceptable description of it in relation to their current industry climate would help. It's these people's own fault for relying entirely on one industry to survive. My hometown is the same way, it's a boom/bust town for oil and coal and it's always been that way since it became more relevant than just a fort guarded crossing of the North Platte river. And every time it busts there I shrug and say "idk what you people expected to happen.". last time I returned home there wasn't a single used car lot that wasn't full of little dick compensation trucks and like half the half-a-million dollar cookie cutter homes were for sale because all oil rats do is live above their means and never save for the inevitable rainy day. Why live modestly and have fiscal accountability when I can finance a half a million dollar home, buy a massive guzzler and six ATVs? And these are the same people that blame the Dems for national debt and shit when they themselves can't even understand and manage their own finances.

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51958545]Build a new industry there. Wind, solar, if they're viable, or offer tax credits/benefits to major corporations to build manufacturing plants there. Manufacturing jobs need to come back to the US desperately.[/QUOTE] Would wind or solar really be viable in West Virginia? Is there strong winds or plenty of sun for that? You'd be better off building nuclear there imo.

[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;51958585]The problem is though all those old manufacturing jobs are gone for once and all. Automation has made many jobs formerly done by line workers redundant. The problem with any government, democrat or republican, is that they've done very little to actually do what was necessary to aid those who lost jobs thanks to the march of progress. They provided little in the way of training to find alternate jobs, never mind the fact that it's simply no longer efficient to retain those jobs in an age of increasing automation. New jobs will be created for new situations it's true but odds on that it will result in a net loss of unskilled or semi-skilled jobs, leading to the replacement by a trained professional. It's already been quoted that it's cheaper to spend 8 dollars an hour on a welding bot than 25 on a worker doing the same thing. The issue is while everybody knows there will be problems of employment in an increasingly mechanized future, most folks have no idea what to do in that situation. For a beginning governments need to look seriously into a UBI for all their citizens. source: [url]https://www.bcgperspectives.com/content/articles/lean-manufacturing-innovation-robots-redefine-competitiveness/[/url][/QUOTE] You're absolutely right, but there are still jobs that can't be done by automation (yet), and theres still jobs in maintaining those robotics. The issue isn't that automation is taking jobs away, it's that there hasn't been a lot of viable retraining for people who lost their job to automation. Another issue, specifically with welding, is that a lot of companies train their welders in house instead of having them get certified. So when they inevitably lose their job, they have no certification proving they can weld so its tough for them to get a job elsewhere; I'm sure this is relevant to other job-types as well. bla bla bla disappearing middle class, you know where it goes from here. [editline]14th March 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=LtKyle2;51959413]Would wind or solar really be viable in West Virginia? Is there strong winds or plenty of sun for that? You'd be better off building nuclear there imo.[/QUOTE] No clue whatsoever, just spitballing.

The problem with nuclear power is that we're starting to develop the next generation of plants, and those are always tremendously expensive. Companies are starting to falter in their support for these reactors, along with the government. GenIV reactors feel eons away :( Also, there's something inexpressively inspiring about Senator Sanders. He just won't quit fighting the good fight, and he seems to be so genuine. Say what you will about him repeating certain lines (hell, it drives me a bit mad), but he shows up and earnestly listens to people like no other

[QUOTE=LtKyle2;51959413]Would wind or solar really be viable in West Virginia? Is there strong winds or plenty of sun for that? You'd be better off building nuclear there imo.[/QUOTE] West Virginia is actually one of the few 'Southern' states that would do well for wind energy! (Judging by the figure in Page 7 in the document I link here in a second) In the mid 2000's Coal River Valley was going to be mined by Massey Energy using destructive mountain top removal methods, there was a significant push to use the area instead for wind energy after a sustainability study was published: [IMG_thumb]http://i.imgur.com/N601Sb2.jpg[/IMG_thumb] [url=https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.downstreamstrategies.com/documents/reports_publication/Wind_vs_mountaintop_removal_coal_Coal_River_Mtn_Dec2008.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwi4zafWv9bSAhVBRCYKHQNcAiYQFggvMAM&usg=AFQjCNEDn1DTpxnHKH3Ae48SlGSirz1fuA&sig2=n8IbOs-2PtXdO4MiiVWFKw]From a Long-Term Sustainability Study which you might download by clicking this. Focuses heavily on Wind-power past page 8[/url] Unfortunately the corporations won in this case, it's covered in a documentary called [I]Overburden[/I].

[QUOTE=RaxaHax;51959484]West Virginia is actually one of the few 'Southern' states that would do well for wind energy! In the mid 2000's Coal River Valley was going to be mined by Massey Energy using destructive mountain top removal methods, there was a significant push to use the area instead for wind energy after a sustainability study was published: [IMG_thumb]http://i.imgur.com/N601Sb2.jpg[/IMG_thumb] [url=https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.downstreamstrategies.com/documents/reports_publication/Wind_vs_mountaintop_removal_coal_Coal_River_Mtn_Dec2008.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwi4zafWv9bSAhVBRCYKHQNcAiYQFggvMAM&usg=AFQjCNEDn1DTpxnHKH3Ae48SlGSirz1fuA&sig2=n8IbOs-2PtXdO4MiiVWFKw]From a Long-Term Sustainability Study which you might download by clicking this. Focuses heavily on Wind-power past page 8[/url] Unfortunately the corporations won in this case, it's covered in a documentary called [I]Overburden[/I].[/QUOTE] [img]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b5/United_States_installed_wind_power_capacity_animation_561px.gif[/img] Wind energy is exploding across the country. And it's not a partisan thing (yet) - Texas has >18,000MW powering over 12% of the entire state. California has less than 6,000 and only powers 5%. It's such a profitable sector of the economy that it's idiotic not to jump into it in regions where it's beneficial. The Midwest and Great Plains are going to be coated with wind turbines in a few decades. Illinois could just stick turbines on top of every building in Chicago and power half the state. Even compared to solar, it's growing at a [I]stupid[/I] rate. The U.S. is [URL="http://www.awea.org/MediaCenter/pressrelease.aspx?ItemNumber=8463"]literally #1 in the world[/URL] when it comes to wind energy production. Iowa had nearly a [I]third[/I] of its electricity provided by wind power in 2015. Wind (and to a slightly lesser extent, solar) are rapidly becoming major sectors of the economy. Definitely won't even approach the same level as coal in the past, since they require so much less actual labor, but encouraging wind power anywhere and everywhere plausible is such a huge step in reducing the U.S.'s climate footprint. And it isn't a partisan deadlock - Republicans mostly realize it'd be fucking stupid to try to halt renewable energy. Some try, but most of the ones with actual influence on the state level have been (hesitantly) embracing it. The economy is a better motivator to convince the greedy to take action on climate change than basically anything else, at this point. If Bernie continues campaigning in WV and manages to genuinely appeal to the local population and spread a sense of class identity and worker's rights, I think we could see WV shift from the hard-red backwater trash heap that it is into something as progressive and productive as its coastal neighbors.

I hope everyone remembers how many people, [I]especially[/I] the people on this site, who called Bernie "unelectable." Is it really a grave if you helped dig it?

Mark my words, these people will flock back to Trump the minute Bernie says something about "identity politics"

[QUOTE=Gray Altoid;51959862]I hope everyone remembers how many people, [I]especially[/I] the people on this site, who called Bernie "unelectable." Is it really a grave if you helped dig it?[/QUOTE] Yeah. It is called digging your own grave

I'm just holding put for one term of Bernie in 2020 to unfuck the country. Ruining the Republican party's reputation with a terrible presidency and renewing faith in the Democrats may make these next 4 years almost worth it.

Something I haven't seen mentioned in the "why weren't new jobs made for people put out of work by automation or broader economic trends" is the effect of regulatory capture and conglomeration giving advantage to entrenched businesses over startups. Under an ideal capitalist economy (the econ equivalent of physic's frictionless vacuum), the people put out of work would themselves start new businesses to take advantage of the labor surplus. In fact, an ideal economy would constantly see successful new businesses. And yet that's not what we experience. For a good comparison over time, look at veterans. People came back from WW2, went to college on the GI bill, then often started their own businesses, at something like a 50% rate (versus being hired by another business). Today, we have lots of people coming back from Afghanistan or Iraq, and lots of them are going to college on Uncle Sam's tab... but they're not starting new businesses, because the current economic environment gives a substantial advantage towards pre-existing businesses. It's [I]hard[/I] to start a successful business, even if your product is clearly better and at a cheaper price, which is not what a properly-functioning capitalist economy should allow. Some of it is regulation - even without regulations being biased towards any one business, it still puts an onus on new businesses to learn all the rules, a "cost" entrenched players have already paid. It serves as a barrier to entry. And quite often those rules [I]are[/I] clearly biased towards one player, which clearly makes it harder for new businesses to succeed. A lot of it is conglomeration. A big company can afford to lose money in some segments (regional or market segment) while driving competition out of business, then raise prices once they have an effective monopoly. I even think advertising has an effect. Coca-Cola isn't spending billions on commercials to make you think they're better, they're doing it so that any upstart would have to spend a similar amount on ads in order for anyone to learn about them. They might even be raising the effective price of advertising by doing so in such quantity (alongside all the other huge monopolies or bi-opolies that advertise far more than they probably need to). As for fixing it... first, we need to break up some big companies. Google might not be a monopoly, but their sheer size makes them impossible to fairly compete with. Ford and GM are likewise too big. Banks are literally classified as "too big to fail", which any true capitalist can only interpret as just "too big". Telecoms. Retailers. Franchise restaurants. There are lots of companies that need to be broken up, just for the sake of competition. We can do that either by government intervention, or by some breakthrough, game-changing paradigm shift that shakes everything up - and I don't see the latter happening anytime soon, unless we colonize space or something. Second, clean up the regulations. Get rid of any built-in favoritism, reform the government so it can't happen again (burn Citizens United to the fucking ground), and then just generally minimize the complexity. A lot of that complexity comes from each state having different rules, which is a politically touchy subject - the obviously-optimal solution is "make the fed control it", but something like "the fed makes the basic, uniform rules but states are allowed to override them" or "all states agree to adopt identical laws, similar to the UCC" is probably more palatable. Third, make corporations actually pay their goddamn taxes. Google would be fucking bankrupt if they were paying an actual 35%. There's dozens of potential ways to do this, ranging from just closing the loopholes, to changing the entire way taxation is done so that loopholes can't exist (I am in favor of this one - tax based on government resources used, not on profit. Use of roads, use of land, use of education, everything.). That probably won't solve everything but that should greatly improve the rates of new businesses, which will overall improve the economy and the nation.

[QUOTE=MR-X;51957661]So? People can have a change of heart once faced with the facts.[/QUOTE] Don't care, they should've got the facts first. Voting for a president isn't a "it's okay champ, maybe you'll do better next time" sort of non-issue that we can just brush off, we and the rest of the world are stuck with him for four years. There's no take-backsies for something as long term and potentially harmful as this.

[QUOTE=Gray Altoid;51959862]I hope everyone remembers how many people, [I]especially[/I] the people on this site, who called Bernie "unelectable." Is it really a grave if you helped dig it?[/QUOTE] Most of the people who called Bernie unelectable were Trump guys tho.

[QUOTE=archangel125;51958520]Question: What can realistically be done to help stimulate the economy in towns that once survived on coal mining? We know those jobs aren't really coming back.[/QUOTE] Subsidize the entire population's migration either inland or to the coast. Subsidize retraining into other jobs. Set up a support network to allow them to integrate culturally. West Virginia is an economic desert. The only industries that can really thrive there are trending towards automation, obsolescence, or both.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;51960827]Most of the people who called Bernie unelectable were Trump guys tho.[/QUOTE] That and that one Hillary supporter who's name slips my mind

[QUOTE=Rika-chan;51960880]That and that one Hillary supporter who's name slips my mind[/QUOTE] I don't even remember him calling Bernie unelectable, he just preferred Clinton. I can't think of any of the people who favored Clinton against Trump who didn't favor Sanders during the primaries.

[QUOTE=CanUBe;51960173]Mark my words, these people will flock back to Trump the minute Bernie says something about "identity politics"[/QUOTE] If he says anything about identity politics, it will most likely be a critique. The Democrats have manipulated the idea of diversity into political tool. They give lip service to the issues they think are important to certain democraphics, but they miss out on building a platform on the larger issues that everyone can relate to - wage inequality for example. Bernie's message cuts through the fluff and addresses the underlying concerns of low- and middle-class workers, regardless of their identity.

[QUOTE=LtKyle2;51959413]Would wind or solar really be viable in West Virginia? Is there strong winds or plenty of sun for that? You'd be better off building nuclear there imo.[/QUOTE] You don't need [I]strong[/I] winds for wind energy, just steady breezes. Turbines are actually designed to shut down/brake themselves when the wind gets too high. A good speed is considered an annual average of 13MPH according to [url=http://windeis.anl.gov/guide/basics/]this.[/url] [editline]14th March 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=gman003-main;51960724]Something I haven't seen mentioned in the "why weren't new jobs made for people put out of work by automation or broader economic trends" is the effect of regulatory capture and conglomeration giving advantage to entrenched businesses over startups. Under an ideal capitalist economy (the econ equivalent of physic's frictionless vacuum), the people put out of work would themselves start new businesses to take advantage of the labor surplus. In fact, an ideal economy would constantly see successful new businesses. And yet that's not what we experience. For a good comparison over time, look at veterans. People came back from WW2, went to college on the GI bill, then often started their own businesses, at something like a 50% rate (versus being hired by another business). Today, we have lots of people coming back from Afghanistan or Iraq, and lots of them are going to college on Uncle Sam's tab... but they're not starting new businesses, because the current economic environment gives a substantial advantage towards pre-existing businesses. It's [I]hard[/I] to start a successful business, even if your product is clearly better and at a cheaper price, which is not what a properly-functioning capitalist economy should allow. Some of it is regulation - even without regulations being biased towards any one business, it still puts an onus on new businesses to learn all the rules, a "cost" entrenched players have already paid. It serves as a barrier to entry. And quite often those rules [I]are[/I] clearly biased towards one player, which clearly makes it harder for new businesses to succeed. A lot of it is conglomeration. A big company can afford to lose money in some segments (regional or market segment) while driving competition out of business, then raise prices once they have an effective monopoly. I even think advertising has an effect. Coca-Cola isn't spending billions on commercials to make you think they're better, they're doing it so that any upstart would have to spend a similar amount on ads in order for anyone to learn about them. They might even be raising the effective price of advertising by doing so in such quantity (alongside all the other huge monopolies or bi-opolies that advertise far more than they probably need to). As for fixing it... first, we need to break up some big companies. Google might not be a monopoly, but their sheer size makes them impossible to fairly compete with. Ford and GM are likewise too big. Banks are literally classified as "too big to fail", which any true capitalist can only interpret as just "too big". Telecoms. Retailers. Franchise restaurants. There are lots of companies that need to be broken up, just for the sake of competition. We can do that either by government intervention, or by some breakthrough, game-changing paradigm shift that shakes everything up - and I don't see the latter happening anytime soon, unless we colonize space or something. Second, clean up the regulations. Get rid of any built-in favoritism, reform the government so it can't happen again (burn Citizens United to the fucking ground), and then just generally minimize the complexity. A lot of that complexity comes from each state having different rules, which is a politically touchy subject - the obviously-optimal solution is "make the fed control it", but something like "the fed makes the basic, uniform rules but states are allowed to override them" or "all states agree to adopt identical laws, similar to the UCC" is probably more palatable. Third, make corporations actually pay their goddamn taxes. Google would be fucking bankrupt if they were paying an actual 35%. There's dozens of potential ways to do this, ranging from just closing the loopholes, to changing the entire way taxation is done so that loopholes can't exist (I am in favor of this one - tax based on government resources used, not on profit. Use of roads, use of land, use of education, everything.). That probably won't solve everything but that should greatly improve the rates of new businesses, which will overall improve the economy and the nation.[/QUOTE] There's no such thing as ideal real-world capitalism. To be able to start new businesses to take advantage of the newly available labor would imply that there would be a need for those businesses, never mind having enough capital to do so.

[QUOTE=Zero-Point;51961049]There's no such thing as ideal real-world capitalism. To be able to start new businesses to take advantage of the newly available labor would imply that there would be a need for those businesses, never mind having enough capital to do so.[/QUOTE] There's also no such thing as spherical point masses in a frictionless vacuum, but physics uses it for demonstrations all the time. You explain how it would work in a simplified scenario, and then (in my case) contrast it to the real-world to emphasize a particular complication - in this case, high barriers to entry in pretty much every US market. In the real world, of course you don't magically fix unemployment 100% by having every person without a job start a new business. But the degree to which new businesses are not started is far lower than it was during the highest-growth years of the American economy (I can find citations for those veteran-started businesses figure, if you insist on being pedantic), and it is a demonstrable factor in our employment problems.