Article on Trump voters

[Tekate]

And my answer is why I think it's better not to stay small town, at least for a while. If one wants to stay in Elmira NY say, good for them, but I will tell you, there are no jobs there, yeah grandma may be down the street but the most you can expect in life is less..

Was it my personal choice? not sure as my mother drilled it into my head often and more often than that.. only one of my brothers stayed local, the rest of us left and he was the only one who was a Trump lover, true this. If I lived in Minersville PA I'd leave... we go where the jobs are. Meaningful? that is true.. if one finds living on 25K a year and has a meaningful life, so be it.. for me growing up with bill collectors calling every evening between 4 and 7 living on a low salary with a family taught me I didn't want that life. My mother also said "To each his own".

My question about marrying local and staying local was in response to what it seemed was your inference that to do that is bad or a mistake. Sure it wasn't right for you, but my question wasn't about your personal choice. Someone else might be perfectly happy with the husband who works at the electric company and a couple kids in their 20's. My point is that you cannot decide what is meaningful for someone else just because it is not what you would choose.

 

[ksinger]

My question about marrying local and staying local was in response to what it seemed was your inference that to do that is bad or a mistake. Sure it wasn't right for you, but my question wasn't about your personal choice. Someone else might be perfectly happy with the husband who works at the electric company and a couple kids in their 20's. My point is that you cannot decide what is meaningful for someone else just because it is not what you would choose.

Sure. If he's working for an electric company in a major metropolitan area as an engineer or tech, The hypothetical 20-something woman who is contented with you describe, is pretty much an outlier. The young are NOT staying in rural America.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/06/the-graying-of-rural-america/485159/

Speaking for my own state, I can assure you that rural Oklahoma is dying. Any traditionally rural area that is doing well, is doing it by becoming less rural and more of a bedroom community for "the big town" (OKC), or "T-town"(Tulsa), where most people commute. And boom-bust oil revenues are not, and never will be, enough to revitalize the dying places here.

 

[E B]

Something I have a hard time understanding: The same voters who feel alienated by 'condescending liberals' are the ones who mock political correctness. How do they square this?

 

[redwood66]

Sure. If he's working for an electric company in a major metropolitan area as an engineer or tech, The hypothetical 20-something woman who is contented with you describe, is pretty much an outlier. The young are NOT staying in rural America.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/06/the-graying-of-rural-america/485159/

Speaking for my own state, I can assure you that rural Oklahoma is dying. Any traditionally rural area that is doing well, is doing it by becoming less rural and more of a bedroom community for "the big town" (OKC), or "T-town"(Tulsa), where most people commute. And boom-bust oil revenues are not, and never will be, enough to revitalize the dying places here.

Sadly many towns like this will die out unless they have some other possible means to support the businesses. Young people need to move for opportunity if there is none. Old people need to move if the care they need is not available. Leavenworth, WA is an example of a dying logging town that developed a strategy to bring tourism. Yes it was helpful that they lived in a location which was beautiful but had they not taken the initiative to do something they would be just another tiny town on a pretty stretch of highway. Midsize cities have to work to keep young people engaged but it is harder for the tiny towns with nothing available. Many retirees are like me wanting to be out of high population areas but lack of services and healthcare facilities severely limit choices for some.

 

[redwood66]

This is what I want him to do because the distractions are a circus. Maybe since Mueller has been appointed it will settle down. Shut the hell up and get to work.

These are the people I know.
http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/trump-needs-to-remember-americans-care-about-jobs-not-circus/

 

[Kbell]

This is what I want him to do because the distractions are a circus. Maybe since Mueller has been appointed it will settle down. Shut the hell up and get to work.

These are the people I know.
http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/trump-needs-to-remember-americans-care-about-jobs-not-circus/

This is SO me... yeah I used to be a Democrat:

So middle Americans went from Democratic Party base to basket of deplorables. Why? Because they dared to have different interests from banks and lobbyists. They want to keep their medium-wage jobs, support a family, and live middle-class lives.

They're deplorable because they don't want big industries to own all the politicians. They're deplorable because ******they don't want to hand over control of their lives to a group of D.C. swamp monsters.*******

 

[liaerfbv]

I'm sorry, I still suck at quoting -- KBell, I don't understand how your post makes the point that what "deplorables" want is any different than what the liberal base wants as well. BOTH parties have "elites" who are looking out for their own interests and money. Do you think the House Republicans passed the AHCA bill because it gave money back to the working class? Absolutely not. Democrats also want the middle class to have jobs earning a wage to support their families - which is why many of them support raising the minimum wage to a living wage. Bernie Sanders didn't spend last year "shaming" anyone with an extra buck - he was literally the voice championing getting industry (lobbying money) OUT of politics!

 

[Kbell]

I'm sorry, I still suck at quoting -- KBell, I don't understand how your post makes the point that what "deplorables" want is any different than what the liberal base wants as well. BOTH parties have "elites" who are looking out for their own interests and money. Do you think the House Republicans passed the AHCA bill because it gave money back to the working class? Absolutely not. Democrats also want the middle class to have jobs earning a wage to support their families - which is why many of them support raising the minimum wage to a living wage. Bernie Sanders didn't spend last year "shaming" anyone with an extra buck - he was literally the voice championing getting industry (lobbying money) OUT of politics!

I was actually quoting the article. The part the resonates the most with me is the part I asterisked. I understand both parties have their issues - as did both candidates. Had the Democrats put up a different candidate maybe my vote would be different. Maybe it will be next time. Who knows? I only know: My personal preference is less Federal Government interference/control in my life. The Feds do not need to be responsible for & govern every aspect of our lives. There is state government. Local government.

 

[liaerfbv]

I understood that you were quoting the article, I just don't understand the context of the point you were trying to make. I still don't, really. I don't think DT or the Republican party has any interest in helping the middle class earn a living wage (and I don't think a lot of Democrats do either honestly). I don't think the federal government will be any smaller or have less control over any of our lives no matter what party is in power - it will just manifest in different ways. Democrats want more of a social safety net, social equality, etc. Republicans want to restrict access to healthcare options and dictate religious rights. Either could be just as offensive based on your own personal outlook, but I think it's naive to think one party will have less federal influence than another.

 

[Kbell]

I understood that you were quoting the article, I just don't understand the context of the point you were trying to make. I still don't, really. I don't think DT or the Republican party has any interest in helping the middle class earn a living wage (and I don't think a lot of Democrats do either honestly). I don't think the federal government will be any smaller or have less control over any of our lives no matter what party is in power - it will just manifest in different ways. Democrats want more of a social safety net, social equality, etc. Republicans want to restrict access to healthcare options and dictate religious rights. Either could be just as offensive based on your own personal outlook, but I think it's naive to think one party will have less federal influence than another.

Please explain to me exactly how the Republican party wants to dictate my religious rights? As a group typically the Republican party has been for less federal government control leaving more in control of local government. Could this change? Of course which is why I am an independent voter and can vote for whomever I choose in whatever party, if any, they are affiliated with.

 

[Tekate]

Hi Kbell, can you tell me where you feel the government is interferring in your life and trying to control you and yours? It's not that I necessarily disagree with you, it's just that I don't feel that way and never did...

I saw a quote and it struck me: "do you want a civil society?" if we do and I do.. then we need rules and government, I'm sure as heck not going to build a high school, or plow the streets in the winter. I have lived in the states of NY, NC, TX and CT. I don't remember town, state or the feds bothering me in the any of those places.. I have said that I hated paying school taxes when I was in my 20s.. but ex-hubster made a good point at the time - he said "good community schools keep home prices rising, entices people to want to move to your community, so while you don't like it, it helps us" now he was a meanie, but that did make sense (and he was a republican, probably still is). Driving 55... at the time that went into effect we all thought oil was running out.. it didn't (fracking!) and now the speed limit in TX is on average 70mph (of course it's a huge, dry, barren place with long roads so 55 is kind of nonsensical, but gas is cheaper)...

I can't think of anything that really infringed on me.. say abortion, okay the right wants to take the ability away from women, well I know that a person who can afford a plane ticket to London can get an abortion and I had a friend in pre Roe v Wade who did just that in 1971.. I'm in favor of abortion because women will get them anyway, just not legally or off to a country in Europe that allows it.

I think there will always be a line when government can make too many rules/regs and the next election goes to the group and lessen the rules etc.. then that group goes too much to the other side and in comes the other and tightens rules...

I am sort of extemporaneously typing, my apologies, but I am curious about how you think your town, state and feds have infringed into your life today.

thanks!

and Peace!!!

I was actually quoting the article. The part the resonates the most with me is the part I asterisked. I understand both parties have their issues - as did both candidates. Had the Democrats put up a different candidate maybe my vote would be different. Maybe it will be next time. Who knows? I only know: My personal preference is less Federal Government interference/control in my life. The Feds do not need to be responsible for & govern every aspect of our lives. There is state government. Local government.

 

[liaerfbv]

There is a misconception that Republicans are for "less" federal government. Using the most rudimentary measurement, Republican presidents have actually spent more than Democrat presidents in the past 40 years. If the argument is Republicans support smaller government... what the hell are they spending all this money on? Reagan, the dream Republican, increased the budget defense (okay, we were in the Cold War), expanded Medicare, increased the payroll tax to keep Social Security afloat, and increased government spending across the board annually.

https://www.thebalance.com/president-ronald-reagan-s-economic-policies-3305568

Here's a 2016 article from a Libertarian website regarding Republican presidential spending vs Democrat (tried to pick a neutral source):
https://mises.org/blog/if-you-want-bigger-government-vote-republican

Some excerpts:
"So, using this analysis, we do find that Bush I was the least-bad offender with federal spending increasing only 2 percent from 1990 through 1993. That's one in favor of the GOP claims for being against big government.

On the other hand, the top three worst offenders here are Republicans. As hard as it is to believe, there are still some people who think that Reagan cut the size of government, although Reagan was a big spender and laid the groundwork for the immense national debt we live with today.

During Reagan's tenure, counting FY 1982 to FY 1989, federal spending increased 19 percent. And worst of all, George W. Bush oversaw an increase in federal spending of 46 percent during his tenure.

We can compare this to an increase of 7 percent under Clinton and 4 percent under Obama, although, we'll likely have to assign the blame for 2016 and 2017 budgets to Obama. However, even with all the coming increases in federal health care spending that we'll be able to thank Obama for, it's unlikely he'll be able to match the spending levels signed into law by Bush II."

and

"But wait!" the GOP partisans will say. "It's all Congress's fault." If it weren't for those Dems in Congress, Republicans would have slashed budgets."

Even on its surface this is a weak argument since presidents have veto power, and never, to my knowledge, were any any of these budgets passed over the veto of a president, which would of course require a two-thirds majority in Congress. So, in essence, if the GOP ever has more than one-third a majority in either house of Congress, or if the party has the White House, it has veto power on the budget.

But, if the pro-GOP reasoning holds any water, then we should find that periods where the GOP had control of both Congress and the White House would have been a period of budget slashing.

Well, the GOP controlled both the White House and the House of Representatives from 2001 to 2007. The Senate was evenly divided from 2001-2003, but from 2003 to 2007, the GOP had total control of the White House and Congress.

Did spending increase from 2003 to 2007? You bet it did. In fact, during that period, federal spending increased 8.4 percent in real terms. That's including the fiscal years of 2004-2008. If we slightly expand this period to include the period when the GOP had 50% of the Senate from 2001-2003, then we find that for that six-year period, federal spending increased 17.7 percent

In fact, it was during that period, in 2003, that the Bush administration dreamed up the idea of massively expanding Medicare to more heavily subsidize prescription drugs. It was the largest expansion of welfare since the Great Society, and it happened when the GOP had control of both the White House and the Congress. (Medicare is not self-financing, by the way. It pays out more than it takes in.)

We might also note that for six of Reagan's eight years, he enjoyed a Republican-controlled Senate (from 1981-1987), all the while racking up record-breaking deficits.

So, is a vote for the GOP a vote for less government spending, more fiscal restraint, and "personal responsibility." It's hard to see how one could possibly construe that from the historical record."


I find it difficult to believe that more spending equals less federal government. There are way more sources that confirm this information, but I chose this one for it's hopefully non-bias as well as the handy charts (I'm very visual).

As to the religious aspect of it, I think we are all aware of the Christian bias the Republicans have supported since the Tea Party swung the party to the far right. Legislation is being presented in too many states to count to use Christian beliefs as the basis for discrimination, restriction on abortion rights, funding for medical clinics - Trump himself is withholding BILLIONS of dollars in global aid funding to be able to dictate funds not be used for programs/facilities that also perform abortions. For god's sake, he's trying to implement a MUSLIM BAN. Talk about religious restrictions.

 

[redwood66]

I think there will always be a line when government can make too many rules/regs and the next election goes to the group and lessen the rules etc.. then that group goes too much to the other side and in comes the other and tightens rules...

You and I have had this talk before. This is why I am much more in favor of state's rights so there will be a place for all types of people to live. I do not want the local government telling me where I can park my car, or what plants I have to plant in front of my house, or what color to paint for pete's sake. So if I want less government involvement I want a place to go that supports that. Likewise for those that appreciate and are willing to pay for more programs and services.

 

[Matata]

You and I have had this talk before. This is why I am much more in favor of state's rights so there will be a place for all types of people to live. I do not want the local government telling me where I can park my car, or what plants I have to plant in front of my house, or what color to paint for pete's sake. So if I want less government involvement I want a place to go that supports that. Likewise for those that appreciate and are willing to pay for more programs and services.

We have to keep the "united" in the United States when it comes to providing education, health care, infrastructure and other basic needs for a society to cohesively evolve. If states were left up to their own devices, I believe this country would turn into utter chaos and elevate the war between the classes to a whole 'nother level. What would suit you Red -- states that are ruled by particular religions; states where the education system is well-funded and produces people who can contribute to society contrasted with states where folks are welcome to obsolesce; states where LBGT people are considered humans contrasted to those where they are killed if they cross the wrong border. We have these sorts of things occurring now and they'll only get worse if we can't speak with one voice about basic rights.

 

[Kbell]

Tekate - Of course I want a civilized society. I honestly think anything the Feds dip their hand into where they don't belong turns out bad. Look at the state of Social Security. These are the people you want in charge of & trust with your healthcare? Mandating that you participate and penalizing you if you don't? Those who don't that I know personally, don't because they can't afford to. Penalizing them financially is the answer? It's ridiculous. There certainly needs to be healthcare reform which can be done with out it all being run by the Feds.

I also think they should stay out of other things like gun control which on it's own is a hot topic that the dems kept harping on, but I again think this is up to the States - not a blanket one size fits all policy for the country. There was a horrible home invasion homicide right up the street from where I work. If the occupants were armed maybe one or both would be alive. Instead, they were tied up & their throats slit before police arrived. They were able to text a friend for help prior to being murdered but it wasn't in time to save them. Currently States regulate this and I think it should remain that way. It is very difficult but not impossible to get a license in my state. I have one. I don't need the Federal gov't telling me why I don't need one or that I can't have one. They don't know me or the environment I am surrounded by, however the chief of police who granted me my license certainly does.

I don't honestly believe the Republicans are ever going to overturn Roe VS Wade... I also am in favor of choice - whatever that choice may be.

And I honestly think my last 3 presidential votes were votes against a candidate VS for a candidate which I find very very sad... I know many who voted the same way for the same reason.

 

[redwood66]

We have to keep the "united" in the United States when it comes to providing education, health care, infrastructure and other basic needs for a society to cohesively evolve. If states were left up to their own devices, I believe this country would turn into utter chaos and elevate the war between the classes to a whole 'nother level. What would suit you Red -- states that are ruled by particular religions; states where the education system is well-funded and produces people who can contribute to society contrasted with states where folks are welcome to obsolesce; states where LBGT people are considered humans contrasted to those where they are killed if they cross the wrong border. We have these sorts of things occurring now and they'll only get worse if we can't speak with one voice about basic rights.

You are being dramatic and you know it. Especially the bolded.

 

[liaerfbv]

Have you been to the South? Because actually, she's not.

 

[redwood66]

Murder is illegal in every state code without the Feds deciding to make it so.

 

[Calliecake]

You are being dramatic and you know it. Especially the bolded.

NO Matata is not being overly dramatic. Do venture out of your state much Red?

 

[redwood66]

NO Matata is not being overly dramatic. Do venture out of your state much Red?

Murder is still illegal. Therefore she is being dramatic. What does state's rights have to do with the bolded comment in her post?

 

[iLander]

I didn't read all the posts so far, but this line in the article got me:

Not so the WWC, which Williams defines as white middle-class people (those in the $41,000 to $132,000 income range) who don’t have a college education.

First, an income over $100,000 doesn't seem to be working class, to me. I personally would define it at $35K to $60K; enough to make expenses, but not enough to really save for retirement, pay off the house, send a kid to a $150K college, etc.

And I'm not sure what the writers don't get about college education. Back in the day, most people did not think a college degree was a "requirement" for every job out there. In my 1980's public high school, most kids were NOT going on to college, and it was considered quite normal at the time. College-educated baristas were not common at all. I'd say the percentage of want ads requiring college degrees was about 15% back then. Secretary, receptionist, factory workers, etc, none of those needed a degree and they provided a decent income. Now they're called administrative assistants and they want a college degree but don't provide a living wage. So I'm not sure why people seem to consider those without college degrees to be stupid, racist, crackers. That's just condescending. Many are victims of societal change (ridiculous requirements for even simple jobs) more than anything else.

But that aside, most of the jobs available to the working class have been replaced by robots. It's robots and technology, not illegal immigrants or lack of unions. Factory workers, manufacturing, etc., they have been declining steadily since the 1980's.

• Manufacturing employment decline is a global phenomenon. As a Bloomberg story summarized: “Some 22 million manufacturing jobs were lost globally between 1995 and 2002 as industrial output soared 30 percent. … It seems that devilish productivity is wreaking havoc with jobs both at home and abroad.”

Harvard Business Review: https://hbr.org/2013/01/manufacturing-jobs-and-the-ris

And it will only get worse:
Thirty-eight percent of jobs in the U.S. are at high risk of being replaced by robots and artificial intelligence over the next 15 years, according to a new report by PwC. article http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/24/technology/robots-jobs-us-workers-uk/

So what you end up with is people in their late 40's, 50's and beyond who were told it was okay not to go to college and now the game has been changed on them. So, yeah, I understand their anger. But Trump was/is NOT the answer.

 

[Matata]

Murder is still illegal. Therefore she is being dramatic.

You can repeat it as many times as you want but it doesn't make it true. You keyed in one sentence and forgot the bigger picture -- I was postulating on what would get worse if state's were autonomous to a larger degree.

There is a white christian male representative in a southern state who was in the news 2 weeks ago because he was trying to pass legislation defining LGBTs as non human and having no rights (even to live). Under your ideal, that state would have the right to make murder legal for all of its residents or for only some of its residents. All I see under your scenario is the potential for 50 walls to be built. But I do understand your angst about too much interference in our lives. I just don't believe as you do that self-governing states are the answer.

 

[redwood66]

And I think you are dramatizing what you think would happen. Our constitution does not allow religions to rule anything so how does state's rights change that? I have not said anything about 50 separate countries. We live in a republic of states governed by one constitution. Other things should be handled by individual states that are not addressed in it.

 

[Matata]

Other things should be handled by individual states that are not addressed in it.

Such as? I'm trying to get a handle on what you'd like to see. Surely you're biggest concerns are not being told where you can park, what plants to plant and what color to paint your house.

This is why I am much more in favor of state's rights so there will be a place for all types of people to live. I do not want the local government telling me where I can park my car, or what plants I have to plant in front of my house, or what color to paint for pete's sake.

 

[Kbell]

You can repeat it as many times as you want but it doesn't make it true. You keyed in one sentence and forgot the bigger picture -- I was postulating on what would get worse if state's were autonomous to a larger degree.

There is a white christian male representative in a southern state who was in the news 2 weeks ago because he was trying to pass legislation defining LGBTs as non human and having no rights (even to live). Under your ideal, that state would have the right to make murder legal for all of its residents or for only some of its residents. All I see under your scenario is the potential for 50 walls to be built. But I do understand your angst about too much interference in our lives. I just don't believe as you do that self-governing states are the answer.

There are Federal hate crime laws. The Matthew Shepard Law. These are federal laws I agree with. So even if the state decides it's not a crime, which I think is ridiculous, they can/will be prosecuted at the Federal level and the Federal Gov't unlike many states has the death penalty. There are certain areas where the country's government needs to govern, like this for example, and others where they do/should not.

 

[redwood66]

Such as? I'm trying to get a handle on what you'd like to see. Surely you're biggest concerns are not being told where you can park, what plants to plant and what color to paint your house.

Education, welfare, healthcare to name a few.

 

[redwood66]

There is a white christian male representative in a southern state who was in the news 2 weeks ago because he was trying to pass legislation defining LGBTs as non human and having no rights (even to live). Under your ideal, that state would have the right to make murder legal for all of its residents or for only some of its residents. All I see under your scenario is the potential for 50 walls to be built. But I do understand your angst about too much interference in our lives. I just don't believe as you do that self-governing states are the answer.

I wanted to tell you that I do appreciate you saying this. Sometimes just an acknowledgement of one another's views is all it takes to start and keep a dialogue going toward the better. Not always but sometimes.

 

[whitewave]

Sure, the WWC voted for him, but so did plenty of other people. I did not vote for him but plenty of other people I know did. These people are professionals and business owners such as doctors, lawyers and engineers, and some of them are multi millionaires and a few own private planes.

 

[Calliecake]

I agree with Whitewave's comments above. I live in a blue state but know that most people voted Republican in the town I live in and neighboring towns. These towns are full of professional people.

 

[LLJsmom]

But that aside, most of the jobs available to the working class have been replaced by robots. It's robots and technology, not illegal immigrants or lack of unions. Factory workers, manufacturing, etc., they have been declining steadily since the 1980's.

• Manufacturing employment decline is a global phenomenon. As a Bloomberg story summarized: “Some 22 million manufacturing jobs were lost globally between 1995 and 2002 as industrial output soared 30 percent. … It seems that devilish productivity is wreaking havoc with jobs both at home and abroad.”

Harvard Business Review: https://hbr.org/2013/01/manufacturing-jobs-and-the-ris

And it will only get worse:
Thirty-eight percent of jobs in the U.S. are at high risk of being replaced by robots and artificial intelligence over the next 15 years, according to a new report by PwC. article http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/24/technology/robots-jobs-us-workers-uk/

So what you end up with is people in their late 40's, 50's and beyond who were told it was okay not to go to college and now the game has been changed on them. So, yeah, I understand their anger. But Trump was/is NOT the answer.

So true. I have read so many posts, and the one truth that seems clear to me is this. Times have changed, as they are always changing. It's lucky we live less than 100s years, on average, cause we won't be able to keep up. Change has been happening since time began. When America was first settled, movement from east to west coast, it was mostly farming. Then the industrial revolution happened. People migrated from rural to urban areas because jobs moved. Then globalization, jobs moving from one country to another, manufacturing within the U.S. to foreign countries. It's the tide of change. I for one don't know how to fight it, or whether it should be fought. People feel like they should be able to make a living wage in a small town. Yeah, it would be great if they could, but you can't (generally speaking). Can't force factories to open up. The costs for those goods would be higher. Consumers would buy the lower priced product. The company/factory goes out of business. That is the economics of it. How can you un-do progress? How do you force people to go back to the horse and carriage. I don't think you can. You have to change with the times or become obsolete. People that are survivors go where the jobs are. They do what they have to in order to stay competitive, acquire more education, gain more skills and experience, so they can continue to compete and be relevant in the workforce. People can insist that people in small rural towns should be able to earn a decent living wage, but the tide of history and human progress is against them. I am not making this personal. I am just saying what I have observed about history. And truly, how is this different from the history of every industrialized nation, except that in the U.S., we are a geographically big country. So there is just more rural space, more people living in these areas that feel the fear of real change.