Then I’m sure you can easily come up with a recent example of an OP on the other side of the political spectrum doing the same thing-Starting a thread stating an opinion, then stating that they are not there to hear opposing opinions.
No, I can’t. I have general recollections of such things happening, to be sure, but it’s not the kind of thing that is susceptible to a search. What search terms would find such a thread?
I just looked at today’s threads.
It’s different, but it’s the same sort of thing: dissatisfaction. Did you read that article I linked about Elliott County, KY? Those people, with a median income less than half the national, unemployment at more than twice the national average, few if any job prospects… those people aren’t lazy, they’ve been left behind. They didn’t want or need an armed revolution or a massive disruption of the country, they just wanted someone to try and help them so they can help themselves. Mrs. Clinton talked about further decimating the economic opportunities they have available. Mr. Trump talked about expanding the economic opportunities they have available. It was that easy for him to get their votes, despite over a century and a half of Democratic voting in a county that is 85% registered Democrats.
Well, perhaps we need more pictures of what houses look like in places like troubled towns and counties. Perhaps we need to see more graphs of the teen suicide rate in rural America. Maybe more graphs about rural jobs lost.
The problem isn’t just getting people on the other side to engage with us; part of the problem is getting us to want to engage them. Gotta work on both sides so we can find some center, eh.
Oh, I think some of those graphs are pretty powerful pictures. YMMV, but I think they carry a lot of weight and can have a strong impact.
Gotta listen to the mood of the electorate.
One reason that I think the Civil Rights Movement was so successful was because of the timing. White America was generally prosperous as hell. People were comfortable. There was plenty to go around, as it were.
It’s hard to get a beggar to give to a charity. Rural America has been begging for years now and all they’ve seen is people blaming them for their situation (“they should just move to were the jobs are”; “they should get a better education”; etc.) and refusing to help, but finding the time and money to help other, smaller groups.
I’m glad that this country finally has discovered that gay people should be able to get married, but think of the time that the media and our politicians and courts have spent on that in the past 4 years versus the amount of time spent on helping people in counties like Elliott County, KY. At best, people who identify as gay comprise about 4% of our population. Rural America is like 15% of our population.
The rural poverty rate is more than 3% that of urban areas. Access to health care is significantly reduced for rural populations.
(And it isn’t just in the South and Midwest. Look at Newburgh, NY, which has lost jobs and population (as the young move to the cities, where the jobs are). More than a third of the population of Newburgh lives below the poverty line. Recently they learned that their water is and has been tainted by a chemical linked to cancer, just like another city with problems in Michigan (Flint, for those who hadn’t heard). Cite.)
The concerns of rural America are valid. They should be more important to the country than they have been, IMO. And apparently, that is the opinion of the people who live there, too.
To be clear, I don’t absolve myself from being part of the problem. I was. I didn’t know how bad it had gotten. The news doesn’t hammer this home like they ought to (but American journalism has been failing the public for about 15 years now, at least, IMO; that’s a separate discussion).
So now we have two sides we have to convince: we need to convince the other side to listen to us. And we have to do what I’ve been doing for the past week, and try and convince our side that we need to listen to them.
It’s gonna take a lot of hard work. I’ve never known most Americans to be afraid of hard work, tho.
Yes, but suppose you looked at Wednesday’s threads. What would have found there? Or Thursday’s? Or September 18ths?
This is a curious position and it frustrates me, because part of me thinks you must know that this is an absurd defense to the point I raised. And it makes it harder for me to credit your claim that you are surrounded, in real life, by unreasonable people when you appear to be willing to offer up this kind of non-argument rebuttal.
[quote=“Snowboarder_Bo, post:304, topic:771345”]
Mrs. Clinton talked about further decimating the economic opportunities they have available. /QUOTE]
Cite?
I get the economic desperation, but I disagree with the assertion that Clinton would make it worse. I agree that there may have been that perception, especially among those who get their news from right wing sources, but if you had looked into her plans, you would see that it would have been good for all americans. No, she wasn’t going to get them their factory job back, but she was going to provide funding for them to train for jobs that actually exist, and will continue to exist in the future.
He talked about it, but what was his plan?
And that is true. I did not engage many trump supporters. I engaged people. Some of the people were for hillary, I thanked them and moved on. Some were uncomfortable with hillary, I did what I could to assuage their fears, and I think I got a number of them to vote for her, rather than third party or none at all.
People who were strongly anti-hillary, or people who were pro-trump, I did not engage. Not saying I did not engage them on a personal level. I still played board games with them, still ran their RPG’s, still groomed their dogs, but I did not see any possibility of productive engagement on a political front. I figured that bringing up such subjects would just upset people, so I let it go.
That may have been a mistake on my part. I am still not sure what exactly I should have done to change their minds, but it will be something I think about alot over the next few years.
Those statements may be unpleasant to hear to rural americans, but unfortunately, they are the truth. You factory jobs are not coming back. You either need to relocate, retrain, or both. That’s just the long and short of it. It’s not a message they want to hear, but it is the reality they need to face.
Clinton had a plan to help to retrain out of work people. That’s pretty much the best that can be offered.
Okay, I learned something. I was about to counter cite your 4% claim, and when I looked it up, I found that it is a bit of an over estimate. I had actually always taken the homosexual population to be more like 10%.
Still, I will take protecting the rights of minorities over protecting the feelings of the majority as a moral cause any day. I don’t know if that helps win elections, but that is one of the things that I cannot change.
And Clinton was looking to expand healthcare coverage, trump is threatening to gut it. Once again, the message may not have gotten to them in such a way, but those are the realities that we somehow need to make them recognize.
This is a problem, I fully agree. But electing the party that wants to eliminate the EPA is going to help these problems how, exactly? Once again, the messaging may have been a problem, but the message itself should have been a good sell to these people.
And, as always, keep in mind that more people voted for clinton than trump, so catering to the minority, while it may have won us this election, and if done right, may win us the next or so, is not exactly a democratic principle.
Hell 5 million more people voted for democratic senators than voted for republican, and that doesn’t exactly show up in the senate makeup.
This tells me that democratic ideas do resonate with the majority of americans, just not the strategically placed ones.
We need to listen to them so they listen to us. Yeah, I get that. I don’t know how well it’ll work, but there aren’t a whole lot of other options, so I agree it’s a strategy to try.
I hope not, because it’s not just going to be alot of work to convince people to vote for our candidate, who have what we feel are the best ideas for moving our country forward, but we are going to need to ask them to work hard to implement those ideas as well.
I find the coding there; I hope the mods are cool with that.
Anyway, [here’s the cite from the linked article about Elliott County, KY:
](http://bigstory.ap.org/article/06e8c4950c364f66994d194b0ec64f50/trump-country-democratic-elliott-county-ky-23-points)And [Politico has a critical analysis of the speech and it’s fallout, with direct quotes (and an attempt at context):
](PolitiFact | In context: Hillary Clinton’s comments about coal jobs)
Yes, after that she said:
But the Super PACs just ran the one line. Over and over and over again. Of course it was effective.
That was a politically dumb speech. That’s like saying “I can’t wait until my spouse dies. They’re in a lot of pain and I don’t want to see them suffer anymore.” What a stupid way to express yourself, especially in front of cameras and microphones when you have an opponent (or a whole group of opponents). Don’t offer your opposition that kind of free prize. That’s #1.
#2 is, of course 98% of the people wouldn’t bother looking up the whole speech to see if that quote was taken out of context. It’s her voice. She’s saying those words. People heard it. Done. Maybe her campaign could undo the damage with some small percent of voters, but at that point saying “No, I didn’t mean that! I meant we’ll help you, not we’ll hurt you! Vote for me!” is gonna sound like a self-serving lie to most people IMO.
Doing that with her unfavorability rating, her trustworthiness rating, etc. was a huge campaign blunder, and it cost her a county that is 85% registered Democrats, a county that had voted Democrat for over 140 years.
People complain that politicians never give a straight answer and stick to platitudes. And your example shows exactly why. One careless soundbite stripped of context can ruin you.
And it’s especially frustrating when the same voters who’ll punish you for that one remark will happily vote for Donald Fucking Trump, who tells it like it is. He’s honest, not like that lying Hillary. But don’t think he’s actually going to enact the stuff he talks about. That’s all just pillow talk, baby.
I work at a trucking firm, made up of people that are either truckers or former truckers. What do you think they listen to over the road? I really don’t need you to validate my claim.
NPR?
I agree with most of what you wrote here, but if you’ll read my post above you’ll find a detailed commentary.
He never offered one AFAIK; he didn’t have to. Mrs. Clinton said “we’re going to put these coal mines out of business” and Mr. Trump said “we’re going to make sure you have jobs”. If all you heard was the two sound bites, which person would you vote for? Well, that’s what a lot of them did.
There may not have been anything you could have done to change their minds at that time. People were/are mad at the system in general, and Mrs. Clinton has been a part of or been on the periphery of that system for more than 25 years now (30+ if we go back to just Arkansas state politics). She is undeniably a part of the system they view unfavorably. Mr. Trump is undeniably not.
Ah, but there’s the truth and then there’s the truth. There are ways to make your point without saying “We’re gonna put all the coal mines out of business” or “I can’t wait until my spouse dies”. A good salesperson can get people past the fact that they don’t need and can’t afford something. Heck, a good salesperson can get people past the fact that they don’t even want something. Mrs. Clinton is not that salesperson; in this case, Mr. Trump was.
Perhaps. Again, it doesn’t have to be said in the blunt way you did, even. How about just “I want to bring new opportunities, new industries to the area and restore the thriving, vibrant economy that this community deserves!” No negativity, all positive. It’s classic sales pitch technique.
Me too. I looked it up to be sure of what I was posting. 
I will too, but that isn’t what we’re talking about here. This was providing help to 4% for something that is a better way (the right way) for 3% of our people to be able to live vs. finding a way for 15% of the people to be able to live at all. Politically, that should be a no brainer.
Who was talking about healthcare coverage? Not me. the problem isn’t healthcare coverage, it’s healthcare access. Rural areas have a dearth of practicing physicians and medical facilities, not a lack of internet so they can shop for insurance policies.
(I’ve said before that the biggest problem with the PPACA is that it addressed a problem that no one wanted solved. People wanted healthcare, not health insurance. Nobody wanted that except the people skimming money off it.)
You’re focused on the wrong ting, IMO. It’s not the bad water that’s the worst thing, it’s that more than ⅓ of the people live in poverty. The bad water is a symptom of that poverty, not the cause of it.
Sure it is. That’s what special interests are. And everyone is a special interest. Politicians just have to figure out how to group them together so they can please as many as possible with their actions on our behalf. That’s called “building a coalition” and “winning an election”.
Americans are not afraid of hard work, but they have to believe it will be meaningful. No one (and when I say “no one”, I mean me) wakes up every day wanting to bust their ass, but if that’s what it takes, that’s what we do; we’re Americans.
Let’s get to work!
I don’t know. As a Latin man, I listen to Univision constantly, of course.
Except when, as a conservative, I listen to Rush Limbaugh.
Except when, as an opera fan, I listen to Rigoletto. Or as a Broadway fan, I listen to the original cast recording of Goodtime Charley. Or as a brass fan I listen to my treasured Music for Brass and Percussion.
The point being, I would start with the assumption that they are individuals.
It’s not the only goal, but it would be one, insofar as it would be known who actually has a chance of being reached.
I mean, if nothing else, Trump voters are at least okay with installing people with, uh, certain beliefs in power, so I’d at least like to know who would be amenable to being gently reminded that the VP elect thinks psychological torture is perfectly fine for gay kids, and who would respond, “Yeah, well, good.”
But there are third options aplenty.
A faithful Catholic may abhor abortion but vote for a politician who won’t end it simply because other factors about the race come down on that politician’s side.
I voted for Clinton. Is there a mirror-Leaper out there saying to me, “You’re either at least okay with abortion, or when gently reminded that Clinton is pro-choice, will respond, ‘Yeah, well, good?’”
Neither is true for me. I’m certainly not going to say it’s good that Clinton is pro-choice, and I’m not even okay with the stance. But because the alternative was Trump, I voted for her.
See?
While the slaughter of animals for food would indeed continue (along with no increase in the vegan demographic) at least preserving the E.P.A. would ensure that many animals will not dwindle to extinction, like in nature preserves and parks, where they won’t end up as food. (Certainly at least compared to if the E.P.A. was not in commission)
Sure, the E.P.A. has blundered, but to abolish it - which has been endorsed by Cruz and Rubio as well as Trump - I think would be a ghastly mistake. Hopefully there are mechanisms in place to prevent this from happening. I’d consider that an aspect of moral fibre to at least maintain.
To slightly de-hi-jack…Snoboarder Bo…Maybe I missed this from earlier in the thread, but are there instances where you’ve had common ground in your discussions with Trump supporters that revolved around any social issues or policy? Specific points on foreign affairs, economics, immigration? In Victoria B.C. the only Trump supporters I came across was a week ago in front of me in line at a liquor store, and after hearing the old farmer-type dude (with wife) talking to the cashier about Clinton’s emails, I tried to engage him further on it. Our “discussion” eventually went out into the parking lot, as he bloviated, with five interruptions, about Benghazi and birtherism (that last point I really wanted to WTF? him over, but bit my tongue).
There was no way I was going to get him to consider anything, and if this is what’s emblematic of what’s in store, this worries me.
Interrupting = obstructionism*
*heh, you saw what I did, there! 
Apart from brilliantly re-appropriating tired old internet meme
Good point Bricker. Because we all remember when Clinton made “Abortions for Everybody!” her major campaign plank. Remember when she said she’d retool Planned Parenthood to go out, find and deport unwanted fetuses?
Yep, Hillary::Abortion is exactly like Trump::Racism and Trump::Islamaphobia I don’t know why more people don’t see that.
No, that one did say why.
And the single issue voter, the one that, if they knew you voted for clinton, would call you a baby killer, and that no amount of reasoning of the greater good would get through to them, and any help or association with them condemns you too, you recognize that those people exist on your side right?
Our side has those too. And as much as you wouldn’t try to talk that single issue voter into voting for clinton in spite of her pro-choice views, or even succeed in accepting you choice for voting for clinton, trying to talk people who believe in the civil rights of others is even less productive, and, for the same reason you wouldn’t talk a pro-life person out of that position, I would not try to talk a pro-civil rights position person out of that, as I am also in favor of civil rights.
But at that point we have to control third part messaging too. If she had just made that speech, and it wasn’t recorded and broken down into sound bites, it would have been fine. Anyone there who was paying attention( and most people don’t really pay that much attention as speeches, they just look for buzzwords and slogans) would have also heard the followup. It is only when recording technology lets you take it out of context that the speech contains negative elements.
So at this point, we are saying that she need to have a pretty hefty vetting process for every word that comes out of her mouth. And one of the complaint she already had was that she was too considered in her speaking.
How much damage did obama’s “you didn’t build that” comment do to him? He still won, but people were all upset about it, even though in the original context, it was perfectly true and agreeable, in a different context, we could be talking about how that comment lost him the election.
Making a list of words and phrases and comments to never say isn’t a terrible idea, as we learn from history some expressions can hurt, but to try to proactively make a list of all possible utterances that can be used against you would probably fill a significant chunk of the library of babel.
Not saying the comment didn’t hurt her, just not sure of the best way of going about avoiding such in the future.
But he was selling snake oil, and the course of this is trying to see the best way of convincing the potentially gullible voter of this in the future.
I thought that was actually more or less what she said in those speeches. Maybe the wording was different, but her message was one of positive for the economy. If you are saying that politicians in the future should never talk about the realities and the sacrifices that may be asked of the people, to only promise the good life, without bringing up the work to get there, that may be a strategy to employ in the future. One thing I always appreciated in a politician was one that admitted what would be asked of me. I may be a minority in that regard.
But they are not related. The media may have been spending a disproportionate amount of time on the issues, but that doesn’t mean that the govt was.
Giving gays the right to marry required some legal wrangling, that may have occupied some lawmakers and judges time for some number of hours, but it did not require any taxes or subsidies or building projects. It did not take away from any resources that could have been devoted to giving these people the jobs they want.
So, in this case, maybe the media is to blame, and we may need to look into how to change that, but I can’t see how the candidate can have that much power over the perception created by the media of the priorities of Washington.
There are alot of problems with it. The biggest problem was that it was a rough draft of a compromise that ended up being the bill. It really does not solve most of the problems that it needed to. There are quite a number of changes that need to be made, but improve it, and to expand healthcare to more people, in more areas.
The reason that there aren’t good healthcare options in rural areas is not some conspiracy, or a ppaca effect, it is because there are not enough people in those areas for the free market to provide access to these areas.
The problem is not going to be solved through the free market, the problem will be solved only with greater govt involvement in healthcare.
In a nutshell, the biggest problem with the ACA is that it doesn’t go far enough, and they voted against the person who wanted to take it further, and for the party who wants to remove it entirely.
Once again, this is one of those times when the people were misinformed as to what their best interest was.
And one of the problems with the progressives is that we all have our own progressive ideas, and how to implement them. We want to try things that haven’t been tried before, or at least change things away from how they are now. It is harder to get agreement on what direction to take things, then if you are a conservative, and ideologically, they all agree tend to agree that things are better as they are, or as they were, than how we want to change them.
This means it is much harder to achieve the sort of consensus and coalitionness that the republicans can pretty much come to naturally.
It’s actually my day off though…
I spent several years driving professionally. I often would listen to right wing talk shows in the morning, as they would make me so angry so quickly that it would wake me right up.
I can see how someone who decides to keep listening to that stuff can become very radicalized. It makes you angry, and it makes you feel impotent about the things that make you angry. This makes you afraid. This makes you less amenable to reason, and more susceptible to messages that assuage your security.
Once I was awake and looking to keep my blood pressure from blowing my head off, I would switch to NPR for some relaxing facts about monarch butterflies.
After watching Jonathan Pie’s well known rant (21M views on FB only), I have scrolled down to comments and I want to share one with you: (sorry for the wall of text, I think it’s worthwhile to make the effort)