At this point they’re little more than Mortimer Duke, screaming “TURN THOSE MACHINES BACK ON!” and insisting everything go back to ‘normal’ rather than facing that the industry is dying.
Absolutely right. To continue with the analogy from the quote by “Larry the Liquidator”, what happened is that the people in Eastern Kentucky voted for the person who told them that he would return to the days when buggy whips were purchased by everyone, and that their buggy whip making jobs would return. No plans for doing this, no actual concrete reality, but just a complete bullshit promise.
They could have voted for the person who said that she’d help them move into the new economy, and get jobs making something other than buggy whips… But NO! These people love buggy whips, and making them is all they know how to do, and it sounds hard to change so they voted for the complete bullshitter who told them a fairy tale, rather than the person who would really help them.
-
I did not even know she said that, it was never mentioned in the media I watched or read. It it was covered it was clearly drowned out by all the other filth. I wonder how many people in Kentucky actually knew that was her intention and sentiment?
-
If they did know and still preferred the message of Trump who lied to their faces telling them what they wanted to hear… we are lost. I have never been more depressed, people made Hillary out to be some compromised monster on the dole for whatever foreign power wanted to toss a few coins in her account, but with this kind of policy message she was actually interested in addressing the changing world that left some communities behind. And if that was not good enough for the ones who did hear and understand it, then let them burn. No sympathy. I suspect most people just did not know that was her intention, never ever heard the rest of what you posted. I certainly didn’t. And btw, it would be been useful if that kind of talk came up in a god damn televised debate. The shift to character and away from policy was not a good strategy.
This is where I think hyper honestly might be the only solution to being lambasted and partially quoted by your enemies in the media. And the moments you do this ought to be national debates where at least for the people watching the debate, your words are not cut up into an abomination of meaning. She should admit that her policies will undercut coal, and then go on to explain why she wants to do them anyway, why the alternative is not going to save coal either way, and what she intends to do for people who are living in regions left by the wayside.
I think the former for the most part. As you said, you didn’t even hear that. The media definitely failed Clinton. I heard the soundbite repeated over and over, and I saw it also repeated over and over in memes and on this board, but I never heard the full context until I searched it out myself. (Not that hard, highlight text, search google, bring up speech, read.) Now, the fact that they did not know this is not her fault, she told them this, it was in fact their responsibility to listen.
There was quite a bit of the latter as well. I am still seeing it on this board, where someone points out that quote, you point out the context, and they say the context doesn’t matter, she said those words, and it doesn’t matter the context, those words disqualify her. She told them a truth that they did not want to hear, Trump told them a lie they did want to hear. People either believed Trump’s lies, or made themselves belief his lies.
As far as the televised debates, she could have tried to bring up such things more, but she wasn’t really in control of the questions, and while she could control her answers, the televised debate by it’s nature doesn’t allow you to get into anything even remotely complex. The debates have pretty much become talking point contests at this point.
At this point it really is up to the electorate to actually seek out information on their own, and come to a decision based on research. This being spoonfed by the media and by facebook is what got us into this. Now, how you make people curious enough to get engaged in the workings of heir country, I don’t know, that’s going to be the next big challenge.
Agreed. But policy debate does not make for good TV viewership, and that’s what it’s all about.
More people tuned in to see Trump act like an asshole, and yell “NO, YOU’RE THE PUPPET! YOU THE PUPPET!” There was no way that Hillary could rescue anything from the gutter when both the media and her opponent wanted the gutter to be the preferred venue. And Trump is an expert at gutter fighting.
Hillary Clinton did exactly that all through the campaign. Over and over and over again. She would give speeches that gave a mini-view of policies to help those left behind in our economy. She was honest about the negatives and realities. These same speeches got shared all over social media, often in their entirety. Transcriptions are available all over the internet. She even had this fancy-schmancy website that gave much greater details on her ideas and plans.
These poor people we need to feel so sorry for ignored them. They picked out snippets like “We’re ending the coal industry” and “Basket of deplorables”, ignored all context, and ranted endlessly, complained loudly, and then voted for the con-man who has shown a passing acquaintance with truth, at best. They’re about to get screwed, long and hard and seven ways to Sunday. There’s a significant chance they lose their healthcare, what jobs they still had, and the government programs to help alleviate the issues arising from those losses. That’s not Clinton’s fault, nor “the left’s”. That rests solely on their own shoulders.
Coupla problems with that, even though I agree completely that that would be ideal, in an ideal world.
First, she has to be asked a question that she can direct that way. One complaint I hear, and have myself with pretty much all politicians is that they answer the question they want to be asked, not the question that actually was.
Second, while, sure, there were lotsa people watching, they were mostly watching Trump, to see what kind of crazy would come out of his mouth next. When Clinton would start talking, they’d tune out pretty quickly. Their ears may have perked up, though, if she said, “we’re going to lose alot of coal jobs.”, and that would likely be their takeaway. Even if was not, that would be what got replayed day in and out.
Third, do you think she could have gotten any sort of complex policy out of her mouth without trump interrupting?
Finally, I do not think that her policies will undercut coal. Coal prices are being undercut by natural gas, coal jobs are being undercut by automation. Yes, a bit of environmental regulations may end up decreasing coal consumption by a small margin, but it’s not going to be the lion’s share of the job loss. That is made up of things out of any president’s control.
Indeed, the only tragedy is that the bullet they used to blow their own brains out didn’t stop at their own damn skulls.
My faux-ivory tower finally arrived yesterday. It’ll take more firepower than they have to get to me!
Coal is also very bulky and produces a lot of ash waste that is difficult to dispose of.
Meanwhile we’re smack in the middle of a natural gas boom and a national oil boom. Oil imports peaked in 2005 and we only purchased 72% as much in 2015. The same year (2015), we produced 76% of the oil we consumed. Oil prices are very low. So of course, if only for purely financial reasons, oil and gas are the fuels of choice.
A lot of the coal burners are old. It would cost a lot to refit them with better scrubbers and there’s currently no financial incentive to do that, or to build new coal burners.
Sorry I’m not trying to argue in favor of coal. Yes, I read the whole quote. I don’t think that is what Eastern Kentuckians believe or want to hear from their candidate. They want their coal back. I’m not saying it is reasonable or possible, I think I am agreeing with you and a lot of what others have said. They don’t see coal as being that bad. They see no need for continually increasing EPA regulation like the Clean Air Plan. I think very few people around here see climate change as a problem that needs drastic measures. Its not in the forefront of issues they worry about.
Eastern Kentuckians see increasingly tough regulations as rigging the rules against any chance of revival, putting a boot on the throat of a struggling industry.
Why are democrats in favor of increasing regulation? If coal is so dead when competing against natural gas, then why not just let market forces doom coal, and keep their names out of the mud?
Check any democratic candidate in the area that has any chance of winning an election here and you will see they all support coal. There is a reason for that. (at least publicly support coal… we had a minor scandal when a very damaging video was released of Alison Lundergan Grimes, then challenging Mitch McConnel that suggested maybe she wasn’t 100% in favor of coal).
They voted against someone that thinks they know whats best for them better than they do. Someone that would certainly approve of ever increasing EPA regulations, carbon caps, and the like.
I fear you may be right here, and that makes me sad. I was trying to be optimistic.
I won’t feel sorry for them at all. They will be getting exactly what they asked for. Long and hard.
<new head of EPA>
“Just eliminate the job-killing environmental regulations, and the problem will be solved!”
I’m old enough to remember the announcements of smog alert days. I can’t remember the last time I heard one. That’s all down to the EPA enforcement of the clean air regulations. It boggles my mind to realize that there are people who are willing to remove regulations and return us to the days of smog unending.
I think she shoulda started at him at some point for a full five seconds, then just said calmly “When did you turn into such a damn fool?”
… And they’ll still blame liberals, and vote for someone even worse than Trump next time.
I don’t know the time lag from a drilling permit being issued to a well coming on line to increased supply reducing costs to it is now worth it to convert to natural gas". But I do know that under the G.W. Bush administration there was an increase in drilling permits. But coal’s problems are because of the Dem"ocratic Party.
If you’d read a single thing I posted here you might understand why that is bullshit.
I missed the sarcasm tag for my post. In reality, I don’t feel sorry for them. I don’t loathe, detest, despise, or even dislike them. If basic research and consideration isn’t worth their time, and their FEELINGS are all that matter, then they’re not worth my time either. They’re going to keep doing dumb shit, and I’m going to keep calling them on it. Any assistance they request, however, will be met with a heavy dose of “personal responsibility” and “you made your bed”. My patience for self-harm that damages other people who are even more vulnerable is virtually non-existent.