Biden / Harris Focused Discussion

[Rasulis]

Retraining without regional economic development was useless. I have always questioned the need for large scale retraining. A welder that used to work in the coal industry could easily find jobs in other sectors - construction, pipeline, etc. The same with mechanics, heavy machinery operators and electricians. The biggest problem was that there were no jobs to be had locally.

The coal regions in West Virginia and manufacturing hubs in Ohio never managed to bring other industries to replace the declining coal and manufacturing sectors. The pattern that we were seeing was that those that could leave ended up leaving the regions for greener pastures, and those who couldn’t stayed. Hence the declining population of West Virginia and stagnant population of Ohio.

Pre pandemic, 1% of US counties (31 counties) made up 32.3% of U.S. gross domestic product in 2018. Despite only having less than 3% of the land, 26.1% of the employed Americans and 21.9% share of the US population. This is a self feeding cycle. These regions also ended up receiving a lion share of the infrastructure, research and business development funding. While the rest kept getting left behind even further. The pandemic likely increased the gap even more.

[Theodarzna]

Retraining without regional economic development was useless. I have always questioned the need for large scale retraining. A welder that used to work in the coal industry could easily find jobs in other sectors - construction, pipeline, etc. The same with mechanics, heavy machinery operators and electricians. The biggest problem was that there were no jobs to be had locally.

The coal regions in West Virginia and manufacturing hubs in Ohio never managed to bring other industries to replace the declining coal and manufacturing sectors. The pattern that we were seeing was that those that could leave ended up leaving the regions for greener pastures, and those who couldn’t stayed. Hence the declining population of West Virginia and stagnant population of Ohio.

Pre pandemic, 1% of US counties (31 counties) made up 32.3% of U.S. gross domestic product in 2018. Despite only having less than 3% of the land, 26.1% of the employed Americans and 21.9% share of the US population. This is a self feeding cycle. These regions also ended up receiving a lion share of the infrastructure, research and business development funding. While the rest kept getting left behind even further. The pandemic likely increased the gap even more.

The problem is this still places the burden of "bringing in new industries" on those harmed by policies they didn't necessarily design. Retraining is still fitting that logic of individualizing and making the problem one of some individuals responsibility and fault, when it factually isn't.

[gondrin]

They've defended a type of retraining that as of yet does no actually exist. I know you guys love them, for a variety of reasons, but I do love that we are acknowledging the logic of these programs as essentially "Remake these people to serve Capitalism" after laws were enacted which ruined these communities. A fact which is constantly mystified and ignored or hand waved, as if to pretend that it was an unavoidable accident. Plus they are discussing "Retraining" in absolute theory, not how they have actually worked.

These plans have not worked in twenty years. Why we would keep trying is beyond me when clearly the better option is industrial policy and spending in those areas which has historically worked. Versus the plan that sounds good and can be argued for but hasn't actually worked the entire time they have been advocated for.

Well, retraining only works if someone is willing to go after it. However, arguing that there shouldn't be retraining programs in place because those who either use them for fields that definitely don't have any demand in an area or refuse to use them for whatever reason is just wrong. Those industries that die off due to innovation(either through technology or other means) or major downsizing due to lack of demand for said industry need to have retraining programs for those workers that are affected by them.

It isn't just laws passed that causes this. What you are arguing for is the same thing that happened when horse and buggy was being outmoded by automobiles or the lamplighter industry or the town crier industry and that is to socialize those industries by giving them handouts instead of giving the workers the tools and knowledge so they don't have to worry about government handouts and can adapt to whatever situation happens. You know, capitalism and all that. We are seeing that with the coal industry today as there isn't much use for coal outside of energy generation and energy companies are increasingly going away from it. However, you would rather see the government bailout a dying industry(you know, socialism) instead of giving the workers the tools so that they don't get stuck.

It always amazes me that those screaming socialism is bad have no issue with socialism for businesses just to prop them up for another year. These people are just socialists, just not for the people.

Just to note, I have no issue with the government helping out industries that are hit hard due to forces outside of their control(like with COVID). However, I am not for indefinitely propping up businesses or industries that are on their way out. I would rather spend that money helping out people instead so that they can adapt to whatever comes their way.

Question for you, should we have bailed out lamplighters when electric light took over or made laws preventing use of electric lights so those workers don't have to try to adapt to the world around them? What about town criers? How about switchboard operators? What about the guys who went around serving as alarm clocks for people in cities?

Remember, all those are industries that have died out completely.

[Endus]

They've defended a type of retraining that as of yet does no actually exist. I know you guys love them, for a variety of reasons, but I do love that we are acknowledging the logic of these programs as essentially "Remake these people to serve Capitalism" after laws were enacted which ruined these communities. A fact which is constantly mystified and ignored or hand waved, as if to pretend that it was an unavoidable accident.

The only alternative between remaking people to serve the capitalist markets is a full-on economic reformation from the ground up, rejecting capitalist systems entirely in favor of a socialist model. Yeah, I push for that, but the idea that we can do that in time to make a difference for these people's lives, that's . . . so wildly unrealistic that it's hopelessly naive.

The idea that we shouldn't do something now because of a hypothetical economic reform that will face massive systemic and legal challenges and is unlikely to emerge in the next decade, if ever, that's not workable. You're just abandoning these people's needs in the here and now with largely empty hopes and dreams for a better tomorrow, someday, maybe.

Plus they are discussing "Retraining" in absolute theory, not how they have actually worked.

Largely because these efforts haven't ever really gotten off the ground because of partisan challenges, particularly as it's usually a Democratic federal platform position, and many of the States that most need help are run by Republicans. When there are no practical examples, we've gotta stick with theory.

These plans have not worked in twenty years.

A caveat you conveniently make because expanding to a broader time frame would include eras when such programs did work, such as the shift out of WWII and getting veterans back into the workforce.

- - - Updated - - -

The problem is this still places the burden of "bringing in new industries" on those harmed by policies they didn't necessarily design.

You keep trying to put the blame for these economic shifts on policy decisions, and there's really no basis for that whatsoever. Coal as an industry isn't dying because of government policy, it's dying because there's been a declining demand for coal locally for decades, and globally for almost a decade now (ignoring that shipping of coal is not particularly cheap, making it difficult to compete with overseas operations from the USA).

Economies shift more due to technological demand and cultural shifts than government policies, particularly as those policies generally come about as an expression of those cultural shifts themselves.

[Theodarzna]

Well, retraining only works if someone is willing to go after it. However, arguing that there shouldn't be retraining programs in place because those who either use them for fields that definitely don't have any demand in an area or refuse to use them for whatever reason is just wrong. Those industries that die off due to innovation(either through technology or other means) or major downsizing due to lack of demand for said industry need to have retraining programs for those workers that are affected by them.

It isn't just laws passed that causes this. What you are arguing for is the same thing that happened when horse and buggy was being outmoded by automobiles or the lamplighter industry or the town crier industry and that is to socialize those industries by giving them handouts instead of giving the workers the tools and knowledge so they don't have to worry about government handouts and can adapt to whatever situation happens. You know, capitalism and all that. We are seeing that with the coal industry today as there isn't much use for coal outside of energy generation and energy companies are increasingly going away from it. However, you would rather see the government bailout a dying industry(you know, socialism) instead of giving the workers the tools so that they don't get stuck.

It always amazes me that those screaming socialism is bad have no issue with socialism for businesses just to prop them up for another year. These people are just socialists, just not for the people.

Just to note, I have no issue with the government helping out industries that are hit hard due to forces outside of their control(like with COVID). However, I am not for indefinitely propping up businesses or industries that are on their way out. I would rather spend that money helping out people instead so that they can adapt to whatever comes their way.

Question for you, should we have bailed out lamplighters when electric light took over or made laws preventing use of electric lights so those workers don't have to try to adapt to the world around them? What about town criers? How about switchboard operators? What about the guys who went around serving as alarm clocks for people in cities?

Remember, all those are industries that have died out completely.

Again, scratch a Democrat and you find a Reaganite. All of this is pure free market nostrums, ignoring policy and resorting to "But its innovative", I guess changing laws so you can outsource labor is hot new innovation.

I read this, and the words of Edge- and I see only the reconstruction of the idea of Deserving and Undeserving Poor. The people who aren't "making it" must not have wanted it is the logic you present. "It works if you have gumption and apply yourself enough, they must not have believed hard enough or worked hard enough!" The eternal rhetoric of personal responsibility when it is the poor that aren't sympathetic to certain people. "Well those flyover people just gotta get with the program!" because well, they are the bad undeserving poor. It is funny how quickly bootstrapism manifests from people.

We ignore thus the material conditions and actual policy in favor of a charitable narrative that "Well it was inevitable, MARKET FORCES!, Invisible Hand!" and when these programs fail or don't work "It's their fault, they are just too dumb and lazy to get with it!" because this magical policy prescription cannot be a failure, only people can fail it. How convenient.

[Edge-]

I read this, and the words of Edge- and I see only the reconstruction of the idea of Deserving and Undeserving Poor. The people who aren't "making it" must not have wanted it is the logic you present.

Because you're reading what you want to, not what we're posting. I've never held such a notion, because it's a pure work of fiction created by conservatives to justify a war on poor people, rather than on poverty.

I'm getting real tired of you making up beliefs, opinions, and views on my behalf, Theo.

- - - Updated - - -

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020...-parties-covid

The White House is apparently adamant about spreading holiday cheer this season, even if gathering to do so has potentially dire consequences. In the midst of a pandemic, as surging caseloads overwhelm healthcare systems across the country and public health experts urge Americans against congregating in large groups and traveling, the White House is reportedly planning more than a dozen indoor parties to celebrate Christmas, Hanukkah, and other religious holidays. President Donald Trump and First Lady Melania Trump, who usually make an appearance at such events, are “determined to have a final holiday season in the White House,” according to the Washington Post. Trump may also view the festivities—specifically the guest lists—as a chance to settle some final scores.

The Biden team had better fumigate that shit before they start moving in.

[Theodarzna]

Because you're reading what you want to, not what we're posting. I've never held such a notion, because it's a pure work of fiction created by conservatives to justify a war on poor people, rather than on poverty.

I'm getting real tired of you making up beliefs, opinions, and views on my behalf, Theo.

retraining only works if someone is willing to go after it.

What does this string of words mean? Other than that? "It works if you work hard enough" is the meaning here. That is the meaning of this thread of thinking. Knowing retraining hasn't worked yet, the assumption if I may summarize is that 'No true retraining have ever been tried!'

At the end of the day the retraining scheme puts on the poor, those damaged by these policies and the actions of others, the onus and responsibility for getting restored. If the programs don't work, well you heard it from that poster "They didn't want it hard enough" is the rub of it. And for yours,

It's not easy, and I'd never pretend it is. But life isn't easy sometimes. And do you know what? I'm in my 30's and have looked at radically changing my career a few times already. It's a daunting task for sure, and one I don't look forward to if I decide to pull the trigger.

Your own words are insanely paternalistic about this. This could have easily been some schlop from a Jordan Peterson Rules for Life. It still relies on a personal responsibility angle of "Well its on them to buck up and do this!" and ignores all the circumstances and contexts that created these problems. Heck what is the difference between this line of reasoning and some Boomer saying "Well I pulled myself up by my bootstraps!" Your "Well its not easy but I did it, and its good for you" is next door to Jordan Peterson's "Clean your room!" and such.

What I spy is how quickly you lot fall into Reaganomics thinking when is suites you. Here in this thread we have the hilarity of someone (ME) constantly said to be the uber Republican Trumper or whatever calling out Reaganomics and Free-Marketeerism, and in the opposing we have DNC Uber Allies to tell me about "Well its just Capitalism and the Market Bro! It was just innovation Bro!, you can't blame the MARKET!? Bro.... the Market?! Its an Invisible Hand!"

[Edge-]

What does this string of words mean? Other than that? "It works if you work hard enough" is the meaning here.

It means that some people may not want to be trained in another field. Literally, that's it. It's not to say they're lazy or deserving of their current situation. It's an observation based on reading and seeing interviews with some of the folks in-question (ex manufacturing folks in the midwest, ex miners etc.) and reading/hearing them say that they didn't want to get trained to do other work, this was all they wanted to do. You can't force someone into retraining, and you shouldn't.

That's it, Theo. There's no attempt at sneaky subtext or subtle implication, no nefarious motives or secondary goals. Just sharing the very real reality that not everyone will want to get retrained for a new career.

[Endus]

What does this string of words mean? Other than that? "It works if you work hard enough" is the meaning here. That is the meaning of this thread of thinking. Knowing retraining hasn't worked yet, the assumption if I may summarize is that 'No true retraining have ever been tried!'

That's not what that string of words means, in any respect, no. You're lying about what Edge- is saying. And trying to insert a bullshit "no true Scotsman" into his argument.

At the end of the day the retraining scheme puts on the poor, those damaged by these policies and the actions of others, the onus and responsibility for getting restored. If the programs don't work, well you heard it from that poster "They didn't want it hard enough" is the rub of it. And for yours,

It's interesting that you deny any responsibility or agency to those struggling. As if they're just pawns on a board to you, rather than thinking, feeling people who are perfectly capable of making their own decisions for themselves.

Yes, even decisions that aren't optimal sometimes.

That you dehumanize these people while projecting that dehumanization onto everyone else is pretty telling, y'know.

Your own words are insanely paternalistic about this.

So, is Edge- putting too much responsibility on their shoulders, or is he being paternalistic? Because those two positions are at odds. And yet, you've made both claims, within a few sentences of each other.

This could have easily been some schlop from a Jordan Peterson Rules for Life. It still relies on a personal responsibility angle of "Well its on them to buck up and do this!" and ignores all the circumstances and contexts that created these problems. Heck what is the difference between this line of reasoning and some Boomer saying "Well I pulled myself up by my bootstraps!" Your "Well its not easy but I did it, and its good for you" is next door to Jordan Peterson's "Clean your room!" and such.

This is nonsense.

We're discussing government support and retraining efforts. That's a handout, not an expectation that anyone pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. We're literally talking about an effort to give them aid in escaping their situation.

What I spy is how quickly you lot fall into Reaganomics thinking when is suites you. Here in this thread we have the hilarity of someone (ME) constantly said to be the uber Republican Trumper or whatever calling out Reaganomics and Free-Marketeerism, and in the opposing we have DNC Uber Allies to tell me about "Well its just Capitalism and the Market Bro! It was just innovation Bro!, you can't blame the MARKET!? Bro.... the Market?! Its an Invisible Hand!"

Oh look, "democrats are the REAL Nazis" bullshit.

You're worse at this than Ben Shapiro. And that's really saying a lot.

[Machismo]

What does this string of words mean? Other than that? "It works if you work hard enough" is the meaning here. That is the meaning of this thread of thinking. Knowing retraining hasn't worked yet, the assumption if I may summarize is that 'No true retraining have ever been tried!'

At the end of the day the retraining scheme puts on the poor, those damaged by these policies and the actions of others, the onus and responsibility for getting restored. If the programs don't work, well you heard it from that poster "They didn't want it hard enough" is the rub of it. And for yours,



Your own words are insanely paternalistic about this. This could have easily been some schlop from a Jordan Peterson Rules for Life. It still relies on a personal responsibility angle of "Well its on them to buck up and do this!" and ignores all the circumstances and contexts that created these problems. Heck what is the difference between this line of reasoning and some Boomer saying "Well I pulled myself up by my bootstraps!" Your "Well its not easy but I did it, and its good for you" is next door to Jordan Peterson's "Clean your room!" and such.

What I spy is how quickly you lot fall into Reaganomics thinking when is suites you. Here in this thread we have the hilarity of someone (ME) constantly said to be the uber Republican Trumper or whatever calling out Reaganomics and Free-Marketeerism, and in the opposing we have DNC Uber Allies to tell me about "Well its just Capitalism and the Market Bro! It was just innovation Bro!, you can't blame the MARKET!? Bro.... the Market?! Its an Invisible Hand!"

All you've been doing over the last few days, is outright lying about what people are saying. Now, the only real question, is why you seek to lie in this thread?

Is it to shill for Trump after the fact?

Is it to try and return your long and sordid posting history?

Are you simply continuing to act in bad faith, because you are angry at... something?

Or, is this simply a shitty attempt to troll?

At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter. Your latest attempts are deception go along with your history of death threats, plagiarism, complete ignorance on issues, and deliberate misinterpretation of the definitions of words.

[Zan15]

It is strange to me that you would embrace the logic of "Why should I pay for someone else's healthcare" for your case, but do go off King.

No again you are missing the point, on purpose.

Why should taxpayers pay for EXCESSIVE healthcare cost for SPECIFIC INDUSTRIES where they are known to be toxic?

[Felya]

No offense, but retraining programs tend to have a really bad rep as it is.
Most of the time they're attempts at retraining laborers without higher degrees for jobs in which most companies nowadays expect a Bachelor's or Master's degree at minimum.

Nope... US outsources to India and Poland, in large part because IT and development is part of their HS curriculum. The jobs requiring degrees in US, don’t require them in India and Poland. Resulting in a lot more work force, at a cheaper rate than US.

[Shalcker]

Here is example of actual policy challenges that made communities poor:
https://www.politico.com/news/magazi...sconsin-441458

...national Democratic Party has not offered rural voters a clear vision that speaks to their lived experiences. The pain and struggle in my community is real, yet rural people do not feel it is taken seriously by the Democratic Party.

My fear is that Democrats will continue to blame rural voters for the red-sea electoral map and dismiss these voters as backward. But my hope is for Democrats to listen to and learn from the experiences of rural people.

The signs of desperation are everywhere in communities like mine. A landscape of collapsed barns and crumbling roads. Main Streets with empty storefronts. The distant stare of depression in your neighbor’s eyes. If you live here, it is impossible to ignore the depletion.

Rural people want to share in America’s prosperity, but the economic divide between rural and urban America has widened. Small-business growth has slowed in rural communities since the Great Recession, and it has only worsened with Covid-19. As capital overwhelmingly flows to metro areas, the small-town economy increasingly is dominated by large corporations: low-wage retailers like Dollar General or agribusiness firms that have no connection to the community.

...lots of examples of things getting worse over time...

The sad thing is none of this is an accident. It is the result of decades of policy decisions—by Republicans and Democrats—that deplete our communities.

Rural voters appreciated Obama’s repeated campaign promises to challenge the rise of agribusiness monopolies. But as president, he allowed for the continued consolidation of corporate power in the food system. His Department of Agriculture balked when it came time to enforce anti-monopoly rules such as those in the Packers and Stockyard Act, and failed to enforce Country of Origin Labeling, which would have allowed independent farmers and ranchers to better compete within the consolidated meat industry. The Obama Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission presided over a series of corporate mergers in the food and agriculture sectors, including the Kraft-Heinz and JBS-Cargill mergers. Taken together, these moves signaled that his administration did not have the backs of family farmers.

...

For Democrats to start telling a story that resonates, they need to show a willingness to fight for rural people, and not just by proposing a “rural plan” or showing up on a farm for a photo op. Rural people understand economic power and the grip it has on lawmakers. We know reform won’t be easy. A big step forward for Democrats would be to champion antitrust enforcement and challenge the anticompetitive practices of the gigantic agribusiness firms that squeeze our communities. In his rural plan, Biden pledged to “strengthen antitrust enforcement,” but the term doesn’t appear until the 35th bullet point. For rural voters, antitrust enforcement is a top priority, and it should be coupled with policies to manage oversupply in commodity markets, so farmers can get a fair price. Another step forward would be an ambitious federal plan, in the spirit of the New Deal’s Rural Electrification Act, to bring high-speed internet to every corner of America.

What rural voters want is a glimmer of hope that things will change. They want politicians who see a future for rural communities in which food production is localized, energy is cheap and clean, people have good jobs, soil is healthy, Main Street is bustling with small businesses, schools are vibrant and everyone can see a doctor if they need to. Here in Wisconsin, we can look back in our state’s rich history of progressive populism to a time when politicians like Bob LaFollette, our former governor and U.S. senator, understood that concentrated wealth and corporate power are a threat to people’s livelihoods.

Note - expected solution is not retraining everyone to become web-designers...

[Theodarzna]

It means that some people may not want to be trained in another field. Literally, that's it. It's not to say they're lazy or deserving of their current situation. It's an observation based on reading and seeing interviews with some of the folks in-question (ex manufacturing folks in the midwest, ex miners etc.) and reading/hearing them say that they didn't want to get trained to do other work, this was all they wanted to do. You can't force someone into retraining, and you shouldn't.

That's it, Theo. There's no attempt at sneaky subtext or subtle implication, no nefarious motives or secondary goals. Just sharing the very real reality that not everyone will want to get retrained for a new career.

Then you need a new plan, if we admit its not an accepted replacement for what was taken, why are we then still talking about a program that has failed for decades and is even rejected by the population? Why continue to advocate for it with this track record of failure?

So my question is, what about people who are skeptical or just not able to or not wanting to became Coders?

[Felya]

Here is example of actual policy challenges that made communities poor:
https://www.politico.com/news/magazi...sconsin-441458

Note - expected solution is not retraining everyone to become web-designers...

This is hyperbole... there are 12.1 million tech jobs, with 50k coal mining jobs... there are 11 tech businesses, for every coal miner... more than 6 tech jobs per coal miner, created in 2019 alone.
https://www.techrepublic.com/article...oyees-in-2019/

These are jobs we can actually bring back:

https://fortunly.com/statistics/outs...atistics/#gref

Accounting and IT are the most commonly outsourced jobs in the SME sector.
More than half of all companies use third-party support teams to connect with customers.
The global IT outsourcing market is expected to grow by $98 billion by 2024.

- - - Updated - - -

Then you need a new plan, if we admit its not an accepted replacement for what was taken, why are we then still talking about a program that has failed for decades and is even rejected by the population? Why continue to advocate for it with this track record of failure?

So my question is, what about people who are skeptical or just not able to or not wanting to became Coders?

Failed for decades? There are 12.1 million tech jobs... someone is getting trained... IT outsourcing is looking to go up by nearly 100 billion by 2024... someone is getting trained. Why are tech jobs that require no degree outside US, not worth bringing back?

People who are skeptical? Tell them the truth... that they are losing jobs to 18 year old in India and Poland, because conservatives think Americans are too stupid to learn.

Here is the solution. Was this training based on John Dewey pedagogue theory, or the same people who wrote in the honorable confederate into southern school books, until the 70s?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dewey

- - - Updated - - -

Considering that HS kids are taking and doing these IT jobs that are leaving to a tune of an additional 100 billion by 2024... Who is this rhetoric of supporting coal and manufacturing for? The automation that will fill the jobs or the moguls that receive the subsidy to develop automation?

I need an explanation, how defending subsidies to big oil and coal, is critical to brining back and keeping jobs. While we are loosing 100s of billions in jobs, to children in countries that are literally synonym with jokes about idiots. I need an explanation...

Is reassuring India that our outsourcing will continue, because we choose to not do anything about education, the reason Trump jr was holding business conference in India? How much outsourcing was he promising?

[Shalcker]

This is hyperbole... there are 12.1 million tech jobs, with 50k coal mining jobs... there are 11 tech businesses, for every coal miner... more than 6 tech jobs per coal miner, created in 2019 alone.

That article isn't about coal miners.

As far as i see it is more about people who still have a job... but their cut of profits from it is constantly shrinking due to regulatory failure, and that leads to everything around them failing as well as it stops being profitable without enough surplus around.

[Endus]

Here is example of actual policy challenges that made communities poor:
https://www.politico.com/news/magazi...sconsin-441458


Note - expected solution is not retraining everyone to become web-designers...

Errors of assumption made by the author of your article;

1> Money isn't flowing from rural to urban. Money is flowing from workers to the capitalists. This is literally the point and purpose of a capitalist system. If it bothers you, reject capitalism already.

2> Besides, the population split in the USA is roughly 80% urban/20% rural. Even with an equitable distribution, the urban centers should have far more collective wealth.

3> Rural areas often aren't all that poor, comparatively. The average farmer who owns his farm generally has close to or north of a million dollars in equity, between land, farm equipment, livestock and crops. Sure, there are plenty of folks who aren't farm owners in the area, but I guarantee, the population density of those in poverty in rural areas is way less than in urban centers. Same for absolute figures. Poverty is lower in rural areas than urban centers. https://www.census.gov/library/stori...0urban%20areas. This isn't a hypothesis; we've got the data. Right there.

4> You only see big-box stores in your area? You really think that's any different in the cities? Welcome to Capitalism, again.

5> Anticompetitive practices are, again, capitalism in a nutshell. Antitrust actions are not easy to prosecute, because those corporations will invest millions in their own defense. Particularly difficult when not all anticompetitive actions are even illegal. Because, again, breaking down the competition is how capitalism works.

6> Literally admits that antitrust enforcement is part of Biden's plan, but whines that it doesn't matter, because this guy had his mind made up and it literally did not matter what Biden's platform was, he was gonna hate it.

7> Seriously, for all the attacks on Democrats in this, itemize what Republicans have actually done for rural America. Not empty campaign promises, actual passed legislation. He skips over this, because it's indefensible.

8> They're literally arguing against change, while claiming to desire change. His final paragraph is a desire to return to a mythical past that never existed, while refusing to consider actual, meaningful change and adaptation to circumstances, moving forward into a new future.

In short, the article's complete garbage. It's just expressing a naked us-first attitude by rural voters, who refuse to accept the demographic realities of the USA.

And before you come back with bullshit "you don't care about what they think because they're rural", I have deep connections with rural communities myself, I married into one, and I've done a fair bit of rural policy work, particular in climate change adaptation and threat management, and in agri-business development. I'm not arguing that rural concerns are irrelevant, I'm arguing that this guy is operating off his feels, rather than facts.


Edit: Also, there's a lot of growth in sectors that have little to nothing to do with IT. Green energy systems, for instance. Even blue-collar stuff like installation and maintenance and the like. Focusing exclusively on IT stuff isn't an honest approach.

[Noxx79]

Here is example of actual policy challenges that made communities poor:
https://www.politico.com/news/magazi...sconsin-441458


Note - expected solution is not retraining everyone to become web-designers...

Yes we know people are gullible and will believe anything trump says.

Why is Republican the “default” and Democrats have to earn their votes?

At some point you have to admit there’s nothing that can be done- a population will believe whatever lies are told to them, and they wonder why they’re still failing.

And yes, after Trump, I have no sympathy left.
These people are hypocrites, and refuse to change, so they’ll believe whatever the magic man says.

At some point, you have to say - let them live out the consequences of their own gullibility.
Isn’t that what republicans have been telling us for the last
4+ Years?

I’m sick of socialism is bad, but not for ME people. Fuck ‘em.

I can’t tell you how many anti-socialist farmers are around here who are paid NOT to grow things.

The Democrats lost the messaging years ago, no amount of reasonable but tough ideas will change peoples minds.

So fuck ‘em. Let them fail. This is coming from Kansas where we had perfect conservative playground, and it failed. The people the failure immediately affected turned the republicans, and now NE Kansas is solidly dem.

It took the school system failing for that to happen.

If it takes a complete failure of agribusiness for that to happen to the rest of the state, let it happen.

[Theodarzna]

That article isn't about coal miners.

They always go back to coal miners, like, should I ask why they specifically have the deep anger at dudes who dig up these rocks?

Like, don't hate the miner just because you dislike the industry or its byproducts.

[Machismo]

Then you need a new plan, if we admit its not an accepted replacement for what was taken, why are we then still talking about a program that has failed for decades and is even rejected by the population? Why continue to advocate for it with this track record of failure?

So my question is, what about people who are skeptical or just not able to or not wanting to became Coders?

What about them?

Do you want to keep giving them more and more money, because they don't want to change careers?

Do you want to keep propping up dying, environmentally-toxic industries?

How much do you hate the fucking environment?