Stexils posted:

depends on the field and how often they actually get raided. for example the farmers who have to pay normal wages instead of "illegal immigrant" wages for crop pickers would definitely oppose such a measure.

plus businesses getting punished for hiring illegal immigrants is fairly uncommon anyway. there's a tacit acceptance of the practice in the US or else the fines and penalties would be way harsher for the business.

Phi230 posted:

Yeah I too make poo poo up to so I can pretend migrant laborers don't exist

Ate My Balls Redux posted:

The point of the exercise is that your action to choose the lane with fewer people is still a direct action you are taking which gives you moral culpability. The inaction is (quite arguably) freeing yourself from that.

It has nothing to do with being a "purity test", it's each individual deciding how much evil they are comfortable enabling in the world. No one is a hero for voting Dem.


I don't know, ask the people in the same fevered imagination this strawman came from how they feel

Prester Jane posted:

Rural America has a hugely disproportionate say in American politics because their poverty and isolation have long made them a population ripe for psychological/economic exploitation. If you want to help Rural America out of its plight you're going to have to do more then wag your finger at them. You're going to need a plan to address that exploitation and provide them resources and empathetic * media that will help them overcome the propaganda they've literally spent their entire lives being bombarded with.

Kerning Chameleon posted:

Or, disenfranchise them from the system in proportion with their population percentage. Which is what will actually solve the long-term issues there.

Prester Jane posted:

Lol no it won't. Putting the current Democrats in power will not magically resolve the problems that rural America is experiencing. It would probably make those problems less severe (or at the very least impede the pace at which those problems are worsening)- but it would do nothing to address the underlying causes of those problems.

Yinlock posted:

guys rurals aren't racist goblins, they're a bunch of frustrated people in a dire situation who keep getting promised the moon by liars

I mean yes there's a couple GOOD OL BOYS YE HAW I LOVE ME SOME RACISM in there but it isn't all of them, everyone else has been massively disenfranchised by the center-right tennis match(with the center pretending to be the left) giving them the impression that both sides won't make things any better for them

Yinlock posted:

guys rurals aren't racist goblins, they're a bunch of frustrated people in a dire situation who keep getting promised the moon by liars

I mean yes there's a couple GOOD OL BOYS YE HAW I LOVE ME SOME RACISM in there but it isn't all of them, everyone else has been massively disenfranchised by the center-right tennis match(with the center pretending to be the left) giving them the impression that both sides won't make things any better for them

Kerning Chameleon posted:

This is how a collaborator talks.

i am harry posted:

You can say the same basic thing about cops.

i am harry posted:

You can say the same basic thing about cops.

Ate My Balls Redux posted:

you're actually both right, both sides have been loving them forever, but they share more in common value-wise with the Republicans. Meanwhile their influence is outsized and should be curbed.

i am harry posted:

You can say the same basic thing about cops.

Your Taint posted:

As I've said before, even the absolute worst Dem is better than the absolute best Republican, and we'd all be a lot better off if she had won.

Majorian posted:

While that's true, she doesn't have to keep loudly chasing Trump to the far-far-far right. This was a really disgusting thing for her to say. Moving rightward and punching leftward is a big part of the reason why she lost and Trump is now president.

Yinlock posted:

yeah the main problem is the electoral college which is absolute rear end

Kobayashi posted:

If Clinton was “better” than Trump she wouldn’t have lost.

Prester Jane posted:

Why hasn't this population that's experienced generations of poor educational infrastructure in conjunction with the most sophisticated and well-funded propaganda apparatus in the history of mankind being targeted specifically at them- overcome their personal biases and taught themselves to think beyond the propaganda? It's like they're not even trying. Good thing it's a just world and people always get what they deserve.

Rural America has a hugely disproportionate say in American politics because their poverty and isolation have long made them a population ripe for psychological/economic exploitation. If you want to help Rural America out of its plight you're going to have to do more then wag your finger at them. You're going to need a plan to address that exploitation and provide them resources and empathetic * media that will help them overcome the propaganda they've literally spent their entire lives being bombarded with.

*empathetic is not sympathetic. We need to reach them where they are as human beings and offer them a clime-able ladder. This goal is accomplished with empathy and educational outreach, not with appeals to their latent racism via either rhetoric or policy.

Kobayashi posted:

If Clinton was “better” than Trump she wouldn’t have lost.

Munkeymon posted:

Campaigning is a skill orthogonal to running the government, unfortunately

Lightning Knight posted:

No, not really. Policing is an institution designed to uphold the power and interests of capital and the social in-group in a way that "living in rural areas" is not. Rural areas do have structural issues that cause them to trend more conservative and I think that Yinlock is being overly charitable but they absolutely deserve compassion and empathy in a way that we generally are guilty of not giving them.

Also the reality is that the base of fascist support is not rural voters, because there aren't that many rural people. It's white suburban middle class pieces of poo poo.

GyroNinja posted:

Ate My Balls Redux posted:

The Electoral College failed the.purpose for its creation the only time it was tested, by allowing Trump to claim the Presidency when clearly unqualified. Thus, there is no reason to keep it around imo

GyroNinja posted:

Munkeymon posted:

Campaigning is a skill orthogonal to running the government, unfortunately

Kobayashi posted:

I mean, it’s a pretty giant assumption that the staggering incompetence it takes to lose to Donald loving Trump in an election wouldn’t carry over to actual governance.

Kerning Chameleon posted:

I meant more destroying the inordinate advantage low population states have in affecting national policy by getting rid of things like the Senate and Electoral College, or just dissolve state lines entirely.

Prester Jane posted:

*snip*

Majorian posted:

Incompetence doesn't bother me too much. It's Trump's incompetence which has kept him from getting all the horrible poo poo he wants. Gridlock with 2-3 ultra-centrist SCOTUS judges would still probably be better than what we have now, even for the left's future prospects. Americans need to be shown that centrist Democrats don't meet their needs and are the enemy too. The October Revolution needed for Kerensky to try and fail before it could happen, after all.

All that said, it's completely academic. Clinton lost because she ran to the right and punched left, and she's as culpable as anyone for Trump winning. The fact that she's still going further and further right, ever more loudly, is extremely damning.

Zeno-25 posted:

Generations ago, at least in the plains states, these folks were electing socialists and forming cooperatives precisely because they were aware of their power in our electoral system. And no, rural America does not have disproportionate power because they are uniquely exploitable (what?), it's because of the compromises made during the formation of our government, namely the Senate and inequities in how seats in the House are apportioned. This is a built-in, ever-present feature of our political system and the current state of our government is a reflection of the civic degeneracy of these areas.

My plan would be to allow these areas to be colonized by millions of climate refugees in the coming decades, something that will probably happen whether it's planned for or not. Turns out we can just replace the fascists.

quote:

American Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Romer developed the idea a decade ago.

In 2009, he said developing countries should consider surrendering part of their territory to foreign states which would then build what he called "charter cities" from the ground up.

The cities, he added, would operate under a set of laws separate from the host country.

Stexils posted:

how the gently caress is "bob goodlatte" not a liberal's name

Groovelord Neato posted:

labour made its biggest vote swing under corbyn in over 70 years and is polling highest of any party why the gently caress would anyone listen to blair.

Ralepozozaxe posted:

Have you seen Corbyn's jacket? Can back that kind of leadership.

Prester Jane posted:

So what I am advocating for here is to help Rural America understand what's being done to them and to furthet provide them a conceptual/narrative framework that allows them to percieve a way out of the cycles they are trapped in. That doesn't mean appealing to their racism or proposing policy that appeals to ideas they've accepted as a result of propaganda, you have to empathetically undermine the influence of the propaganda. You do this by running candidates with genuine authenticity who are willing to get down and Brawl on their behalf. Rural America responds very strongly to that.

In a sense that's why they supported Trump so strongly. They (incorrectly) perceived Trump as someone who was willing to get down and dirty and brawl on their behalf. And while they made the wrong choice it's understandable why they made that choice, Hillary Clinton certainly wasn't trying to pose herself as a fighter willing to Champion the causes of the little people. Hillary Clinton was running on the strength of her resume for the position of CEO of American Interests International (a limited liability Corporation), whereas Trump was at least pretending to run as someone who wanted to be the leader of the American people.

Mooseontheloose posted:

Hilarly Clinton's platform, sans WV, was I will help you on these issues but you have accept that women and communities of color are equal to you, when it came to it rural white and uneducated white voters said no (though poor whites split closer to 50/50). They correctly perceived Trump as someone who will work for them and only them. Trump laid bare their racism and they said yes more of that. They still believe that as article after article has shown. They don't care that they are hurting, so long as someone else is hurt because they will be rescued in the end. Even the most educated among their ranks would rather go after the boogeyman social issues, then spend another loving dollar on programs that help them. So you can be

Rural American's unfortunately have an issue of not having to and not wanting to interact with communities that do not look like them or think like them. There is no easy solution here but to say that it's because they want to believe liberal policies will set them free but only is someone is authentic is false. They will only support policies that help them and if a single loving dollar goes to a comunity they don't like they will destroy it piece by piece. This isn't some recent discovery.

Stexils posted:

depends on the field and how often they actually get raided. for example the farmers who have to pay normal wages instead of "illegal immigrant" wages for crop pickers would definitely oppose such a measure.

plus businesses getting punished for hiring illegal immigrants is fairly uncommon anyway. there's a tacit acceptance of the practice in the US or else the fines and penalties would be way harsher for the business.

Mooseontheloose posted:

Hilarly Clinton's platform, sans WV, was I will help you on these issues but you have accept that women and communities of color are equal to you, when it came to it rural white and uneducated white voters said no (though poor whites split closer to 50/50). They correctly perceived Trump as someone who will work for them and only them. Trump laid bare their racism and they said yes more of that. They still believe that as article after article has shown. They don't care that they are hurting, so long as someone else is hurt because they will be rescued in the end. Even the most educated among their ranks would rather go after the boogeyman social issues, then spend another loving dollar on programs that help them. So you can be

Squalid posted:

Maybe, though I think unfounded fears about competition for jobs among workers is probably a bigger contributor. I'm not sure what evidence is available on this subject though, I can't say I ever remember hearing about big business lobbying for reduced legal immigration however. I have heard lots of businesses and farmers complaining about how hard it is to find legal workers though. Doesn't stop farmers from voting Trump of course.

Condiv posted:

no-one cared about hillary's platform cause she quite explicitly advocated for having a public face and a private face on everything

Oh Snapple! posted:

It really cannot be stressed enough that Hillary had absolutely 0 credibility on any of that poo poo. No one had any reason to believe her.