What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

***Official***President Donald Trump (1 Viewer)

Status
Not open for further replies.
TobiasFunke said:
People described working class white people from the Midwest/rust belt this way?  Yeah, I guess I did miss that. 
Click to expand...
Just as we do with Republicans:

Who do you think was the picture in the mind of the people making those comments?  What did he look like, what was his job, where did he live? 

 
timschochet said:
She wasn't referring to Bush; in fact if you read the interview she speaks very highly of Laura Bush. I think she's referring to many conservatives in general. 
Click to expand...
I figured that is what she meant, but the way it is worded in the article doesn't really read like that.  I have not read/listened to the entire interview.

 
Jobber said:
His way of saying "Let's spend within our budget".
Click to expand...
Well it's interesting. During his campaign Trump promised all kinds of big spending. But most of the guys he's chosen to run the economy are Tea Party types with rather extreme views (IMO) about slashing spending across the board (though they're never specific about where to cut). 

 
Henry Ford said:
Who cares?  Let them.  Let them be smug.  It isn't winning them any votes, and as Boston Rob once noted in Survivor, there are only three things that matter here: votes, votes, votes.

There is no question that evangelicals and hard-core conservatives are smug toward "liberals."  But we are absolutely capable of being secure enough in our mindsets and goals to not have to care about that.  As liberals like to argue "history is on our side."  So let people be smug.  The quintessential smug right-winger was George Wallace. "John Marshall has made his decision.  Let's see him enforce it!"  How's he remembered these days?

The key is an open tent.  Not smug dismissiveness or refusal to discuss or compromise.  In fact, perceived or real, that is the primary thing that has cost the Democrats since Obama's election.  Smugness.  I'm a big fan of President Obama, but there's no getting around the fact that he was terrible at putting out sound bites that could be easily spun as him being smug and dismissive.  That's the vote difference between his first and second terms.  Yes, right wingers are also smug and dismissive.  It's what cost the right wing a large number of elections.  Let them be.  If the left can stop taking a cue from them on that subject, and let them continue, it's better for all of us.
Click to expand...
I don't mind it.  I'm just saying it's not some crazy new trend, and it goes in all directions.  Some people have always been smug and dismissive towards other people based on these differences.

 
JIslander said:
does that then translate to/ or in conflict with white fears of brown skinned immigrants taking their jobs?
Click to expand...
Is it really a fear or fact? Because I know a lot of people in the construction business that see it as a fact.

 
Henry Ford said:
Just as we do with Republicans:

Who do you think was the picture in the mind of the people making those comments?  What did he look like, what was his job, where did he live? 
Click to expand...
I can't say for sure of course, but my guess is they're probably picturing a racist southerner waving the stars and bars.  Maybe they're picturing poor people doing this, maybe they're picturing those frat guys who had the racist chants. But I don't think they're picturing a lower middle class white guy from Michigan trying to pay the mortgage.

 
roadkill1292 said:
Maybe we should have thought this through before the election.

edit: Your post is a pretty casual dismissal of one of the most important principles of public service at the very top. Unique financial situation or not, he's gotta divest. We can't really consider him legit until he's made the sacrifice in the public interest.
Click to expand...
No, it is merely an observation. Should we require people to divest of private interests in order to serve the public, or does that merely create a ruling elite? An interesting problem, IMO. Then what happens when they are done with public service? We take care of them the rest of their lives while they sell their influence to make money.

 
I don't really understand why the midwest votes so conservatively, often supporting tax cuts for the rich when in reality folks in the midwest work longer hours for less pay and make significantly less than their equivalent job would pay them on either coast.  Yes cost of living is lower, but it is relative - it costs less to live but you are making less as well.  It's like they have delusions that voting for rich conservatives makes them rich conservatives when in fact that will never happen.

 
TobiasFunke said:
I can't say for sure of course, but my guess is they're probably picturing a racist southerner waving the stars and bars.  Maybe they're picturing poor people doing this, maybe they're picturing those frat guys who had the racist chants. But I don't think they're picturing a lower middle class white guy from Michigan trying to pay the mortgage.
Click to expand...
Either we need to include them in the discussion of white working class voters, or they aren't part of that discussion and it doesn't make sense that they're being brought up in response to discussion about white working class voters.  In any event, you don't think that picture of "southerners" or "rural voters" is insulting or smug?

 
bueno said:
No, it is merely an observation. Should we require people to divest of private interests in order to serve the public, or does that merely create a ruling elite? An interesting problem, IMO. Then what happens when they are done with public service? We take care of them the rest of their lives while they sell their influence to make money.
Click to expand...
Tax law allows the seller to avoid paying capital gains taxes when divesting in order to serve as an elected official. Obviously the lawmakers wanted them to do so because this tax incentuve would save Trump and his appointed people literally millions. 

It's not REQUIRED for the President,  but it is for other offices and Presidents have always done so to avoid even the appearance of a conflict. 

It was brought up plenty during the campaign.  It's just that no one took it all that seriously. Now we're going to see the real consequences. 

 
Mr. Know-It-All said:
I don't really understand why the midwest votes so conservatively, often supporting tax cuts for the rich when in reality folks in the midwest work longer hours for less pay and make significantly less than their equivalent job would pay them on either coast.  Yes cost of living is lower, but it is relative - it costs less to live but you are making less as well.  It's like they have delusions that voting for rich conservatives makes them rich conservatives when in fact that will never happen.
Click to expand...
Traditionally, it really doesn't. Some of the midwest does, but the upper midwest/great lakes area is traditionally quite blue.

 
Mr. Know-It-All said:
I don't really understand why the midwest votes so conservatively, often supporting tax cuts for the rich when in reality folks in the midwest work longer hours for less pay and make significantly less than their equivalent job would pay them on either coast.  Yes cost of living is lower, but it is relative - it costs less to live but you are making less as well.  It's like they have delusions that voting for rich conservatives makes them rich conservatives when in fact that will never happen.
Click to expand...
Just speculation on my part, but I think a lot of people envision themselves being rich in the near future if they keep up their hard work.  To them the tax cut to the wealthy will soon be their tax cut as well.

That is about the only thing that makes sense to me.  As a business owner myself I do not really understand the whole trickle-down economics argument.  I hire someone if the service they provide will lead to me making more money than if I did not have them.  I then pay taxes on this.  Giving me a tax cut does not make me any more likely to hire someone.

 
Mr. Know-It-All said:
I don't really understand why the midwest votes so conservatively, often supporting tax cuts for the rich when in reality folks in the midwest work longer hours for less pay and make significantly less than their equivalent job would pay them on either coast.  Yes cost of living is lower, but it is relative - it costs less to live but you are making less as well.  It's like they have delusions that voting for rich conservatives makes them rich conservatives when in fact that will never happen.
Click to expand...
It's the same in the south.  Incomes are low, but the lower the income, especially if you're white, the more likely you are to vote republican and defend the trickle down system.

I think it's largely because trickle down economics, and other republican policies, have become so intertwined with "moral" issues like abortion, LGBT stuff, state power over fed power, "welfare state" hate...that you either take them all as a package, or you aren't a true conservative.

I haven't met too many folks down in the south who are conservative on social issues but liberal on fiscal issues.  Usually it's the other way around, and usually that starts off in the middle class.

I think it also has to do with the distrust of the federal government in many areas...where they don't agree that the feds should take any more from folks, whether rich or poor, and it's their way of being "fair" to those with money by saying that the feds shouldn't take any more from them than they do from poorer folks.  It's a sort of leave me alone mentality that lends itself to believing in trickle down.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Henry Ford said:
Either we need to include them in the discussion of white working class voters, or they aren't part of that discussion and it doesn't make sense that they're being brought up in response to discussion about white working class voters.  In any event, you don't think that picture of "southerners" or "rural voters" is insulting or smug?
Click to expand...
 I dont know of course, since I'm not the one saying it.  If that's how they picture all southerners, that would indeed be insulting and smug.

 But it also kinda disproves the notion that white working class midwesteners have been unfairly stereotyped and dismissed in a way others have not.  Like I said, it goes in all directions and across all lines. It sucks and we should all try not to do it,  but it's nothing new or specific to that one subset of America.

 
McGarnicle said:
Trump's base is mostly uneducated rubes who believe conspiracy theories and are only qualified for menial work. They are either too lazy or too stupid to get an education and better themselves, therefore globalization/technology = bad. Plus many of these folks are racists and fundamentalist Christians, so they're especially angry with Obama simply breathing oxygen, and of course they're angry with progressive policies like gay marriage. If we want to make America great again, we could start by easing up the laws against tobacco advertising, maybe incentivize Burger King to add infertility drugs to the Whopper, do away with those protective fences at NASCAR races, etc.
Click to expand...
:goodposting:

 
TobiasFunke said:
 I dont know of course, since I'm not the one saying it.  If that's how they picture all southerners, that would indeed be insulting and smug.

 But it also kinda disproves the notion that white working class midwesteners have been unfairly stereotyped and dismissed in a way others have not.  Like I said, it goes in all directions and across all lines. It sucks and we should all try not to do it,  but it's nothing new or specific to that one subset of America.
Click to expand...
Just as an aside, the word "Midwesterners" as the sole qualifier for geographic location came into this conversation pretty late.  On this page, I believe.  Southerners were included for most of our discussion.

 
I'm curious to see what overtures, if any, Donald Trump will make to the folks who didn't vote for him.  He read out loud a reasonable victory speech someone wrote for him.  

But will he attempt to bridge the divide, or will he revel in the discord and make one side his enemy and play totally to his base?  Hope for the former, wouldn't put the latter past him.

 
MikeIke said:
Tax law allows the seller to avoid paying capital gains taxes when divesting in order to serve as an elected official. Obviously the lawmakers wanted them to do so because this tax incentuve would save Trump and his appointed people literally millions. 

It's not REQUIRED for the President,  but it is for other offices and Presidents have always done so to avoid even the appearance of a conflict. 

It was brought up plenty during the campaign.  It's just that no one took it all that seriously. Now we're going to see the real consequences. 
Click to expand...
Exactly. It's hardly unique for a wealthy person to be elected President. The nature of Trump's holdings and his large amount of foreign held-debt is certainly different, and they also happen to make the conflicts of interest even more of a mine-field. 

 
bueno said:
No, it is merely an observation. Should we require people to divest of private interests in order to serve the public, or does that merely create a ruling elite? An interesting problem, IMO. Then what happens when they are done with public service? We take care of them the rest of their lives while they sell their influence to make money.
Click to expand...
I don't see why one thing has to lead to another. In fact, I don't understand any of the thought processes where one of these follows the other.

The opposite side of all this is a rich ruling class, openly governing in its own best business interests instead of the nation's. I think that's pretty unpalatable, even if we're barely able to keep a lid on it now.

 
adonis said:
It's the same in the south.  Incomes are low, but the lower the income, especially if you're white, the more likely you are to vote republican and defend the trickle down system.

I think it's largely because trickle down economics, and other republican policies, have become so intertwined with "moral" issues like abortion, LGBT stuff, "welfare state" hate...that you either take them all as a package, or you aren't a true conservative.

I haven't met too many folks down in the south who are conservative on social issues but liberal on fiscal issues.  Usually it's the other way around, and usually that starts off in the middle class.
Click to expand...
:goodposting:

I don't think the rural types expect to become rich.  I think they vote Republican because they're Christian,  they are anti-abortion, and they want to keep their guns. All three of those positions point Republican.  Therefore,  if Republican politicians think trickle down works they must be right on that issue as well.  

Either that,  or God and guns are more important to them than their own financial well-being. That is a possibility. 

I'm wondering how long the rural poor stick with Trump if they lose their health insurance and see their Social Security and Medicare gutted.  Because that WILL happen if Paul Ryan gets his way.  (and I purposely said Ryan,  not Trump,  because I don't think Trump cares one way or the other and it will be Ryan leading the charge. Trump will just be a rubber stamp.) 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Henry Ford said:
Just as an aside, the word "Midwesterners" as the sole qualifier for geographic location came into this conversation pretty late.  On this page, I believe.  Southerners were included for most of our discussion.
Click to expand...
Yeah I took it from "flyover states."  I interpret that as referring to rust belt/Midwest.  Maybe I'm wrong :shrug:

 
bueno said:
No, it is merely an observation. Should we require people to divest of private interests in order to serve the public, or does that merely create a ruling elite? An interesting problem, IMO. Then what happens when they are done with public service? We take care of them the rest of their lives while they sell their influence to make money.
Click to expand...


roadkill1292 said:
I don't see why one thing has to lead to another. In fact, I don't understand any of the thought processes where one of these follows the other.

The opposite side of all this is a rich ruling class, openly governing in its own best business interests instead of the nation's. I think that's pretty unpalatable, even if we're barely able to keep a lid on it now.
Click to expand...
Yeah I didn't see how requiring them to divest would create a ruling elite.  Logic says it would be the opposite: get rid of your holdings before entering public service so that your political decisions will not affect your personal finances. 

 
MikeIke said:
Tax law allows the seller to avoid paying capital gains taxes when divesting in order to serve as an elected official. Obviously the lawmakers wanted them to do so because this tax incentuve would save Trump and his appointed people literally millions. 

It's not REQUIRED for the President,  but it is for other offices and Presidents have always done so to avoid even the appearance of a conflict. 

It was brought up plenty during the campaign.  It's just that no one took it all that seriously. Now we're going to see the real consequences. 
Click to expand...
That doesn't address the issue of not having outside interests creating a ruling elite.

Dickies said:
Just speculation on my part, but I think a lot of people envision themselves being rich in the near future if they keep up their hard work.  To them the tax cut to the wealthy will soon be their tax cut as well.

That is about the only thing that makes sense to me.  As a business owner myself I do not really understand the whole trickle-down economics argument.  I hire someone if the service they provide will lead to me making more money than if I did not have them.  I then pay taxes on this.  Giving me a tax cut does not make me any more likely to hire someone.
Click to expand...
But it may provide you capital for expansion.

 
MikeIke said:
Yeah I didn't see how requiring them to divest would create a ruling elite.  Logic says it would be the opposite: get rid of your holdings before entering public service so that your political decisions will not affect your personal finances. 
Click to expand...
When they serve their term, then what do they do? This applies less to Trump than it does to Congress.

 
Juxtatarot said:
It's still mainly a rural/urban thing.  Here's a county map of the election for Minnesota, for example.

To answer the original question, I think it is as much a social values vote as an economic vote.  Besides, the average voter doesn't have a strong grasp of macroeconomics.
Click to expand...
I just think rural people are more self-sufficient while urban people are more dependent on others for goods and services. Therefore rural people tend to vote against socialist or progressive policies while urban people favor them.

 
Are we really supposed to respond to a Hamilton Nolan article in a question of why "Democrats are contemptuous of the white middle class/flyover states?"  Did I miss Hillary's stint writing for Gawker media?

Wisconsin has a Republican governor who has made his life's mission to #### all over union rights, but it's the Democrats who are contemptuous of blue collar workers?  How does that work?  I mean, what candidate ran on increasing the minimum wage?  What should the people who actually run done differently?  Is it as simple as saying they would negotiate better trade deals without explaining what provisions they'd renegotiate? 

 
Arsenal of Doom said:
Exactly. It's hardly unique for a wealthy person to be elected President. The nature of Trump's holdings and his large amount of foreign held-debt is certainly different, and they also happen to make the conflicts of interest even more of a mine-field. 
Click to expand...
More the nature than the amount, I think. He is pretty focused on real estate.

 
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
Are we really supposed to respond to a Hamilton Nolan article in a question of why "Democrats are contemptuous of the white middle class/flyover states?"  Did I miss Hillary's stint writing for Gawker media?

Wisconsin has a Republican governor who has made his life's mission to #### all over union rights, but it's the Democrats who are contemptuous of blue collar workers?  How does that work?  I mean, what candidate ran on increasing the minimum wage?  What should the people who actually run done differently?  Is it as simple as saying they would negotiate better trade deals without explaining what provisions they'd renegotiate? 
Click to expand...
Increasing the minimum wage passed in Washington and now people are crying about how much more they have to pay for day care while their income remains the same.

 
bueno said:
When they serve their term, then what do they do? This applies less to Trump than it does to Congress.
Click to expand...
I'm just not seeing your point.  After they serve their term,  they (a)  retire (b)  go on speaking tours (c) get back into private business (d) stay in politics in a different fashion. 

If they get rich after serving,  that's hardly the same as getting rich WHILE they're serving. 

 
bueno said:
I just think rural people are more self-sufficient while urban people are more dependent on others for goods and services. Therefore rural people tend to vote against socialist or progressive policies while urban people favor them.
Click to expand...
Your feeling is directly contradicted by the fact that rural states have higher per capita welfare spending. 

 
I guess I should also note that the president-elect campaigned expicitly on the notion that my beloved hometown and/or the work I've done in various public and private sector capacities for the last two decades is a "swamp" that needs to be "drained." And this is hardly new rhetoric.  Meanwhile Im just a regular guy who devotes 99% of his income to feeding, clothing and housing his family and the other 1% to watching to the local sports teams reliably disappoint me.  

And I don't even get representation in Congress. I get to be a scapegoat instead.  So that probably influences how I feel about all the thinkpieces about other groups not getting enough political attention.  I would LOVE to be ignored a little more.

 
bueno said:
But it may provide you capital for expansion.
Click to expand...
I suppose this is true, but I would imagine the impact this would have on the overall economy would be extremely limited and the same guidelines are still relevant.  If I have extra money in my pocket I am not going to just go expand my business if it makes no economic sense to do so.

 
Dickies said:
As a business owner myself I do not really understand the whole trickle-down economics argument.  
Click to expand...
That's because it doesn't make sense,  and it doesn't work. "Give the richest people more money and they'll spend it,  eventually flowing down to everyone!" 

No,  it doesn't work that way in real life.  Give the richest more money and they'll use it to further enrich themselves.  The only one who see any trickle down are their financial advisors. 

ETA : along the same lines,  giving POOR people more money actually does boost the economy because they go out and spend it on goods and services.  They don't save it or put it into their portfolios. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
MikeIke said:
That's because it doesn't make sense,  and it doesn't work. "Give the richest people more money and they'll spend it,  eventually flowing down to everyone!" 

No,  it doesn't work that way in real life.  Give the richest more money and they'll use it to further enrich themselves.  The only one who see any trickle down are their financial advisors. 

ETA : along the same lines,  giving POOR people more money actually does boost the economy because they go out and spend it on goods and services.  They don't save it or put it into their portfolios. 
Click to expand...
1000% agree

 
It sure seems like the past 8 years has seen a rise in Party over Country, at least from the republican side.  Full on obstruction in congress, blocking progress on supreme court appointee, and now you have Trump's election with Russian fingerprints all over it and events in NC from the republicans there.

Sure seems like the party should be subservient to the country, and not the other way around.  Republicans willing to stay mum about all of this because it benefits their ideology, yet it's pretty clearly bad for America.  

When folks are unwilling to be able to make a distinction between what's good for their party, and what's good for America, there are problems...and I fear that Trump is the latest, and biggest, example of this disfunction mainly manifested in one political party.

 
adonis said:
It sure seems like the past 8 years has seen a rise in Party over Country, at least from the republican side.  Full on obstruction in congress, blocking progress on supreme court appointee, and now you have Trump's election with Russian fingerprints all over it and events in NC from the republicans there.

Sure seems like the party should be subservient to the country, and not the other way around.  Republicans willing to stay mum about all of this because it benefits their ideology, yet it's pretty clearly bad for America.  

When folks are unwilling to be able to make a distinction between what's good for their party, and what's good for America, there are problems...and I fear that Trump is the latest, and biggest, example of this disfunction mainly manifested in one political party.
Click to expand...
It's so weird that's happened, when Obama told Republicans that elections have consequences and they can come along but have to ride in the back you would think it would have united the country. Clearly all on the Republicans.....just like everything else. 

 
McGarnicle said:
Trump's base is mostly uneducated rubes who believe conspiracy theories and are only qualified for menial work. They are either too lazy or too stupid to get an education and better themselves, therefore globalization/technology = bad. Plus many of these folks are racists and fundamentalist Christians, so they're especially angry with Obama simply breathing oxygen, and of course they're angry with progressive policies like gay marriage. If we want to make America great again, we could start by easing up the laws against tobacco advertising, maybe incentivize Burger King to add infertility drugs to the Whopper, do away with those protective fences at NASCAR races, etc.
Click to expand...
Just checking in to catch up.   The above comment is par for the course.   Angry much?   Your gal loses so the voters are stupid & racist?   figured you might try a different angle but, but, well, whatever.   Bet your a real fun guy at parties too.     have fun. 

 
McGarnicle said:
Trump's base is mostly uneducated rubes who believe conspiracy theories and are only qualified for menial work. They are either too lazy or too stupid to get an education and better themselves, therefore globalization/technology = bad. Plus many of these folks are racists and fundamentalist Christians, so they're especially angry with Obama simply breathing oxygen, and of course they're angry with progressive policies like gay marriage. If we want to make America great again, we could start by easing up the laws against tobacco advertising, maybe incentivize Burger King to add infertility drugs to the Whopper, do away with those protective fences at NASCAR races, etc.
Click to expand...
Exhibit A on why Hillary lost

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Kiddnets
How did you become a fan of your favorite team(s)?
2 3
Replies
108
Views
2K
ConstruxBoy
ConstruxBoy
Caveman33
No One's Making Fun of Scooter Kids Anymore
Replies
2
Views
128
Major
Major
fatness
FBI finds largest cache of "finished explosive devices" in FBI history
Replies
18
Views
1K
Snoopy
Snoopy

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top