• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Trump's strong support / Democrats' lack of support, by white women

Kooky

Freedom from Sanity
People might have been duped into believing Trump's lies, but why haven't the Democrats done what their constituents have been wanting all along? Nobody asked for NAFTA, other than big business, so why did Clinton and other Democrats go along with it to begin with? Answer those questions, and you might actually contribute something useful to a discussion for a change, instead of your constant sniping.
Triangulation - the idea that the deciding political factor was the middle-class political center, which had been captured by Reagan's anti-government rhetoric and anti-labor policies, and therefore, the DP's success would lie in chasing after that elusive center with strongly centrist pro-corporate policies, as the left was already securely in their camp and so no longer needed to be courted.

(Of course, another important factor here was the apparent collapse of socialism as a viable political alternative, creating the possibly correct impression that leaning into anti-labor rhetoric and anti-labor policies would not lose support among the working class any more. We know that this still holds true, as fascism and xenophobia have superseded socialist pro-labor rhetoric as the dominant political rhetorical strategy to garner working class support, and leftist rhetoric has now become the domain of educated Bildungsbürger middle class and the White urban precariat)
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Arizona copper mine strike of 1983 - Wikipedia


In 1981, the price of copper plummeted from a high of $1.40 in February 1981 to $.75 (seventy-five cents) per pound by December 18, 1981, resulting in losses for the entire copper industry. During 1981, the copper industry, as a whole, laid off approximately 50%, or 11,000 workers statewide. Phelps Dodge continued to operate with full manpower throughout most of 1981, although they continued to lose money. In December 1981, Phelps Dodge announced that it would lay off 108 workers in Arizona and New Mexico on January 3, 1982, and place the rest of the workers on a four-day work week in order to minimize the impact of the layoffs. In doing so, unlike the rest of the copper industry, Phelps Dodge was able to continue to operate and pay their workers, while reducing their production by 20%.[2]

Phelps Dodge announced salary cuts to management personnel, and laid off 100 salaried employees. On April 7, 1982, Phelps Dodge announced it would lay off all 3,400 of its hourly workers in Texas and Arizona, because of its losses. Not only did Phelps Dodge lay off workers, but a total of approximately 12,000 copper workers had been laid off across the industry. None of the copper mines in Arizona continued to operate.

Unions do not always do the right thing. Sometimes unions cut off their noses to spite their faces. It seems Phelps Dodge tried to do the right thing. The unions wanted all or nothing. They ended up with nothing. Their actions long preceded any actions by the Governor.

Would you have preferred that Phelps Dodge just continue to maintain a full staff of union workers until it went completely bankrupt? That would have entailed even more job losses.

I'm not sure why you posted a reference to this particular incident. It certainly doesn't help your argument. Didn't you research it before you posted it?

You read a Wikipedia article about an event you had never heard of before I mentioned it, and you question me about how much research I did? That's rich.

My argument is that Democrats don't do enough to help American workers. It's the same basic situation as outsourcing. Workers in foreign countries can mine copper for significantly cheaper than U.S. workers. Outsourcing (which Democrats support) is a big "**** You" to American workers. It was done not just for money, but there was a fair bit of spite attached to it all.

All you're doing here is proving that my original assertion is true. Democrats don't care about American workers. They're the party of big business, no different than the Republicans. This post of yours is a perfect example.

As I said, either you support the workers or you don't. It appears that you don't, and your posts here in this thread pretty much support the argument I'm making. Why are you claiming that I'm not supporting my argument, when you yourself are doing it much better than I could? You are a manifestation of what I believe represents everything wrong with the Democratic Party.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
I doubt that you are an expert in FTAs. But, tell us what is/was in the bad ones and how that had a negative overall impact on US workers.
I've posted on this topic extensively over the past several years here on RF. I doubt that you are an expert on anything, but if you're really interested in learning, then pay closer attention.

Do you really expect me to look over years of posts to find ones that show you have any clue as to what you are talking about? Seriously.

Once again, you have nothing. It's getting boring.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
You don't even know what my assertions are.
Yes I do.

Your assertion that caught my attention was you knowing Dems for not working to gain support from the middle class.

As one failed example, you made a misleading post about billionaires supporting Dems.

As another example, you chastised a Republican Governor for getting involved in a strike that was initiated by unions in a lost cause.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
Explain yourself, or withdraw. I notice you made multiple posts to me in my alerts j


If you are getting multiple posts in your alerts, don't blame me. RF controls those I don't.

However, I did break your lengthy posts into manageable segments and responded.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
so you're the one who seems obsessed with wanting to defend the Democrats at all costs. What's the deal with that anyway? Are you so blinded by partisanship that even the slightest criticism of the Democrats is blasphemy to you?

I don't expect you to keep track of my posts when they are not addressed to you. So, let me explain. I'm not a big fan of, what I refer to as BS. It doesn't matter the subject. It doesn't matter who the poster is.

When I see postings that I consider BS, I respond. You made several allegations that really were nonsensical. We've discussed these.



Are you being paid by the Democratic Party to do this? If not, then what's your story?

This is another example of the kind of nonsense that you post. Someone disagrees with your comments and you somehow think that person must be getting paid to respond! Really? Or, perhaps that was just your attempt at humorous sarcasm.




In any case, Democrat party, if you're listening, PM me, and I'll show you where to send the money.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
To me, rent and price controls would be a far more effective strategy than making bold, yet extremely vague, proclamations like "Tax the rich," which I don't oppose, but at least I realize it's far more complicated than that.
Propose a workable plan for rent control. Do not tell me you posted one three years ago and I should go look for it.

Propose a workable plan for price controls. Do not tell me you posted one three years ago and I should go look for it.


In both cases, explain how you would make them the law of the land.



Everyone has simplistic solutions for the ails of the world. Unfortunately, simplistic solutions are not solutions at all, they are just opinionated talk.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
Wages are just a number. Money is just a number. The real value is how much you can buy with it. Americans can get along on less money (and thus be more competitive on the labor market), as long as they can get a better bang for their buck.

OK, tell people that they are making too much money. Tell them you want to reduce their wages. You wouldn't get elected to sweep the streets.

Fact is, capitalists have been spoiled for too long, and I believe it's way past time for them to pay back what they have stolen. "Tax the rich" sounds compelling, but it's not even half the battle. Make them pay higher wages and charge lower prices - that's something that will bring about real change and a true redistribution of wealth.

Uh, didn't you just say you wanted lower wages!



This just keeps getting sillier and sillier.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
As long as rents and prices are lowered commensurately.

How do you propose to do that? By fiat? By executive order?



That's just your opinion, and I see no basis for it. My original point was that Democrats suck up to big business, which is why they've lost a ton of support from Middle America these past decades. It's why the Republicans get any votes at all. Rather than address this point, you chose to make it about me or about the Republicans or Trump

Yes, your original point. A point that you have been unable to support.
 

Kooky

Freedom from Sanity
To me, rent and price controls would be a far more effective strategy than making bold, yet extremely vague, proclamations like "Tax the rich," which I don't oppose, but at least I realize it's far more complicated than that.
The kind of far reaching state controls you're advocating require quite a lot of bureaucratic infrastructure to build up - you'd need people to assess current price levels, devise proper price caps, and enforce them on thousands of business all across the country, both online and offline.

You'd need to ensure that there is a broad consensus that these regulations are reasonable and a good thing, because there would be a strong incentive on part of businesses to flaunt these regulations as much as they can and you need a broad consensus that can shame them into doing so, or at least snitch on them if they don't.

And in addition to that, you'd need to monitor these policies closely and watch for potentially undesirable side effects, such as e.g. wage depression.


Altering the tax code, as inefficient as it may be in actually catching out capitalists in their money-hawking, seems to be a comparatively simple endeavour, since you'd only need to introduce a new tax or tweak existing taxes until they fulfill their new purpose, and can rely on already existing infrastructure to enforce the necessary changes and ensure compliance.


For what it's worth, I don't believe either of these policies would bring down capitalism or even put much of a dent into it, not when so many jobs can be either automated or trivially outsourced to countries with much worse wage levels than the US, and the largest and wealthiest corporations and billionaires can trivially circumvent most tax laws at leisure.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
I had thought that, since you were such a staunch partisan for the Democrats, you might actually make an argument to try to prove me wrong, but your conservative economist talking points on free trade and price controls make me think you're just a pro-business Republican pretending to be for working people.


As I pointed out, my entry into this discussion was not so much to defend Democrats but to show that your assertions about them were unsubstantiated. They still remain unsubstantiated.

In the meantime, you have proposed completely unworkable "solutions" like price, wage, and rent controls.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Yes I do.

Your assertion that caught my attention was you knowing Dems for not working to gain support from the middle class.

As one failed example, you made a misleading post about billionaires supporting Dems.

As another example, you chastised a Republican Governor for getting involved in a strike that was initiated by unions in a lost cause.

I posted more than that. You just cherry picked a few things you wanted to address, but in doing so, you got hung up on details and missed the entire argument.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Propose a workable plan for rent control. Do not tell me you posted one three years ago and I should go look for it.

Propose a workable plan for price controls. Do not tell me you posted one three years ago and I should go look for it.


In both cases, explain how you would make them the law of the land.



Everyone has simplistic solutions for the ails of the world. Unfortunately, simplistic solutions are not solutions at all, they are just opinionated talk.

I do have those plans, but like Trump and his tax returns I am not revealing them until after I get elected.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
If you are getting multiple posts in your alerts, don't blame me. RF controls those I don't.

However, I did break your lengthy posts into manageable segments and responded.

You just seemed inordinately interested in making the topic about me, rather than what it's about.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
If you insist on making the topic about me, then you should strive to educate yourself on who you think you're criticizing.

WOW! Who do I think you are?

I can see MikeTyson making that sort of warning comment to a belligerent drunk in a bar. There, it would have real meaning.

But coming from a poster on RF? Really? Perhaps you meant it as a joke.


Who do I think you are?
As far as knowing who you are, I can only go by your posts. You are just another RF poster who has made a number of allegations that he cannot support with facts or evidence.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I don't expect you to keep track of my posts when they are not addressed to you. So, let me explain. I'm not a big fan of, what I refer to as BS. It doesn't matter the subject. It doesn't matter who the poster is.

When I see postings that I consider BS, I respond. You made several allegations that really were nonsensical. We've discussed these.

Yes, and I conclude that it's only your unsubstantiated opinion that my posts were nonsensical. My guess is that you didn't understand them. You seem to understand politics only at its most basic, elementary level, so anything at a higher level would seem "nonsensical" to you.

This is another example of the kind of nonsense that you post. Someone disagrees with your comments and you somehow think that person must be getting paid to respond! Really? Or, perhaps that was just your attempt at humorous sarcasm.

It was somewhat facetious, I'll admit, but in all candor, you don't seem real to me. It seems like you're delivering a prepared dialogue, not speaking from the heart. You may not like what I say, but at least I'm saying what I honestly believe. You sound like you're posturing.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
You read a Wikipedia article about an event you had never heard of before I mentioned it, and you question me about how much research I did? That's rich.
What did I get wrong?

Due to falling copper prices, the company had to cut costs or go bankrupt. They chose to cust some costs and save some jobs.
The union went for an all or nothing approach.

What did I get wrong?

You are putting yourself out as an expert on this incident. Yet you have posted nothing other than some vitriol against the Governor. You haven't shown that you have any real knowledge of the incident. You haven't even been able to counter my comments. The only thing you did was to try to puff yourself up with "knowledge" that you haven't demonstrated.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
Why are you claiming that I'm not supporting my argument, when you yourself are doing it much better than I could?
You certainly have not been able to support your arguments. My comments were directed to your inability to do so.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Propose a workable plan for rent control. Do not tell me you posted one three years ago and I should go look for it.

Propose a workable plan for price controls. Do not tell me you posted one three years ago and I should go look for it.


In both cases, explain how you would make them the law of the land.



Everyone has simplistic solutions for the ails of the world. Unfortunately, simplistic solutions are not solutions at all, they are just opinionated talk.

Hmm...well, I've been considering starting a thread in which I post all of my ideas for change and solutions for a better world. I'll think about it.

As for how I would make them the law of the land, that's another matter entirely. A lot of people (including yourself, apparently) seem scared of any real change and want to maintain the status quo just for the sake of maintaining the status quo. These are called "conservatives," and they are a stubborn bunch. Those who call themselves "liberals" are similar, even though they fall all over themselves to try to deny it, just as you are doing.
 
Top