how is media handling US election heat? ALL Networks have been ridiculously partisan here (anti-Trump). One named their coverage special "ELLA o el muro". LOL!
sharehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHQeZaf3hY0
As of today, I have read 19 pages of Game of Thrones
I like your sig. Just wanted to put that out there.
share[deleted]
in Canada, I would say that it is pretty fair but critical of/worried about Trump (and that also reflects the concerns of most citizens). Clinton also received a lot of (negative) scrutiny.
not unreasonable here to be more concerned about Trump from an interest-based perspective, given that Canada is a trading based economy, so a US politician who indicates that he will tear up NAFTA will raise red flags.
I've seen research that claims the country that benefited most from NAFTA was not Mexico, but Canada.
It's fitting that it will be the Latino voting populace that will put the final nail in Trumps's coffin. After Romney's defeat the hue and cry was we have to cultivate the Latino vote, the demographics are only getting stronger. There had to be some belief legal Latino immigrants would consider Trump as a successful businessman to be emulated.
But even the generations of Republican voting anti-Castro Cubans in Florida are bailing on the Republicans this time around. The right to enter this country illegally seems to be a primary belief among all Latinos, not just the undocumented. Why? Because everyone has a cousin or a godmother or a friend who crossed without papers and it's personal, ie identity politics for the bunch of them.
As of today, I have read 19 pages of Game of Thrones
most of the research I have seen from reputable economists indicate that all three countries have experienced overall modest but real economic benefits, though certainly some industries and some regions have suffered in particular... but Canada's vulnerable regions, industries and individuals were likely more protected given 1. the robust social security net for when people lost their jobs and needed to be retrained and 2. the longstanding program of equalization payments within Canada (from rich regions to poor regions).
share1. the robust social security net for when people lost their jobs and needed to be retrained
Interesting. To me it's all more grist for the mill in terms of the idea that people are sometimes blaming globalization and freer trade when they should be blaming how those forces are (mis) managed in their countries...
shareThen there's the personal accountability part of it.
I read this book this summer "Hillbilly Elegy: A Memoir of a Family and Culture in Crisis " by J. D. Vance. Excellent read. The author is a conservative whose family emigrated from Appalachia to the midwest and suffered from generations of social immobility. The cultural aspects Vance describes can be extended from rural white America to urban black, and they account for at least some of the factors keeping people in poverty. Vance was very successful, but the only one in his extended clan to break out of the cycle of substance abuse, criminality, longterm employment, etc. The book rang a lot of bells for me because I have seen one guy after another hired from a tough background who has crashed and burned, re-trained, decently educated, or not. It's like you can put a clock on the meltdown.
This is the guy who complains over and over about the economy but turns out he quit his last job because he had to get up early. It's the work ethic and self discipline part of the equation. That's another *blame* that can't be ignored. The few guys I know who were on TRA blew the weeks of unemployment and then school (we're talking about 120 weeks)by not taking the re-training seriously and just showing up enough to get the check. It was like they didn't believe their jobs were really gone and they had to learn another. *Magical thinking* stuff.
Wherever the blame lies, we have to do something for or to these people that goes beyond Trump's empty promises.
As of today, I have read 19 pages of Game of Thrones
RH, here is a piece today by J.D. Vance:
Life Outside the Liberal Bubble New since your last visit
By J. D. Vance
The electoral demographics are now undeniable: The white working class in the Rust Belt just made Donald J. Trump the president-elect of the United States.
To suggest that Trump voters are worried about anything real is to invite scorn from certain corners of the mainstream media. The “economic anxiety” tweet, a special brand of sarcasm that mocks the suggestion that Trump supporters are buttressed by economic forces, has entered the online lexicon. Many cannot stomach the fact that people are driven to Trump by anything besides racism.
Yet the decline felt in certain corners of the country isn’t just about economics; it’s about every element of life — from family to life expectancy to the drugs that have infected communities. The feeling that so many of America’s opinion leaders see your concerns as the product of stupidity at best, or racism at worst, confirms the worst fears of many. They already worry that the coastal elites don’t care about them, and many among those elites seem happy to comply.
That so many fail to see this is evidence of a remarkable division of experience and geography in our country. I thought I was above this divide, and I looked down on the coastal elites for living in their bubble. But I was wrong.
Long before most others, I had predicted that Mr. Trump would win the Republican nomination because I saw the passion he inspired in my friends and family. But as the election came down to the wire, I had little doubt that Hillary Clinton would win. I regurgitated the conventional wisdom about her firewalls in North Carolina and Florida, and confidently predicted a Clinton victory.
This gave me little comfort because I didn’t vote for her. But the fact that I knew it — while so many of my family knew the opposite — inspired a certain self-righteousness.
Of course, it didn’t work out like that. At one level, my confidence was a straightforward analytical failure. The race had become incredibly volatile, as most polls showed. But the more important question is why I was so willing to discount evidence of Mrs. Clinton’s political weakness. The answer is that I occupy some part of that bubble I deplore.
The evidence was all around me: friends discounting negative polls for Hillary Clinton, arguing (just as Republicans did in 2012) that they under-sampled the “right” voters; confident predictions of victory from my best-educated friends; and a clear enthusiasm on the streets of New York as the polls closed. I didn’t overestimate Mrs. Clinton’s chances because the information didn’t exist, but because my social network and geography made it easier to ignore countervailing information. I followed the herd, and my herd was wrong.
Failed political prognostication is hardly a grievous sin, but it raises difficult questions about the other bubbles I live in. Few would accuse me of lacking compassion for the Trump voter, but the same can hardly be said for many other coastal elites.
Meanwhile, our country has other groups deserving of compassion. Shortly after Mr. Trump’s victory became clear, a black friend told me that his kid brother had been subjected to racial taunts at school. I wonder now whether I’m empathetic enough to my friend and his family, and I worry whether those who cast their ballots for Mr. Trump have much understanding for why so many fear a Trump presidency. The benefits and prejudices of a life lived within a bubble are hardly limited to urban progressive professionals.
This election has revealed, above all, that Trump and Clinton voters occupy two separate countries. President-elect Trump is now the leader of both of those countries. I’m hopeful that he’ll show as president the empathy he so often failed to show as a candidate. Most important, I hope the residents of those countries do the same.
Thanks for that, PC.
I just saw that Canada's immigration website got so overloaded with requests for "how to immigrate" that it went down twice. That is pretty funny.
The post mortems are interesting too. The Washington Post did the best summary that I've seen of why political scientists, prognosticators, media, and politicians themselves so bady judged Trump's chances. But the fact Sanders was able to beat Clinton in the primaries in rustbelt states certainly, in hindsight, should have sounded an alarm that dislocated workers were angry enough with the apparently uncaring elites that they'd prefer a leftist socialist to the establishment candidate. Yet, Hillary never once returned to campaign in Wisconsin after she won the nomination. That kind of hubris is amazing. In addition, I think the young voters inspired by Sanders might have just stayed home yesterday. Or maybe even cast revenge votes since the DNC most assuredly did conspire against their candidate.
Latinos, according to special interests queen, CNN commentaro Ana Navarro, were going to put the final nail in Trump's coffin. I fell for that as well. It turns out that Trump got 29% of that vote, 2 percentage points more than Romney did. So much for assigning a monolithic voting bloc to any population. African Americans were 95% for Obama, ony 88 for Hilary. She inspird virtually no one. That at least was always clear.
One of the maybe minor points the Post brought out was that pollsters chose to ignore certain clues. Like the fact that when robocalls elicted responses, more people admitted to being for Trump, but when a live person, asked the questions, many fewer did. Being made to feel ashamed of who you are and what you believe in is a commonality in the US. The center being looked down on by the coasts. This time the *silent* spoke up when it counted.
I'm looking at this as a necessary step "backwards", a reminder that elements of the country cannot continue to thrive and ignore the hurting majority. In that sense, Trump's populist message will end up strengthening the union long term, not destroying it.
As of today, I have read 19 pages of Game of Thrones
not controlling or mitigating against the spikes that occurred in health care bills over the last few months was also... questionable, dubious, as an overall strategy.... your govt shoulda saw that possibility coming.
sharei'm following it on the internet. in here, they just started making "meet hillary clinton, the democrate candidate for the white house" "meet donald trump, the republican candidate for the white house"
apply yourself
Everything anti-Trump for the last 3 months. Today more than ever.
share[deleted]
Pretty much the same. Minus the Spanish.
There are actually more cells in our brains than there are brains in our entire body