How would this forum react if Kamala Harris won the presidency? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 07, 2024, 01:29:15 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2020 U.S. Presidential Election (Moderators: Likely Voter, YE)
  How would this forum react if Kamala Harris won the presidency? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: How would this forum react if Kamala Harris won the presidency?  (Read 14348 times)
IceAgeComing
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,585
United Kingdom


« on: October 04, 2017, 11:56:43 AM »

I'm not cynical about Harris in particular, but really about the Democratic Party and American politics in general. Do I think Bel Edwards would be better than Harris in answering the needs of rural Americans? Maybe, I really can't say for certain. I will say that I am slightly more confident in his ability than Harris' due to his background and the state that he governs being largely rural and one of the poorest in the nation. What sort of experience does Harris have that is equivalent to that?

But the fact remains that rural America continues to crumble and not a thing is being done about it. There needs to be serious changes in the system, and I doubt that Harris has the political clout or platform to do. I don't blame Harris for not having a political career laser focused on the plight of the rural poor, it's not her problem. And that's why I would prefer to elect someone with a more class based background and platform, who is experience in dealing with rural issues.

Single payer sounds real nice, and I am willing to give Harris the benefit of the doubt, but she has yet to prove to me that she is anything more than an over hyped Democratic Rubio so far.
With all due respect, what about the just move argument. Some parts of rural (and urban) do not serve a purpose in the modern economy. I moved from rural Oregon to Los Angeles, and I don't have patience for people who won't do the same to find success.

What about the very poor people who cannot afford to move a long way away from home and all of their support networks to places with a much higher cost of living for a slightly increased chance at a better life?  What about the older people: who's who've retired only to see their home town's economy collapse around them, or those who were near retirement when they were laid off by their employer, and have practically no chance at getting hired in the city?  What about those who need to live in a certain place to care for an unfortunate member of their family?  Do you wish poverty on those people because they won't move a million miles away from home "to find success"?

Also consider this: if everyone moves to the big cities, then the already incredibly competitive job markets get even more competitive, and its those who couldn't afford a high quality university education (especially in America, where the costs are sky high) or decent experience in the local economy that'll be the ones left out; and at that point they'll be even worse off as they struggle in a place with a vastly higher cost of living, with no local support network of family or friends to fall back on if required.

I mean I don't know why I ever would think that someone who seems to idolise The War Criminal in 2017 to understand that; but I thought that I'd try to explain it anyway.
Logged
IceAgeComing
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,585
United Kingdom


« Reply #1 on: October 06, 2017, 06:27:02 AM »

A lot (maybe most?) White Democrats today, especially on this forum, have the mindset of a typical upper-class person. Poverty is a failure of personal responsibility, people should just uproot their lives and relocate to follow whatever the market says, those without the privilege of a college education are typically deplorables and trash, etc etc... I don't know what people expect having upper and upper-middle-class people running a party that's supposed to be oriented towards the lower and working classes. These folks either have no life experiences associated with a background of struggle or have internalized right-wing rhetoric about "personal responsibility." It's why rural Whites rightfully abandoned the party en masse in 2016; they already know the government only works for the well-off, those in coastal metros, and simultaneously talks down to them and hates them (especially the party that's allegedly for the workers).

Congratulations to the upper classes! You guys have nearly total control over both parties and are still trying your hardest to ensure the working classes have no representation at all (targeting Sanders-style populists and rural Democrats). And yet you'll still sit there and say, "that's not my fault, you guys are just bitter, you should've tried harder, but hahaha now you'll just stay poor."
This is getting off topic, but I'm not upper class (asprirational, perhaps), I have life experiences being middle class in rural America, and I have no dislike towards the poor. (Face it, you don't know my demographic profile at all.) However, I don't think the system is totally rigged, I don't think there is an inherent conflict of interest between people of different classes, and I have no patience for nostalgic people who want the economy and lifestyle of the 50s back. Too bad, the economy has changed. You may deserve government assistance, but if your not willing to fundementally change your lifestyle and outlook to achieve it, then you are not entitled to prosperity.

Let's save this discussion for another thread, however.

sounds exactly like the sort of thing that a tory would say, tbh
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.029 seconds with 14 queries.