A billionaire silicon valley gay innovator tells us why people like Trump. And it sure makes a lot of sense to me.

[beero1000]

'Fly over country' is FUBARed. The nation as a whole is far from it.

The reason why people in rural America are struggling has nothing to do with who occupies the White House. The fact is that the modern world no longer requires rural America. Those who live there need to either move to the cities, or accept that they are on the scrap-heap of history.

Modern farming requires almost no labour. Modern industry has access to very cheap transport options, and no longer requires an extensive network of regional manufacturing (or even distribution) hubs.

The jobs in rural America have gone, and they are not coming back. If you were a steelworker in Sheffield, England or Pittsburgh, PA, chances are your job disappeared in the 1980s. You had a choice - stay put, train your children to do the jobs that no longer exist, and blame the government; or go somewhere else, retrain, and do something new.

It's terribly sad when a way of life simply vanishes. It's traumatic and painful for those involved. But smashing the place up and blaming your woes on the government doesn't actually solve the problem. Fascists might make you feel a bit better by giving you a scapegoat and encouraging you to beat the crap out of them - but they are not really helping. Rural America is as dead as the Detroit motor industry. It was great while it lasted. Now it's over.


ETA:

This is basically the same argument, but better written:

I thought this article did a good job of explaining why Trump is popular:
http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks-about/

I agree with your assessment but I disagree that it had to happen. Only the farming jobs have been long lost to technology, not the manufacturing jobs. Not the auto jobs, not the white appliance jobs, not the electronics jobs, and not the textile jobs. They were shipped to Asia and right now China and Asia are enjoying the GNP and wealth that comes from those jobs. Trump is correct that they were shipped to Asia because of bad leadership and trade policy. Trump claims he can get them back but obviously that will depend on whether or not he gets elected. But make no mistake that manufacturing can be done right here in the US given correct tax and trade policy.

Manufacturing is the only basis of real wealth other than minerals that might be in the ground. Financial services sound good, but all that really happens is money changing hands and nothing ever really gets produced. Unfortunately this country chose a wrong path towards a financial services economy in favor of manufacturing starting as you said in about the 1980's.

As for whether or not manufacturing will be viable in the future due to technology, that is hard to say. But there are people like Loren who think it will be many generations in the future before robots are successfully able to take over manufacturing. In the meantime a good politician (not saying Trump is) should be finding ways to improve manufacturing and rural area's of the country because plenty of good people still live there.

Americans are no longer willing to work at the wages that manufacturing prices demand or they aren't willing to pay the prices that goods will cost if we pay Americans to manufacture them. There's no way around it - "bring back manufacturing jobs" essentially becomes "we want the largest government subsidy of all time so we can have our cake and eat it too".

 

[zorq]

His main thesis comes at around 4:30 where he says "We're voting for Trump because we judged the leadership of our country to have failed."

He then gives two examples of the big things that Trump is right about. The first is Trump's protectionist rhetoric, anti-globalism anti-free trade. He claims that free trade doesn't help the lower classes. I think he's wrong, but overall but it's easy to see why a lot of workers who have had their jobs shipped overseas would disagree.

The second thing he says that Trump gets right is his military isolationist rhetoric. He claims that Clinton (in 2013) was considering a no-fly zone over Syria, that would start a war with Russia if implemented today. That particular issue has been discussed elsewhere, and I would characterize it as desperate fear-mongering. Besides, the problem with government's recent warmongering isn't because the current political dynasties are corrupt war mongers. The problem is that the AMERICAN PEOPLE are warmongers. 72% of Americans supported going to war in Iraq.

Finally, I think a different source identifies the actual origin of Trump's appeal. This Vox article offers an interesting opinion on the subject. In short, the Republicans have unintentionally groomed a big chunk of their base to distrust everything the government does and now they can't be reasoned with. My summary of the article and some of my thoghts on it is hidden below.

Show

Basically, 30 years ago, the Republicans started insisting wide and far that all government actions are ineffective. This strategy was used successfully to break the Democratic stranglehold on the House of Representatives. Claim the government is a disaster. Help make government action disaster. The party in control will take the blame. It worked for the Republicans, and in 1994 the Republicans finally took the House, but they opened a Pandora's box.

Distrust of the government has been growing for three decades. After Obama's win in 2008 the Republicans returned to the strategy they used to successfully destroy Democrats in power before. Obstruct everything, never compromise, and blame it all on the party in power. Unfortunately for them, their base of voters has been steeped in anti-government rhetoric for too long now, from continuous exposure to AM radio and Fairly Biased cable news channels. And even the Republicans Base recognize the huge failures of the Bush Administration and all the other Republicans complicit in those failures. So these voters are incapable of trusting Democrats who are always trying to use an evil government "against them". But now they distrust establishment Republicans too because they are partially perceived to have crashed the economy twice and pushed the US into some "pointless" wars. Costing a lot of money and jobs.

So these voters have essentially gone rogue. Can the Republican establishment recapture them or are they strong enough now that they can capture the Republican establishment? I don't know, but I do know that Trump supporters are unlikely to compromise.

As far as Hillary goes, she said in the 3rd debate she would enact a "no" fly zone in Syria. That's about as war mongering as you can get and it came straight from the horses mouth. Far different than any stance by Trump. She could start WW3 with a no fly zone.

And for the rest of what you wrote, I actually believe it is possible for both views to be correct at the same time.

People talk about the no fly zone as if Hillary proposed shooting down Russain jets without talking to the Russians first. This isn't 1960. We can call up Putin at any time and get his opinion on things before we start a war. Putin might approve of a no fly zone if the west loosens some of the sanctions they've imposed recently. You never know.

In other words, this WW3 talk is just fear-mongering. It is ridiculous to think that Hillary would start a war with Russia over the civil-war in Syria. That's not what she proposed. And that's why only the straw grasping Republicans insist that she did.

 

[Will Wiley]

People talk about the no fly zone as if Hillary proposed shooting down Russain jets without talking to the Russians first. This isn't 1960. We can call up Putin at any time and get his opinion on things before we start a war. Putin might approve of a no fly zone if the west loosens some of the sanctions they've imposed recently. You never know.

Putin will make concessions but his first priority is the security of Russia, so he will not allow America to arm jihadis and turn Syria into another Libya

In other words, this WW3 talk is just fear-mongering.

Half of Russians fear Syria standoff could spark WW3, poll shows

How do you think Russia feels about a country that launches pre emptive strikes based on lies? Not very comfortable when they are fed news from inside Russia

It is ridiculous to think that Hillary would start a war with Russia over the civil-war in Syria. That's not what she proposed. And that's why only the straw grasping Republicans insist that she did.

Wars often start by accident

 

[zorq]

Putin will make concessions but his first priority is the security of Russia, so he will not allow America to arm jihadis and turn Syria into another Libya

Essentially every faction fighting for Syria could qualify as a "jihadi." ISIL is composed of islamic militants. The Russian supported Syrian Arab Republic is composed of islamic militants. The US supported Free Syrian Army is composed of islamic militants. The US supported and Syrian Democratic Council wants to install a secular government eventually, but they are also composed of... Guess what... Islamic militants. Syria is already a Libya but worse.

In other words, this WW3 talk is just fear-mongering.

Half of Russians fear Syria standoff could spark WW3, poll shows

How do you think Russia feels about a country that launches pre emptive strikes based on lies? Not very comfortable when they are fed news from inside Russia

Yep, Putin controls almost all of the media in Russia, I have no doubt that the Russian people are exactly as afraid as Putin wants them to be.

It is ridiculous to think that Hillary would start a war with Russia over the civil-war in Syria. That's not what she proposed. And that's why only the straw grasping Republicans insist that she did.

Wars often start by accident

So the argument is that Hillary is going to ACCIDENTALLY start a war with Russia by doing something that EVERYONE can see might lead directly to a war. Hillary is so cunning and devious she's going to steal the election, but she's going to stumble into WW3 by accident. Like I said, the argument is ridiculous.

 

[Will Wiley]

So the argument is that Hillary is going to ACCIDENTALLY start a war with Russia by doing something that EVERYONE can see might lead directly to a war. Hillary is so cunning and devious she's going to steal the election, but she's going to stumble into WW3 by accident. Like I said, the argument is ridiculous.

American and Russian fighter jets have already had near misses in Syria. Of course the Russian jets are there legally. The American and Australian ones are there illegally.