Muh only 10% of Trump voters have Bachelors degrees

> Can someone explain why this statistic is relevant?
Educational level is one of the primary demographic variables, along with gender, age, income and (particularly in the US) race.

If you measure *anything*, there will usually be some non-negligible degree of correlation with each of those factors.

> Why do people think that being more educated makes you more likely to vote liberal?
No-one is "thinking" anything.

Any time someone conducts a poll (whether it's for politics, market research, or anything else), they'll record those variables and break down the results along each of those axes (and if the sample size is large enough, along all of them simultaneously, i.e. they'll have a number for 18-25 yro white women graduates earning $50k-$100k pa).

And in the specific case of the recent election, the figures indicate that e.g. Clinton's support was higher amongst 25-yro white women with degrees than amongst 25-yro white women without degrees.

"Just another data point". But that's what polls are about.

Our "liberals" are rabid corporatists who push identity politics like heroin and care about individual liberty only so far as it advances these two positions. So, pretty much the burger-eating Labour party. We don't have a real left in the glorious Marxian-Trostkyan-Corbynian sense. But of course, nobody does. Even Syriza turned out functionally indistinguishable from any other center-right bourgeois party.
I have to take serious exception to your "political beliefs line up neatly on a single, straight line and the truth is found in the middle" view. Theories, programs and beliefs labeled "radical" are not necessarily simplistic, populist, or opinion-driven, nor do they, in general, closely approximate one of exactly two limiting cases.
>In many cases then it boils down to philosophy and/or interpretation of the law, which requires some amount of introspective thinking.
No shit.
What you have to consider is the interplay between volume and quality of one's thoughts, their competing intellectual priorities (how many hours a week does a working research chemist give to substantive political analysis?) etc. There's a reason too why lazy, lost, and disinterested voters gravitate to the uncontroversial "I'm a moderate" or "my views are an average of everyone else's" in discussions of current events.

i'm doing a masters in mathematics so i may better serve America, and the God Emporer

MAGA

>why should the government have a right to tell a woman she can't kill her fetus?
Why can't she can't kill her husband, employee, or infant? This supposed "right to choose" the /idpol/ left leans on seems absurd when you replace "fetus" with any other living thing and isn't a viable argument. The difference is none of those must necessarily depend exclusively on her for survival. Thus it comes down to a bodily autonomy issue, weighing the moral status and rights of the two "agents" in conflict at a given stage of development. You will *never* hear this from the "liberal" left. To them, any infringement on abortion rights before labor starts is a bridge too far. To them, it infringes on this magical concept of the "right to choose." Their position is in every way an equally absolutist, equally dogmatic, equally lazy one to that of the evangelical right
>At what point do you consider it murder?
We certainly have a sort of Ship of Theseus issue here. As the one preaching pragmatism, you should be the first to accept we have certain practical limitations in trying to legislate a continuous world.
You can look at rates of premature birth viability ranging over various gestation ages and come to various decisions. This is actually a linearly ordered issue, and tanking a form of weighted average (i.e. voting) can be an effective compromise. But will individuals then adhere to the community's decision?
>What if the mother was raped
We all know full well what will happen if we ban abortion for everybody but those who claim to have been raped.
>more extreme case - the child is at a risk of a serious birth defect?
You address this by constructing an analogy with the above. We don't (or should we) kill the infirm after birth, how does this modify the competing agents in the above model,, etc

College degree = more intelligent?
I'd rather say, College degree = wealthier parents.
Which usually result in more intelligent children.
Fuck.

Wealthier people tend to be smarter because of two reasons: smart people tend to be better at making at keeping money, and children of rich people can always go to top tier education (in the US, this is negligible in Europe, where for-profit universities arent necessarily better than public ones).

Also according to some statistic I saw somewhere (I think it was legit) there is definitely a difference in IQ between right and left leaning people (98 compared to 102 if I recall corectly). Not a big difference but its there.
Not that this matters because people who were actually convinced of either candidate were probably right wingers in their way, and definitely not smart people.

How is that ironic? What does experiencing hardships and working shitty jobs have to do with intelligence? Are you a Trump voter?

Wow you're dumb. College education doesn't cause you to be generally intelligent, it indicates that you are generally intelligent. Obviously this is only true on average, as your lack of intelligence shows.

Liberals are the majority in STEMS, too.

>muh majority of people with college education voted Hillary
Most American colleges are just liberal brainwashing camps so that's true.

If you're dealt a shit hand, you need to work smarter and harder to get to the same place. That's in its own right a test of intelligence and character.
College is also a far coarser filter than they can admit.

But that's only because the colleges are controlled by smart people, and smart people tend to be more liberal.

>Most American colleges are just liberal brainwashing camps so that's true.

>mfw every student and professor in my major blindly supported Hillary and said Trump was a racist.

I am so glad Trump won. I don't even care if he is a Republican. I am just so glad a lot of people I generally dislike will suffer. (and I'm not talking of poor immigrants, I am talking of white middle class women who blindly supported the vagina candidate).

If that statistic is even true (which I think even CNN admitted is a myth; most college educated women ended up voting Trump), then it's probably because the majority of American """bachelor degrees""" are in worthless watered down lib art subjects (hence their need to suck on NEET socialism because they're too snot nosed to get a blue collar job like they should).

In general it's not true that education makes you left. Consider for example the AfD which is the political party with the highest amount of PhDs.

Most studies have shown that educated peolple (in the real sense of the word: science, engineering, law etc.) tend towards centrism, but in general have their own unique mix of political opinions.

the most liberal major is astrophysics, most of the other STEMs are also up there. Only major where liberals aren't the majority is business.

Trump is pretty racist.

>Trump is pretty racist.

But he is not. Can you give me one example of him being racist?

Remember, racist means that you think a race is inherently inferior to others, or target a race specifically for being of that race and nothing else.

And just before you may go full retard:
>mexican is not a race, you racist
>muslim is not a race, you racist

Now go on.

STEM is mostly liberal too, and degrees there do indicate higher intelligence. I have a STEM degree and I'm a leftist too, but let me explain what happened in these elections. The reason many of these college students voted Hillary is because they don't have the problems the working class does. The working class voted for Bernie first because he had solutions. When the industry is down and you've lost your job, social and ethical issues suddenly drop down your list of priorities. Survival goes up, getting a job goes up, making money goes up. This is the main reason the working class voted for Bernie, and when the Democrats sabotaged him in the open they voted for Trump instead of Hillary, because Trump gave attention to their issues just like Bernie did, unlike Hillary that focused on social issues, identity politics more instead of the economy.

My point is that those working class people in WIsconsin and Michigan didn't vote Trump because of le we hate liberals and we're uneducated, they voted for him because to them, he was the closest thing to Bernie, someone who would try solving their issues. Don't get me wrong, Trump will NOT solve the problems of the working class because right-wing policies are a disaster for such issues, but the fact that his campaign focused on them instead of "equality" is enough to persuade them. And I don't blame them, if I was in their dire position, I would too. The middle class /pol/acks of Veeky Forums vote because of racism and sexism intentionally for contrarianism, the majority of white workers that voted for Trump voted because they have or will have actual survival issues, not social ones. Those brats at Oregon and Cali going on demonstrations after the elections should grow the fuck up and realise their problems aren't the biggest ones. If you don't speak to the working/lower class, you're not "left", and Hillary isn't left by any definition of the word.

>Can you give me one example of him being racist?
Central park 5
Housing discrimination
Accusing Mexican immigrants of being rapists
frequently referring to black people as "thugs" (a common dogwhistle)
Wanting to block muslims from entering the country because they're scary brown people

This is right off the top of my head. But you can find more examples easily at the following URL:

bing.com/

>before you go full retard
>goes full retard

>and unironically believes people are opposed to Muslim immigration because "they're brown", and not because they worship a genocidal child rapist and have a tendency to explode

>The reason many of these college students voted Hillary is because they don't have the problems the working class does. The working class voted for Bernie first because he had solutions.

Every liberal STEM student I know voted Bernie. I'd blame older liberals for nominating Hillary, not younger liberals.

>Central park 5

No idea what this is.

>Housing discrimination

Probably this but I'd like to see someone prove there is racism here.

>Accusing Mexican immigrants of being rapists

WHOOPS. Mexican is not a race, TRY AGAIN!

Also, he said: "They are bringing rapists." He didn't say all mexicans are rapists, he said the mexicans that are comen over ILLEGALLY are rapists.

>frequently referring to black people as "thugs" (a common dogwhistle)

The only sources I could find for this were liberal newspaper articles, like the ones Hillary paid.

Yup, good job.

>Wanting to block muslims from entering the country because they're scary brown people

WHOOPS. MUSLIM IS NOT A RACE. TRY AGAIN!

>mfw I'm actually latino and I have to fucking defend Trump against retarded white SJWs.

>No idea what this is.
Of course you don't, you've spent the last year of your life on /pol/.

>Probably this but I'd like to see someone prove there is racism here.
Discriminating based on race is the definition of racism, you stupid motherfucker.

>WHOOPS. Mexican is not a race, TRY AGAIN!
>WHOOPS. MUSLIM IS NOT A RACE. TRY AGAIN!
When did I say they were?

>>I'm actually latino
"As a black man, ..."

>Of course you don't, you've spent the last year of your life on /pol/.

No, I've spent the last year not reading the liberal media. I am pretty center and I get my news from my main man Sargon of Akkad and The Young Turks.

>Discriminating based on race is the definition of racism, you stupid motherfucker.

Like I said, this is probably the case but I doubt this really happened. Is there evidence?

>When did I say they were?

You were giving reasons for why Trump is supposedly racist. At best you could say he is Islamophobic, and being islamophobic is more of a virtue. And at best you could say he is xenophobic but even then this statement would be untrue because he only opposes illegal immigrants so he isn't really xenophobic.

This is correct, the reason Trump is in power is because the Democratic party elite and the "superdelegates" that stepped in at the right time didn't even want to consider a Bernie in power, they knew Hillary would bump them up in power so they let another establishment candidate run. And they knew it would be risky for her, even though Bernie would've swept the floor with Trump simply because Trump's anti-establishment advantage would be gone if he faced Bernie, contrary to Hillary's embarrassing defeat.

I see very few articles online however pointing to the democrats' fault in this. All the student demonstrations are about Trump instead of the superdelegates and the literal ambush against Bernie. The elite openly took a charismatic presidential candidate out of sight and nobody bats an eye, everyone focuses on Trump for the wrong reasons. That's my problem with these students, whether they voted for Bernie in the primaries or not.

Clinton talked a lot about policies, Trump talked a lot about character. In the end Trump won because overall he managed to make character the dominant narrative of the campaign, and Clinton lacks a lot there. Clinton could have lost the rust belt if she would have won Florida and North Carolina.

To be fair though, at the point it was getting clear that Trump is probably going to be it (around April) Clinton was already as good as through. And Sanders would have probably lost against every other candidate except Trump.

>And Sanders would have probably lost against every other candidate except Trump.
The point is that this is not a good way of comparing things. These other candidates would've never faced Bernie because the people didn't want more establishment democrats or establishment republicans. The "anti-establishment" element of Bernie and Trump was what made them strong. Trump would've won the republicans no matter what, his party was split, most top republicans alienated him, he insulted the rising Hispanics and most others and he STILL won the nomination and the elections. That tells us that the anti-establishment element overwrites everything else in these elections. Which is why you should calculate the results of Bernie v Trump and not Bernie v anyone else, then you can see why the Democrats fucked up so royally.

Same shit with Brexit. No matter how much of a clown Farage is (and he is a big one), he still got to gloat at the end of the night. People didn't vote Brexit because of Farage, they voted Brexit because they wanted to send a "fuck you" to the elite. Farage just capitalised on this spirit, and so did Trump (and Bernie to a lesser extent). Different times promote different political mindsets.

This.

This post shows retards do exist.
>>why should the government have a right to tell a woman she can't kill her fetus?
>Why can't she can't kill her husband, employee, or infant? This supposed "right to choose" the /idpol/ left leans on seems absurd when you replace "fetus" with any other living thing and isn't a viable argument.
Because a fetus isn't human being yet, in early days it looks like a fish rather than a human. Most sane people understand that. It will eventually develop into a human. With this line of thinking jerking off could be considered murder. In fact every natural conceiving is mass murder. Shit, removing a potato plant is murder, because someone in the future would eat it. Now he or she will die of starvation. top fucking kek at you retarded subhumans
Not everyone is a retard like you OP. Some people can apply their intelligence to broader problems than solving equations.

threadwinner

You're still doing the same shit that cost you the election.

the vast majority of college grads aren't even stem. education comes in two forms learning and indoctrination. learning is where you get tools to improve your ability to deal with reality such as we see in stem while indoctrination is the kind of narrative regurgitation found in the arts that turns people into mindless zombies who dismiss evidence like wikileaks.

npr.org/sections/money/2014/05/09/310114739/whats-your-major-four-decades-of-college-degrees-in-1-graph

Fucking mongolians, go back from whence you came.

Yeah, most non STEM losers need their shitty positions because their worth is zero.

Liberal arts and women studies are not really a degree.

Amazing graph.

From 1970 to 2011 only 7000 people got CS degrees.

But then if you see this graph
cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/CSCapacity/images/BSDegrees-1975-2014.png

You see that like 8000 people got a CS degree betwen 2011 and 2014. What the fuck?

Doesn't matter, she was an establishment candidate that had many scandals behind her to prove it to the common person and stole the nomination from a scandal-free person. That's enough to doom her in the workers' eyes.

>In their mind, more educated = more intelligent all around.

The DNC did what they thought is best for the party, and that is to not support the populist. Populism is stupid, because you will not in the slightest deliever on any of your promises. Obama learned that lesson, and he is by far not as populist as Sanders and Trump are. The euphoria with Trump-supporters is big now, but his presidency will be a huge disaster and will end in 4 years. He will not deliever any of his promises and lose the congress in 2 years to the democrats. Hell, i can even see an impeachement happening because of something really, really shady that will surface from his past. Same thing for the Democrats if it was Sanders instead of clinton. Maybe he would have won, maybe he would have even won the Congress, but at the end of the day none of his politics would have worked and his presidency would have been a huge failure and at the end nothing for the cause was reached.

>It's kind of ironic, because usually the people who don't have & couldn't afford degrees are the ones who've endured the most hardships and work the shittiest jobs.
Most of the time they do that because they're too much of a fucking retards to go forward.
People with a degree at least have enough intelligence to cheat through or at least somehow get through college.

>npr.org/sections/money/2014/05/09/310114739/whats-your-major-four-decades-of-college-degrees-in-1-graph

This graph says that business expanded and all the other majors more or less stayed the same. What's your point?

Also, most STEMs are liberal, too.

>Most of the time they do that because they're too much of a fucking retards to go forward.

This is not really fair when education costs thousands of dollars per semester.

Most people in university are retarded middle class people. Then the rest are intelligent middle class people and intelligent poor people.

I hate how people now don't even try to hide their middle class privilege. It disgusts me so much. You are shitting on people who had less opportunities than you. You are a bad person.

Are you actually defending the DNC's version of the "invisible hand" messing with the nomination? Wow. The DNC sabotaged Bernie because he didn't suck up to as many Goldman Sachs executives as Hillary did. It was Hillary's turn and she would get to be a candidate no matter what, the corporatocracy of the US demands that one should do favours to the bankers to get their support. There's a reason all the media was with Hillary, and it ain't because she was charismatic. His campaign was crowd-funded, not supported by Super PACs and unless you have a time machine you can't say that his policies wouldn't work because some other poorer country used them and it didn't become a superpower.

I should start screencapping these posts for when Trump wins his re-election in 4 years.

You don't really believe that, right? I get having fun with the results because of memes and the mass media meltdown, but you don't actually think that Trump with help the workers, boost science and retake Constantinople just because he is charismatic, right?

well clinton isn't liberal. liberal in speech but her actions are not in the slightest.

and the point was that stem majors are a small fraction of college grads as i said. sadly we had to take those indoctrination courses too.

You guys should realize what politics in the USA can and can not do. Obamacare was passed with a democratic congress and it still had to be heavily compromised on.

You could have nominated Sanders, have some euphoric weeks that you beat Trump, and 4 years later wake up that nothing has been done and lose the presidency, or you nominate clinton, who hasn't such a progressive agenda but at least gets shit done.

Maybe you're right, I can't tell because forming theories about what would happen with so many variables isn't so reliable. When will this end though? When will this plutocracy that demands only one candidate decided by bank analysts as the best to be elected end? This is what people are screaming for. And the elite has lost touch with them, this model doesn't work anymore, not in Britain and not in the US. It's interesting to see how it goes from here. We're living in strange times indeed.

>Why do people think that being more educated makes you more likely to vote liberal?

That is what the data shows.

I might have been a bit blunt there and I left out a few things so here I go.

>Most people in university are retarded middle class people.
True.
>Then the rest are intelligent middle class people and intelligent poor people.
True
>This is not really fair when education costs thousands of dollars per semester.
I'm sorry you live in a third-world country. It must suck to be an American, but yes, this is a big influence factor for poor people who could actually get a proper degree.

>I hate how people now don't even try to hide their middle class privilege.
I don't even understand this.I don't hide anything. Why would I hide the fact whether it's about me being more successful, smarter or richer than you or the other way around? It rarely has to actually do anything with the point. It's just emotional clutter. I have never discriminated someone on those metrics; intelligence, willingness, etc. is a whole another matter though.

Regardless of your emotions there are people who "win" and that's not always because they're that good, but simply because they were at the right place at the right time and there are people who "lose". This is the rule in every game.

I don't shit on anyone. My point was that a lot of people despite having an opportunity don't do jack shit. Lot of people just go and get a beer in the next pub instead of reading something useful or doing something useful.
Yes, I shit on those people. Your average poor asshole gives into jealousy to feel better instead of doing something. In the same way I also shit on retarded middle class (and on richfags too) people because they're the same kind of retards.
Retard poor people given enough money (I mean you would just give them money without them doing anything) would become the same type of middle class shitter. It might need a generation to come into effect though.

>This post shows retards do exist.
Jesus fucking christ, did you even read my post?

>learning and indoctrination
Chaw, you ripper!

It's not the system that has changed, it's the world. We act as if politicians can do anything, but as a matter of fact they can not. FDR is so far the closest we have come to a dictator and most of his policies actually failed. His policies turned out good because the competitors in Europe and Japan simply got destroyed by war.

Today we live in a world where most jobs can be done by robots, and most of those jobs that can not yet be done by Robots can be done by Chinese or Mexicans.

Now Michael Moore says that Trump is so succesful because hes telling the people he stood up to Ford and told them "you move that factory to Mexico, and im going to put a 35% tariff on your cars, and nobody will buy them."

Those evil bank analysts at Ford then say "well, you do that and indeed nobody will buy our cars. Instead they will buy japanese and german cars who are manufacturing in low-cost-countries, with whom we could never compete if we were to produce in the US. So you created zero jobs, plus you just bankrupted an american company! Well done, Donald".

But Trump has a smart advisor who whispers something into his ear and Trump says, "huh, im just going to put a tariff on those german and japanese cars, too! Problem solved!"

The phone in the white house rings, its Shinzo Abe Japan's Prime minister. He says: "WTF Donald, why did you put a tariff on my cars, Shit is not funny, im going to put a tariff on everything from the US now. Bye asshole!".

This is called a trade war, and if Donald is going down that road he will destroy 15-25% of the american GDP. America already saw that kind of economic crisis before, its called "the great depression".

My point is, politicians promise mouth full and like to pretend they can decide about everything. But the truth is, politicians are pretty powerless, and today it is a simple fact that low skill labour will not give you middle class income. No politician can change that.

Tip: never start an argument with a strawman.

Except that people want American products more than they want shitty third world products, so their tariffs don't matter. Americans will still want American products that will now be made in America, everyone else will want them too, and now we won't have to force our workers to prostitute themselves down to third world level to keep the companies they work for competitive.

He's not charismatic, he's pragmatic.
Have you even seen his first 100 day plan, before you completely wrote off his entire next four years as a resounding failure before he's even been sworn in?

What is the societal worth of a math major? I can understand science technology and engineering changing the world, but math?The major is all theory and no practical applications.

Good points all around. Keep in mind I did not say that Trump would solve the workers' problems, I just highlighted why people were convinced to vote for him. Scandals, corruption and a fondness for war also play role in the demonisation of the establishment politician, not without good reason.

So, in summary, you think this low skill labour anger and decline is the inevitable result of a transition from the post-WW2 capitalist economies to an automated robot-dependent economy and the welfare state?

according to the NY Times most whites with a college degree voted trump. Most minorities with a college degree voted very democrat. The result is (because whites with college degree's primary difference from the uneducated is just them being far more moderate) is that it was like 59-41 hillary-trump.

There are several companies who produce in the USA, because they think the exact same way you do. All of them only have tiny market shares, because most consumers dont give a fuck where it is produced and only care about the price.

But as a matter of fact, manufacturing will come back to the USA actually. But that is because robots have started replacing even the Mexicans and Chinese, and so there is no point in having a factory there anymore if your market is actually the US. Musk is also building a huge factory for Tesla, but it employs only a hand full of people, most work is done by robots.

So the only option left to bring back those jobs is to flat out forbid robot manufacturing, and at the same time stop free trade. That would indeed lower the unemployment rate by a lot, but it would also make everyone much poorer, and the USA would without a doubt be quickly surpassed in its military capabilities and ultimately lose its super power status.

The argument was that Sanders would ultimately fail the same way Trump will. It was an example to show how reality is dictated by all sorts of things, and a politician can only deal with reality, he can not change it. Clinton is the better person to do that, because she understands this. It's also why Sanders and Trump are pretty dangerous and im not okay with saying "let the populists do whatever they want, its a democracy!". Thats true in principle, but pragmatically we now have lost an election because the populists Trump and Sanders steered up hope amongst the people that they can bring back well-paid manufacturing jobs, although they can never deliever on this promise. Now oyu have this weird situation where you have to somehow explain to them that their jobs will never come back.

>So, in summary, you think this low skill labour anger and decline is the inevitable result of a transition from the post-WW2 capitalist economies to an automated robot-dependent economy and the welfare state?

I guess you are asking about basic income. But let me answer with a counter quesion, what exactly is the point of keeping 7 billion people around, who are largely not "needed"? They are still consuming ressources, which are scarce, and polluting the environment on a level that is not sustainable. So basic income seems like a simple solution, but i think the real problem will not be getting those masses of unemployed people fed and clothed, its going to be how to handle masses of people who know they are useless. Second problem is, as mentioned above, keeping these people around is also a huge waste of ressources. I know thats very inhumane, but at some point NATURE is going to ask that question, and nature is very indifferent.

Very little of math thats was invented 100years ago was applicable then, but now they are real applications for them in engineering. Only because now has no practical implications doesnt mean there wont be in the future

Assuming you are correct about ALL your claims:

>Now oyu have this weird situation where you have to somehow explain to them that their jobs will never come back.

Then do that. If Clinton truly understands it (doubtful), then she should be honest and transparent rather than hoping she can sweep it under the rug and keep things as they are. Clinton didn't say there was a problem, she said everything's fine and she lost. This is what happens when you don't inform people and you aren't willing to admit the reality of a situation. This is how you kill a democracy. People don't trust you because they suspect you're lying and you're reinforcing that by lying to them under the pretence that they can't handle the truth or whatever. People are wary of government lies after Watergate and the Vietnam War. Turns out they are right to be.

And what's the end result of these lies? People hate you even more and you STILL get a populist in power. So what was the net gain of hiding the truth?

>keeping these people around is also a huge waste of ressources
I don't get what you are proposing then, if not a welfare state which is the only reasonable solution. Genocide the useless worker subhumans?

>Then do that. If Clinton truly understands it (doubtful), then she should be honest and transparent rather than hoping she can sweep it under the rug and keep things as they are. Clinton didn't say there was a problem, she said everything's fine and she lost. This is what happens when you don't inform people and you aren't willing to admit the reality of a situation. This is how you kill a democracy. People don't trust you because they suspect you're lying and you're reinforcing that by lying to them under the pretence that they can't handle the truth or whatever. People are wary of government lies after Watergate and the Vietnam War. Turns out they are right to be.

People can decide who they will listen to. So there is me, who is confronting them with inconvenient truths, and then there is that other guy, who promises them heaven on earth and more. Who do you think they choose to listen to?

There are two ways to solve the problem:
1. Change the human psychology so they dont listen anymore to people who tell them what they want to hear.

2. Try to shut down the populists. Not very democratic, but at the end of the day the only practical solution.

>I don't get what you are proposing then, if not a welfare state which is the only reasonable solution. Genocide the useless worker subhumans?

Im not calling anyone anything. Im actually pointing out that its a huge problem what exactly is going to happen with those people. Corporations are large, faceless and dont have morals, and they commit horrific crimes every day. So who knows what they are going to do. Maybe flat out kill them. Maybe castrate them and let nature do the rest. Maybe stick them up in little booths where live in a virtual reality and consume and pollute as little as possible.

>although they can never deliever on this promise.
Well, they might, because your entire premise is that we live in a futuristic utopia where all manufacturing jobs are now completely automated, which makes me wonder if you've ever stepped foot inside any given factory before.

That's a strawman. Automisation and outsourcing are the reason why low-skilled jobs are gone or only pay shitty wages. That's what i said, and it has nothing to do with a futuristic dystopia, except thats what you like to call the reality we live in.

>2. Try to shut down the populists. Not very democratic, but at the end of the day the only practical solution.
Like you said, not only is this not democratic, but it proved to be a trainwreck in these elections. Shutting down dissenting opinions like Sanders only strengthened Trump and his voter base, so there you go. The next step is to just announce who the next ruler of the country is by your logic without people having any choice. This doesn't lead anywhere from our point.

Thing is, Clinton never even tried to address the problem and she still failed. Wouldn't it just be better if she revealed how things are to the workers and she lost? Wouldn't it be better if somebody took the chance and ruined/boosted their career by admitting reality and going from there? (Again, this argument's credibility is based on every one of your claims being true, just for the sake of discussion/speculation. Doesn't mean I agree 100% with your analysis of the future)

>Corporations are large, faceless and dont have morals, and they commit horrific crimes every day.
No arguments there. The state, when sovereign, follows laws and has human rights. The corporation follows these laws, but when it is on top instead of the state (and the laws by extension), there is no telling what they will do. But that only assumes that the corporations will become that powerful (And Clinton sucking up to them isn't a good indicator). So we need a noose around the corporations' necks. In which case I guess you're arguing for a turn to state capitalism? And then socialism/communism maybe?

LOL you are being deceived.

They rig the polls in the media Hilary has all the media in her pocket CNN FOX they all are under her payroll.

TL;DR

LIES

>Like you said, not only is this not democratic, but it proved to be a trainwreck in these elections. Shutting down dissenting opinions like Sanders only strengthened Trump and his voter base, so there you go. The next step is to just announce who the next ruler of the country is by your logic without people having any choice. This doesn't lead anywhere from our point.

Thing is, Clinton never even tried to address the problem and she still failed. Wouldn't it just be better if she revealed how things are to the workers and she lost? Wouldn't it be better if somebody took the chance and ruined/boosted their career by admitting reality and going from there? (Again, this argument's credibility is based on every one of your claims being true, just for the sake of discussion/speculation. Doesn't mean I agree 100% with your analysis of the future)

Populists are not people who are expressing an opinion, Populists are people who know how to emotionally manipulate people. Making impossible promises is not having an opinion. How is "Im going to bring back those jobs" an opinion? Its a promise, not an opinion. Making these kinds of promises is a well-known mechanism of populism. There is a lot of literature on how populism works. But to make it very short and simplified, they rule with emotions, and these emotions are fear, hate, peer pressure, etc. but at the same time also hope, optimism, etc. I agree that in some way shuting down a populist is against free speech, but still i dont think a populist is somebody who voices opinions and engages in public discourse. A populist is actually the exact opposite, he is somebody who only wants to disturb this discourse, knows how to do that, and is not interested in compromising with anyone.

>trump wins
>people still hysterically blame Hilary of rigging everything

lol u guys r ridiculous

How is wanting/advocating reduced student debts not an opinion? How is wanting a smaller gap between the smaller and the rich not an opinion? Practicality is irrelevant, opinions are opinions. What you've done is give a strict and mistaken definition of a populist and then brand the candidates with that name which automatically invalidates them. Just because someone knows how to emotionally manipulate people doesn't mean they don't have opinions of their own. It just means that they are strengthening their position and views by riding in part on dissatisfied people's anger. Doesn't mean their expression shouldn't be included under freedom of speechDon't get me wrong, I'm not expressing support for populists, I'm just clarifying that these candidates have more "values" than just being "populist". If you classify them politically, "populist" isn't the only thing you will mention. Shutting them down is still a violation of democracy and freedom of speech.

Again though, you're evading the more important points I made. Ranting about populism is one thing, but offering solutions is more important. Shouldn't Clinton inform voters instead of letting them be swept by the populists? If people still vote for populists then fine, but she wouldn't hold all the responsibility for this disaster.

Also, what about the future of a transitioning society? What are you an advocate for if you think corporations are going to be a menace and Clinton is just a puppet for them? You said you supported Clinton, but you still demonise corporations.

this

op pretty much defeated his own argument in the first post

>No arguments there. The state, when sovereign, follows laws and has human rights. The corporation follows these laws, but when it is on top instead of the state (and the laws by extension), there is no telling what they will do. But that only assumes that the corporations will become that powerful (And Clinton sucking up to them isn't a good indicator). So we need a noose around the corporations' necks. In which case I guess you're arguing for a turn to state capitalism? And then socialism/communism maybe?

People in Syria die every day of war and most people dont care, they try to flee to Europe and die trying so and most people dont care, you are probably owning something that was manufactured unter inhumane conditions and you dont care, etc... Or lets try it with a very hypothetical scenario: Lets say the population is 10 billion, and of those 10 billion 1 billion are actually still somehow relevant to keeping your system running. Lets say you are one of those 1 billion that are still relevant. These other 9 billion are all on some kind of basic income, because at some point humanity agreed that that is the best solution. But these other 9 billion are not living far, far away from you, but they live pretty close. You live in the nice neighbourhood, since you rightfully deserve a higher living standard for keeping the system running. You are well-off, but you do kind of ask yourself why you should not be able to buy a vacation house, while "those down there" are building so many houses. Those 100.000 dollar house my distant relative just bought a house for, paid by basic income... why shouldnt it buy a nice little vacation house for me instead? I am doing all the work after all.

My point is: All these basic income takers would be solely depended on the good will of those who run things. But this good will is not as granted as you think. Why should they care in the future, if you right now dont care that fellow humans are going through hell on earth?

...

>Automisation and outsourcing are the reason why low-skilled jobs are gone or only pay shitty wages.
But they're not gone, and they don't only pay shitty wages. Confirmed for never being in a factory in your life.

They only do that if you flood your country with foreigners who will drive wages down by eliminating competition, or if those companies move to some third world hellhole, where they don't have to pay people shit anyway.

The point where automation itself is going to pose a serious threat to "everybody being out of work because it's cheaper to employ advanced robotics than people" is not even remotely a realistic scenario in the next four years, eight years, or even 20 years. I would be surprised if it even posed a serious threat in either of our lifetimes.

So... the rust belt is still going strong? All those people voting for Trump out of sheer desperation never happened? Oh boy, am i relieved.

Some people do care, but what exactly can they do about other people living through hell on Earth as you say? What can I do about people in China suppressed by the government other than vote for someone who won't take any different stance because they can't do anything to begin with?

You are right that many people are hypocritical about who they choose to put in the limelight of suffering. As for the future you described, I personally don't subscribe to the trade off philosophy of who works more or, more bluntly, who arbitrarily deems himself more valuable to society should get all the perks. Kings thought they were the most important for society, doesn't mean they were right and it doesn't mean they had the right to oppress people based on that belief, we all know how that ended. Upper classes still exist and oppress lower classes, whether intentionally or not. Our human rights and laws are what guarantee that we won't be treated too badly by those who again think they are the pillars of society thanks to the money and position they inherited. China doesn't have these rights and their people are treated like literal shit by the upper echelons.

Also, basic income owners will do other things than staying at home too, their value shouldn't be determined by a bunch of elite bankers who think they know what's right. And I'm glad that this is not happening. There have already been a few votes on basic income in Switzerland and the Netherlands and people there live quite peacefully and happily already. Of course it's too early for basic income, but the basis has been built.

Again though, if you think the future looks so dystopic and you have so little faith in the peaceful transition into an automated economy and state, that's all the more reason to express your beliefs regarding what direction such a society should take to prevent the dystopia and potential mistreatment you described.

Automation was a barely significant part of why the "Rust Belt" got to the way it is.

>industry has been declining in the region since the mid-20th century due to a variety of economic factors, such as the transfer of manufacturing further West, increased automation, the decline of the US steel and coal industries, free trade agreements such as the North America Free Trade Agreement (N.A.F.T.A.) or accession to the World Trade Organization, globalisation, and outsourcing of jobs out of the U.S.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rust_Belt

>Can someone explain why this statistic is relevant? I think it's completely arbitrary. Why do people think that being more educated makes you more likely to vote liberal?
The statistic is reported to suggest that those who vote liberal tend to be more intelligent.

And having a degree does not make you more likely to vote liberal, this is is not a fucking question of probability, but more people with degrees vote liberal. Why? Obviously because they occupy densely populated urban areas with more available higher education. Are you really going to go to college if you live on a farm in bumfuck nowhere MiddleAmerica? Of course not.

>How is that ironic?
It's ironic because it's a legitimate statistic that differentiates individual interest, not intelligence. No-one interprets it this way, however.

Picture unrelated, but frogs help yous, so.

Clearly you're not very 'liberal'. The data shows nothing of the sort.

the election was still rigged

democrats are stupid though and accidentally rigged it the wrong way

Your logic is infallible.

occam's razor

the simpler explanation is that the election wasn't rigged, and that you're just retarded

>occam's razor
William of Ockham was a fucking 13th century monk. He offers no insight into our modern world. Maybe if we were discussing fermenting ale or branding sodomites he could give a worthy chime in, but that is not the case, is it.

This is one of the dumber posts that I've seen.

>tfw final year of undergrad as a biochemistry and molecular biology undergrad
>in debt, no clue what i want to do after graduation
>have five friends who went on to trade schools instead of college
>3 of them are already making 6 figure salaries as electricians, the other two (brothers) learned machining and joined a high-paying fabrication company. They won't admit how much they earn but i'm guessing nearly $200k a year.
>tfw if i want to make anywhere in that neighborhood, i need more school and therefore more debt.

B-but at least I'm s-smart for going to college and voting for Clinton, right??

Plenty of janitors make well over 100,000$ a year not even including gratuitous benefits. Let that sink in.

Trading health for money, their bodies will be wrecked by the time they're 50

You can't be serious

Only those in government capacities mind you.

breitbart.com/big-government/2016/11/06/california-janitor-collected-276000-salary-past-year/