4 ms·

Rural voters vote in their interest, which is more closely aligned to the Republican party. Both parties appease their billion dollar donors and both take part

Rural voters vote in their interest, which is more closely aligned to the Republican party. Both parties appease their billion dollar donors and both take part in propaganda. The Democratic Party is not a party of saints, in many cases they can be worse. Both have their flaws, but at the end of the day you have to choose between the two.

ncmncm 7y ago
Rural voters used to vote their interests. Now they vote against their own interests, and for billionaires'. This is a big change.
- refurb 7y ago
  Ahhh... the old "those people are too stupid to know what's good for them, so we should decide for them."
  - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
    Close, but not quite. This is "Those people are too propagandized to know what's good for them, so we should decide for them what their sources of information should be."
    - bin0 7y ago
      I hope you realize how dystopian that sounds. Do we need a Ministry of Truth?
      - ncmncm 7y ago
        Rural America has become a dystopia. Recently there was a story on NPR interviewing high school classmates of the guy who now calls himself Alex Jones, who knew him as a bully (who beat one so badly he still suffers) and huge liar, but had not connected the thug they knew to the Alex Jones they followed on the radio. You could hear their difficulty reconciling the two.
        s_y_n_t_a_x 7y ago
        There are people on both sides that spew nonsense and hate.
        ncmncm 7y ago
        "Good people", I presume. Just like "clashes with police" that leave civilians injured or dead and police miraculously unharmed. The technical term is "false equivalence". Dishonesty comes in all flavors.
      - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
        No, I absolutely do not think we need that. But ncmncm seems to think we do...
        ncmncm 7y ago
        Putting words in others' mouths is easy but not honest.
        AnimalMuppet 7y ago
        Putting words in others' mouths is a cheap, dishonest rhetorical trick, and I didn't mean to be doing so. But... > The American urban-rural divide in the US maps pretty neatly to who is dependent on AM radio for information. US AM radio is a cesspit of disinformation operated by extreme-right-wing billionaires who have found it is remarkably cheap to manage populations, and get them to vote for benefits to billionaires at the direct expense of those voters. Your words. > Rural voters are the most valuable target for disinformation campaigns because, by a historical quirk in American electoral politics, their votes count for quite a lot more than urban voters', and because they are more isolated from one another and so easier to keep on track. Urban voters have easier direct, face-to-face contact with one another that makes lies more expensive to sell. Also your words. > Rural voters used to vote their interests. Now they vote against their own interests, and for billionaires'. Also your words. > Those people are so heavily propagandized at that they now believe and repeat falsehoods. Also your words. So, no, you don't call for a Ministry of Truth. But you complain that rural America is being fed lies, which is leads them into voting against their own interest. Therefore... what? Shake your head at their stupidity and leave them there? Or are you going to propose something to help them? And if you're going to help them, if your analysis of the problem is correct, then you have to stop them from listening to the propaganda somehow. How are you going to do that, since they have now reached the point where they listen to it willingly? This is what I think the logic of your position forces you to. (Feel free to point out where you diverge from what I expect.)
        ncmncm 7y ago
        Simple: When you think (as you appear to suggest) the only solution to any problem is government intervention, then any big-enough problem demands a Ministry. But I don't, and this doesn't.
  - ncmncm 7y ago
    > the old "those people are too stupid to know what's good for them, so we should decide for them." No. Those people are so heavily propagandized at that they now believe and repeat falsehoods. A clear majority of rural "conservative" voters profess belief Obama is Muslim, that he is not a US citizen, that illegal immigration has a detectable impact on their livelihoods (vs., e.g., H1 programs), that Trump was ever good at running businesses, or that his campaign was unfairly investigated for corruption... I could go on all day.
    - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
      I'd like to see a source for your "clear majority" claim.
- s_y_n_t_a_x 7y ago
  I'm a rural voter and I vote Republican. Feel free to explain to me how I'm voting against my own interest and how the Dems are a better choice.
  - learc83 7y ago
    My guess is that if you're on hacker news that there's a good chance you are making significantly above the median income. There is an implicit "poor" in the OP's statement, so it should really read "poor rural voters". As to poor rural voters voting against their interest, Medicaid expansion is a good example--studies show that lack of healthcare access directly contributes to a higher death rate among poor white voters. And in my state it's estimated that the state will spend more money on hospital subsidies for the poor than they would have if they had accepted the deal for the Federal government to pay for 90% of the cost of Medicaid expansion.
    - s_y_n_t_a_x 7y ago
      I'm not sure there was any implication of "poor" by the OP. It seems you added that to drum up validation for your following healthcare argument. Rural does not equal poor. Most people I know around here have healthcare through their employer and are against more government involvement. They just want to keep their current plan and doctor. I vote Republican because of economic and defense issues. I do lean more liberal when it comes to social issues. Libertarian if you have to put a label on it. Basically the government should just be for defense and limited regulation. States should handle the rest. Liberals always try to blanket the country in their policies. It's sad to see Californians flock to Texas to avoid the taxes they voted for. Republican policies may not help the poor, but Democrat policies create the poor.
      - ncmncm 7y ago
        I see that you have forgotten on whose watch the Great Recession started, and on whose it ended. I see that you have forgotten who was responsible for the invasion of Iraq, which has now cost over 5 trillion dollars, and was justified with out-and-out fraud. So, on both economic and defense grounds, you vote against your own interest. Propaganda displaces truth.

ncmncm 7y ago

Rural voters used to vote their interests. Now they vote against their own interests, and for billionaires'. This is a big change.

refurb 7y ago
Ahhh... the old "those people are too stupid to know what's good for them, so we should decide for them."
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  Close, but not quite. This is "Those people are too propagandized to know what's good for them, so we should decide for them what their sources of information should be."
  - bin0 7y ago
    I hope you realize how dystopian that sounds. Do we need a Ministry of Truth?
    - ncmncm 7y ago
      Rural America has become a dystopia. Recently there was a story on NPR interviewing high school classmates of the guy who now calls himself Alex Jones, who knew him as a bully (who beat one so badly he still suffers) and huge liar, but had not connected the thug they knew to the Alex Jones they followed on the radio. You could hear their difficulty reconciling the two.
      - s_y_n_t_a_x 7y ago
        There are people on both sides that spew nonsense and hate.
        ncmncm 7y ago
        "Good people", I presume. Just like "clashes with police" that leave civilians injured or dead and police miraculously unharmed. The technical term is "false equivalence". Dishonesty comes in all flavors.
    - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
      No, I absolutely do not think we need that. But ncmncm seems to think we do...
      - ncmncm 7y ago
        Putting words in others' mouths is easy but not honest.
        AnimalMuppet 7y ago
        Putting words in others' mouths is a cheap, dishonest rhetorical trick, and I didn't mean to be doing so. But... > The American urban-rural divide in the US maps pretty neatly to who is dependent on AM radio for information. US AM radio is a cesspit of disinformation operated by extreme-right-wing billionaires who have found it is remarkably cheap to manage populations, and get them to vote for benefits to billionaires at the direct expense of those voters. Your words. > Rural voters are the most valuable target for disinformation campaigns because, by a historical quirk in American electoral politics, their votes count for quite a lot more than urban voters', and because they are more isolated from one another and so easier to keep on track. Urban voters have easier direct, face-to-face contact with one another that makes lies more expensive to sell. Also your words. > Rural voters used to vote their interests. Now they vote against their own interests, and for billionaires'. Also your words. > Those people are so heavily propagandized at that they now believe and repeat falsehoods. Also your words. So, no, you don't call for a Ministry of Truth. But you complain that rural America is being fed lies, which is leads them into voting against their own interest. Therefore... what? Shake your head at their stupidity and leave them there? Or are you going to propose something to help them? And if you're going to help them, if your analysis of the problem is correct, then you have to stop them from listening to the propaganda somehow. How are you going to do that, since they have now reached the point where they listen to it willingly? This is what I think the logic of your position forces you to. (Feel free to point out where you diverge from what I expect.)
        ncmncm 7y ago
        Simple: When you think (as you appear to suggest) the only solution to any problem is government intervention, then any big-enough problem demands a Ministry. But I don't, and this doesn't.
- ncmncm 7y ago
  > the old "those people are too stupid to know what's good for them, so we should decide for them." No. Those people are so heavily propagandized at that they now believe and repeat falsehoods. A clear majority of rural "conservative" voters profess belief Obama is Muslim, that he is not a US citizen, that illegal immigration has a detectable impact on their livelihoods (vs., e.g., H1 programs), that Trump was ever good at running businesses, or that his campaign was unfairly investigated for corruption... I could go on all day.
  - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
    I'd like to see a source for your "clear majority" claim.
s_y_n_t_a_x 7y ago
I'm a rural voter and I vote Republican. Feel free to explain to me how I'm voting against my own interest and how the Dems are a better choice.
- learc83 7y ago
  My guess is that if you're on hacker news that there's a good chance you are making significantly above the median income. There is an implicit "poor" in the OP's statement, so it should really read "poor rural voters". As to poor rural voters voting against their interest, Medicaid expansion is a good example--studies show that lack of healthcare access directly contributes to a higher death rate among poor white voters. And in my state it's estimated that the state will spend more money on hospital subsidies for the poor than they would have if they had accepted the deal for the Federal government to pay for 90% of the cost of Medicaid expansion.
  - s_y_n_t_a_x 7y ago
    I'm not sure there was any implication of "poor" by the OP. It seems you added that to drum up validation for your following healthcare argument. Rural does not equal poor. Most people I know around here have healthcare through their employer and are against more government involvement. They just want to keep their current plan and doctor. I vote Republican because of economic and defense issues. I do lean more liberal when it comes to social issues. Libertarian if you have to put a label on it. Basically the government should just be for defense and limited regulation. States should handle the rest. Liberals always try to blanket the country in their policies. It's sad to see Californians flock to Texas to avoid the taxes they voted for. Republican policies may not help the poor, but Democrat policies create the poor.
    - ncmncm 7y ago
      I see that you have forgotten on whose watch the Great Recession started, and on whose it ended. I see that you have forgotten who was responsible for the invasion of Iraq, which has now cost over 5 trillion dollars, and was justified with out-and-out fraud. So, on both economic and defense grounds, you vote against your own interest. Propaganda displaces truth.