6 ms·

Red states that vote the most against social programs are the biggest beneficiaries. It's the leech screaming "Leech!" in the mirror

mieseratte 7y ago
> Red states that vote the most against social programs are the biggest beneficiaries. It's the leech screaming "Leech!" in the mirror You're assuming in a "Red State," all those using social programs are the same ones screaming "Socialism!" This entire premise is based on your stereotype of one's politics. Perhaps you need to step back and re-examine your assertion. > Or based on what the politicians elected by those states say and then vote for. "Vote the most against"... You're stereotyping entire states and condemning the value of the people therein based on your ghostly spector of a Red State politician. Yours is a stereotyped, bigoted position.
- hirsin 7y ago
  Or based on what the politicians elected by those states say and then vote for. "Vote the most against"...
- magashna 7y ago
  You are assuming my political leanings. I'm more conservative than you think. I'm only stating what I observe in regards to states like Kentucky and Mississippi. The people continue voting in representatives that say one thing, then work on doing the opposite.
refurb 7y ago
Really? Because this poll suggests that Republicans are pretty supportive of things like Social Security and Medicare. https://socialsecurityworks.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Nat-Social-Security-March-18-2-Results.pdf https://socialsecurityworks.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/N...
- gambiting 7y ago
  Sure, and yet somehow they are consistently voting in people who want to dismantle both.
  - rriepe 7y ago
    Despite this consistently happening, I doubt you can name a single Republican politician who has run and been elected on this platform.
    - dlp211 7y ago
      This is a classic example of actions vs words. I don't care what Republicans campaign on, I care what they do once they are elected, and they have gone after these programs more than once.
    - dragonwriter 7y ago
      > I doubt you can name a single Republican politician who has run and been elected on this platform. A whole lot of Republican politicians since around 2000 (including George W. Bush) have run for and been elected to federal office on an overt platform of dismantling both the revenue and benefit payment sides of Social Security. Sure, the soundbite has been “saving social security”, but the concrete policy of dismantling that lies behind the soundbite hasn't been secret, it's been explicit and public, widely covered, and defended by candidates on debates, etc. The people voting for them either support it, don't think it's an important issue, or aren't paying any attention. They might be duped on what they'll get out of it, but the substance of the policy hasn't been concealed.
      - refurb 7y ago
        Are you talking about the same George W Bush who lead the expansion of Medicare to include Medicare Part D? That one?
        mturmon 7y ago
api 7y ago
Blue states filled with people who claim to be liberal generally support restrictive zoning and housing policies that make housing impossible for the poor and lower middle class to afford. Looking around the country it's generally "blue" areas that have the least affordable housing with very few exceptions. Hypocrisy is pretty universal. Most people vote based on superficial affinity signaling, not any understanding of actual policies or their implications. The present political situation is what you get when people vote based on who they'd like to have a beer with, not whose ideas they support (or even understand).
- aaronbrethorst 7y ago
  NIMBYism is terrible, and so is whataboutism.
  - api 7y ago
    Whataboutism is sometimes a good way to point out rank hypocrisy. I didn't vote for Trump and won't, but I totally understand why he won. He won largely by taking traditionally Democratic counties in the Midwest who are fed up with having their jobs sent to totalitarian countries in one-sided trade deals for the benefit of huge corporations. He also won because people look at the coastal "blue" cities and see unaffordable enclaves of the super-rich, not some kind of egalitarian paradise. They also hear it in the rhetoric. The worst example was Hillary's "deplorables" comment. Yes I know that she meant Nazis, but a ton of people heard "poor and working class." I also must point out that while the Nazi types are noisy there are not really that many of them. Trump could not have won on their support, but he did win with the support of a ton of disenfranchised poor and working class voters. Note that many of these people hate conventional Republicans as much as they hate Democrats. Trump was viewed as the outsider "fuck you" candidate, basically as a walking Molotov cocktail to toss into DC. "I hope he does as much damage as possible" is one quote I heard from a friend who lives in Ohio. I also read a lot of comments framing the election as Trump vs. Bush/Clinton, seeing Bush and Clinton as interchangeable "establishment" names. BTW I take whatever opportunity I can to call out NIMBYism. My favorite quip: Texas is more liberal than California because in Texas a poor person can afford a home.
dang 7y ago
It's not ok to use HN for regional flamewar here, or political flamewar. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and not post like this again, we'd be grateful.

mieseratte 7y ago

> Red states that vote the most against social programs are the biggest beneficiaries. It's the leech screaming "Leech!" in the mirror You're assuming in a "Red State," all those using social programs are the same ones screaming "Socialism!" This entire premise is based on your stereotype of one's politics. Perhaps you need to step back and re-examine your assertion. > Or based on what the politicians elected by those states say and then vote for. "Vote the most against"... You're stereotyping entire states and condemning the value of the people therein based on your ghostly spector of a Red State politician. Yours is a stereotyped, bigoted position.

hirsin 7y ago
Or based on what the politicians elected by those states say and then vote for. "Vote the most against"...
magashna 7y ago
You are assuming my political leanings. I'm more conservative than you think. I'm only stating what I observe in regards to states like Kentucky and Mississippi. The people continue voting in representatives that say one thing, then work on doing the opposite.

refurb 7y ago

Really? Because this poll suggests that Republicans are pretty supportive of things like Social Security and Medicare. https://socialsecurityworks.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Nat-Social-Security-March-18-2-Results.pdf https://socialsecurityworks.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/N...

gambiting 7y ago
Sure, and yet somehow they are consistently voting in people who want to dismantle both.
- rriepe 7y ago
  Despite this consistently happening, I doubt you can name a single Republican politician who has run and been elected on this platform.
  - dlp211 7y ago
    This is a classic example of actions vs words. I don't care what Republicans campaign on, I care what they do once they are elected, and they have gone after these programs more than once.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > I doubt you can name a single Republican politician who has run and been elected on this platform. A whole lot of Republican politicians since around 2000 (including George W. Bush) have run for and been elected to federal office on an overt platform of dismantling both the revenue and benefit payment sides of Social Security. Sure, the soundbite has been “saving social security”, but the concrete policy of dismantling that lies behind the soundbite hasn't been secret, it's been explicit and public, widely covered, and defended by candidates on debates, etc. The people voting for them either support it, don't think it's an important issue, or aren't paying any attention. They might be duped on what they'll get out of it, but the substance of the policy hasn't been concealed.
    - refurb 7y ago
      Are you talking about the same George W Bush who lead the expansion of Medicare to include Medicare Part D? That one?
      - mturmon 7y ago

api 7y ago

Blue states filled with people who claim to be liberal generally support restrictive zoning and housing policies that make housing impossible for the poor and lower middle class to afford. Looking around the country it's generally "blue" areas that have the least affordable housing with very few exceptions. Hypocrisy is pretty universal. Most people vote based on superficial affinity signaling, not any understanding of actual policies or their implications. The present political situation is what you get when people vote based on who they'd like to have a beer with, not whose ideas they support (or even understand).

aaronbrethorst 7y ago
NIMBYism is terrible, and so is whataboutism.
- api 7y ago
  Whataboutism is sometimes a good way to point out rank hypocrisy. I didn't vote for Trump and won't, but I totally understand why he won. He won largely by taking traditionally Democratic counties in the Midwest who are fed up with having their jobs sent to totalitarian countries in one-sided trade deals for the benefit of huge corporations. He also won because people look at the coastal "blue" cities and see unaffordable enclaves of the super-rich, not some kind of egalitarian paradise. They also hear it in the rhetoric. The worst example was Hillary's "deplorables" comment. Yes I know that she meant Nazis, but a ton of people heard "poor and working class." I also must point out that while the Nazi types are noisy there are not really that many of them. Trump could not have won on their support, but he did win with the support of a ton of disenfranchised poor and working class voters. Note that many of these people hate conventional Republicans as much as they hate Democrats. Trump was viewed as the outsider "fuck you" candidate, basically as a walking Molotov cocktail to toss into DC. "I hope he does as much damage as possible" is one quote I heard from a friend who lives in Ohio. I also read a lot of comments framing the election as Trump vs. Bush/Clinton, seeing Bush and Clinton as interchangeable "establishment" names. BTW I take whatever opportunity I can to call out NIMBYism. My favorite quip: Texas is more liberal than California because in Texas a poor person can afford a home.

dang 7y ago

It's not ok to use HN for regional flamewar here, or political flamewar. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and not post like this again, we'd be grateful.