5 ms·

> Your boy trump did do deliver, is the US now GREAT enough for you yet? Not our boy. Trump was elected by uneducated farmers, not by HN crowd. Almost 78% of

• zwnow 2y ago
  Its always the farmers fault... Like it was in Germany back in the day. Keep people uneducated, dont support the poor and then act like you will solve these issues, its conservative 101
  • Yeul 2y ago
    Seems to me America is a pretty shitty country to live in if you're not rich so I am not too mad that they protest vote for Trump. Ofcourse in Europe we learned that socialism improves the lives of the proletariat not national socialism.
    • flohofwoe 2y ago
      There isn't a single socialist country in Europe since around 1990 (and good riddance). I think the term you're looking for is social-democracies (for the political system) or social-market-economy (for the economic system).
      • tsimionescu 2y ago
        "Socialist" is such a loaded term it's kind of best to avoid it in any discussion where you aim for clarity. The original definition, which is where it got its lasting popularity, comes from the popular workers' movements of the 1910s and 20s: workers owning the means of production. That is basically describing an economic system in which enterprises, particularly factories, are democratically controlled by the people working in them, who would have a say in how the enterprise is run. This notion of socialism was corrupted by Lenin and his ilk when they essentially seized the worker's revolution that tore down the Tsars of Russia and founded the USSR. However, instead of decentralized workers' councils actually owning, profiting from, and controlling the factories (and farms and other enterprises) that they worked for, the state was put in charge of all of these. Ostensibly the state represented the will of the people, so that is how this leap was justified, but of course in reality it was one of the most heinous dictatorships that the world had seen in a long time. But because worker's rights were a popular idea at thrle time, the new absolutist monarchs of the "Soviet" empire kept claiming they are "socialists", just as they claimed they are "democratic", and no one bothered to contradict them. In the meantime, in the West of Europe, particularly Germany, the same basic workers' movements were co-opted by Hitler, here claiming that he represents the people of Germany in their interests against the bogey-men they hated, the Jewish people (and Armenians and a few others), identified as evil Capitalists that had to be combatted. So they also named their movement "socialist", while in reality having an iron grip and military-like complete top-down control of the means of production. Finally, more actually democratic forces that were nevertheless interested in keeping the capitalist status quo came up with a series of more minor reforms that would give some more resources, better lives, and rights to workers without actually putting them in full control of the enterprise they worked for. This movement ended up calling itself social-democrat or democratic socialism. Being very much similar to the previous status quo, and keeping the wealthy in power and in control of enterprises, while also not egregiusly oppressing workers to the point of revolt, this proved to be the most enduring form of "socialism" that persisted.
    • briandear 2y ago
      Here’s a counterpoint: https://fee.org/articles/the-poorest-20-of-americans-are-richer-than-most-nations-of-europe/ https://fee.org/articles/the-poorest-20-of-americans-are-ric...
      • flohofwoe 2y ago
        This doesn't quite match the rhetoric of the current US government though, does it? Listening to them one could think the US is on the brink of collapse unless some 'strong leader' steps in and 'makes America great again'.
    • zwnow 2y ago
      So protest vote people that'll make your own situation 100x worse? This is logic that never checked out for me.
      • malka1986 2y ago
        These people feel that they are in the losing side of a win/lose situation. So they are going for a lose/lose situation out of spiteness. The solution is to always go for the win/win situation, even if it leads to smaller wins. It avoid building up resentment, that will always lead to a lose/lose situation.
• LightBug1 2y ago
  I always say ... there are obviously many, many great people in the USA. You're likely one of them. But your democracy has spoken now. The first time can be waived off as an aberration. The second time you have to own it. Now, either you're commenting reactively on HN about it, or you're doing something about it and not taking it personally.
  • Macha 2y ago
    Not only that but the "system" has failed to stop his actions, even those it has branded illegal. If the system is deciding that presidents are kings, then America is only as reliable to the rest of us as those it elects as president.
• concerndc1tizen 2y ago
  Europeans had to fight for our rights and freedom. In this sense, it is your civic duty to ensure order in your own country. The critique is that too many Americans have become complacent and allowed the political system and media landscape to evolve as it has. The Democrats are also corrupt and need to be replaced, but it requires a sacrifice of wealth that people aren't willing to give, for selfish reasons. But you will experience the consequences.
  • radicalbyte 2y ago
    They have also been the main target of Soviet/Russian/CCP information operations designed to cause the current mess and live in a democratic system where the (ultra)wealthy have had far too much power.
    • concerndc1tizen 2y ago
      You could argue that it goes back to when Bush became president despite losing the election to Al Gore, by suppressing recounts that later proved that he lost. The Democrats have been allowing this for too long and are equally complacent. Nancy Pelosi doing insider trading is just the tip of the iceberg, quite literally speaking as the house speaker. Americans should join Serbia and Turkey in their revolutions.
      • radicalbyte 2y ago
        > You could argue that it goes back to when Bush > became president despite losing the election > to Al Gore, by suppressing recounts that later > proved that he lost. That was the day that I lost all respect for America and I fully agree that it was the day when the Republicans saw that you didn't need to win an election you needed to game the system. From that point onwards is when the Red states went ham on targeted voter suppression and made a number of extremely anti-democratic moves. The current situation is at least 25 years in the making.
• Teever 2y ago
  You misunderstand. While America is internally divided between rural and urban, or red and blue, or Woke and MAGA, the rest of the world is becoming united in seeing it all as just those damn Americans, and a growing threat. The world at large has stopped caring about the petty squabbling that goes on in America, the boorishness and the melodrama. America is the house down the street that always has shouting and screaming coming from it, someone throwing someone elses crap on the front lawn and the cops getting called to it every other week. It is embarrassing and no one cares who started it anymore. We just want peace and quiet.
  • graemep 2y ago
    I do not agree. The same division is spreading throughout the west, if not the world. From the very woke education system in the US to the electoral success of the AfD in Germany we seem to be following the US. Woke has not spread into Asia, but nationalism and racism were there already.
    • pjc50 2y ago
      Trying to parse a comment where someone implies that nationalism and racism are bad but also that ""woke"" (diluted into meaninglessness by over use) is .. also bad?
      • graemep 2y ago
        Yes, exactly my view. I am not signed up to a side and feel no need to follow a particular set of views because they belong to a group I identity with.
        • Moomoomoo309 2y ago
          I'll bite: What is "woke" to you? The term's history has basically no bearing on what it means now. Preferably a definition, not examples, because often the examples, when you list enough of them, contradict.
      • sfn42 2y ago
• nkmnz 2y ago
  There are like… 2% farmers in the US?
  • JdeBP 2y ago
    Bear in mind that the President of the United States is not directly elected by a popular vote. The mathematics of who gets the largest voice are distorted, intentionally so by the Framers. They did not want low-population agrarian states to be permanently in effect disenfranchised. It is ironic after all of these decades of originalism being seen as a reactionary thing against minorities that the Framers put positive discrimination for (economic and geographic) minorities into the Constitution explicitly to prevent "tyranny of the majority". The U.S.A. is full of such ironies at the moment.
    • hypeatei 2y ago
      > explicitly to prevent "tyranny of the majority" Yep, as if tyranny of the minority is better. Of course Republicans think it's good because it gets them elected but this country is regressing because of the status quo.
    • chgs 2y ago
      When the framers were setting out their ideas the rural states had large populations. However the framers declared great swathes of them to be worth 60% of others.
  • Jean-Papoulos 2y ago
    A lot of these 2% live in states whose influence on the outcome of the presidential election is disproportionately high due to the electoral system. So you have a high influence of farmers on states that have a high influence on the election outcome and those 2% end up looking more like 4% in terms of practical influence. It is disingenuous to lay the results at their feet only like the comment you're responding to suggests ; Trump did win the popular vote. The dems fumbled this one, plain and simple.
    • krapp 2y ago
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• jemmyw 2y ago
  > Almost 78% of farmers endorsed his most recent presidential run Which is surprising because they were bitten by his tariffs last time round. What made them think he'd do better for them this time?
  • pjc50 2y ago
    > What made them think he'd do better for them this time? Same answer as for everyone else: Fox News.
  • speed_spread 2y ago
    "Think" is a big word here.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• 01jonny01 2y ago
  Cherry picking a 2 small demographics to validate your point is intellectually dishonest.
• gadders 2y ago
  Always a surprise to see the contempt people in blue collar jobs are held in by Democrats.
  • niek_pas 2y ago
    Genuine question: is farming a blue collar job? My (possibly incorrect) image of farming is management of heavily industrialized processes, not of rolling up your sleeves.
    • pjc50 2y ago
      Careful study of farming often reveals that it's a mix of landowners (rich on paper, possible cashflow problems) and workers (usually immigrant, often undocumented, in which case they're not voting at all).
    • gadders 2y ago
      Fair point. I guess it is more like managing, say, a building or plumbing firm. I guess what I should have said is "contempt for people outside of the laptop class" (and yes farmers may use laptops but you get what I mean).
    • Jensson 2y ago
      Have you see any farmers with white collars? I haven't, they tend to wear working clothes even if they have lots of money.
  • pjc50 2y ago
    Prisoner's dilemma, innit. If people are going to use "I'm working class" as an excuse for holding other people in contempt, they shouldn't be surprised to see it reflected back at them. And contempt is one of the defining features of Trumpism/Muskism, far more than "blue collar".
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• goodcanadian 2y ago
  I grew up on a farm. Farmers as a class are not stupid, at least no more so than any other group of people I've dealt with. They do have different interests and priorities than city dwelling people which tend to be better represented by traditionally conservative parties, but that is not an absolute. In Canada, historically, farmers were also responsible for the social credit movement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_credit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_credit). It's not a question of being educated/uneducated. It is a question of who is doing a better job of talking to them. "Urban elites" are just as ignorant when dealing with rural issues as farmers are when dealing with urban issues. It would be nice if more people were able to bridge the gap.
  • fifilura 2y ago
    Yeah, I see farmers here in Europe as one of the most educated groups. They need to be educated in politics and economy in order to navigate all regulations and subsidies.
  • Ragnarork 2y ago
    Thank you for saying that. I see this divide all the time, and I can't bear seeing this used time and time again to make the rural vs. the urban populations angry at each other, which in the end only detracts from trying to see how to make everything work together. I wish we'd be smarter and stopped just being condescending towards the other group. The only ones actively benefitting from this divide are not well-intentioned people in my mind.
    • DFHippie 2y ago
      One elaboration on your point: the rural and urban populations aren't mirrors of each other. The urban population generally ignores the rural population. The rural population pays attention to (a select subset of) what is happening in the city. I think this is an inevitable consequence of population size and density. People are interested in people. The people who generate new culture -- who attract the interest of other people -- thrive in the cities. They have a bigger audience and a bigger community of fellow creatives. They find more variety. They have more to work with. So in both the city and the country people pay attention to what's happening in the city and ignore what's happening in the country. More is happening in the city and it is more interesting. This isn't everything that makes cities tend to differ in their values and politics from the country, but it's the hotbed malign demagogues exploit to empower themselves. They tell the country, "Hey, the city people don't respect you. They have contempt for your values. Their politics are the reason for your suffering. You are the real people. They are parasites. Be mad!" The country is primed to rise up. The city isn't. So the demagogues make the country hurt the city. Then the city is mad as well, at people who have genuinely hurt them, whereas the country was fooled into being mad at the city and striking the first blow. It isn't necessarily the case that the people in the country are dumber. They're just the ones primed for a fight. But the con artists are working over the country people, so from the city's perspective the country people are fools.
• dmos62 2y ago
  That's 78% of farming-dependent counties, not farmers. >78% of any demographic voting at all would be a phenomenal step for democracy.
• gherkinnn 2y ago
  > not by HN crowd Maybe not the HN crowd (though that is debatable, there is no homogenous group here) but a seizable amount of the SV rulers have endorsed him.
  • flowerlad 2y ago
    SV billionaires did vote for him yes, but not HN crowd.
    • krapp 2y ago
      HN has a large Trumpist contingent, plenty of people here voted for him, if only to vote against "wokism."
      • flowerlad 2y ago
        And this is what they got: NIH cuts, US withdrawal from Climate Agreement, vaccine sceptic being made secretary of health, US alienating Europe, proposed ethnic cleansing of Gaza, lying about who started the Ukraine war. Cutting funds to USAID. Threatening to take Greenland by force. Threatening to annex Canada. Proclaiming himself to be King. Constantly "joking" about third term. In retrospect is this what you voted for?
    • dcow 2y ago
      There are more Trump supporters here than you probably realize. They just aren’t ones to wear their political affiliation as a badge for approval, and aren’t as loud, generally.
• thrance 2y ago
  Farmers are not stupid. Read up on petty bourgeoisie and why they tend to support reactionary movements. Hitler too famously found a lot of support in farmers and small businesses. There are very good material reasons to this.
  • watwut 2y ago
    Material reason that they were more blood thirsty and hateful. More wanting to expand German, annex other countries and happy to turn other nations into slaves. They have seen empathy as a weakness, the same some current politicians do. Also, they gained about nothing and seem themselves as the victims by the end of WWII. (Yes, literally they have seen themsevelves as primary victims of what happened.)