10 ms·

Of all the guns that rural Americans love, the humble foot-gun is the most beloved. --- Someone else can argue the morality, ethics, economics, and politics o

by csours 9mo ago

Of all the guns that rural Americans love, the humble foot-gun is the most beloved. --- Someone else can argue the morality, ethics, economics, and politics of it all, but VERY simply, US Federal Government Agencies are machines for redistributing wealth from cities to rural areas. Rural America voted quite heavily to stop those subsidies. That's what efficiency means. --- Maturity means suspending judgement and listening to people you disagree with, but I feel that's very out of style these days.

bruce511 9mo ago
I agree. Personally I don't understand the love that agriculture shows to the Republican party, but hey you get what you vote for. It seems like this whole year has been implementing policy after policy that screws over agriculture. USAid (big purchaser) gone. 40 billion sent to Argentina. Antagonize Canadians (Canadians !!) so they boycott American produce. Tarif China so they'll reciprocate on soy beans. Deport farm workers. Tarif imports of steel so machine costs go up. Tarif fertilizer so production costs go up. Tarif everything else to reduce consumer spending power. Despite all this farmers will continue to vote republican this year, and in future years. I presume they have reasons, but I confess they are hard to understand.
- jiggawatts 9mo ago
  I've been curious about this myself, and I listened to some pro-Trump people who seem otherwise intelligent that tried to explain this effect. One common theme has been that farmers are by necessity highly independent. They can't rely on government services as much as city folk, because everything and everyone is potentially an hour's drive away. They don't see the effect of their taxes being spent, because their local roads are dirt roads, there's no traffic lights, no police cars[1] or ambulances zipping by on the regular, etc... Conversely, they do get frustrated by the likes of the EPA turning up -- invariably city folk with suits and dress shoes -- telling them what to do. "You can't burn this" or "You can't dump that!". More commonly "you can't cut down trees on your land that you thought were your property". Their perception of government is that it violates their God-given rights regularly and gives little in return. The further the seat of power, the worse their opinion of it. Local councils they might tolerate, state governments they view with suspicion, and the federal government may as well be on another planet. Hence, their votes are easily swayed by the "reduce federal government" rhetoric. We all know this is as an obvious falsehood: Trump grew the size of the federal government with his Big Beautiful Bill! So did every Republican government before him for quite a while now! That doesn't matter. Propaganda works. The message resonates. The voters will vote against their own interests over and over and over if they keep hearing something that resonates with what they feel. PS: A great example of this are the thousands of unemployed people that lost their coal mining jobs. Trump lied through his teeth and told them they would get their mining jobs back. Hillary told them they could be retrained as tech support or whatever. They. Did. Not. Like. That. They wanted their jobs back! So they voted for Trump, who had zero chance of returning them to employment because they had been replaced by automation and larger, more powerful mining machines. Their jobs were gone permanently, so they doubled down by voting against the person who promised to pull them out of that hole. Sadly, this is a recurring theme in politics throughout the world. [1] As an example, this is why they're mostly pro-gun! They know viscerally that if someone broke into their property, they'd have to defend themselves because the local police can't get there in time to save them.perception.
  - bruce511 9mo ago
    I buy all this, and I think your analysis is spot on. There's z log of cognitive dissonance going on here. >> One common theme has been that farmers are by necessity highly independent. I think they like to think of themselves as highly independent. But in truth of course they are highly dependent, on city customers for their product, on foreign countries for exports, on federal govt for subsidies (both direct and indirect), on suppliers for machinery, seed and fertilizer, and in some cases on immigrant labor. Just as we are dependent on farmers. It's all interconnected. Ironically they may tolerate local govt, and had federal govt, but they are most dependent on fed govt policies. They do of course have many legitimate grievances, but I'm not sure that voting for the party that seems to hate them is a winning strategy.
    - modo_mario 9mo ago
      >and in some cases on immigrant labor. Why tho do you feel the need to defend big agri businesses skirting employment law and pressuring wages downward by bringing in illegal people? I find it a bit weird looking at the US how they seem to kneejerk into different camps depending on what the other side does with some old outliers like bernie who retain their line. >Ironically they may tolerate local govt, and had federal govt, but they are most dependent on fed govt policies. I live in a much smaller country but here there's similar pressures at play. I feel like a more nuanced take that farmers either don't voice or don't voice well here is that the federal and EU gov has benefited these big corporate farms they compete with because they're by far the best at siphoning off these various subsidies that farmers supposedly depend on. At the same time gov requirements make it almost impossible to run an smaller independent farm or one that doesn't depend on one of these middlemen to an extreme degree. I worked for a meat conglomerate here in belgium and plenty of the farmers they dealt with didn't own their own cows (and plenty went under). They essentially rented their business to the company which owned the animals on their land, provided the calf feed made by their subsidiary, employed a load of vets, had an international transport company, had me and others writing software that would automate the mindbogglingly stupid forms and rules for transport (which were interpreted comically differently by regional departments of the federal food safety agency so depending on the jurisdiction you had to do radically different things). Just the paperwork to run a competitive farm was/would have been impossible to deal with for many of these people and it was so clearly made up by people who never had to deal with the consequences directly. On the other hand there's also plenty of examples of things like the gov rugpulling with environmental legislation in the netherlands. Things like caping farms at past nitrogen emissions (benefiting the big ones) after first encouraging farmers to take loans and invest insane amounts into equipment to reduce those emissions.
- 01100011 9mo ago
  Isn't most ag in the US just big business at this point? Sure, there are still some small farms.. but there are also rich folk like the Treasury Secretary who maintain farms for status and financial benefits(farms get all sorts of special treatment for taxes, bankruptcy and inheritance).
  - joe_mamba 9mo ago
    >farms get all sorts of special treatment for taxes, bankruptcy and inheritance When I see the amount of exploits the wealthy use to avoid taxes and maximize profits, I realize working a 9-5 job is for fools, considering how much taxes I'm paying on my salary.
    - mlrtime 9mo ago
      Agreed, and thats why I continue to vote for representatives who won't raise those taxes. The corruption will continue but at least I don't have to continue to feed it.
      - galangalalgol 9mo ago
        They instead lower taxes for every bracket except those making 2x to 5x the poverty level. The lower brackets are a bribe, and the upper brackets and corporate/payroll tax cuts are the purpose. Meanwhile medicaid getting cut just shifts unpaid er visit costs onto that same middle range. The middle gets hollowed out by both parties.
    - FireBeyond 9mo ago
      In my town, a capital city, near my home there is a vape lounge. In the parking lot of this lounge are 3 Ford F-350 King Ranch Dual Rear Wheels, adorned with a small amount of decalling on the side for the vape lounge. Each of these trucks goes for about $80K. But I suppose they're "company vehicles". And this is before we get to the really wealthy.
  - throwaway2037 9mo ago
    > rich folk like the Treasury Secretary who maintain farms for ... financial benefits This is incorrect. He divested. Google AI tells me: > Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is an investor in North Dakota soybean farmland but has stated he has divested from his holdings to avoid conflicts of interest, addressing criticisms regarding his personal financial stake in agriculture.
- hulitu 9mo ago
  > I presume they have reasons, They vote with the one party because they didn't had a lot of problems with it in power and, when they voted something else, it was worse. Between two evils, people prefer the "familiar" one. Works the same in Europe's "democracies".
  - watwut 9mo ago
    Nah. This is not true. They voted, because they looked forward the harm to liberals and cities and lgbt and women who dont conform and non whites. They wanted other to be harmed and openly talked about it. They thought they will be harmed only a little, like the last time. Historically, republicans were not making policies good for them. By they promissed to be cruel and that was appealing.
    - mlrtime 9mo ago
      And every single time there is discussion from liberals talking about rural voters, they have to mention that they know whats best for them, how they vote against their interests. I keep telling them this strategy doesn't work. The smugness is real and all it does is a) push people farther away and b) get everyone who thinks like you to give you internet karma, both worthless.
      - pjc50 9mo ago
        So what's the alternative strategy that gets them over to ""woke""?
        mlrtime 9mo ago
        Well the first thing is removing identity politics, especially in replies or discussions. Also, not viewing it as "Come to my side". This isn't star wars, rebellion vs empire.
        pjc50 9mo ago
        Convenient shorthand for a huge number of issues. OK then, how about convincing them to support: - impeachment and prosecution for high level corruption (e.g. the Presidential cryptocurrency) - prosecution of constitution-violating police and Federal paramilitaries, e.g. in Minnesota? - leaving LGBT people alone legislatively (at this point I'm not going to ask for improvements, just that the situation not be made worse)
- throwaway422432 9mo ago
  I am not a US citizen, just an observer. What is the alternative when the Democrats appear just as much beholden to corporate finance, and position themselves as the party for city dwellers? I also disagree on the wealth redistribution. Government agencies are managers of risk. * Is there a risk to the country's food security if farmers go bust on mass? Then the Government needs to mitigate that risk. Fairly simple. * This was the explanation from the director general of non-US primary industries department as to the whole reason they exist. Managing biosecurity risks are particularly important, but also managing fishing stocks and helping farmers mitigate their risk.
  - mlrtime 9mo ago
    You are correct, no replies but people don't like your message.
    - mexicocitinluez 9mo ago
      No, they aren't. Go look at the bills coming before congress and tell me how many are voted purely along party lines? Then look at the bills themselves. And the vast majority of the party is actually working towards real change. And guess what's happening to those who don't (the Schumers and Pelosis of the party)? They have a 5% approval rating and have to CONSTANTLY deal with people from their own party telling them to step down.
      - gadflyinyoureye 9mo ago
        They are never voted out.
        mexicocitinluez 9mo ago
        Yes, a handful of people in the Democrat party suck. But that's not the same as saying they're the same as Republicans. Not even remotely close. The "both sides" stuff is an amateur, armchair take that tells me the person doesn't actually follow what's happening. And again, you don't need any more proof that what they actually vote on. Go ahead, look up the bills. How does the "both sides" argument stand up to the fact that we have the most divided congress in almost 100 years?
- jfengel 9mo ago
  The Republican party has a well polished message assigning blame to anyone else: gays, Muslims, illegal immigrants, trans people, feminists, government employees, etc etc etc. If only they can put those people in their places, prosperity will rain down on the proper Americans. As it did in the 1950s when those people didn't exist. It works. And it will keep working.
  - pjc50 9mo ago
    Yes. It's very effective, very dangerous, and it's not at all unique to America; the exact same approach results in high-minority vote shares across Europe.
  - sellmesoap 9mo ago
    I think a lot of it comes down to the rural/urban divide, in a rural setting there's a lot less convinence, fewer services. A need to be more self suficcient. While urban settings have many amenities and services, they also tend to be hotspots for mental illness, crime, lack of housing for those who don't or can't make enough money to afford increasing rent and food costs, it's harder to police (more resources needed) illness from concentrated pollution. Theres some who see the conservative side of politics as fiscally conservative, and the liberal side aiming for more social support. This is a gross simplification of U.S. politics (I'm Canadian, we have a rural divide as well, take a look at how the urban Canadian centres vote vs rural, the difference is our party colours are backwards to yours!) So many rural folks see the tax bill and say "what do I get for this" and many urban folks see the need for stricter regulations, more social support etc. And say "We need more resources, let's throw money at the problem". Coming from a small town if you see someone in need it's not too burdensom to lend a hand, in a dense urban situation it's neccesary to turn your back on the many individuals and say this is a social problem that is more comfortable to abstract to the government to handle. Now subsides for farmers seem weird from my vantage point. On one hand the scale of operations for a farmer do seem lofty compared to my experience as an individual earner, I don't have to budget for sub $1M equipment upkeep/replacement etc. But on the other I'm not beyond considering "conspiracy theroies" like "sugar makes us more susceptable to influance, and lowers immune response, leading to higher healthcare costs" - bassically we are the product not the customer. More importanly there's a rift between "I care" and "I'm paid to care" that's common for social support, just like it's common for the tech industry. All this is an over simplification, but I'd love for us to do better as a whole. I think that starts with people using their empathy and curiosity to understand the divide. Maybe through understanding we can be less judgemental of each other and find ways to work together, or at least understand and build boundaries to make the divide more livable.
- throwaway2037 9mo ago
  > 40 billion sent to Argentina This is nonsense. The US has a 20B USD currency swap agreement with Argentina. Currency swaps aren't free money. It is basically a line of credit between central banks. When you use it, you pay interest on the borrowed money. You would be surprised how many of these exist with the Big Three (US/EU/JP) central banks with other, smaller central banks. Source: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48780 https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48780 > In October 2025, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced U.S. financial support for Argentina, including a $20 billion currency swap line financed through the Treasury Department's Exchange Stabilization Fund (ESF). However, there is very little info about how and when Argentina used it. No tin foil hat here: I'm unsure if this lazy reporting, or lack of transparency (intentionally or accidental). Here is the best that I found: https://www.batimes.com.ar/news/economy/argentina-used-multilateral-funds-to-repay-us25-billion-us-swap.phtml https://www.batimes.com.ar/news/economy/argentina-used-multi... > Last Friday, Argentina fully repaid the US$2.5 billion it obtained from a US$20-billion swap line with the Trump administration > “Our nation has been fully repaid while making tens of millions in USD profit for the American taxpayer,” US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent wrote in a Friday post on X. Final point: It seems like everything I read about highly developed nations: All of them have massive gov't subsidies for agriculture which makes sense from a food security (+influence) perspective. Weirdly, it also seems like most people involved in farming are also fiscally conservative and probably vote right of center. Are there any countries where this isn't true? (I think of one -- NZ has little to no farming subsidies now.)
  - seanhunter 9mo ago
    A currency swap absolutely isn't "basically a line of credit". Any swap is a credit agreement insofar as each party is committing to future possible liabilities, but a currency swap is a very standard instrument which is part of central banks' monetary policy toolkit and helps them in their mandate to ensure currency stability. Swaps can be extremely flexible so the terms differ wildly, but they're not generally a line of credit that can be drawn from, they're an agreement to pay or receive amounts based on future movements of some underlying rates. So what is a currency swap. Well any swap is an agreement with at least two legs, a pay leg and a receive leg. The normal type of swap is a interest rate swap so say I agree to pay you every month 3% fixed interest on 10m USD and you agree to pay me some floating rate (say 3m usd libor + 100bps) interest on the same amount. So every month we do a calculation where if libor+100 is greater than 3 then I pay you otherwise you pay me. We might do this to hedge our interest rate exposure. Like say you're a bank and I'm a bank and most of my borrowers are fixed rate mortgages and most of my savings accounts pay floating rate interest. I want a hedge so the floating rate doesn't end up costing me too much. A currency swap is like that but with different currencies. So say we change things so it's 10m USD on one side and 15m EUR on the other side and we agree to exchange principal amounts. So that sets an exchange rate of 1.5 as well as the interest rate thing from before. If interest rates or exchange rates now move, this provides a hedge. So the hedge now is not just against the rate changing but also against the currency moving adversely. Central banks use this to ensure the import/export vs domestic balance of their economy is appropriate given the levels of trade between nations and also as a hedge against adverse currency movements affecting both assets they hold (yes they hold bonds etc) and their outstanding debt (which for the Fed will include "Eurobonds" they have issued in other currencies than USD). https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/currencyswap.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/currencyswap.asp is a general explanation https://www.ecb.europa.eu/ecb-and-you/explainers/tell-me-more/html/currency_swap_lines.en.html#:~:text=A%20currency%20swap%20line%20is,monetary%20policy%20instruments%20for%20decades. https://www.ecb.europa.eu/ecb-and-you/explainers/tell-me-mor... is the perspective of a central bank on currency swaps and their use
- delfinom 9mo ago
  I think it's actually because of the gun control crap that Dems push. Farmers really like their guns, not because they need it to compensate for themselves, but because they really do largely live in areas where the local police response is 30+ minutes because they are in sparsely populated counties that are just farms, farms and more farms.
  - mexicocitinluez 9mo ago
    > I think it's actually because of the gun control crap that Dems push. Anything specific? Because from where I sit, the Dems aren't anywhere near as strict as they should be wrt to gun control. Or are you just believing the stuff you're hearing from conservative media? Are you really of the belief that "farmers" need assault rifles? What about bump stocks? How many school shooting have we had? What legislation came from those? Can you even name any?
    - slavik81 9mo ago
      The proposed bans on open source 3D printers in Washington and New York would be examples of bad laws proposed by Democrats in the name of gun control. https://hackaday.com/2026/01/19/washington-state-bill-seeks-to-add-firearms-detection-to-3d-printers/ https://hackaday.com/2026/01/19/washington-state-bill-seeks-...
      - mexicocitinluez 9mo ago
        I would say 2 bills that won't pass from state assemblies in 2026 (after decades of school shootings) aren't exactly stellar examples of major legislation that has passed to restrict gun ownership. There's been maybe 1 in the last decade. And really, providing an example of Democrats trying to reign in ghost guns sorta proves my point. You're average citizen can not only buy guns easily, they can make them too!!!!
  - pm90 9mo ago
    You’re buying into Republican propaganda if you believe this.
- deleted 9mo ago
  [deleted]
- Throaway1982 9mo ago
  It's all cultural. The Republicans captured the messaging around "ordinary folk."
- labcomputer 9mo ago
  > Despite all this farmers will continue to vote republican this year, and in future years. I presume they have reasons, but I confess they are hard to understand. All farmers are rich. You have to understand that "farmer" doesn't mean "someone who works on a farm". It means "someone who owns a farm". If you own a farm today (meaning, you didn't go bankrupt sometime in the last 150 years and move on to something else), it is because you were successful at the business of farming. Farming is a business that doesn't scale down. To be successful at farming in the last century, you need a lot of land. You also need a lot of equipment. Thus, the net worth of your "average small farmer" is 10's of millions of dollars. When Republicans talk about tax cuts (especially the estate tax), who do you think they're talking to? Farmers.
  - 9rx 9mo ago
    > All farmers are rich. You have to understand that "farmer" doesn't mean "someone who works on a farm". It means "someone who owns a farm". Rich, as in richer than broke? I opened my farm business with a $15,000 (inflation adjusted) investment. That's a good chunk of change, but probably not what anyone is imagining as rich. The average household keeps more than that in their bank account. It is in the realm of something most can afford to do, if they are willing to stomach the high risk. > If you own a farm today, it is because you were successful at the business of farming. Even on day one of operating the business? Technically you own one, but if you are bankrupt tomorrow, was that really success in the business of farming? Surely there needs to be some kind of proving period at least? > To be successful at farming in the last century, you need a lot of land. Depends on what you want out of it. If your goal is to amass endless assets to sell when you retire, then yes, you need a lot of land (and a lot of debt). If your goal is to provide a tidy income, you can do quite well with a small acreage. And I don't mean some kind of market garden thing, although that is an option too. I mean even plain old commodity farming. It's a lot like the software industry. You can forego a paycheque to try to build a startup that rains fortunes down upon you when you are ready to let go, or you can get a job that pays a decent salary but will never make you unfathomably rich. A farm that has achieved both isn't unheard of, but generally that requires many generations all having great luck. Not exactly the norm. Of course, like the software industry, the "startup" sounds like more fun, so that is certainly where most farms try to go. Someone looking for a paycheque can find that doing any kind of job, so this group also needs to have a deep love for farming; not just an interest in finance like the former can attract. > When Republicans talk about tax cuts (especially the estate tax), who do you think they're talking to? Farmers. In my country there are exceptions carved out for farmers on that front. The public accepts it because "passing down the family farm" over "corporations buying it all" is considered a social good. Why do you think Republicans have to speak (and even apply, perhaps) in broad terms and not simply say "tax cuts for farmers only"? Do Republicans not like farmers? But if they didn't like farmers, why would they ("secretly") introduce tax cuts for farmers?
- _DeadFred_ 9mo ago
  My neighbor rents out his family farm he inherited. The farmer that rented it had his crop fail this year. Because of DOGE's actions, the Government isn't paying out the insurance (insurance that this farmer paid for). The farmer decided to just be done farming (he is old and his farm is small so he rents/farms all the small farms around him). Most of the farms he rented are owned by adult children that inherited the family farm and couldn't bring themselves to sell it but now that they aren't being farmed will probably be sold for rich people estates.
casey2 9mo ago
It's more that farmers are through feeding city leeches. I don't think they care a lick about your "wealth"
- cinntaile 9mo ago
  That would bankrupt the farmers so I don't get this?
- staplers 9mo ago
  Says the guy on a computer.
giancarlostoro 9mo ago
> Maturity means suspending judgement and listening to people you disagree with, but I feel that's very out of style these days. This applies to all of us these days. I'll lump myself in there too. I don't care what "side" you are in, if you get angry hearing someone you disagree with politically you're not helping matters any. We're too polarized. I wish we could stop with the bickering and find common issues we agree on and agree on the solutions and push our reps from 'both sides' to fix the issues in a way we can all agree on. The political theater is too exhausting and unhealthy.
- jyounker 9mo ago
  Political polarization is an active choice made by right-wing media in the US. Creating dissension and outrage is the bread and butter of Fox News, OANN, etc.
  - giancarlostoro 9mo ago
    I never watch TV and especially not news on TV, except when its a major debate that they're broadcasting, I always go for raw unedited sources. So if there's a White House announcement, through every presidency I just go to the White House youtube livestream no commentary, just the raw announcement / press briefing (I did this through all of Trump, Biden and now Trump again, though I've decided to take a break, I'm exhausted mentally). So many years ago, I was in a relatives home. They turn on the news, no big deal. I hear what sounds like a news reporter screaming and whining, I dont pay attention for about 5 minutes because I'm busy reading something on my phone, but I notice it. Then I finally look, and I had no idea what leanings they had at the time since I never watch news but it was CNN and she was saying all sorts of things about Trump in what was very obvious anger (why any organization that calls itself News / Journalistic would ever do this is beyond me). I don't think the hateful rhetoric is exclusive to one side. I think the mainstream media is pushing poison on both ends and any time something tragic happens in either direction I always see clips of news reporters from either side saying the most vile things, regardless of what the issue is or who it affects. In my eyes, TV journalism is mostly dead. I rather stick to local stations that stay focused on things that affect me most directly.
deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]
masfuerte 9mo ago
Funnily enough, British farmers did much the same thing. They voted for Brexit and now they are finding that the British government gives much less of a fuck about them than the EU did.
dataviz1000 9mo ago
My favorite example of this is RFD TV [0], a tv channel dedicated to farmers. The name came from Rural Free Delivery, which was a program by the USPS to ensure farmers in rural areas received mail because it was not profitable for private carriers to deliver in remote and rural areas. Around 2010, realizing that the message of a government program was good for farmers they completely white washed and removed the concept of free [something] from big government being good from all branding, websites, and tv programs. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RFD-TV https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RFD-TV
duxup 9mo ago
There was a NYT article about farmers going to a town hall meeting where they met their federal reps. One farmer mentioned how they've done these meetings for years and nothing changes, maybe they get a handout from the feds, but he says they effectively just go to support the monopolies that they as farmers sell and buy from. Same reps, same meetings every years, nothing happens. Farmer seemed to have all the pieces except the idea that he might want to vote for someone else ...
- gruez 9mo ago
  >Same reps, same meetings every years, nothing happens. Farmer seemed to have all the pieces except the idea that he might want to vote for someone else ... I get it's funny to dunk on dumb Republican farmers voting for the same party for over and over again, and not getting what they want, but it's hardly a farmer or Republican issue. How is this any different than say, Democratic voters who want medicare for all (or whatever) and not getting that for decades?
  - mekdoonggi 9mo ago
    At least (some) Democrats actually say they want Medicare for all. The farmer parallel would be like voting for a Republican hoping for Medicare for all. Though I'm a bit biased, because it seems like if you want anything other than for billionaires to get more money, you would vote Dem.
    - blackcatsec 9mo ago
      to be fair, this isn’t a perfect solution but it does get us much closer to that solution each time. There are still plenty of democrats whom don’t support solving these problems (for any number of reasons, I’m not going to conjecture here why) The best solution I’ve seen is to just keep pushing leftward—even if we only get a few increments here and there.
      - mekdoonggi 9mo ago
        I agree, keep pushing leftward. It feels like we will never get there, but I predict that we will get a wave of change eventually, with folks like Mamdani. Trump dramatically shifted the Overton window rightward, which just means that it's possible to move leftward.
spicymaki 9mo ago
I think that our political class has been captured by corporate interests and both parties in the US are approaching supporting the executive class by manipulating their constituents. With social media it has become especially toxic. They have linked every possible issue to identity and now you need to perform some form of ego death to think independently in accordance to your best interests. Few people have the capacity to accomplish that. We are all mostly voting against our interests. We need to be manipulating the political class to fulfill our needs. That manipulation should be driven by rational discourse informed by scholarly research in addition to respecting the various cultural needs of the society. This particular situation we are in is grave and needs immediate correction.
- csours 9mo ago
  Corporations show up to every election.
- bdangubic 9mo ago
  > That manipulation should be driven by rational discourse informed by scholarly research in addition to respecting the various cultural needs of the society. I don’t think this is possible any longer in times where everyone is “doing their own research.” Unfortunately there is no more “scholarly research” as each and every such “thing” would be (politically) scrutinized. We have lost a common sense of what is “truth” (not lost, politicians etc have successfully taken it away from “us”) and hence I don’t see a path forward in a sane way you are describing it

by csours 9mo ago

bruce511 9mo ago

I agree. Personally I don't understand the love that agriculture shows to the Republican party, but hey you get what you vote for. It seems like this whole year has been implementing policy after policy that screws over agriculture. USAid (big purchaser) gone. 40 billion sent to Argentina. Antagonize Canadians (Canadians !!) so they boycott American produce. Tarif China so they'll reciprocate on soy beans. Deport farm workers. Tarif imports of steel so machine costs go up. Tarif fertilizer so production costs go up. Tarif everything else to reduce consumer spending power. Despite all this farmers will continue to vote republican this year, and in future years. I presume they have reasons, but I confess they are hard to understand.

jiggawatts 9mo ago
I've been curious about this myself, and I listened to some pro-Trump people who seem otherwise intelligent that tried to explain this effect. One common theme has been that farmers are by necessity highly independent. They can't rely on government services as much as city folk, because everything and everyone is potentially an hour's drive away. They don't see the effect of their taxes being spent, because their local roads are dirt roads, there's no traffic lights, no police cars[1] or ambulances zipping by on the regular, etc... Conversely, they do get frustrated by the likes of the EPA turning up -- invariably city folk with suits and dress shoes -- telling them what to do. "You can't burn this" or "You can't dump that!". More commonly "you can't cut down trees on your land that you thought were your property". Their perception of government is that it violates their God-given rights regularly and gives little in return. The further the seat of power, the worse their opinion of it. Local councils they might tolerate, state governments they view with suspicion, and the federal government may as well be on another planet. Hence, their votes are easily swayed by the "reduce federal government" rhetoric. We all know this is as an obvious falsehood: Trump grew the size of the federal government with his Big Beautiful Bill! So did every Republican government before him for quite a while now! That doesn't matter. Propaganda works. The message resonates. The voters will vote against their own interests over and over and over if they keep hearing something that resonates with what they feel. PS: A great example of this are the thousands of unemployed people that lost their coal mining jobs. Trump lied through his teeth and told them they would get their mining jobs back. Hillary told them they could be retrained as tech support or whatever. They. Did. Not. Like. That. They wanted their jobs back! So they voted for Trump, who had zero chance of returning them to employment because they had been replaced by automation and larger, more powerful mining machines. Their jobs were gone permanently, so they doubled down by voting against the person who promised to pull them out of that hole. Sadly, this is a recurring theme in politics throughout the world. [1] As an example, this is why they're mostly pro-gun! They know viscerally that if someone broke into their property, they'd have to defend themselves because the local police can't get there in time to save them.perception.
- bruce511 9mo ago
  I buy all this, and I think your analysis is spot on. There's z log of cognitive dissonance going on here. >> One common theme has been that farmers are by necessity highly independent. I think they like to think of themselves as highly independent. But in truth of course they are highly dependent, on city customers for their product, on foreign countries for exports, on federal govt for subsidies (both direct and indirect), on suppliers for machinery, seed and fertilizer, and in some cases on immigrant labor. Just as we are dependent on farmers. It's all interconnected. Ironically they may tolerate local govt, and had federal govt, but they are most dependent on fed govt policies. They do of course have many legitimate grievances, but I'm not sure that voting for the party that seems to hate them is a winning strategy.
  - modo_mario 9mo ago
    >and in some cases on immigrant labor. Why tho do you feel the need to defend big agri businesses skirting employment law and pressuring wages downward by bringing in illegal people? I find it a bit weird looking at the US how they seem to kneejerk into different camps depending on what the other side does with some old outliers like bernie who retain their line. >Ironically they may tolerate local govt, and had federal govt, but they are most dependent on fed govt policies. I live in a much smaller country but here there's similar pressures at play. I feel like a more nuanced take that farmers either don't voice or don't voice well here is that the federal and EU gov has benefited these big corporate farms they compete with because they're by far the best at siphoning off these various subsidies that farmers supposedly depend on. At the same time gov requirements make it almost impossible to run an smaller independent farm or one that doesn't depend on one of these middlemen to an extreme degree. I worked for a meat conglomerate here in belgium and plenty of the farmers they dealt with didn't own their own cows (and plenty went under). They essentially rented their business to the company which owned the animals on their land, provided the calf feed made by their subsidiary, employed a load of vets, had an international transport company, had me and others writing software that would automate the mindbogglingly stupid forms and rules for transport (which were interpreted comically differently by regional departments of the federal food safety agency so depending on the jurisdiction you had to do radically different things). Just the paperwork to run a competitive farm was/would have been impossible to deal with for many of these people and it was so clearly made up by people who never had to deal with the consequences directly. On the other hand there's also plenty of examples of things like the gov rugpulling with environmental legislation in the netherlands. Things like caping farms at past nitrogen emissions (benefiting the big ones) after first encouraging farmers to take loans and invest insane amounts into equipment to reduce those emissions.
01100011 9mo ago
Isn't most ag in the US just big business at this point? Sure, there are still some small farms.. but there are also rich folk like the Treasury Secretary who maintain farms for status and financial benefits(farms get all sorts of special treatment for taxes, bankruptcy and inheritance).
- joe_mamba 9mo ago
  >farms get all sorts of special treatment for taxes, bankruptcy and inheritance When I see the amount of exploits the wealthy use to avoid taxes and maximize profits, I realize working a 9-5 job is for fools, considering how much taxes I'm paying on my salary.
  - mlrtime 9mo ago
    Agreed, and thats why I continue to vote for representatives who won't raise those taxes. The corruption will continue but at least I don't have to continue to feed it.
    - galangalalgol 9mo ago
      They instead lower taxes for every bracket except those making 2x to 5x the poverty level. The lower brackets are a bribe, and the upper brackets and corporate/payroll tax cuts are the purpose. Meanwhile medicaid getting cut just shifts unpaid er visit costs onto that same middle range. The middle gets hollowed out by both parties.
  - FireBeyond 9mo ago
    In my town, a capital city, near my home there is a vape lounge. In the parking lot of this lounge are 3 Ford F-350 King Ranch Dual Rear Wheels, adorned with a small amount of decalling on the side for the vape lounge. Each of these trucks goes for about $80K. But I suppose they're "company vehicles". And this is before we get to the really wealthy.
- throwaway2037 9mo ago
  > rich folk like the Treasury Secretary who maintain farms for ... financial benefits This is incorrect. He divested. Google AI tells me: > Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is an investor in North Dakota soybean farmland but has stated he has divested from his holdings to avoid conflicts of interest, addressing criticisms regarding his personal financial stake in agriculture.
hulitu 9mo ago
> I presume they have reasons, They vote with the one party because they didn't had a lot of problems with it in power and, when they voted something else, it was worse. Between two evils, people prefer the "familiar" one. Works the same in Europe's "democracies".
- watwut 9mo ago
  Nah. This is not true. They voted, because they looked forward the harm to liberals and cities and lgbt and women who dont conform and non whites. They wanted other to be harmed and openly talked about it. They thought they will be harmed only a little, like the last time. Historically, republicans were not making policies good for them. By they promissed to be cruel and that was appealing.
  - mlrtime 9mo ago
    And every single time there is discussion from liberals talking about rural voters, they have to mention that they know whats best for them, how they vote against their interests. I keep telling them this strategy doesn't work. The smugness is real and all it does is a) push people farther away and b) get everyone who thinks like you to give you internet karma, both worthless.
    - pjc50 9mo ago
      So what's the alternative strategy that gets them over to ""woke""?
      - mlrtime 9mo ago
        Well the first thing is removing identity politics, especially in replies or discussions. Also, not viewing it as "Come to my side". This isn't star wars, rebellion vs empire.
        pjc50 9mo ago
        Convenient shorthand for a huge number of issues. OK then, how about convincing them to support: - impeachment and prosecution for high level corruption (e.g. the Presidential cryptocurrency) - prosecution of constitution-violating police and Federal paramilitaries, e.g. in Minnesota? - leaving LGBT people alone legislatively (at this point I'm not going to ask for improvements, just that the situation not be made worse)
throwaway422432 9mo ago
I am not a US citizen, just an observer. What is the alternative when the Democrats appear just as much beholden to corporate finance, and position themselves as the party for city dwellers? I also disagree on the wealth redistribution. Government agencies are managers of risk. * Is there a risk to the country's food security if farmers go bust on mass? Then the Government needs to mitigate that risk. Fairly simple. * This was the explanation from the director general of non-US primary industries department as to the whole reason they exist. Managing biosecurity risks are particularly important, but also managing fishing stocks and helping farmers mitigate their risk.
- mlrtime 9mo ago
  You are correct, no replies but people don't like your message.
  - mexicocitinluez 9mo ago
    No, they aren't. Go look at the bills coming before congress and tell me how many are voted purely along party lines? Then look at the bills themselves. And the vast majority of the party is actually working towards real change. And guess what's happening to those who don't (the Schumers and Pelosis of the party)? They have a 5% approval rating and have to CONSTANTLY deal with people from their own party telling them to step down.
    - gadflyinyoureye 9mo ago
      They are never voted out.
      - mexicocitinluez 9mo ago
        Yes, a handful of people in the Democrat party suck. But that's not the same as saying they're the same as Republicans. Not even remotely close. The "both sides" stuff is an amateur, armchair take that tells me the person doesn't actually follow what's happening. And again, you don't need any more proof that what they actually vote on. Go ahead, look up the bills. How does the "both sides" argument stand up to the fact that we have the most divided congress in almost 100 years?
jfengel 9mo ago
The Republican party has a well polished message assigning blame to anyone else: gays, Muslims, illegal immigrants, trans people, feminists, government employees, etc etc etc. If only they can put those people in their places, prosperity will rain down on the proper Americans. As it did in the 1950s when those people didn't exist. It works. And it will keep working.
- pjc50 9mo ago
  Yes. It's very effective, very dangerous, and it's not at all unique to America; the exact same approach results in high-minority vote shares across Europe.
- sellmesoap 9mo ago
  I think a lot of it comes down to the rural/urban divide, in a rural setting there's a lot less convinence, fewer services. A need to be more self suficcient. While urban settings have many amenities and services, they also tend to be hotspots for mental illness, crime, lack of housing for those who don't or can't make enough money to afford increasing rent and food costs, it's harder to police (more resources needed) illness from concentrated pollution. Theres some who see the conservative side of politics as fiscally conservative, and the liberal side aiming for more social support. This is a gross simplification of U.S. politics (I'm Canadian, we have a rural divide as well, take a look at how the urban Canadian centres vote vs rural, the difference is our party colours are backwards to yours!) So many rural folks see the tax bill and say "what do I get for this" and many urban folks see the need for stricter regulations, more social support etc. And say "We need more resources, let's throw money at the problem". Coming from a small town if you see someone in need it's not too burdensom to lend a hand, in a dense urban situation it's neccesary to turn your back on the many individuals and say this is a social problem that is more comfortable to abstract to the government to handle. Now subsides for farmers seem weird from my vantage point. On one hand the scale of operations for a farmer do seem lofty compared to my experience as an individual earner, I don't have to budget for sub $1M equipment upkeep/replacement etc. But on the other I'm not beyond considering "conspiracy theroies" like "sugar makes us more susceptable to influance, and lowers immune response, leading to higher healthcare costs" - bassically we are the product not the customer. More importanly there's a rift between "I care" and "I'm paid to care" that's common for social support, just like it's common for the tech industry. All this is an over simplification, but I'd love for us to do better as a whole. I think that starts with people using their empathy and curiosity to understand the divide. Maybe through understanding we can be less judgemental of each other and find ways to work together, or at least understand and build boundaries to make the divide more livable.
throwaway2037 9mo ago
> 40 billion sent to Argentina This is nonsense. The US has a 20B USD currency swap agreement with Argentina. Currency swaps aren't free money. It is basically a line of credit between central banks. When you use it, you pay interest on the borrowed money. You would be surprised how many of these exist with the Big Three (US/EU/JP) central banks with other, smaller central banks. Source: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48780 https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48780 > In October 2025, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced U.S. financial support for Argentina, including a $20 billion currency swap line financed through the Treasury Department's Exchange Stabilization Fund (ESF). However, there is very little info about how and when Argentina used it. No tin foil hat here: I'm unsure if this lazy reporting, or lack of transparency (intentionally or accidental). Here is the best that I found: https://www.batimes.com.ar/news/economy/argentina-used-multilateral-funds-to-repay-us25-billion-us-swap.phtml https://www.batimes.com.ar/news/economy/argentina-used-multi... > Last Friday, Argentina fully repaid the US$2.5 billion it obtained from a US$20-billion swap line with the Trump administration > “Our nation has been fully repaid while making tens of millions in USD profit for the American taxpayer,” US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent wrote in a Friday post on X. Final point: It seems like everything I read about highly developed nations: All of them have massive gov't subsidies for agriculture which makes sense from a food security (+influence) perspective. Weirdly, it also seems like most people involved in farming are also fiscally conservative and probably vote right of center. Are there any countries where this isn't true? (I think of one -- NZ has little to no farming subsidies now.)
- seanhunter 9mo ago
  A currency swap absolutely isn't "basically a line of credit". Any swap is a credit agreement insofar as each party is committing to future possible liabilities, but a currency swap is a very standard instrument which is part of central banks' monetary policy toolkit and helps them in their mandate to ensure currency stability. Swaps can be extremely flexible so the terms differ wildly, but they're not generally a line of credit that can be drawn from, they're an agreement to pay or receive amounts based on future movements of some underlying rates. So what is a currency swap. Well any swap is an agreement with at least two legs, a pay leg and a receive leg. The normal type of swap is a interest rate swap so say I agree to pay you every month 3% fixed interest on 10m USD and you agree to pay me some floating rate (say 3m usd libor + 100bps) interest on the same amount. So every month we do a calculation where if libor+100 is greater than 3 then I pay you otherwise you pay me. We might do this to hedge our interest rate exposure. Like say you're a bank and I'm a bank and most of my borrowers are fixed rate mortgages and most of my savings accounts pay floating rate interest. I want a hedge so the floating rate doesn't end up costing me too much. A currency swap is like that but with different currencies. So say we change things so it's 10m USD on one side and 15m EUR on the other side and we agree to exchange principal amounts. So that sets an exchange rate of 1.5 as well as the interest rate thing from before. If interest rates or exchange rates now move, this provides a hedge. So the hedge now is not just against the rate changing but also against the currency moving adversely. Central banks use this to ensure the import/export vs domestic balance of their economy is appropriate given the levels of trade between nations and also as a hedge against adverse currency movements affecting both assets they hold (yes they hold bonds etc) and their outstanding debt (which for the Fed will include "Eurobonds" they have issued in other currencies than USD). https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/currencyswap.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/currencyswap.asp is a general explanation https://www.ecb.europa.eu/ecb-and-you/explainers/tell-me-more/html/currency_swap_lines.en.html#:~:text=A%20currency%20swap%20line%20is,monetary%20policy%20instruments%20for%20decades. https://www.ecb.europa.eu/ecb-and-you/explainers/tell-me-mor... is the perspective of a central bank on currency swaps and their use
delfinom 9mo ago
I think it's actually because of the gun control crap that Dems push. Farmers really like their guns, not because they need it to compensate for themselves, but because they really do largely live in areas where the local police response is 30+ minutes because they are in sparsely populated counties that are just farms, farms and more farms.
- mexicocitinluez 9mo ago
  > I think it's actually because of the gun control crap that Dems push. Anything specific? Because from where I sit, the Dems aren't anywhere near as strict as they should be wrt to gun control. Or are you just believing the stuff you're hearing from conservative media? Are you really of the belief that "farmers" need assault rifles? What about bump stocks? How many school shooting have we had? What legislation came from those? Can you even name any?
  - slavik81 9mo ago
    The proposed bans on open source 3D printers in Washington and New York would be examples of bad laws proposed by Democrats in the name of gun control. https://hackaday.com/2026/01/19/washington-state-bill-seeks-to-add-firearms-detection-to-3d-printers/ https://hackaday.com/2026/01/19/washington-state-bill-seeks-...
    - mexicocitinluez 9mo ago
      I would say 2 bills that won't pass from state assemblies in 2026 (after decades of school shootings) aren't exactly stellar examples of major legislation that has passed to restrict gun ownership. There's been maybe 1 in the last decade. And really, providing an example of Democrats trying to reign in ghost guns sorta proves my point. You're average citizen can not only buy guns easily, they can make them too!!!!
- pm90 9mo ago
  You’re buying into Republican propaganda if you believe this.
deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]
Throaway1982 9mo ago
It's all cultural. The Republicans captured the messaging around "ordinary folk."
labcomputer 9mo ago
> Despite all this farmers will continue to vote republican this year, and in future years. I presume they have reasons, but I confess they are hard to understand. All farmers are rich. You have to understand that "farmer" doesn't mean "someone who works on a farm". It means "someone who owns a farm". If you own a farm today (meaning, you didn't go bankrupt sometime in the last 150 years and move on to something else), it is because you were successful at the business of farming. Farming is a business that doesn't scale down. To be successful at farming in the last century, you need a lot of land. You also need a lot of equipment. Thus, the net worth of your "average small farmer" is 10's of millions of dollars. When Republicans talk about tax cuts (especially the estate tax), who do you think they're talking to? Farmers.
- 9rx 9mo ago
  > All farmers are rich. You have to understand that "farmer" doesn't mean "someone who works on a farm". It means "someone who owns a farm". Rich, as in richer than broke? I opened my farm business with a $15,000 (inflation adjusted) investment. That's a good chunk of change, but probably not what anyone is imagining as rich. The average household keeps more than that in their bank account. It is in the realm of something most can afford to do, if they are willing to stomach the high risk. > If you own a farm today, it is because you were successful at the business of farming. Even on day one of operating the business? Technically you own one, but if you are bankrupt tomorrow, was that really success in the business of farming? Surely there needs to be some kind of proving period at least? > To be successful at farming in the last century, you need a lot of land. Depends on what you want out of it. If your goal is to amass endless assets to sell when you retire, then yes, you need a lot of land (and a lot of debt). If your goal is to provide a tidy income, you can do quite well with a small acreage. And I don't mean some kind of market garden thing, although that is an option too. I mean even plain old commodity farming. It's a lot like the software industry. You can forego a paycheque to try to build a startup that rains fortunes down upon you when you are ready to let go, or you can get a job that pays a decent salary but will never make you unfathomably rich. A farm that has achieved both isn't unheard of, but generally that requires many generations all having great luck. Not exactly the norm. Of course, like the software industry, the "startup" sounds like more fun, so that is certainly where most farms try to go. Someone looking for a paycheque can find that doing any kind of job, so this group also needs to have a deep love for farming; not just an interest in finance like the former can attract. > When Republicans talk about tax cuts (especially the estate tax), who do you think they're talking to? Farmers. In my country there are exceptions carved out for farmers on that front. The public accepts it because "passing down the family farm" over "corporations buying it all" is considered a social good. Why do you think Republicans have to speak (and even apply, perhaps) in broad terms and not simply say "tax cuts for farmers only"? Do Republicans not like farmers? But if they didn't like farmers, why would they ("secretly") introduce tax cuts for farmers?
_DeadFred_ 9mo ago
My neighbor rents out his family farm he inherited. The farmer that rented it had his crop fail this year. Because of DOGE's actions, the Government isn't paying out the insurance (insurance that this farmer paid for). The farmer decided to just be done farming (he is old and his farm is small so he rents/farms all the small farms around him). Most of the farms he rented are owned by adult children that inherited the family farm and couldn't bring themselves to sell it but now that they aren't being farmed will probably be sold for rich people estates.

casey2 9mo ago

It's more that farmers are through feeding city leeches. I don't think they care a lick about your "wealth"

cinntaile 9mo ago
That would bankrupt the farmers so I don't get this?
staplers 9mo ago
Says the guy on a computer.

giancarlostoro 9mo ago

> Maturity means suspending judgement and listening to people you disagree with, but I feel that's very out of style these days. This applies to all of us these days. I'll lump myself in there too. I don't care what "side" you are in, if you get angry hearing someone you disagree with politically you're not helping matters any. We're too polarized. I wish we could stop with the bickering and find common issues we agree on and agree on the solutions and push our reps from 'both sides' to fix the issues in a way we can all agree on. The political theater is too exhausting and unhealthy.

jyounker 9mo ago
Political polarization is an active choice made by right-wing media in the US. Creating dissension and outrage is the bread and butter of Fox News, OANN, etc.
- giancarlostoro 9mo ago
  I never watch TV and especially not news on TV, except when its a major debate that they're broadcasting, I always go for raw unedited sources. So if there's a White House announcement, through every presidency I just go to the White House youtube livestream no commentary, just the raw announcement / press briefing (I did this through all of Trump, Biden and now Trump again, though I've decided to take a break, I'm exhausted mentally). So many years ago, I was in a relatives home. They turn on the news, no big deal. I hear what sounds like a news reporter screaming and whining, I dont pay attention for about 5 minutes because I'm busy reading something on my phone, but I notice it. Then I finally look, and I had no idea what leanings they had at the time since I never watch news but it was CNN and she was saying all sorts of things about Trump in what was very obvious anger (why any organization that calls itself News / Journalistic would ever do this is beyond me). I don't think the hateful rhetoric is exclusive to one side. I think the mainstream media is pushing poison on both ends and any time something tragic happens in either direction I always see clips of news reporters from either side saying the most vile things, regardless of what the issue is or who it affects. In my eyes, TV journalism is mostly dead. I rather stick to local stations that stay focused on things that affect me most directly.

deleted 9mo ago

[deleted]

masfuerte 9mo ago

Funnily enough, British farmers did much the same thing. They voted for Brexit and now they are finding that the British government gives much less of a fuck about them than the EU did.

dataviz1000 9mo ago

My favorite example of this is RFD TV [0], a tv channel dedicated to farmers. The name came from Rural Free Delivery, which was a program by the USPS to ensure farmers in rural areas received mail because it was not profitable for private carriers to deliver in remote and rural areas. Around 2010, realizing that the message of a government program was good for farmers they completely white washed and removed the concept of free [something] from big government being good from all branding, websites, and tv programs. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RFD-TV https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RFD-TV

duxup 9mo ago

There was a NYT article about farmers going to a town hall meeting where they met their federal reps. One farmer mentioned how they've done these meetings for years and nothing changes, maybe they get a handout from the feds, but he says they effectively just go to support the monopolies that they as farmers sell and buy from. Same reps, same meetings every years, nothing happens. Farmer seemed to have all the pieces except the idea that he might want to vote for someone else ...

gruez 9mo ago
>Same reps, same meetings every years, nothing happens. Farmer seemed to have all the pieces except the idea that he might want to vote for someone else ... I get it's funny to dunk on dumb Republican farmers voting for the same party for over and over again, and not getting what they want, but it's hardly a farmer or Republican issue. How is this any different than say, Democratic voters who want medicare for all (or whatever) and not getting that for decades?
- mekdoonggi 9mo ago
  At least (some) Democrats actually say they want Medicare for all. The farmer parallel would be like voting for a Republican hoping for Medicare for all. Though I'm a bit biased, because it seems like if you want anything other than for billionaires to get more money, you would vote Dem.
  - blackcatsec 9mo ago
    to be fair, this isn’t a perfect solution but it does get us much closer to that solution each time. There are still plenty of democrats whom don’t support solving these problems (for any number of reasons, I’m not going to conjecture here why) The best solution I’ve seen is to just keep pushing leftward—even if we only get a few increments here and there.
    - mekdoonggi 9mo ago
      I agree, keep pushing leftward. It feels like we will never get there, but I predict that we will get a wave of change eventually, with folks like Mamdani. Trump dramatically shifted the Overton window rightward, which just means that it's possible to move leftward.

spicymaki 9mo ago

I think that our political class has been captured by corporate interests and both parties in the US are approaching supporting the executive class by manipulating their constituents. With social media it has become especially toxic. They have linked every possible issue to identity and now you need to perform some form of ego death to think independently in accordance to your best interests. Few people have the capacity to accomplish that. We are all mostly voting against our interests. We need to be manipulating the political class to fulfill our needs. That manipulation should be driven by rational discourse informed by scholarly research in addition to respecting the various cultural needs of the society. This particular situation we are in is grave and needs immediate correction.

csours 9mo ago
Corporations show up to every election.
bdangubic 9mo ago
> That manipulation should be driven by rational discourse informed by scholarly research in addition to respecting the various cultural needs of the society. I don’t think this is possible any longer in times where everyone is “doing their own research.” Unfortunately there is no more “scholarly research” as each and every such “thing” would be (politically) scrutinized. We have lost a common sense of what is “truth” (not lost, politicians etc have successfully taken it away from “us”) and hence I don’t see a path forward in a sane way you are describing it