|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:It's virtually impossible to have avoided hearing about *something* Trump has done in the past eight years that any reasonable voter would consider utterly disqualifying. Nobody doesn't know who Trump is at this point. His voters aren't ignorant, they want to vote for what he's selling. He's selling many things. Some will vote because he's a racist and will build the wall, some will vote because he sent out checks, created the eviction moratorium, because he's promising to bring jobs back, because inflation wasn't bad when he was president, because you've always voted Republican, because he's being persecuted, because he makes funny posts, because the other guy is worse. There are only two major candidates to choose from, so you've gotta pick one of them.
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2024 13:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 12:09 |
|
|
One rural vote fact that I've always found interesting, which is top of mind because I'm driving up to Vermont's Northeast Kingdom later today, is that the New England rural vote is not pro Trump and the Republicans that get elected statewide are the last of the Rockefeller Republican types. I've always chalked this up to a different relationship with religion (pretty Christian but the quiet don't wear it on your sleeve kind), OG Yankee culture, and perhaps regular engagement with outsider tourists. But if it's those factors, it's not replicable in the short term in other rural areas.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2024 14:23
|
|
|
Dopilsya posted:Oh good. Their only motivation being hate and bigotry, then when a President does something bad to people who are brown and Muslim (a two-for-one bigotry deal!) they're going to be all over that. Donald Trump was merely content with banning them from the country, Joe Biden went out and earned himself the epithet "Genocide Joe" for his murderous rampages against the people they hate most. Sounds like Democrats can expect a crushing victory in all these soon to be former Republican strongholds. Probably not, Donald the Dove has repeatedly announced his intentions to one up Biden in this regard, so between that and his prior history of hurting the people they hate in-country instead of somewhere else he's got that segment pretty locked up. That said though I think you're very confused about what either Biden or Trump goes out to do at night, I don't think either of them have murdered anyone or rampaged through a city. RBA Starblade fucked around with this message at 14:35 on Apr 7, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2024 14:32
|
|
|
RealityWarCriminal posted:He's selling many things. Some will vote because he's a racist and will build the wall, some will vote because he sent out checks, created the eviction moratorium, because he's promising to bring jobs back, because inflation wasn't bad when he was president, because you've always voted Republican, because he's being persecuted, because he makes funny posts, because the other guy is worse. There are only two major candidates to choose from, so you've gotta pick one of them. He's a package deal tho. Anybody voting for, say, low inflation Trump, is at least fine with all the rest as the price for [low inflation]. Anyone voting for him is actively choosing the whole package.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2024 15:40
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:Probably not, Donald the Dove has repeatedly announced his intentions to one up Biden in this regard, so between that and his prior history of hurting the people they hate in-country instead of somewhere else he's got that segment pretty locked up. I also very much suspect that Republicans who know anything at all about the Gaza invasion generally still do not think Israel is engaging in genocide / deliberate mass murder by famine. Prior to the murder of the world kitchen workers, that wasn't an especially common view among your average low-but-some-info democrats. In fairness MSNBC was getting harsher on Israel and that's unironically a significant driver in that demographic. SA posters do not, as a rule, operate in the same information environment as the general population. I don't have a great grasp of what that information environment looks like outside of the entirely submersed far right media watchers and a small anecdotal smattering of [The Libs  ].I do know that Israel and Israel-aligned media has been pushing the "actually we're being really restrained in the face of these savage animals" angle, and that seems to get some traction with the far right in the sense of "Israel's being unfairly maligned and should probably just stop being softies and kill em all".
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2024 15:57
|
|
|
Majorian posted:What you've presented isn't data, however, nor are the arguments you're making backed by any sort of data. It's more data than anyone else has posted in this entire conversation. If you've got something better and more statistically significant, please feel free to post it. I'm not one of the people saying that rural voters are motivated solely by hate. I'm saying that when they complain about Democrats destroying their way of life, they're talking about social and cultural disagreements, which is why they reject Dem policy solutions. And while some of these disagreements are straight-up bigotry, there's a reason I went out of my way to select one that isn't! And that's also why I purposely avoided quoting the parts of the report that talk about the "racially coded language" and "racist dog whistles" some of the respondents used when talking about the people they thought did not value hard work. I'm also not one of the people saying that these voters are unwinnable. In fact, I believe that we badly need to win them! Writing off substantial chunks of the population as irredeemably fascist is a very bad place to be. But we can't seriously talk about winning them over if we're unwilling to seriously confront the very real policy disagreements that caused rural America to swing so hard toward the GOP. Understanding what they care about means actually listening to them, instead of trying to hamfistedly squeeze their beliefs into the stuff we already support and refusing to acknowledge the significant gaps between what they want and what we're offering. Even if their wants seem superficially similar to what we want, the differences are significant, and if we try to sweep those differences aside or negotiate them away, then they're going to see us as just another wave of dumbass elitist Democrats refusing to actually listen to rural America.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2024 16:18
|
|
|
For what's it's worth, the only time my wife was ever called the n word was out in the sticks of the California desert. After the guy sped off, we were reassured by the soon-to-be Trump voters that "we're not like that," but big city folks like us knew better.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2024 16:27
|
|
|
How far should we go in courting those votes? Should transgender people be told they just have to give up and die if they can't pass because in order to get the votes of individuals who want to screech about boys in their daughter's bathroom we have to stop publicly voicing support for the existence of transgendered individuals? Should women just stop being so loud about bodily autonomy if it turns off those rural voters to think about the messy medical reality of abortion instead of their idealized fantasy of every sperm being sacred and producing exactly one (1) perfect angel baby? If "speaking their language" means no longer showing positive support for other populations how far down that rabbit hole do we go before it becomes a binary this group/that group calculation? Because every single step you take down that path is one that a fascist is gleefully waiting out there ready to take advantage of by attacking the populations that get left behind.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2024 16:34
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:What, are my broad characterizations of an entire demographic less valid than your broad characterizations of an entire demographic? You're talking about "their way of life" and then complaining that other people are broadly characterizing them? buddy, the thrust of my argument was "maybe we should stop treating rural americans like some unsalvageable demographic of human trash" and you responded by inventing a guy: Main Paineframe posted:And then they drive past a construction site with a non-white person on the crew, and they can't help but spend several minutes letting you know exactly what they think about "Mexicans" and what should be done about them. and this isn't even one of your precious data-backed examples, either - you spun this yarn out of nothing. and then i ask what you're on about and you shoot back with "yeah well we're both making broad characterizations, so who's to say what's good or bad". i'm trying to argue that maybe, perhaps, possibly, potentially, just giving up on an entire demographic because a good chunk of them are not great people is a bad idea because the key identifier of where they live has nothing to do with the hate that has infected so many of their minds. to counter that, you made up some poo poo to get mad at. we are not the same.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2024 16:45
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:He's a package deal tho. Anybody voting for, say, low inflation Biden, is at least fine with all the rest as the price for [low inflation]. Anyone voting for him is actively choosing [genocide in Palestine]. Tell me the difference? Note, I don't actually believe the above, but this thread generally seems to come down very hard on people pushing this line with regard to Biden, but seems ok with it when placed on their political enemies. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2024 17:04
|
|
|
Kith posted:i'm trying to argue that maybe, perhaps, possibly, potentially, just giving up on an entire demographic because a good chunk of them are not great people is a bad idea because the key identifier of where they live has nothing to do with the hate that has infected so many of their minds. Demonstrably false because a group clearly influences the individuals within it. Being raised hateful is not so different from being raised within a certain religion in that the biggest predictor of what your religious views will be is where you were born. In the case of rural people, there is also a feedback loop of forgotten town, undereducated population, young people wanting to leave for those reasons, town gets worse, let's blame brown people, etc. But this isn't limited to rural people. Where I lived in Brooklyn, my heavily Italian-American block was pro-Trump. I remember one neighbor across the street yelling to someone that "slavery ended a long time ago." But go up one block where people were less Italian, they voted for Biden. Go to another more Asian block, Biden. The point is the family and place in which they were born clearly influences their voting habits and beliefs. Yes, rural people typically have shittier beliefs than city people. This isn't surprising.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2024 17:05
|
|
|
Kith posted:i'm trying to argue that maybe, perhaps, possibly, potentially, just giving up on an entire demographic because a good chunk of them are not great people is a bad idea because the key identifier of where they live has nothing to do with the hate that has infected so many of their minds. You're wrong here, they identify extremely strongly with that and it influences them against the outgroup. This kind of voter is also the sort who believes in Real America. The urban population, even the Republicans there, aren't part of it. It's part of where you see some of the cultural trappings like boots and cowboy hats or megatrucks comes from in cities, playing pretend to appeal to them. Dubya's persona is a good example of this. RBA Starblade fucked around with this message at 17:12 on Apr 7, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2024 17:09
|
|
|
The problem with all the Rural America discussion is that it’s really Fox News America. You need to cut off the firehose of propaganda on TV and social media before anything else can happen. There’s plenty of stuff that can and should be done like the aforementioned Right to Repair legislation (screw John Deere) but it’s not going to fix things by itself.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2024 17:27
|
|
|
bird food bathtub posted:How far should we go in courting those votes? Should transgender people be told they just have to give up and die if they can't pass because in order to get the votes of individuals who want to screech about boys in their daughter's bathroom we have to stop publicly voicing support for the existence of transgendered individuals? Should women just stop being so loud about bodily autonomy if it turns off those rural voters to think about the messy medical reality of abortion instead of their idealized fantasy of every sperm being sacred and producing exactly one (1) perfect angel baby? In the interest of not turning this into electoral strategy chat, I'll keep this brief: If I'm correct and it's not just 100% hate that motivates rural voters, then one probably doesn't need to throw trans people or abortion rights under the bus at all. You court them by giving them something to vote for that will positively, materially affect their lives and then running on it like crazy. Will it work to win over every single voter in those states? Of course not. But it'll peel a good chunk of them off. Enough to win states like Iowa? Who knows, but it's probably worth taking a chance.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2024 17:32
|
|
|
The other problem is there is Rural America and “Rural America” (Suburban small businesses owners that drive a F350, listens to modern country, and goes to the mega church.) It’s a messy category when people are talking to each other about it. The actual demographic category doesn’t line up with the cultural signifier.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2024 17:35
|
|
|
Majorian posted:In the interest of not turning this into electoral strategy chat, I'll keep this brief: If I'm correct and it's not just 100% hate that motivates rural voters, then one probably doesn't need to throw trans people or abortion rights under the bus at all. You court them by giving them something to vote for that will positively, materially affect their lives and then running on it like crazy. Will it work to win over every single voter in those states? Of course not. But it'll peel a good chunk of them off. Enough to win states like Iowa? Who knows, but it's probably worth taking a chance. But isn't that what people are saying before, that historically policy things that "materially affect their lives" aren't enough to swing the voters? What are specific things/message that you are proposing would work here?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2024 17:45
|
|
|
WarpedLichen posted:But isn't that what people are saying before, that historically policy things that "materially affect their lives" aren't enough to swing the voters? To make any impact on this particular election, Biden's going to have to run pretty drat hard on his accomplishments and convincingly make the case that they will materially benefit rural voters' lives in the medium-term future. That's a tough case to make, but according to this NYT piece that's the campaign strategy for the moment: quote:Mr. Biden, however, may also be hampered by the very nature of his major legislation, which is meant to achieve transformational and long-term goals like rebuilding the nation’s infrastructure, combating climate change and reinvigorating manufacturing. Problems of that magnitude cannot be solved instantly — or even before voters go to the polls in November. Without immediate results, ambitious legislation can be harder to market. quote:In contrast, Mr. Trump brought about more tangible changes when he was in office, like cutting taxes and reshaping the Supreme Court. Although those measures do not necessarily poll well among the broader electorate, they could allow him to drive turnout among Republicans at a time when Mr. Biden is struggling to energize his own base. quote:[/His campaign message has increasingly focused on expanding many of those initiatives to benefit more Americans. At his State of the Union address, Mr. Biden ran through a list of ways he would use a second term to build on the achievements of his first. We'll see if that works. It may be too late for this strategy to have much of an electoral impact, but I think it's probably the best shot he has to rack up rural votes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2024 17:58
|
|
|
Kith posted:buddy, the thrust of my argument was "maybe we should stop treating rural americans like some unsalvageable demographic of human trash" and you responded by inventing a guy: Let me assure you, directly, that it was not a fictional example. It came from multiple direct personal experiences. It's no more fictional than your rural guys that only care about tractor wheel pressure sensors and right to repair. Hell, my personal experiences with rural people even came from the same region that yours do! I grew up fifty miles from Jacksonville. Please stop acting like you're the only person who's ever interacted with rural people in person, and please stop assuming that everyone besides yourself is just making up fake rural strawmen. Yes, I agree that giving up on them is a bad idea. But that doesn't mean we can handwave away the very real cultural clashes on display and instead succumb to wishful thinking and fantasy about what their beliefs actually are. When they wax poetic about how they're "told that their way of life is wrong because it's not modern or urban enough", they're not saying that because they "try to live within their means instead of chasing ever-larger salaries", and they're not saying that because they think urbanites are looking down on trade schools. Majorian posted:In the interest of not turning this into electoral strategy chat, I'll keep this brief: If I'm correct and it's not just 100% hate that motivates rural voters, then one probably doesn't need to throw trans people or abortion rights under the bus at all. You court them by giving them something to vote for that will positively, materially affect their lives and then running on it like crazy. Will it work to win over every single voter in those states? Of course not. But it'll peel a good chunk of them off. Enough to win states like Iowa? Who knows, but it's probably worth taking a chance. The thing that started off this entire conversation in the first place is an article saying that this doesn't work, because rural people prioritize these social and cultural differences over their actual material conditions. That it's not enough to just improve their conditions, that those improvements in their conditions have to be done in ways that they find culturally tolerable. And now we're arguing over what, exactly, qualifies as culturally tolerable to rural Americans, because the article pointedly refused to go into specifics about what exactly qualifies as culturally tolerable, let alone why Republicans are able to meet that bar while Democrats aren't.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2024 18:00
|
|
|
Majorian posted:To make any impact on this particular election, Biden's going to have to run pretty drat hard on his accomplishments and convincingly make the case that they will materially benefit rural voters' lives in the medium-term future. That's a tough case to make, but according to this NYT piece that's the campaign strategy for the moment: Well the feds keep extending waivers that make it easy for us to get people on benefits like SNAP, but you know who hates food stamps and "those people" that get them? Republicans who are having nearly every need met by government programs. If Biden ran on "these are the things that meaningfully impact your lives, we're doing them for you," they'd believe it for all of 3 seconds before Fox News tells them that what Biden means is that he's going to give all your benefits to illegals and other types of people who "don't deserve it."
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2024 18:07
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Let me assure you, directly, that it was not a fictional example. It came from multiple direct personal experiences. It's no more fictional than your rural guys that only care about tractor wheel pressure sensors and right to repair. Hell, my personal experiences with rural people even came from the same region that yours do! I grew up fifty miles from Jacksonville. Please stop acting like you're the only person who's ever interacted with rural people in person, and please stop assuming that everyone besides yourself is just making up fake rural strawmen. at no point have i ever claimed to be the only person who's ever interacted with rural folks and it's extremely weird that you'd interpret anything i've said in that way also if you don't people to think that you're making up strawmen you should probably not present your examples as if they were strawmen that you just made up will say other things later when i have more time e: actually i decided that i will not say other things later because this conversation sucks, my last word on the subject is that i'm really loving tired of watching the dehumanization of a manipulated and misguided people. it could be made better if anyone gave a poo poo and reached out to these folks, but that would take effort, so whatever better just let the conservatives have them i guess Kith fucked around with this message at 23:04 on Apr 7, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2024 18:11
|
|
|
Majorian posted:To make any impact on this particular election, Biden's going to have to run pretty drat hard on his accomplishments and convincingly make the case that they will materially benefit rural voters' lives in the medium-term future. That's a tough case to make, but according to this NYT piece that's the campaign strategy for the moment: That's kinda been the default strategy for decades and it's kinda had middling success? I guess it seemed like what people were proposing is that there is a pitch that Democrats haven't been doing that would work wonders but never saying what it is while the "rural voters are motivated by hate side" are arguing, if I can put it charitably, that the Republicans win by default on vibes if the Democrats advocate for positive social change (LGBTQ issues, gender equality, etc.) so your economic policies would have to do some heavy lifting to counteract those negatives. You don't need to believe rural voters are all fascists to believe that those changes make them uncomfortable to some degree.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2024 18:18
|
|
|
I like using anecdotes and data-free arguments as much as (or possibly more than) everyone else, but lets try to dial the dueling anecdote fight down to a 3 and make a few more arguments that are objective and falsifiable. Though it may be difficult to really come up with an answer as to whether its either hopeless or possible to reach Trump and/or rural voters, and whether they need to be persuaded or (politically) fought.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2024 18:22
|
|
|
PharmerBoy posted:Tell me the difference?  if Trump were president now he'd have either nuked Gaza two months ago or we'd already be in a shooting war with Iran or he'd have declared World Central Kitchen a terrorist organization or something even dumber and more horrible than any of those because he's not just evil and fascist he's also a genuine, actual idiot and a narcissist who refuses to listen to outside advice or counsel, the worst possible kind of person to have in charge in any crisis. If you wanted a better choice than Biden in this election . .. that dream died when Biden won South Carolina in 2020. Now we are where we are. At least Biden is theoretically persuadable towards improvement, so it's possible for a reasonable person to think "Biden is bad in a lot of ways but the rest of the party / popular pressure might lead him to improve, and he's the least bad option." With Trump, his supporters are just voting for a human bomb. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 18:38 on Apr 7, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2024 18:26
|
|
|
Majorian posted:In the interest of not turning this into electoral strategy chat, I'll keep this brief: If I'm correct and it's not just 100% hate that motivates rural voters, then one probably doesn't need to throw trans people or abortion rights under the bus at all. You court them by giving them something to vote for that will positively, materially affect their lives and then running on it like crazy. Will it work to win over every single voter in those states? Of course not. But it'll peel a good chunk of them off. Enough to win states like Iowa? Who knows, but it's probably worth taking a chance. It'd be worth reading the article that was linked earlier, the thesis is that rural voters are voting GOP out of resentment, not because they are doing more to materially improve their lives. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/04/05/white-rural-rage-myth-00150395
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2024 18:35
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:
This isn't really a response to the post you're quoting. The post you're quoting is criticizing your claim that anyone who votes for Trump is "actively choosing the whole package." Hieronymous Alloy posted:He's a package deal tho. Anybody voting for, say, low inflation Trump, is at least fine with all the rest as the price for [low inflation]. Anyone voting for him is actively choosing the whole package. Pharmerboy is challenging you by saying, "if that's true, then anyone who votes for Biden is also choosing the whole package, including his increasingly controversial support for the state of Israel despite its well-documented crimes against humanity in Gaza." He (I'm assuming Pharmerboy is a boy) is challenging the idea that voters endorse/"choose" everything about a candidate. They might be making a totally different calculation, like "this one is the lesser of two evils - I'm not fine with him but I'd be even less fine with the other guy." I don't like putting words in someone else's mouth but I think Pharmerboy's implicit point here is that many people have made/will make exactly that calculation and voted/will vote Biden, and many people have made/will make exactly that calculation and vote Trump. And in neither case does it make sense to infer that they are "at least fine with" the sum of everything that candidate represents or will do. Your reply to Pharmerboy doesn't rebut that response at all - it's responding as if Pharmerboy had accused all Biden supporters of approving of Biden's Israel policy, when in fact Pharmerboy's precise point is that they don't. In fact it backs up Pharmerboy's point, because you respond by evaluating Biden in relation to Trump as the lesser of two evils. You're (logically) defending your (very reasonable) voting choice (or endorsement) not as an embrace of "the whole package" by itself but in comparison to the only other available package. And (I think) Pharmerboy's point is - yeah, a lot of Biden voters do that, and so do a lot of Trump voters, but we in our liberal bubble might not realize that Trump voters are doing it too. Put differently, when we see someone vote for Trump, we might make inferences about how they feel about Trump, and the intuitive inference there is that they like Trump on the whole. But the voting decision really only gives us information on how much they like Trump relative to Clinton/Biden - it's possible they're totally cognizant of Trump's flaws and believe he was/will be a disastrous POTUS, but they have the (mistaken) impression that Clinton/Biden is/would be even worse. Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 18:53 on Apr 7, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2024 18:44
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:The other problem is there is Rural America and “Rural America” (Suburban small businesses owners that drive a F350, listens to modern country, and goes to the mega church.) I'm from central Wyoming, and guys that wear western ranchwear all the time like cowboy hats and cowboy boots, tight jeans, and rodeo belts are usually poseurs that wear that poo poo at parties or at the bar. They're just scene kids that got their gear at Boot Barn, Murdoch's, or Big R, just like mallgoths who were served by Hot Topic and Spencers. The people that live on the edge of town or out in the exurbs love wearing a tan suit, bolo tie, and a potato chip on their head. Your typical rancher dresses more like Hank Hill than John Travolta from Urban Cowboy. T-shirt, jeans, whatever boots or shoes they find comfortable (ranch boots, leather work books, sneakers, whatever) and a ball cap. If they need to keep the sun off their neck, then they might wear a ten gallon hat. Add layers when needed, like a hoodie or a winter coat. The fancy poo poo comes out for formal occasions or maybe rodeo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2024 18:45
|
|
|
Bellmaker posted:The problem with all the Rural America discussion is that it’s really Fox News America. You need to cut off the firehose of propaganda on TV and social media before anything else can happen. there's a weird irony that transportation and telecom technology both expands and shrinks worlds/ideas. whatever small town culture existed before is now just replaced by the will of big city elites.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2024 18:47
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:
I addressed that in an edit, or attempted to. The difference is that Biden is a relatively normal human being who sometimes can be persuaded to change his mind. It's rational to think "well, I don't like X about Biden, but I like Y, and maybe if I write some letters or participate in some marches, I can force Biden to improve." You can rationally believe that Biden is improvable and his current stances aren't necessarily fixed. A vote for Trump, by contrast, is just a bomb thrown at the world. He's a fascist and an idiot. You can't even expect him to do what you want, because he's always lying and he always fucks up even the things he actually attempts to do. It's the difference between voting for a compromise candidate for school board then picketing the school board meeting vs. chucking a molotov over the playground wall. Anyone voting for Trump has fundamentally decided they're ok setting the world on fire. He's a candidate for nihilists. edit: vvvv I said "relatively" !!! I think it was clear I meant "relatively" compared with Trump. Someone can believe Biden is as horrible as they want and still make a rational choice to vote or not vote for him. Sure. Imight agree or disagree with that choice but, sure, people make choices. A vote for Trump isn't even a choice, it's just a vote for maximal entropy. VVV Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 19:12 on Apr 7, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2024 19:00
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:The difference is that Biden is a relatively normal human being we've had only a scant few normal humans in our seats of power (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2024 19:06
|
|
|
Kith posted:It's really not that hard, most of these folks just want to be left alone and allowed to maintain their "traditions". "We feel that our cause is just and holy; we protest solemnly in the face of mankind that we desire peace at any sacrifice, save that of honor and independence; we seek no conquest, no aggrandizement, no concession of any kind from the States with which we were lately confederated; all we ask is to be let alone" - Confederate President Jefferson Davis, April 1861
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2024 19:08
|
|
|
At what point though, does the outreach fall of deaf ears? Clinton offered tons of material support to rural areas. Biden offered ways to revitalize these areas. The problem isn't that the Democrats don't reach out, it's that they don't like the message that their way of life might have to change every so slightly. I can't find the studies sadly but we talked about this numerous times. White voters love benefits, if only white people get them. If people of color are perceived to benefit, they will vote against it even if it benefits them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2024 19:14
|
|
|
The I/P thread has been reopened, for those interested.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2024 19:14
|
|
|
All Democrats have to offer rural America is neoliberalism. Their solution is to let them eat tech.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2024 20:03
|
|
|
World Famous W posted:most normal humans ain't rapist and give cover to genocidal nations Are you sure about 'won't give cover to genocidal nations'?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2024 20:11
|
|
|
wouldn't have typed it otherwise go ahead and make your point
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2024 20:19
|
|
|
I think the history of the United States, of Germany, of Turkey, of Israel, of Japan, of a lot of countries over s long time - that history does indicate that it's pretty normal for a person to be complicit in crimes committed by their state, or enabled by their state - in what they do and don't do, in what they say and don't say. Because they've sincerely internalized the ideology that justifies the crimes or because they're scared of the consequences from speaking out. In this sense Joe Biden's actions toward Israel are deeply normal, and what a normal person would do, in the context of holding a political job where both the political system and public culture are deeply pro-Israel. He's going with the flow, doing what makes sense to keep his job and best satisfies the people and power around him, like a normal person. What's abnormal, unfortunately, is the moral insight and courage required to stand up and disagree with the people and power around you, and say "no this is wrong, our government needs to stop perpetrating/funding/defending crimes against humanity." Joe Biden's failure to demonstrate this insight or this courage might be the most normal thing about him. Ideally our representative democracy would choose leaders who are abnormally conscious and courageous but those exact traits tend to totally inhibit someone's capacity to get support from political machines. There's a reason the book "Ordinary Men" is about Holocaust perpetrators and not anti-Nazi dissidents. Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 21:09 on Apr 7, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2024 20:36
|
|
|
So it’s all the bridges basically. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...ce=articleShare Again I think we should be requiring tugs for all large vessel bridge transit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2024 21:11
|
|
|
World Famous W posted:wouldn't have typed it otherwise I thought it'd be pretty obvious. People love giving cover to genocide, even when they don't have any sort of excuse. Otherwise genocidal nations wouldn't exist. So it's an unfortunately 'normal' trait (that I loathe).
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2024 21:18
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I addressed that in an edit, or attempted to. This is true, and seems very obvious, but if we're trying to describe the reasoning process of the Trump voter, we have to keep in mind that there's a vast media landscape designed to make people believe the exact opposite, and it works. I've seen Trump voters say it: Trump is deeply imperfect, even a bad President, but at least he's not demented (as in, literally afflicted by dementia) in the way Biden is. So we gotta Vote Red No Matter Who. And if you really believe that - and billions of dollars are spent every year to make people believe it - then you might vote for Trump even though you think Trump will be a bad president. In fact I'm pretty sure that at least a million people will vote with that reasoning in 2024. Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 22:36 on Apr 7, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2024 22:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 12:09 |
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:This is true, and seems very obvious, but if we're trying to describe the reasoning process of the Trump voter, we have to keep in mind that there's a vast media landscape designed to make people believe the exact opposite, and it works. I've seen Trump voters say it: Trump is deeply imperfect, even a bad President, but at least he's not demented (as in, literally afflicted by dementia) in the way Biden is. So we gotta Vote Red No Matter Who. That's a fair point -- and I raised the fox news problem earlier myself -- but ultimately it's verging into philosophical-zombie territory; you have to start debating the morality of people who ultimately have been stripped of their agency, and after a certain point the why of their actions is something past consideration. The right wing propaganda machine damages people. If you want to rephrase my thesis above as "Anyone voting for Trump is either actively choosing the whole package, or badly brainwashed by right-wing media" then, sure, that's a fair point, but either branch of that fork takes you to the same place -- someone who is fundamentally unreachable by anything left wing or Democratic politicians propose, someone who functionally will ignore all Democratic policy and who is not basing their vote on rational self-interested decision making, but on something else (either delusions, or spite). So all we can really do is wait for them to die off and hope younger generations don't watch as much cable news or listen to as much right wing talk radio. Youtube is free of that stuff right? None of that nazi poo poo on youtube or twitter? You might make the point that cult deprogramming is possible but. . . not at the necessary scale. Sure you can sometimes do interventions and get people out but just . . . not at the scale that would be necessary to shift vote percentages.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2024 22:51
|
|