Why you should vote for Trump

[Politesse]

If American rural dwellers don't want to be perceived as villains, it's quite simple, stop acting like villains and stop supporting villainous politicians. However, many rural dwellers have a big problem - they have been subjected to psychological conditioning and propaganda, and are too mentally lazy to analyze it and their beliefs rationally. Analyses trying to justify their attitudes are useless unless they propose a realistic solution.

Rural America is not a monolith. This sort of class bigotry is feeding the problem, not solving it.

 

[bilby]

Some of the posts disparage Trump voters, especially rural whites. I do this much too often myself. And, as if in answer to this fault, the article "What Liberals Get Wrong About ‘White Rural Rage’ — Almost Everything' appeared in my news-feed.

Taken as a whole, rural voters are not merely reacting against change — be it demographic or economic. They are actively seeking to preserve a sense of agency over their future and a continuity of their community’s values and social structures. Some might call this conservatism, but I think it is the same thing motivating fears of gentrification in urban areas, or the desire to “keep Portland weird.” Place matters for a whole bunch of people — but especially for rural folks.

Consider the fact, as I discuss in my book, that rural Americans are the most likely to say that if given the chance, they would never want to leave their community, while at the same time they are the most likely to say that children growing up in their specific community will have to leave in order to live productive lives. Could any single policy solve that dilemma?

Instead of a politics that seeks to understand and represent these contradictions, the left wants to simplify ruralness into something it’s not. In the immediate aftermath of 2016, blaming rural people was a way to make sense of the surprise of Trump’s election. This latest obsession with rage is the next chapter, a kind of collective cry of frustration from tired progressives: “We give up!” There is a general tendency among the readers of the New York Times and viewers of MSNBC to think about politics in purely transactional terms: We give you these benefits, you give us your votes. And rural voters, as Waldman is right to note, aren’t living up to that supposed bargain.

But this flies in the face of what research on resentment actually tells us. For many rural residents, the solutions they seek may not always come neatly packaged as government policies, white papers or policy briefs pumped out of a campaign war room. I’ve found that resentments exist because self-reliance and local problem-solving is intrinsic to rural identity, and self-reliance is something by nature resistant to government policies emanating from Washington, D.C.

One of the favorite pastimes of progressives is to brag about Inclusiveness. Perhaps the perspective of rural Americans should be included too.

From the article you quoted, it appears that the rural American complaint is founded in their desire NOT to be included. Certainly not in any group that is, or appears to be, progressive.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Ya know what? General statements about a group of people, that are statistically accurate, for lack of a better term, are not an example of bigotry or hatred.

 

[Elixir]

If American rural dwellers don't want to be perceived as villains, it's quite simple, stop acting like villains and stop supporting villainous politicians.

Speaking for American rural dwellers, fuck that shit! They’re all villainous politicians. They all need to go home and leave us the hell alone. We were doing fine. MAGA

 

[Rhea]

If American rural dwellers don't want to be perceived as villains, it's quite simple, stop acting like villains and stop supporting villainous politicians.

Speaking for American rural dwellers, fuck that shit! They’re all villainous politicians. They all need to go home and leave us the hell alone. We were doing fine. MAGA

Actual conversation between two rural elected officials; one a democrat and one a “radical constitutionalist.” I repeat BOTH are elected officials, aka “politicians.”

Democrat: And this is what we need to do to serve the community with respect to this year’s budget.
Radical Constitutionalist: You say that, but that’s because you’re a politician.
D: Dude. You are also a politician.
RC: No, I am not.
D: Dude, we are both elected officials, to the same office. We are literally having this conversation at a public town board meeting. In front of our constituents. We are both politicians.
RC: You are a politician because you want to steal money from our wallets to fund socialist programs like the senior lunch, the youth park program and the library. I am not a politician.
D: What is it that you are, then, what are you that lets you sit at this table in the front of the town board meeting? If you’re not a politician holding a political office, what are you?
RC: I am a Patriot.


Elixer has it right.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm not surprised. It's a way insurance companies have found to cut costs--inadequate provider networks. They need legislation with some real teeth, but that's not going to happen because it would bite the government (Medicare/Medicaid/Tricare) even more than it would bite the insurance companies. Same as that measure against surprise bills excluded ambulances because an awful lot of ambulances are government operated.

Unless it were rolled into a single system.

There is ZERO reason that Patient A with Insurance X should pay a different amount for the same service/procedure than Patient B with Insurance Y should pay. Or why I have to jump through hoops I don't actually need to jump through in order to have Z procedure that is not done in network.

Which does not address my point at all. The system is badly messed up, but the UHC "solution" is probably jumping from the frying pan to the fire.

 

[Elixir]

the UHC "solution" is probably jumping from the frying pan to the fire

The fire that is incinerating Austria, Belarus, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Malta, Moldova, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom? Oh, and Canada? If that burns down we're going to certainly catch on fire!

What we have now are the delays and system overloads we are warned about being a side effect of UHC, while also saddled with the expense of supporting a humongous private health insurance industry and an inestimably profitable pharmaceutical conglomerate.
I call bullshit.
I also don't hear people from the above countries complaining like Americans do about their health care systems.

 

[ZiprHead]

Why should I vote for Trump?

Maybe I like getting my ass reamed with a rusty railroad spike covered in barbed wire.

 

[Toni]

I'm not surprised. It's a way insurance companies have found to cut costs--inadequate provider networks. They need legislation with some real teeth, but that's not going to happen because it would bite the government (Medicare/Medicaid/Tricare) even more than it would bite the insurance companies. Same as that measure against surprise bills excluded ambulances because an awful lot of ambulances are government operated.

Unless it were rolled into a single system.

There is ZERO reason that Patient A with Insurance X should pay a different amount for the same service/procedure than Patient B with Insurance Y should pay. Or why I have to jump through hoops I don't actually need to jump through in order to have Z procedure that is not done in network.

Which does not address my point at all. The system is badly messed up, but the UHC "solution" is probably jumping from the frying pan to the fire.

Well, it does. You just don't get my post.

 

[Elixir]

Why should I vote for Trump?

Maybe I like getting my ass reamed with a rusty railroad spike covered in barbed wire.

That was last time. This time you can forget the rusty spike, just fold an eight foot section of barbed wire into a one foot length, and have at it.

 

[ZiprHead]

Why should I vote for Trump?

Maybe I like getting my ass reamed with a rusty railroad spike covered in barbed wire.

That was last time. This time you can forget the rusty spike, just fold an eight foot section of barbed wire into a one foot length, and have at it.

Sounds like you've been thinking about that for a while.

 

[ideologyhunter]

I heard that Trump cancelled the eclipse, stating that it would terrify his base, who would assume the Deep State was attacking under cover of darkness.
Myth?

 

[Tigers!]

Some of the posts disparage Trump voters, especially rural whites. I do this much too often myself. And, as if in answer to this fault, the article "What Liberals Get Wrong About ‘White Rural Rage’ — Almost Everything' appeared in my news-feed.

Taken as a whole, rural voters are not merely reacting against change — be it demographic or economic. They are actively seeking to preserve a sense of agency over their future and a continuity of their community’s values and social structures. Some might call this conservatism, but I think it is the same thing motivating fears of gentrification in urban areas, or the desire to “keep Portland weird.” Place matters for a whole bunch of people — but especially for rural folks.

Consider the fact, as I discuss in my book, that rural Americans are the most likely to say that if given the chance, they would never want to leave their community, while at the same time they are the most likely to say that children growing up in their specific community will have to leave in order to live productive lives. Could any single policy solve that dilemma?

Instead of a politics that seeks to understand and represent these contradictions, the left wants to simplify ruralness into something it’s not. In the immediate aftermath of 2016, blaming rural people was a way to make sense of the surprise of Trump’s election. This latest obsession with rage is the next chapter, a kind of collective cry of frustration from tired progressives: “We give up!” There is a general tendency among the readers of the New York Times and viewers of MSNBC to think about politics in purely transactional terms: We give you these benefits, you give us your votes. And rural voters, as Waldman is right to note, aren’t living up to that supposed bargain.

But this flies in the face of what research on resentment actually tells us. For many rural residents, the solutions they seek may not always come neatly packaged as government policies, white papers or policy briefs pumped out of a campaign war room. I’ve found that resentments exist because self-reliance and local problem-solving is intrinsic to rural identity, and self-reliance is something by nature resistant to government policies emanating from Washington, D.C.

One of the favorite pastimes of progressives is to brag about Inclusiveness. Perhaps the perspective of rural Americans should be included too.

You are asking a lot of progressives there.

 

[Politesse]

Some of the posts disparage Trump voters, especially rural whites. I do this much too often myself. And, as if in answer to this fault, the article "What Liberals Get Wrong About ‘White Rural Rage’ — Almost Everything' appeared in my news-feed.

Taken as a whole, rural voters are not merely reacting against change — be it demographic or economic. They are actively seeking to preserve a sense of agency over their future and a continuity of their community’s values and social structures. Some might call this conservatism, but I think it is the same thing motivating fears of gentrification in urban areas, or the desire to “keep Portland weird.” Place matters for a whole bunch of people — but especially for rural folks.

Consider the fact, as I discuss in my book, that rural Americans are the most likely to say that if given the chance, they would never want to leave their community, while at the same time they are the most likely to say that children growing up in their specific community will have to leave in order to live productive lives. Could any single policy solve that dilemma?

Instead of a politics that seeks to understand and represent these contradictions, the left wants to simplify ruralness into something it’s not. In the immediate aftermath of 2016, blaming rural people was a way to make sense of the surprise of Trump’s election. This latest obsession with rage is the next chapter, a kind of collective cry of frustration from tired progressives: “We give up!” There is a general tendency among the readers of the New York Times and viewers of MSNBC to think about politics in purely transactional terms: We give you these benefits, you give us your votes. And rural voters, as Waldman is right to note, aren’t living up to that supposed bargain.

But this flies in the face of what research on resentment actually tells us. For many rural residents, the solutions they seek may not always come neatly packaged as government policies, white papers or policy briefs pumped out of a campaign war room. I’ve found that resentments exist because self-reliance and local problem-solving is intrinsic to rural identity, and self-reliance is something by nature resistant to government policies emanating from Washington, D.C.

One of the favorite pastimes of progressives is to brag about Inclusiveness. Perhaps the perspective of rural Americans should be included too.

You are asking a lot of progressives there.

On what issues? Progressives are more than happy to address issues that face rural communities, in my experience. Plenty of progressives are rural dwellers themselves, despite what certain country singers would have you believe, and are very much involved in local politics, often at considerable risk to themselves. Is it your idea that progressives, upon hearing a conversation about farming, or water use, or paucity of medical services, or underfunding of rural schools, refuse to engage in discussions of those issues? This has not been my experience, having grown up in a small town myself.

Hell, in what parts of the country are progressives in a position to allow or deny inclusion to anyone? In most American small towns, if a progressive is sitting on the city council or the local water board / grange or what have you, they are the only one there with values even remotely appriximating their own. They are in no position to tell anyone not to speak, just securing their own right to speak will be a constant challenge. Even in urban regions, it's rare to see a progressive majority within any policymaking body. Liberal, yes, progressive, no. So even if they wanted someone excluded, who's going to listen?

 

[Tigers!]

Some of the posts disparage Trump voters, especially rural whites. I do this much too often myself. And, as if in answer to this fault, the article "What Liberals Get Wrong About ‘White Rural Rage’ — Almost Everything' appeared in my news-feed.

Taken as a whole, rural voters are not merely reacting against change — be it demographic or economic. They are actively seeking to preserve a sense of agency over their future and a continuity of their community’s values and social structures. Some might call this conservatism, but I think it is the same thing motivating fears of gentrification in urban areas, or the desire to “keep Portland weird.” Place matters for a whole bunch of people — but especially for rural folks.

Consider the fact, as I discuss in my book, that rural Americans are the most likely to say that if given the chance, they would never want to leave their community, while at the same time they are the most likely to say that children growing up in their specific community will have to leave in order to live productive lives. Could any single policy solve that dilemma?

Instead of a politics that seeks to understand and represent these contradictions, the left wants to simplify ruralness into something it’s not. In the immediate aftermath of 2016, blaming rural people was a way to make sense of the surprise of Trump’s election. This latest obsession with rage is the next chapter, a kind of collective cry of frustration from tired progressives: “We give up!” There is a general tendency among the readers of the New York Times and viewers of MSNBC to think about politics in purely transactional terms: We give you these benefits, you give us your votes. And rural voters, as Waldman is right to note, aren’t living up to that supposed bargain.

But this flies in the face of what research on resentment actually tells us. For many rural residents, the solutions they seek may not always come neatly packaged as government policies, white papers or policy briefs pumped out of a campaign war room. I’ve found that resentments exist because self-reliance and local problem-solving is intrinsic to rural identity, and self-reliance is something by nature resistant to government policies emanating from Washington, D.C.

One of the favorite pastimes of progressives is to brag about Inclusiveness. Perhaps the perspective of rural Americans should be included too.

You are asking a lot of progressives there.

On what issues? Progressives are more than happy to address issues that face rural communities, in my experience. Plenty of progressives are rural dwellers themselves, despite what certain country singers would have you believe, and are very much involved in local politics, often at considerable risk to themselves. Is it your idea that progressives, upon hearing a conversation about farming, or water use, or paucity of medical services, or underfunding of rural schools, refuse to engage in discussions of those issues? This has not been my experience, having grown up in a small town myself.

Hell, in what parts of the country are progressives in a position to allow or deny inclusion to anyone? In most American small towns, if a progressive is sitting on the city council or the local water board / grange or what have you, they are the only one there with values even remotely appriximating their own. They are in no position to tell anyone not to speak, just securing their own right to speak will be a constant challenge. Even in urban regions, it's rare to see a progressive majority within any policymaking body. Liberal, yes, progressive, no. So even if they wanted someone excluded, who's going to listen?

I am best placed to comment about Australia rather than the US but there does appear to be much overlap between our countries. These fora are a good place to meet, discuss and compare POVs.

Australia loaded with many who call themselves "progressives". They are very vocal on our airwaves, media etc.
One of their cry's is that many voters are voting against their best interest. It took me quite a while to work out that they mean those who are not as "progressive" (whatever that may mean) as themselves .
Their plaintive cry is quite ironic as it is my experience having met, worked, socialised with these self-identified progressives for > 40 years that most of them have absolutely no idea what the self-interest of any non-progressive may be. I say this as I have been on the receiving end of "progressives" telling so many times that I do not know what my or my families best interests actually are. Funnily enough the best judge of my best interests is generally myself rather than another. All it takes is the expression of an opinion that the the progressive considers so ignorant or gauche to be given a serve on how, why you are so wrong and how much better your life would be if only you would listen and obey your superiors.

They do not know because they so rarely listen or even care. They are too busy telling non-progressives what is supposedly in their best interests and why they should vote, act in a certain direction. I am constantly astounded that the alleged self-interests of the non-progressive align neatly with the interests of the progressives.

On those exceptionally rare ocassions when these progressives deign to talk, or even more rarely actually listen as well, to non-progressives they are rude, condescending, patronising, dismissive, interrupt etc. They are so certain they have all the answers and that the benighted non-progressives should do as their self-determined betters tell them.

And the progressives wonder why they are rarely listened to.

 

[Elixir]

I have been on the receiving end of "progressives" telling so many times that I do not know what my or my families best interests actually are. ... They do not know because they so rarely listen or even care. They are too busy telling non-progressives what is supposedly in their best interests and why they should vote, act in a certain direction.

See, the problem is that Aussies are so complicated. Over here, when someone speaks of "self interest" it is usually interchangeable with "money".

 

[Elixir]

Why should I vote for Trump?

Maybe I like getting my ass reamed with a rusty railroad spike covered in barbed wire.

That was last time. This time you can forget the rusty spike, just fold an eight foot section of barbed wire into a one foot length, and have at it.

Sounds like you've been thinking about that for a while.

Hey, don't minimize the effort it took to condense the thought into such a short sentence!
I mean, the analogy leapt to mind immediately, but it's not that easy to 'splain!

 

[ZiprHead]

Some of the posts disparage Trump voters, especially rural whites. I do this much too often myself. And, as if in answer to this fault, the article "What Liberals Get Wrong About ‘White Rural Rage’ — Almost Everything' appeared in my news-feed.

Taken as a whole, rural voters are not merely reacting against change — be it demographic or economic. They are actively seeking to preserve a sense of agency over their future and a continuity of their community’s values and social structures. Some might call this conservatism, but I think it is the same thing motivating fears of gentrification in urban areas, or the desire to “keep Portland weird.” Place matters for a whole bunch of people — but especially for rural folks.

Consider the fact, as I discuss in my book, that rural Americans are the most likely to say that if given the chance, they would never want to leave their community, while at the same time they are the most likely to say that children growing up in their specific community will have to leave in order to live productive lives. Could any single policy solve that dilemma?

Instead of a politics that seeks to understand and represent these contradictions, the left wants to simplify ruralness into something it’s not. In the immediate aftermath of 2016, blaming rural people was a way to make sense of the surprise of Trump’s election. This latest obsession with rage is the next chapter, a kind of collective cry of frustration from tired progressives: “We give up!” There is a general tendency among the readers of the New York Times and viewers of MSNBC to think about politics in purely transactional terms: We give you these benefits, you give us your votes. And rural voters, as Waldman is right to note, aren’t living up to that supposed bargain.

But this flies in the face of what research on resentment actually tells us. For many rural residents, the solutions they seek may not always come neatly packaged as government policies, white papers or policy briefs pumped out of a campaign war room. I’ve found that resentments exist because self-reliance and local problem-solving is intrinsic to rural identity, and self-reliance is something by nature resistant to government policies emanating from Washington, D.C.

One of the favorite pastimes of progressives is to brag about Inclusiveness. Perhaps the perspective of rural Americans should be included too.

You are asking a lot of progressives there.

On what issues? Progressives are more than happy to address issues that face rural communities, in my experience. Plenty of progressives are rural dwellers themselves, despite what certain country singers would have you believe, and are very much involved in local politics, often at considerable risk to themselves. Is it your idea that progressives, upon hearing a conversation about farming, or water use, or paucity of medical services, or underfunding of rural schools, refuse to engage in discussions of those issues? This has not been my experience, having grown up in a small town myself.

Hell, in what parts of the country are progressives in a position to allow or deny inclusion to anyone? In most American small towns, if a progressive is sitting on the city council or the local water board / grange or what have you, they are the only one there with values even remotely appriximating their own. They are in no position to tell anyone not to speak, just securing their own right to speak will be a constant challenge. Even in urban regions, it's rare to see a progressive majority within any policymaking body. Liberal, yes, progressive, no. So even if they wanted someone excluded, who's going to listen?

This.

The most progressive news network available is Free Speech TV. They are big supporters of Bioneers and farming families as opposed to corporate farming systems.

 

[ZiprHead]

"Hey, Old Row, how are you doing? I'm here at Mar-a-Lago supporting Kari Lake, and it was a fantastic evening. And our Trump is here being the DJ, and I've just danced and everyone's amazed. So I'm just going to say to you, please drop out of college, because it's going to ruin your lives. Do me a favor, drop out, they don't teach you nothing good. Email me or Twitter me or whatever you [want], call me and I'll help you with your life but you gotta get out of college 'cause it isn't nothing but devil-worshiping, baby-blood-drinking Democrat donors. Love ya."

 

[scombrid]

And that's not at some fringe place. It is at GOP headquarters. Anybody notice the awesome picture behind her?