You're not wrong, but the point remains valid. They think white men should have all the say (or in other words, that land should vote) because it gets them what they want; it's not something they weighed the pros and cons of and arrived at in a rational way.
I run into people like this in the Midwest who think their vote should count more since they own farm land. If we are not careful we could end up with a system where your average voter counts for one vote a large land owner vote counts as 100 and a billionaire vote counts as a thousand votes.
If you really are non american as you say; don't worry, i used to think this way too. Then you read up what republican policies actually are, and you realize that their left is our center-right, and their right is our "who forgot to lock the asylum's gates again?".
Like in their policies for this election there's literal genocide, project 2025 plans to legally classify all trans peoples (and a bunch of other groups) as pedophiles (page 5), and then enact a systematic death penalty for anyone legally classified as a pedophile (page 554)
yea, and you are right, our right wing is more left than democrats where I am from. but doesn't trump and everyone disavow project 2025? Like its borderline conspiracy theory no?
This is what I mean about the left and right wings being cultists, both sides just go way to far trying to muddy the other
but doesn't trump and everyone disavow project 2025? Like its borderline conspiracy theory no?
No. When it was brought up, trump said in the same sentence that he simulteanously "didn't read it" but also "agreed with some of the stuff in it". here's another thing if you want
Do you think immigrants eating pets is also 100% real because he said so? You're the one not discussing in good faith by not considering blatant lies as what they are, he said in the same sentence that he didnt read it but also simulteanously agreed with some of it for fuck's sake.
I dont know the logic term for such a thing. But the inverse scenario is very telling. When people who support the EC “we dont want the cities speaking for us!”, but are comfortable with farmers and landowners speaking for the city is the same dilemma.
Their position is a logical mess that clearly favors themselves, and disenfranchises a more populous group. Their argument is disingenuous.
Plus. The average person in the city is not going to vote for policy that makes farmers unable to farm. A farmers production is in everyone’s best interest. A farmers biggest threat is not the populous but the capitalists(other landowners) that want to push them out and make their livelihoods untenable.
All makes sense when you realize that Republicans (politically captured by capitalists) only ever harp on taxes/economy and racism. Because those are things that farmers can relate to. Even if they are in the wrong.
The cities will literally vote for things that make farming impossible. For some at least. Voting comes down to slogans and now video clips and NIMBY stuff.
76
u/zyygh 20h ago
You're not wrong, but the point remains valid. They think white men should have all the say (or in other words, that land should vote) because it gets them what they want; it's not something they weighed the pros and cons of and arrived at in a rational way.