294
After backing Trump, low-income voters hope he doesn’t slash their benefits
(www.washingtonpost.com)
this post was submitted on 26 Dec 2024
294 points (96.5% liked)
News
23664 readers
4005 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
At this point, I'm convinced it's just a matter of regulating food
Every major revolution in history was more or less sparked and accelerated because people were starving. And when you have the choice of starving to death or doing something, anything, then most people will opt for action rather than dying.
So as long as you keep people fed .... you can abuse them, manipulate them, treat them with no respect and take away everything from them and the majority of them won't do a thing ... take away their food however, and they'll lash out like a wild animal.
This also doesn't mean that you keep people well fed ... it just means keeping enough food in their grasp to keep them from revolting.
If they fail to provide food, I think there's a chance a significant enough chunk of people would learn that the right will not help them no matter what. Perhaps that would be enough to crack the fucking propaganda.
Nah they'll keep them fed enough. If they're really smart they'll increase SNAP/WIC spending. It would be a paltry amount compared to what we'll lose from the rich tax breaks and the deportation fiasco.
Although on the other hand that could lose them votes among the working poor who don't have to worry about starving but do, in their heart of hearts, want the bad people to starve.
I think the only way for people to see differently is if the threatened tariffs are put in place and we see the worst inflation in the country's history over the next two years. Then maybe we can get some actual progressives in Congress (unfortunately under the Democrat umbrella) to stem the tide of insanity.
I can see that happening. I don't know if it'll result in a proper progressive wave though. Or instead just more of the same. If people got so fucked by conservatives to turn away from them, they would be incentivised to vote for anything but conservatives. That lets the Democrats win with establishment candidates. I think a shift in the Democratic party is more likely in the in-between period, when things haven't gotten too dire for people yet.