So first off, I live in a rural suburb not unlike her district, and my wife is from a town of 300 people. I used to live in Eastern Kentucky. I am not belittling rural people or rural living. However, ask people from there and they'll say, "small town in the middle of nowhere."

I'm sorry, but I do not believe rural people getting "steamrolled" because there are fewer of them is a bad thing. Quite the opposite. Your town has infrastructure challenges, so who do they elect? Someone who fights against improving their own area

A tyranny of the majority is infinitely preferable to a tyranny of the minority.

[–] dilithium_dame@startrek.website 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Ok, then that will have to be our fundamental disagreement. I don't think either is a good thing. The Constitution tried to find a balance between the two. Whether it is successful or not is another good debate.

It's fine if the people of Kentucky want to call themselves middle of nowhere. Other areas may not view themselves in that way.

Unfortunately for us the Democratic candidate also didn't care about infrastructure. That actually frustrates me more than Boebert. The same candidate is running again. He sucks but it was close enough last time maybe he can give her the boot. I'm not convinced he'd be an actual improvement, more of a status quo placeholder.

[–] SCB@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You should run! If Boebert can win, hell anyone can

[–] dilithium_dame@startrek.website 2 points 1 year ago

Ha! Yes I realize I should put my money where my mouth is. But isn't armchair politicking more fun :-)