|
the people who voted in Trump weren't drug addicts making $20k, they were well-off white tradesmen with pensions worried that their kids might have to go off to the godless cities to find well-paying work instead of walking into a $70k factory job right out of high school. middle-income whites went for Trump at a significantly higher rate than low-income whites rural poverty is a real problem, but it tends to be greatly exaggerated by some and heavily minimized by others, because it's popularly associated with white people (even though the rural poor are disproportionately non-white) and thus appeals to a variety of agendas
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 15:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 13:53 |
|
|
TrixRabbi posted:I think it's also important to look at the other side and recognize that part of the reason these rural communities flock to the Republicans is that, not only have the Democrats given them barely anything in the last 50 years to get excited about and that Dems can point to as proof of their benevolence, but the right-wing media are drat masters at manipulation, spin, and scapegoating. With their own complete lack of morals, outlets like Fox, Breitbart, Limbaugh, Infowars, they're not afraid to lie and scheme and carefully brainwash through an influx of dopamine and outrage to get what they want. Yeah, why couldn't Obama have made a simple change that solely benefited the poor, like massively expanding Medicaid eligibility? Or infrastructure spending as economic stimulus? The joke, of course, is that he did attempt both those things, among many other policies that would have helped poor whites, but both were blocked by both state and national Republicans in the name of their ideological opposition to government programs that help poor people. It's true that those groups' support for Dems dropped off about fifty years ago, particularly in the South...but that happens during the very height of LBJ's Great Society and his War on Poverty, when American poverty rates were dropping at unprecedented speeds (at least until Nixon dismantled key anti-poverty programs). The narrative of liberal elitists laughing at poor rural whites from afar while doing nothing to help them is certainly a common one, but it's hard to square that with the actual facts. On the other hand, it sure bears an uncanny resemblance to cultural resentment of Northeastern elites that the South has held since before the Civil War!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 18:20
|
|
|
comedyblissoption posted:in the 2009-2010 congress, the democrats had the presidency, a 58% majority in the house, and passed the ACA with a filibuster proof senate majority caucus. trying to hide behind republican obstructionism is a bankrupt argument lol, just gonna quote this one real quick before you realize your tremendous mistake
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 18:42
|
|
|
Lastgirl posted:lol D&D what are you doing little did they know that when LBJ declared a War on Poverty, what he actually meant was a war on poor people
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 21:13
|
|
|
Lastgirl posted:your semantics is noted but we're talking about right now the Dems tried to expand Medicare and spend money on infrastructure and poo poo Republicans blocked it because they are ideologically opposed to helping the poor no one cares, though, so LIBERALS LIBERALS LIBERALS LIBERALS LIBERALS LIBERALS
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 21:29
|
|
|
Lastgirl posted:but liberals are secret republicans now, so they're ideologically opposed to helping the poor now also, apparently republicans are liberals
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 22:17
|
|
|
comedyblissoption posted:what mistake is this the Dems DID expand Medicaid and authorized a ton of infrastructure spending. it made it just fine through Congress. but the (Republican) governors of these poor rural states turned down the government money and refused to implement the plans and programs, taking a principled stand for "I believe the government shouldn't help poor people" and then poor rural whites rewarded them by electing a bunch of Republicans to Congress too
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 23:29
|
|
|
comedyblissoption posted:lol the infrastructure spending bill was poo poo and had a shitload of tax cuts. literally no one is talking about the supposedly great infrastructure bills the dems have passed under the obama admin yet people are literally still talking about the new deal infrastructure spending to this loving day. i'm not saying the bills didn't have a bunch of bad things i'm saying that the few good things they did put in all got dumpstered dems aren't doing nearly enough for poor people, so instead rural areas vote for the "lol maybe you could afford health insurance if you bought less iphones" shitlords It's almost as if it doesn't really have anything to do with poverty at all
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 23:54
|
|
|
Fullhouse posted:poor white people largely didn't vote but those that did went overwhelmingly for Trump the income bracket that leaned trump the most was the $50k-$100k bracket the $100k+ brackets were about an even split between the two candidates, while the <$50k brackets went harder for Clinton than any other income bracket
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2017 17:07
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Okay but now what's the racial breakdown turns out poor people are overwhelmingly non-white who'd have thought kinda funny that so much attention is being paid to poor whites even though there are so many more poor non-whites
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2017 20:25
|
|
|
Condiv posted:and yet when i argued for economic justice during the election, i was told it wouldn't help PoC frequently well, that's stupid. either that, or you're stupid probably both
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2017 18:23
|
|
|
imo people don't deserve to be poor and oppressed, not even if they have white skin or embrace political opinions I disapprove of
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2017 21:18
|
|
|
A New Dad posted:I now see the light. People were just expressing their personal opinions when they voted for Donald J. Trump and are in no way culpable for all the insane, hosed up poo poo that is going to befall people around the globe. It's my duty to spend all day wringing my hands about the poor racists that will be adversely affected by their own willful ignorance and malice. insane, hosed up poo poo has befallen people around the globe every day for over a century as a result of American policies and also the policies of many other countries, organizations, and entities sparking wars and misery in the middle east is something the US has been doing since the 40s, and I guarantee that you have voted at one point for a politician that at least tacitly supported that
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2017 21:34
|
|
|
A New Dad posted:Ok I'll make it simple for you. Donald Trump campaigned on promises to expel millions of people from the country without any concern for due process or consequences to those being deported and their families, murder the families of "terrorists", etc... If you don't see how that's different than voting for someone whose platform is focused on domestic issues and vague notions of 'national security', then all i have to say to you is Sorry you're too dumb to understand the dogwhistling, I guess? "national security" has meant bombing random foreigners for American profit for a century and a half, and deporting people who can legally be deported at any time for any reason isn't the drastic departure from existing policy you imagine it to be
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2017 03:46
|
|
|
resar posted:If Trump is bad does that make Clinton automatically good? They're both bad Along with every other president
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2017 04:48
|
|
|
water slide wizard, the reason people hate the poor is because they think income level is a product of inherent aptitudes that people are born with, and they think class mobility is something available to anyone who just knuckles down and works hard enough. it's just-world fallacy in action: the long-term poor must be repulsive, horrible, incompetent people, because if they weren't then obviously they wouldn't be poor it naturally follows from that that they believe helping the poor is pointless, because they believe the long-term poor have an inherent disposition toward poverty and will inevitably fall back into it without lifelong support
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2017 14:57
|
|
|
comedyblissoption posted:npr is a neoliberal shithole that pushed some anti-sanders messaging during the primaries. they only covered sanders from the context of a horse race and not from the context of what policies will benefit americans. theyre currently on the russia hysteria bandwagon. im glad other people call 'em out for what they are because im sick of the insufferable attitude of people who listen to that station as if it's an unbiased or decent news network. the media caring more about pushing horse races and click bait than focusing on what would most benefit people? say it ain't so
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2017 15:40
|
|
|
Azathoth posted:FDR, for all his faults, is as close as Democrats have right now to a Ronald Reagan figure, and I've never understood why they don't do more to talk about being his inheritors in the same way that Republicans talk about being the party of Lincoln and Reagan. FDR hated conservative Dems, and he's not bipartisanly popular anymore because the revisionist right has recast him as an incompetent corrupt idiot who doubled the length of the Depression through his foolish redistributive policies
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2017 14:49
|
|
|
spacetoaster posted:Did this really happen? I've heard it said before, but don't actually know where it's coming from. I don't recall that one specifically, but there were a couple instances where Bill said correct things like "Obamacare has problems and we should promise to fix them and generally improve it", and instead of listening, both the campaign and the media both just laughed it off and called it another crazy Bill Clinton gaffe because it contradicted Hillary's messaging.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2017 04:27
|
|
|
Lindsey O. Graham posted:they let citizens united pass though uh, I would expect a sitting US senator to at least understand the basic structure of the US government
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2017 16:52
|
|
|
Goldwater was the first Republican presidential candidate to win Georgia, ever There was a lot going on in 1964 and Goldwater was an incredibly bad campaigner, but the ramifications of the Dems' support for civil rights were beginning to show even then. Vietnam alone doesn't explain why a segregationist third-party candidate in 1968 won five states and got more votes than the Democrat in three more
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2017 17:50
|
|
|
This argument is dumb because both sides are right When economic segregation herds poor people into living on a toxic waste dump and provides them with lead-filled water in order to cut costs, that is definitely going to cause problems for kids being raised in that environment and we should absolutely look for solutions On the other hand, there are absolutely a ton of people who loving love the idea of something they can portray as a biological basis for poverty, either because they want to believe that poor people inherently deserve to be poor and therefore poverty can't be eliminated, or because they want to pretend that it's the only thing responsible for poverty so that they don't have to address the systematic social and economic issues that are primarily responsible Maybe....The answer.......Is in the middle?  
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 20:33
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:I'm beating a dead horse here but nobody* in cog sci thinks poverty is caused by poorbrains. A lot of people who aren't in cog sci think this, though unless I skimmed the last couple pages of angry pedantry wrong, no one is worried that the scientists think poverty is a mental problem. they're worried that scientific acknowledgement of poorbrains will be used by elites and the media as an excuse to slash anti-poverty programs and dismiss calls for social and economic change. the scientists themselves will not agree with this, but they also have absolutely no say in how the talking heads will abuse their research we shouldn't let that danger lure us into something as stupid as opposing research into the health consequences of poverty. we just need to remember to emphasize the social and economic causes of poverty while also researching ways to stop poverty from literally breaking and killing people
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 21:38
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:I agree with you. This isn't what seems to be the consensus here though. "hmm, I know that someone is currently plunging a knife deep into my chest, but I should go vote for the 'status quo' candidate who wants that to continue, otherwise someone who wants to shoot me in the head might win the election"
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2017 20:52
|
|
|
Condiv posted:mcgovern was stabbed in the back by his own party (a good number of peeps from the dems actually advocated for voting nixon, etc.). hillary had every possible advantage, and still found a way to lose to idiot trump. was McGovern the one who said he was "one thousand percent" behind his VP who had been getting mental health treatment and then dropped him like a good idea when the news coverage turned against him?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2017 22:21
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 13:53 |
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:Electoral strategy aside, I'm not really comfortable saying that someone willing to sell out their equally powerless neighbors in the hopes of saving themselves isn't a piece of poo poo. Pieces of poo poo deserve healthcare, justice, food, and housing too. If you think that basic human rights should be available only to those who "deserve it", you're hardly different from them.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2017 21:14
|
|