• Historical_General@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I’m going to gently remind you that Drumpf’s base is actually on avg. wealthier than the opposition’s base. That’s why you get those obnoxious trucks, flags and infinite merchandise (courtesy of Chinese workers).

    No need to smear the common people, it’s simply a fact that democracy is not a real tool for change.

    • Something_Complex@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      Nono look at the 10 poorest states in America(with worse living conditions). They all voted majority Trump, some of the porest counties in the USA are literally voting 80% for trump

      • Historical_General@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        If you listen to Obama on that podcast recently (whom those people probably voted for too), paraphrasing: he says economic anxiety makes people prone to risk taking, emotional voting and feel racial resentment.

    • BigNote@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Yes but that’s only true due to a suite of nefarious influences having to do with things like voter suppression, gerrymandering, dark money and manufactured voter apathy.

        • BigNote@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          There are various versions of democracy. Some are far more effective at implementing the will of their constituents than others.

          In my opinion the problem isn’t democracy itself, but rather, has to do with the many various ways in which it’s implemented.

          The US version of democracy, for example, is very old, clunky and buggy as fuck because it was created by 18th century white men, some of whom were slave owners, and all of whom were terrified of the possibility that in creating a new (to them) form of governance they might accidentally create a new mechanism for tyranny.

          Accordingly, they deliberately created a system that by design would be almost impossible to change short of massive civil unrest and that to this day is very unresponsive to real public sentiment.

          The key is that they designed it that way not because they wanted an efficient democracy, but rather, because they wanted to protect themselves and their rights against the rise of a possible tyrant.

          What they created was very stable, but again, it wasn’t responsive, nor was it meant to be responsive, to public opinion.

          Since then, political scientists have figured out much better ways to run democracies.

          One of my favorites is the Irish Republic which, in the 1920s, instituted a suite of reforms to the US model in creating its government with the result that Ireland has gone from being the last third-world country in western Europe, to now being a thriving and economically developed western European nation with a highly-educated English-speaking population that isn’t obliged to take orders from any of the world’s great powers.

          Ireland did this by having a high-functioning modern-style democracy.

    • halferect@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      Median income is BS though. If me and Elon musk make up the test then it would show we have a median income of billions. …I don’t have anywhere close to billions. So a bunch of poor people vote trump and ten billionaires vote trump so trump voters are better off on a average? That’s a joke

      • Historical_General@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        They used exit polls, so I doubt the data includes that. It’s likely that anomalies are cut out too if the data is processed this way - they also compare the median to the state median to make the comparison more meaningful, which is how we ‘know’ that his base is wealthier.

        Apologies for using Nat Sliver as a source.