How Half Of America Lost Its F**king Mind, an article trying to explain trumpists to the blue team

submitted by iamonlyoneman from cracked.com

all 43 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]Hematomato 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (34 children)

An excellent article. Jason Pargin is unusually good at staying laser-focused on truths that should be obvious but that some people seem to have missed.

[–]no_u 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (32 children)

An excellent article.

Nope

The reason it's published at Cracked/Mad Magazine's website is because it's so dumb it's silly.

1st fallacy: nearly empty counties don't vote; people vote. If you want to see how PEOPLE voted in 2012, you have to look at a people-oriented map, like this one.

Fallacies 1 - 6: the election was NOT about rural vs urban groups; it was about dumbasses believing that a TV personality would clean the swamp (whereas he's been the worst swamp-scum to be elected to that position, after A. Jackson). The election was also HEAVILY promoted by Russia, AIPAC, Christo-fascist maga churches, Cambridge Analytica misinformaiton farms, GOP gerrymandering and voter manipulation, and much more.

Additional fallacies: city dwellers are so much better off than rural dwellers. Nope

Each point, 1-6, is a lie.

Was it easier to manipulate rural voters in 2012? Yes. Is that the main reason Trump was elected? Yes, in terms of the numerous manipulation tactics, lies and misinformation. No, in terms of "them country folk rose up and took back their country, dangit."

The fact that anyone would agree with this article at Cracked or elsewhere is informative of the continued influence of those lies on many new far right websites since 2011-12. Those who are benefitting are the .01%

[–]EthnocratIndependent 6 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 4 fun -  (2 children)

You're a literal caricature of a shitlib.

[–]no_u 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

You're a clitoral carbuncle of a gas chamber supervisor.

[–]topiary2 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Holy shit, you just jump from account to account but still act like a fucking retard.

[–]ID10T 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

I've never been a fan of Trump but his foreign policy was exactly what I would hope for. Economy was obviously a lot better. You can blame covid but Biden is making things much worse than they need to be. The border crisis is insane, to the point of being traitorous. Funny that Biden quietly resurrected part of Trump's border wall last year.

[–]no_u 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

For what it's worth, here below is a response I made to Musky a few days ago. Morover, Dems produced the H2 bill to increase deportations years ago, but GOP have admitted not letting it out of committee because they don't want that to be a WIN for the Dems. That's the shitshow of partisan politics, particularly with the GOP. The H2 bill is still on Shumer's desk because it doesn't have committee support. The recent wall is a joke, very easy to cross over or through. Here's my response to Musky:

Duck Duck Go, hombre:

Deportations have been on the rise during the Biden Admin, and were pathetic during the Trump Admin

Deportations/returns in 2023: 142,000 (which should be higher, but it's progress, after years of fewer deportations) source

Deportations/returns in 2017 (Trump): 100,695 (which is fucking ridiculous)

Deportations/returns in 2009 (Obama): 582,567 (which should have been higher)

Deportations/returns during 1976-2008 were around a million per year, give or take 150k

I'm not counting 'removals' above, which can be criminals &c, and there's a much higher number of those each year.

[–]ID10T 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Deportations wouldn't be necessary if we weren't letting so many people in obviously

[–]Hematomato 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (25 children)

1st fallacy: nearly empty counties don't vote; people vote. If you want to see how PEOPLE voted in 2012, you have to look at a people-oriented map, like this one.

That map directly supports what Pargin is saying - that people in urban centers vote for Democrats while people in rural areas, who are hurting, vote against Democrats.

the election was NOT about rural vs urban groups

But it was. To the point where, for all our "personal opinions," for all the bad noise generated online, you can almost perfectly predict how an election will go just based on on population density.

city dwellers are so much better off than rural dwellers. Nope

On aggregate, this is absolutely true. Denying it is silly. Salaries are much higher in cities, and it's far easier to find a six-figure job.

[–]no_u 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (24 children)

That map directly supports what Pargin is saying - that people in urban centers vote for Democrats while people in rural areas, who are hurting, vote against Democrats.

No - there are many reasons for the differences between rural and urban voting tendencies - a century-old topic. Many in the cities are also struggling, by a much larger margin in some cases. Geographic determinism never explains this historical problem appropriately because there are more important factors regarding the access to information, education, jobs, &c. The onging problem is class warfare perpetuated by misinformation media and government abuses. This is NOT related to WHERE people are, but HOW people are. To conflate the two is absolutely ridiculous.

But it was. To the point where, for all our "personal opinions," for all the bad noise generated online, you can almost perfectly predict how an election will go just based on on population density.

No - not geographically determined, per my note above.

On aggregate, this is absolutely true. Denying it is silly. Salaries are much higher in cities, and it's far easier to find a six-figure job.

It would take too long to explain this, and still responses to me on Saidit will be that I kill myself, but here goes:

It costs more to live in cities and the majority of populations in cities are earning less than 50k/year, barely enough for 2 people to live on in the urban or suburban areas. Only a minority in the cities earn over 50k. For many in the cities, 80k/year is a struggling salary, with no savings, pension or guaranteed healthcare. In rural areas the cost of living is much lower, where salaries of 35k/year are the bare minimum. The wealthiest people tend to live in cities, but are a tiny minority. All three - urban, suburban, and rural areas - have been struggling under GOP-controlled governments since 1984. See the chart at the bottom here: https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2018/05/22/demographic-and-economic-trends-in-urban-suburban-and-rural-communities Put simply: the majority of city dwellers are sharing a similar kind of economic strain felt in rural areas (most US counties are rural).

[–]Hematomato 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (23 children)

The onging problem is class warfare perpetuated by misinformation media and government abuses. This is NOT related to WHERE people are, but HOW people are. To conflate the two is absolutely ridiculous.

Of course it is. The entire capitalist class lives in cities. Sure, on occasion they'll have "a ranch in Texas" or something, but they spend the vast majority of their time and energy in cities, interfacing with people in cities.

No - not geographically determined, per my note above.

And yet, obviously geographically determined, by anyone who has eyes. To the point where there's a very strong correlation between how you're going to vote and how far away you live from a major body of water.

It costs more to live in cities and the majority of populations in cities are earning less than 50k/year, barely enough for 2 people to live on in the urban or suburban areas.

Did you read Pargin's article? He talks about this - about how kids from rural areas who want to move to the cities, for any chance of a better life, cannot afford to live there. Because you can't move to a city on a country salary unless you want to be homeless.

But it's the people in the cities who are making six-and-seven-figure salaries who are in complete control of the nation and its culture. And rural people are just shut out of it, and roundly mocked.

[–]no_u 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (22 children)

I read the whole article. It's annoying on several levels. It's also a very old oversimplification of voter analysis. As such, it's quite misleading, for reasons I note above. I'm not seeing in your reply any new rebuttal to my points, so I'll leave it at that. If you want to understand voter analysis, you'd have to look at a number of different factors, some of which I refer to above (eg. we should see how voters are manipulated, not where they are; and the vast majority of non-rural America makes less than $50k, which is almost poverty by first-world standards).

[–]Hematomato 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (21 children)

I'm not seeing in your reply any new rebuttal to my points, so I'll leave it at that.

This is, and will always be, Internet code for "I'm starting to realize I'm wrong, but I prefer to remain arrogant and haughty, so I'm gonna run away now."

[–]no_u 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (20 children)

Are you insane? Where in your previous comment was there a new rebuttal to my comments?

[–]Hematomato 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (19 children)

The previous comment contained three rebuttals to your comments, and instead of addressing them, you just sniffed and said "I win. I'll leave it at that."

I know what you're really saying.

[–]no_u 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

You merely repeated your previous comments. There is no new rebuttal. If you disagree, list my argument and your new rebuttal.

[–]Masterblaster 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

This article is from 2016, but it’s still brilliant.

[–]iamonlyoneman[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

agreed (thats why i posted it now ;)

[–][deleted]  (2 children)

[deleted]

    [–]jet199 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

    To be fair, poor people in cities often have the exact same attitude problem

    [–]no_u 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Which is one of the problems with this pack of lies in the article.

    [–]passionflounderIndependent 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Donald Trump has effectively served as a tool of division on behalf of those in government and media who are most vehemently against him and his supporters. Whoever advises him either fails to coach him on how to effectively use hostile press and media to get the message out while feeding the propagandists as little as possible- this assumes that the advice isn't being given and simply ignored.

    Trump's political opportunity was created by the rank corruption and blatant deceit which is business as usual in government- something that is not unique to either party. At this point it seems fairly obvious to anyone whose head isn't buried in media propaganda that the people we elect are routinely bought off by parties whose interest is in the destruction of the very form of government that the elected pledge oaths to preserve.

    [–]iamonlyoneman[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    difficulty: at least half of everyone in the country still has their heads in the sand

    [–]MagicMike 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Nice article, very thoughtful. And since there’s no genuine dividing line like in 1861, there won’t be a separation: there will be government by terror.

    [–]Dune1032 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    If Trump only appealed to rural voters, he would lose because rural voters are in the minority. He appeals to non-rural voters because they are dissatisfied with Biden and his policies. The Nazi party rose to power because the democratic Weimar Republic couldn't control inflation. Trump is a fiery speaker although not as good as Hitler. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ3N_2r6R-o To stop Trump, Democrats have to run a young, moderate such as Josh Shapiro, governor of Pennsylvania.

    [–]iamonlyoneman[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Generally agreed, but this seems to me an article to inform the blue team about why there is such broad support. There should probably be a companion piece laying it out how the city dwellers feel largely the same.

    [–]fschmidt 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Banal article. Did anyone actually learn anything new from it?