Political Memes

5510 readers

2918 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civil

Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformation

Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memes

Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotion

Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

824

Based (midwest.social)

submitted 11 months ago by [email protected] to c/politicalmemes

79 comments fedilink hide all child comments

cross-posted from: https://midwest.social/post/7076150

(page 2) 37 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Couldn't this be attributed to the lower population density of conservative areas? You would expect to see lower wealth in areas with lower population, even if the wealth per capita is higher

[+] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Objectively no, but it also makes sense to me that more densely populated areas have higher GDP per capita. All I'm saying is, it's a hasty generalization to say "this place has more money than that place, so that place must be stupider." Economics is way more complex than a single data point or two make it seem.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

The claim is per capita: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2014/mar/28/occupy-democrats/pro-democrat-group-says-9-10-poorest-states-are-re/

It should be noted that there are different ways to measure poverty. Occupy Democrats says its claim is based on per-person income. We looked at that, along with median household income and median family income.

By all three measures, 9 out of the 10 poorest states voted Republican in the last presidential election. (In fact, they voted Red in the last four elections.)

Not stupider. Just making choices that aren't economically feasible and are dependent on handouts from those who make more economically sound decisions (or happen to be on top of resources that are currently valuable on the market) to maintain a lifestyle more similar to those making those more economically sound decisions. There's more to life than money though, so just because something isn't economically the best idea doesn't mean its a bad idea. And I think we should still have a safety net that makes sure even people who make even bad decisions are still have a decent quality of life.

But given its typically those complaining about "handouts" like food stamps who are the biggest recipients of them, it might be in their best interest to realize they shouldn't be voting for leopards if they don't want their faces eaten.

[–] wellee -1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Interesting reading the more subtle ways people(?) are trying to manipulate on this thread. The classic: "Both parties lie/are bad" and this one "Well AKTSHUALLY the poor counties vote red because they are rural"

load more comments