Printable View
[QUOTE=Elvis2008;2778140]
If Dems are so for the poor, then why is it so fucking expensive in blue states?[/QUOTE]Good question. A glance at this would indicate blue states on average are more unequal in terms of income than red states:
[URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_income_inequality[/URL]
As you have stated, many Democratic politicians are hypocrites.
Elvis, So we're on the same page, these are the five states with the highest inequality in income,
1. New York
2. Connecticut
3. Louisiana
4. Mississippi
5. California
Puerto Rico would be number 1 and the District of Columbia would be number 3 if they were included. As you probably know, it's difficult for a Republican to pick up 7% of the vote in D.C.
The red states with higher inequality are mostly in the south, and so suffer from the legacy of Democratic Party leadership in the 1960's and earlier.
Here are the five with the lowest income inequality, all red states,
50. Utah
49. Idaho
48. Wyoming
47. South Dakota
46. Alaska
[QUOTE=Tiny12;2778181]Elvis, So we're on the same page, these are the five states with the highest inequality in income,
1. New York
2. Connecticut
3. Louisiana
4. Mississippi
5. California
If we were including territories along with states, Puerto Rico would be number 1 and the District of Columbia would be number 3.
The red states with higher inequality are mostly in the south, and so suffer from the legacy of Democratic Party leadership in the 1960's and earlier.
Here are the five with the lowest inequality, all red states,
1. Utah
2. Idaho
3. Wyoming
4. South Dakota
5. Alaska[/QUOTE]You mean there are practically no jobs available in any of those 5 "lowest income inequality" Red states that justify paying the employee as much for getting it done as in New York, California, Connecticut, etc?
Shocking.
I thought Sheriff Andy Taylor of Mayberry was always worried his Deputy Barney Fife might move to Hootervile or Pixly for a better paying job at the A&P and force him to deputise Otis the Drunk to replace him.
[QUOTE=Tiny12;2778163]Good question. A glance at this would indicate blue states on average are more unequal in terms of income than red states:
[URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_income_inequality[/URL]
As you have stated, many Democratic politicians are hypocrites.[/QUOTE]From the article you referenced. "The South, the tri-state area around New York City and California tend to have more income inequality, while the Upper Midwest, the Northwest and Northern New England are relatively more equal. ".
Who knew that "the South" were "blue states"? If you go back to the 2016 and 2020 Federal Elections, I'll bet you'll find that "the South" in general voted for Donnie the Dumbass.
In addition " States with better financial development tend to be more unequal than those with worse financial opportunities, but the trends go in the opposite directions for high-income and low-income states.
[QUOTE=PVMonger;2778219]From the article you referenced. "The South, the tri-state area around New York City and California tend to have more income inequality, while the Upper Midwest, the Northwest and Northern New England are relatively more equal. ".
Who knew that "the South" were "blue states"? If you go back to the 2016 and 2020 Federal Elections, I'll bet you'll find that "the South" in general voted for Donnie the Dumbass.
In addition " States with better financial development tend to be more unequal than those with worse financial opportunities, but the trends go in the opposite directions for high-income and low-income states.[/QUOTE]Take the Tiny Challenge. Define a blue state as one that Biden AND Hillary Clinton won in 2016 and 2020. Define a red state as one that Trump won in both elections. Kick out all the rest. Get populations for the blue and red states. Multiply each state's population by each state's Gini coefficient, from the wikipedia link. Then sum for the blue states and separately for the red states. Divide by the total population of blue and red states respectively. I bet that the weighted average Gini coefficient for the blue states will be higher than the red states. In fact, if I'm wrong, I'll reward you with the Tiny Triple Combo:
One hour with a masagista from what I deem to be the finest estetica in Jalisco
One lunch at my favorite restaurant in Jalisco
One bottle (small) of Clase Azul Reposado tequila
I'm assuming here based on your handle that you spend a lot of time in Puerto Vallarta. If so, I'm in your neck of the woods several times a year so can comply with my promise. But it doesn't really matter. Because if you take the Tiny Challenge, YOU WILL LOOSE.
The irony is that listening to New York and California Democratic politicians, and given that this is the United STATES of America, where the states are free to impose whatever type of taxation and social welfare systems they wish, you'd think those two states would have Gini coefficients similar to the European social welfare states. But they don't. Not by a long shot. Those politicians may just be pulling the wool over the public's eyes.
[QUOTE=EihTooms;2778193]You mean there are practically no jobs available in any of those 5 "lowest income inequality" Red states that justify paying the employee as much for getting it done as in New York, California, Connecticut, etc?
Shocking.
I thought Sheriff Andy Taylor of Mayberry was always worried his Deputy Barney Fife might move to Hootervile or Pixly for a better paying job at the A&P and force him to deputise Otis the Drunk to replace him.[/QUOTE]After adjusting for purchasing power, Wyoming, South Dakota, Alaska, Utah and Idaho rank 4th, 8th, 17th, 43rd, and 45th in terms of per capita income. That's a pretty good cross section of America. California is 22nd and New York is 7th. New York is 7th because of the rent seeking finance industry, which sucks money out of the rest of the country while providing little in return. Same for #1 Connecticut.
Interesting argument btw, very atypical for someone who's left of center. Most Democrats would reject the idea that inequality results in higher per capita or median income. But to be honest, you might be on to something.
[URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_adjusted_per_capita_personal_income[/URL]
[QUOTE=PVMonger;2778030]Another fact free post with lots of "they", "them", "fake news", "deep state", "alphabet agencies" et cetera.
The only "fact" in this post is that Gaetz' family is wealthy. Gaetz himself isn't, at least according to his FEC filing. Unless, of course, he took a course in situational ethics from that famous astronaut, winner of the academy best actor award and MVP of all of professional football (all three types. The European kind, the American kind and the Canadian kind): George Santos.[/QUOTE]Another goofy post which addressed none of the points at hand. Let's try just one: why did the democrats, media and FBI (better known as, yes, the Washington deep state) make such a fuss over the Gaetz nothingburger which came to zero, while completely ignoring the high-level media / hollywood / democrat figures on the guest list of the island of Jeffrey Epstein, an acknowledged pe-do?
Or is calling Epstein a pe-do a "conspiracy theory"?
"Alphabet agencies" is a well-known term to describe the plethora of Washington intelligence and (selective: see above) law enforcement agencies such as the FBI, CIA, NSA, DHS, etc. Glad to educate you, not for the first time.
P.S. Imagine criticising George Santos for calling himself "Jew-ish" when one of the leading figures of the democrat party, Senator Elizabeth "Fauxcahontas" Warren would be teaching elementary school if she hadn't pretended to be a native American to get ahead.
Or Senator "the Nang Dick" Blumenthal, who lied about having served in Vietnam: stolen valor is far more despicable than anything Santos said, but for some reason the media never bring it up. Why is that?
Or "Vice-President" Kamala Harris, who would be chasing unpaid parking tickets in Fresno if she hadn't chased down the married mayor of San Francisco Willie Brown and hit it so good he gave her multiple undeserved promotions.
Perhaps look a little closer to home next time.
[QUOTE=Tiny12;2778089]
As to Trump, I don't see how he was a threat to the Washington swamp agenda. There were two issues where he differed from the Democratic and Republican Party establishment. One, staying out of other peoples' real wars, I agreed with. The second, starting Trade Wars, I disagreed with. [/QUOTE]You're forgetting his actions to reduce illegal immigration. This is actually more important than anything else. White Americans (other than fat single feminist catladies) won't vote for the democrats' anti-American, anti-white policies, but third world immigrants vote massively in favor of them. It's a simple matter of arithmetic. The reason California went from solidly Republican in the Nixon / Reagan days to solidly blue today doesn't have anything to do with the quality of arguments made by the likes of Gavin "The Joker" Newsom, but because the state went from 90% white 50 years ago to 40% white today.
If they manage to replace us like that in the whole country, it's over. Corrupt, one party rule forever, with increasing repression and persecution of white people, a la South Africa. Hell, they're already talking about giving a quarter million to every black person in California because of something that was abolished over 160 years ago. Who's going to pay for that?
As for Tucker Carlson, he is very useful in terms of showing what the democrat / globohomo establishment are trying to do to children in public schools: brainwashing them with homosexual and tranny propaganda at a very early age; attempting to persuade them that they are trannies and need to be sterilised and mutilated. He's spoken several times to the person behind the excellent LibsofTikTok twitter account, which simply reposts what liberals themselves are saying and doing. They are both doing God's work.
[QUOTE=Xpartan;2778134]That's brilliant. Really brilliant! Now I understand why Donald Trump is such a selfless altruist.[/QUOTE]What is the point of your post? (Or indeed you, but we'll leave that for another time).
Are you attempting to claim that Trump became president to get richer? If so, that is quite possibly the most ignorant assertion you have ever made, which is saying a lot.
Before he ran, Trump had a hugely successful TV show and was a media darling. He had a licence to print money. When he ran, he lost the show, he lost many of his deals, and became the target of endless negative propaganda from the fake news media. In addition, his campaign was largely self-funded, at least before he became the nominee.
There is no doubt whatsoever that had Donald Trump continued on his path without getting into politics, he would be significantly wealthier than he is now. He knowingly sacrificed that wealth to help America and the American people. That is the very definition of an American hero.
If you're looking for people who got into politics to enrich themselves, try looking into how Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden and Maxine Waters got so rich on a government salary. Let me know what you find (after you get back to me about why the media, democrats and FBI went after the Gaetz nothingburger while ignoring the Epstein island guest list).
[QUOTE=Tiny12;2778181]Elvis, So we're on the same page, these are the five states with the highest inequality in income,
1. New York
2. Connecticut
3. Louisiana
4. Mississippi
5. California
Puerto Rico would be number 1 and the District of Columbia would be number 3 if they were included. As you probably know, it's difficult for a Republican to pick up 7% of the vote in D.C.
The red states with higher inequality are mostly in the south, and so suffer from the legacy of Democratic Party leadership in the 1960's and earlier.
Here are the five with the lowest income inequality, all red states,
50. Utah
49. Idaho
48. Wyoming
47. South Dakota
46. Alaska[/QUOTE]Not a coincidence that the top five are all very "diverse" while the bottom five are homogeneous, filled with heritage white Americans. It's a matter of human nature, as well as race and IQ.
[QUOTE=ChrisP;2778518]You're forgetting his actions to reduce illegal immigration. This is actually more important than anything else. White Americans (other than fat single feminist catladies) won't vote for the democrats' anti-American, anti-white policies, but third world immigrants vote massively in favor of them. It's a simple matter of arithmetic. The reason California went from solidly Republican in the Nixon / Reagan days to solidly blue today doesn't have anything to do with the quality of arguments made by the likes of Gavin "The Joker" Newsom, but because the state went from 90% white 50 years ago to 40% white today.[/QUOTE]Historically, a majority of Cuban Americans and Vietnamese Americans have voted for Republicans. Most of the people coming across the southern border today are from Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua, that is, from socialist countries. They've had to put up with the economic lunacy of people like Chavez, Castro and Ortega. And they probably see some similarities between the preferred policies of those leaders and those of Bernie Sanders and other progressives. Not to mention some progressive Democrats have served as apologists for totalitarian socialists. So I suspect this current crop of immigrants may be different, more likely to vote for Republicans.
My big concern is that that there are a lot of hot Cuban and Venezuelan strippers, and it would be a shame if they were deported.
[QUOTE=ChrisP;2778522]What is the point of your post? (Or indeed you, but we'll leave that for another time).[/QUOTE]Yes, please for the love of god, leave "the point of ME" for another time, I'm begging of you!
The point of my post, however, if I must spell it out for you (and it seems like I must, unfortunately) was that people who come from rich families still care about money a great deal.
In fact, my delusional friend, no one is as hungry for money as people who come from money.
Paraphrasing The Godfather, children can afford to be nave, men don't. Snap out of it.
[QUOTE=Tiny12;2778563]Historically, a majority of Cuban Americans and Vietnamese Americans have voted for Republicans. Most of the people coming across the southern border today are from Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua, that is, from socialist countries. They've had to put up with the economic lunacy of people like Chavez, Castro and Ortega. And they probably see some similarities between the preferred policies of those leaders and those of Bernie Sanders and other progressives. Not to mention some progressive Democrats have served as apologists for totalitarian socialists. So I suspect this current crop of immigrants may be different, more likely to vote for Republicans.
My big concern is that that there are a lot of hot Cuban and Venezuelan strippers, and it would be a shame if they were deported.[/QUOTE]Rather than whining and playing the tired and spurious white victimization card, people like Chris need to win these immigrants over to a conservative worldview. It's done all the time. This fatalism also ignores the reality of all the lazy, low IQ, criminal white losers in our country, much of those dipshits that invaded the Capital a case in point. Many also traveled there via government handouts, Covid small business relief swindles.
[QUOTE=ChrisP;2778518]You're forgetting his actions to reduce illegal immigration. This is actually more important than anything else. White Americans (other than fat single feminist catladies) won't vote for the democrats' anti-American, anti-white policies, but third world immigrants vote massively in favor of them. It's a simple matter of arithmetic. The reason California went from solidly Republican in the Nixon / Reagan days to solidly blue today doesn't have anything to do with the quality of arguments made by the likes of Gavin "The Joker" Newsom, but because the state went from 90% white 50 years ago to 40% white today.
If they manage to replace us like that in the whole country, it's over. Corrupt, one party rule forever, with increasing repression and persecution of white people, a la South Africa. Hell, they're already talking about giving a quarter million to every black person in California because of something that was abolished over 160 years ago. Who's going to pay for that?
As for Tucker Carlson, he is very useful in terms of showing what the democrat / globohomo establishment are trying to do to children in public schools: brainwashing them with homosexual and tranny propaganda at a very early age; attempting to persuade them that they are trannies and need to be sterilised and mutilated. He's spoken several times to the person behind the excellent LibsofTikTok twitter account, which simply reposts what liberals themselves are saying and doing. They are both doing God's work.[/QUOTE]Really? Trump thought Repubs from all those Red States were "disgusting", looked "very trashy", "cheap and poor", which made him look bad:
[B]Pence's former top aide says Trump called the coronavirus 'a good thing' because he didn't like shaking hands with 'disgusting' supporters[/B]
[URL]https://www.businessinsider.com/video-aide-trump-didnt-want-to-shake-hands-disgusting-supporters-2020-9[/URL]
[B]Former White House Press Secretary Told Jan. 6 Committee That Trump Said Capitol Rioters 'Looked Very Trashy'[/B]
[URL]https://people.com/politics/former-white-house-press-secretary-told-jan-6-committee-trump-thought-rioters-looked-very-trashy/[/URL]
[B]Trump was angry at Capitol mob only because they looked cheap and poor: report[/B]
[URL]https://www.timesofisrael.com/trump-was-angry-at-capitol-mob-only-because-they-looked-cheap-and-poor-report/[/URL]
[QUOTE]"Trump was apoplectic in embarrassment because the white trash mob on screen made him look bad, the report said.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=ChrisP;2778513]P.S. Imagine criticising George Santos for calling himself "Jew-ish" when one of the leading figures of the democrat party, Senator Elizabeth "Fauxcahontas" Warren would be teaching elementary school if she hadn't pretended to be a native American to get ahead.
Or Senator "the Nang Dick" Blumenthal, who lied about having served in Vietnam: stolen valor is far more despicable than anything Santos said, but for some reason the media never bring it up. Why is that?
Or "Vice-President" Kamala Harris, who would be chasing unpaid parking tickets in Fresno if she hadn't chased down the married mayor of San Francisco Willie Brown and hit it so good he gave her multiple undeserved promotions.
Perhaps look a little closer to home next time.[/QUOTE]I didn't know that about Blumenthal.
You left out our Plagiarizer and Chief, Joseph Robinette Biden Jr.
This is the first thing that pops up when you Google "Plagiarism Joe Biden", from the University of California Santa Barbara web site, and it's a Trump campaign press release.
[URL]https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/campaign-press-release-copy-that-joe-bidens-long-record-plagiarism[/URL]
But glancing over it, I knew I made the right decision when I voted for Jo Jorgensen for president. Biden's downright nutty, to try to get away with all that. He even made up some fiction about having ancestors who "worked the coal mines of Northeast Pennsylvania and would come up after 12 hours and play football for four hours. " He pulled that from Neil Kinnock, a British politician. Biden never even had ancestors who worked in coal mines.
Biden may be worse than Santos. And he's president of the United States of America and the leader of the free world. Santos is a nobody.
Yes, despite what the main stream media would have you believe, there's no shortage of kooks and liars among the politicians who call themselves Democrats.
This is well documented, about Biden. Our Democrat friends should Google it if they don't believe me.