Port Tack
Verified User
Where the fuck you come up with that bullshit is anyones guess. The richest states with the least unemployment and largest GDP are far and away democratic.
WHO SHOULD YOU VOTE FOR...AND WHY?
- Thread starter Ross Dolan
- Start date
Where the fuck you come up with that bullshit is anyones guess. The richest states with the least unemployment and largest GDP are far and away democratic.
Port Tack
Verified User
And federal elections will more and more be won by nothing but democrats. The younger generation is more and more democratic, the black and hispanic minorities are overwhelmingly democratic and growing while the white population is not and the republican party is dividing into extremist assholes driving more and more away from that party. We may still see republicans governing shitholes like Alabama but when it comes to nationwide federal elections they will soon be won by nothing but democrats.
Port Tack
Verified User
Not any more. At one time republicans and democrats worked together and served all with the same goal, for the betterment of the country. Now that isn't true, republicans serve republicans and they would actually rather have a recession if a democrat was in office. They were more than happy to raise the debt limit numerous times under a republican president but would rather shut down govt and cost us a fortune if a democrat was in office. We had a good run, over 250 years, but unless the republican dies out the USA will.
Port Tack
Verified User
Fucking stupid comment as usual.
ThatOwlWoman
Leftist Vermin
Fascinating that only a handful of extremists believe that rot.
Eagle_Eye
Well-known member
I would say the opponent of anyone Frank votes for!
Just kidding Frank. Always vote for the candidate you feel will do the best job despite political party.
I would say the opponent of anyone Frank votes for!
Always vote for the candidate you feel will do the best job despite political party.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, there was a day where I thought that too. But these days, even if Abraham Lincoln ran as a Republican, I would vote for his opponent. The crazies in the GOP have taken total control of the party...and the direction their party will lead the country.
They are so piss poor as leaders, I almost don't fear them, but...even the best of the Republicans will eventually vote against the interests of the people.
Just the way it is.
Unfortunately, the best advise anyone can give right now is: Either vote for the Democrat...or stay home and do not vote.
Eagle_Eye
Well-known member
Always vote for the candidate you feel will do the best job despite political party.
Yeah, there was a day where I thought that too. But these days, even if Abraham Lincoln ran as a Republican, I would vote for his opponent. The crazies in the GOP have taken total control of the party...and the direction their party will lead the country.
They are so piss poor as leaders, I almost don't fear them, but...even the best of the Republicans will eventually vote against the interests of the people.
Just the way it is.
Unfortunately, the best advise anyone can give right now is: Either vote for the Democrat...or stay home and do not vote.[/QUOTE]
And the exact same can be said for the Democrat party plus the Independent party is a fucking joke along with the other no chance parties.
Okay...so you think political parties suck.
BUT...that is the way politics works here right now...and it is something with which we must all deal.
So...my advice holds. Anyone voting Republican these days are voting to screw America. At least that is my opinion. I acknowledge that there are people who disagree with that completely. Only reasonable, courteous thing I can do about that is to suggest psychiatric help for them.
Eagle_Eye
Well-known member
Didn't say that. I am saying that political parties sway back and forth like a pendulum on a clock, and their platforms change at any given moment in time.
You did?
I re-read your comments and did not see that.
But I did see you agreeing with my comment that "crazies" have taken over the Republican Party...and you added that the Democratic Party...and all the other parties are the same.
I think the Republican Party sucks like a black hole...and I thought my remarks pretty much indicate that. You agreeing with me (and adding what you added) seems to indicate that you think ALL political parties suck.
If I misunderstood you, I apologize.
Detroit is not close to dying. https://www.baltimoremagazine.com/section/travel/detroit-is-in-the-midst-of-a-major-revival/ As you drive through the city you see lots of new restaurants and shops. There are apartments being built. It is not cheap, but places for the elite to live.
BidenPresident
Verified User
Detroit was never much in its heyday. Just a place where cars were built.
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
All of that is rapidly changing. Those states are losing ground fast and there are red states that are gaining ground just as fast.
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
So, are California, Illinois, and New York gaining or losing population? Are those three gaining or losing businesses? Which states have the most people on welfare and other government assistance? Which states have the most homeless? Not by percentage, which is a nonsense measure in this case, but by sheer numbers. Go on, tell me.
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
So, your rebuttal is to use an advertising piece to refute statistics...
ThatOwlWoman
Leftist Vermin
It's interesting that you attempt to move the goalposts by saying "not by percentage." Actually, statistically speaking, per capita is the gold standard when calculating demographic factors. Example: Two elementary schools have an outbreak of measles. Both schools have 29 students out with the virus. One school has 550 students; the other has 1,000. Which school has the higher incidence per capita?
You don't want your answer to be given in percentages/per capita because it would prove your claim about public assistance to be wrong.
Source: States Most Dependent on the Federal Government
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
It's interesting that you attempt to move the goalposts by saying "not by percentage." Actually, statistically speaking, per capita is the gold standard when calculating demographic factors. Example: Two elementary schools have an outbreak of measles. Both schools have 29 students out with the virus. One school has 550 students; the other has 1,000. Which school has the higher incidence per capita?
You don't want your answer to be given in percentages/per capita because it would prove your claim about public assistance to be wrong.
Source: States Most Dependent on the Federal Government
It isn't moving the goal posts. Here's an example of why. This thought experiment takes things to an extreme to illustrate the problem clearly.
In state A there are 10,000 people and 1000 of them are impoverished, homeless, etc. That's 10%
In state B there are 1,000,000 people and 50,000 of them are impoverished, homeless, etc. That's 5%
The Law of Large Numbers kicks in here and distorts the issue if you discuss percentages. Clearly state B has a far more serious problem with poverty and homelessness than state A, having more such people by 5 times the population of state A.
As for your graph, this is another deception based on what counts as federal government funding. If you take ALL government funding to a state--as the graphic does--and then apply that as portion of state funding, it becomes easily disprovable as a theory.
First, not all federal funding is related to state funding. Some examples: Military spending is based on where bases, defense sites, etc., happen to be located. For example, North and South Dakota house the majority of the US ICBM fleet and related military installations because of their location geographically. That has nothing to do with state spending. National parks, forests, monuments, etc., likewise are funded because that's where they are, not because some state funded them. They are geographically fixed in location.
Thus, much of federal spending is not dependent on state funding. The graphic you use, favors large, high population states over smaller low population ones as the former dilutes federal money returned more than the latter.
As an example, again, of why percentages shouldn't be used, is this graphic. It lists absolute federal spending in dollar amount per state on welfare. All of a sudden it is the large, Blue, Democrat states that get slammed for the most welfare spending from the federal government.
Don't go trying to play statistical nonsense with me. I took and use far to much statistics all the time to fall for that.
Cancel 1 2023
Verified User
That isn't an appropriate application of the Law of Large Numbers. The Law of Large Numbers basically is a statistical property in which with more sample the mean of the sample gets closer to the overall mean of the population.
But presumably the smaller state actually has a very large problem because being smaller it will have fewer resources to deal with the problem.
As such and usually it is considered superior to go with a per capita measure of something rather than the raw numbers.
Then you should be more than familiar with the actual application of the Law of Large Numbers just as you with the Central Limit Theorem
ThatOwlWoman
Leftist Vermin
I tried to explain this to him but you did it better. Thanks.