[Mega] MAGA Super Trump Mega Thread

MasterGnr said:
I think his point was that dims are clustered together in 6 or 7 spots while the rest are spread out across the country. Perhaps there is an underlying cause as to why the dims all live where they do, or is it that the location creates dims? Don't know.

The perception that the high density of dims in CA & NY would decide the direction of all 50 states is disconcerting. Sure, if there are more dims than others in the US and it was just a popular vote for everything, and we could ensure that only eligible voters voted, then the country starts to have dim policies and leaders.

Oh...you just have to change the constitution. and for that you need state ratifications. Good luck.
Click to expand...

We aren't getting rid of the electoral college anytime soon, that's a given.

As to your point about cities, most cities are more purple than pure blue or red. The winner takes all version of the electoral college is the bigger issue, because many people see the pure blue or red outcome and just assume that a city is 99.9% blue where more rural areas are 99.9% red.

Really, instead of getting rid of the electoral college we could add more people to it and turn it into a percentage based voting system much like the house.

California goes 60 dem 40 republican? Then the electoral college would go 33/22.

Then just make the electoral college simple majority.
 
NoGodForMe said:
What happens is the dims cluster in major cities sponging off gubiment. You can see this by looking at voting maps. Just about every major city in the USA votes democrat because they are flooded with Blacks, Cubans, Mexicans, Asians, and other minority groups looking for socialism, plus the Jews who want it as well. Away from the cities are whites who vote republican, because they don't want socialism.

Look at the race maps and you'll see each race has their own areas they populate when it comes to major cities. Away from the major cities it's mostly whites, and they vote Republican.

Let's take Florida as the example. Miami, Fort Lauderdale, West Palm Beach, Orlando, Tampa, Jacksonville, Tallahassee, all vote blue. Everywhere else (not a major city) votes red. The people voting red are more, but in other states, this isn't the case because the entire state is infected and a lost cause. Trump is campaigning in just about all states trying to keep them red.
Click to expand...

Horrible racism aside, rural people tend to use the most government programs by far. Also southern republican states take huge amounts of cash from blue states such as New York and California. They would go bankrupt without them.
 
 
https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/

https://apnews.com/2f83c72de1bd440d92cdbc0d3b6bc08c/AP-FACT-CHECK:-Blue-high-tax-states-fund-red-low-tax-states

At the other end, Mississippi residents paid an average of $5,740 per person, while West Virginia paid $6,349, Kentucky paid $6,626 and South Carolina paid $6,665.

Low-tax red states also fare better when you take into account federal spending.

Mississippi received $2.13 for every tax dollar the state sent to Washington in 2015, according to the Rockefeller study. West Virginia received $2.07, Kentucky got $1.90 and South Carolina got $1.71.

Meanwhile, New Jersey received 74 cents in federal spending for tax every dollar the state sent to Washington. New York received 81 cents, Connecticut received 82 cents and Massachusetts received 83 cents.

California fared a bit better than other blue states. It received 96 cents for every dollar the state sent to Washington.
Click to expand...

It turns out that red states like to be welfare queens and suck larger blue states dry while screaming about how the Jews are taking all of the money when in reality it's poor rural communities that are indeed doing just that.

It's all projection.
 
Ratbert said:
https://www.harvestpublicmedia.org/post/rural-americans-are-now-largest-slice-federal-food-aid-recipients

Rural families rely more on food stamps than those in large cities, study shows - New York Daily News

SNAP Benefits and Rural Households | Center for Rural Affairs

New Research Shows SNAP Recipients Are a Benefit to—Not a Drain on—Rural Economies - Pacific Standard

https://scholars.unh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1001&context=carsey

SNAP Participation Map
Click to expand...

Huh.. I was like WTF?

Then i started using some simple logic.

In most of your links, they were talking about percentages... so a higher percentage of Rural American's used SNAP vs Metro.

Anyone see an issue with that?

I did.

So i did a basic google search and found:



Sooo lets do the math.

Lets say this graph is true as provided by your data:



Then lets do math.

Metro: 98 million X 13.8% = 13,524,000
Rural: 46 million X 14.6 = 6,716,000

huh... how could that be? A liberal trying to use data to fit their narrow view of the world.

Makes sense.

But i didn't stop there. I kept reading. Look what else i found in the data you provided:



Honest question. Are you even trying?
 
Ratbert said:
Really, instead of getting rid of the electoral college we could add more people to it and turn it into a percentage based voting system much like the house.
Click to expand...
but why? why change anything?

because your team lost, thats a reason it needs to change?
 
Right, a higher percentage of the overal Rural population uses food stamps vs urban.

I know statistics are a hard concept to grasp for conservatards, but this isn't a very difficult concept. Please look up the term "per capita."
 
Ratbert said:
Right, a higher percentage of the overal Rural population uses food stamps vs urban.

I know statistics are a hard concept to grasp for conservatards, but this isn't a very difficult concept. Please look up the term "per capita."
Click to expand...

Got it. I understand much better now.

:ftard:
 
Ratbert said:
Right, a higher percentage of the overal Rural population uses food stamps vs urban.

I know statistics are a hard concept to grasp for conservatards, but this isn't a very difficult concept. Please look up the term "per capita."
Click to expand...

:Hmm:

Ratbert said:
It turns out that red states like to be welfare queens and suck larger blue states dry while screaming about how the Jews are taking all of the money when in reality it's poor rural communities that are indeed doing just that.

It's all projection.
Click to expand...

interesting u try 2 retreat behind a "per capita" claim when ur statement was clearly a sheer numbers one (poor rural communities taking all of the money, bleeding cities dry)
 
Edofnor said:
:Hmm:



interesting u try 2 retreat behind a "per capita" claim when ur statement was clearly a sheer numbers one (poor rural communities taking all of the money, bleeding cities dry)
Click to expand...

Those are two different arguments:

1) Rural people use more welfare than non-rural people per-capita.
2) Red states take more money from the feds than blue states.
 
you guys are arguing about a 1% difference
all that the give/take relationship of federal tax dollars reveals is there is a higher percentage of higher income jobs in states with large metro populations... wow
 
Edofnor said:
:Hmm:



interesting u try 2 retreat behind a "per capita" claim when ur statement was clearly a sheer numbers one (poor rural communities taking all of the money, bleeding cities dry)
Click to expand...

That is odd.

When the numbers suggest that roughly 7million more people that are on gov assistance live in metro areas. The real issues is those damn rural people.

Because... you know... per capita.

This argument kinda reminds me of the 'higher taxes stimulate the economy' that libtards use.

Just zero logic.
 
OneManArmy said:
That is odd.

When the numbers suggest that roughly 7million more people that are on gov assistance live in metro areas. The real issues is those damn rural people.

Because... you know... per capita.

This argument kinda reminds me of the 'higher taxes stimulate the economy' that libtards use.

Just zero logic.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's very odd that one would use per capita when measuring something that deals with the population, and not per-capita when measuring something that doesn't deal with the population.

How very odd.
 
Last edited:
damn I thought we were supposed to be the takers, we need to step up welfare payments to the cities, why are we paying for everyone else's welfare?
 
cael said:
damn I thought we were supposed to be the takers, we need to step up welfare payments to the cities, why are we paying for everyone else's welfare?
Click to expand...

Good news! You aren't. If you live in a southern state you recieve money FROM the blue states.
 
keep the money in the cities I'm sick of paying for these rural welfare queens

we also pay for their infrastructure since rural infrastructure is the biggest money loser in the country
 
Ratbert said:
Those are two different arguments:

1) Rural people use more welfare than non-rural people per-capita.
2) Red states take more money from the feds than blue states.
Click to expand...

yes, they are different arguments

and u made the second argument (demonstrably false) while attempting 2 supporting it w/ data that only corresponds 2 the first one
 
Edofnor said:
yes, they are different arguments

and u made the second argument (demonstrably false) while attempting 2 supporting it w/ data that only corresponds 2 the first one
Click to expand...

I literally pasted an article that proves the second argument.

At the other end, Mississippi residents paid an average of $5,740 per person, while West Virginia paid $6,349, Kentucky paid $6,626 and South Carolina paid $6,665.

Low-tax red states also fare better when you take into account federal spending.

Mississippi received $2.13 for every tax dollar the state sent to Washington in 2015, according to the Rockefeller study. West Virginia received $2.07, Kentucky got $1.90 and South Carolina got $1.71.

Meanwhile, New Jersey received 74 cents in federal spending for tax every dollar the state sent to Washington. New York received 81 cents, Connecticut received 82 cents and Massachusetts received 83 cents.

California fared a bit better than other blue states. It received 96 cents for every dollar the state sent to Washington.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top