Ignoring statistical realities doesn't make you a good person. It makes a virtue signaling coward.
Does saying that Joseph Fahnbulleh is faster than any woman who's ever lived make someone sexist? Of course not. It's a statistical reality.
IQ testing is a thing. The results don't cease to be true just because they make you uncomfortable or hurt your feelings.
Lizzo is disgusting on multiple levels. Pretending she's not does not make you a good person. In fact, it makes you a bad person because you're encouraging her to eat herself to death. Having type 2 diabetes in your 20's is a bad thing.
Personal accountability used to matter. Society now tells young people that all of their failures and short comings are someone else fault. Society is in decline because people are more concerned about sparing people's feelings than telling people the truth.
There are so many faults with using IQ test results to justify white supremacy. There is more than sufficient evidence and data to question the validity of those findings. You just ignore the faults because it’s what you want to believe. Or maybe not capable of understanding the nuances of testing something like this.
In your mind, is a lack of shaming evidence of encouragement? Just because I don’t think Lizzo is disgusting, I’m actively encouraging her to “eat herself to death?” How does that make any sense at all? There’s a lot of data showing that shaming often exacerbates the problem so it actually might be people like you “encouraging” obesity. How much evidence would you need? There’s tons of articles we could go through.
You have so much contempt for people that don’t look or act like you, and you think that you are justified in doing so because they are, in your mind, holding back society at large in some way. It’s a somewhat rational belief, but lacking in so many ways.
No one is talking about "white supremacy" but you...
The group that tests highest for IQ are Jews followed by Asians.
By some miracle the people that perform best in America are Jews followed by Asians.
You ignore the whole concept because it makes you uncomfortable. You're not looking at nuance you're hiding from reality.
The body positivity movement isn't NOT just the lack of shaming.
Obesity is a health problem. We spend more on healthcare than any other developed nation on the planet and it isn't even close. The US is also the fattest developed nation on the planet and it isn't even close. This isn't a coincidence.
Pretending being obese is healthy is literally killing people.
You're ascribing opinions and motives to me that I don't hold. I don't have contempt for them I actually want to help them while you just want to make them feel better about their health problem.
Obesity is often much like addiction.
Do you think heroine addicts would increase or decrease in number if we started putting them on the cover of fitness magazines and spreading the message that being a heroine addict is perfectly healthy?
1) It is a fact that Trump sent the tweet about Pence. It is opinion that Trump intended the tweet as an order to kill Pence. It is a fact that the mob interpreted the tweet as an order to kill Pence.
2) The tweet 14 minutes later was about being nice to the police. Note that the tweet did not tell anyone to leave the Capitol or to stop breaking the law. At that point, the militia was in control of Capitol and not the police.
We know at this point that Trump's staff had been begging him to tell everyone to leave the Capitol, but Trump refused. So this tweet about being nice to the police might have served two purposes. One was to appease his staff.
The other possible reason Trump might have sent this tweet was to appease any of the cops who might be on Trump's side. Any cops allied with Trump could be very helpful locating Pence, who Trump knew had fled the floor just minutes earlier.
3) I am not in possession of information that the committee doesn't already have.
You also seem to believe that Trump could be guilty of attempted murder. You have said nothing to rebut my assertion, which means you are in tacit agreement.
Whew! A lot to unpack here. 😂😂😂
1) What specifically in that tweet leads you to believe (quite strongly) that it was a signal for people to kill Pence?
2) You say it is a FACT that the mob interpreted the tweet as “an order” to kill Pence. Explain how that is a fact and not an opinion.
3) So after Trump’s “be nice to police” tweet, the mob stopped the violence directed towards police? Or, at least the mob knew he tweeted it just to appease his staff and wasn’t to be interpreted as an order for them to stop being violent towards police? Or the mob knew it was directed to friendly Capitol police who should continue to lead the mob to Pence in order to kill him or kill him themselves. Do I have that right?
4) So you are not willing to send your findings to the Jan 6 committee? Why not? They may have the same info, but not the correct interpretation of them. Don’t you think this would be important to them.
5) About 30 minutes after the tweet “ordering” people at the Capitol to kill Pence, Trump tweets something like “remain peaceful” and to “respect the law”. What was that code for?
1. See #2
2. I already told you the answer. It is a fact that the mob reacted to the tweet with chants of "Hang Mike Pence". Clearly, "kill Pence" was their interpretation of the tweet.
3. I am unaware of the affects of that second tweet. There are several possible reasons Trump might have sent it.
4. I don't think my interpretation of the facts is much different from the committee.
5. At that time, the militia had control of the Capitol. There was no need for more fighting. But Trump refused to tell them to leave. The only objective was to get Pence out of the way.
Note that the plan almost worked. If Pence had been killed or if he had fled the Capitol, the rest of the Eastman plan could be put into effect.
You going to push for more immigrants so the rest of the nation can be more like NY and CA?!
EXCELLENT.
Progress. Start convincing your fellow trumpers.
But serously, yes, the point is correct, that a major reason for CA and NY success is that they have so many immigrants. More, please.
I like how you are subtly arguing against yourself here.
agip: Economies in blue areas are better, but that has nothing to do with how many people are in the area.
also agip: CA and NY are successful because there is a lot of immigration into those states (re: there are more people).
it's not just more people, it's more immigrants. Immigrants work harder, start more businesses, get better educations, are better parents. On average of course.
But part of the complex is that it is a virtuous cycle....immigrants settle in the vibrant areas like CA and NYC , the places are vibrant so immigrants can do well, which makes the places better, which brings more immigrants.
Not so hard to get comfortable financially in NYC or CA. Very hard to get ahead in MS, AL, TN, AR, etc. backwaters.
you don't like absolute numbers? How about per capita GDP.
That shows blue states are more productive per person.
But come on - I shouldn't have to prove this. We all know that the blue areas are more industrious and successful. This arguing about basic facts is inane.
Of the 14 best states in per capita GDP, 11 are blue. The Rs in the list are WY (because of mining so gets an *) AK (mining again so also *), and ND. Not sure why ND is so productive. Only 800,000 people so sort of an afterthought.
Of course only one of the ten worst per capita GDP states are red. no surprise there.
Again, more people = more money making potential. It should come as no surprise that places with more people make more money, whether talking in absolutes or per capita. It's not linear, it's exponential. Think about it for a second: if Locale #1 has 100 people in close proximity, and Locale #2 has 25 people in a more dispersed area, if there is NO difference in natural resources, which do you assume will be able to generate a stronger/healthier economy, and which area do you assume will generate more traffic and business into their community?
The important part that you need to prove to make your point is this question: do areas governed by democrats have better economic growth than areas governed by republicans when they have otherwise similar profiles and histories (e.g. if one had a strong economy and the other didn't prior to the comparison, it's not a good comparison)? If yes, then you have a datapoint that actually suggests democrats are better at governing in terms of economic growth; if no, then you have to admit that a very large part of why democratic governed areas have stronger economies is because of reasons beyond their being controlled by democrats: they have more people and more resources to work with.
The problem you're going to run into with trying to prove that is that the VAST majority of rural areas are governed by the GOP and the VAST majority of urban areas are governed by Democrats. Your best shot would be to compare suburban areas IMO. I'll await your research into that. Until that time, however, the best comparison that can probably made is instead looking into GROWTH at a STATE level, and that analysis shows a fairly even split (in some of those analysis red states will have a slight edge, but in most it's a pretty balanced mix).
or put another way, cities are economic engines and rural areas are economic backwaters.
and guess who is about to take the controls of Congress. The people governing the economic backwaters. You can blame the politicians or the lack of population, but we're about to get ruled over by people elected by poor rurals.
I think that is going to hurt the nation quite a bit. Their conservativism, their antipathy to the urban growth centers, their racial animosity, their lack of care for international affairs, their loathing of immigrants, their sheer elderliness, their sense of a nation in massive decline, their misconception of what american city life is....
those people are choosing our next leaders. The result will not be pretty.
. . . Being fat only shows that you like some sort of calorically dense food. This is simply an evolutionary malfunction. It's not some reflection of weakness. Some of the best people I know are obese. It's clearly not a character defining trait so shaming someone for it is beyond stupid. Some people just need someone to look down on I guess?
"Give a man someone to look down upon and you will have his loyalty for life" - someone, whose name I am too lazy to look up
I like how you are subtly arguing against yourself here.
agip: Economies in blue areas are better, but that has nothing to do with how many people are in the area.
also agip: CA and NY are successful because there is a lot of immigration into those states (re: there are more people).
it's not just more people, it's more immigrants. Immigrants work harder, start more businesses, get better educations, are better parents. On average of course.
But part of the complex is that it is a virtuous cycle....immigrants settle in the vibrant areas like CA and NYC , the places are vibrant so immigrants can do well, which makes the places better, which brings more immigrants.
Not so hard to get comfortable financially in NYC or CA. Very hard to get ahead in MS, AL, TN, AR, etc. backwaters.
I can't tell if you're trolling at this point or not ...
I'm pretty sure poverty, wealth and income inequality in NYC and CA are all above than the national average. NYC and CA are among the highest cost of living in the nation.
I'm not arguing against the value of immigrants and their effect on the economy. I agree with you on that point. But, believe it or not, immigrants are people. More people = more money potential.
Again, more people = more money making potential. It should come as no surprise that places with more people make more money, whether talking in absolutes or per capita. It's not linear, it's exponential. Think about it for a second: if Locale #1 has 100 people in close proximity, and Locale #2 has 25 people in a more dispersed area, if there is NO difference in natural resources, which do you assume will be able to generate a stronger/healthier economy, and which area do you assume will generate more traffic and business into their community?
The important part that you need to prove to make your point is this question: do areas governed by democrats have better economic growth than areas governed by republicans when they have otherwise similar profiles and histories (e.g. if one had a strong economy and the other didn't prior to the comparison, it's not a good comparison)? If yes, then you have a datapoint that actually suggests democrats are better at governing in terms of economic growth; if no, then you have to admit that a very large part of why democratic governed areas have stronger economies is because of reasons beyond their being controlled by democrats: they have more people and more resources to work with.
The problem you're going to run into with trying to prove that is that the VAST majority of rural areas are governed by the GOP and the VAST majority of urban areas are governed by Democrats. Your best shot would be to compare suburban areas IMO. I'll await your research into that. Until that time, however, the best comparison that can probably made is instead looking into GROWTH at a STATE level, and that analysis shows a fairly even split (in some of those analysis red states will have a slight edge, but in most it's a pretty balanced mix).
or put another way, cities are economic engines and rural areas are economic backwaters.
and guess who is about to take the controls of Congress. The people governing the economic backwaters. You can blame the politicians or the lack of population, but we're about to get ruled over by people elected by poor rurals.
I think that is going to hurt the nation quite a bit. Their conservativism, their antipathy to the urban growth centers, their racial animosity, their lack of care for international affairs, their loathing of immigrants, their sheer elderliness, their sense of a nation in massive decline, their misconception of what american city life is....
those people are choosing our next leaders. The result will not be pretty.
You're continually skipping past all of the points being made.
Yes, cities are economic engines and rural areas are economic backwaters. That's because there are more people in the cities and less people in the rural areas. That's literally the definition of urban vs. rural.
The economic success of cities is because they are cities with lots of people, not because they are governed by democrats. Similarly, the economic struggles of rural areas is because they are rural areas without a lot of people, not because they are governed by republicans.
Find me examples of areas with similar profiles with the only real exception being politics and then compare that. Until you do so, the best comparisons we have for this conversation are at the state level and focused on %GROWTH because that helps to mitigate the differences between which areas have more people and more natural resources... and when looking at that comparison, it is NOT clear that one party does better than the other (it SLIGHTLY leans towards Republicans, but not sufficiently enough that the majority of analysis says Republicans are better -- instead, the majority of analysis says that the results are MIXED where one party isn't really any better than the other).
1) What specifically in that tweet leads you to believe (quite strongly) that it was a signal for people to kill Pence?
2) You say it is a FACT that the mob interpreted the tweet as “an order” to kill Pence. Explain how that is a fact and not an opinion.
3) So after Trump’s “be nice to police” tweet, the mob stopped the violence directed towards police? Or, at least the mob knew he tweeted it just to appease his staff and wasn’t to be interpreted as an order for them to stop being violent towards police? Or the mob knew it was directed to friendly Capitol police who should continue to lead the mob to Pence in order to kill him or kill him themselves. Do I have that right?
4) So you are not willing to send your findings to the Jan 6 committee? Why not? They may have the same info, but not the correct interpretation of them. Don’t you think this would be important to them.
5) About 30 minutes after the tweet “ordering” people at the Capitol to kill Pence, Trump tweets something like “remain peaceful” and to “respect the law”. What was that code for?
1. See #2
2. I already told you the answer. It is a fact that the mob reacted to the tweet with chants of "Hang Mike Pence". Clearly, "kill Pence" was their interpretation of the tweet.
3. I am unaware of the affects of that second tweet. There are several possible reasons Trump might have sent it.
4. I don't think my interpretation of the facts is much different from the committee.
5. At that time, the militia had control of the Capitol. There was no need for more fighting. But Trump refused to tell them to leave. The only objective was to get Pence out of the way.
Note that the plan almost worked. If Pence had been killed or if he had fled the Capitol, the rest of the Eastman plan could be put into effect.
Ok. It’s getting clearer now. 😂😂😂😂
1) The “mob” read the 2:24 tweet from Trump as a direct order to kill Pence. But the reporter said chants weren't heard to hang Pence until minutes later, right? Why didn’t people start saying they needed to kill Pence when they got the tweet? Why did they wait so long if they had been waiting for this order all along?
2) So you know that the first tweet was clearly an order for the “mob” to kill Pence. But you said the 2nd and 3rd ones were meant to appease his staff and alert pro-Trump Capitol police to capture pence and bring him to the “mob” or to kill him on-site since they had access to Pence. How did the “mob” know that he really didn’t mean for them to be peaceful and respect the law? Was this code determined somehow beforehand?
I don’t understand how the “mob” knew how to interpret the different tweets. Can you explain that?
And Who is “the mob?” Everyone at the Capitol?❓❓❓❓
I like how you are subtly arguing against yourself here.
agip: Economies in blue areas are better, but that has nothing to do with how many people are in the area.
also agip: CA and NY are successful because there is a lot of immigration into those states (re: there are more people).
it's not just more people, it's more immigrants. Immigrants work harder, start more businesses, get better educations, are better parents. On average of course.
But part of the complex is that it is a virtuous cycle....immigrants settle in the vibrant areas like CA and NYC , the places are vibrant so immigrants can do well, which makes the places better, which brings more immigrants.
Not so hard to get comfortable financially in NYC or CA. Very hard to get ahead in MS, AL, TN, AR, etc. backwaters.
That might be the most ignorant thing anyone has ever said in English.
There are so many faults with using IQ test results to justify white supremacy. There is more than sufficient evidence and data to question the validity of those findings. You just ignore the faults because it’s what you want to believe. Or maybe not capable of understanding the nuances of testing something like this.
In your mind, is a lack of shaming evidence of encouragement? Just because I don’t think Lizzo is disgusting, I’m actively encouraging her to “eat herself to death?” How does that make any sense at all? There’s a lot of data showing that shaming often exacerbates the problem so it actually might be people like you “encouraging” obesity. How much evidence would you need? There’s tons of articles we could go through.
You have so much contempt for people that don’t look or act like you, and you think that you are justified in doing so because they are, in your mind, holding back society at large in some way. It’s a somewhat rational belief, but lacking in so many ways.
No one is talking about "white supremacy" but you...
The group that tests highest for IQ are Jews followed by Asians.
By some miracle the people that perform best in America are Jews followed by Asians.
You ignore the whole concept because it makes you uncomfortable. You're not looking at nuance you're hiding from reality.
The body positivity movement isn't NOT just the lack of shaming.
Obesity is a health problem. We spend more on healthcare than any other developed nation on the planet and it isn't even close. The US is also the fattest developed nation on the planet and it isn't even close. This isn't a coincidence.
Pretending being obese is healthy is literally killing people.
You're ascribing opinions and motives to me that I don't hold. I don't have contempt for them I actually want to help them while you just want to make them feel better about their health problem.
Obesity is often much like addiction.
Do you think heroine addicts would increase or decrease in number if we started putting them on the cover of fitness magazines and spreading the message that being a heroine addict is perfectly healthy?
I am not hiding from reality. I've studied IQ tests and intelligence tests more than I've studied most other things. Using IQ as a catch all metric for general intelligence has lots of faults. They're mostly administered to check for evidence of learning disorders. They are also greatly affected by environment. Using this testing to justify let's say... the poverty of African Americans... is racist and an example of white supremacy. You literally believe they are, as a whole, less intelligent and thus deserve to be where they are in society. And somehow, some way that I don't understand, you don't realize this makes you a racist. I've talked to a smarter version of you and they at least knew they were racist. I know, I know. "If we can say certain people run fast, how come we can't say certain people are stupid?" Because attacking intelligence is worse in every way. It is a fundamental attack on someone's identity. If you seriously don't understand the difference between saying a man is faster than a woman and saying that white people are smarter than black people, then you might have some sort of learning disorder yourself.
"Making them feel better about their health problem" is the best thing to do. That's what will help them. Making them feel terribly about themselves because of their health problem makes that health problem worse. If you had any sense at all, you would understand that shaming does not work on obesity. It's needless bullying and nothing more. I understand that you think you are being compassionate and helpful. Much in the same way that an overly strict parent thinks they are doing what's best for their child but is actually just messing them up more. I mean you even call yourself the adult in the room. Some sort of disciplinarian fetish maybe? lol
it's not just more people, it's more immigrants. Immigrants work harder, start more businesses, get better educations, are better parents. On average of course.
But part of the complex is that it is a virtuous cycle....immigrants settle in the vibrant areas like CA and NYC , the places are vibrant so immigrants can do well, which makes the places better, which brings more immigrants.
Not so hard to get comfortable financially in NYC or CA. Very hard to get ahead in MS, AL, TN, AR, etc. backwaters.
I can't tell if you're trolling at this point or not ...
I'm pretty sure poverty, wealth and income inequality in NYC and CA are all above than the national average. NYC and CA are among the highest cost of living in the nation.
I'm not arguing against the value of immigrants and their effect on the economy. I agree with you on that point. But, believe it or not, immigrants are people. More people = more money potential.
He's not trolling he's just literally this stupid.
There are more people on welfare on California than there are people living total in 23 states.
Of the top 10 states with the most people per 100k residents on welfare, 5 are blue states and there are more welfare recipients in the top 3 blue states than in the other 7 states on the list combined.
You don't need a 40 or 50 year mortgage to get a roach infested house in MS, AL, TN. or AR...
You going to push for more immigrants so the rest of the nation can be more like NY and CA?!
EXCELLENT.
Progress. Start convincing your fellow trumpers.
But serously, yes, the point is correct, that a major reason for CA and NY success is that they have so many immigrants. More, please.
I like how you are subtly arguing against yourself here.
agip: Economies in blue areas are better, but that has nothing to do with how many people are in the area.
also agip: CA and NY are successful because there is a lot of immigration into those states (re: there are more people).
Are you going for full-on retard here? Immigration has to do with dynamics (both of the individual people involved and the overall numbers). It says nothing about the current state (how many people there are in a given place at a given time).
I like how you are subtly arguing against yourself here.
agip: Economies in blue areas are better, but that has nothing to do with how many people are in the area.
also agip: CA and NY are successful because there is a lot of immigration into those states (re: there are more people).
Are you going for full-on retard here? Immigration has to do with dynamics (both of the individual people involved and the overall numbers). It says nothing about the current state (how many people there are in a given place at a given time).
Two, entirely different concepts.
Are YOU going for full-on retard here?
I never said CA and NYC have a lot of immigration because there are already a lot of people there. The point being made here is that IMMIGRANTS ARE PEOPLE, so in areas where there is a lot of immigration, THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE coming into the area. The reason that is important is because of the context of the discussion: urban areas (where there are a lot of people) have stronger economies than rural areas (where there are not a lot of people), due primarily to the fact that there are more people in urban areas than in rural areas and NOT primarily due to the fact that urban areas are typically governed by democrats and rural areas are typically governed by republicans.
No one is talking about "white supremacy" but you...
The group that tests highest for IQ are Jews followed by Asians.
By some miracle the people that perform best in America are Jews followed by Asians.
You ignore the whole concept because it makes you uncomfortable. You're not looking at nuance you're hiding from reality.
The body positivity movement isn't NOT just the lack of shaming.
Obesity is a health problem. We spend more on healthcare than any other developed nation on the planet and it isn't even close. The US is also the fattest developed nation on the planet and it isn't even close. This isn't a coincidence.
Pretending being obese is healthy is literally killing people.
You're ascribing opinions and motives to me that I don't hold. I don't have contempt for them I actually want to help them while you just want to make them feel better about their health problem.
Obesity is often much like addiction.
Do you think heroine addicts would increase or decrease in number if we started putting them on the cover of fitness magazines and spreading the message that being a heroine addict is perfectly healthy?
I am not hiding from reality. I've studied IQ tests and intelligence tests more than I've studied most other things. Using IQ as a catch all metric for general intelligence has lots of faults. They're mostly administered to check for evidence of learning disorders. They are also greatly affected by environment. Using this testing to justify let's say... the poverty of African Americans... is racist and an example of white supremacy. You literally believe they are, as a whole, less intelligent and thus deserve to be where they are in society. And somehow, some way that I don't understand, you don't realize this makes you a racist. I've talked to a smarter version of you and they at least knew they were racist. I know, I know. "If we can say certain people run fast, how come we can't say certain people are stupid?" Because attacking intelligence is worse in every way. It is a fundamental attack on someone's identity. If you seriously don't understand the difference between saying a man is faster than a woman and saying that white people are smarter than black people, then you might have some sort of learning disorder yourself.
"Making them feel better about their health problem" is the best thing to do. That's what will help them. Making them feel terribly about themselves because of their health problem makes that health problem worse. If you had any sense at all, you would understand that shaming does not work on obesity. It's needless bullying and nothing more. I understand that you think you are being compassionate and helpful. Much in the same way that an overly strict parent thinks they are doing what's best for their child but is actually just messing them up more. I mean you even call yourself the adult in the room. Some sort of disciplinarian fetish maybe? lol
There you go again telling me what I believe without any evidence...
The leading indicator of poverty in America isn't skin color or IQ it's broken homes.
Your whole racist attack is rooted in ignorance.
Calling someone racist because your mischaracterization of their position is racist doesn't make you a good person. It makes you an idiot and a bad person.
Admitting reality isn't "attacking intelligence".
You apparently have no idea what a bell curve is. Men are stronger than women ON AVERAGE. The strongest woman is still stronger than most of the male population.
Most of humanity is in the middle.
Acceptance and encouragement of bad behavior doesn't reduce bad behavior. Only children and people trying to avoid accountability would make such an idiotic claim.
President Biden is traveling to Saudi Arabia on July 16th, he will likely demand to MBS more oil be pumped by Saudi Arabia to help the USA economy, If MBS refuses Biden will likely tell troops from the USA to leave Saudi Arabia and also unpeg The Riyal from the Dollar (USD) USA troops are protecting Saudi's Oil and the Riyal being pegged to the Dollar are the 2 Things that strengthens the Saudi Arabia Economy, So Biden's demands will almost certainly be met, if Saudi Arabia wants their oil to be protected (They could try to get Russia and/or China to protect their oil) but if they do that, Biden could unpeg the Riyal which is a problem nobody could help Saudi Arabia with, So Biden will have ALL the leverage when he meets MBS
There are so many faults with using IQ test results to justify white supremacy. There is more than sufficient evidence and data to question the validity of those findings. You just ignore the faults because it’s what you want to believe. Or maybe not capable of understanding the nuances of testing something like this.
In your mind, is a lack of shaming evidence of encouragement? Just because I don’t think Lizzo is disgusting, I’m actively encouraging her to “eat herself to death?” How does that make any sense at all? There’s a lot of data showing that shaming often exacerbates the problem so it actually might be people like you “encouraging” obesity. How much evidence would you need? There’s tons of articles we could go through.
You have so much contempt for people that don’t look or act like you, and you think that you are justified in doing so because they are, in your mind, holding back society at large in some way. It’s a somewhat rational belief, but lacking in so many ways.
No one is talking about "white supremacy" but you...
The group that tests highest for IQ are Jews followed by Asians.
By some miracle the people that perform best in America are Jews followed by Asians.
You ignore the whole concept because it makes you uncomfortable. You're not looking at nuance you're hiding from reality.
The body positivity movement isn't NOT just the lack of shaming.
Obesity is a health problem. We spend more on healthcare than any other developed nation on the planet and it isn't even close. The US is also the fattest developed nation on the planet and it isn't even close. This isn't a coincidence.
Pretending being obese is healthy is literally killing people.
You're ascribing opinions and motives to me that I don't hold. I don't have contempt for them I actually want to help them while you just want to make them feel better about their health problem.
Obesity is often much like addiction.
Do you think heroine addicts would increase or decrease in number if we started putting them on the cover of fitness magazines and spreading the message that being a heroine addict is perfectly healthy?
Let's debate everything you said in this post which is on the topic of the thread.
1. Nothing
2. See # 1
3. At least it's not a stupid gary meme post.
I'll check back later with you so I can see you hit my down arrow.
or put another way, cities are economic engines and rural areas are economic backwaters.
and guess who is about to take the controls of Congress. The people governing the economic backwaters. You can blame the politicians or the lack of population, but we're about to get ruled over by people elected by poor rurals.
I think that is going to hurt the nation quite a bit. Their conservativism, their antipathy to the urban growth centers, their racial animosity, their lack of care for international affairs, their loathing of immigrants, their sheer elderliness, their sense of a nation in massive decline, their misconception of what american city life is....
those people are choosing our next leaders. The result will not be pretty.
You're continually skipping past all of the points being made.
Yes, cities are economic engines and rural areas are economic backwaters. That's because there are more people in the cities and less people in the rural areas. That's literally the definition of urban vs. rural.
The economic success of cities is because they are cities with lots of people, not because they are governed by democrats. Similarly, the economic struggles of rural areas is because they are rural areas without a lot of people, not because they are governed by republicans.
Find me examples of areas with similar profiles with the only real exception being politics and then compare that. Until you do so, the best comparisons we have for this conversation are at the state level and focused on %GROWTH because that helps to mitigate the differences between which areas have more people and more natural resources... and when looking at that comparison, it is NOT clear that one party does better than the other (it SLIGHTLY leans towards Republicans, but not sufficiently enough that the majority of analysis says Republicans are better -- instead, the majority of analysis says that the results are MIXED where one party isn't really any better than the other).
I'm not sure we're disagreeing. we're just not really interested in discussing the same thing the other person wants to discuss.
You want some abstract study with a control and the only variable being D or R leadership.
I'm just saying the nation is about to be ruled over by a bunch of people elected by people with views that ah don't quite result in success, historically. That are reactionary and that will hurt the nation's growth centers.
I'm sure you'll agree that the nation has done much better while ruled over by people on the left than people on the right. I don't think we have to have that discussion.
I can't tell if you're trolling at this point or not ...
I'm pretty sure poverty, wealth and income inequality in NYC and CA are all above than the national average. NYC and CA are among the highest cost of living in the nation.
I'm not arguing against the value of immigrants and their effect on the economy. I agree with you on that point. But, believe it or not, immigrants are people. More people = more money potential.
He's not trolling he's just literally this stupid.
There are more people on welfare on California than there are people living total in 23 states.
Of the top 10 states with the most people per 100k residents on welfare, 5 are blue states and there are more welfare recipients in the top 3 blue states than in the other 7 states on the list combined.
You don't need a 40 or 50 year mortgage to get a roach infested house in MS, AL, TN. or AR...
should we talk about average incomes in AL vs CA? Wanna?
You're continually skipping past all of the points being made.
Yes, cities are economic engines and rural areas are economic backwaters. That's because there are more people in the cities and less people in the rural areas. That's literally the definition of urban vs. rural.
The economic success of cities is because they are cities with lots of people, not because they are governed by democrats. Similarly, the economic struggles of rural areas is because they are rural areas without a lot of people, not because they are governed by republicans.
Find me examples of areas with similar profiles with the only real exception being politics and then compare that. Until you do so, the best comparisons we have for this conversation are at the state level and focused on %GROWTH because that helps to mitigate the differences between which areas have more people and more natural resources... and when looking at that comparison, it is NOT clear that one party does better than the other (it SLIGHTLY leans towards Republicans, but not sufficiently enough that the majority of analysis says Republicans are better -- instead, the majority of analysis says that the results are MIXED where one party isn't really any better than the other).
I'm not sure we're disagreeing. we're just not really interested in discussing the same thing the other person wants to discuss.
You want some abstract study with a control and the only variable being D or R leadership.
I'm just saying the nation is about to be ruled over by a bunch of people elected by people with views that ah don't quite result in success, historically. That are reactionary and that will hurt the nation's growth centers.
I'm sure you'll agree that the nation has done much better while ruled over by people on the left than people on the right. I don't think we have to have that discussion.
I want some abstract study with a control and the only variable being D or R leadership because that's the only way your implication that we are economically better off ruled by Democrats than Republicans holds true. The rationale for your implication was that ~70% of the GDP is in Democrat voting areas and ~30% is in Republican voting areas.
That's a faulty premise because the reason that the GDP is higher where Democrats are in charge is because those are cities, where there are more people, and not simply because Democrats are in charge.
I'd disagree with your notion that the nation has done much better while ruled over by people on the left than people on the right. We've even had this discussion before: the difference in median wages vs. inflation shows that there is little correlation when it comes to which party is in control of the presidency over the last half century (Democrat presidents have a slight edge), but there is a stronger difference when it comes to which party is in control of the legislature (GOP senate/congress have a more noticeable edge). If anything, I'd argue that in general having a Democrat president and a GOP legislature, where neither are so stubborn as to work with the other side, is the best case scenario -- as long as all else is equal... but which party is in control of the presidency is the less important economically.