Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
Someone writes of red states "the big cities in those states are blue, because they are full of welfare queens, drug dealers, and food stamp recipients."
The solid, strong middle and upper middle classes of Fort Worth, Dallas, San Antonio, Austin, Houston, Atlanta, e.g. would tell you "flip off until you know what you are talking about."
No one can ever be sure of what rdean is talking about, since he doesn't even know.
For most of the last 2 centuries the southern states economies have been based on agriculture. It wasn't until the 1920's that anyone would have tried to build a skyscraper in the south because of AIR CONDITIONING. It's not because of the way "conservatives" managed anything, it's because of the way liberals destroy everything that people and businesses are moving south, and they can do so since we have the ability to control indoor climate, and the south has been exploding in the last 80 years.
Funny how the bed wetters are so hell bent on "energy conservation", policies that seek to restrict thermostats or rely on excessively expensive "green" bullshit.
Secondly, the "blue states" have well established ports and banking infrastructure, since there was no AC in New Orleans at the time. Finished products and agricultural goods produced in the south and shipped to "blue states" for export are treated as if they were produced in that state, and all the taxes and tariffs are applied at that point. The burden of the cost is passed on to the consumer, and the banks that handle the transactions of course charge their fees.
If there are any parasites on the economy, it's the "blue states".
I've always wondered why they're "blue states", shouldn't they be "red states" since they're so devoted to marxist dogma?
A funny thing happens you know...as those southern states grow their economy and education develops and large urban area become productive...guess what? They turn blue.
Really, it's just solid fact...some of the fastest growing states have been Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, and even Texas.
Guess what? ALL of those states are trending leftward, probably by 2020 or 2024 Arizona and Georgia will become swing states and Texas will probably follow soon after.
It happened in Nevada, Colorado, North Carolina, and Virginia already...it's happening elsewhere too.
Let it NEVER be said that Rdeanie has lost his touch for skewing or completely ignoring the facts of any issue to make a political hack point! I will elaborate.
The ONLY union in this country for pipeline welders is located in Tulsa, Oklahoma. The members of that union, of which my son is one, all have residences in this state, they pay income tax here. BUT, they travel to where the pipelines are being built or put together. For example, my son and twenty of his union brothers went to Pennsylvania to help build a natural gas pipeline to New York. All that money that they make is counted for that states income. And they make a butt load of money.
Another example. A friend of mine owns a small tower cooler manufacturing company outside of Tulsa. He employs about 75 workers and makes great big tower coolers for large air conditioning units that sit on top of buildings. When he ships those coolers out, he is paid at the destination, which then becomes income at the DESTINATION. He ships about 20 coolers out a month, usually to the east coast.
Your statements are completely invalid, but not outside the realm of an rdean thread. Usually, when I read your threads they are for entertainment only. There's just something about a political hack having a complete meltdown over fictitious information that intrigues me. A guilty pleasure to be sure. Nothing that warrants an intellectual conversation...
wrong, the big cities in those states are blue, because they are full of welfare queens, drug dealers, and food stamp recipients. The working areas of those states will always be very red.
Is detroit the example of where atlanta, birmingham, and houston are headed? could be.
Even without all the charts and statistics showing how much the Red States are Dependent on Blue States, it's pretty obvious. Considering it's the Blue States that make the "real" money in this country.
Republicans are under the mistaken impression that liberals and business are moving to Red States because those states are so much more "attractive". But so is China. A large uneducated work force of unskilled labor willing to work for peanuts unencumbered by regulations and safety. What am I describing? China or the South?
For over a hundred years, conservatives have been managing the Deep South. The questions are:
Is what they did to the South what they want for the country?
Wouldn't building up their states be better than trying to entice educated workers from other states?
Do they see the state of southern states as the "model" of what they want for the country?
If they turn every state into a welfare state the way they did the southern states, who will pay? There won't be any Blue States left to fund them.
Why are red states so dependent on blue states? because we have large population of obama lovers that got thier obama phones, ebt cards and do not give anything to society they just take and take and take....you know who you are, you was in Walmart stealing on your ebt card the other day.
wrong, the big cities in those states are blue, because they are full of welfare queens, drug dealers, and food stamp recipients. The working areas of those states will always be very red.
Is detroit the example of where atlanta, birmingham, and houston are headed? could be.
The lesser populated rural areas use more welfare per capita due to lack of sufficient employment.
Even without all the charts and statistics showing how much the Red States are Dependent on Blue States, it's pretty obvious. Considering it's the Blue States that make the "real" money in this country.
Republicans are under the mistaken impression that liberals and business are moving to Red States because those states are so much more "attractive". But so is China. A large uneducated work force of unskilled labor willing to work for peanuts unencumbered by regulations and safety. What am I describing? China or the South?
For over a hundred years, conservatives have been managing the Deep South. The questions are:
Is what they did to the South what they want for the country?
Wouldn't building up their states be better than trying to entice educated workers from other states?
Do they see the state of southern states as the "model" of what they want for the country?
If they turn every state into a welfare state the way they did the southern states, who will pay? There won't be any Blue States left to fund them.
To those here who claim Arizona and Texas are trending blue: that assertion is flat-out false.
Both states trended further Republican. Georgia, Virginia, and North Carolina had slight shifts toward the Democrats, but not that much. For example North Carolina was 2 points MORE REPUBLICAN than 2008 but it "trended" Democrat by about 1% because it shifted LESS AGAINST Obama than the national average.
This is why the use of "trending blue" and "trending red" are misleading. It's basically saying "Ignoring the national average, here's how the states swung."
For example, if Joe Schmo got 50% in Indiana his first election and 50% nationwide, and the next election he got 10% nationwide but 15% in Indiana, Indiana would be said to have trended "toward Joe Schmo" because he lost less than he did nationally. But all this shows is that voters in the country and in Indiana each turned strongly against Mr. Schmo.
SWING is a far more useful criterion is SWING by state actually shows the move of voters in each.
The message is pretty clear with the swing map(nearly every state swung GOP)
This actually shows which DIRECTIONS the state moved in for the last election, and clearly, most states moved in the GOP direction.
I can't post URL's but both these maps are available on uselectionatlas.org under "2012 Presidential Election"
To those here who claim Arizona and Texas are trending blue: that assertion is flat-out false.
Both states trended further Republican. Georgia, Virginia, and North Carolina had slight shifts toward the Democrats, but not that much. For example North Carolina was 2 points MORE REPUBLICAN than 2008 but it "trended" Democrat by about 1% because it shifted LESS AGAINST Obama than the national average.
This is why the use of "trending blue" and "trending red" are misleading. It's basically saying "Ignoring the national average, here's how the states swung."
For example, if Joe Schmo got 50% in Indiana his first election and 50% nationwide, and the next election he got 10% nationwide but 15% in Indiana, Indiana would be said to have trended "toward Joe Schmo" because he lost less than he did nationally. But all this shows is that voters in the country and in Indiana each turned strongly against Mr. Schmo.
SWING is a far more useful criterion is SWING by state actually shows the move of voters in each.
The message is pretty clear with the swing map(nearly every state swung GOP)
This actually shows which DIRECTIONS the state moved in for the last election, and clearly, most states moved in the GOP direction.
I can't post URL's but both these maps are available on uselectionatlas.org under "2012 Presidential Election"
Hey RDean, look at some of the links and they actually say the same things I am.
Link #3 from the Daily Kos discusses how Texas is trending Republican, exactly what I'm saying.
All of the other links were saying that Democrats HOPE to turn Arizona/Texas blue due to changing demographics.
But the demographics have been changing continually in their favor, but it's more than made up for by white backlash against Democrats.
In 2004, Kerry got 44.40% in AZ. In 2008, the worst year for Republicans in recent memory, Obama got 44.91%. In 2012, Obama got 44.45% of the vote in AZ. The Hispanic % has increased markedly from 2004 to 2012 but little has changed because it's canceled out by the white vote.
In Texas, Kerry got 38.22% in 2004. Obama got 43.63% in 2008, an improvement, but not exactly battleground territory. In 2012, Obama got 41.37% in Texas.
How do these figures show "imminent demographic doom" for the GOP? At these rates, Arizona's not changing at all and Texas may be moving Democratic at best an average of 1.5% every 4 years(though really Dems could keep declining in TX like from 2008-2012). Even with that very generous estimate, Texas still wouldn't go Dem for another 36 years, or in 2048. By that time, the GOP would likely be stronger in states like Pennsylvania and Michigan, as unions continue to decline in influence and the big cities like Detroit lose population.
Someone writes of red states "the big cities in those states are blue, because they are full of welfare queens, drug dealers, and food stamp recipients."
The solid, strong middle and upper middle classes of Fort Worth, Dallas, San Antonio, Austin, Houston, Atlanta, e.g. would tell you "flip off until you know what you are talking about."
You have no idea waht you are talking about.... As usual.
In Dallas, Whites comprise only 28% of the population.
In San Antonio, it's only 26%
In Atlanta, it's a mind-boggling 33%
Houston it's 25%
So, as usual, malarkey.... You're clueless, an idiot and a liar.
Someone writes of red states "the big cities in those states are blue, because they are full of welfare queens, drug dealers, and food stamp recipients."
The solid, strong middle and upper middle classes of Fort Worth, Dallas, San Antonio, Austin, Houston, Atlanta, e.g. would tell you "flip off until you know what you are talking about."
You have no idea waht you are talking about.... As usual.
In Dallas, Whites comprise only 28% of the population.
In San Antonio, it's only 26%
In Atlanta, it's a mind-boggling 33%
Houston it's 25%
So, as usual, malarkey.... You're clueless, an idiot and a liar.
You ignorant person. Hispanics are counted Caucasian, did you know that?
So eff off until you know what you are talking about.
Hey RDean, look at some of the links and they actually say the same things I am.
Link #3 from the Daily Kos discusses how Texas is trending Republican, exactly what I'm saying.
All of the other links were saying that Democrats HOPE to turn Arizona/Texas blue due to changing demographics.
But the demographics have been changing continually in their favor, but it's more than made up for by white backlash against Democrats.
In 2004, Kerry got 44.40% in AZ. In 2008, the worst year for Republicans in recent memory, Obama got 44.91%. In 2012, Obama got 44.45% of the vote in AZ. The Hispanic % has increased markedly from 2004 to 2012 but little has changed because it's canceled out by the white vote.
In Texas, Kerry got 38.22% in 2004. Obama got 43.63% in 2008, an improvement, but not exactly battleground territory. In 2012, Obama got 41.37% in Texas.
How do these figures show "imminent demographic doom" for the GOP? At these rates, Arizona's not changing at all and Texas may be moving Democratic at best an average of 1.5% every 4 years(though really Dems could keep declining in TX like from 2008-2012). Even with that very generous estimate, Texas still wouldn't go Dem for another 36 years, or in 2048. By that time, the GOP would likely be stronger in states like Pennsylvania and Michigan, as unions continue to decline in influence and the big cities like Detroit lose population.
The Arizona numbers are easy to explain...in 2008 it was McCain's home state and he enjoy popularity there. In 2012 the number of voters for both candidates dropped, but the GOP voters...a lot of them being elderly or at least older...stayed more steady.
So you have situations that are masking what's happening in Arizona...but I guarentee you they are happening. Look at New Mexico, Nevada, and Colorado...do you really think Arizona is somehow immune to the changes?
Also...the big cities in Penn and Mich may be slowing down in growth...but the rest of the state is almost entirely in absolute decline. Rural, smalltown USA is shrinking, whatever the big cities lose the GOP rural districts are almost guarenteed to lose more. In order for the GOP to get anywhere you need to gain votes...not just watch the other's go down.
