The general theme and extent of most right wing arguments when presented with facts that our society in the US as a whole can be improved tend to be “well I <have this problem in my life> and you don’t see me complaining.”. Then proceed to call everyone else entitled when they follow a line of thinking that is based on preventing any social development that breaks up the status quo that THEY are used to.
Being on the right in this day and age is the highest form of hypocrisy and that becomes more and more apparent each day.
people can "socially develop" all they want in their own states and localities. If Seattle wants to increase spending on affordable housing and attract a bunch of homeless people to the city, go right ahead, just don't expect people in Texas to pay for that. Do it with your own money.
You have to ask yourself: is it OK to force change on people who don't want it? I don't think it is, and I think the conservative argument is more fair.
You have to ask yourself: is it OK to force change on people who don't want it? I don't think it is, and I think the conservative argument is more fair.
The issue is the opposite occurs.
On average, Blue States are the makers and Red states are the takers.
You have to ask yourself: is it OK to force change on people who don't want it? I don't think it is, and I think the conservative argument is more fair.
The issue is the opposite occurs.
On average, Blue States are the makers and Red states are the takers.
Red states use more welfare, have more poverty, and have lower gdp. Blue states subsidize them. These are facts.
Red voters are incredibly hypocritical when it comes to taxes and handouts.
Do liberals ever ask the question why?
Why do red states have heavier funding than blue states, despite the population difference?
Because that's what liberals wanted, so they forced it!
One of your own sources talks about this:
Before World War II, federal grants favored larger, wealthier, more urban states. By distributing funding on the basis of population and requiring states to match federal contributions, grant programs discriminated in favor of the haves. This meant the poor, low-revenue states of the South and inland West received smaller shares of the federal pie.
As federal spending took off in the 1930s, southerners pushed to reform the system to bring more federal aid to their region. President Franklin D. Roosevelt generally approved of this push for more equal spending, so new formulas gradually found their way into many federal programs. Such provisions became so prevalent that, by 1962, the relationship between state income and grants had reversed itself and slightly favored poorer regions such as the South.
Also, "federal funding" isn't synonymous with welfare. It includes things like military spending which leans heavily to red states.
And no, red states don't have more welfare, because all of your analysis only deals with federal taxes. Once you factor in your SALT, blue states spend a lot more on citizens per capita (which makes sense because of the higher taxes)
By the way, all the welfare they've been given hasn't changed these poverty ratings..so, maybe all this welfare isn't doing anything. Mississippi has the highest food stamp use per capita, and the highest obesity rating. California spends a ton on affordable housing, and their homeless population skyrockets.
It's almost like welfare discourages responsibility no matter what your political beliefs are, and only makes the problems they are trying to fix even worse.
But that is a pretty damn inaccurate strawman of the right.
On economic issues, a conservative would most likely say it is the government, not the corporations and hardest working citizens, who make life hard for the rest. And want to strengthen their ceiling and unburden them so it can trickle down to the rest. A liberal see corporations and the richest elite as the problem, especially with corruption. Both sides do have a point here, and I am glad liberals and conservatives do keep eachother in check.
On social issues... let's not kid ourselves. The tribalistic, and religious nature of the right is just absurd, which is why they are losing so much ground here. There is no excuse for religious laws (they need to stand on actual merits rather than 'muh religion'), especially when there is no evidence of these religions being true (if anything evidence points towards them being false). A homophobic religious lunatic living in say... saudi arabia, may want the homosexuals executed, but not necessarily out of wanting to make other people's lives a misery, but because he has been indocrtinated into a war god worshipping death cult, telling him it is the right thing to do and he is just carrying out justice.
Is that conservative logic? Personally, that seems to come more from my leftist friends, people who aren't even doing poorly (middle middle class), but have issues with people doing better than them, and feel they shouldn't make as much money as they do.
For instance, my cousin was a big Bernie supporter. He loved the idea that college should be free for those in a household under $125k by raising taxes, mind you, his parents paid for his six year BS in Computer Science, and he lived with them until he was 30 rent free, even bought himself a brand new car during that time (his parents paid his insurance and phone bill). When I stated that my wife and I make well over that, but it still doesn't make us rich, and we still need to be able to hold on to as much money (don't want tax increase that don't affect us locally) as we can for our children's future (he doesn't and wont have kids); he said that would be selfish of us.
Funny enough, this same cousin called the law on his neighbor because of their yard (needed weeding and cutting). When I asked why he didn't just cut it himself or talk to the neighbor about their situation, he said its not his problem, and he doesn't need to help able bodied people (he's never spoken to them, so he doesn't even really know if they are able). He also checked in on their property taxes and saw that they were delinquent, and made the comment that he hoped they lose the house.
You have to ask yourself: is it OK to force change on people who don't want it? I don't think it is, and I think the conservative argument is more fair.
The issue is the opposite occurs.
On average, Blue States are the makers and Red states are the takers.
Red states use more welfare, have more poverty, and have lower gdp. Blue states subsidize them. These are facts.
Red voters are incredibly hypocritical when it comes to taxes and handouts.
Do liberals ever ask the question why?
Why do red states have heavier funding than blue states, despite the population difference?
Because that's what liberals wanted, so they forced it!
One of your own sources talks about this:
Before World War II, federal grants favored larger, wealthier, more urban states. By distributing funding on the basis of population and requiring states to match federal contributions, grant programs discriminated in favor of the haves. This meant the poor, low-revenue states of the South and inland West received smaller shares of the federal pie.
As federal spending took off in the 1930s, southerners pushed to reform the system to bring more federal aid to their region. President Franklin D. Roosevelt generally approved of this push for more equal spending, so new formulas gradually found their way into many federal programs. Such provisions became so prevalent that, by 1962, the relationship between state income and grants had reversed itself and slightly favored poorer regions such as the South.
Also, "federal funding" isn't synonymous with welfare. It includes things like military spending which leans heavily to red states.
And no, red states don't have more welfare, because all of your analysis only deals with federal taxes. Once you factor in your SALT, blue states spend a lot more on citizens per capita (which makes sense because of the higher taxes)
By the way, all the welfare they've been given hasn't changed these poverty ratings..so, maybe all this welfare isn't doing anything. Mississippi has the highest food stamp use per capita, and the highest obesity rating. California spends a ton on affordable housing, and their homeless population skyrockets.
It's almost like welfare discourages responsibility no matter what your political beliefs are, and only makes the problems they are trying to fix even worse.
@Mercenary848: That’s hardly the right’s biggest problem. They have gone full retard in support of a president who acts in such a way any of us would punish our own children for mimicking.
Vlad didn't refute a single one of my links. Links that objectively show Red states are the takers and Blue states are the makers. And that makes it quite ironic on how Red voters in Red states (which are more poor) believe the opposite.
Facts don't care about your feelings.
@vl4d_l3nin said: Do liberals ever ask the question why?
Why do red states have heavier funding than blue states, despite the population difference?
Because that's what liberals wanted, so they forced it!
One of your own sources talks about this:
Strawman. Off-Topic. I never argued or debated any of this.
I was just pointing out the solid fact of how red states are the takers and blue states are the makers. Contrary to what many red voters ironically think, many of which who benefit from this aid.
Red states spend more on federal aid programs (non military), have more poverty, and have lower gdp. Blue states subsidize them. These are facts.
@vl4d_l3nin said: Als o, "federal funding" isn't synonymous with welfare. It includes things like military spending which leans heavily to red states.
Red states rely most federal aid assistance and entitlement programs, excluding military spending:
Federal aid is given to states for Medicaid, transportation, education, and other means-tested entitlement programs administered by the states.
States differ in the amount of federal aid they receive. The top recipient of federal aid in FY 2014 was Mississippi, which relied on federal assistance for 40.9 percent of its revenue. Other states heavily reliant on federal assistance include Louisiana (40.1 percent), Tennessee (39.9 percent), Montana (39.1 percent), and Kentucky (38.5 percent). As we have previously noted, these states, and others that rely heavily on federal assistance, tend to have modest tax collections and a relatively large low-income population.
its not so black and white to label people as liberal/conservative. Most people don't fit so neatly into either category and have different beliefs. I for example align more to the right on economic issues (not the mainstream right--but the REAL right that got its party highjacked a while ago). I agree with many arguments those on the left make on social issues but unlike the left, I don't think those social causes should be rammed down peoples throats using the law.
I think patents, IP, anti free market regulations are a scam designed to enrich a few people. I think the entire system needs to be brought down to rubble.
The general theme and extent of most right wing arguments when presented with facts that our society in the US as a whole can be improved tend to be “well I <have this problem in my life> and you don’t see me complaining.”. Then proceed to call everyone else entitled when they follow a line of thinking that is based on preventing any social development that breaks up the status quo that THEY are used to.
Being on the right in this day and age is the highest form of hypocrisy and that becomes more and more apparent each day.
You are quoting Liberal doctrine. What party is always complaining about the rich? That's right the left.
@Mercenary848: lol wtf are you talking about. Liberal logic is going into full socialism which is all about putting people in equally shitty positions.
@zaryia: Yet using the new measure of rating poverty blue states are just as bad and in fact the most liberal state of all is now the poorest state in the nation.
@zaryia: Yet using the new measure of rating poverty blue states are just as bad and in fact the most liberal state of all is now the poorest state in the nation.
Interesting. California should be pretty mad it isn't getting its fair share of government funds then, right? I'm not sure I would describe California as the "poorest" state even if they have the highest poverty rate, given their great wealth. A lot of their poverty seems like a natural by-product of rapidly developing wealth. San Francisco home prices have skyrocketed, but that can't be separated from the fact the whole region around it is being filled with an endless legion of well paid tech workers. You could say their socialist rent control policies have made it worse. Maybe, maybe not, but it isn't the defining characteristic of the problem, which is simple supply and demand.
I think all the states are like that. We make far too much of legislative impact on our economy, it is usually minimal. The wealthy areas of the nation have resources, are located on trade routes, or have built up infrastructure, both physical and financial. The poorer areas are more barren, with fewer, harder to extract resources, farther from financial and natural infrastructure.
Actually, it should be a lesson for all of us who act as though a single cycle of other party would bring economic catastrophe that Massachusetts is very wealthy with great schools and so is Utah and both have been for a very long time.
@vl4d_l3nin said: Do liberals ever ask the question why?
Why do red states have heavier funding than blue states, despite the population difference?
Because that's what liberals wanted, so they forced it!
One of your own sources talks about this:
Strawman. Off-Topic. I never argued or debated any of this.
I was just pointing out the solid fact of how red states are the takers and blue states are the makers. Contrary to what many red voters ironically think, many of which who benefit from this aid.
It's not a strawman. Kind of the opposite, actually. It's what should be debated. It getting the horse before the cart.
Your 'matter of fact' position holds no solution, and I don't think it intends to. My position sees the problem: the funding itself, and policy put in by the executive power of a leftist president, and expanded over others. Exploited by state politicians for decades, Get rid of that, and problem solved.
The downside for blue states is that it would cause a huge shortage of liberal smugness. Leftists will no longer have the satisfaction of feeling better than those dumb mean conservatives by paying for welfare that does nothing to alleviate poverty and suffering. On the bright side, maybe Mississippi could lose some weight if it didn't have a dependency on federal food stamps.
Boom! Just refuted six articles without even reading them
@zaryia: Yet using the new measure of rating poverty blue states are just as bad and in fact the most liberal state of all is now the poorest state in the nation.
All latest data shows red states on average have more poverty, more obesity, worse health, worse education, and lower gdp. I know CA might be worse on some of those (but the best in GDP), but I'm talking about on average red vs blue.
Supplemental Poverty Measure takes into account differences in cost of living between states (i.e. housing costs appreciably higher/lower than the national average) as well as taxes and the value of government assistance programs. All data are from the United States Census Bureau.
@zaryia: California is the poorest state in the union based off the SPM which is currently the best way to measure poverty. The old way is inaccurate because it does not take into account the cost of living. Not to mention the wealth gap in California is massive with the richest people in the US residing there and boosting its wealth. The fact is the top 3 poorest states are California, Florida(which voted for Obama twice and New York). So Your claim with current measures is in fact false.
@zaryia: California is the poorest state in the union based off the SPM which is currently the best way to measure poverty.
So Your claim with current measures is in fact false.
Sigh,
I know CA might be worse on some of those (but the best in GDP), but I'm talking about on average red vs blue.
The bolded is true.
Yes. CA has the highest poverty. But Red states on average just have more of it than Blue states. Both for SPM and non SPM adjusted figures, and even household income adjusted figures. As well as all that other stuff I listed. The average red states are the biggest moochers, worse education, more obesity, more poverty, lower gdp compared to the average blue states. Overall red has more of that stuff. Some by a little, some by a lot - but it's certainly more on all accounts.
@zaryia: California is the poorest state in the union based off the SPM which is currently the best way to measure poverty.
So Your claim with current measures is in fact false.
Sigh,
I know CA might be worse on some of those (but the best in GDP), but I'm talking about on average red vs blue.
The bolded is true.
Yes. CA has the highest poverty. But Red states on average just have more of it than Blue states. Both for SPM and non SPM adjusted figures, and even household income adjusted figures. As well as all that other stuff I listed. The average red states are the biggest moochers, worse education, more obesity, more poverty, lower gdp compared to the average blue states. Overall red has more of that stuff. Some by a little, some by a lot - but it's certainly more on all accounts.
blackhaired lives his life based on gut feelings and assumptions
@zaryia: My link says otherwise.. please post something with the new SPM that backs your point up. Because the two most liberal states in the US are ranked 1st and third in poverty.
@zaryia: My link says otherwise.. please post something with the new SPM that backs your point up. Because the two most liberal states in the US are ranked 1st and third in poverty.
Most impoverished states in the US.
Mississippi, New Mexico, Louisiana, Alabama and Kentucky.
By the way, all the welfare they've been given hasn't changed these poverty ratings..so, maybe all this welfare isn't doing anything. Mississippi has the highest food stamp use per capita, and the highest obesity rating. California spends a ton on affordable housing, and their homeless population skyrockets.
It's almost like welfare discourages responsibility no matter what your political beliefs are, and only makes the problems they are trying to fix even worse.
You blame obesity on food stamps, then you go on a rant about people not taking responsibility for their own problems. Do you have a brain parasite or something? Anyway, you should write campaign slogans for the Republican party. I'm sure Mississippians would LOVE to hear you call them a bunch of overweight losers. By the way, food stamps are administered at the state level, so no, the entire program isn't just a bunch of liberals at the federal level forcing spending on people. There are Republicans at the state level making decisions about how SNAP benefits are allocated.
@theone86: Do you have a brain parasite? Did it start to manifest around the time you read the line "welfare discourages responsibility"? It's a pretty simple concept: when you are given something, you are less likely to have the motivation to earn it. I'm not the one calling people for Mississippi losers (I have family there), just overweight. It's the goofball I was arguing with who is trying to insinuate the people in red states are welfare queens.
Obviously SNAP allocates at state levels. I never argued that, but allocation is not the same as funding. SNAP is a federal program, with federal funding that is allocated at the state level by force. If politicians do not allocate federal funds properly, they get charged and possibly end up in jail. Plenty of politicians in states like Mississippi and Louisiana have ended up behind bars for messing with federal funds.
@LJS9502_basic: That's not based off the SPM. That just takes the average income of the citizens in each state. When you factor the SPM its California, Florida, New York all make up the top 3. The SPM is the new standard as it should be. Somebody who makes 50k a year in Kentucky is far better off then someone who makes 60k a year in New York hence why they changed the measure.
The general theme and extent of most right wing arguments when presented with facts that our society in the US as a whole can be improved tend to be “well I <have this problem in my life> and you don’t see me complaining.”. Then proceed to call everyone else entitled when they follow a line of thinking that is based on preventing any social development that breaks up the status quo that THEY are used to.
Being on the right in this day and age is the highest form of hypocrisy and that becomes more and more apparent each day.
I actually think this is not true.
They are told that 'the other' sees themselves as 'entitled' and they simply repeat it.
their real motivation is rather 'base'. Fear of racial and sexual roles changing, that makes up most of it. The rest is fear of change in general.
@theone86: Do you have a brain parasite? Did it start to manifest around the time you read the line "welfare discourages responsibility"? It's a pretty simple concept: when you are given something, you are less likely to have the motivation to earn it. I'm not the one calling people for Mississippi losers (I have family there), just overweight. It's the goofball I was arguing with who is trying to insinuate the people in red states are welfare queens.
Obviously SNAP allocates at state levels. I never argued that, but allocation is not the same as funding. SNAP is a federal program, with federal funding that is allocated at the state level by force. If politicians do not allocate federal funds properly, they get charged and possibly end up in jail. Plenty of politicians in states like Mississippi and Louisiana have ended up behind bars for messing with federal funds.
So yes on the brain parasite? Got it.
Again, you seem to be having issues seeing the inherent contradiction between the two statements of "people need to take responsibility for their own actions," and "welfare causes people to be obese." Are people responsible for their own actions or aren't they? Make up your parasite-infested mind.
You insinuated that they have an inability to take responsibility for their own actions and were destitute as a result, that's calling them losers. Being on food stamps also does not make you fat, thanks for the insulting generalization. Keep em coming, I'm sure the people you're insulting just love it and it definitely won't affect how they view the Republican party.
And yet state funding can have a profound effect on who's eligible and how the funds are spent. Like I said, it's not just liberal politicians determining who gets food stamps.
@theone86: Bro, after the conservative cry baby fest they had in the thread I made asking them about their backgrounds; I’m really starting to think the right wing man children have double downed on their stupid. I keep thinking we hit the peak, but nope.
@theone86: Bro, after the conservative cry baby fest they had in the thread I made asking them about their backgrounds; I’m really starting to think the right wing man children have double downed on their stupid. I keep thinking we hit the peak, but nope.
Kinda reminds me of this article I read just this morning:
@theone86: Bro, after the conservative cry baby fest they had in the thread I made asking them about their backgrounds; I’m really starting to think the right wing man children have double downed on their stupid. I keep thinking we hit the peak, but nope.
I don't know, if some conservative created a thread asking about liberals and their backgrounds, the responses would be similar.
@theone86: Bro, after the conservative cry baby fest they had in the thread I made asking them about their backgrounds; I’m really starting to think the right wing man children have double downed on their stupid. I keep thinking we hit the peak, but nope.
What did you expect? you tried to make it personal instead of debating on the politics.
But my links show Red and counties states on average have higher poverty. Furthermore, they have higher obesity. Lower education. Far Lower gdp. And worse health. And use far more federal aid programs. The result is a lower HDI (human development index) on average as well.
My link shows blue states taking 3 of the top five spots with a neutral state taking number 2. Again your link showing poor counties is worthless because none of those factor SPM. They may make less a year yet on average still live in better conditions. Hence why the two most liberal states hold the one and three spot.
My link shows blue states taking 3 of the top five spots with a neutral state taking number 2.
You're doing it again. You brought up 3 out of 5, but there are 50 states. On average Red states have higher poverty.
And higher obesity, lower gdp, lower education, lower life expectancy (birth), worse health, lower median income (adjusted for cost of living) use the most aid, and most importantly lower HDI. They objectively have worse conditions overall:
Red-herring: That first link is 11 years old, even if it was true it does not refute any of my above data points as it isn't comparing states. Red states are worse overall.
Median Income, adjusted for regional price differences:
57k - Blue
53k- Red
Red-herring: The second link is irrelevant, and in no way references worse living conditions. Oh and it only examines politicians. I personally prefer the women in Blue states, more flavors to choose from.
@zaryia: 1. Again none of your links mention the SPM which is the current standard for poverty.
2. You mention red states being poorer which my link contradicts the relevancy of that as conservatives on average make more money. 53k in a red state would be far better then 57k in a blue state even if you adjust it. But it mentions more people that make over 100k a year vote Republican.
Another link that verifies my claim. With 63% of the poorest people voting Democrat.
3. You posted a link saying red states are more Obese[not sure how that's relevant] and I posted one that shows conservatives are in fact more attractive. Obesity is linked with unattractiveness hence why I posted it.
@zaryia: 1. Again none of your links mention the SPM which is the current standard for poverty.
2. You mention red states being poorer which my link contradicts the relevancy of that as conservatives on average make more money. 53k in a red state would be far better then 57k in a blue state even if you adjust it. But it mentions more people that make over 100k a year vote Republican.
Another link that verifies my claim. With 63% of the poorest people voting Democrat.
3. You posted a link saying red states are more Obese[not sure how that's relevant] and I posted one that shows conservatives are in fact more attractive. Obesity is linked with unattractiveness hence why I posted it.
There is a lot of controversy about the SPM so I'm not sure why you hold that up as absolute.
@LJS9502_basic: Its been the new standard since 2009 and it makes perfect sense. Who's better off financially? The guy who makes 53k a year in Kentucky that can afford a three bedroom house or the guy in New york who makes 70k a year and can only afford a one bedroom apartment?
The left always uses average income within states to show how effective democratic policies are but forget to mention those places still have a higher rate of poverty due to the cost of those policies.
I remember going out to Seattle( which is a wealthy city) and thinking it would be some kind of utopia yet in reality it was flooded with a disproportionate amount of homeless folks. It's amazing how much the libs hate the wealth gap yet the blue states seem to have it worse then anyone else.
@zaryia: 1. Again none of your links mention the SPM which is the current standard for poverty.
2. You mention red states being poorer which my link contradicts the relevancy of that as conservatives on average make more money. 53k in a red state would be far better then 57k in a blue state even if you adjust it. But it mentions more people that make over 100k a year vote Republican.
Another link that verifies my claim. With 63% of the poorest people voting Democrat.
3. You posted a link saying red states are more Obese[not sure how that's relevant] and I posted one that shows conservatives are in fact more attractive. Obesity is linked with unattractiveness hence why I posted it.
This is the issue with Trump fans. Alternative Facts.
1. My first links mentions SPM. Red states are more poor. This is a fact. SPM. NO SPM. Both.
2. 57k >53k. It specifically says higher cost of living is adjusted for. Your link was 11 years old. Blue states have higher income when looking at the latest data.
3. Red states are more obese and as a result less healthy. Among other things that lower life expectancy, which is lower in RED STATES. That is very relevant to a discussion about "crappy conditions", the thread title. Also, the link you gave only talks about Politicians, not the general population. Neither does it have health implications.
@LJS9502_basic: Its been the new standard since 2009 and it makes perfect sense. Who's better off financially? The guy who makes 53k a year in Kentucky that can afford a three bedroom house or the guy in New york who makes 70k a year and can only afford a one bedroom apartment?
Cost of living is adjusted for in my two links. Blue states have higher income and lower poverty. Among many other things that result in a better Human Development Index, which blue states have.
IE:
Yet income differences between red and blue states stopped closing around 1980 and, in some revealing cases, widened. For example, Texas and Massachusetts — often considered exemplars of the red and blue models — had almost converged by 1980. Since then, Texas’ per capita income has fallen significantly relative to Massachusetts’. The same is true of Utah.
Yes, the cost of living is higher in Massachusetts than it is in Texas — by about 11 percent in the last few years, according to recent government calculations by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. But even this significant difference (surely longstanding) can’t close the widened gap.
@zaryia: 1. No it's not. You posted a link from wikipedia and it mentions nothing about the SPM. Using the SPM blue states hold 3 if the top 5 spots. Also far more homelessness in blue states as well.
2. I posted another link. 63% of those that make 36k a year vote Democrat while only 36% that make 200k a year vote Democrat. Republicans are more successful, richer and better looking.
3. Irrelevant.. my City I live in is one of the unhealthiest in the nation and although it's in a red state the City has been run by Democrats for 30 years.
PS: Amazing how blue states have the highest homeless rates. Showing leftist policies don't work.
@LJS9502_basic: Its been the new standard since 2009 and it makes perfect sense. Who's better off financially? The guy who makes 53k a year in Kentucky that can afford a three bedroom house or the guy in New york who makes 70k a year and can only afford a one bedroom apartment?
The left always uses average income within states to show how effective democratic policies are but forget to mention those places still have a higher rate of poverty due to the cost of those policies.
I remember going out to Seattle( which is a wealthy city) and thinking it would be some kind of utopia yet in reality it was flooded with a disproportionate amount of homeless folks. It's amazing how much the libs hate the wealth gap yet the blue states seem to have it worse then anyone else.
And yet the poorest states are the red states. That doesn't mean everyone in a particular state is wealthy/not wealthy. You really need to stop presenting extremes and calling them the norm.
Okay this is difficult. I'm wondering whether or not to respond to this guy, everything he's saying is straight up lies. Just factually incorrect lies.
@blackhairedhero said:
@zaryia: You posted a link from wikipedia and it mentions nothing about the SPM.
To quote my link,
Supplemental Poverty Measure (2010-2014 average)
Please stop lying.
@blackhairedhero said:
Republicans are more successful, richer and better looking.
And? Red states have lower income than Blue states on average. I wasn't comparing republican and democrats, rather comparing the results of actual Republican vs Democratic leadership. Red voters aren't doing themselves favors in Red States. That's a fact.
Republicans in general are not better looking, that study only looked at politicians. It also mentions this might be due to Republicans caring more about looks when it comes to who they vote for. You're lying about the study. And this also has nothing to do with living conditions, it's completely off-topic and pointless.
@blackhairedhero said:
3. Irrelevant.. my City I live in is one of the unhealthiest in the nation and although it's in a red state the City has been run by Democrats for 30 years.
Anecdotal evidence. What are you doing.
This is climate denier bringing a snowball to congress floor level of stupid. You're objectively wrong. My data is not irrelevant. Red states have worse health and higher obesity. They have worse living conditions.
Red states have lower human development index. They are objectively worse overall than blue states.
Log in to comment