The sad thing is that that Johnny Harris video FIU posted brings up a tonne of good points, but no one is going to watch it because FIU is such a dishonest actor.
I follow Johnny Harris and watched this video when it first came out 3 years ago.
The issues are that not all "Democrats" are the same. It's a big tent and there are tons of competing interests. It also covers a political spectrum that would align with center / center-right politics in many other countries (like Canada, UK) and right wing politics in many continental European countries.
No one is pointing at Nancy Pelosi and shouting "she is the embodiment of Karl Marx!" The Democrats have a ton of warts; but so many people hold them to perfection while the Republicans get passes on so many things.
It's not that Johnny Harris is entirely wrong, it's that it is disingenuous for a Trumper to point to these issues and say "See! you are all hypocrites!"
Do you live here, or does your analysis of what Americans/Republicans/Democrats are interested in come for X/tictoc?
I only speak anecdotally, but here in bright blue Chicago and brilliant red everywhere rural Illinois, no one gives a #### about twerking or number of people at any rally or any of that ####, but they do think this group of the GOP are creepy as #### weirdos. Women particularly vocal about this. It's only the true Trumpers left who support Donald.
My gut says this will be a landslide now, where prior to Harris I expected Trump to win. So popular enough I guess. We see
Just curious here - is that what you've seen from both urban/rural areas? Like even the brilliant red have reached a bit of a breaking point in supporting the GOP?
I know you said anecdotally, but any answer you say I will be spreading like fact, and only if I like the answer.
__________________ I'm afraid of children identifying as cats and dogs. - Tuco
Just curious here - is that what you've seen from both urban/rural areas? Like even the brilliant red have reached a bit of a breaking point in supporting the GOP?
I know you said anecdotally, but any answer you say I will be spreading like fact, and only if I like the answer.
Jumping in here because I live in a consistently blue county in PA and work in a neighboring pretty red one.
Outside of the few diehards who have kept Trump paraphernalia up since 2016...there aren't many signs of support thus far. At this point in the race you're not seeing many signs period, but there are definitely a lot fewer houses with Trump signs/flags than even 4 years ago, and far less than 2016.
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to wittynickname For This Useful Post:
Just curious here - is that what you've seen from both urban/rural areas? Like even the brilliant red have reached a bit of a breaking point in supporting the GOP?
I know you said anecdotally, but any answer you say I will be spreading like fact, and only if I like the answer.
My wife’s dad is a Southern Oklahoman Lutheran who is a strong Conservative that owns an oil company. You couldn’t ask for a more ideal conservative voter if you were running the party. He was a Trump supporter in 2016, however did not even vote for President in 2020. I’d expect the same for 2024.
I think Harris wins because of people like him. They are the real conservatives, but can’t align with Trump and his Project 2025/MAGA friends anymore. They would rather see their team lose than support who is on it. Any longtime Conservative can see their party is in shambles and embarrassing to the rest of the world. A party built on morals just to the overrun by the moralless. Quite a downfall.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by henriksedin33
Not at all, as I've said, I would rather start with LA over any of the other WC playoff teams. Bunch of underachievers who look good on paper but don't even deserve to be in the playoffs.
The Following User Says Thank You to HOOT For This Useful Post:
Just curious here - is that what you've seen from both urban/rural areas? Like even the brilliant red have reached a bit of a breaking point in supporting the GOP?
I know you said anecdotally, but any answer you say I will be spreading like fact, and only if I like the answer.
Haha. Can't comment on the city itself, but this is what I have experienced rurally. I live in Chicagoland (NW suburbs) but I work a lot in rural red IL.
The Trumpers are as entrenched as always. This is to be expected. What I did not expect was the number of random people (who again by my own experience only) are the types who have never talked politics before, are noisy about these creepy Republicans. And while their rural roots make democrats a natural enemy, they love the Waltz pick and seem surprisingly happy to support Harris. Again, this is in contrast to previous, where all anyone talked about was how much Biden has deteriorated (post debate talk).
One anecdote, but representative of my experience only:
Had a recent visit with a female general contractor I know and have previously worked with. She is as redneck as it gets, in a good way. I have known her several years. Friday was the first time we ever talked politics. She supported Trump in 2016, didn't vote in 2020 (first time didn't vote), and will vote Democrat for the first time in her life in November. She said and repeated more than once - 'Walsh, who I had never heard of before, nailed these guys perfectly: they are creepy and I don't get the fascination with women's reproductive bits'.
That vote is not going to matter a bit in IL. It's as guaranteed blue as it gets, because Chicago. But if this same sentiment is running it's course in swing states, where votes like this matter, it's not even going to be close. In my opinion.
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to EldrickOnIce For This Useful Post:
Appreciate everyone's insight! I know it's only your experience with people, but I'm pretty isolated from how Americans actually feel about the situation.
From only the three posts it seems that the GOP is playing cliffhanger on price is right and
may have gone a bit too far, losing some voters off the cliff.
Thanks for sharing, happy to hear more if other things come up (pro or anti republican of course.)
__________________ I'm afraid of children identifying as cats and dogs. - Tuco
You're so far removed from reality, what colour is the water where you're from? Orange?
Trump has you completely and utterly duped.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FireItUp
I can same the exact same thing to many of you.
All I have to do is replace "Trump" with "the left wing media". We can go back and forth on issues that don't effect peoples day to day life, but none of it really matters. The real question is, do Democrat or Republican policies make the lives better for citizens? While neither are perfect, I think overall, the conservative policies do.
This video explains what happens when Republicans aren’t standing in the way of Democrats. The Democrats control all the levers of power in these states. They run the government, and this is the result.
I dug up what I think is the first is the first time this was posted here, because obviously, it doesn't just matter what the video is, for the context of this board it also matters why it was posted, what point is trying to make.
This video was somewhere between the 15th and 20th video you (FIP) posted that day, with the videos before this already adding up to over an hour of material
Before I get into the video (and I will do that) I feel a need to explain something else.
Quote:
This video calls out Liberal politicians, liberal policies, and most important liberals voters perfectly.
I posted it earlier, but clearly none of you responded to it, because it doesn't look good for the left on multiple levels.
First off: These days you should know that when discussing the Democratic party, liberals and the left aren't the same thing. They are in fact basically the two primary opposing camps within the democratic party. "Liberals" are the reason why single payer healthcare is called a progressive policy, and why people on the left call themselves progressive instead of liberals. Clintons are liberals, Ocario-Cortez is a progressive or leftist, depending on the context. How relevant this is depends on how significant do you think the actual progressive wing is within the Democratic party, but still.
Second: the main reason why I think nobody on this forum needs to see this video is that you're essentially using it to support an opinion nobody really disagrees with.
This is a board for mostly middle-aged men, and this thread is for people who are interested in politics. I seriously doubt there is any person over 25 with even a remote interest in politics that doesn't already know that political parties have a tendency to be massive hypocrites, and I doubt there is literally a single person posting in this thread that would agree with the sentence "the Democrats are really a fantastic political party". I would absolutely agree that the Democrats suck a lot of the time, and I'm kind of strongly pro-Democrat.
However, they don't suck because of the reasons on this video.
Quote:
I get it. You don't want to see what actually happens to States when people who think like you run them.
Quote:
There are a ton of you that love spreading your liberal views, but when a video shows what happens in States that are run by all Liberals, you all get very quiet or change the subject.
The video starts by talking about the Democrats, so we know that within the context of this video liberal = Democrat. Then the video goes to make a claim that it's going to look at "what do Democrats actually do when they get to power", and they very clearly make a point that this means "when Republicans are not getting in their way", so we know that this is not just about the Democrats, it's about comparing the two parties. They repeat this point, and shuffle through Democratic 2020 policy platform papers highlighting random buzzwords to make sure you really know we're really digging into the Democratic policies here. Spoiler alert: we're actually not going to do that at all, that's just for show. No actual Democratic policy is ever discussed. The video is really just anecdotes and vibes, with some misrepresentation of stats and facts.
The video really starts by talking about housing, and from there on, we never talk about the Republicans again, so there is no actual comparison between the two parties. No case is made for the argument that if Republicans are in power, in part or wholly, that it somehow benefits a state in any of the topics discussed in the video.
This is just a video attacking the Democrats on some issues, and the way it's done is a pretty good example of plausibly deniable but obviously intentional partisan propaganda.
For the record: this is a well made piece of partisan propaganda and very easy to fall for, so there's absolutely no shame in not noticing how disingenuous the video is.
On the video, an expert tells you that "children born in neigbourhoods with degraded environmental conditions, with a lack of access to high quality public services, poor schools, poor public transit are at a permanent disadvantage". None of the things on that list are housing related, which is a bit weird but fair enough, we can get back to these topics later on.
The video then discusses in general the fact that Democratic states have a lot of housing problems. This is very true, it's definitely not a good look for the Democrats, homelessness especially is kinda bad, although to me that kind of explains why housing is such a topic of interest to the Democrats. This is really all the true merit I can give to this video, because it then goes on to give exactly one reason why there is a housing crisis: Zoning and nimby's in area's with housing zones that only allow single family homes. It then gives one example of how this worked in one anecdote.
In Palo Alto California, "they" changed the zoning in one area to allow a bigger house to be built in the area, but that the local residents organized a vote and overturned the decision. That's it. That's why there's a lack of housing in the USA, and then the video moves on from this topic. There is literally no mention who exactly tried to re-zone an area so that higher density housing could be built. "They"would of course in situation be Democratic party members who run Palo Alto. (This is a very Blue place.)
So while this very random (but admittedly good) anecdote is supposed to prove how how Democratic policies cause housing crisis, immediately when you stop and think about it, it's actually just an example of how Democrats tried to do something but they couldn't because there was a vote by locals and they lost. While I will grant you that this is a perfectly good example of "liberal hypocrisy", the anecdote taken as a whole kind of goes against the narrative that the video is trying to build: that Democratic policies are a cause of housing crisis.
That's really all this video has to say about housing. One anecdote about one place, that does nothing to prove anything.
Btw, there are definitely statistics that make Democrats look bad with housing, but since this video is only about single family house zoning, let's stick to that.
The Biden administration was trying to encourage zoning changes that would allow a bigger housing density, and tried to give quite a bit of money to affordable housing projects, and the party that was primarily trying to stop him was the Republicans. Similar ideas are in the Democratic party platform for 2024. Tim Walz pushed for more zoning for housing in Minnesota and has even been labeled a YIMBY. Biden-Harris had a plan to build 2 million new homes during the next cycle, and while Harris I believe hasn't released her exact plan yet, the Democrats have been quite active in going against single family house -zoning. In California they actually managed to pass a law banning the practice, but they got taken to court and lost. But again: they did try.
It's honestly a little hard to see where this hypocrisy is found on the party level, to me this doesn't really look much like a party politics issue. However if someone wants to call them hypocrites on this, whatever. This video fails to make the case, but the case can still be made, so as a whole this the part of the video with most value. It's not great, but it's something.
The videon then moves on to "Taxation", but really means "tax progression", which is fair enough but it's actually really important to remember that there's a lot more to taxation than who pays what percentage on paper.
The video says that the rich paying more than the poor is "like a most basic policy of a progressive movement", which is a bit weird. Yeah, progressive taxation is a basic policy of a progressive movement, but who would seriously call the Democratic party a progressive movement?
Is that something from the 2020 Democratic policy platform, the document that the video makes a big show of reading, pulling several quotes?
Spoiler!
Quote:
Democrats will take action to reverse the Trump Administration's tax cuts benefiting the wealthiest Americans and rewarding corporations for shipping American jobs overseas. We will crack down on overseas tax havens and close loopholes that are exploited by the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations. We will make sure the wealthy pay their fair share in taxes. We will make sure investors pay the same tax rates as workers and bring an end to expensive and unproductive tax loopholes, including the carried interest loophole. Corporate tax rates, which were cut sharply by the 2017 Republican tax cut, must be raised, and "trickle-down" tax cuts must be rejected. Estate taxes should also be raised back to the historical norm.
Democrats will reform the tax code to be more progressive and equitable, and reduce barriers for working families to benefit from targeted tax breaks, including the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit. Our program of reform will provide immediate, marked relief for working families, including more generous, refundable tax credits to benefit low- and middle-income families, and easier and more equitable access to tax provisions that help working families build wealth, including by equalizing tax benefits for retirement contributions and providing more accessible tax breaks for homeownership.
It's very much in the eye of the beholder I guess, but I would say that's at best a "sort of". It's a little weird that even though the Democrats "keep crying about" something, the video couldn't find a quote to support the specific claim they're making.
Anyway we then get into talking about Washington state, and how Washington is the state with the most regressive taxation, "even more regressive than Texas", who are #2 on the list. Then we go on to look at a list of 9 states (which is a very weird cutoff point and should raise questions) with the most regressive taxation, which has 2-3 Blue states on it (Nevada is marked blue, I'd say that's very debatable) and 6 Red states on it.
So hold on... If the Democrats are the reason for inequality in the United States as the title of the video claims, why are most of the states with the most regressive taxation Red states? Once again, the video says it's proving something, but when you stop to think about it for a second, the evidence it's providing is proving the opposite.
I want to add here that this video is from 2021, and here's the top 20 states on that same list (ITEP.org ranking) today:
Blue states: 3 (#2 Washington, #8 Illinois and #18 New Hamphsire)
Purple: 3 (Pennsylvania, Nevada, Ohio)
Red: 14 (Florida, Tennessee, South Dakota, Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Wyoming, Alabama, Arizona, Indiana, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Mississippi, Alaska)
Oh, and the 10 states with most progressive taxation are all Blue.
If you want progressive taxation, you absolutely should vote for the Democrats, and you most definitely should not vote Republican. This really isn't debatable, at least if we compare the parties in the way this video compares them.
I guess this is why they wanted to talk about Washington so badly. There is just absolutely no question that Democrats have clearly delivered on progressive taxation in states where they have control, at least compared to the Republicans. No hypocrisy in sight here, the contrast between the two parties is actually very stark. The video does make the argument that rich liberals will not support progressive taxation and I guess that's something I'll accept with little proof... But if we accept that, then we also have to admit that the Democratic party is not controlled by the rich liberals, and will in fact sometimes go against them.
So once again, the video is in conflict with itself. Let's move on.
Next topic on the video: Education. The video explains how school funding works in the US. Schools are funded with the real estate taxes in the school district, which of course creates massive disparities between funding for schools for rich and poor neighbourhoods. The video then gives an example of how in Cook county (very Blue), "the residents have decided to divide themselves into more than 140 school districts." ...okay, sure. the specific area mentioned in the video is a very Blue area, but the video isn't even trying to say that this is a particularly Blue thing.
If the people of Cook County started to vote Republican, would that somehow cause them to start reorganizing their school districts? Obviously not. So why are we even talking about this in the context of which party has power? This isn't a Democrat or a Republican thing, this is a very 'Murican thing (and has historically everything to do with racial segregation).
If you once again stop to think about it, it's actually extremely vague what even is the point the video is trying to make, other than "Democrats bad". There isn't even anecdotal evidence presented against the Dems on this topic. But hey, we don't have to go just by the video.
14 Blue states (top 10 only has Blue or purple states).
2 purple states (Pennsylvania, Wisconsin)
4 Red states (Wyoming, Ohio, South Dakota, Ohio)... all in the 14-20 range.
The worst 5 are all Red states.
Oh hey. Looks like it's not even close. It's almost as if school district maps, are not all that matters when it comes to education, and it very much looks like they will deliver if they get to power. Would you look at that.
To it's credit, the video does mention that Blue states generally do provide more and better public services, but then goes to to say that when it comes to economic inequality "Blue states are the problem". The video then goes on to make the generalization that Democrats love to talk about inequality but don't actually walk the walk.
There is nothing on the video to back this claim up, this is just said without evidence. It's not just that the examples on the video failed to make the cases they were trying to make, even if they had, those anecdotes don't come even close to being actual evidence for this argument.
This claim is also just complete BS as far as I can tell.
Top 10 states with most income inequality:
6 Red states
2 Purple states
2 Blue states
Top 10 states with least inequality:
6 Blue states
1 Purple
3 Red states
Oh, and remember the list given at the beginning of the video? Environment, schools, public transit, public services? These things that were listed as super important for equal opportunity? We've already dealt with schools, the video itself said that Blue states tend to have better public services so I guess we don't have to go there, and I think we can just give "environment" to the Democrats when comparing to the party of "drill baby drill" that literally wants to close federal environmental agencies and claims that climate change isn't even real.
So let's look at public transit. Top 10 is I believe all Blue states.
What else could we look at? How about crime? That's a topic Republicans absolutely love to go on about. That top 10 is again looking very Blue to me. This is something that's quite important to poorer people especially as they are much more likely to be victims of crime.
Health care... Another clear Blue victory, and I think another very important factor in equality.
You can look at other categories if you wish, I think I made my point.
Yes, Democrats do suck in some ways and at some times, but if we're genuinely looking for an answer to the question of "what happens to a state when Democrats get to power", when it comes to the topics on this video, the answer is "things will be much better". I'm sorry, I know you hate that, but honestly the facts and statistics just line up that way when talking about these topics you seem to think are important.
There are topics where Republicans could make a case for themselves, unemployment is significantly higher in Blue states for example, and you can absolutely find experts that will say that this is in fact related to Republicans having more pro-employer policies. (I would disagree, but I doubt I'd convince anyone so I won't even try.) Homelessness is a way to attack Democrats, if you can show the connection between Democratic policies and the statistics for Blue states. There are good arguments to be made for the case that you're trying to make.
Unfortunately, you're not making good arguments. You're ranting. You're very aggressive towards everyone, and spamming the thread with low quality videos / misinformation, and that's the main reason why most people will not engage with you.
It's not because they disagree with everything you say, and not because they are in love with the Democrats. Nobody here is enthralled by the Democrats. You'll actually struggle to find anyone here who really likes Harris as a candidate. They just like Trump and the GOP even less.
Again, the two main topics of this channel are "Democrats suck" and "Republicans suck", and that's always been the case as long as I've been on this forum. You're not being the rebel you think you are. If you treated people better, limited yourself to talking about one topic at a time, and paid attention to your sources and the quality of your videos, then you would very quickly notice people treating what you say with more respect.
Last edited by Itse; 08-14-2024 at 03:11 PM.
The Following 36 Users Say Thank You to Itse For This Useful Post:
I dug up what I think is the first is the first time this was posted here, because obviously, it doesn't just matter what the video is, for the context of this board it also matters why it was posted, what point is trying to make.
This video was somewhere between the 15th and 20th video you (FIP) posted that day, with the videos before this already adding up to over an hour of material
Before I get into the video (and I will do that) I feel a need to explain something else.
First off: These days you should know that when discussing the Democratic party, liberals and the left aren't the same thing. They are in fact basically the two primary opposing camps within the democratic party. "Liberals" are the reason why single payer healthcare is called a progressive policy, and why people on the left call themselves progressive instead of liberals. Clintons are liberals, Ocario-Cortez is a progressive or leftist, depending on the context. How relevant this is depends on how significant do you think the actual progressive wing is within the Democratic party, but still.
Second: the main reason why I think nobody on this forum needs to see this video is that you're essentially using it to support an nobody really disagrees with.
This is a board for mostly middle-aged men, and this thread is for people who are interested in politics. I seriously doubt there is any person over 25 with even a remote interest in politics that doesn't already know that political parties have a tendency to be massive hypocrites, and I doubt there is literally a single person posting in this thread that would agree with the sentence "the Democrats are really a fantastic political party". (I wouldn't be surprised if I was the one with the most positive view of Democrats of anyone here, and I would absolutely agree that the Democrats kinda suck a lot of the time.
However, they don't suck because of the reasons on this video.
The video starts by talking about the Democrats, so we know that within the context of this video liberal = Democrat. Then the video goes to make a claim that it's going to look at "what do Democrats actually do when they get to power", and they very clearly make a point that this means "when Republicans are not getting in their way", so we know that this is not just about the Democrats, it's about comparing the two parties. They repeat this point, and shuffle through Democratic 2020 policy platform papers highlighting random buzzwords to make sure you really know we're really digging into the Democratic policies here. Spoiler alert: we're actually not going to do that at all, that's just for show. No actual Democratic policy is ever discussed. The video is really just anecdotes and vibes, with some misrepresentation of stats and facts.
The video really starts by talking about housing, and from there on, we never talk about the Republicans again, so there is no actual comparison between the two parties. No case is made for the argument that if Republicans are in power, in part or wholly, that it somehow benefits a state in any of the topics discussed in the video.
This is just a video attacking the Democrats on some issues, and the way it's done is a pretty good example of plausibly deniable but obviously intentional partisan propaganda.
For the record: this is a well made piece of partisan propaganda and very easy to fall for, so there's absolutely no shame in not noticing how disingenuous the video is.
On the video, an expert tells you that "children born in neigbourhoods with degraded environmental conditions, with a lack of access to high quality public services, poor schools, poor public transit are at a permanent disadvantage". None of the things on that list are housing related, which is a bit weird but fair enough, we can get back to these topics later on.
The video then discusses in general the fact that Democratic states have a lot of housing problems. This is very true, it's definitely not a good look for the Democrats, homelessness especially is kinda bad, although to me that kind of explains why housing is such a topic of interest to the Democrats. This is really all the true merit I can give to this video, because it then goes on to give exactly one reason why there is a housing crisis: Zoning and nimby's in area's with housing zones that only allow single family homes. It then gives one example of how this worked in one anecdote.
In Palo Alto California, "they" changed the zoning in one area to allow a bigger house to be built in the area, but that the local residents organized a vote and overturned the decision. That's it. That's why there's a lack of housing in the USA, and then the video moves on from this topic. There is literally no mention who exactly tried to re-zone an area so that higher density housing could be built. "They"would of course in situation be Democratic party members who run Palo Alto. (This is a very Blue place.)
So while this very random (but admittedly good) anecdote is supposed to prove how how Democratic policies cause housing crisis, immediately when you stop and think about it, it's actually just an example of how Democrats tried to do something but they couldn't because there was a vote by locals and they lost. While I will grant you that this is a perfectly good example of "liberal hypocrisy", the anecdote taken as a whole kind of goes against the narrative that the video is trying to build: that Democratic policies are a cause of housing crisis.
That's really all this video has to say about housing. One anecdote about one place, that does nothing to prove anything.
Btw, there are definitely statistics that make Democrats look bad with housing, but since this video is only about single family house zoning, let's stick to that.
The Biden administration was trying to encourage zoning changes that would allow a bigger housing density, and tried to give quite a bit of money to affordable housing projects, and the party that was primarily trying to stop him was the Republicans. Similar ideas are in the Democratic party platform for 2024. Tim Walz pushed for more zoning for housing in Minnesota and has even been labeled a YIMBY. Biden-Harris had a plan to build 2 million new homes during the next cycle, and while Harris I believe hasn't released her exact plan yet, the Democrats have been quite active in going against single family house -zoning. In California they actually managed to pass a law banning the practice, but they got taken to court and lost. But again: they did try.
It's honestly a little hard to see where this hypocrisy is found on the party level, to me this doesn't really look much like a party politics issue. However if someone wants to call them hypocrites on this, whatever. This video fails to make the case, but the case can still be made, so as a whole this the part of the video with most value. It's not great, but it's something.
The videon then moves on to "Taxation", but really means "tax progression", which is fair enough but it's actually really important to remember that there's a lot more to taxation than who pays what percentage on paper.
The video says that the rich paying more than the poor is "like a most basic policy of a progressive movement", which is a bit weird. Yeah, progressive taxation is a basic policy of a progressive movement, but who would seriously call the Democratic party a progressive movement?
Is that something from the 2020 Democratic policy platform, the document that the video makes a big show of reading, pulling several quotes?
Spoiler!
It's very much in the eye of the beholder I guess, but I would say that's at best a "sort of". It's a little weird that even though the Democrats "keep crying about" something, the video couldn't find a quote to support the specific claim they're making.
Anyway we then get into talking about Washington state, and how Washington is the state with the most regressive taxation, "even more regressive than Texas", who are #2 on the list. Then we go on to look at a list of 9 states (which is a very weird cutoff point and should raise questions) with the most regressive taxation, which has 2-3 Blue states on it (Nevada is marked blue, I'd say that's very debatable) and 6 Red states on it.
So hold on... If the Democrats are the reason for inequality in the United States as the title of the video claims, why are most of the states with the most regressive taxation Red states? Once again, the video says it's proving something, but when you stop to think about it for a second, the evidence it's providing is proving the opposite.
I want to add here that this video is from 2021, and here's the top 20 states on that same list (ITEP.org ranking) today:
Blue states: 3 (#2 Washington, #8 Illinois and #18 New Hamphsire)
Purple: 3 (Pennsylvania, Nevada, Ohio)
Red: 14 (Florida, Tennessee, South Dakota, Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Wyoming, Alabama, Arizona, Indiana, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Mississippi, Alaska)
Oh, and the 10 states with most progressive taxation are all Blue.
If you want progressive taxation, you absolutely should vote for the Democrats, and you most definitely should not vote Republican. This really isn't debatable, at least if we compare the parties in the way this video compares them.
I guess this is why they wanted to talk about Washington so badly. There is just absolutely no question that Democrats have clearly delivered on progressive taxation in states where they have control, at least compared to the Republicans. No hypocrisy in sight here, the contrast between the two parties is actually very stark. The video does make the argument that rich liberals will not support progressive taxation and I guess that's something I'll accept with little proof... But if we accept that, then we also have to admit that the Democratic party is not controlled by the rich liberals, and will in fact sometimes go against them.
So once again, the video is in conflict with itself. Let's move on.
Next topic on the video: Education. The video explains how school funding works in the US. Schools are funded with the real estate taxes in the school district, which of course creates massive disparities between funding for schools for rich and poor neighbourhoods. The video then gives an example of how in Cook county (very Blue), "the residents have decided to divide themselves into more than 140 school districts." ...okay, sure. the specific area mentioned in the video is a very Blue area, but the video isn't even trying to say that this is a particularly Blue thing.
If the people of Cook County started to vote Republican, would that somehow cause them to start reorganizing their school districts? Obviously not. So why are we even talking about this in the context of which party has power? This isn't a Democrat or a Republican thing, this is a very 'Murican thing (and has historically everything to do with racial segregation).
If you once again stop to think about it, it's actually extremely vague what even is the point the video is trying to make, other than "Democrats bad". There isn't even anecdotal evidence presented against the Dems on this topic. But hey, we don't have to go just by the video.
14 Blue states (top 10 only has Blue or purple states).
2 purple states (Pennsylvania, Wisconsin)
4 Red states (Wyoming, Ohio, South Dakota, Ohio)... all in the 14-20 range.
The worst 5 are all Red states.
Oh hey. Looks like it's not even close. It's almost as if school district maps, are not all that matters when it comes to education, and it very much looks like they will deliver if they get to power. Would you look at that.
To it's credit, the video does mention that Blue states generally do provide more and better public services, but then goes to to say that when it comes to economic inequality "Blue states are the problem". The video then goes on to make the generalization that Democrats love to talk about inequality but don't actually walk the walk.
There is nothing on the video to back this claim up, this is just said without evidence. It's not just that the examples on the video failed to make the cases they were trying to make, even if they had, those anecdotes don't come even close to being actual evidence for this argument.
This claim is also just complete BS as far as I can tell.
Top 10 states with most income inequality:
6 Red states
2 Purple states
2 Blue states
Top 10 states with least inequality:
6 Blue states
1 Purple
3 Red states
Oh, and remember the list given at the beginning of the video? Environment, schools, public transit, public services? These things that were listed as super important for equal opportunity? We've already dealt with schools, the video itself said that Blue states tend to have better public services so I guess we don't have to go there, and I think we can just give "environment" to the Democrats when comparing to the party of "drill baby drill" that literally wants to close federal environmental agencies and claims that climate change isn't even real.
So let's look at public transit. Top 10 is I believe all Blue states.
What else could we look at? How about crime? That's a topic Republicans absolutely love to go on about. That top 10 is again looking very Blue to me. This is something that's quite important to poorer people especially as they are much more likely to be victims of crime.
Health care... Another clear Blue victory, and I think another very important factor in equality.
You can look at other categories if you wish, I think I made my point.
Yes, Democrats do suck in some ways and at some times, but if we're genuinely looking for an answer to the question of "what happens to a state when Democrats get to power", when it comes to the topics on this video, the answer is "literally everything will be much better".
There are topics where Republicans could make a case for themselves, unemployment is significantly higher in Blue states for example, and you can absolutely find experts that will say that this is in fact related to Republicans having more pro-employer policies. (I would disagree, but I doubt I'd convince anyone so I won't even try.) Homelessness numbers would be a way to attack Democratic policies. There are good arguments to be made for the case that you're trying to make.
But you're not making good arguments. You're just ranting in fairly incoherent ways and spamming the thread with low quality videos / misinformation, and that's the main reason why most people will not engage with you.
Not because they disagree with everything you say, and not because they are in love with the Democrats.
That's a nice, well thought-out post you've got there, but have you considered that Trump dated a biracial woman? ANSWER THE QUESTION!
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Party Elephant For This Useful Post:
Thanks Itse for going through all of that. I am sure your response will be just as reasoned and well thought out. Or maybe a Nick Fuentes vid.
__________________
From HFBoard oiler fan, in analyzing MacT's management:
O.K. there has been a lot of talk on whether or not MacTavish has actually done a good job for us, most fans on this board are very basic in their analysis and I feel would change their opinion entirely if the team was successful.
Trump's casinos hid all the Black employees in the back whenever Trump would visit.
But we've learned, thanks to FireItUp, that this wasn't because he is racist and would be upset seeing them. It was because he had a mixed race girlfriend, so we know he likes Blacks, and probably wanted to #### 'em all instead of doing business.
Also:
Quote:
A book by John O’Donnell, former president of Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino in Atlantic City, quoted Trump’s criticism of a Black accountant: “Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day. … I think that the guy is lazy. And it’s probably not his fault, because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is, I believe that. It’s not anything they can control.” Trump later said in a 1997 Playboy interview that “the stuff O’Donnell wrote about me is probably true.”
Quote:
1992: The Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino had to pay a $200,000 fine because it transferred Black and women dealers off tables to accommodate a big-time gambler’s prejudices.
I'll donate $50 to the food bank if FireItUp responds in a serious manner to those two quoted blocks.
The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to Bill Bumface For This Useful Post:
Bill - FIU will likely take a while to respond here, he's likely going to furiously try and find ways to somehow call all of that fake news. He's adamant Trump isn't racist, so this can't possibly be true.
The Following User Says Thank You to Muta For This Useful Post:
Ugh, that lazy quote. That sounds like a generational "lesson". My stepdad, who was born in the late 40s in the midwest, has said that a few times too before I just stopped talking politics with that side of the family.
Trump's casinos hid all the Black employees in the back whenever Trump would visit.
But we've learned, thanks to FireItUp, that this wasn't because he is racist and would be upset seeing them. It was because he had a mixed race girlfriend, so we know he likes Blacks, and probably wanted to #### 'em all instead of doing business.
Also:
I'll donate $50 to the food bank if FireItUp responds in a serious manner to those two quoted blocks.
You think he will?
The woman he held up as evidence of Trump not being racist is the same woman Trump said “got her intelligence from her father, the white side of her family.”
Might as well just donate the money instead of us continuing to pretend the poster is ever going to post anything of conversational value.
We all know Trump is a racist. Are we just trying to re-convince ourselves?
The Following User Says Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
Bill - FIU will likely take a while to respond here, he's likely going to furiously try and find ways to somehow call all of that fake news. He's adamant Trump isn't racist, so this can't possibly be true.
I want his opinion on Trumps usage of Jeffrey Epstein's plane.
