The top ten POOREST states are all RED states: MS, WV, AL, LA, KY, AR, SC, OK, TN, TX

And having LV426 realize that political parties and their policies have done nothing for racism is very revealing.

I never said they did, Flash!

So once again, you have to create a straw man because you just can't stand the fact that I make you look like a fucking idiot every single day here.
 
That blacks are at the bottom in income and educational achievement in almost (?) every state tells us Democrats and Republicans don't affect the outcome.

Right, because of institutional racism.

But only one party has proposals to address it, but you oppose all those proposals, REMEMBER?
 
They stayed in NYC.

In 2000, there were 8,008,278 people living in NYC.

In 2020, there were 8,804,190 people living in NYC.

Is 8,008,278 > or < 8,804,190?
Sure, cities grow over time. 20 years to gain 10% seems kind of slow. Is it because of the high cost and low pay?
 
What you call "institutional racism" is a simplistic term for complex societal problems. If you wanted to prove institutional racism exists, how do you measure it?

LMAO!

So Flash points out that despite which party is in control, Black people struggle...so that would be an example of institutional racism; that neither party truly addresses the needs of that community, nor does the system.

Because if it WASN'T institutional racism, then all people would be struggling the same regardless of race, ethnicity, and gender. But they're not all struggling the same, as you pointed out on this thread.

So taking that through to its conclusion, you can only conclude that institutional racism is the cause of Black people struggling, and only one of the two parties have policies and proposals to address it.

BUT YOU OPPOSE ALL THOSE POLICIES AND PROPOSALS because you deny institutional racism exists, so you obviously think nothing should be done to address it.

Have you watched the Dahmer thing on Netflix?
 
Good point. Texas won't let you shit in the street.

Will they? You sure about that? You ever BEEN to Texas?


It is not a non-starter for those 60,000 Californians who follow their high tech jobs to Texas every year.

Yeah, because they left shitty red areas of California because LOS ANGELES GAINED 200,000 PEOPLE BETWEEN 2011 AND 2020.

You know what else, dipshit? SAN FRANCISCO GAINED 100,000 PEOPLE BETWEEN 2011 AND 2020.

You know what else, asshole? SAN DIEGO GAINED 70,000 PEOPLE BETWEEN 2011 AND 2020.

You know what else, shitdick? SAN JOSE GAINED 90,000 PEOPLE BETWEEN 2011 AND 2020

You know what else, moron? SACRAMENTO GAINED 40,000 PEOPLE BETWEEN 2011 AND 2020

So as usual, Flash makes the choice to avoid details in order to push a lying, false narrative to save his fucking pathetic ego from embarrassment.
 
It is not a non-starter for those 60,000 Californians who follow their high tech jobs to Texas every year.

OK, you're fucking wrong here.

Completely fucking wrong.

60,000 people don't leave CA every year for Texas, 60,000 people left CA for TX over the course of a decade.

I'm gonna chalk that massive error up to your traditional sloppiness and habit of hastily posting responses because of how unbalanced I make you here.

You're never careful when you get into it with me because I force you to make errors like this all the fucking time.
 
That attitude defines you, LV. It's another reason why, IMO, you are just a LW version of a Trumper.

If they're leaving high cost areas, how come Los Angeles gained 200,000 people between 2011 and 2020?

Or, alternatively, are you getting conned again?
 
Because it was five times the time period that you cherry picked.

Wouldn't that also be a cherry pick, then?

You're cherry picking 50 years because 10 years doesn't help your argument.

Rural areas have lost population for the first time ever the last 10 years.
 
When you go to McDonald's for your Big Mac and Fries, do you believe the food is made in the McDonald's factory in town?

I don't understand why you are continuing to force the issue here after getting all the data and information that completely blows up everything you've been saying on this thread.
 
Sure, cities grow over time. 20 years to gain 10% seems kind of slow.

Well, it's faster than all rural areas, who lost population over that same amount of time.


s it because of the high cost and low pay?

LMAO!

So just yesterday, you were arguing that there should be low growth.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

You are the one who implied people left NYC after 9/11 (not because of taxes or economics, but terrorism); I merely provided you with the truth and clearly it has upset you quite a bit because you had a preconceived notion about NYC that was completely fucking wrong.

Completely wrong.

So you insisted earlier that NYC lost population by invoking the aftermath of 9/11 -WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY STATS OR DATA TO BACK YOURSELF UP- but then had to come up with something to save face so you went with "sure NYC grew, but they didn't grow as fast as I am arbitrarily deciding right now in the moment".

What a fucking loser.
 
If they're leaving high cost areas, how come Los Angeles gained 200,000 people between 2011 and 2020?

Or, alternatively, are you getting conned again?

Do you understand the concepts of gross change and net change, LV?
 
Well, it's faster than all rural areas, who lost population over that same amount of time.




LMAO!

So just yesterday, you were arguing that there should be low growth.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

You are the one who implied people left NYC after 9/11 (not because of taxes or economics, but terrorism); I merely provided you with the truth and clearly it has upset you quite a bit because you had a preconceived notion about NYC that was completely fucking wrong.

Completely wrong.

So you insisted earlier that NYC lost population by invoking the aftermath of 9/11 -WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY STATS OR DATA TO BACK YOURSELF UP- but then had to come up with something to save face so you went with "sure NYC grew, but they didn't grow as fast as I am arbitrarily deciding right now in the moment".

What a fucking loser.

Are you autistic, LV? You chided me for disliking growth in my part of rural Texas then seem to take delight in focusing upon people leaving rural areas for the cities?

Can you understand the rural residents aren't so much leaving for the cities as the cities are growing out toward them as I'm experiencing?
 
Do you understand the concepts of gross change and net change, LV?

LMAO!

You insisted people were leaving high cost areas, but the data I provided you proves they aren't.

Instead of accepting the data, you slip back into your habit -nay, your compulsion- to condescend because you put your fucking foot in your big mouth and you don't know how to save face now.
 
Back
Top