Red states are the poverty states

so what you are saying is that the Democratric party is now the party of the ultra rich, duh! no kidding.
Then the GOP holds “trifectas”—total control of both legislative chambers and the governorship—in 25 states, The Senate and the House. That leaves precious little for the Dems to claim. But then as long as they have Malibu, Manhattan and Martha's Vineyard all is well for the Dems. Whicl is OK with the GOP, we will take care of the flyover country

 

You have provided ZERO proof either way. You made the statement, back it up.

 

I tell you what. This is going to be very easy. But if I do it will you admit you were flat out wrong? Yes or no?

 

Prove with confirmable facts from reliable sources and I will concede you are correct.

 

Red states have a better quality of life? http://247wallst.com/special-report/2015/11/23/most-livable-states/

 

I bet I pay more in taxes than you do, and I've never taken a penny in government benefits. I'm 54 and I've never been on unemployment or welfare.

 

I doubt it.

 

Please follow this:

1) The house I grew up in back in New York was 1,300 square feet. It is currently valued at $1 million.
2) My house in Texas has 2,140 square feet and it's valued at $180,000.

Suppose you are a normal couple with a combined income of $150,000. In Texas, you could afford the house, two very nice cars, and you could afford to travel internationally. But if you're in New York, you can't buy that little house. Maybe you could buy just the kitchen and a closet.

The quality of life here is better.

 

Doubt all you want, sweet cheeks.

 

I glad you like living in a red state (one that will turn blue). Some folks prefer living in prison than on the streets too.

 

I would say that in my opinion the states that are poor and Republican now are the same states that were poor in the 40's and 50's and voted Democrat. In other words the rural states that the Democrats abandoned about the time George Wallace, Strom Thurmond and Robert Byrd were the blue dog Democrats heros and white sheets and hoods were worn to DNC rallies

 

Really? Was it not California that needed financial help when Arnold was Governor? The state was going to go bankrupt so how is that ok? Seriously everything you are saying is wrong. Every state has their own issues and the states you are putting down has been devastated economically by the millions of jobs that has left the country to China and Mexico because of NAFTA put into effect by Bush and Bill.

Again RED STATES are not the only ones that have problems. California is full of problems. Also I would like to point out back in the 70's and 80's most states including CA voted Republican. Democrats have got it wrong more than right and Obama who was not even a great president is the only once since 1970 that actually did anything for the Democratic party. Your party literally has failed you this election and you still try to say blue states are better than red states? Don't ask for my vote in 2020 please.

 

You can't say a state with only 3 million people has per capita far more people on welfare than California when CA has more than 38 million people living there! Per capita does NOT matter. You are wrong. Move on already.

 

He said yes and you have yet to prove your side so we are going to ignore you unless you can show us we are wrong.

 

One thing the southern states had in common, whether under Democratic or Republican control, they were always politically conservative. So those American-hating
hood wearers have always been conservative and now attend the rallies of the National Plutocratic People's Socialist Party, aka Republican Party.

 

Why would everyone be surprised that poverty rates are in high in states or countries that practice trickle-down economics: The redistribution of wealth from
the poor and the middle class to the rich.

 

sp you think the southern states that voted in JFK, Lyndon Johnson, and Jimmuh Cawtuh were conservative. That's the funniest post of the day

 

That's right the red states are the poverty states, often rural. It's about time we spent some money on them. The rural infrastructure doesn't build itself, you know? It's a wise government that spends money 'on the least of these' instead of sending it all to the city.

 

There are only 4,000 to 5,000 Klan members today. During it's peak there were as many as 8 million Klan members the majority living in the northern states.

The KKK was more aligned with the left in particular with the progressives. The Klan advocated for prohibition and defended the 18th Amendment. Doesn't sound like a conservative group. The KKK was the militant arm of the Democrat party for almost a hundred years.

Pay attention to the mapping the Klan when you go to this link. -> https://labs.library.vcu.edu/klan/learn

Now if you're low information and listen to the Southern Poverty Law Center ( SPLC ) you are being indoctrinated in cutural-marxism by the most radical leftist hate group in America.

As for the South, they went Republican when the Democrat's allowed themselves to be infiltrated by the radical leftist "counter culture movement" and went extreme radical left. Those counter culture leftist of the 1960's and 70's are today's Democrat establishment. They were so radical even the Klan had to distance themselves from the radical left.

excerpts:

 

I've lived in Texas since 1986 and I've never seen poverty and squalor like I've seen in the Bronx and Newark.

 

Texas has a higher poverty rate than both NY and NJ

http://www.worldatlas.com/articles/us-poverty-rate-by-state.html

 

Maybe, but we don't have slums like up north. In Dallas we have some poverty. Even so, no areas look like bombed out Berlin after WWII like in NYC, Chicago, Detroit, etc.

 

It's not maybe. Texas has a poverty problem.

 

Nearly all of it is along the border with Mexico, 13 hours from Dallas. I don't see it and it's not my problem.

Whereas the people in NYC, Chicago, Philadelphia, and a Detroit see poverty up close every day.

 

This post intentionally left blank.