You Must Be Racist To Be Liberal.

[neoplacebo]

Since you guys are in denial and I love to watch you twist in the wind, here are more stats that show the institutional racism in democratic states:

I found this article that ranked states by their economic equality - Wallethub.coms . So I did some statistical analysis to see how it worked out. Using Wikipedia.org to determine what states are red and what states are blue, I separated the states (DC was included) and then averaged their scores.

This first comparison was all 50 states and DC averaged. Purple states were included in red states.
Average Blue Rating: 62.97
Average Red Rating: 66.08

But I wondered what would happen if you eliminated purple states:
Average Blue Rating: 62.97
Average Red Rating: 66.90

Ok, but what if we drop the leans blue and leans red:
Average Blue Rating: 62.67
Average Red Rating: 67.22

It turns out the more conservative a state is, the more equal the races become economically and the more liberal a state is the more unequal the races become.

You're really a special kind of stupid, aren't you? Institutional historical systemic racism in the US cannot be defined, described, or otherwise blamed on one political party. You obviously forget that what the Democrats stood for in the earlier part of the 20th century is what the Republicans now stand for. That fact alone shows the lunacy of you trying to peddle what you're peddling. How old are you?

[PeacefulPartier]

Since you guys are in denial and I love to watch you twist in the wind, here are more stats that show the institutional racism in democratic states:

I found this article that ranked states by their economic equality - Wallethub.coms . So I did some statistical analysis to see how it worked out. Using Wikipedia.org to determine what states are red and what states are blue, I separated the states (DC was included) and then averaged their scores.

This first comparison was all 50 states and DC averaged. Purple states were included in red states.
Average Blue Rating: 62.97
Average Red Rating: 66.08

But I wondered what would happen if you eliminated purple states:
Average Blue Rating: 62.97
Average Red Rating: 66.90

Ok, but what if we drop the leans blue and leans red:
Average Blue Rating: 62.67
Average Red Rating: 67.22

It turns out the more conservative a state is, the more equal the races become economically and the more liberal a state is the more unequal the races become.

You're really a special kind of stupid, aren't you? Institutional historical systemic racism in the US cannot be defined, described, or otherwise blamed on one political party. You obviously forget that what the Democrats stood for in the earlier part of the 20th century is what the Republicans now stand for. That fact alone shows the lunacy of you trying to peddle what you're peddling. How old are you?

Oh...ok...so when there is no data to ruin your opinion then it is all conservatives are racist but when the data proves you wrong then it becomes..."well...no one party is to blame per se." Get real. You support the racist party. Period.

[neoplacebo]

How about doing a "statistical analysis" about why allegedly intelligent people can support a fascist racist raccoon eyed juvenile moron and pathological liar? I'd be interested in that.

[GoCubsGo]

Denial is apparently just a river in Egypt.

[PeacefulPartier]

How about doing a "statistical analysis" about why allegedly intelligent people can support a fascist racist raccoon eyed juvenile moron and pathological liar? I'd be interested in that.

I accept your concession. It must be a concession. Why else would you try to change the subject while also resorting to name calling? If you had real data to back your position, you wouldn't need to employ the lowest forms of debate.

[neoplacebo]

Since you guys are in denial and I love to watch you twist in the wind, here are more stats that show the institutional racism in democratic states:

I found this article that ranked states by their economic equality - Wallethub.coms . So I did some statistical analysis to see how it worked out. Using Wikipedia.org to determine what states are red and what states are blue, I separated the states (DC was included) and then averaged their scores.

This first comparison was all 50 states and DC averaged. Purple states were included in red states.
Average Blue Rating: 62.97
Average Red Rating: 66.08

But I wondered what would happen if you eliminated purple states:
Average Blue Rating: 62.97
Average Red Rating: 66.90

Ok, but what if we drop the leans blue and leans red:
Average Blue Rating: 62.67
Average Red Rating: 67.22

It turns out the more conservative a state is, the more equal the races become economically and the more liberal a state is the more unequal the races become.

You're really a special kind of stupid, aren't you? Institutional historical systemic racism in the US cannot be defined, described, or otherwise blamed on one political party. You obviously forget that what the Democrats stood for in the earlier part of the 20th century is what the Republicans now stand for. That fact alone shows the lunacy of you trying to peddle what you're peddling. How old are you?

Oh...ok...so when there is no data to ruin your opinion then it is all conservatives are racist but when the data proves you wrong then it becomes..."well...no one party is to blame per se." Get real. You support the racist party. Period.

The "data" is yours. I merely point out that the racist attitudes that exist today are advocated more by Republicans than Democrats. And it used to be just the opposite eighty or so years ago. And in general, the poorer and whiter you are, the more racist you are and the more likely you are to support a buffoon like trump.

[PeacefulPartier]

Since you guys are in denial and I love to watch you twist in the wind, here are more stats that show the institutional racism in democratic states:

I found this article that ranked states by their economic equality - Wallethub.coms . So I did some statistical analysis to see how it worked out. Using Wikipedia.org to determine what states are red and what states are blue, I separated the states (DC was included) and then averaged their scores.

This first comparison was all 50 states and DC averaged. Purple states were included in red states.
Average Blue Rating: 62.97
Average Red Rating: 66.08

But I wondered what would happen if you eliminated purple states:
Average Blue Rating: 62.97
Average Red Rating: 66.90

Ok, but what if we drop the leans blue and leans red:
Average Blue Rating: 62.67
Average Red Rating: 67.22

It turns out the more conservative a state is, the more equal the races become economically and the more liberal a state is the more unequal the races become.

You're really a special kind of stupid, aren't you? Institutional historical systemic racism in the US cannot be defined, described, or otherwise blamed on one political party. You obviously forget that what the Democrats stood for in the earlier part of the 20th century is what the Republicans now stand for. That fact alone shows the lunacy of you trying to peddle what you're peddling. How old are you?

Oh...ok...so when there is no data to ruin your opinion then it is all conservatives are racist but when the data proves you wrong then it becomes..."well...no one party is to blame per se." Get real. You support the racist party. Period.

The "data" is yours. I merely point out that the racist attitudes that exist today are advocated more by Republicans than Democrats. And it used to be just the opposite eighty or so years ago. And in general, the poorer and whiter you are, the more racist you are and the more likely you are to support a buffoon like trump.

That data is Wallet Hub's. I'm just showing you the data. I'm sorry your opinion has been debunked, but that is life. Either stay in denial or learn from this. It is up to you.

[neoplacebo]

How about doing a "statistical analysis" about why allegedly intelligent people can support a fascist racist raccoon eyed juvenile moron and pathological liar? I'd be interested in that.

I accept your concession. It must be a concession. Why else would you try to change the subject while also resorting to name calling? If you had real data to back your position, you wouldn't need to employ the lowest forms of debate.

I've not made any concessions and I've not changed the subject. Do you think trump is NOT a racist fool? Nobody needs any "data" to see this. Just look at what he says and does. My description of him as a "raccoon eyed juvenile....." is accurate. And nobody needs any "data" to see that the current Republican party is just as or more racist than the Democrat party was in the past. This is not hard to understand, makes no concessions, and is spot on the subject.

[PeacefulPartier]

How about doing a "statistical analysis" about why allegedly intelligent people can support a fascist racist raccoon eyed juvenile moron and pathological liar? I'd be interested in that.

I accept your concession. It must be a concession. Why else would you try to change the subject while also resorting to name calling? If you had real data to back your position, you wouldn't need to employ the lowest forms of debate.

I've not made any concessions and I've not changed the subject. Do you think trump is NOT a racist fool?

LMAO..."I haven't changed the subject but on another subject..."

[qoute]Nobody needs any "data" to see this. [/quote]

Actually, you need the data because reality doesn't match your opinion.

Just look at what he says and does. My description of him as a "raccoon eyed juvenile....." is accurate. And nobody needs any "data" to see that the current Republican party is just as or more racist than the Democrat party was in the past. This is not hard to understand, makes no concessions, and is spot on the subject.

Your opinion doesn't match reality. The data is what it is.

[neoplacebo]

Since you guys are in denial and I love to watch you twist in the wind, here are more stats that show the institutional racism in democratic states:

I found this article that ranked states by their economic equality - Wallethub.coms . So I did some statistical analysis to see how it worked out. Using Wikipedia.org to determine what states are red and what states are blue, I separated the states (DC was included) and then averaged their scores.

This first comparison was all 50 states and DC averaged. Purple states were included in red states.
Average Blue Rating: 62.97
Average Red Rating: 66.08

But I wondered what would happen if you eliminated purple states:
Average Blue Rating: 62.97
Average Red Rating: 66.90

Ok, but what if we drop the leans blue and leans red:
Average Blue Rating: 62.67
Average Red Rating: 67.22

It turns out the more conservative a state is, the more equal the races become economically and the more liberal a state is the more unequal the races become.

You're really a special kind of stupid, aren't you? Institutional historical systemic racism in the US cannot be defined, described, or otherwise blamed on one political party. You obviously forget that what the Democrats stood for in the earlier part of the 20th century is what the Republicans now stand for. That fact alone shows the lunacy of you trying to peddle what you're peddling. How old are you?

Oh...ok...so when there is no data to ruin your opinion then it is all conservatives are racist but when the data proves you wrong then it becomes..."well...no one party is to blame per se." Get real. You support the racist party. Period.

The "data" is yours. I merely point out that the racist attitudes that exist today are advocated more by Republicans than Democrats. And it used to be just the opposite eighty or so years ago. And in general, the poorer and whiter you are, the more racist you are and the more likely you are to support a buffoon like trump.

That data is Wallet Hub's. I'm just showing you the data. I'm sorry your opinion has been debunked, but that is life. Either stay in denial or learn from this. It is up to you.

I am not a racist person and form my personal opinions on a case by case basis. YOU seem to have some sort of subliminal guilt or shame that your political party is rightly accused of being racist as well as economically discriminatory. Why else would you be motivated to post this so called statistical analysis showing that your party is NOT a racist one? Show me somebody like Steve King in the Democrat party. You can't.

[Vrede too]

Pretty small differences, goofball, and it's not equality by intent. It's the appearance of greater equality because there's a lower limit to how poor an economy can be, but no limit to how successful it can be. In other words, you're bragging because red states have a greater proportion of their people in trailer parks.

Besides, you neglect to mention that much of that red state "equality" comes courtesy of blue state taxpayers.
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=4212&p=122893#p122893

[PeacefulPartier]

Pretty small differences, goofball, and it's not equality by intent. It's the appearance of greater equality because there's a lower limit to how poor an economy can be, but no limit to how successful it can be. In other words, you're bragging because red states have a greater proportion of their people in trailer parks.

Besides, you neglect to mention that much of that red state "equality" comes courtesy of blue state taxpayers.
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=4212&p=122893#p122893

Uh huh. Sure. That data says otherwise.

[O Really]

Nothing wrong with your data, PP, but it was your own shaky conclusion, not Wallethub's. Your statistics prof may have failed to mention that correlation does not prove causation.

[Vrede too]

Nothing wrong with your data, PP, but it was your own shaky conclusion, not Wallethub's. Your statistics prof may have failed to mention that correlation does not prove causation.

That was a lot of analytical effort just to fail so miserably on the basics. Bless PP's heart.

[PeacefulPartier]

Nothing wrong with your data, PP, but it was your own shaky conclusion, not Wallethub's. Your statistics prof may have failed to mention that correlation does not prove causation.

That was a lot of analytical effort just to fail so miserably on the basics. Bless PP's heart.

Based on your desperate attempts to minimize me rather than counter the data, I would say I succeeded.

[PeacefulPartier]

Nothing wrong with your data, PP, but it was your own shaky conclusion, not Wallethub's. Your statistics prof may have failed to mention that correlation does not prove causation.

Yeah, the old "correlation does not prove causation" fail safe. Except, correlation is the corner stone of all medical studies. In this case, the first set of data that shows a difference when 50 states +DC had a small difference. As the dedication to each ideology increased in intensity, the gap widened. What that shows is that there is a clear causation. The more conservative a state is, the less economic inequality there is.

[O Really]

The more conservative a state is, the less economic inequality there is.

Well, that would be nice if the theory held. At least when we got a functioning president s/he could create an action plan. But again, the problem isn't in your data, but in your conclusions. Your theory sounds good on average, but then you've got that pesky bright red Iowa, sitting down there in #47 in your list. Now if your data showed what specific things the red states did that was different from the blue states with regard to economic standing, maybe we'd have something. Averages are fun, but having one foot in ice and one in boiling water does not average out to comfort.

[neoplacebo]

Nothing wrong with your data, PP, but it was your own shaky conclusion, not Wallethub's. Your statistics prof may have failed to mention that correlation does not prove causation.

Yeah, the old "correlation does not prove causation" fail safe. Except, correlation is the corner stone of all medical studies. In this case, the first set of data that shows a difference when 50 states +DC had a small difference. As the dedication to each ideology increased in intensity, the gap widened. What that shows is that there is a clear causation. The more conservative a state is, the less economic inequality there is.

Your initial posting says that the figures you show are "averages" for entire states. Your figures also indicate not very much difference between the red and blue numbers. If there were twenty or thirty percentage points difference between red and blue your post would actually prove something, assuming your "statistical analysis" is without error. As it is, your post "proves" nothing other than your intense effort to somehow "prove" that Democrats are more racist and more economically biased than Republicans. Your assertion that "the more conservative a state is, the less economic inequality there is" is delusional nonsense. Conservatives champion corporate welfare; liberals favor social welfare, which benefits everyone ultimately. The fact that it is more expensive to live in NY or CA (liberal states) than it is to live in SC or OK (conservative states) is a good example of the fallacy of your argument. So why is it so much more expensive to live in one of those liberal states than in one of those conservative states? Keep in mind that if it costs more to live in those liberal states, that must mean that, on average, people in those liberal states earn considerably more than those more enlightened folks in SC and OK.

[neoplacebo]

I don't know where Missouri fits into PP's hypothesis, but this woman would logically be quite wealthy and not racist. I anticipate PP countering that this particular instance is just the Missouri Compromise.
https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/kkk-woma ... 06170.html

[PeacefulPartier]

The more conservative a state is, the less economic inequality there is.

Well, that would be nice if the theory held. At least when we got a functioning president s/he could create an action plan. But again, the problem isn't in your data, but in your conclusions. Your theory sounds good on average, but then you've got that pesky bright red Iowa, sitting down there in #47 in your list. Now if your data showed what specific things the red states did that was different from the blue states with regard to economic standing, maybe we'd have something. Averages are fun, but having one foot in ice and one in boiling water does not average out to comfort.

Iowa is a purple state per Wiki.