Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
1 hour ago, RomaVicta said:

Do you contest the contention that Trump's voting base is strong in states that take more than they give?

I mean, we're all awestruck at your point by point obfuscation that I bet makes you the smartest guy in the room with your pals, but can you deny the general correlation actually being discussed?

One doesn't have to delve into your poor grasp of history to answer that.

I contention, if you will, is that there is no correlation between the electoral votes of a state and whether or not that state is a net contributor to, or recipient of federal funds.  That map was a sophomoric attempt to paint a group of people as being hypocrites so you can then discount their political beliefs.  Nothing more.

4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

*tenet

You win the spell check wars.  Congratulations.  

  • Fuck You 5
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, RockwallJim said:

I contention, if you will, is that there is no correlation between the electoral votes of a state and whether or not that state is a net contributor to, or recipient of federal funds.  That map was a sophomoric attempt to paint a group of people as being hypocrites so you can then discount their political beliefs.  Nothing more.

You win the spell check wars.  Congratulations.  

You are new here. Don't fuck around with the spelling/grammar police.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
Just now, InkaUtexas said:

You are new here. Don't fuck around with the spelling/grammar police.

I'll consider myself warned.   I've learned you can always tell when a person has nothing of consequence to add to the discussion if they do 1 of 3 things.. 1. grammar police, 2. swear, 3. ad hominem attacks.    Pardon the pun, but the 2025 trump card is when they label somebody a Nazi.  When they use that, it's because they have nothing more convincing to add.   

  • Fuck You 8
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
Just now, RockwallJim said:

I'll consider myself warned.   I've learned you can always tell when a person has nothing of consequence to add to the discussion if they do 1 of 3 things.. 1. grammar police, 2. swear, 3. ad hominem attacks.    Pardon the pun, but the 2025 trump card is when they label somebody a Nazi.  When they use that, it's because they have nothing more convincing to add.   

well, see, you can say that all you want. But there are 2 or 3 really smart people on this subject on this thread.

You should meet Ana. He is an expert on all things Russia/Ukraine.

Posted
6 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

well, see, you can say that all you want. But there are 2 or 3 really smart people on this subject on this thread.

You should meet Ana. He is an expert on all things Russia/Ukraine.

I'm happy to meet / engage anybody on a spirited debate / exchange of ideas....I'm also fully prepared to take responsibility for having a comma in the wrong place or using a : when a ; should've been used.  I'll also give extra effort to the affect vs effect usage, their vs there, your vs you're...I know these are all important things

  • Fuck You 7
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
7 minutes ago, RockwallJim said:

there is no correlation between the electoral votes of a state and whether or not that state is a net contributor to, or recipient of federal funds.

This is an outright false statement. There is, in fact, a strong correlation supported by the data. Now, you can very well contend that correlation does not equal causation, as you and others rightly point out that it's a difficult apples-to-apples comparison due to the presence of federal assets (e.g., national parks, ports/bases/ports, CBP, and so on).

Still, if grounded in facts, that could be an interesting and enlightening topic for discussion by zeroing in on federal programs targeting individuals needing some sort of financial assistance. Given that Blue states tend to have higher median household incomes than Red states, it's not outrageous to assume that citizens of those states would require less help and yet pay more in federal income taxes. But, of course, conducting that analysis should also include consideration of the cost of living. By and large, however, I'd agree from the discussion above that breaking it down by county would be a more precise measure of the transfer of dollars.

You're welcome to peruse the data on tax dollar flows from states to DC and then back again to the states. This briefer is pretty well sourced and very recent (Feb 2025): https://www.moneygeek.com/resources/states-most-reliant-on-federal-government/

image.thumb.png.3baeaa3403f0d985949334cca63e7aae.png
image.thumb.png.df064b6f3c39f039a6b5832d52da545c.png

image.thumb.png.17f0629e84aabd62de4104e9bb68ecfb.png

image.thumb.png.375350d8b94e81ea721c02b3c0c2b427.png

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 3
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted

RE: the government and military self-censoring their content.

My boy was asking me about US nuclear testing after WWII, and we watched a documentary on Operation Crossroads.   On a whim, I decided to look up the US Navy website.  Check out the banner across the top of the page:

 

Screenshot2025-03-08at7_23_56PM.thumb.png.a5310bad5e6d15dd368808ee7008ea14.png

  • Rage+1 5
Posted
50 minutes ago, RockwallJim said:

I'll consider myself warned.   I've learned you can always tell when a person has nothing of consequence to add to the discussion if they do 1 of 3 things.. 1. grammar police, 2. swear, 3. ad hominem attacks.    Pardon the pun, but the 2025 trump card is when they label somebody a Nazi.  When they use that, it's because they have nothing more convincing to add.   

1. Your grammar sucks,

2. Fuck you,

3. You're a moron.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
Posted
3 hours ago, BevoAbyss said:

Across decades, I have written numerous articles and books that state my positions on a variety of topics that involve art, science, philosophy, politics, culture, and sometimes religion and beliefs.

You should post the links. 

  • Haha 1
  • Fuck You 1
Posted
1 hour ago, RockwallJim said:

That map was a sophomoric attempt to paint a group of people as being hypocrites so you can then discount their political beliefs.  Nothing more.

If you declare it, it must be so.

Posted
4 hours ago, Pato del Muerto said:

You realize that there are 50 states, yes?

I sure do.  Would you care to expand on which states you claim are proving your point and which states aren't? 

  • Fuck You 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
4 hours ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

weird self own because it's pretty obvious what that map is saying. 

I'm pretty sure that map proved nothing.  Right off the top I was able to discount 20% of the sample size as directly opposing the theory.   

39 minutes ago, Bullneck said:

1. Your grammar sucks,

2. Fuck you,

3. You're a moron.

clever.

  • Fuck You 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
1 hour ago, bolverk said:

This is an outright false statement. There is, in fact, a strong correlation supported by the data. Now, you can very well contend that correlation does not equal causation, as you and others rightly point out that it's a difficult apples-to-apples comparison due to the presence of federal assets (e.g., national parks, ports/bases/ports, CBP, and so on).

Still, if grounded in facts, that could be an interesting and enlightening topic for discussion by zeroing in on federal programs targeting individuals needing some sort of financial assistance. Given that Blue states tend to have higher median household incomes than Red states, it's not outrageous to assume that citizens of those states would require less help and yet pay more in federal income taxes. But, of course, conducting that analysis should also include consideration of the cost of living. By and large, however, I'd agree from the discussion above that breaking it down by county would be a more precise measure of the transfer of dollars.

You're welcome to peruse the data on tax dollar flows from states to DC and then back again to the states. This briefer is pretty well sourced and very recent (Feb 2025): https://www.moneygeek.com/resources/states-most-reliant-on-federal-government/

image.thumb.png.3baeaa3403f0d985949334cca63e7aae.png
image.thumb.png.df064b6f3c39f039a6b5832d52da545c.png

image.thumb.png.17f0629e84aabd62de4104e9bb68ecfb.png

image.thumb.png.375350d8b94e81ea721c02b3c0c2b427.png

 

Interesting stats. Still searching for your point...I'm sure you're trying to make one.

  • Fuck You 7
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
4 hours ago, BevoAbyss said:

The chart is correct. There were throngs of racist fascist Christians who supported Hitler. Protestants the most. That's a fact of historical reality. 

There were throngs of them in the US too. 

IMG_2085.jpeg

  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, RockwallJim said:

I'm happy to meet / engage anybody on a spirited debate / exchange of ideas

 

7 minutes ago, RockwallJim said:

Interesting stats. Still searching for your point...I'm sure you're trying to make one.

Oh, you're a troll.

Goodbye.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, bolverk said:

 

Oh, you're a troll.

Goodbye.

Oh.  A troll.  So anybody who doesn’t agree with your world view 100% is a troll?   Must be an interesting life you lead, blocking out anybody who doesn’t echo your world view 

  • Fuck You 13
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, bolverk said:

 

Oh, you're a troll.

Goodbye.

You just gonna go all out with the brainless crowdsource move huh bolverk? This board is special. 

  • Fuck You 2
Posted
21 minutes ago, RockwallJim said:

I sure do.  Would you care to expand on which states you claim are proving your point and which states aren't? 

Sure. The vast majority of the taker states, red in that graph, voted for Trump and are solid Republican voters. 
 

But you know this and aren’t arguing in good faith.

 

So, why would republican voters be taking so much government handouts that they claim they are against?

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
2 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Sure. The vast majority of the taker states, red in that graph, voted for Trump and are solid Republican voters. 
 

But you know this and aren’t arguing in good faith.

 

So, why would republican voters be taking so much government handouts that they claim they are against?

Are we sure that government funding is going into the pockets of the Republican voters themselves?  

  • Fuck You 10
Posted
1 minute ago, RockwallJim said:

Are we sure that government funding is going into the pockets of the Republican voters themselves?  

Yes. Via free healthcare, food stamps, social security disability, social security, free child care, subsidized housing. That’s what these things are measuring. That’s what those people who voted for government cutbacks are bitching up and down social media about losing as a result of the government cutbacks they voted for.  
 

they wanted “others” to lose theirs, but keep their own.  That’s why they are upset. 
 

You should stop trying. It is not going well for you here. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
1 hour ago, bolverk said:

Now, you can very well contend that correlation does not equal causation, as you and others rightly point out that it's a difficult apples-to-apples comparison due to the presence of federal assets (e.g., national parks, ports/bases/ports, CBP, and so on).

Population numbers would be the most obvious potential confounder in those data.  These others are certainly worth considering though.  

  • Fuck You 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, RockwallJim said:

Are we sure that government funding is going into the pockets of the Republican voters themselves?  

What it shows is that government pours more money into red states, so Republican voters reap the benefit of government, while voting to dismantle it.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
24 minutes ago, bolverk said:

 

Oh, you're a troll.

Goodbye.

Rockwall Jim seems to be a favorite of Anastasis.  I'd say he's a sock.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Bullneck said:

Rockwall Jim seems to be a favorite of Anastasis.  I'd say he's a sock.

Just offsetting the neg strafers like you. 

  • Fuck You 3
Posted
9 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Yes. Via free healthcare, food stamps, social security disability, social security, free child care, subsidized housing. That’s what these things are measuring. That’s what those people who voted for government cutbacks are bitching up and down social media about losing as a result of the government cutbacks they voted for.  
 

they wanted “others” to lose theirs, but keep their own.  That’s why they are upset. 
 

You should stop trying. It is not going well for you here. 

I think you're missing the point of my questions, so I'll ask again.   1. when we talk about federal funding to states as we are discussing here, is this money into the state government or individuals pockets.  2. if it's into individuals pockets how do you know it's republican voters pockets? (when they apply for assistance, do they have to claim a political party?)

  • Fuck You 6
Posted
9 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

What it shows is that government pours more money into red states, so Republican voters reap the benefit of government, while voting to dismantle it.

or maybe, just maybe the republican voters in that state DON'T want the Federal government involved in their state's activities, budgets, priorities, etc...  is that possible?

  • Fuck You 6
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, RockwallJim said:

I think you're missing the point of my questions, so I'll ask again.   1. when we talk about federal funding to states as we are discussing here, is this money into the state government or individuals pockets.  2. if it's into individuals pockets how do you know it's republican voters pockets? (when they apply for assistance, do they have to claim a political party?)

You’re right. In the states with a majority voting republican it’s only the democrats there that are receiving governmental funding. 

Thanks for pointing that out for us. 

Edited by DDD Dad
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
Just now, Pato del Muerto said:

Oh no, I see clearly the point of your questions.  Good day. 

Thank you.  it only took me 5-6 times to explain it to the class.   I think many here are making assumptions based on a biases..not facts

  • Fuck You 9
Posted
2 minutes ago, RockwallJim said:

or maybe, just maybe the republican voters in that state DON'T want the Federal government involved in their state's activities, budgets, priorities, etc...  is that possible?

Sure it’s possible. And then when when they realize they’ve cut off their noses to spite their faces we all will revel in the schadenfreude. 

Posted
Just now, RockwallJim said:

Thank you.  it only took me 5-6 times to explain it to the class.   I think many here are making assumptions based on a biases..not facts

But you haven’t presented any facts.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted

An outlyer. And you all know I have no problems discussing with Ana.

NM. It is a Dem state, lots of social assistance. But it also has Los Alamos. The budget of DOE there is pretty big. Is there a map that shows the benefits of Fed assistance to states taking programs out?

Just wondering. I know DOD really takes flack from localities when they want to Brac a base. Why?

  • Like 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

You’re right. In the states with a majority voting republican it’s only the democrats there that are receiving governmental funding. 

Thanks for pointing that out for us. 

I didn't say that, but your generalization that republican voters are exclusively reaping the benefits of federal funding while subsequently voting against those just hasn't been proven... But let's play in your universe a minute, let's say that's true..that they ARE getting all this money, yet voting to push it away, shouldn't that be respected?  That they desire to be self sufficient?   So worst case scenario, in your universe is that republicans are currently getting handouts that they no longer want (so are voting against)?

3 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

But you haven’t presented any facts.

Sure I have, as much if not more than anybody else here.  

  • Fuck You 7
Posted
4 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Sure it’s possible. And then when when they realize they’ve cut off their noses to spite their faces we all will revel in the schadenfreude. 

So you do respect their desire to reject government hand outs?   I'm really confused why you would demonize somebody who doesn't want to take government assistance?

 

  • Fuck You 5
Posted
1 minute ago, RockwallJim said:

I didn't say that, but your generalization that republican voters are exclusively reaping the benefits of federal funding while subsequently voting against those just hasn't been proven... But let's play in your universe a minute, let's say that's true..that they ARE getting all this money, yet voting to push it away, shouldn't that be respected?  That they desire to be self sufficient?   So worst case scenario, in your universe is that republicans are currently getting handouts that they no longer want (so are voting against)?

Sure I have, as much if not more than anybody else here.  

I made no such generalization. Indeed I suggested that you were implying the opposite. 
 

Reading is hard. 

Posted
Just now, RockwallJim said:

So you do respect their desire to reject government hand outs?   I'm really confused why you would demonize somebody who doesn't want to take government assistance?

 

But they do want those things. That’s why they are on social media complaining that theirs was, or will be, taken away. It wasn’t supposed to happen to THEM.  Plenty of evidence on the leopards thread. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
3 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I am kinda surprised at OK and NV. What am I missing about RI?

Moslty active personnel in OK and NV I think.

RI, well it is poor as shit, small population and 1 or 2 DOD programs.

Posted
1 minute ago, RockwallJim said:

So you do respect their desire to reject government hand outs?   I'm really confused why you would demonize somebody who doesn't want to take government assistance?

 

I’m not demonizing anyone. But when members of the LEF party get their faces eaten by leopards I don’t shed any tears. 

Posted
Just now, Pato del Muerto said:

But they do want those things. That’s why they are on social media complaining that theirs was, or will be, taken away. It wasn’t supposed to happen to THEM.  Plenty of evidence on the leopards thread. 

so wait, in your mind these people both want these things yet are voting against these things at the same time?  Why would they do that?

  • Haha 1
  • Fuck You 6
Posted
Just now, DDD Dad said:

I’m not demonizing anyone. But when members of the LEF party get their faces eaten by leopards I don’t shed any tears. 

got it, so you would root against, or relish in the pain of your fellow countrymen because they didn't vote the way you wanted them to?

  • Fuck You 6
Posted
1 minute ago, RockwallJim said:

so wait, in your mind these people both want these things yet are voting against these things at the same time?  Why would they do that?

Well now you, I think unintentionally, get to the crux of the situation. 

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
Just now, Pato del Muerto said:

Well now you, I think unintentionally, get to the crux of the situation. 

got it.  so you are smarter than people who vote differently than you?  You have it all figured out and if votes don't vote the way you do, it's because they've been duped and don't understand?

  • Fuck You 8
Posted
1 minute ago, RockwallJim said:

got it.  so you are smarter than people who vote differently than you?  You have it all figured out and if votes don't vote the way you do, it's because they've been duped and don't understand?

I’m smart enough to not bitch when I get what I voted for.  

  • Hook 'Em 4


×
×
  • Create New...