After Speech, Trump Loses Key Texas Hispanic Backer

[silverhandorder]

Sorry dumb dumb, facts don't lie. Cost of living being lower should mean LESS people are reliant on the government not more. But I know that is hard for you to understand since you are a Trump supporter and all. Trump supporters are dumb as rocks. And you provide evidence of that every day!! You should be proud!!

https://www.google.com/webhp?source...1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=redstate welfare debunked

http://rare.us/story/exploding-the-lefts-red-state-myths/

Perhaps I spend too much time lurking around left-leaning blogs, but there are many myths taken as fact without any additional analysis.

Chief among them? The notion that red states take the most aid from the government, are the poorest and are the most violent.

Mitt Romney sparked outrage during the 2012 election for his comments about the “47 percent” of Americans who are dependent on government. Romney was actually quoting the percentage of Americans who pay no federal income tax, not the percentage of people who receive government aid, which is a slightly larger 49 percent.

In an article published before Romney’s gaffe, liberal economist Paul Krugman blogged that “Aaron Carroll of Indiana University tells us that in 2010, residents of the 10 states Gallup ranks as ‘most conservative’ received 21.2 percent of their income in government transfers, while the number for the most liberal states was only 17.1 percent.”

Romney’s comments only seemed to give the left more reason to summon up statistics like these to “prove” who the real moochers are.

But as solid as the statistics Krugman provided might seem, we’re left with one glaring problem: States aren’t people. Could it be possible that liberals within conservative states are the ones taking the welfare dollars?

A survey by the Maxwell Poll on the political affiliation of those receiving government aid showed this to be the case.

Type of Benefit Received Percent Voting Democrat Percent Voting Republican
Public Housing
81%

12%

Medicaid
74%

16%

Food Stamps
67%

20%

Unemployment Compensation
66%

21%

Disability (from Govt.)
64%

25%

Welfare/Public Assistance
63%

22%

In addition to the welfare myth, we’re also told that red states are the poorest states (which would make sense if red states really were taking all the welfare dollars). PolitiFact rated such a claim as “true” noting, “The Census data also show that 9 of the 10 states with the lowest median household income were Red: Mississippi, Arkansas, West Virginia, Kentucky, Alabama, Tennessee, Louisiana, South Carolina and Oklahoma.” Whether or not a state is red or blue is based off how they voted in the 2012 election.

In another case of how sloppy PolitiFact’s “fact checking” can be, they didn’t even take cost of living differences into account when determining which states were the poorest.

Or that half of those “red” states have Democratic Governors.

When we look at the ten poorest states by median household income adjusted for cost of living differences, we find Maine, West Virginia, Hawaii, Mississippi, Arkansas, Montana, Vermont, New Mexico, New York, and Louisiana. If Washington D.C. had statehood, it would’ve ranked 5th poorest, knocking Louisiana off the top ten list. Of these ten states (not including D.C.), four voted Democratic in the past election compared to six tilting right, though there would be a perfect 50-50 split in voting patterns if D.C. was included.

Regardless, comparing the wealth of a state by how they voted in a single presidential election is a ridiculous way to measure what types of policies help and harm growth.

Lastly, we move to the argument that red states are the most violent. This argument is at least better structured than the prior myths discussed in this article.

To avoid the problems associated with comparing entire states to one another, author Sam Harris has compared cities within states. Harris writes, “Of the 25 cities with the lowest rates of violent crime, 62 percent are in blue states and 38 percent in red states. Of the twenty-five most dangerous cities, 76 percent are in red states, and 24 percent in blue states.”

A few counterpoints come to mind after reading Harris’s argument, the most obvious being that those living in cities generally have liberal voting patterns. Higher population density is known to positively correlate with more liberal voting habits. Another problem with the argument is that while these cities may be located in red states, they’re also located in blue counties.

Of the 25 most violent cities Harris mentions, only 16 percent were located in red counties, compared to 84 percent in blue counties. Lastly, recent polling on the voting habits of prison population show 61.5 percent of convicts to be Democrats compared to 9 percent Republican.

Many of these red state myths serve as effective talking points for the left, but upon closer inspection simply don’t hold up.

 

[RandallFan]

Jeff Sessions & Steve King rightly did not bash Trump. They need to be at arms length to criticize him in the future when he floats goofy ideas.

Had this hispanic dream team stayed together they could come out 2 months from now and be big concern trolls about how his policy is flawed or nasty. Trump doesn't even need an excuse to ignore them or not meet with them as he courts 1 million new white midwest voters.

Rubio or Cruz or any Carlos Curbelo or someone could have endorsed Trump & then any time they didn't like the policy goof, come out and criticize it as a Trump supporter.

 

[dannno]

That idea that Trump is "not a serious candidate" at this point is some of the most obvious, blind propaganda that I have ever seen posted here.

No, the idea that she thinks some people are just starting to come to that realization is a bullshit narrative. Plenty of people have thought that all along, but he got more and more popular, and the media just loves to create a new narrative every week about how his campaign is falling apart. It's all they know how to do. The media has become a one trick pony.. next week they will tweak the message slightly and explain why his campaign is falling apart again.

 

[Ender]

What's even more disturbing is that we have a sizable minority here cheering for the establishment to crush Trump. The very same people who have spent incalculable dollars keeping our movement down. I think Jmdrake may be the only vocal Trump critic who hasn't completely succumbed to the dark side.

I'm not cheering for the establishment to crush Trump. I'm asking that Trump supporters give valid POVs on Trump that can actually be talked about w/o all the incessant insults. If someone disagrees, then fine- but no narrative with just name-calling is very tiresome and many have reached their limit.

As I said previously: The fact that Trump comes off as the biggest spoiled brat in political history does nothing to enhance support when his followers act exactly the same way.

I'm not talking about you, AuH20- you are normally very respectful and can carry your part in a decidedly intelligent conversation, and for that I thank you.

 

[AuH20]

I'm not cheering for the establishment to crush Trump. I'm asking that Trump supporters give valid POVs on Trump that can actually be talked about w/o all the incessant insults. If someone disagrees, then fine- but no narrative with just name-calling is very tiresome and many have reached their limit.

As I said previously: The fact that Trump comes off as the biggest spoiled brat in political history does nothing to enhance support when his followers act exactly the same way.

I'm not talking about you, AuH20- you are normally very respectful and can carry your part in a decidedly intelligent conversation, and for that I thank you.

I don't engage in name-calling. I don't think all the Trump critics are leftists.

 

[puppetmaster]

Leessee.....
"The dude" has been here since 2012, so Trump posts were not his reason for being here.

THIS internet community is a Ron Paul forum and we were specifically asked NOT to promote Trump, or anyone else once Rand dropped out. Trump supporters ignored that request and blazoned the forum with pro-Trump stuff, and have never stopped.

CPUd began posting counter stuff to show a complete view of Trump, and the Trumpets really blew their cover- started accusing "the dude" of being a Clinton suppporter etc, when there was absolutely NO reason to post mega stuff about Clinton on a forum where NO ONE supports her. An occasional outrageous news story on Clinton is necessary to see WTF is going on in the race but there has been absolutely NO REASON to post tons about Hitlery.

In the meantime very few Trumpets actually post anything newsworthy. Their method of winning over hearts and minds is name-calling, insults, and innuendoes. I have only seen 2 or 3, on the whole forum, post a different thoughtful and positive POV on Trump that might make someone stop and think.

The fact that Trump comes off as the biggest spoiled brat in political history does nothing to enhance support when his followers act exactly the same way.

Personally, I support everyone's right to vote for whom they please. I DO NOT support the childish insults and name calling, or bashing of others, their religions, and culture.

AND for anyone who is truly trying to educate themselves on this whole political fiasco, negative threads on Trump should be welcome as a means for looking at all sides of the picture w/o having to search for stuff yourselves.

JMHPOV

the name calling seems to be equal from both sides or even more from the anti Trump folks. Specifically one.or two anti trump folks

 

[CPUd]

the name calling seems to be equal from both sides or even more from the anti Trump folks. Specifically one.or two anti trump folks

Post some examples.

 

[fedupinmo]

I'm sorry, did you mean Missouri, #10 out of 50 in terms of states most dependent on federal assistance?

Yes, we have KC, St. Louis, Columbia, and other liberal enclaves sucking at the teat. Out here in the country, we have to work for a living.

 

[puppetmaster]

Post some examples.

i prefer not, but you can just follow this thread up and see an example. I don't need to get into pissing matches with anyone here.

 

[CCTelander]

What's even more disturbing is that we have a sizable minority here cheering for the establishment to crush Trump. The very same people who have spent incalculable dollars keeping our movement down. I think Jmdrake may be the only vocal Trump critic who hasn't completely succumbed to the dark side.

I don't engage in name-calling. I don't think all the Trump critics are leftists.

 

[TheCount]

He's adopted Trump's tactics.

 

[Cleaner44]

Hi Cleaner44,

I know that Trump supporters are short on facts, but every single reputable aggregator has the chance of Hilary winning around ~70% or more.

Saying otherwise is a lie. I know that people on RPF like to put their head in the sand about polls, but polls are almost always right.

Trump needs a literal miracle to have a shot at the presidency.

Have a great night.

I would place a friendly $10 bet with you on the election but frankly you seem like kind of an asshole.

 

[robmpreston]

I would place a friendly $10 bet with you on the election but frankly you seem like kind of an $#@!.

Sorry to hear that Cleaner44. I don't know why speaking the truth is so painful for some people.

I don't care if you support Trump - it is what it is. I don't get it, but it's fine.

But pretending that at this point he has a chance in hell at winning the election takes a massive leap of faith.

All signs point to this being one of the biggest electoral blowouts in history.

 

[BamaAla]

Sorry dumb dumb... But I know that is hard for you to understand since you are a Trump supporter and all. Trump supporters are dumb as rocks. ...

Post some examples.

One didn't need to look too far.

 

[Leaning Libertarian]

That idea that Trump is "not a serious candidate" at this point is some of the most obvious, blind propaganda that I have ever seen posted here.

Blind obedience to conformity is a social norm now-a-days.