Analysis: Increasingly Diverse U.S. Counties Quickly Turn Democrat

We had a solid GOP government at all branches in NH and successfully rolled back government in all directions.

Not anymore, thanks to the Bolsheviks democrat wave.

No, it's not thanks to Democrats...it's thanks to the nature of Leviathan itself. Right, left...it continues its steady march forward.
 
No, it's not. You are either unaware of the facts, or choose to ignore them.

republican-spending.jpg
Congress controls spending and there are things much more important than money.
 
No, it's not thanks to Democrats...it's thanks to the nature of Leviathan itself. Right, left...it continues its steady march forward.
WRONG

One side has traitors and "moderates" who sell out TO THE OTHER SIDE, the other side is dedicated to absolute tyranny.

Side1=Republicans
Side2=Demoncrats
 
OK.
Now that you have admitted that I will just say that your spin is weak

What's the spin? When Democrats are in power, it seems that there is a more concentrated effort by Republicans to exert whatever kind of counterbalance they can exert against spending.

I think coercive institutions like the federal government are evil anyway, and whatever kind of gridlock that may help slow government's growth, I will advocate. That is why if I did ever vote, I would vote for Democrats.
 
This article is full of carefully constructed lies.

As an example, Prince William County has more white people in it now than ever before. The white population grew by 20% between 2000 and 2010.

Why does the author say that the white population declined by 23%? Because it suits his narrative - and likewise AF's narrative - of replacement.

"Grew" and "declined" relative to what, respectively? Without telling us this, there is no way to judge the merit of your criticism.

The white population might have grown by 20% relative to the previously existing white population, while still having declined by 23% relative the overall population.

I don't know if that is what happened or if, as you assert, the author is playing a shell-game with statistics.

But if it is the latter case, what you have said here is not by itself sufficient to demonstrate it.

I'll be curious to see if somebody actually parses the numbers to find out.

ETA - I took it upon myself to look the numbers up: turns out you are absolutely right.

Overall population increased from 280 to 400 thousand, but the percentage of that population that was white decreased.

Looks like all the numbers check out. It is important to note that by "white," the author of the OP article is apparently referring to the "White / Not Hispanic or Latino" classification used by the U.S. Census Bureau. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, "the concept of race is separate from the concept of Hispanic origin" and "[White / Not Hispanic or Latino] are individuals who responded 'No, not Spanish/Hispanic/Latino' and who reported 'White' as their only entry in the race question." Note also that, in what follows, "white" means "white alone" (i.e., it accounts for those who reported "White" as their only entry in the race question). Thus, the "White / Not Hispanic or Latino" population is a subset of the merely "white" population.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau[1], the overall population of Prince William County, Virginia in 2000 was 280,813 and the white population was 193,574 (with the "White / Not Hispanic or Latino" population recorded as 181,756). Thus, the white population composed 69% [193,574 / 280,813] of the overall population in 2000 (with the "White / Not Hispanic or Latino" population composing 65% [181,756 / 280,813] of the overall population).

According to the U.S. Census Bureau[2], the overall population of Prince William County, Virginia in 2010 was 402,002 and the white population was 232,401 (with the "White / Not Hispanic or Latino" population recorded at 195,656). Thus, the white population composed 58% [232,401 / 402,002] of the overall population in 2010 (with the "White / Not Hispanic or Latino" population composing 49% [195,656 / 402,002] of the overall population).

Based on these figures, from 2000 to 2010 there was (1) a decline of 11% [69% - 58%] in the white population relative to the overall population (with a decline of 16% [65% - 49%] in the "White / Not Hispanic or Latino" population), and (2) an increase of 20% [(232,401 - 193,574) / 193,574] in the white population relative to the previously existing white population (with an increase of 8% [(195,656 - 181,756) / 181,756] in the "White / Not Hispanic or Latino" population relative to the previously existing "White / Not Hispanic or Latino" population). This verifies and confirms TheCount's claim that "[t]he white population grew by 20% between 2000 and 2010."

The author claimed that "Prince William County, Virginia [...] experienced a 23 percent decline in the white population since 2000 [...]." Assuming, as seems obvious, that this claim was made about the white population relative to the overall population (and keeping in mind the note I mentioned in my opening paragraph), we should expect what the author refers to as the "white population" at the end of the claimed decline to be 42% [65% - 23%] of the overall population. This perfectly agrees with the U.S. Census Bureau's own estimate[3] that, as of July 1st, 2018, the "White / Not Hispanic or Latino" population composed 42% of the overall population. (The U.S. Census Bureau also estimates[3] that, as of July 1st, 2018, the overall population of Prince William County, Virginia was 468,011, and that the white population, as distinct from the "White / Not Hispanic or Latino" population, was 63% relative to the overall population.)

[1] PDF: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census of Population and Housing, Summary Population and Housing Characteristics, PHC-1-48, Virginia, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 2002

[2] PDF: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census of Population and Housing, Summary Population and Housing Characteristics, CPH-1-48, Virginia, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 2012

[3] https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/princewilliamcountyvirginia
 
Last edited:
WRONG

One side has traitors and "moderates" who sell out TO THE OTHER SIDE, the other side is dedicated to absolute tyranny.

Side1=Republicans
Side2=Demoncrats

You're just simply not awake yet. Hopefully you'll get there. I was stuck in the right-left paradigm too once upon a time. I'm so much more at peace now...in the understanding that right and left are both enemies to freedom.
 
You're just simply not awake yet. Hopefully you'll get there. I was stuck in the right-left paradigm too once upon a time. I'm so much more at peace now...in the understanding that right and left are both enemies to freedom.

You'll find a good many of us did give it up and then were forced back into it as a matter of self preservation. I never attained the inner peace either way, but I have to say I've never seen republicans form Antifa mobs and destroy downtown areas or beat up old people trying to get to their cars. You may have deemed the republicans the party of coercion, but what I see from the left are people with a passionate desire to control the lives of other people, demonstrated though mob 'activism'. By comparison, I went to a republican "protest" once. It was old people sitting in folding chairs listening to public speakers. Wild bunch they were.
 
Last edited:
What's the spin? When Democrats are in power, it seems that there is a more concentrated effort by Republicans to exert whatever kind of counterbalance they can exert against spending.

I think coercive institutions like the federal government are evil anyway, and whatever kind of gridlock that may help slow government's growth, I will advocate. That is why if I did ever vote, I would vote for Democrats.
When Demoncrats are in power Republicans sell out on all the most important issues or the Demoncrats just ignore them and force their agenda.
When Republicans are in power they sell out on the less important issues and block the worst things or even repeal some of them.
Divided government results in something in between and is possibly the worst condition.

If you ever did vote you would help to boil the frog slowly so please don't vote.
 
Eureka! Why didn't we think of that sooner?

I dunno. It worked for me in 2010. It worked for Jim Womack and Donald Trump in Lee County 2016 and 2018. Still more people scoff and think it’s a stupid idea than not. Which is weird because everyone I’ve seen to really go after it it works. Especially since about 2014 and again after Trump got elected in 2016.
 
You're just simply not awake yet. Hopefully you'll get there. I was stuck in the right-left paradigm too once upon a time. I'm so much more at peace now...in the understanding that right and left are both enemies to freedom.
That's a fine excuse for doing nothing or great propaganda for enabling the left by suppressing the right.
 
You'll find a good many of us did give it up and then were forced back into it as a matter of self preservation. I never attained the inner peace either way, but I have to say I've never seen republicans form Antifa mobs and destroy downtown areas or beat up old people trying to get to their cars. You may have deemed the republicans the party of coercion, but what I see from the left are people with a passionate desire to control the lives of other people, demonstrated though mob activism. I went to a republican "protest" once. It was old people in folding chairs listening to public speakers. Wild bunch they were.

Republicans want to control your life. They want to steal from you to fund every growing alphabet agency of the federal government. They want to control what medicine you put in your body. If you are a foreigner in the middle east, they want to oppress and murder you.

Wait a second....did some of you Ron Paul folks get suckered back into this political circus...by Trump of all people???

Shame, shame. Go back to your first love.
 
"Grew" and "declined" relative to what, respectively? Without telling us this, there is no way to judge the merit of your criticism.
He doesn't ever mention what it's relative to.

A "decline" that results in more people is exactly as stupid as a "replacement" in which nothing is replaced.


The white population might have grown by 20% relative to the previously existing white population, while still having declined by 23% relative to the overall population.

I've never heard anyone use decline in that manner without specifying the point of reference.

If the population of rabbits grew 40% and the population of deer grew 20%, would you say that the population of deer has declined?
 
Back
Top