Very ironic that the liberals strategy of destroying the nation by dividing the nation ended up dividing and destroying themselves, very sad!!!
Once again Marcy with the failure to address the broader points he can’t contend with. Again, pick up a book. Never said you can’t have a poor right state, but did say your oversimplification was exactly that. You responded with another over simplification, LMAO. As Ohai pointed out, deflect and deny. To recap, you failed to even address the beginning point, got defensive, rambled some counterfactual assertions about liberalism and wealth, then got mad when your welfare recipient argument proved to be full of holes (thanks Pew Center!).
I declare victory over Jr. ROTC.
I’m coming up for 4 years in the US and I still have no idea what people mean when they say “liberals”
its almost like every person I’ve heard utter that word has a different definition for it. the one common factor is that the majority of people I’ve met that use the word pejoratively have turned out to be twats
Sad! indeed that they are destroying this great nation that we love so much!
Haha, ok bro.
The author of the article would probably identify as a “liberal” in many ways. People should be free to criticize any group of people, even those that they identify with. For instance, when Crooked HIllary lost the election, despite highly favorable odds, the Economist published a very good and introspective Op Ed that criticized political groupthink, clearly stated that they consider themselves to be “liberal”, argued that their thinking, along with others, must evolve in order to be relevant. I wish more people would be like this, instead of just circle jerking their way towards repeated failure. The Economist’s article was a good, productive way to discuss political views. Criticism is not always an indication of bias - but lack of criticism is.
No need to thank me for proving the exception.
I’m not your bro, chief. So if Iowa suddenly doubles in population and California see’s a typical on trend population growth (remember populations naturally grow) the California increase is more statistically meaningful to the conversation. I mean you’re literally just pointing out states that have large landmasses with multiple ports and trying to draw some moronic conclusion because larger populations naturally grow at higher absolute rates, scintillating.
lol u have a weird sense of humor.
You all don’t understand liberals.
I’m not your chief, buddy.
I’m not your buddy, guy.
Lol, I’m not your guy, buddy. My home is up 50% in population, which far exceeds Idaho. Texas, Florida and even Cali have above the US average population growth even off of giant bases. So, I’m not sure what “typical on tend” means. Are you saying that California has seen above average growth and continues to do so? Correct.
Interesting fact: fastest growing countries by population are Oman, Lebanon, Kuwait, Qatar and South Sudan.
Another interesting fact: Alaska, Montana and New Mexico are all in the top 5 largest states by land mass and are not growing their populations rapidly.
No, I’m saying California is growing at standard population growth rates (0.7% last year). So yes it’s adding a lot of people, but simply at reproductive levels. Meanwhile places like Texas are running at double that because people are actually moving there and California has recently seen negative migration for the same reason the North East has seen negative overall population growth.
Got it, I’m looking from 2010 to 2017, so we are using different data. Single year data can be quite choppy and prone to error.
I’m not your guy, pal.
Montana is growing quite a bit faster than the national average. People from Texas and California are infesting the state. The Californians are actually changing the political landscape (to the left, naturally). Texans are hated because they all drive pickup trucks that don’t have 4wd and still think they can drive in the Montana winter.
Cool, I stand corrected. Montana grew approx 6% (#17) from 2010 to 2017, adding 61k people.
Not your pal, friend.
Here’s what I think is the more important long-term trend. In 1790. 5.1% of the US population lived in an urban area. Today it is 80.7%. It’s a steady, uninterrupted trend.
1790 5.10% 1800 6.10% 1810 7.30% 1820 7.20% 1830 8.80% 1840 10.80% 1850 15.40% 1860 19.80% 1870 25.70% 1880 28.20% 1890 35.10% 1900 39.60% 1910 45.60% 1920 51.20% 1930 56.10% 1940 56.50% 1950 64.00% 1960 69.90% 1970 73.60% 1980 73.70% 1990 78.00% 2000 79.00% 2010 80.70%