...states which voted for Trump in the 2020 election had overall higher murder rates than those which supported Joe Biden. This trend, called the “red state murder gap”, has been consistent for 20 years. The pattern remains the same even if the most populous county in each red state is excluded – undercutting an argument common on the right that large cities, which tend to be led by Democrats, are to blame for homicides.
Why do Repubs blame Dems for high urban crime rates but not give Dems credit for their much wealthier counties and states? Mystery, right? Anyone?
reminder of the free-riding rural conservative counties:
The 2020 presidential election was notable for considerable political and geographic divides but it also highlighted a huge economic divide. The rift is nothing new and it was highlighted in an analysis by the Brookings Institution. The research found that Donald Trump won 2,584 counties accounting for 36 percent of total U.S. economic output when he beat Hillary Clinton in 2016. Even though she won far fewer counties, 472, they accounted for 64 percent of total U.S. economic output. The political outcome of this year' contest is different and the country's economic voting chasm hs widened. Joe Biden won five more counties than Hillary Clinton and the 477 that voting for him accounted for a 70 percent share of U.S. GDP. Once again, Trump won far more counties than the Democrats - 2,497 - but they only generated 29 percent of U.S. economic output. The findings from the Brookings Institution are based on unofficial results from 96 percent of U.S. counties with votes still outstanding in 110 counties, most of which are low-output.
This post was edited 17 seconds after it was posted.
You don't want everyone to be treated equally? Seriously?!?
I believe that black people have historically been treated unequally and that should be corrected against.
Then what's the justification for discrimination against Asians, even relative to whites? That violates both the letter and the spirit of the civil rights act.
Trump is simply man of immense brilliance that we have yet to understand.
Exhibit A.
Hannity: “I can’t imagine you ever saying, ‘Bring me some boxes we brought back from the White House. I’d like to look at them.’” Trump: “I would do that..I have the right to take stuff! You know they ended up paying Nixon $18M for what he had.”
For the record, I have only voted for one republican in my life but I agree with all of these recent supreme court cases. And if I do....I suspect many more Dems also agree. These decisions may not be as unpopular as they may seem.
To be fair, I'm only reacting to the outcomes....not to the legal issues involved.
Desantis sets a new record! In a speech at Moms for Liberty he got in 6 "wokes" in 19 seconds. He likes that word. He likes it a lot.
In addition to having no charisma, DeSantis is the most authoritarian culture warrior that has run for President since Patrick Buchanan. When I found out the title of his autobiography was "The Courage to be Free" I couldn't stop laughing. The doublespeak that authoritarian right wingers in America use when they speak endlessly about freedom is mind boggling. Ah yes, the freedom to remove locally elected officials from office. The freedom to ban books, the discussion of racism, or the mentioning of lgbt people in public schools. The freedom to use state power to retribute against a corporation for speaking out against his policies. The freedom to remove the board and President of a college and replace them with right wing culture warriors intent on remaking the New College of Florida into Hillsdale college, a conservative, evangelical private college. I could go on.
He also has no courage. He doesn't even possess the courage to attack Donald Trump.
For the record, I have only voted for one republican in my life but I agree with all of these recent supreme court cases. And if I do....I suspect many more Dems also agree. These decisions may not be as unpopular as they may seem.
To be fair, I'm only reacting to the outcomes....not to the legal issues involved.
The legal issues and decisions, if anyone were to review them, are not as controversial as people are claiming the outcomes are.
Did anyone really believe that a university can systemically deny hundreds of Asian students admission every year based primarily on their race and not be in violation the Equal Protection clause? Do people at least see how that university procedure could be considered un-Constitutional?
Here are some UNC email and text strings discovered in the SFFA trial (and recited by Gorsuch in his concurrence).
---------------
“[P]erfect 2400 SAT All 5 on AP one B in 11th [grade].”
“Brown?!”
“Heck no. Asian.”
“Of course. Still impressive.”
--------------
“If its brown and above a 1300 [SAT] put them in for [the] merit/Excel [scholarship].”
--------------
“I just opened a brown girl who’s an 810 [SAT].”
-------------
“I’m going through this trouble because this is a bi-racial (black/white) male.”
-------------------- “[S]tellar academics for a Native Amer[ican]/African Amer[ican] kid.”
---------------
Does anyone truly believe university administrators and executives making decisions and behaving in this manner are acting according to the US Constitutional (much less morally)?
For the record, I have only voted for one republican in my life but I agree with all of these recent supreme court cases. And if I do....I suspect many more Dems also agree. These decisions may not be as unpopular as they may seem.
To be fair, I'm only reacting to the outcomes....not to the legal issues involved.
The legal issues and decisions, if anyone were to review them, are not as controversial as people are claiming the outcomes are.
Did anyone really believe that a university can systemically deny hundreds of Asian students admission every year based primarily on their race and not be in violation the Equal Protection clause? Do people at least see how that university procedure could be considered un-Constitutional?
Here are some UNC email and text strings discovered in the SFFA trial (and recited by Gorsuch in his concurrence).
---------------
“[P]erfect 2400 SAT All 5 on AP one B in 11th [grade].”
“Brown?!”
“Heck no. Asian.”
“Of course. Still impressive.”
--------------
“If its brown and above a 1300 [SAT] put them in for [the] merit/Excel [scholarship].”
--------------
“I just opened a brown girl who’s an 810 [SAT].”
-------------
“I’m going through this trouble because this is a bi-racial (black/white) male.”
-------------------- “[S]tellar academics for a Native Amer[ican]/African Amer[ican] kid.”
---------------
Does anyone truly believe university administrators and executives making decisions and behaving in this manner are acting according to the US Constitutional (much less morally)?
The supreme court ruled yesterday that colleges cannot make admissions decisions based on race. Today, they ruled that business owners can discriminate against people based on sexual orientation. We have a activist supreme court.
“Holy hell. Trumpenfuhrer is in full Nuremberg rally mode. “Our beloved nation is teetering on the edge of tyranny. Our enermies [sic] are waging war on…” literally everything. Every single word of this speech is designed to incite white nationalist violence.”
The supreme court ruled yesterday that colleges cannot make admissions decisions based on race. Today, they ruled that business owners can discriminate against people based on sexual orientation. We have a activist supreme court.
No, they ruled that you can't be compelled to make statements violating your religious beliefs. The same court already ruled in 2020 that discrimination by sexual orientation violates the Civil Rights Act - arguably this was closer to an activist ruling, since the Civil Rights Act doesn't mention sexual orientation.
Additionally, of course, is the incredibly narrow definition of "diversity." "We want a DIVERSE student body!" OF COURSE, we need a DIVERSE student body, reflecting society!"
And of the dozens or hundreds form of "diversity" one could look at, skin color is way at the top. Not persuasive. Not consistent. Not fully honest.
I posted earlier that looking at socioeconomic disadvantage was the best way to help both racial minorities (who are disproportionately lower income than whites due to centuries of discrimination) and low income whites gain admission to college. However, racial diversity is the most important type of diversity because blacks in America lived in slavery for centuries and then faced blatant extreme bigotry and legal discrimination for an additional 100 years. Other racial minorities have also faced bigotry and discrimination, although to a lesser degree than blacks. This is why racial diversity is the most important form of diversity. It's hard to believe some people don't understand this.
I agree that race is a very important form of diversity. But I said “WAY at the top” for a reason. Diversity could mean a lot of categories of personal characteristics - on top of race (and yes, particularly being black) - and higher ed. would like you to believe that they’re being that expansive. But I think it’s significantly disingenuous. They often mean mostly or entirely race. As just one of lots of examples one could cite, the proudly liberal elite school does NOT mean even a few more proudly conservative (not Trumper) kids to help balance things out in an insufferably liberal/PC campus culture. They mean race. Nor more veterans or Mormons or Christians or….