Called it

[snowdog650]

Here in Texas, this will gain about as much traction as a dog chasing a ball on a recently polished hardwood floor.

Wait until Hillary's amnesty bill. That will change overnight.

[Mitch]

I would like to see those stats as a percentage of population and as much as I hate to say it also broken down by race.

Not sure why race is important.

Here are the numbers you seek. First number is estimated population for July 1 2015; second number is Milsurp's figure from above; third number is the percentage (Milsurp's number divided by population).

California - 39,144,818 - 4,320,968 - 11%
Oregon - 4,028,977 - 730,479 - 18%
Nevada - 2,890,845 - 438,342 - 15%
Texas - 27,469,114 - 3,703,772 - 13%
Arizona - 6,828,065 - 935,640 - 14%


Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._by_population

[Angrysnarf]

Wait until Hillary's amnesty bill. That will change overnight.

Yup

[I Swan]

Not sure why race is important.

Here are the numbers you seek. First number is estimated population for July 1 2015; second number is Milsurp's figure from above; third number is the percentage (Milsurp's number divided by population).

California - 39,144,818 - 4,320,968 - 11%
Oregon - 4,028,977 - 730,479 - 18%
Nevada - 2,890,845 - 438,342 - 15%
Texas - 27,469,114 - 3,703,772 - 13%
Arizona - 6,828,065 - 935,640 - 14%


Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._by_population

Why not? Facts are facts and some races are known for having more people as a percentage on EBT than others so I figured states with a lot of those type people would have more on EBT.

If that is racist, why? Just plain statistics. I'm glad you did the math I was fairly certain AZ had more people percentage wise than CA on EBT.

Thread is getting way off course though. A lot of poor people does not always mean a blue state though or with bad gun laws. KY is a good example. It is a risk factor though because those type EBT people want to suck at the government tit as well and as long as they can and the Dems promise them all of that.

[Mitch]

Why not? Facts are facts and some races are known for having more people as a percentage on EBT than others so I figured states with a lot of those type people would have more on EBT.

If that is racist, why? Just plain statistics.

I didn't say it was racist, I said it was unimportant.

That all the states mentioned have a higher percentage of people on state support than California is mildly interesting (and not at all surprising to me), but the racial breakdown of the respective populations wouldn't reveal anything useful or even very interesting.

[I Swan]

I didn't say it was racist, I said it was unimportant.

That all the states mentioned have a higher percentage of people on state support than California is mildly interesting (and not at all surprising to me), but the racial breakdown of the respective populations wouldn't reveal anything useful or even very interesting.

To you perhaps I myself find it interesting up to a point and a little bit useful to me when considering where to move. I am surprised Oregon is so high.

[Mitch]

To you perhaps I myself find it interesting up to a point and a little bit useful to me when considering where to move. I am surprised Oregon is so high.

Drive around some of the areas that used to be logging centers. Pretty grim (and also pretty white).

[Milsurp Collector]

this state wasn't like this when i was growing up here in the 70's and 80's it started getting stupid in the 90's and well since 2000 we have gone passed full potato and gone full blown burnt hash brown.

California has done a complete 180 from what it used to be. that is not a lie.

I'm not saying California hasn't gotten more liberal, clearly it has. What I was pointing out was the absurdity of the notion that a couple people expressed in this thread that certain states becoming more liberal is the result of some kind of master plan. Really, when someone says progressives take over certain cities so they can dominate the rest of the state, who do they think is choosing the states, who do they think is choosing the "designated progressive take over sites", and most importantly, how do they think they are getting liberals to move to those specific "designated progressive take over sites"? By forcing them to move there? How? By paying them to move there? The whole idea is ridiculous.

The real explanation is simple: birds of a feather flock together. It isn't some kind of liberal scheme, it's all explained here http://www.thebigsort.com/home.php

[dwtt]

Progressives are using the "California model".
Which is take over one or two major urban areas of a State and use the political power that it will bring to bully the rest of the State to their whims, while everyone else is complacent with a "it'll never happen here" attitude.

Designated progressive take over sites...
For California, it's the SF Bay area and LA metro area.
For Oregon, it's the Portland area.
For Washington, it's the Seattle area.
For Colorado, it's the Denver area.
For Nevada, it's the Las Vegas area.
For Texas, it's the Austin area.

First step, pass "universal background check" laws.
Second step, pass "assault weapons" and "large capacity" ammunition feeding device bans.
Third step, replace "shall issue" CCW with "may issue" CCW.

It has happened here in Arlington, VA. They're spreading west to the rest of Northern Virginia, but the VCDL is doing a good job of fighting against their tactics. They tried to stop a local gun store from moving to a new location by raising their usual hysteria and "it's for the children" BS. They ended looking like a bunch of mental retards, which is what they really are. There was also one loon here on Calguns who said this is just a myth, and liberals from CA don't go spreading their diseases to other states.

[DannyInSoCal]

The main reason I'm moving my Prop30 income and 600 jobs out of kalifornistan is the high taxes and anti-business bullcrap.

This latest round of unconstitutional infringements simply moves up the timeline...