Social "Fighters Against Socialism" Jorge Masvidal leading charge for better fighter pay

<23>
California has the highest poverty rate in the country, and also ranked dead last in quality of life.

https://www.businessinsider.com/california-worst-quality-of-life-2018-3?op=1
That's total bullshit. Not even close.

Here are the 10 states with the highest poverty rates:

  1. Mississippi (19.75%)
  2. Louisiana (18.83%)
  3. New Mexico (18.63%)
  4. West Virginia (17.54%)
  5. Kentucky (16.67%)
  6. Arkansas (16.36%)
  7. Alabama (16.13%)
  8. Oklahoma (15.00%)
  9. Tennessee (14.36%)
  10. Georgia (14.11%)

Source: https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/poverty-rate-by-state

They're ALL red states in the South with the exception of New Mexico.

PS - The states with the ten lowest poverty rates are ALL blue states with the exception of Utah. Blue states subsidize the red states. They give more money to the federal government than they receive back. Red states are the exact opposite.
 
So unions are socialism ? You guys really stretch things to a ridiculous degree. Imagine being that ridiculous to make a thread about this AND think you’re being clever

Uh what, unions are a major component of a socialist system.

If anything they are the most important component. The trade union is a method to democratize the work place. An ideal socialist system would consist of trade unions controlled by the workers that negotiate deals between each other.

Basically, the union is the first and main weapon of the proletariat.

Socialists advocate for a system in which the workers control the means of production (through trade unions) and enjoy the fruits of their labor, free of the demands of a capitalist boss who seeks to hoard profits.

There's no socialism without unionization first.

Almost every civil rights activist that lead the unionization effort in the 1800s and early 1900s were socialists, communists, and even anarchists.
 
Last edited:
That's total bullshit. Not even close.

Here are the 10 states with the highest poverty rates:

  1. Mississippi (19.75%)
  2. Louisiana (18.83%)
  3. New Mexico (18.63%)
  4. West Virginia (17.54%)
  5. Kentucky (16.67%)
  6. Arkansas (16.36%)
  7. Alabama (16.13%)
  8. Oklahoma (15.00%)
  9. Tennessee (14.36%)
  10. Georgia (14.11%)

Source: https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/poverty-rate-by-state

They're ALL red states in the South with the exception of New Mexico.

PS - The states with the ten lowest poverty rates are ALL blue states with the exception of Utah. Blue states subsidize the red states. They give more money to the federal government than they receive back. Red states are the exact opposite.
Cool, you posted the exact same thing the other guy did and I already posted why that's inaccurate with multiple sources. Just lol at trying to use the same poverty line for a state where the average housing price is $800k to one where the average house is $138k.

California, NY, DC and Connecticut have plenty of billionaires, but they also have the highest income inequality and the majority of the homeless. California overtook Mississippi as having the highest poverty rate adjusted for cost of living like 10 years ago.
 
Cool, you posted the exact same thing the other guy did and I already posted why that's inaccurate with multiple sources. Just lol at trying to use the same poverty line for a state where the average housing price is $800k to one where the average house is $138k.

California, NY, DC and Connecticut have plenty of billionaires, but they also have the highest income inequality and the majority of the homeless. California overtook Mississippi as having the highest poverty rate adjusted for cost of living like 10 years ago.
Those figures are from 2021. Whatever man, keep living in your own distorted reality. You can bring a horse to water...
 
Those figures are from 2021. Whatever man, keep living in your own distorted reality. You can bring a horse to water...
What do I care what year your distorted numbers are from? California and Mississippi don't have anything close to comparable costs of living, but for some reason you need the same "national poverty" metric in order to pretend that a state with highest cost of living, the lowest literacy rates, the 3rd highest income inequality behind NY and DC with graffiti, nearly 1/3 of the entire country's homeless population, human shit and syringes on the sidewalk is a raging success.

Why on earth would you not use locally adjusted cost of living to figure how many people are in poverty? NY, CA, DC, Connecticut and Louisiana are all run by democrats, even though for some reason you thought Louisiana was run by a republican, and they're the only places with gini coefficients above the national average, which drags up the number for the entire country.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_Gini_coefficient

I also posted the more accurate metric, by which California is poorer than Mississippi.

https://www.laweekly.com/california-is-americas-poorest-state/

https://thepoliticalinsider.com/california-poorest-state/
 
Cool, you posted the exact same thing the other guy did and I already posted why that's inaccurate with multiple sources. Just lol at trying to use the same poverty line for a state where the average housing price is $800k to one where the average house is $138k.

California, NY, DC and Connecticut have plenty of billionaires, but they also have the highest income inequality and the majority of the homeless. California overtook Mississippi as having the highest poverty rate adjusted for cost of living like 10 years ago.
They're still not, no matter how many times you lie about it because you don't like what their results show.
 
Last edited:
To clarify, you think California is a well run state with a thriving middle class?

Just lol. The average cost of a house is $800k ffs.


https://www.laweekly.com/california-is-americas-poorest-state/
That's from 2013. The national poverty rate is ~13.5%. For non-immigrant Californians, it's 14.4%. Outside of the sizeable illegal alien population, Californians are no more poverty stricken than the nation as a whole.

Additionally, the average cost of a house is worthless number considering that a handful of places drive up the average significantly. Just a few $20+ million houses is going to skew the average and California has much more than a few. The median home prices in California cities cover a fairly wide range.
Home-Prices-Highest-Californias-Coastal-Urban-Areas_Chart.png
 
That's from 2013. The national poverty rate is ~13.5%. For non-immigrant Californians, it's 14.4%. Outside of the sizeable illegal alien population, Californians are no more poverty stricken than the nation as a whole.

Additionally, the average cost of a house is worthless number considering that a handful of places drive up the average significantly. Just a few $20+ million houses is going to skew the average and California has much more than a few. The median home prices in California cities cover a fairly wide range.
Home-Prices-Highest-Californias-Coastal-Urban-Areas_Chart.png
Why would a sanctuary state with millions of illegal aliens not count their massive illegal alien population? They live there, don't they? Lol, they're not that poor if you don't count all of the poor people living there?

California has several times more people living below poverty than Mississippi has entire population. And since when does the state that had a gold rush, Hollywood, tech industry, beaches, mountains, deserts consider it a big win to find a metric by which they have a slightly lower poverty rate than Mississippi that has been poor for 150 years?
 
What do I care what year your distorted numbers are from? California and Mississippi don't have anything close to comparable costs of living, but for some reason you need the same "national poverty" metric in order to pretend that a state with highest cost of living, the lowest literacy rates, the 3rd highest income inequality behind NY and DC with graffiti, nearly 1/3 of the entire country's homeless population, human shit and syringes on the sidewalk is a raging success.

Why on earth would you not use locally adjusted cost of living to figure how many people are in poverty? NY, CA, DC, Connecticut and Louisiana are all run by democrats, even though for some reason you thought Louisiana was run by a republican, and they're the only places with gini coefficients above the national average, which drags up the number for the entire country.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_Gini_coefficient

I also posted the more accurate metric, by which California is poorer than Mississippi.

https://www.laweekly.com/california-is-americas-poorest-state/

https://thepoliticalinsider.com/california-poorest-state/
Louisiana is a red state. This is pure hack material. Massachusetts has a Republican governor, so let's just say it's "run by Republicans" following your logic. That's fucking idiotic. I live in MA and it's just as blue as Louisiana is red. Just because states will elect a token governor from the other party (typically one who's well to the left or right of his/her respective party nationwide) doesn't mean those states are run by the party that the governor is a member of. I know you're not operating in good faith, but do you really think you're going to run this shit by people with triple-digit IQ's?
 
Why would a sanctuary state with millions of illegal aliens not count their massive illegal alien population? They live there, don't they? Lol, they're not that poor if you don't count all of the poor people living there?

California has several times more people living below poverty than Mississippi has entire population. And since when does the state that had a gold rush, Hollywood, tech industry, beaches, mountains, deserts consider it a big win to find a metric by which they have a slightly lower poverty rate than Mississippi that has been poor for 150 years?
I didn't say they wouldn't count them. Of course they're poor. But illegal aliens aren't poor because of the state government's policies. Their poor because they lack the legal status to take full advantage of the state and federal government's policies.

If you're going to critique how the state is run, it's not particularly useful to not address the difference between people fully affected by how the state is run vs. those people who fall outside of the state's choice of policy.

As for CA and MS, what are you talking about? CA has a poverty rate that's as far from Mississippi, the worse, as it is from NH, the best. They're literally in the middle, while having millions of people in the state who cannot fully participate in the workforce because they're illegal. That's actually incredible. Their policies must be very effective if they're closer to the lowest state than those states with barely any illegal aliens (like Mississippi).

Maybe you haven't had time to actually read the data?
 
Louisiana is a red state. This is pure hack material. Massachusetts has a Republican governor, so let's just say it's "run by Republicans" following your logic. That's fucking idiotic. I live in MA and it's just as blue as Louisiana is red. Just because states will elect a token governor from the other party (typically one who's well to the left or right of his/her respective party nationwide) doesn't mean those states are run by the party that the governor is a member of. I know you're not operating in good faith, but do you really think you're going to run this shit by people with triple-digit IQ's?
Lol, it's "hack material" for me to point out that the governor is a democrat, the mayor of the biggest city is a democrat, only like 3 of their last 30 governors have been republicans, and one of them was Buddy Roemer who started the young turks, Bill Clinton won the state both times he ran?

There is no "token governor from the other party", 3 of their last 5 governors have been democrats going back 30 years, and they had like 1 republican in the early 80s for a single term, and straight democrats before that for over 100 years. New Orleans has had nothing but democrat mayors for literally 150 years. The results are not encouraging.
 
So now Dana White is a socialist

Jorge should call him one & see what he says
 
I didn't say they wouldn't count them. Of course they're poor. But illegal aliens aren't poor because of the state government's policies. Their poor because they lack the legal status to take full advantage of the state and federal government's policies.

If you're going to critique how the state is run, it's not particularly useful to not address the difference between people fully affected by how the state is run vs. those people who fall outside of the state's choice of policy.

As for CA and MS, what are you talking about? CA has a poverty rate that's as far from Mississippi, the worse, as it is from NH, the best. They're literally in the middle, while having millions of people in the state who cannot fully participate in the workforce because they're illegal. That's actually incredible. Their policies must be very effective if they're closer to the lowest state than those states with barely any illegal aliens (like Mississippi).

Maybe you haven't had time to actually read the data?
Being a sanctuary state has nothing to do with how the state is run?

What are these policies that you think illegal aliens can't take advantage of? Anybody with a kid can collect welfare, they use the same schools, have the same public transportation. The only thing they aren't included on is exorbitant taxes, and the reason they're poor is that they disproportionately can't speak or read English.

There's a reason the numbers vary so massively depending on how you get there. This is from the public policy institute of California, so not exactly some alt right source.

I don't see the benefit in denying that Californians have been falling into poverty for years. Is it just to pretend that democrats are doing a bang up job? Why wouldn't you go with the highest number? There's not a metric that could get Utah into a high poverty rate, but there is for California, and I really doubt the public policy institute of California are fucking with the numbers to make their own state seem worse than it is. We do know that most of the country's homeless population are in just 2 states(NY and CA). Is partisan politics that important to you that you'd rather deny that state has been growing more unequal and the poverty rate has been increasing for a few decades now? Do you think there are a lot of people who aren't poor that the policy institute is just calling poor for no reason?

More than a third of Californians are living in or near poverty.
Nearly one in six (16.4%) Californians were not in poverty but lived fairly close to the poverty line (up to one and a half times above it). All told, more than a third (34.0%) of state residents were poor or near poor in 2019. The share of Californians in families with less than half the resources needed to meet basic needs (the deep poverty rate) was 4.6%.

https://www.ppic.org/publication/poverty-in-california/
 
Last edited:
Being a sanctuary state has nothing to do with how the state is run?

What are these policies that you think illegal aliens can't take advantage of? Anybody with a kid can collect welfare, they use the same schools, have the same public transportation. The only thing they aren't included on is exorbitant taxes, and the reason they're poor is that they disproportionately can't speak or read English.

There's a reason the numbers vary so massively depending on how you get there. This is from the public policy institute of California, so not exactly some alt right source.

I don't see the benefit in denying that Californians have been falling into poverty for years. Is it just to pretend that democrats are doing a bang up job? Why wouldn't you go with the highest number? There's not a metric that could get Utah into a high poverty rate, but there is for California, and I really doubt the public policy institute of California are fucking with the numbers to make their own state seem worse than it is. We do know that most of the country's homeless population are in just 2 states(NY and CA). Is partisan politics that important to you that you'd rather deny that state has been growing more unequal and the poverty rate has been increasing for a few decades now? Do you think there are a lot of people who aren't poor that the policy institute is just calling poor for no reason?



https://www.ppic.org/publication/poverty-in-california/
I can't discuss the point you're pretending to make until you provide context with the other states.

Instrumental in the claim that CA is doing a bad job is measuring them relative to their peers. So, when you have parallel stats for the other states, an intelligent discussion can follow.
 
I can't discuss the point you're pretending to make until you provide context with the other states.

Instrumental in the claim that CA is doing a bad job is measuring them relative to their peers. So, when you have parallel stats for the other states, an intelligent discussion can follow.
Yeah, I really don't think an "intelligent conversation" is going to follow if your entire argument is to pretend a state that was the best state in the country 40 years ago and now has 170,000 homeless people, rolling blackouts and 1/3 of the state living near or below poverty is "pretty incredible". You think California's "peer" is Mississippi?
 
Lol, it's "hack material" for me to point out that the governor is a democrat, the mayor of the biggest city is a democrat, only like 3 of their last 30 governors have been republicans, and one of them was Buddy Roemer who started the young turks, Bill Clinton won the state both times he ran?

There is no "token governor from the other party", 3 of their last 5 governors have been democrats going back 30 years, and they had like 1 republican in the early 80s for a single term, and straight democrats before that for over 100 years. New Orleans has had nothing but democrat mayors for literally 150 years. The results are not encouraging.
Massachusetts has a Republican Governor, 5 out of the last 6 governors have been Republicans going back over 30 years, and overall we've had 31 Republican governors compared to only 19 Democrats. Guess we must be a red state now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor_of_Massachusetts

<{1-1}>
 
In America the rightwing labels AOC, Bernie and the left as Socialists, deliberately giving the impression these people are pushing for Communism.

Actually they gave themselves that label. Sanders and AOC identify as socialists. I've always thought it was a terrible marketing strategy.
 
Back
Top