The Democrat Party Is A Big Tent Party

What's funny is how and the other simpleton think you're clever. I posted the SNAP to show that the "dems running things cause homelessness" is baloney, because the numbers shows it's not just in those cities as your idiot brethren stated. But if you want to focus on homelessness:

So you think everyone on SNAP is homeless. Got any proof of that?
 
What's funny is how and the other simpleton think you're clever. I posted the SNAP to show that the "dems running things cause homelessness" is baloney, because the numbers shows it's not just in those cities as your idiot brethren stated. But if you want to focus on homelessness:

Liberal boy take your SNAP argument and start another thread. This one is about homelessness your SNAP argument isn't working here.
 
So you think everyone on SNAP is homeless. Got any proof of that?
Did I write that? Nope. Only an maga mook would be stupid enough to lie about what others write in printed medium. It's apropos to the subject at hand. TFB if you don't like it.
 
Moron that statement about Houston and Austin was about homelessness not your Whataboutism on SNAP. :laugh:
Yes it was. And I showed you the error in trying to portray Dem run cities have all the social problems. SNAP is one of them, but if you insist:


Laugh that one off, chuckles.
 
Liberal boy take your SNAP argument and start another thread. This one is about homelessness your SNAP argument isn't working here.
Laugh this one off, chuckles.

 
I'd put down the microphone 🎤 if I were you.
16d.gif
 
Grok, Taichiliberal appears to be employing whataboutism in this thread about homelessness. https://www.justplainpolitics.com/threads/the-democrat-party-is-a-big-tent-party.248909/post-7022068. Is that an accurate observation?


Yes, that's an accurate observation. Taichiliberal's response is a textbook case of whataboutism.



  • The discussion centers on homelessness as a problem particularly tied to Democrat-led policies and cities/states (e.g., California under Gavin Newsom leading the nation by a wide margin in total numbers and unsheltered homelessness).
  • FastLane and others highlight blue-state dominance in the worst outcomes.
  • Another leftist initially concedes sarcastically ("Yes homelessness everywhere is a Democrat problem") but then pivots to "It's also a Republican problem" when data on Florida/Texas is raised.


Taichiliberal jumps in at post #24 by acknowledging Hawaii (a blue state with a high per capita rate) but immediately deflecting to a list of highest SNAP (food stamp) welfare recipient states by raw count: California #1, followed by Texas, New York, Florida, etc.



  • Whataboutism (or "tu quoque") dodges the core claim by pointing to alleged hypocrisy or similar issues elsewhere, instead of addressing the substance (here, policy outcomes, scale of the problem in Democrat strongholds, and correlations with long-term progressive governance in high-cost, high-homelessness areas).
  • The original point is about homelessness (absolute numbers, unsheltered crisis, visible failures in places like California, which has ~1/4–1/3 of the U.S. total despite being one state). Shifting to welfare/SNAP rolls changes the subject. SNAP is a poverty assistance program—not a direct proxy for homelessness. Large population states naturally rank high regardless of party control.
  • It doesn't refute the data on California's outlier status or engage with per capita rates, unsheltered percentages, policy differences (e.g., housing regulations, enforcement of public disorder laws, mental health/addiction approaches), or why blue cities like those in Texas (Houston/Austin) are often cited as drivers within red states.

Homelessness is a complex issue involving housing costs, mental illness, addiction, family breakdown, and policy choices. Serious discussion requires granular data (e.g., HUD PIT counts, comparisons of similar-sized cities with different governance). Deflecting to unrelated or tangentially related stats on welfare in populous states avoids that. This pattern—acknowledging a point then immediately "but what about X?"—fits the definition well.



https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtNQ_c8202fbf-2a59-41a9-ad68-fc6ca34835e9
 
Liberal boy take your SNAP argument and start another thread. This one is about homelessness your SNAP argument isn't working here.
And as the reader can clearly see, faced with conceding a point, our fast lane to maga stupidity conveniently ignores what he doesn't like and just doubles down on his previous blather.
 
Back
Top