The search function works. Put my name into "By:" and then go wild.
And you're reacting too defensively to understand the point. (Some) rightists use Haley's name just as (a much smaller number of) leftists use Trump's family's old name. But you're denying that "the right" does one, while asserting that "the left" does the other. So the problem is that the inconsistent grouping pattern on this issue is the sole basis for your argument. If you corrected that flaw, not only would your point evaporate, it would clearly reverse.
And with regard to your personal attack, I predict you will find zero instances of me ever being wrong and resorting to Scheme-style personal attacks to cover that up.
I actually didn't have to look far, let's just look at the last time you quoted me, a couple weeks ago:
Bro, I used to live in Arcata. I love Humboldt. Nice! I lived up the road outside of Crescent City in the redwoods on the Smith River. It was an amazing place. Now I'm stuck in rural Missouri for the time being. Would not recommend. Lol.
forums.sherdog.com
Your post literally starts off by saying I am using a talking point and that I am being dishonest:
This talking point should be a red flag that someone is not interested in honest discussion
You then make the point that the net migration per population of the original state between Florida and California is greater for California. I show you that a data source that shows that California is third to last in total net migration rate, and dead last in raw population migration numbers, while Florida is first in overall migration numbers and fourth in net migration rate. The absolute numbers also show that more people moved to Florida from California than vice versa.
The one being misleading is you, because the statistic you quoted is a misleading and irrelevant statistic (made famous by the most biased source on the matter, Gavin Newsom, the governor of California). The reason it's irrelevant should be obvious, but I'll give you an example:
1. Let's say a state A has a population of 10 people and another state B has a population of 10 million people
2. If 10000 people move from state B to state A, and 1 person moves from state A to state B, here are the net migration rates as a percent of the population of the origin state:
State A->B = 10000 people per 100K (1 / 10 people left)
State B->A = 100 people per 100K
Even though only a single person moved to state B and 10000 moved to state A, the useless rate statistic would suggest that for some reason, 100x more people moved from State A -> State B. This is a ridiculous notion given that the population of state A had increased by 1000x from that immigration, while the population of state B had actually lost people (it had a net migration rate of -9999). So tell me, how in this case does that make sense, that a state loses population, while another gains an insane population boost and somehow the rate statistic shows such an insane discrepancy? It's because the statistic is inherently flawed and shouldn't be considered in the notion of net migration.
And note that in my original post, I didn't say: "well, due to your obvious incompetence and political hackery you would believe such a useless and misleading statistic". I just posted the source of my data. Your first line in your post is about how I was being dishonest, while the whole time you were quoting a misleading statistic from the most biased source on the matter.
So please Jack, stop insulting people when you quote them and reminding people how "undeniably correct" you are. Maybe then you'll learn to make better and more logical points.