GVF
Talk Dirty To Me
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2004
- Messages
- 12,534
- Likes
- 11,161
You're probably right: I suspect the inner-city poor get a bit more money from various government agencies than the rural poor, and I have an issue with some of the money the inner-city poor get. But then the rural poor tend to vote against their own financial interest--which is not wise. Why do the rural poor vote for Republicans who do not like the poor--whether rural or inner-city--and who want to reduce or eliminate programs that assist the poor? Red-state Republicans have opted not to expand Medicaid in their states, for example, when many rural poor would benefit from expanded Medicaid help. States with big cities are likely to be run by Democrats, which probably benefits the poor in those states. If I were poor and living in rural America, I'd be voting for politicians who were interested in assisting me and other low-income people--but then rural Americans are more concerned with cultural as opposed to financial issues.
As we saw in the last election, Dems literally only have to control 5 cities to control the election. Control Atlanta, Milwaukee, Detroit, Philly and Phoenix and it’s lights out for Reps.I think that the cities are going to determine the direction of the country and no matter how red the geographical map is, we will be subject to what the city dwellers/liberal voters want. I know it's a pessimistic view, but at some point, there will be more luthers than common sense voters.
As we saw in the last election, Dems literally only have to control 5 cities to control the election. Control Atlanta, Milwaukee, Detroit, Philly and Phoenix and it’s lights out for Reps.
Yes we have a lot of poorly planned expressways which we'll have to live with for years. Knoxville, Asheville, etc. With that and our urban renewal craze we really messed up a lot of cities.Running interstates through cities in the first place was insane. They should never have gone through cities and shifted local traffic from the regular street grid. Spurs from interstates to cities would have made far more sense.
The transplants' neighbors care, in a bad way if the transplants bring stereotypical Northeastern charm with them and in a good way if they're good folks.Who gives a flying F why anyone chooses to live anywhere!
Pay attention, I've said over and over again that people live in different states for reasons that are important to them.
Your non-stop policing of every post in this forum is pathetic and sad, find a freaking hobby. Live your life man, sheesh.
Not so much. There's plenty of good public transportation in medium sized / less dense European cities, and many smaller American cities had good streetcar systems until Firestone et al bought and scrapped them.You need density to make public transportation work well. NYC and Long Island, due to natural geographic constraints, have that density. Places like Atlanta and Nashville don't have those constraints, so unless they're artificially imposed, you won't see good public transportation develop.
The spiral in California accelerates yes again.
California panel approves $800 billion reparations package
BTW…..$800 billion is 2.5 times their entire current state budget. How in the WORLD do they think they will pay for it?It's incredible the gullibility and/or criminality of the left. Reparations to people who never suffered harm. But to LBJ's thinking, it will keep them on the plantation for a while longer ... and probably be as inversely effective as his social reforms were.
Luxury car, electronics and clothing makers are gearing up in preparation of the incoming windfall.The spiral in California accelerates yes again.
California panel approves $800 billion reparations package
You REALLY think the California legislature has the cajones to go against the recommendation?A "panel" promoted it. But of course the right wing click bait crowd thinks it's ready for the governor's desk.