Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What are you talking about? There's nothing to support Boston being politically more powerful except something you sort of made up for yourself. Political relations abroad are politics. If you wanted to cut it down to something like "number of notable politicians working on the federal level who are commonly identified with a specific city or area in the last fifty years" then sure Boston is up there. Half the Kennedys are apparently in NYC now and the Clintons are here now, too (Hilary 2016?), but they certainly aren't as strongly associated with NYC as Romney or the other Kennedy's with Boston.
If we're talking politics, then why would it be wrong to look at politics within the US first before looking at how cities influence global politics?
How many of those Kennedy's in NYC have reached a level of influence that JFK, Robert, and Ted have? Yes, Bill and Hillary live in NYC now, and its possible she runs in 2016 but it's also possible John Kerry might as well (Boston).
To conclude:
"number of notable politicians working on the federal level who are commonly identified with a specific city or area in the last fifty years" then sure Boston is up there"
That's been my point all along and it's not just naming politicians, these are politicians that actually do things for the US. They are people brought up in a political environment like Boston's where they spread their political insights to the rest of the US through DC, when they obtain that position.
If we're talking politics, then why would it be wrong to look at politics within the US first before looking at how cities influence global politics?
How many of those Kennedy's in NYC have reached a level of influence that JFK, Robert, and Ted have? Yes, Bill and Hillary live in NYC now, and its possible she runs in 2016 but it's also possible John Kerry might as well (Boston).
To conclude:
"number of notable politicians working on the federal level who are commonly identified with a specific city or area in the last fifty years" then sure Boston is up there"
That's been my point all along and it's not just naming politicians, these are politicians that actually do things for the US. They are people brought up in a political environment like Boston's where they spread their political insights to the rest of the US through DC, when they obtain that position.
Haha, rage I have no idea why that got to you so much. Also, the Chase Bank was the guy arguing incessantly about his miscomprehension of what I wrote. I agreed with him and he still kept on going.
Chase Bank thing didnt get to me that much, its just an insignificant thing to argue about for pages. I dont know why PA Born kept going at it or why you kept entertaining it. You should have just sent him a wikipedia link, where it states the HQ and left it at that.
Me = Boston's political influence on DC and as a result, the US.
Never denied NYC being significant, just questioned the pecking order. That's it.
#RedSox>Yankees
Okay, whichever you like but your exact words were "Boston by a longshot is the #2 political powerhouse in the US, after DC" without anything else and then when I said that was off you sort of went on a list of qualifiers and conditions for how what you said could become right. I also didn't say anything about you stating NYC was not significant but the claim that Boston is second by a longshot by itself would have to make NYC of much less significance.
Also, sports are dumb except in the instance when you are playing them.
Okay, whichever you like but your exact words were "Boston by a longshot is the #2 political powerhouse in the US, after DC" without anything else and then when I said that was off you sort of went on a list of qualifiers and conditions for how what you said could become right. I also didn't say anything about you stating NYC was not significant but the claim that Boston is second by a longshot by itself would have to make NYC of much less significance.
Also, sports are dumb except in the instance when you are playing them.
Ok so maybe saying longshot was an imaginative statement that I got carried away with but I also did say "within the US". To that, my point still stands though.
I'll leave your argument about consulates and ambassadors alone, I got your point and don't want to do a he says she says, again. We already had one of those about crime the other day.
LOL, both are more respectable than those awful Nets.
#Nets=jokeIMO
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have no idea why that got to you so much. Also, the Chase Bank was the guy arguing incessantly about his miscomprehension of what I wrote. I agreed with him and he still kept on going.