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.
and their is the admission... the leftist cities are more important.... density of a city counts more than any other area, because it is liberal...screw everyone else
It has nothing to do with them being liberal, it has everything to do with them having more population.
You clearly do not believe in 1 man, 1 vote.
Quote:
because leftists are elitists
It is actually you who are being elitist. You believe rural people are more deserving and better than urban people. That's why you want to give them disproportionate power.
It has nothing to do with them being liberal, it has everything to do with them having more population.
You clearly do not believe in 1 man, 1 vote.
It is actually you who are being elitist. You believe rural people are more deserving and better than urban people. That's why you want to give them disproportionate power.
so you feel we should be 50 different countries then... because you certainly are not being supportive of 50 UNITED states
because NO-ONE would want their state.. like Maine with a total population of 1.3 million to be NEGATED by a city like Chicago at nearly 3 million
so you feel we should be 50 different countries then... because you certainly are not being supportive of 50 UNITED states
because NO-ONE would want their state.. like Maine with a total population of 1.3 million to be NEGATED by a city like Chicago at nearly 3 million
If the current system is unfair, what would you propose as a better alternative? Should the candidate who carries the majority of counties win the state, regardless of their population discrepancies? Or better yet, should the candidate win that carries counties adding up to the majority of the state's area, so that one can look at a map and easily determine the winner without having any idea of the population patterns? Maybe we should just suspend elections and "give it to Trump" ... he said that half-seriously, after all.
and their is the admission... the leftist cities are more important.... density of a city counts more than any other area, because it is liberal...screw everyone else
Jimmy boy, sorry... we all know you are a far leftist... so of course your going to be arguing your point
every leftist argues to screw the little guy... because leftists are elitists
No the founding fathers of the United States of America devised a system , called the 'electorial college' that gives the little guy an Edge over the mega cities and the more densely populated areas of the United States of America.
The Smaller states in the United States exercise more political muscles over the larger more densely populated states buy something called the electorial college.
The Electoral College is the only way that Donald Trump won the presidency!!!!
No the founding fathers of the United States of America devised a system , called the 'electorial college' that gives the little guy an Edge over the mega cities and the more densely populated areas of the United States of America.
The Smaller states in the United States exercise more political muscles over the larger more densely populated states buy something called the electorial college.
The Electoral College is the only way that Donald Trump won the presidency!!!!
And that would be significant if land mattered rather than people.
Dems mostly focused on large urban areas, and states on the west coast and northeast, which is why they lost in 2016. They are nothing but coast party.
It is actually you who are being elitist. You believe rural people are more deserving and better than urban people. That's why you want to give them disproportionate power.
Leftist elites hate poor and middle class Americans. What's funny is the leftist elites campaign on helping poor people so they can protect them from the evil 1%. When they get elected, they do little to nothing to help them. Take a look at California, one of the most liberal states in the country. There's homeless living under the freeway or living in a tent on a sidewalk.
if the liberals keep showing that illegals mean more than actual citizens, and that benefits for illegals mean more than a solid middleclass... they are going to lose more votes than they think they are gaining
liberals keep forgetting about the workingclass/middleclass
This is what I keep saying too. They are making a huge fuss about these illegal kids instead of showing us how they will lower taxes or make American life easier.
Leftist elites hate poor and middle class Americans. What's funny is the leftist elites campaign on helping poor people so they can protect them from the evil 1%. When they get elected, they do little to nothing to help them. Take a look at California, one of the most liberal states in the country. There's homeless living under the freeway or living in a tent on a sidewalk.
(1)Number one the weather is great in California.
(2)Number two it is illegal and Unconstitutional to stop a homeless person from being a homeless person and living on the streets.
(3) number 3 there are empty beds in the homeless shelters in California , but the homeless will not occupy them , because they would have to follow rules and instructions.
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.
