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.
The fact is many people are socially liberal, in favor of a woman's right to choose, LGBT equality, income equality and universal health care AND at the same time understand that fiscal responsibility is required to pay for a generous social safety net. A zest for bashing Gina Riamondo and capitalism is more entertaining than maybe enlightening. Such wild diatribes may get her more votes than she loses. It may make her very progressive social views more palatable to moderates and conservatives who see our state sinking in a sea of debt brought on by decades of fiscal irresponsibility and corruption. Just a guess.
I have seen what VENTURE capitalism does to society and to a city. Please, do not condescend to me -- I expect more from you and have earned a certain credibility in my view. After all, we aren't all from provincial Rhode Island -- some of us have raised our periscopes and seen a 360 degree view. You know, there is a world outside of Rhode Island. Perhaps you should, you know, experience it. I think it would broaden your horizons and give you a more global, more substantial worldview. Just guessing.
As to bringing more votes to "Gina," this forum isn't the commenting section of the New York Times; my views (and yours) have an insignificant audience, given that maybe 11 people participate on this forum, so don't worry, your "Wall Street Gina" isn't much damaged or enhanced by what's said here.
It is not a "zest," it is from experiencing the outcome of venture capitalism.
"Wild?" Perhaps you were napping during 2008 and subsequent years, or maybe you weren't participating in the economy at that time.
"Entertaining?" Not at all: a world brought to its knees is not entertaining.
"Wild diatribes?" Hardly; I call it knowing the enemy of progressive governance.
And perhaps you dozed whilst reading my post (it happens): it costs nothing, nothing at all to be "progressive" in a progressive state.
Just a guess.
Be Gina's fanboy -- I won't assail you; I will disagree, but do not disparage me, do not mock me for seeing her for what I perceive her to be.
After all, Sir, we only get what we give; I just now gave.
I get how the game works. If RI has a certain stat, well, then, it's evidence of their decline but if the same stat comes from a state you look favorably on, it's evidence of their strength.
No I did not. In this current thread I responded to one poster's claim that NC had a higher illegal population than RI. The only logical reason for that IMHO is that state's more vibrant economy (that provides more construction, landscaping and other jobs typically available for illegals). Unlike RI, NC does not have a reputation for being a sanctuary state or generous with handouts that might otherwise attract illegals. And oh I forgot to mention agriculture.
In the other thread that our friend Alfie decided to dig up (for whatever reason), I gave Providence'shigh illegal population (relative to the rest of RI) as one reason for it's low median income. Illegals typically earn less and/or work under the table so therefore have much less reported income than the rest of the population. And guess where illegals flock to in the largest numbers? Cities! So it makes total sense that Providence would have more than say Barrington or Smithfield. I'm sure that in NC, places like Charlotte have a higher proportion of illegals than the state as a whole. They must bring down Charlotte's median income in relation to some surrounding suburbs, but they would not be there without the economic opportunity available in NC. Many illegals follow the handouts, but they certainly don't go to NC for those. If they wanted that, they would go someplace like RI or MA. So NC has more illegals than RI, and Providence has more illegals than Exeter. Surprise surprise. Contradiction negative.
Comprende?
I can't believe I have to sit here and explain these things to people. I'm so done with this...
Uh, sure would be nice to provide cites, as I do not trust your assumptions. That is based on your history. The contradictory posts I cited only indict you; they do not affirm your beliefs; that is why I posted them, and the disturbing contradictions will prove -- have proved -- obvious to sensible, thinking posters.
I'd be frustrated too, trying to defend one's contradictory claims. I mean, read your latest post -- it's pretzelized nonsense that cannot be untangled by a thinking person, though I'm utterly certain it makes perfect sense to... you. (I for one am spinning in circles trying to "comprende" your, you know, twisting of your posting history and your subsequent attempts at recovery.)
But, you know, I live in a logical world, so that puts me at a distinct disadvantage in these matters.
I have seen what VENTURE capitalism does to society and to a city. Please, do not condescend to me -- I expect more from you and have earned a certain credibility in my view. After all, we aren't all from provincial Rhode Island -- some of us have raised our periscopes and seen a 360 degree view. You know, there is a world outside of Rhode Island. Perhaps you should, you know, experience it. I think it would broaden your horizons and give you a more global, more substantial worldview. Just guessing.
As to bringing more votes to "Gina," this forum isn't the commenting section of the New York Times; my views (and yours) have an insignificant audience, given that maybe 11 people participate on this forum, so don't worry, your "Wall Street Gina" isn't much damaged or enhanced by what's said here.
It is not a "zest," it is from experiencing the outcome of venture capitalism.
"Wild?" Perhaps you were napping during 2008 and subsequent years, or maybe you weren't participating in the economy at that time.
"Entertaining?" Not at all: a world brought to its knees is not entertaining.
"Wild diatribes?" Hardly; I call it knowing the enemy of progressive governance.
And perhaps you dozed whilst reading my post (it happens): it costs nothing, nothing at all to be "progressive" in a progressive state.
Just a guess.
Be Gina's fanboy -- I won't assail you; I will disagree, but do not disparage me, do not mock me for seeing her for what I perceive her to be.
After all, Sir, we only get what we give; I just now gave.
Thanks for your advice on broadening my world view. Since I have only lived in NYC, Boston, Miami, San Juan, Honduras and the USVIs, you can understand how I come by my provincial Rhode Island outlook. I`ll try to get out more.
That's what happens when we have a big tent I guess...
The truth is I do have my reservations about Gina. But her crafting of the pension deal really has (for now) seemed to satisfy both unions and tax payers. That's quite a needle to thread, and should be commended as real leadership. (Of course, Chafee should get credit too, but as usual he won't.)
In the end I like Taveras, but his cookie cutter ideas seem almost like poll-tested talking points than they do fleshed out constructs.
That's what happens when we have a big tent I guess...
The truth is I do have my reservations about Gina. But her crafting of the pension deal really has (for now) seemed to satisfy both unions and tax payers. That's quite a needle to thread, and should be commended as real leadership. (Of course, Chafee should get credit too, but as usual he won't.)
In the end I like Taveras, but his cookie cutter ideas seem almost like poll-tested talking points than they do fleshed out constructs.
....would still vote for him over Fung though!
Democrats don't let their extreme ideologues run the middle left out of the party. They're good that way. Republicans however, seem to let the Clown Car run the show!
In the end I like Taveras, but his cookie cutter ideas seem almost like poll-tested talking points than they do fleshed out constructs.
....would still vote for him over Fung though!
Taveras is a real Democrat, if a bit timid; the Wall Street darling, Gina? DINO. Still, I wish there were a more progressive, a true leftist, in the running. I've never been partial to "moderates." They get nothing dne and are always ready to give away the store to the more conservative elements.
BTW, did you know Gina has, in this election cycle alone, gotten campaign contributions from 122 New York residents? I wonder who they are, who they represent, what they hope to gain, what influence they will have. Three guesses, and the first two don't even count.
Democrats don't let their extreme ideologues run the middle left out of the party. They're good that way. Republicans however, seem to let the Clown Car run the show!
Couldn't put it better myself. And the most ridiculous part is your average Republican who listens to Rush Windbag actually believes the opposite is true. That Republicans are spineless and Democrats are hardcore socialists.
A smidge early to be posting polling statistics from unknown sources, no? If early statistics were accurate, I'm pretty sure Gary Hart would have been president...
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 gave Providence's high illegal population (relative to the rest of RI) as one reason for it's low median income. Illegals typically earn less and/or work under the table so therefore have much less reported income than the rest of the population. And guess where illegals flock to in the largest numbers? Cities! So it makes total sense that Providence would have more than say Barrington or Smithfield. I'm sure that in NC, places like Charlotte have a higher proportion of illegals than the state as a whole. They must bring down Charlotte's median income in relation to some surrounding suburbs, but they would not be there without the economic opportunity available in NC. Many illegals follow the handouts, but they certainly don't go to NC for those. If they wanted that, they would go someplace like RI or MA
. So NC has more illegals than RI, and Providence has more illegals than Exeter. Surprise surprise. Contradiction negative. 
