Ok then, upon what evidence and lines of reason are you basing your non-faith-based conviction that Biden did not win? Seriously, build a case and convince me. I'm as open-minded as they come.
I am watching from afar as an interested UK citizen. Who cares about what happens in America because it will have a direct effect on our nation and therefore my family at large. What I would like to know is how two sides can refute everything the other is saying with such absolute certainty and using such derisory terms?
You're not alone in that dilemma, a lot of Americans are asking the same question. How can both sides be right and wrong on the same issues at the same time, kind of makes you go hummmmmm.
No here is the biggest threat to democracy, the entitlement mentality where you and others expect someone else to pay for your personal responsibility issues as well as promoting dependence instead of incentive, there is a reason these results exist in liberal cities, wonder if you can figure it out
www.mercurynews.com
No here is the biggest threat to democracy, the entitlement mentality where you and others expect someone else to pay for your personal responsibility issues as well as promoting dependence instead of incentive, there is a reason these results exist in liberal cities, wonder if you can figure it out
Hanson: Democratic Party won’t admit it’s become the party of wealth
Their frequent assumptions of “victimhood” are absurd.
Then there is this as pure liberal success stories
10 Poorest Cities in America (How did it happen?)
City, State, % of People Below the Poverty Level
1. Detroit , MI 32.5%
2. Buffalo , NY 29.9%
3 Cincinnati , OH 27.8%
4. Cleveland , OH 27.0%
5. Miami , FL 26.9%
5 St. Louis , MO 26.8%
7. El Paso , TX 26.4%
8. Milwaukee , WI 26.2%
9. Philadelphia , PA 25.1%
10. Newark , NJ 24.2%
What do these top ten cities (over 250,000 pop.) with the highest poverty rate all have in common?
Detroit, MI - (1st on poverty rate list) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1961
Buffalo, NY - (2nd) hasn't elected one since 1954
Cincinnati, OH - (3rd) not since 1984
Cleveland, OH - (4th) not since 1989
Miami, FL - (5th) has never had a Republican mayor
St. Louis, MO - (6th) not since 1949
El Paso, TX - (7th) has never had a Republican mayor
Milwaukee, WI - (8th) not since 1908
Philadelphia, PA - (9th) not since 1952
Newark, NJ - (10th) not since 1907
Some would say that red cities are getting exactly what they are paying for but that reality escapes you, of the top 50 cities in this country population wise 39 are Democratic run and have been for decades. What exactly are the people getting for those high state and local taxes in blue states? Seems the people in red cities aren't paying those high taxes and experiencing those high cost of livings. Isn't it time for the left to focus on results instead of ignoring the reality that rich liberal elites are the ones benefiting for the high cost of living, taxes, and poverty?And yet you don't post the GOP led cities which are high in crime, have poor educational results etc.
It doesn't. I'm just trying to understand how that's possible when the GOP is constantly whinging about crime rates in certain places, but not in their own back yards. So as I asked you the last time you continued to dodge this question: how does the party that constantly advocates fighting crime reconcile the high crime rates in cities under their leadership?
You're asking this again? I answered this numerous times in the previous thread you brought this up.
Except they're also not experiencing any of the economic benefits of larger blue cities. So while it's fair to critique the failings in Democrat led cities, it is dishonest to say there are no benefits to the high cost of living. You just want to focus on one item because it's your only angle, and you ignore GOP failures because you really have no counter point other than "they're getting what they pay for" which you oddly enough don't apply to the millions of people who choose to live in Democrat led cities.
You don't get it, do you, red states are paying less than blue states, keeping more of what they earn and the crime rates are close to or lower than Blue cities that have a higher cost of living and higher taxes. Which is worse paying for crime reduction and not getting it or not paying for it and not getting it? There is a reason I am limiting my responses to you, continue with the same rhetoric over and over again and watch those responses get fewer and farther apartIt doesn't. I'm just trying to understand how that's possible when the GOP is constantly whinging about crime rates in certain places, but not in their own back yards. So as I asked you the last time you continued to dodge this question: how does the party that constantly advocates fighting crime reconcile the high crime rates in cities under their leadership?
You're asking this again? I answered this numerous times in the previous thread you brought this up.
Except they're also not experiencing any of the economic benefits of larger blue cities. So while it's fair to critique the failings in Democrat led cities, it is dishonest to say there are no benefits to the high cost of living. You just want to focus on one item because it's your only angle, and you ignore GOP failures because you really have no counter point other than "they're getting what they pay for" which you oddly enough don't apply to the millions of people who choose to live in Democrat led cities.
I repeat them because you keep posting the same failed argument. In some cases those GOP led cities have significantly higher crime rates than Democrat led cities as I have already pointed out. You can respond or not respond; it's neither here nor there to me. The thing is, in a debate forum the premise is to debate topics, and this is one where the premise of your argument fails badly.
Guess crime doesn't exist in tent cities as those people really don't have anything to steal. Comparing LA to Lubbock?? you really are one desperate liberal out of touch with reality, What do people in LA pay for that protection vs the people of Lubbock as if it even matters. You still don't get it, your ideology is a fraud as you live in the comfort of your bubble ignoring the plight of people living in tent cities and states with high taxes that are supposed to prevent poverty, homelessnessExcept in one of your favorite "hell holes", they're getting better crime reduction results:
View attachment 67344103
Not so much in Lubbock, Texas:
View attachment 67344104
I mean, almost double the crime rate and a 1/10th of the population. Yeesh. So while people in Lubbock may "keep more of what they earn" there's a higher likelihood they'll get it stolen.
I repeat them because you keep posting the same failed argument. In some cases those GOP led cities have significantly higher crime rates than Democrat led cities as I have already pointed out. You can respond or not respond; it's neither here nor there to me. The thing is, in a debate forum the premise is to debate topics, and this is one where the premise of your argument fails badly.
Comparing using per capita data makes comparisons of all sorts possible; in this case it's one particular metric. You know, the same way you choose to pick one subject and harp on it. I'm surprised this is a problem for you. Also, the people in major cities are paying for the benefits they feel make it worth it to stay in them; it's why millions of them live in those cities. I just presented "reality" to you and you start flailing.
This is actually incorrect, since I grew up in a poor neighborhood and still live in an urban center. I'm not sure how someone who lives in the suburbs is going to say I'm the one in the bubble.
Everyone should be grateful to pay those high taxes and high cost of living to have the opportunity to live in poverty and have high crime vs. having what you call high crime living in an area that is 37% less expensive. Cost benefit analysis doesn't have any place along with verifiable official economic results as it is all about rhetoric and feelings that drive youComparing using per capita data makes comparisons of all sorts possible; in this case it's one particular metric. You know, the same way you choose to pick one subject and harp on it. I'm surprised this is a problem for you. Also, the people in major cities are paying for the benefits they feel make it worth it to stay in them; it's why millions of them live in those cities. I just presented "reality" to you and you start flailing.
This is actually incorrect, since I grew up in a poor neighborhood and still live in an urban center. I'm not sure how someone who lives in the suburbs is going to say I'm the one in the bubble.
Did it ever cross your mind it is less expensive because there is more crime? Generally speaking, people often stay away from high crime areas. As for a cost benefit analysis, larger cities tend to have more job opportunities, better hospitals, transportation etc. so I guess it just depends on what matters to you. Not everyone wants big city living, and that's perfectly fine, but the point you're making just doesn't hold up unless you're saying people are just thinking about what's cheaper. An apartment in a really bad neighborhood is cheaper, but that doesn't mean someone will opt to live there if they have have other options.
Except in the examples I am showing you those results, as I have in the other thread where I also included other metrics. As I stated there, your real gripe is against the inequalities brought about by capitalism; where the two ideologies you refer to become relevant is how each of them choose to handle those who do not fare well in a capitalist system.
All ready seeding the push political narrative of who to blame should you not get the election results that you want?
When the left accuses someone else of something, it is projection of their own guilt, as per well established track record.
Oh it crosses my mind every post how you ignore the cost of living and how the results never reconcile with the rhetoric as you keep supporting liberal economic policies that generate those results. You ignore the cost of living, the high level of poverty, the high cost of housing in spite of having among the highest taxes in the nation, the highest minimum wages in the nation, the 6th largest economy in the world. There is no justification for those kind of results with that kind of economic activity and tax structure. Why would anyone support an ideology that generates those results?
What I don't do is selectively ignore the benefits unlike you who just want to focus on the negative. It would be great to say you at least were consistent with your negative view, but you're not. You pick issues in places with whose politics you don't agree with and just focus on those and deflect or dismiss the issues in places whose politics you favor. That's the sham that gets continuously exposed in your house of cards premise. As I've stated numerous times, every place has its trade offs, but I don't ignore the benefits compared to the detriments like you do.
It's hard to ignore when you live somewhere with a high cost of living like I do, however I understand the value of what I pay for. In NJ we have a low crime rate throughout most of the state, and enjoy one of the best public education systems in the country. As I stated before, the issue you really have is with capitalism because the gap between rich and poor is a consequence of that system. The demand for real estate in urban centers and high cost of maintaining cities with large populations are the direct result of capitalism setting shop where the demand and workforce is concentrated.
I am so sorry, if I am going to pay high state and local taxes I am going to expect those taxes to fund programs that benefit the community and my family. Taxpayers are leaving NY and California for a reason as both don't provide the benefits for the cost of living there
I remember it a lot better than you
www.bbc.com
And they do, but they're far from perfect in some states for a variety of reasons. As I mentioned, the cost of living in NJ is high but I know crime is low, the public education system is solid, and there are a lot of opportunities here because we are in a close proximity to a major urban center.
Some are, yes, but millions more remain and businesses continue to reside here providing many of the jobs that make it worth it.
Then you live in what you believe is utopia, I disagree, why would anyone support the ideology that created the California and NY results?
Nope, it's not Utopia because Utopia is a fictional place. There is no place that is the "perfect" place to live; there are downsides to just about anywhere you choose to live. The question is which ones are more acceptable to you for the cost of living there.
Because the results in these places also include access to some of the best services in the country and the world. Be it education, healthcare, job opportunities etc. This is what's led to both of those states being top economies. Why do you hate America?