Offline
TheLagerLad wrote:
Anyone who advocates for Balkanizing the greatest country on the planet, whether they are from Texas or California, is a dope and can't look past their nose to see how much stronger we are united.
Guess I'm a dope then, because I think California gets a raw deal.
BTW, by what criteria do you claim our #1 ranking in "greatness ".
Did you use infant mortality rates? Literacy? Life expectancy? Eductaion? Standard of living? Violent crime rates?
Maybe, if I'm a dope, I've got lots of company.
Last edited by Goose (11/13/2016 10:24 am)
Offline
We are stronger united. Is there an issue with that notion that I am not understanding ?
Offline
We, meaning the US, are stronger together.
I never suggested otherwise.
That isn't the issue, and I'm rather perplexed at how we got there
Last edited by Goose (11/13/2016 11:38 am)
Offline
Exactly just what is the "raw deal" that California gets ?
Granted they certainly are on the low end of giving Fed tax dollars vs receiving those federal dollars back, but that (as many states) has to do with the wealth there and our progressive tax code.
Offline
tennyson wrote:
Exactly just what is the "raw deal" that California gets ?
Granted they certainly are on the low end of giving Fed tax dollars vs receiving those federal dollars back, but that (as many states) has to do with the wealth there and our progressive tax code.
See post #1
Offline
Goose wrote:
tennyson wrote:
Exactly just what is the "raw deal" that California gets ?
Granted they certainly are on the low end of giving Fed tax dollars vs receiving those federal dollars back, but that (as many states) has to do with the wealth there and our progressive tax code.
See post #1
What is the raw deal that they got because they were not visited. Exactly what did they miss out on or not get that they should have ? Do you think that some policies or stances would have changed by either candidate had they visited or what ?
Offline
Hey, I see the points of the calexit folks.
It will likely never come to anything, but I get them
Offline
Goose wrote:
Hey, I see the points of the calexit folks.
It will likely never come to anything, but I get them
I get the notion that most of the campaign events by BOTH candidates was done in a handfull of states. 94% of the 2016 events (375 of the 399) were in 12 states. California was certainly not alone in not getting attention. I guess, however, I don't think even if for instance California was visited quite frequently by both candidates that the strategy of what was being said and supported by either Trump or Clinton would have changed. Here is a graphic I found of where the candidates went.