See post 117Great post bud. Can you tell us more about how the rest of the county is subsidising California though?
This is such a tired trope. The electoral college, in it's current state is nowhere close to what was envisioned by the Founding Fathers, not does it operate in a similar manner as it did in the early days of the republic.Its relevant if you want to win elections within the system the Founding Fathers devised
All you say about W is true. That doesn't change the fact that Clinton is the overrated beneficiary of circumstances who managed to triangulate America into a globalized Wall Street beholden world of sh!tMmm, no. That was Bush who destroyed the economy, let the House of Saud attack America get away with attacking America, and dragged America into two pointless wars.
unseenmorbidity is one of the berniest Bernie-bros I've ever seen. And that's saying something living in Portland.
Every time Dump screws something else up, they're quicker to run to "what about Hillary" than any maga-ist.
They are the beneficiaries of disproprortionate federal investments, so they really have no grounds upon which to complain that the rest of the country expects a return on that investment.
You talk as if we are fighting for the same resources. This is supposed to be the UNITED states of America.The federal government did not invest in making California an IT superpower. They invested in scientific research. The reason California was able to take advantage of that opportunity was likely due to cultural and economic factors endemic to the state. These weren't simply handouts. The people receiving this money had to take it and innovate. The federal government had a hand in this success but so too did the pioneers of Silicon Valley. Other states could have taken advantage of these opportunities but did not.
This is materially different than a wealthy state like CA being forced to subsidize poorer states who failed to take advantage of the available opportunities. Alabama could have taken advantage of federal research money and created their own Silicon Valley, but they didn't. Now they're getting handouts from the state which had the foresight and wherewithal to succeed where they did not.
Your analogy fails.
No, I am actually trying to bring reason back into the debate. There is far too much bullshit being tossed around that's distracting from the real issues, like the Tax plan.
Running around like a chicken with it's head cut off screaming about Pussy Grabbing Trump, and Russia only helps to serve their agenda.
Clinton won that state by what? 35 points?calling the largest economic powerhouse in the country and the 9th largest gdp in the world an outlier isnt "reason"
You are basically too stupid to know you are stupid.
Read the context champ! If you are trying to label someone a progressive based on the senate voting record, then you are talking out of your ass. The most leftwing legislation that goes up for a vote in the senate is center right, just like Obama.
Hell, her voting record isn't even good...
The Reagan era personifies the current GOP. A moderate republican in the 1980s is still a moderate republican today.
Justice democrats.
Et vous?
Texas is more of an outlier than CA, it’s the only large state that votes Republican.Clinton won that state by what? 35 points?
Then you have it's immense population to consider.
Do you need me to define an outlier for you!?
EDIT:
Says the twat that thought HRC was the superior general candidate, and couldn't possibly lose to Trump.
If I am stupid, then I would hate to see what that makes you.
unseenmorbidity is one of the berniest Bernie-bros I've ever seen. And that's saying something living in Portland.
Every time Dump screws something else up, they're quicker to run to "what about Hillary" than any maga-ist.
All I said was I thought it was interesting. and could be an instance of the EC working as intended.Texas is more of an outlier than CA, it’s the only large state that votes Republican.
Yeah they never saw any Russian ads but saw plenty saying Bernie was screwed by the Dems.It's called concern trolling. The Russians perfected the technique in 2016, chumped the living shit out of Bernie supporters. Witness their cranio-rectal infarction today... The notion that Hillary would have been "just as bad" as the Donald illustrates it perfectly.
Yeah they never saw any Russian ads but saw plenty saying Bernie was screwed by the Dems.
It's called concern trolling. The Russians perfected the technique in 2016, chumped the living shit out of Bernie supporters. Witness their cranio-rectal infarction today... The notion that Hillary would have been "just as bad" as the Donald illustrates it perfectly.
You mean the measly 150k spent on facebook!? lol 150k isn't even peanuts, it's crumbs of peanuts.Yeah they never saw any Russian ads but saw plenty saying Bernie was screwed by the Dems.
Okay big boy, show me the evidence...Not to mention his belief that the Russia meddling is just a nonsense conspiracy theory. Gee, I wonder where so many Bernie supporters got that idea from.
We still have a national guard and reserve. The underlying intent is the protection of private property from military exploitation. That this amendment seems outlandish today is a testament to its effectiveness as originally written.
No, my analogy is fairly accurate. Research, technology, freeways, dams, waterworks, ports and infrastructure...all the things that drive the California economy, were the result of federal investments.The federal government did not invest in making California an IT superpower. They invested in scientific research. The reason California was able to take advantage of that opportunity was likely due to cultural and economic factors endemic to the state. These weren't simply handouts. The people receiving this money had to take it and innovate. The federal government had a hand in this success but so too did the pioneers of Silicon Valley. Other states could have taken advantage of these opportunities but did not.
This is materially different than a wealthy state like CA being forced to subsidize poorer states who failed to take advantage of the available opportunities. Alabama could have taken advantage of federal research money and created their own Silicon Valley, but they didn't. Now they're getting handouts from the state which had the foresight and wherewithal to succeed where they did not.
Your analogy fails.
Was enough to brainfuck you.You mean the measly 150k spent on facebook!? lol 150k isn't even peanuts, it's crumbs of peanuts.
Did you know that Zuckerberg was having meetings with HRC's campaign!? lol
HRC spent millions on online troll farms to "correct the record".
But Putin overturned the election with a few thousand dollars!? Fuck off...
Okay big boy, show me the evidence...
The fact that the military had to buildOutlandish != technically invalid
Also, the 3rd specifically mentions private homes.
In a day and age where the DoD and States both have a massive military infrastructure to use, without the consent of civilians and whenever the hell they want, it would seem the passage of time does indeed affect the validity of parts of the Constitution. Hypothetically it could be repealed tomorrow and not one thing would really change. The military still exploits what it needs to exploit in times of peace or war, and there are always industries waiting to help.
I just find this idea of the Constitution being immune to time quite baffling.
Clinton won that state by what? 35 points?
Then you have it's immense population to consider.
Do you need me to define an outlier for you!?