In America we have the principle of 1 person 1 vote. Are you saying Chicagoans' votes should count for less in the governor's race, because they all live in one county?
The majority of people who happen to live in one community. Almost every other community voted against from the looks of things. How would you feel if China had more votes in the UN because of its population? Granted the cultural disparity isn't as large, but it's the same principle.
So what do you propose, lay off all the state employees and pay them unempoyment for doing nothing instead?
In America we have the principle of 1 person 1 vote. Are you saying Chicagoans' votes should count for less in the governor's race, because they all live in one county?
No, I'm saying they should be their own state with appropriate representation. The whole point of the relatively strong state governments we have is that the states can run themselves as bound by the Constitution. Likewise states can allow localities to enact ordinances and local laws as bound by the state constitution/code. The whole system is set up to allow for reasonable customization and local governance. When one city determines the outcome that goes against the rest of the state, it's time to re-draw the lines.
1 city did not decide the outcome, ALL the voters did.
If you take the votes for JUST chicago and not count the rest he would have lost. Just because a county goes 51% for person B does not mean you throw away the other 49%.
The majority of the STATE did decide who they wanted to be Gov.
Lets see Republicans to this day still use Reagan as the picture the party should run as. Bush ran the US the same way, and the same thing happened again.
Lets see Republicans to this day still use Reagan as the picture the party should run as. Bush ran the US the same way, and the same thing happened again. R's are still trying to get Reagans name on more stuff, even money now.
When Republicans had full control for a good 6years did the debt go up or down?
So unless you're a complete idiot the Republican party still loves Reagan and would run things the same.
If you didn't have the liberals in Chicago the nut would be in charge of Illinois now.
Then Chicago needs their own state to fuck up and leave the rest of Illinois alone, don't you think?
Do you think all the tax money goes to Chicago or does it to go other parts of the state? Do you think other parts of the state wouldn't be in a worse condition if it wasn't for tax revenue from the big cities?
Tough to say, Chicago has a whole lot of Shaniquas with 15 kids sucking down welfare checks as fast as they come in. Take a trip through the south side sometime, hard to see that pile of shit generating any income whatsoever.
Do you think all the tax money goes to Chicago or does it to go other parts of the state? Do you think other parts of the state wouldn't be in a worse condition if it wasn't for tax revenue from the big cities?
and hes avid pro life(no matter if its rape or incest) and intelligent design.
hes a bit of a nut
Ah, so as long as there's a funding imbalance, then it's OK to force your will upon the benefactor of that imbalance?
Be careful where that logic takes you, because the wealthy pay a lot more of the US tax bill than you do.
There's a huge difference between things Reagan said and the things Reagan did. When you begin to understand that Obama is running things in nearly the same manner as Reagan and Bush, you'll have a better view of the bigger picture.
Tough to say, Chicago has a whole lot of Shaniquas with 15 kids sucking down welfare checks as fast as they come in. Take a trip through the south side sometime, hard to see that pile of shit generating any income whatsoever.
Force what will? The majority voted for him?
Are you now going to say that the new majority republican House should not have the power to implement what it wants since 47% of the people didn't vote for them?
You also misunderstood my point. They say Chicago should become its own state as if the rest of the state would somehow be better without them. I bought up where would they get the funding since they lost the big city tax revenue.
Do you think all the tax money goes to Chicago or does it to go other parts of the state? Do you think other parts of the state wouldn't be in a worse condition if it wasn't for tax revenue from the big cities?
You also misunderstood my point. They say Chicago should become its own state as if the rest of the state would somehow be better without them. I bought up where would they get the funding since they lost the big city tax revenue.