You guessed it. LOL @ Flint MI where the median house cost is $28K.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money...e-in/35909271/
You guessed it. LOL @ Flint MI where the median house cost is $28K.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money...e-in/35909271/
Yeah, I can’t imagine why poor people would choose to vote for the party who actually cares about their wellbeing
Which party, hmmmm I'm guessing the Jewish led party?
BN tell us how we got here, 2010
Are these cities shitty because black people vote for Democrats or because the majority of the people in these cities are black?
Either way, it won't be an issue in the ethno-state.
The mid west is a true shit hole and this is coming from someone who lives in the mid west
Memphis coming in at a solid 4.
I am so proud.
Since Memphis is only 62% black, can't figure why it got such a high rating.
Fucking Mossad?
Save a Cow - Eat a Vegetarian, they're grass-fed.
woohoo no Bama cities on the list
Really disappointed to see my town slide to #15 on this list. We’re slipping. We used to own this list in a virtual deadheat with Gary, Indiana for decades. I blame the kids. Too much x-box, not enough murdering. If you ain’t killing, you ain’t trying. I might need to start some type of community initiative to flood the streets with some more guns and see if we can retake #1 on the shithole list.
Here is a story from the same paper, using the same methodology, about the 50 best cities to live in according to their criteria:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money...ive/761013001/
Notice they are almost all suburbs or exurbs of large metropolitan areas. The places on the list in Utah are all clustered around Salt Lake City. In Minnesota, around Minneapolis. In Missouri and Kansas, around St. Louis and KC. In Maryland and Virginia, around DC. They are basically sprawls of strip malls, golf courses, low density housing and small service businesses catering to wealthy clientele. Connected to the major city by a highway.
These smaller cities have little productivity of their own and only exist because of the economic engine and amenities present in the central urban area. The descriptions of many of those cities in the article cite the proximity of a metropolis as an advantage. The residents identify with the central urban area, cheer for its sports teams, use its infrastructure, take advantage of the cultural opportunities a large population centre provides, employ its residents for low-wage work. By day they drive in to participate in the economic opportunity and cultural vitality of a large urban centre, and by night retire to their suburbs and exurbs, taking their tax dollars and their consumer spending with them, so it does not benefit the central city on which they depend. They have arranged it this way specifically so they do not have to share the fruits of their labours with those who helped make it possible. They want to use the city but not take responsibility for it. Their hospitals and schools are comfortable, well-provisioned and successful because they are wealthy, while those in the city they take advantage of are bordering on third world. On top of that, their low-density housing is government-subsidized (mortgage interest deduction, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bailed out during the financial crisis) and their inefficient commutes are also subsidized while once-plentiful urban public transportation has been mostly abandoned.
The article you posted tells us nothing about whether cities are better run by Democrats or Republicans. What it tells us is that both parties have typical constituencies determined to a significant extent by identity politics (yes, Republicans practice identity politics at least as much as Democrats). It also tells us that America has never actually desegregated, racially or economically, and that powerful forces are at work intentionally maintaining it that way.
HILLARY WON
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)