rudder
Lifer
- Nov 9, 2000
- 19,441
- 86
- 91
Look at all the red states...:whiste:
http://fortune.com/2014/06/10/most-corrupt-states-in-america/?xid=ob_rss
If you take out the True blue democrats in Memphis... Tennessee would likely drop off the list.
Look at all the red states...:whiste:
http://fortune.com/2014/06/10/most-corrupt-states-in-america/?xid=ob_rss
Look at all the red states...:whiste:
http://fortune.com/2014/06/10/most-corrupt-states-in-america/?xid=ob_rss
Like it is any surprise that governtment is corrupt. How is this even newsworthy? We have all known this for years.
If you take out the True blue democrats in Memphis... Tennessee would likely drop off the list.
Grow up.
True...But does that mean the repub voters in those states are easily duped into voting for corrupt dems?![]()
Pennsylvania is the 5th most corrupt state ONLY because of the stain of Philadelphia.
The big cities in these red states are controlled by Democrats and those guilty of corruption can equally be from the Democratic party as the Republican party. Only hacks can see the party they support as not being part of the corruption.
Of course, how stupid of me...only big cities controlled by Democrats can have corruption... the small towns with "good old boy corruption" don't count.![]()
That's not what I said or am saying, you're the one claiming that the reason the red states have corruption is because of Republicans in power, which it's possible. Just as it's possible that Democrats in power within the state can be equally corrupt.
But we all know only the party you support is corruption free. You're just the opposite side of the same coin as Michal1980 and why most of what you post is just as biased as his crap.
Dems can be corrupt, never said they couldn't, please quote where I said this explicitly. Obviously Red states (which apparently have more repubs vs dems) have more corruption than Blue states (which have more dems vs repubs). You come up with why this is as saying the large cities are controlled by Dems, ignoring or giving a pass to the rural areas which can be just as corrupt. You're just a bad, but won't admit it.
I lived in KY for 8 years and saw lots of corruption in small towns by good old boy repubs...
Dems can be corrupt, never said they couldn't, please quote where I said this explicitly. Obviously Red states (which apparently have more repubs vs dems) have more corruption than Blue states (which have more dems vs repubs). You come up with why this is as saying the large cities are controlled by Dems, ignoring or giving a pass to the rural areas which can be just as corrupt. You're just a bad, but won't admit it
Top 10 Most Corrupt States in U.S.
Look at all the red states...:whiste:
Yep Michal Jr, you're a hack pure and simple and always will be.
No way you can claim you weren't putting the blame for corruption on the Republican party in the red states
Fact = Inner/large cities are controlled by Democrats, Rural areas are run by Republicans.
Fact = Inner/large cities are controlled by Democrats, Rural areas are run by Republicans.
Fact - Rural areas can be as corrupt as big cities, no matter what you "feel".
Fact = Every state in the union consists of both urban and rural areas. These charts are considering states as a whole, not parsing it out into cities vs. rural areas, so trying to distinguish between Democrat vs. Republican control on an urban/rural divide should have absolutely no bearing on these rankings. In fact, if we use the logic that Democrats control all the large cities and large cities are inherently more corrupt, we'd expect to see this list populated by states with the largest population centers: New York, California, Texas, Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, etc. If the urban corruption is influencing this list so heavily, why are states without lots of large urban centers showing up? Why Alaska, Mississippi, Alabama and South Dakota, states that are predominantly rural? Why is the list of least corrupt states dominated by states that traditionally vote liberal: Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Vermont?
Actually, looking through that list, there doesn't seem to be any real correllation between political affiliation and corruption at all. Utah, Nebraska and Kansas are very conservative and they're also not corrupt; New York, Pennsylvania and Illinois are liberal and they're corrupt. There's a scattershot of red and blue throughout the rankings, enough so that you couldn't say "this is a red state, therefore it will be corrupt." But let's not let that stop us from twisting the data to indicate that <insert political party> are a bunch of crooks and liars.
I said in an earlier post that Republican can be as corrupt as Democrats. Let's get it down to a common denominator, some politicians will be corrupt no matter their party affiliation.
Of course, how stupid of me...only big cities controlled by Democrats can have corruption... the small towns with "good old boy corruption" don't count.![]()
LOL you're just mad because you lost the travyon/zimmerman situation. And the felon thug crew/dunn case, he was ONLY convicted for shooting at the vehicle as it was leaving, not for murdering the kid that pointed a gun/camera tripod at him.
Add on to the fact that you all have hurt gun control more than helped it. Your Dear Leader is constantly embarrassed by every other world leader.
What a terrible time to be a modern progressive.
Second, the study looks at convictions for corruption, there's no study of the actual underlying amount of corruption, just in convictions. If a state was very strict on corruption of public officials and frequently prosecuted them and got convictions, that state would be classified as "corrupt" based on this methodology, even though the actual corruption would be much lower than other states.
Fatally flawed assumptions based on fatally flawed study.
