Why Iowa?

[Katzndogz]

Iowa and its Christians are destroying the political process. Democrats should stay out in protest.

 

[Correll]

so uh, like the biggest state wouldnt make sense?

Why? THe biggest State already has the most representatives in Congress.

You sure it needs more impact?

 

[Correll]

America is 80% Christian.


If you don't like the idea that Christians get input in the political process your problem is that you live in a democratic nation and you don't like democracy.

Not Iowa.

Strawman...allowing a religious group to determine legislation is dangerous at best.
Wait until we have a significant Islamic population and you'll shit in your pants.

"A religious group"?

NOt sure what you mean. That vast majority of the American population is Christian.

You can't avoid "allowing a religious group" to determine legislation if you believe in any form of democracy.

And yes. We should consider the effect of a Islamic Immigration on future legislation before we allow it.

HOw much would you be willing to see women's liberation turned back as we become more diverse?

We don't have a Democracy, we have a correct Representative Republic.

With many democratic features including democratic election of all our legislators and Presidents.

YOur evasive semantics are very revealing.


That vast majority of the American population is Christian.

You can't avoid "allowing a religious group" to determine legislation if you believe in our form of democratic Representative Republic.

And yes. We should consider the effect of a Islamic Immigration on future legislation before we allow it.

HOw much would you be willing to see women's liberation turned back as we become more diverse?

The Electoral Vote is not one person, one vote.
Only Propositions are Democratic and they are written by committee.

That would be very relevant if I was claiming that we had Direct Democracy or Pure Democracy.

YOur evasive semantics are very revealing.


That vast majority of the American population is Christian.

You can't avoid "allowing a religious group" to determine legislation if you believe in our form of democratic Representative Republic.

And yes. We should consider the effect of a Islamic Immigration on future legislation before we allow it.

HOw much would you be willing to see women's liberation turned back as we become more diverse?

 

[ClosedCaption]

so uh, like the biggest state wouldnt make sense?

Why? THe biggest State already has the most representatives in Congress.

You sure it needs more impact?

Why not? They have more people which is a better representation.

If all you got for every answer is "Why not?" I think we're done here.

 

[bendog]

Iowa has four times more hogs than humans, and Jodi Ernst has touched every one of their testicles.

Jealous?

That woman has a KNIFE. Clearly, Iowans need all the entertainment they can find. And direct tv cuts out in blizzards.

 

[Correll]

so uh, like the biggest state wouldnt make sense?

Why? THe biggest State already has the most representatives in Congress.

You sure it needs more impact?

Why not? They have more people which is a better representation.

If all you got for every answer is "Why not?" I think we're done here.

A better representation of what?

 

[bendog]

Mooslims are scary.

 

[Indeependent]

Strawman...allowing a religious group to determine legislation is dangerous at best.
Wait until we have a significant Islamic population and you'll shit in your pants.

"A religious group"?

NOt sure what you mean. That vast majority of the American population is Christian.

You can't avoid "allowing a religious group" to determine legislation if you believe in any form of democracy.

And yes. We should consider the effect of a Islamic Immigration on future legislation before we allow it.

HOw much would you be willing to see women's liberation turned back as we become more diverse?

We don't have a Democracy, we have a correct Representative Republic.

With many democratic features including democratic election of all our legislators and Presidents.

YOur evasive semantics are very revealing.


That vast majority of the American population is Christian.

You can't avoid "allowing a religious group" to determine legislation if you believe in our form of democratic Representative Republic.

And yes. We should consider the effect of a Islamic Immigration on future legislation before we allow it.

HOw much would you be willing to see women's liberation turned back as we become more diverse?

The Electoral Vote is not one person, one vote.
Only Propositions are Democratic and they are written by committee.

That would be very relevant if I was claiming that we had Direct Democracy or Pure Democracy.

YOur evasive semantics are very revealing.


That vast majority of the American population is Christian.

You can't avoid "allowing a religious group" to determine legislation if you believe in our form of democratic Representative Republic.

And yes. We should consider the effect of a Islamic Immigration on future legislation before we allow it.

HOw much would you be willing to see women's liberation turned back as we become more diverse?

Caucuses based on Abortion and Same-Sex Marriage sound bites are idiotic and have proven, thankfully, to be failures.
We are suffering through nothing more than a media circus.
No Trump, no Sanders, no ratings.

 

[Indeependent]

Mooslims are scary.

Scarier than Muslims!

 

[Correll]

"A religious group"?

NOt sure what you mean. That vast majority of the American population is Christian.

You can't avoid "allowing a religious group" to determine legislation if you believe in any form of democracy.

And yes. We should consider the effect of a Islamic Immigration on future legislation before we allow it.

HOw much would you be willing to see women's liberation turned back as we become more diverse?

We don't have a Democracy, we have a correct Representative Republic.

With many democratic features including democratic election of all our legislators and Presidents.

YOur evasive semantics are very revealing.


That vast majority of the American population is Christian.

You can't avoid "allowing a religious group" to determine legislation if you believe in our form of democratic Representative Republic.

And yes. We should consider the effect of a Islamic Immigration on future legislation before we allow it.

HOw much would you be willing to see women's liberation turned back as we become more diverse?

The Electoral Vote is not one person, one vote.
Only Propositions are Democratic and they are written by committee.

That would be very relevant if I was claiming that we had Direct Democracy or Pure Democracy.

YOur evasive semantics are very revealing.


That vast majority of the American population is Christian.

You can't avoid "allowing a religious group" to determine legislation if you believe in our form of democratic Representative Republic.

And yes. We should consider the effect of a Islamic Immigration on future legislation before we allow it.

HOw much would you be willing to see women's liberation turned back as we become more diverse?

Caucuses based on Abortion and Same-Sex Marriage sound bites are idiotic and have proven, thankfully, to be failures.
We are suffering through nothing more than a media circus.
No Trump, no Sanders, no ratings.

Yes. Despite the fact that the nation is over 80% Christian, Christian positions have not been the basis of our laws on two divisive social issues.

It seems you have your wish. We are not a democracy.

What do you call it when a small group of people rule against the democratically enacted wishes of a population?

 

[blackhawk]

If you don't like Iowa being first which state would you have be first and why?

The biggest state would make more sense.

Are you talking biggest by population or land mass?

 

[ClosedCaption]

If you don't like Iowa being first which state would you have be first and why?

The biggest state would make more sense.

Are you talking biggest by population or land mass?

Population because land cant vote

 

[blackhawk]

If you don't like Iowa being first which state would you have be first and why?

The biggest state would make more sense.

Are you talking biggest by population or land mass?

Population because land cant vote

So if you do that aren't you eliminating a lot of the lesser known candidates right off the bat because of how much more it would cost to campaign in those states? I can't see Barak Obama winning the 2008 Democratic nomination if he had to go and campaign in say California and Texas right at the start.

 

[Arizona Willie]

Why the Iowa hate?

No hate; just tired of hearing that sucking up to a religious group is essential in a nation of religious freedom.

America is 80% Christian.


If you don't like the idea that Christians get input in the political process your problem is that you live in a democratic nation and you don't like democracy.

Not Iowa.

============

In reality, only 16% of Americans report attending church on a weekly basis.

Most of the religious talk and demands come from a small group of vocal extremeists.

A very large percentage of " Christians " only go to church on the big holidays such as Easter and Christmas.

They call themselves " Christians " but they don't live it.

Executives will go to church on Sunday and go in the office on Monday and layoff 10,000 people and destroy their lives and their families in order for their ALREADY VERY PROFITABLE COMPANY TO MAKE ANOTHER 1% PROFIT.

But THEY will get a huge bonus.

Jesus would not be pleased.

 

[Indeependent]

We don't have a Democracy, we have a correct Representative Republic.

With many democratic features including democratic election of all our legislators and Presidents.

YOur evasive semantics are very revealing.


That vast majority of the American population is Christian.

You can't avoid "allowing a religious group" to determine legislation if you believe in our form of democratic Representative Republic.

And yes. We should consider the effect of a Islamic Immigration on future legislation before we allow it.

HOw much would you be willing to see women's liberation turned back as we become more diverse?

The Electoral Vote is not one person, one vote.
Only Propositions are Democratic and they are written by committee.

That would be very relevant if I was claiming that we had Direct Democracy or Pure Democracy.

YOur evasive semantics are very revealing.


That vast majority of the American population is Christian.

You can't avoid "allowing a religious group" to determine legislation if you believe in our form of democratic Representative Republic.

And yes. We should consider the effect of a Islamic Immigration on future legislation before we allow it.

HOw much would you be willing to see women's liberation turned back as we become more diverse?

Caucuses based on Abortion and Same-Sex Marriage sound bites are idiotic and have proven, thankfully, to be failures.
We are suffering through nothing more than a media circus.
No Trump, no Sanders, no ratings.

Yes. Despite the fact that the nation is over 80% Christian, Christian positions have not been the basis of our laws on two divisive social issues.

It seems you have your wish. We are not a democracy.

What do you call it when a small group of people rule against the democratically enacted wishes of a population?

Oligarchy.

 

[ClosedCaption]

If you don't like Iowa being first which state would you have be first and why?

The biggest state would make more sense.

Are you talking biggest by population or land mass?

Population because land cant vote

So if you do that aren't you eliminating a lot of the lesser known candidates right off the bat because of how much more it would cost to campaign in those states? I can't see Barak Obama winning the 2008 Democratic nomination if he had to go and campaign in say California and Texas right at the start.

They didnt pick Iowa first to save campaign money.

 

[Correll]

Why the Iowa hate?

No hate; just tired of hearing that sucking up to a religious group is essential in a nation of religious freedom.

America is 80% Christian.


If you don't like the idea that Christians get input in the political process your problem is that you live in a democratic nation and you don't like democracy.

Not Iowa.

============

In reality, only 16% of Americans report attending church on a weekly basis.
...d.

Your desire to NOT allow Christians the right to self identify is noted.

I find myself wondering if you are as exacting with your permission when it comes to transgender people.


Regardless, Weekly attendance is not a requirement to be Christian.

If you are unhappy with the idea that 80% of the nation has the right to have input, indeed the vast majority of input into the Democratic Process, then you are anti-democratic.


What form of government do you prefer to a Democratic Representative Republic?

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Doesnt it seem weird that a state like Iowa is determined as being so damn important?

It's important because it kicks off the presidential primary elections.
Wouldn't matter if it was the smallest or least populated state. The significance is being the first.

 

[Correll]

With many democratic features including democratic election of all our legislators and Presidents.

YOur evasive semantics are very revealing.


That vast majority of the American population is Christian.

You can't avoid "allowing a religious group" to determine legislation if you believe in our form of democratic Representative Republic.

And yes. We should consider the effect of a Islamic Immigration on future legislation before we allow it.

HOw much would you be willing to see women's liberation turned back as we become more diverse?

The Electoral Vote is not one person, one vote.
Only Propositions are Democratic and they are written by committee.

That would be very relevant if I was claiming that we had Direct Democracy or Pure Democracy.

YOur evasive semantics are very revealing.


That vast majority of the American population is Christian.

You can't avoid "allowing a religious group" to determine legislation if you believe in our form of democratic Representative Republic.

And yes. We should consider the effect of a Islamic Immigration on future legislation before we allow it.

HOw much would you be willing to see women's liberation turned back as we become more diverse?

Caucuses based on Abortion and Same-Sex Marriage sound bites are idiotic and have proven, thankfully, to be failures.
We are suffering through nothing more than a media circus.
No Trump, no Sanders, no ratings.

Yes. Despite the fact that the nation is over 80% Christian, Christian positions have not been the basis of our laws on two divisive social issues.

It seems you have your wish. We are not a democracy.

What do you call it when a small group of people rule against the democratically enacted wishes of a population?

Oligarchy.

So you are an Oligarch.

Well, must be nice to be part of the RUling Elite.

 

[blackhawk]

If you don't like Iowa being first which state would you have be first and why?

The biggest state would make more sense.

Are you talking biggest by population or land mass?

Population because land cant vote

So if you do that aren't you eliminating a lot of the lesser known candidates right off the bat because of how much more it would cost to campaign in those states? I can't see Barak Obama winning the 2008 Democratic nomination if he had to go and campaign in say California and Texas right at the start.

They didnt pick Iowa first to save campaign money.

I didn't claim they did but the reality is it takes less money to campaign in Iowa than it does a large state. The larger the state you need more offices more staff more air time more everything which will mean you need more money to start something a lot of potential candidates won't have which will limit your field to those with the highest name recognition and bank accounts.