Topic: Why is their no successfully ran Democrat cities?
Anonymous A started this discussion 2 years ago #112,135
Title.
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 6 minutes later[^] [v] #1,244,329
Why are there no successfully run Republican cities?
(Edited 16 seconds later.)
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 13 minutes later, 19 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,244,331
There are many successfully-*RUN* Democrat cities. You re just too stupid to know.
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 18 minutes later, 37 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,244,332
@1,244,329 (B)
> Why are there no successfully run Republican cities?
Better question, why are there NO Republicans run cities? Lol
> Why are there no successfully run Republican cities?
Better question, why are there NO Republicans run cities? Lol
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 4 seconds later, 37 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,244,333
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 3 minutes later, 41 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,244,334
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 43 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,244,335
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 6 minutes later, 49 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,244,339
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 15 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,244,341
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,244,343
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,244,345
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,244,349
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 25 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,244,357
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 42 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,244,376
Demonrat*
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,244,384
Knoxville Tennessee is run by a republican mayor, but then you have people like Bert who just trashes the city by just being there.
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 9 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,244,389
Anonymous F replied with this 2 years ago, 9 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,244,391
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 3 hours later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,244,400
Erik !saAqdaazn2 joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 10 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,244,402
You have to define "successfully" The left love chaos as it gives them power. So if a city is considered chaotic then its likely that the lwft will remain in charge.
Anonymous D replied with this 2 years ago, 2 hours later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,244,409
@1,244,384 (F)> Knoxville Tennessee is run by a republican mayor, but then you have people like Bert who just trashes the city by just being there.
Nope
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 50 seconds later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,244,410
Anonymous D replied with this 2 years ago, 3 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,244,411
@previous (B)
That means nothing lmao. It just means when you vote they don’t have a little D or R next to their name. It doesn’t mean the mayor is no longer a democrat.
Under that stupid logic no city in California has a Democrat mayor…
> Under the California constitution, all city elections in the state are conducted on a non-partisan basis.
That means nothing lmao. It just means when you vote they don’t have a little D or R next to their name. It doesn’t mean the mayor is no longer a democrat.
Under that stupid logic no city in California has a Democrat mayor…
> Under the California constitution, all city elections in the state are conducted on a non-partisan basis.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 9 hours later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,244,477
Anonymous D replied with this 2 years ago, 1 hour later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,244,505
@previous (B)
You can make digs about California all you want but it doesn’t change the fact that if an election is for a non-partisan post doesn’t mean party labels don’t apply to the office holder. Daft cunt.
You can make digs about California all you want but it doesn’t change the fact that if an election is for a non-partisan post doesn’t mean party labels don’t apply to the office holder. Daft cunt.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 16 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,244,506
Anonymous D replied with this 2 years ago, 17 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,244,507
@previous (B)Ok so I guess Chicago isn’t run by a democrat then since the mayoral race is non-partisan. Fucking r*tard.