Saw a representative from the naacp on tv. He said it was OK to riot at berkley, because they were frustrated.
??????
They remind me of a 3 year old's temper tantrum.
??????
They remind me of a 3 year old's temper tantrum.
Why do Libs riot ?
- Thread starter lawpoke87
- Start date
New study on gerrymandering from U of M and Dartmouth:
"The analysis reveals that while Republican and Democratic gerrymandering affects the partisan outcomes of Congressional elections in some states, the net effect across the states is modest, creating no more than one new Republican seat in Congress. Therefore, the partisan composition of Congress can mostly be explained by non-partisan districting, suggesting that much of the electoral bias in Congressional elections is caused by factors other than partisan intent in the districting process."
Prediction: This will change no one's opinion.
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jowei/gerrymandering.pdf
I am confused, Aston. You say Republicans get power from Gerrymandering. But those out of power can hardly gerrymander. The demoes used to control most state legislatures. How did the Republicans change districts around when they didn't have the votes to do it?
That is extremely short on data and high on assumptions. No surprise coming from Sam Wang. That dude routinely embarrasses himself. I'm sure there is something out there you can use that has the depth and rigor of the study I posted, but it won't come from that guy.
Here's an article detailing just how far the Dems have sunk at the state level. Lowest level of representation in 150 years.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...re-seats-gop-dominance-state-legislatures-all
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...re-seats-gop-dominance-state-legislatures-all
Yup, I'm done with this mutual masturbation circle you guys have going on. There's no need to even provide insight when you immediately discredit everything your read that doesn't come from a conservative source.
For decades Oklahoma had six representatives the house . Five were Democrats and one was a Republican , page Belcher . Now we only have five representatives and they are all Republicans . There is no way that you can gerrymander all those districts around and make them all Republican . What the voters wanted simply changed . Hillary got something like 28% of the vote in Oklahoma that number might not be right but the fact is she got a very low amount and it had nothing to do with gerrymandering . That's just one of the things that losers like to claim.
Pretty sure I didn't provide a conservative source. It's not because Sam Wang is liberal. It's because Sam Wang sucks. I'm sorry I challenged another of your religious beliefs
You should admit that you lost the election go on and try to do better the next time
Wang gave Clinton a 99% chance to win the presidency based on his "analysis" of the data. Excuse me if I question his ability to look at data and provide an objective analysis of the same. I'm frankly surprised you would cite an article by him as the foundation of your opinion.
When did I say I was running? I must have forgotten to turn in my forms.
I don't need to "try and do better next time". My valuation of my principals isn't based on their popularity. It's based on logical ethics.
Once again, the little circle jerk you guys have going here is cute, but you should all realize that even despite the conservative gerrymandering that absolutely does occur and does make a difference in swing states at the moment, these elections exist in cycles. Right now, it's the Pub's turn to become unpopular. Luckily for the dems it seems to be happening faster than I could have hoped for. I just have to bide my time.
Dems have been losing power at the state level for the last 50 years. That's some cycle and an eternity in the world of politics of being unpopular. Dems have a losing set of principals on the state level and have for some time. The original question posed by this thread is just one of the reasons for that unpopularity.
It is important to be harsh with non-believers. Legitimizing critiques of the religion invites other critiques. Criticizing their sexual habits is also important. Well done.
Last edited:
November there was an election. The liberal Democrats lost. I think that was not what Aston wanted, I was pretty sure he wasn't running for office.
December there were recounts, carefully timed so that they couldn't actually be done allowing more griping.
January there was a plan to flip delegates. It actually went the wrong way. Riots.
February Aston unveils his clever plan to reverse the election by calling us circle jerks and drawing scary pictures of Gerrymanders. I can't wait for March.
December there were recounts, carefully timed so that they couldn't actually be done allowing more griping.
January there was a plan to flip delegates. It actually went the wrong way. Riots.
February Aston unveils his clever plan to reverse the election by calling us circle jerks and drawing scary pictures of Gerrymanders. I can't wait for March.
A losing set of principals? Funny. Seems to me like it's the Republicans that keep electing cruddy state leaders and then complaining about how bad they do. Happens in both of the heavy majority conservative states I've lived in. They hate the government that they keep electing, because they keep electing bad leaders.
Yes...a losing set of principals. You're example perfectly illustrates that very fact. People might not be happy with the people that they elect but they keep electing the same party because said party represents the principals of the people of the state. How out of touch does the out of power party have to be to keep losing state elections despite the fact that the party in power continues to do a "cruddy" job? It's actually a remarkable accomplishment for both parties.
I'd rather be an unpopular idealist than someone who seeks personal gain from appealing to the lowest common denominator through deceit and appealing to flawed principals. It means that everyone won't always agree with me, but at least I have my self respect and respect for those like me.
Important part of all religions actually. Everyone enjoys the satisfaction of believing they're right and the outsiders aren't. The difference is, I tend to base my beliefs off of observable science, logic, and historic morals rather than faith in non-observable things that others tell me.
Don't forget the part where you feel better than other people. Important part of the progressive religion
I suppose that my knowledge of profane expressions is at least to a normal level. The thing is that unlike you I am not going to resort to 8th grade statements when the argument goes against me. I guess despite your intelligence you still have a strong tie to junior high insults which goes along well with your four month tantrum.
Idealist? You not only supported a corrupt politician but defended the actions of a political party who rigged an election against someone who truly is an idealist. Respect often becomes hazy when blinded by partisanship.
Im sorry, you caught me. My pragmatism was showing at that time. You're right.
You chose to ignore the best scientific evidence presented and cling to the belief that makes you feel good. Even your boy Nate Silver acknowledges that most of the Dems disadvantage is geographic and structural and the effect of gerrymandering is only marginal.
Last edited:
How about admitting that the US elected a lying narcissist committed to undermining our government institutions and who falls completely outside our the nation's political norms? As most posters here did BEFORE he was elected.
The efforts to Republicans and posts on this board after the election to accept or ignore behavior that would sent this board into orbit had they been done by HRC or Obama, is sad testimony to how polarization has overwhelmed our commitment to values.
I can only speak for myself, but my stance on Trump and his narcissistic idiocy has not changed one ioto since his election.
I don't have the outrage energy of liberals. I can't keep it at 11 all the time and neither can most people. It's exhausting and makes most people less happy. Combine that with the fact that I see at least 3 made up news stories about Trump that have to be retracted every day and I just start shrugging. I'll also note that the words you chose are exactly how I'd describe Obama, and it's not Trump's similarities to Obama that make me hate him.
I have criticized Trump a number of times. Please refer to my post about the travel ban which you yourself gave a like. I have called for him to stop the Twitter wars. I started a thread about how bad the DeVos choice was. Like most people on this planet I can't stand Bannon.. Pointing out. Trumps vanity and conceit is like observing that water is wet. Finally, I am tired of seeing him on TV almost constantly. Since you brought up HRC, I would be sick of her also.
The sad thing is that the behavior of BHO and HRC that should have sent the libs over the edge were ignored or passed off as Bush's fault...
But.. we'll remove the splinter from our eyes when you remove the beam from yours..
1. My boy?
2. I can agree with him that there are, of course, geographic disadvantages. People tend to live around people that they agree with. However, I would disagree with him that gerrymandering is only happening marginally.
Go look at the Tulsa metro's voting districts for the state house on balletpedia.com. You'll notice that the districts are specifically drawn in odd fashions to pack the African American areas in the North of Tulsa into a couple districts while keeping them separate from the majority white districts just to the south. Realistically, you would expect there to be some overlap since the cruddy areas of Peoria aren't too far off from the affluent areas near Utica.
Look at the results of the last election in those areas. The packed Democratic areas went SUBSTANTIALLY for the Dems, while the nearby majority white districts were closer to 55-45 in their margin in favor of the Republican candidates. More appropriately drawn districts might have changed some of those results.
