Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678
Results 106 to 117 of 117

Thread: The Liberalism of the Religious Right

  1. #106 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    63,291
    Thanks
    6,234
    Thanked 13,406 Times in 10,036 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,947 Times in 2,728 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    Let's compare the gaps between popular vote and number of seats won
    Do you mean percentage..or...?

    And why do you stop at 1994? Why did you leave out 1996 and 1998?

    1990 +9
    1992 +9
    1994 + 1
    1996: ?
    1998: ?

    So why did you cut it off at 1994? Redistricting happened 3 years and one election prior to that. And you didn't include the rest of the 90's. Why is that?


    In the 1990's when Democrats drew the lines the gap between number of seats won vs. popular vote was about the same as after 2010 when Republicans did all that terrible gerrymandering. Yes, I know that does not cover all the years, but I imagine if we included more years we would find about the same results.
    Number of seats won vs. popular vote? No, you'd want to look at percentage of seats vs. popular vote.

    Gross number of seats won doesn't tell you anything.

    More bad faith.
    When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist


  2. #107 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    63,291
    Thanks
    6,234
    Thanked 13,406 Times in 10,036 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,947 Times in 2,728 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    Exactly. And Democratic majorities are maintained because of the advantages they draw for themselves when they control state legislatures.
    BUT THEY DON'T!

    Most Blue states have independent commissions that do the redistricting. And we saw that when stacked up against states that don't, redistricting via independent commission is much fairer and more representative of the electoral split.

    I like how you totally just didn't even respond to that. You totally glossed over it.

    2016 18 Congressional Districts - PA
    5 - Democrat - 27.7% of seats, Popular Vote: 46%
    13 - Republicans - 72.2% of seats, Popular Vote: 54%

    2016 16 Congressional Districts - OH
    4 - Democrat - 25% of seats, Popular Vote: 42%
    12 - Republican - 75% of seats, Popular Vote: 58%

    2016 14 Congressional Districts - MI
    5 - Democrat - 35.7% of seats, Popular Vote: 47%
    9 - Republican - 64.3% of seats, Popular Vote: 48%

    2016 8 Congressional Districts - WI
    3 - Democrat - 37.5% of seats, Popular Vote: 49.75%
    5 - Republican - 62.5% of seats, Popular Vote: 45.80%(!)

    Not one single red state does what CA does and the results are laid bare above.

    So this is yet another example of bad faith argumentation.

    What the fuck is wrong with you?
    When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist


  3. #108 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    63,291
    Thanks
    6,234
    Thanked 13,406 Times in 10,036 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,947 Times in 2,728 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    The difference in our view is that I recognize both parties use the same tact
    No they don't.

    Not even fucking close.

    And when I posted evidence showing how badly gerrymandered 4 rust belt states are thanks to Conservatives, you didn't even speak to it. You just shit forth California, outside of context, because your argument is as weak as your upper body strength.

    The margins between CA's aggregate vote vs. representation was smaller than that of five Conservative red states where the redistricting is done by the legislature.

    In every case, CA's map was fairer to Conservatives than all the red states I mentioned were to Democrats.

    You're a fraud.

    Your argument is a fraud.

    You're pointless and worthless.
    When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist


  4. #109 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,706
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,654 Times in 4,435 Posts
    Groans
    295
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LV426 View Post
    No they don't.

    Not even fucking close.

    And when I posted evidence showing how badly gerrymandered 4 rust belt states are thanks to Conservatives, you didn't even speak to it. You just shit forth California, outside of context, because your argument is as weak as your upper body strength.

    The margins between CA's aggregate vote vs. representation was smaller than that of five Conservative red states where the redistricting is done by the legislature.

    In every case, CA's map was fairer to Conservatives than all the red states I mentioned were to Democrats.

    You're a fraud.

    Your argument is a fraud.

    You're pointless and worthless.
    It is not a fraud because you just admitted my argument was true---your partisanship make you believe Republicans are worse than Democrats. Your reality is distorted by your partisan bias--you truly believe your fantasy view of Democrats is real.

    I didn't speak to your point about other states being gerrymandered worse than CA because I never stated or believed the other states were any better. That proves my point--even states using a nonpartisan commission are badly gerrymandered. I notice you do not include any blue states that do not use a commission---bad faith on your part. Check out IL and MD for some badly gerrymandered Democratic states.

    Also, you make the naive assumption that a gap between the number of seats v. popular votes is due to gerrymandering, You can use entirely objective methods and draw square districts and the result could be a lack of minority representation and a lopsided gap between seats and votes. Gerrymandering, by definition, refers to a strangely draw district which is not compact and contiguous. Methods like packing and cracking can be accomplished with no gerrymandering.

    Nobody is claiming current districting does not benefit Republicans because they control the most legislatures, but when Democrats controlled they resorted to the same tactics (but had less technology to assist them). And technology has made gerrymandering worse since 2000.

    It has become a disadvantage for Democrats because they "waste" their votes by concentrating in central cities and cannot be split without gerrymandering which would put many of those Democrats in suburban Republican areas. And, splitting them up violates voting laws by reducing diluting minority strength.

  5. #110 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    63,291
    Thanks
    6,234
    Thanked 13,406 Times in 10,036 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,947 Times in 2,728 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    It is not a fraud because you just admitted my argument was tru
    No I didn't!

    Quite the opposite!

    I provided the context within which you stupidly posted half-truths because you act exclusively in bad faith.

    You shittily tried to make an example of CA today as somehow unfair partisan gerrymandering, but because you're lazy as fuck, you didn't bother to check that against data from states that don't have an independent commission drawing district lines.

    You thought you could fake your way though this debate, much like how you probably fake your way through your daily life.

    So fucking lazy. No ethics. All bad faith.
    When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist


  6. #111 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    63,291
    Thanks
    6,234
    Thanked 13,406 Times in 10,036 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,947 Times in 2,728 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    I didn't speak to your point about other states being gerrymandered worse than CA because I never stated or believed the other states were any better.
    Right, and that premise is false.

    CA is better than all Conservative red states, particularly the states I mentioned.

    You're trying to equate the two as the same, and you only do that because you're a lazy, sloppy motherfucking idiot.

    CA's margins between representation and the aggregate vote were smaller than all the Conservative-led states I mentioned. And it wasn't even close.

    You ignored that degree of variance because it ruined this false "both sides" bullshit you're trying to use in order to normalize the hideousness of your own shitty nature.

    Kill yourself. You're worthless.
    When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist


  7. #112 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    63,291
    Thanks
    6,234
    Thanked 13,406 Times in 10,036 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,947 Times in 2,728 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    Check out IL and MD for some badly gerrymandered Democratic states.
    I don't deny that it exists, what I'm saying is that for the states that have independent commissions that do the redistricting, the representation is more fairly distributed and in line with the aggregate vote totals. You see that in only Blue States. No red states do it that way.

    And BTW - YOUR FUCKING LAZINESS AND BAD FAITH IS SHOWING AGAIN.

    Illinois' not gerrymandered the way you claim.

    2016 18 Congressional Seats - IL
    11 - Democrat - 61.1% of seats, Popular Vote: 53.6%
    7 - Republican - 38.9% of seats, Popular Vote: 45.7%

    In 2014, Democrats had 10 seats for a seat % of 55.5%...so one seat shifted the balance.

    So you pretty much overstated the "gerrymandering" in IL, didn't you? That would be bad faith, wouldn't it?
    When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist


  8. #113 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    63,291
    Thanks
    6,234
    Thanked 13,406 Times in 10,036 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,947 Times in 2,728 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    Nobody is claiming current districting does not benefit Republicans because they control the most legislatures, but when Democrats controlled they resorted to the same tactics (but had less technology to assist them). And technology has made gerrymandering worse since 2000.
    While true they may have done that 20+ years ago, in the years since they've supported independent redistricting. So they've addressed the problem.

    You're still clinging to what they might have done 20 years ago as the excuse for you to do what you do today.

    That's what makes you shitty.


    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    It has become a disadvantage for Democrats because they "waste" their votes by concentrating in central cities and cannot be split without gerrymandering
    No.

    It's not Democrats moving to cities, it's most people.

    More of our population -in general- has concentrated around urban centers now than ever before.

    Right now, rural population is the most sparse it has ever been in this country.

    People are just fucking sick of living in rural areas because Conservatives are shitty at governance, and cities can meet their needs. So why should representation not reflect that change in concentration? Why the fuck should some shithead in rural America have more representation than someone who lives and works in New York?
    When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist


  9. #114 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,706
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,654 Times in 4,435 Posts
    Groans
    295
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LV426 View Post
    While true they may have done that 20+ years ago, in the years since they've supported independent redistricting. So they've addressed the problem.

    You're still clinging to what they might have done 20 years ago as the excuse for you to do what you do today.

    That's what makes you shitty.




    No.

    It's not Democrats moving to cities, it's most people.

    More of our population -in general- has concentrated around urban centers now than ever before.

    Right now, rural population is the most sparse it has ever been in this country.

    People are just fucking sick of living in rural areas because Conservatives are shitty at governance, and cities can meet their needs. So why should representation not reflect that change in concentration? Why the fuck should some shithead in rural America have more representation than someone who lives and works in New York?
    Read carefully, that is why you misunderstand the information. I did not say Democrats are moving to cities. I said they are concentrating in central cities. Again, you had to politicize the reasons.

    Yes, most people are living in urban areas and the central cities and that county are largely Democratic--certainly you know that. It should reflect that concentration--but that is the problem. You are creating central city districts that are almost entirely Democratic giving those Democrats little influence outside that district leaving the surrounding areas more Republican with more districts. If you split up that central city concentration you have both gerrymandered and reduced minority voting strength.

  10. #115 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,706
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,654 Times in 4,435 Posts
    Groans
    295
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LV426 View Post
    No I didn't!

    Quite the opposite!

    I provided the context within which you stupidly posted half-truths because you act exclusively in bad faith.

    You shittily tried to make an example of CA today as somehow unfair partisan gerrymandering, but because you're lazy as fuck, you didn't bother to check that against data from states that don't have an independent commission drawing district lines.[/B]
    Again, your reading comprehension and unwarranted assumptions lead to a lack of understanding. I said nothing about partisan gerrymandering in CA or that it was worse than states without commissions. I used CA because that is the state you brought up and to show commissions don't do such a hot job, either. You show it is better than a few selected red states (bad faith). However, it is worse than those examples of the U. S. House you thought were so horrible. In the House the biggest gap is 9% (under Democratic districting) while CA is much higher.

  11. #116 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,706
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,654 Times in 4,435 Posts
    Groans
    295
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LV426 View Post
    Do you mean percentage..or...?

    And why do you stop at 1994? Why did you leave out 1996 and 1998?

    1990 +9
    1992 +9
    1994 + 1
    1996: ?
    1998: ?

    So why did you cut it off at 1994? Redistricting happened 3 years and one election prior to that. And you didn't include the rest of the 90's. Why is that?

    Number of seats won vs. popular vote? No, you'd want to look at percentage of seats vs. popular vote.

    Gross number of seats won doesn't tell you anything.

    More bad faith.
    Read. That is not gross number of seats but the gap between the percentage of seats won and percentage of popular votes--just like we did in previous posts. Not wonder you are so argumentative and insulting--you can't understand the data.

    I stopped at 1996 because I did not want to waste time looking up more numbers when all the 90's were under largely Democratic drawn districts. If the numbers are the same it just shows Democratic gerrymandering is as bad as Republican. If the numbers are lower it just proves there can be variations in results not related to redistricting since all the districts were the same.

    Or, is all this above your head? You are to busy tying "bad faith" to carefully read the data.

  12. #117 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,706
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,654 Times in 4,435 Posts
    Groans
    295
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LV426 View Post
    While true they may have done that 20+ years ago, in the years since they've supported independent redistricting. So they've addressed the problem.

    You're still clinging to what they might have done 20 years ago as the excuse for you to do what you do today.

    That's what makes you shitty.




    No.

    It's not Democrats moving to cities, it's most people.

    More of our population -in general- has concentrated around urban centers now than ever before.

    Right now, rural population is the most sparse it has ever been in this country.

    People are just fucking sick of living in rural areas because Conservatives are shitty at governance, and cities can meet their needs. So why should representation not reflect that change in concentration? Why the fuck should some shithead in rural America have more representation than someone who lives and works in New York?
    "The political scientists Jowei Chen, of the University of Michigan, and Jonathan Rodden, of Stanford University, estimate that gerrymandering costs Democrats about six to eight seats in the House. Even so, “by far the most important factor contributing to the Republican advantage,” Mr. Chen says, “is the natural geographic factor of Democrats’ being overwhelmingly concentrated in these urban districts, especially in states like Michigan and Florida.”

Similar Threads

  1. Liberalism
    By Big Money in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 93
    Last Post: 02-13-2014, 05:01 PM
  2. APP - The Leftist Question: Liberalism, Liberalism or Socialism
    By I'm Watermark in forum Above Plain Politics Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-26-2013, 06:02 PM
  3. Thank you liberalism
    By canceled.2021.1 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-31-2012, 08:34 PM
  4. Bring on some more liberalism
    By canceled.2021.1 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 11-09-2012, 08:23 AM
  5. Liberalism
    By Augustine in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 02-11-2007, 08:58 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •