Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #7251  
Old 12-12-2018, 05:43 AM
galen ubal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Central VIC Australia
Posts: 2,779
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
It's funny how many people have drifted right past your rather pertinent post, possibly because it interferes with the preferred narrative of "AOC is just a stupid shallow Millennial more interested in social media than effecting any change. She probably eats Tide pods, hur hur."

Yes, she makes rookie mistakes. Because she's a rookie. OTOH a lot of the criticism of her appears to be based on a strawman (or strawwoman) version of her rather than her own mistakes and foibles. And she hasn't even taken office yet.
It's all pretty much starting a smear job, as was done with Hillary Clinton, on the chance that she'll be a power player in the future.
A few decades of Dacien, et al repeating bullshit will make it that much harder for her to be elected to higher office.
  #7252  
Old 12-12-2018, 05:50 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 24,078
And by the way, manson1972 and AngelSoft: we see what you did there. Stop it now, or you will die like dogs.
  #7253  
Old 12-12-2018, 06:49 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Kitchen View Post
Provide any proof that she has been less than competent.
Her tweets consistently show that she has a very loose grasp on facts when it is convenient for her political opinions.
  #7254  
Old 12-12-2018, 06:58 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 24,078
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Her tweets consistently show that she has a very loose grasp on facts when it is convenient for her political opinions.
Possibly, although most of the examples of this I've seen have involved people deliberately taking statements of broad principle and pretending they're intended as detailed policy statements.

As I said: lots of strawwomaning going on.
  #7255  
Old 12-12-2018, 07:49 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
Possibly, although most of the examples of this I've seen have involved people deliberately taking statements of broad principle and pretending they're intended as detailed policy statements.

As I said: lots of strawwomaning going on.
Wait - you think unfactual things are just “broad statements of principle?”

You should look in the mirror. Trump supporters dismiss lies by saying Trump should be taken seriously and not literally. Now you’re applying the same bullshit standard to a politician you happen to agree with.
  #7256  
Old 12-12-2018, 08:19 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,597
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
And by the way, manson1972 and AngelSoft: we see what you did there. Stop it now, or you will die like dogs.
NO! We will not die like dogs! We will post like lions!
  #7257  
Old 12-12-2018, 09:14 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 24,078
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Wait - you think unfactual things are just “broad statements of principle?”

You should look in the mirror. Trump supporters dismiss lies by saying Trump should be taken seriously and not literally. Now you’re applying the same bullshit standard to a politician you happen to agree with.
Or, as an alternative, you could read what I actually said.
  #7258  
Old 12-12-2018, 10:14 AM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,788
There are now migrants who are demanding that the U.S. government pay them $50,000 apiece to go home, or let them into America.

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com...018-story.html

Not that the U.S. government would likely ever do so, but if they pay the Danegeld they'll never get rid of the Dane - because there'd suddenly be a massive uptick in people arriving at the border wanting their $50,000, too, if so.
  #7259  
Old 12-12-2018, 10:28 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
Or, as an alternative, you could read what I actually said.
Wow, you’re as bad as AOC. (I realize you may take that as a compliment.)

When she said that the military is sitting on trillions of dollars that could be used to pay for Medicare for All, did you view that as a false statement, or a “statement of principle?”
  #7260  
Old 12-12-2018, 10:41 AM
Knowed Out's Avatar
Knowed Out is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: North Kakkalakee
Posts: 15,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
There are now migrants who are demanding that the U.S. government pay them $50,000 apiece to go home, or let them into America.

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com...018-story.html

Not that the U.S. government would likely ever do so, but if they pay the Danegeld they'll never get rid of the Dane - because there'd suddenly be a massive uptick in people arriving at the border wanting their $50,000, too, if so.
I guess Soros didn't fund them after all.

Last edited by Knowed Out; 12-12-2018 at 10:42 AM.
  #7261  
Old 12-12-2018, 10:41 AM
Budget Player Cadet is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,722
Is that a "liberal idea"?

I mean, it's pretty stupid, in the "I'd like a pony which is also a magical unicorn" kind of sense...
  #7262  
Old 12-12-2018, 02:25 PM
Rick Kitchen's Avatar
Rick Kitchen is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Citrus Heights, CA, USA
Posts: 17,606
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Her tweets consistently show that she has a very loose grasp on facts when it is convenient for her political opinions.
Cite?
  #7263  
Old 12-12-2018, 02:26 PM
Rick Kitchen's Avatar
Rick Kitchen is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Citrus Heights, CA, USA
Posts: 17,606
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
There are now migrants who are demanding that the U.S. government pay them $50,000 apiece to go home, or let them into America.

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com...018-story.html

Not that the U.S. government would likely ever do so, but if they pay the Danegeld they'll never get rid of the Dane - because there'd suddenly be a massive uptick in people arriving at the border wanting their $50,000, too, if so.
What liberal is supporting this idea?
  #7264  
Old 12-12-2018, 02:37 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Kitchen View Post
Cite?
https://www.politifact.com/personali.../?list=speaker
  #7265  
Old 12-12-2018, 02:52 PM
carnivorousplant is offline
KB not found. Press any key
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 59,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by From link
When asked how the group came up with the $50,000 figure, organizer Alfonso Guerrero Ulloa of Honduras, said they chose that number as a group.

“It may seem like a lot of money to you,” Ulloa said. “But it is a small sum compared to everything the United States has stolen from Honduras.”
"Group"?? Godless commies!

What has the US stolen from Honduras?
  #7266  
Old 12-12-2018, 03:24 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,125
Quote:
Originally Posted by carnivorousplant View Post
"Group"?? Godless commies!

What has the US stolen from Honduras?
It’s sovereignty, for a very large part of the 20th century.

And we really took too many mints on the way out. The dish was just sitting there, and any civilized person would obviously just take one. But no, we grabbed a whole handful, like a barbarian would do.
  #7267  
Old 12-13-2018, 05:42 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 24,078
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Wow, you’re as bad as AOC. (I realize you may take that as a compliment.)

When she said that the military is sitting on trillions of dollars that could be used to pay for Medicare for All, did you view that as a false statement, or a “statement of principle?”
Wow, you're being a massive fucking moron.

I said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
Possibly, although most of the examples of this I've seen have involved people deliberately taking statements of broad principle and pretending they're intended as detailed policy statements.
That is a true statement: most of the examples I've seen have involved people deliberately taking statements of broad principle and pretending they're intended as detailed policy statements. Note that I even caveated this with "most".

You then jumped in with:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Wait - you think unfactual things are just “broad statements of principle?”
Is this the same as what I just said? No, it is not. You went and built a nice big strawman of me so you could subject it to abuse:

Quote:
You should look in the mirror. Trump supporters dismiss lies by saying Trump should be taken seriously and not literally. Now you’re applying the same bullshit standard to a politician you happen to agree with.
Actually, I'm complaining about people taking what she actually said and completely reinterpreting it, so basically the opposite of what you accused me of. For example, AOC was accused of wanting to lead an insurrection in Congress based on her comments that a proactive progressive caucus would be a good thing.

But please proceed - you're doing so well.
  #7268  
Old 12-13-2018, 06:45 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
Actually, I'm complaining about people taking what she actually said and completely reinterpreting it, so basically the opposite of what you accused me of. For example, AOC was accused of wanting to lead an insurrection in Congress based on her comments that a proactive progressive caucus would be a good thing.
What in that particular example do you think a person - not just me, but anyone - would give rise to calling her “insurrection” a matter of factual falsehood?

Sure seems like you are relying on your own straw man there, buddy.

Keep also in mind that I’ve linked to her factual falsehoods in support of my “she doesn’t care about saying untrue things if it makes a snappy Twitter post” theory.

But please, go ahead and look at that Politifact page and tell me how I’m wrong.
  #7269  
Old 12-13-2018, 07:14 AM
Budget Player Cadet is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,722
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Ouch, that's pretty damning.
  #7270  
Old 12-13-2018, 07:56 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 24,078
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
What in that particular example do you think a person - not just me, but anyone - would give rise to calling her “insurrection” a matter of factual falsehood?
Is it that she wasn't advocating an "insurrection" at all and said nothing about "leading" anything? That's a "factual falsehood" on the part of the people making the claim about what she said. Which is what I was talking about in the first place.

Quote:
Keep also in mind that I’ve linked to her factual falsehoods in support of my “she doesn’t care about saying untrue things if it makes a snappy Twitter post” theory.
Yes you have. And I agree that some of the things she has said are false. And you have provide us with a half-dozen examples of this, three of which were from tweets.

So I agree with you that she sometimes (on at least three occasions) has been guilty of careless and inaccurate tweeting, and that she should know better. And that on other occasions, in interviews, she has likewise made factually false statements. Whether that can be extrapolated to her "not caring" for the purposes of "making a snappy Twitter post" or whether they are, as I suggested, merely "rookie mistakes" caused by not checking the information she has been given as she should do, is clearly a subjective assessment.

Quote:
But please, go ahead and look at that Politifact page and tell me how I’m wrong.
You're wrong in characterizing what I said. Can you point, in my posts, to where I said she never makes factual falsehoods? No? How about if you squint?

I'm talking about people making shit up about things she said, not that she never says anything that's false. It seems that we're talking past each other here.
  #7271  
Old 12-13-2018, 09:07 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
Is it that she wasn't advocating an "insurrection" at all and said nothing about "leading" anything? That's a "factual falsehood" on the part of the people making the claim about what she said. Which is what I was talking about in the first place.

Yes you have. And I agree that some of the things she has said are false. And you have provide us with a half-dozen examples of this, three of which were from tweets.

So I agree with you that she sometimes (on at least three occasions) has been guilty of careless and inaccurate tweeting, and that she should know better. And that on other occasions, in interviews, she has likewise made factually false statements. Whether that can be extrapolated to her "not caring" for the purposes of "making a snappy Twitter post" or whether they are, as I suggested, merely "rookie mistakes" caused by not checking the information she has been given as she should do, is clearly a subjective assessment.

You're wrong in characterizing what I said. Can you point, in my posts, to where I said she never makes factual falsehoods? No? How about if you squint?

I'm talking about people making shit up about things she said, not that she never says anything that's false. It seems that we're talking past each other here.
Now that you have conceded that I am correct in her loose regard for facts, I accept your apology.

Last edited by Ravenman; 12-13-2018 at 09:07 AM.
  #7272  
Old 12-13-2018, 09:28 AM
andros is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Dejagore
Posts: 10,568
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Now that you have conceded that I am correct in her loose regard for facts, I accept your apology.
Even for the Pit this is weak af. Seriously, Ravenman, why does this lady get up your nose so bad? Is it just "old man yells at cloud" syndrome?
  #7273  
Old 12-13-2018, 09:33 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,125
Quote:
Originally Posted by andros View Post
Even for the Pit this is weak af. Seriously, Ravenman, why does this lady get up your nose so bad? Is it just "old man yells at cloud" syndrome?
Excuse me, but I defended her against the faux-outrage of her not being able to afford an apartment until she started getting her paycheck. She was acting entirely reasonably in that case, and her critics were being absurd.

What I pitted her for is the cluelessness of criticizing 44 senators who were implicitly arguing for the Senate to take impeachment charges seriously; because she hopped on a stupid, out of touch criticism that some of those Senators miiiight be lobbyists. It’s a really, really dumb thing to undercut people arguing that impeachment charges should be taken seriously for the sake of the nation because LOBbYIsTS!!1!

Then the putting turned to her loose grasp on truth when there’s attention to be had.

Frankly, I think both criticisms of her are exactly on point. That does not mean I subscribe to every criticism of her.

Last edited by Ravenman; 12-13-2018 at 09:34 AM.
  #7274  
Old 12-13-2018, 10:14 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,040
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
This morning, a few dozen former senators co-signed an op-ed that was mostly a bunch of unspecific pablum, but at this time, is clearly a plea to the Senate to take the Mueller investigation seriously and to put partisanship aside when looking at the allegations that Trump broke several laws.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...65a_story.html

I have no problem with that message. I mean, who would, other than the most brain-dead partisans?
Well, who would have a problem with that message? Here's the message: "we urge current and future senators to be steadfast and zealous guardians of our democracy by ensuring that partisanship or self-interest not replace national interest."

Gotta admit, it's hard to argue with that.

And that's the problem. Despite the upfront gloom and doom, their prescription can be read to mean just about anything.

Given that the Trump Administration routinely gives a back seat to the national interest, this statement would mean more if they came up with a few particulars and said, "here's some times you've recently failed to do this. This shit can't go on, y'all."
Quote:
Well, the infamous Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez found something to whine about: the men (and like two women) didn't declare whether they were currently working as a lobbyist.

https://twitter.com/Ocasio2018/statu...38285882679298

Jesus Fucking Christ, can you not read for context?
So yeah, I'd be concerned that the interests that the signatories represent might have a connection to the milquetoasty nature of the message.
  #7275  
Old 12-13-2018, 09:09 PM
The Stainless Steel Rat's Avatar
The Stainless Steel Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Close to the Saturn V
Posts: 11,115
I've voted Democratic for decades, but in the interest of fairness, there are a couple of 'what were they thinking' moments that I think belong in this thread.

Oops#1: Mika Brzezinski speaks her mind and let's Trump take the high ground. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/all/msn...c-slur-n947701

Quote:
Brzezinski was criticizing Pompeo's recent appearance on Fox News in which he avoided questions about Crown Prince Mohammed.

“Are the pathetic deflections that we just heard, when [Pompeo] appeared on 'Fox & Friends,' is that a patriot speaking, or a wannabe dictator’s butt boy?" Brzezinski asked. "Dead serious, I’m asking. Are these the words of a patriot?”
Which gave Trump the chance to tweet:

Quote:
“If it was a Conservative that said what ‘crazed’ Mika Brzezinski stated on her show yesterday, using a certain horrible term, that person would be banned permanently from television,”
(from: https://nypost.com/2018/12/13/trump-...t-mike-pompeo/

She's apologized, but still a self-inflicted wound.

Oops #2: Congressman Collin Peterson (D-MN) managed to look as dumb as a Republican (which takes some doing these days) when, after a vote on a fairly obscure item with real-world implications...http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/...saudi-war.html

Quote:
In a bizarre coincidence, right around the same time, the House Rules Committee realized that its agricultural spending bill was missing one key provision — a rule forbidding the House from voting to end U.S. military support for the Saudi war in Yemen before the end of this year.

The addition of a pro-famine clause to the annual farm bill struck many Republican lawmakers as odd: When the rule came up for a vote Wednesday, 18 GOP House members voted against it. But the measure passed 206-203 anyway — because five Democratic congressmen (they were, indeed, all men) voted in favor.
When asked about it, the Rep replied:

Quote:
Stein: Can you explain your vote on the Yemen resolution?

Peterson: Yeah. It didn’t belong there.

Stein: Why not? Couldn’t you just have come back and done another vote?

Peterson: No — we’ve worked for two years on this farm bill, and I’ll be damned if I let anyone screw it up.

Stein: Do you have any thoughts about the war in Yemen?

Peterson: I don’t know a damn thing about it, and it should be in there and it — it didn’t do anything anyway. [my emphasis]

Stein: What do you mean by that?

Peterson: All it did say was that they couldn’t have a vote or something. Didn’t authorize anything, it didn’t — you know. Our party gets off on tangents. It’s ridiculous.
Hey, I understand you're from Minnesota and Farming is important to you, but a mild education about the horror going on in Yemen might have made you look less like a moron--leave that to the Republicans.

Again, I did this in the interests of fairness; now I need a shower and some juicy stuff in the Mueller thread...
  #7276  
Old 12-14-2018, 05:57 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 24,078
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Now that you have conceded that I am correct in her loose regard for facts, I accept your apology.
So, having made up a claim I didn't make about a stance I don't hold, you've now made up an apology I didn't make for that claim and stance.

But if you want an apology, here you go: I'm sorry you struggle at reading for comprehension. I'm sorry that you hallucinate words that aren't there. And I'm sorry I even got into this with you, given the previous two apologies.
  #7277  
Old 12-14-2018, 10:50 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,040
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stainless Steel Rat View Post
Oops#1: Mika Brzezinski speaks her mind and let's Trump take the high ground. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/all/msn...c-slur-n947701
Yeah, Mika went way over the line there.

Not sure it qualifies for this thread: she and Joe aren't liberals by any stretch of the imagination. They're anti-Trump conservatives, and once Trump loses in 2020 and Republicans don't have to be Trump's lickspittles anymore, Joe and Mika will be just as obviously pro-Republican as they used to be before Trump.
  #7278  
Old 12-14-2018, 10:54 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,040
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stainless Steel Rat View Post
Oops #2: Congressman Collin Peterson (D-MN) managed to look as dumb as a Republican (which takes some doing these days) when, after a vote on a fairly obscure item with real-world implications...http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/...saudi-war.html



When asked about it, the Rep replied:



Hey, I understand you're from Minnesota and Farming is important to you, but a mild education about the horror going on in Yemen might have made you look less like a moron--leave that to the Republicans.
This sort of thing really pisses me off. It's a Congressperson's job to know more about stuff like this than those of us do who have day jobs to occupy our time, not to mention no staff to research stuff like this and give us capsule summaries. If he can't be bothered, he should stand down.
  #7279  
Old 12-14-2018, 11:23 AM
Strassia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,607

Liberal (or at least Democrates), stupid, and bad for Democracy


A real one, although this one may be considered smart, if undemocratic, on short and local scale:

Democratic majority in New Jersey legislature move to gerrymander a more permanent majority.

This is stupid on several fronts:
1. New Jersey is already pretty safely blue
2. It makes it harder to push for reforms against this as now it becomes a "both sides do it" situation

This is something that should be stopped no matter which party is doing it.
  #7280  
Old 12-14-2018, 12:34 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,040
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strassia View Post
A real one, although this one may be considered smart, if undemocratic, on short and local scale:

Democratic majority in New Jersey legislature move to gerrymander a more permanent majority.

This is stupid on several fronts:
1. New Jersey is already pretty safely blue
2. It makes it harder to push for reforms against this as now it becomes a "both sides do it" situation

This is something that should be stopped no matter which party is doing it.
The part I agree with is the conclusion: "This is something that should be stopped no matter which party is doing it."

But here's the deal: while it's possible for Congress to regulate U.S. House of Represeentatives districts through legislation (Article I, Section 4), they have no authority to tell the states how to draw their state legislature districts, which is the real issue in NJ, now that the NJ House delegation is almost entirely Dem under the existing districts.

There are only two ways to ensure that this practice is stopped with respect to state legislatures, no matter which party is doing it:

1) Constitutional amendment limiting gerrymandering
2) U.S. Supreme Court ruling limiting gerrymandering

Given that it's been nearly 50 years since Congress has passed an amendment that's subsequently been approved by 3/4 of the states, we can hope for #1, but it's a faint hope.

And given that we've got a Supreme Court that is, shall we say, ideologically slanted, I have little hope that they will take gerrymandering seriously as long as it's largely practiced by Republicans.

Maybe if the legislatures of Dem-controlled states say, "we don't think this should be legal anywhere, but as long as it is, and the GOP is gerrymandering states that they control, then fuck yeah, we'll do the same here," maybe then the Supreme Court will respond more favorably to suits to rein in gerrymandering.

It's worth a try, anyway.
  #7281  
Old 12-14-2018, 12:36 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
So, having made up a claim I didn't make about a stance I don't hold, you've now made up an apology I didn't make for that claim and stance.

But if you want an apology, here you go: I'm sorry you struggle at reading for comprehension. I'm sorry that you hallucinate words that aren't there. And I'm sorry I even got into this with you, given the previous two apologies.
Now you're just being insincere.
  #7282  
Old 12-14-2018, 01:05 PM
mhendo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 25,509
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strassia View Post
A real one, although this one may be considered smart, if undemocratic, on short and local scale:

Democratic majority in New Jersey legislature move to gerrymander a more permanent majority.

This is stupid on several fronts:
1. New Jersey is already pretty safely blue
2. It makes it harder to push for reforms against this as now it becomes a "both sides do it" situation

This is something that should be stopped no matter which party is doing it.
Emphasis mine.

This has actually been a "both sides do it" thing for quite a while. Democrats have gerrymandered districts for decades. The big difference is that Republicans are more blatant about it, and they took the reins of redistricting at a time when computer sampling and modeling allowed them to do it much more precisely and scientifically.

I agree with your last sentence though. To the extent it's possible, we need non-partisan commissions to draw district boundaries, preferably for all levels of government.
  #7283  
Old 12-14-2018, 03:07 PM
carnivorousplant is offline
KB not found. Press any key
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 59,339
I believe each state should be divided into four equal pieces, and each subdivided and those subdivided until there is a reasonable population and area to be defined as a district.
But I digress.

Why was this Gerrymandering allowed in the first place?
I understand why; each party wants to control as many districts as possible. I just don't understand why the first gerrymander was allowed.
  #7284  
Old 12-14-2018, 03:13 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,125
Quote:
Originally Posted by carnivorousplant View Post
I understand why; each party wants to control as many districts as possible. I just don't understand why the first gerrymander was allowed.
Because there isn't an underlying single definition of a fair electoral district that one can compare a gerrymandered district to, with the idea of "not allowing" the gerrymandered district. And except in extreme cases, the judge of whether districts are gerrymandered is the majority of the legislature that is drawing the district in the first place.

I'm not defending the practice, but just explaining that the people who draw gerrymandered districts are in the vast majority of cases the judges of whether the districts are fair.
  #7285  
Old 12-14-2018, 03:21 PM
carnivorousplant is offline
KB not found. Press any key
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 59,339
Thanks, Ravenman.
  #7286  
Old 12-24-2018, 01:05 AM
Rick Kitchen's Avatar
Rick Kitchen is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Citrus Heights, CA, USA
Posts: 17,606
Somebody painted a swastika over a "Happy Hannukah" sign at the University of Massachusetts, so student Nicole Parsons put up a sign in her dorm window that read, "Fuck Nazis. You are not welcome here."
The University told her to take it down because the sign had created "mixed emotions in the community on how to proceed, issues of inclusion, and the ability to be active members of their community."

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...rnd=1545614731
  #7287  
Old 12-24-2018, 01:53 AM
kaylasdad99 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 32,374
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Because there isn't an underlying single definition of a fair electoral district that one can compare a gerrymandered district to, with the idea of "not allowing" the gerrymandered district. And except in extreme cases, the judge of whether districts are gerrymandered is the majority of the legislature that is drawing the district in the first place.

I'm not defending the practice, but just explaining that the people who draw gerrymandered districts are in the vast majority of cases the judges of whether the districts are fair.
You could always abandon the notion of districts being geographically apportioned altogether, and assign people into “districts” based on their SSNs.

Hard to gerrymander SSNs.

Last edited by kaylasdad99; 12-24-2018 at 01:54 AM.
  #7288  
Old 12-24-2018, 11:25 AM
John_Stamos'_Left_Ear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,861
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Kitchen View Post
Somebody painted a swastika over a "Happy Hannukah" sign at the University of Massachusetts, so student Nicole Parsons put up a sign in her dorm window that read, "Fuck Nazis. You are not welcome here."
The University told her to take it down because the sign had created "mixed emotions in the community on how to proceed, issues of inclusion, and the ability to be active members of their community."

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...rnd=1545614731
To be fair, the school came back and conceded the wording of the email was terrible, that they only took issue with the profanity and also that they could not and would not force the student to take the sign down, only reminding her that the profanity might offend someone. Which is a lot different than welcoming Nazis for diversity.

Last edited by John_Stamos'_Left_Ear; 12-24-2018 at 11:25 AM.
  #7289  
Old 12-24-2018, 11:32 AM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 36,836
Surprise, surprise. Some PC horror story turned out to be a misunderstanding and not what it seemed. That's literally never happened before.

I actually had wondered when I heard this if the problem was the "Fuck" part not the "Nazi" part. If that's PC, then it's right-wing PC, since that's where the anti-profanity people hang out.
  #7290  
Old 12-31-2018, 12:26 PM
Knowed Out's Avatar
Knowed Out is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: North Kakkalakee
Posts: 15,224
‘Overwhelmingly White’ California Women’s March Canceled Over Representation Concerns

I don't get it. You organize a march for purposes of showing unity and strength for women, then you fragment your cause because you don't think you have enough minorities? Nobody thought you were advocating empowerment for white women only.

Doesn't this just add more fodder for conservatives who think you're so self-destructive with bleeding heart guilt you can't even fight for what you believe in? Now all the oppressive white man majority has to do is wait for you to melt down and go cry somewhere, so they won't ever take you seriously again. Next time, just say there was a scheduling conflict!
  #7291  
Old 12-31-2018, 12:41 PM
kaylasdad99 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 32,374
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knowed Out View Post
‘Overwhelmingly White’ California Women’s March Canceled Over Representation Concerns

I don't get it. You organize a march for purposes of showing unity and strength for women, then you fragment your cause because you don't think you have enough minorities? Nobody thought you were advocating empowerment for white women only.

Doesn't this just add more fodder for conservatives who think you're so self-destructive with bleeding heart guilt you can't even fight for what you believe in? Now all the oppressive white man majority has to do is wait for you to melt down and go cry somewhere, so they won't ever take you seriously again. Next time, just say there was a scheduling conflict!
But all it takes is one photograph of the march to WorldNutDaily (or one of that --- crowd) to start the whispering that it actually IS.

Unfortunately, the potential exists for this type of thing to be turned into a "win-win" for the Forces of Evil, and the cancellation (along with the overly candid discussion of its reason) is an ideal illustration of that.

The scheduling conflict suggestion is pretty good.
  #7292  
Old 12-31-2018, 04:08 PM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 6,145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knowed Out View Post
‘Overwhelmingly White’ California Women’s March Canceled Over Representation Concerns

I don't get it. You organize a march for purposes of showing unity and strength for women, then you fragment your cause because you don't think you have enough minorities? Nobody thought you were advocating empowerment for white women only.

Doesn't this just add more fodder for conservatives who think you're so self-destructive with bleeding heart guilt you can't even fight for what you believe in? Now all the oppressive white man majority has to do is wait for you to melt down and go cry somewhere, so they won't ever take you seriously again. Next time, just say there was a scheduling conflict!
Although I have no real cite, I suspect that the cancellation may have been due more to politics going on at the upper levels of the organization instead of just the lack of women of color signing up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by article cited by Knowed out
The Women’s March movement leadership faces controversy of its own. Four leaders of the Washington, D.C., gathering were asked to resign in November amid uproar over their ties to Louis Farrakhan, the Nation of Islam head who has expressed anti-Semitic views. Some state chapters of the group have turned against the D.C. organizers, wary of being associated with Farrakhan’s rhetoric.
This may have led to some fracturing of leadership along racial lines, and possibly some parties privately threatening a boycott. Rather than fight the whole thing out in public they may have decided that it was best to cancel the event, until they can privately work out their differences.

Last edited by Buck Godot; 12-31-2018 at 04:10 PM.
  #7293  
Old 01-17-2019, 08:11 PM
The Stainless Steel Rat's Avatar
The Stainless Steel Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Close to the Saturn V
Posts: 11,115
(I really hate to be posting here, but in the interest of fairness...)

I guess you could reasonably argue that this isn't an idea, but much the same stuff goes in the stupid Republican thread so...

Now I know he's was trying to appeal to his constituency, which has a large percentage of Asian-Americans, but...

Quote:
Rep. Ed Case (D-Hawaii) told attendees at an event celebrating the Asian-American and Pacific Islander members of Congress on Tuesday that he is an “Asian trapped in a white body.”
Not a good look there, Eddie. Managed to P.O. most everyone, including Asian-Americans (See this article and the twitter comments: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...ody/ar-BBSkQJs)

Now I need to go find something equally stupid a Republican said. Fortunately that is not a hard job.
  #7294  
Old 01-17-2019, 08:15 PM
scr4 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Alabama
Posts: 16,225
I'm Asian-American, am I supposed to feel offended by that?

Last edited by scr4; 01-17-2019 at 08:15 PM.
  #7295  
Old 01-17-2019, 10:24 PM
The Stainless Steel Rat's Avatar
The Stainless Steel Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Close to the Saturn V
Posts: 11,115
Quote:
Originally Posted by scr4 View Post
I'm Asian-American, am I supposed to feel offended by that?
I'm not, but going by the articles that I read (and the one I posted), apparently some are. But I see your point, I suspect it'll blow over in a day or so.
  #7296  
Old 01-17-2019, 11:22 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,597
Why would someone say that? It doesn't even make any sense. What a moron.
  #7297  
Old 01-18-2019, 06:26 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 24,078
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Why would someone say that? It doesn't even make any sense. What a moron.
On the one hand I'm wary of single phrases removed from context. On the other hand, I'm struggling to imagine any non-joking context for that statement that wouldn't be weird and wrong. And if he was joking, then he's being grossly misrepresented.
  #7298  
Old 01-18-2019, 07:29 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,040
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strassia View Post
A real one, although this one may be considered smart, if undemocratic, on short and local scale:

Democratic majority in New Jersey legislature move to gerrymander a more permanent majority.

This is stupid on several fronts:
1. New Jersey is already pretty safely blue
2. It makes it harder to push for reforms against this as now it becomes a "both sides do it" situation

This is something that should be stopped no matter which party is doing it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhendo View Post
Emphasis mine.

This has actually been a "both sides do it" thing for quite a while. Democrats have gerrymandered districts for decades. The big difference is that Republicans are more blatant about it, and they took the reins of redistricting at a time when computer sampling and modeling allowed them to do it much more precisely and scientifically.

I agree with your last sentence though. To the extent it's possible, we need non-partisan commissions to draw district boundaries, preferably for all levels of government.
Actually, the proposed NJ law was an anti-gerrymandering law.
Quote:
c. The Commission shall only certify a plan to establish legislative districts that ensures fair representation such that each of the two major political parties has an equal number of districts more favorable to that party. A district shall be more favorable to a political party if the percentage of 1[total] the combined two-major-party1 votes received in that district in all Statewide general elections by that party over the preceding decade for the offices of United States President, United States Senator, and Governor exceeds the 1Statewide1 percentage of 1[total] the combined two-major-party1 votes that party received in 1[the average district in the plan, weighting each district equally] those elections1 . 1A major political party’s percentage of the combined two-major-party votes shall be calculated by dividing the number of votes received by that political party by the combined total number of votes received by the two major political parties.1

d. The Commission shall only certify a plan to establish legislative districts that 1[ensures] enhances competitiveness by ensuring1 that at least 25 percent of all districts are 1[competitive districts, which shall mean a district that is]1 more favorable to either major political party by no more than five percentage points of the average 1[district in the plan] Statewide percentage of the combined two-major-party votes received in all Statewide general elections by that party over the preceding decade for the offices of United States President, United States Senator, and Governor1 . For each 1[competitive] such1 district 1included in the foregoing1 in which the percentage of 1[total] the combined two-major-party1 votes for a major political party exceeds that party’s percentage of 1[total] the combined two-major-party1 votes in 1[the average district] those Statewide elections1 , there shall be a corresponding district in which that party’s percentage of 1[total] the combined two-major-party1 votes is less than the other major party’s percentage of 1[total] the combined two-major-party1 votes in the 1[average district] Statewide elections1 by approximately the same percentage. 1A major political party’s percentage of the combined two-major-party votes shall be calculated by dividing the number of votes received by that political party by the combined total number of votes received by the two major political parties.1
How I read this (and how a number of other election junkies I read on Twitter have read it) is that in a 50-50 election, you'd have (c) an equal number of districts leaning D and leaning R, and (d) also in that hypothetical 50-50 election, you'd have at least 25% of your districts with no more than a 55-45 lean either way, with half of that 25% leaning D, and the other half leaning R.

So if NJ elections were actually competitive statewide, control of the state legislature would be up for grabs as well.

Now if NJ tilts 60-40 Dem (that's hypothetical, not actual) in statewide races, half the districts will have a >60% Dem lean, and half will have less than a 60% lean. And 1/8 of the districts will have between a 55% and a 60% Dem lean, and another 1/8 will have between a 60% and a 65% Dem lean.

Yes, this would make it extremely hard for Republicans to win control of the state legislature, as long as they don't come close to getting half the vote. But that's how it should work.

How it shouldn't work is the way it's working in WI and MI, where a party can have an overwhelming majority of the state legislature, despite having won less than half the vote. This NJ law would prevent outcomes like that: a 50-50 election vote-wise would result in an election where control of the state legislature was totally up for grabs. Which is also how it *should* work.

ETA: JFTR, the Slate piece that Strassia linked to, has links in it to the text of the law here; that's where I got this. Very misleading reporting by Slate, IMHO.

Last edited by RTFirefly; 01-18-2019 at 07:33 AM. Reason: Link.
  #7299  
Old 01-24-2019, 12:55 PM
Sitnam is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 9,135
So in the latest election my Wisconsin ditched the corporate-tax-cutting-public-teacher-union-destroying fuck stick Scott Walker. When he was booted I looked forward to removing the 'Open for Business' addition to all our 'Welcome to Wisconsin' signs. I live on the border so it was a daily reminder of our States executive branches priorities over it citizens. So Tony Evers won, and replaced that addition to 'Tony Evers Governor'

Look, I like the guy, I voted for him, I think he'll do a great job. But don't add schmuckery on top of schmuckery. It could have said 'Welcome to Wisconsin, Open to The People' or something. Or just remove the bullshit silly addition and be done with it.

Last edited by Sitnam; 01-24-2019 at 12:55 PM.
  #7300  
Old 01-24-2019, 02:36 PM
Robot Arm is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Medford, MA
Posts: 23,594
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sitnam View Post
So in the latest election my Wisconsin ditched the corporate-tax-cutting-public-teacher-union-destroying fuck stick Scott Walker. When he was booted I looked forward to removing the 'Open for Business' addition to all our 'Welcome to Wisconsin' signs. I live on the border so it was a daily reminder of our States executive branches priorities over it citizens. So Tony Evers won, and replaced that addition to 'Tony Evers Governor'

Look, I like the guy, I voted for him, I think he'll do a great job. But don't add schmuckery on top of schmuckery. It could have said 'Welcome to Wisconsin, Open to The People' or something. Or just remove the bullshit silly addition and be done with it.
I noticed when I moved to the northeast that the the "Welcome To ..." signs on the highway had the current governor's names on them. Always seemed like a waste of money to have to change them whenever someone new was elected. But I'm pretty sure I've seen them with both Republican and Democrat names on them, so it's a non-partisan waste and not a strictly liberal idea.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:26 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017