Larry Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 You are obviously unfamiliar with our minority/majority drawn districts oddly enough I am a they , always fun how Hispanic and Latino are used.... I am very familiar with gerrymandering. And with your dishonest attempts to try to claim it isn't done, by pointing at a spectacular example of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 I am very familiar with gerrymandering. And with your dishonest attempts to try to claim it isn't done, by pointing at a spectacular example of it. A spectacular example of the feds mandating it you mean....since I **** about it all the time I find your claim hilarious. http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2013/jun/04/karl-rove/karl-rove-says-republicans-running-texas-draw-40-p/ Any look at how Latino voters divide relies on extrapolation, Henson reminded by email, "since there is no direct measure for Latino voting." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 A spectacular example of the feds mandating it you mean.... The next dishonest claim. There is no federal law, rule, or regulation that mandates that minority voters must be all crammed into as few districts as possible, and as concentrated as possible. There is, in fact, exactly one reason for drawing such a district: Because, if that area were divided into two districts, then the minorities would control two districts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 The next dishonest claim. There is no federal law, rule, or regulation that mandates that minority voters must be all crammed into as few districts as possible, and as concentrated as possible. There is, in fact, exactly one reason for drawing such a district: Because, if that area were divided into two districts, then the minorities would control two districts. Odd http://www.texastribune.org/library/data/guest-column-texas-congressional-map-minority-voters/ Since we are under federal pre-clearance and oversight(or were )such a travesty could happen repeatedly.....are you suggesting the feds are in on it? even odder that it is Dems that push doing so Are you sure about who is being honest here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Odd http://www.texastribune.org/library/data/guest-column-texas-congressional-map-minority-voters/ Odd. You made no effort to support the claim you made, or to dispute what I pointed out. Still waiting for you to support your claim that the feds mandate districts that are 90% minority. Edit: I made a claim, above: The next dishonest claim. There is no federal law, rule, or regulation that mandates that minority voters must be all crammed into as few districts as possible, and as concentrated as possible. There is, in fact, exactly one reason for drawing such a district: Because, if that area were divided into two districts, then the minorities would control two districts. I need to amend that. There are two reasons for drawing a district that's 90% minority, or 90% Dem, or 90% <Group X>. One is to minimize the impact <Group X> has on the election. If you divide that many members of <Group X> into two or three or four districts, then <Group X> will very likely win many, or all, of those districts. Example: Let's pretend that a district contains 100,000 voters. Let's say there's two sides to the election. I live in Gainesville, Florida, so I'm going to call the two sides "Orange" and "Blue". We have a place, Orangeville, where there's 100,000 people, who vote 90% orange. If I divide Orangeville into two districts, if I draw the dividing line down the middle of Orangeville, then it's likely that Orange wins both districts. After all, by dividing Orangeville into two districts, I've guaranteed that each district will contain 50,000 people from Orangeville. (And 50,000 "just outside Orangeville" voters.) Orangeville will contribute 45,000 Orange votes, and 5,000 Blue votes, and then the 50,000 people from outside Orangeville vote. The only way that district goes blue, is of the surrounding area votes blue, at by more than 90%. (And, let's face it. If Orangeville votes 90% orange, then it's pretty likely that the immediately surrounding area, while it's not 90% orange, it isn't 0% orange, either.) So, since I can't divide Orangeville into disenfranchisement, the next best thing is to cram as many oranges into one district as possible. Thus giving them one seat, but allowing me to divide the surrounding, 75% orange, areas into disenfranchisement. The other possible reason for a district that's 90% <Group X>, is if there's just too many Group X people to avoid it. If districts contain 100,000 voters, and Orangeville votes 90% orange, and has 500,000 people in it. Then it's really hard not to draw one district that's entirely Orangeville. Maybe two or more. Somehow I doubt that twa's 90% minority district is completely surrounded by 75% minority districts. But I do have to point out that a second possible explanation exists, even though it isn't the case, here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Larry quote my saying 90%.....quit making **** up then calling me dishonest add throw in a quote of me ever saying gerrymandering is never done .....I'll wait Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grhqofb5 Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 One step at a time. Step No. 1: Get new guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Larry quote my saying 90%.....quit making **** up then calling me dishonest add throw in a quote of me ever saying gerrymandering is never done .....I'll wait Right. You had no point at all, when I pointed out that Texas is gerrymandered, and you replied by talking about your district. You didn't STATE your point, therefore you didn't have one. And, when I pointed out that your district is proof that gerrymandering is done, and you claimed that it was federally mandated, you again had no point at all. Because you didn't STATE the point you were trying to make. And when I asked you to support your assertion that the federal government forces Texas to gerrymander against minorities, and you responded by posting a link that doesn't say anything of the sort, you didn't have any point then, either. Because, after all, whenever you intentionally try to make people think you've said something that isn't true, you can always run and hide behind "I never said I had a point, therefore you can't point out that my point isn't true". Still, I suppose this is progress. I was expecting your next untrue non-point was going to be to try to claim that, since your districts were drawn by federal judges (conveniently failing to mention that they were drawn by judges who were under Supreme Court orders to draw districts that were as close as possible to the illegal districts drawn by the legislature), therefore the legislature bears no responsibility whatsoever (and the evil Feds forced Texas to gerrymander against minorities). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Larry, you misrepresent other peoples posts more than anyone I have seen. I'm still waiting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Yes, you are correct. You have diligently stuck to your traditional schtick of trying to IMPLY something that's not true, while carefully not actually stating a point of any kind. So, please, if you don't like me trying to extrapolate your point, feel free to tell everyone what your point WAS. Maybe they only show up when their votes haven't been gerrymandered into "Nobody but the GOP can possibly win" irrelevancy? Just a theory. You are obviously unfamiliar with our minority/majority drawn districts oddly enough I am a they , always fun how Hispanic and Latino are used.... In this exchange, your point WAS? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Yes, you are correct. You have diligently stuck to your traditional schtick of trying to IMPLY something that's not true, while carefully not actually stating a point of any kind. So, please, if you don't like me trying to extrapolate your point, feel free to tell everyone what your point WAS. In this exchange, your point WAS? Besides you acting like a ass? my point was they clearly can elect someone other than the GOP....and do in many cases You want clarification ,simply request it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Nope. Everyone thinks that refers to someone other than themselves, even while they are collecting unemployment, Medicare, Social Security, disability. Other people don't deserve benefits, but I earned them! The single biggest point of contention I have with the GOP these days. I can't believe the arguments I have with my mother-in-law and step-father-in-law who think they earned their medicare and social security and everyone else is getting free handouts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Somehow I don't see chasing this as doing something that appeals to the average joe. http://news.yahoo.com/republican-party-vote-repeal-u-anti-tax-dodging-234904778--sector.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Besides you acting like a ass? my point was they clearly can elect someone other than the GOP....and do in many cases You want clarification ,simply request it Ah, got it. My assertion that the state has been gerrymandered so that nobody but the GOP can win, should have been to state that the state has been gerrymandered so that as many minorities as possible have been crammed into one district, thus preventing them from having a chance anywhere else. Your point is correct. The GOP has not gerrymandered the state so that minorities cannot win a single seat. It's only been gerrymandered so that they will win as few seats as possible. My mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Is it time to poke fun at SkinsHokieFan yet? His prediction of a permanant Democratic majority in 1988 lasted about 18 months. Poke poke When did the GOP take the Senate And Ramuessen has a generic ballot 41% D 35% R today. 1/2 of 1/3 of gov't is hardly much control. The fact that they were able to maximize that 1/2 of 1/3 from 2011-2013 is really the fault of those who controlled the WH and the Senate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 The single biggest point of contention I have with the GOP these days. I can't believe the arguments I have with my mother-in-law and step-father-in-law who think they earned their medicare and social security and everyone else is getting free handouts. And you disagree with which of those assertions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 And you disagree with which of those assertions? I suppose I disagree with both. I don't believe that SS or Medicare is really a "get out what you put in" benefit. I also dont believe that "everyone else" is getting a handout. But, I know you defend SS and Medicare benefits, and I do too. But, the bottom line is that the boomers are getting more out of it then is affordable, and it should be curtailed, now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 Oh dear... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/22/glenn-beck-fox-news-mistakes_n_4643537.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 Oh dear... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/22/glenn-beck-fox-news-mistakes_n_4643537.html Glenn Beck is/was such a friggin nutjob. Dude should've remained a Morning Zoo radio DJ - that's the max he was ever intellectually qualified to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 Oh dear... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/22/glenn-beck-fox-news-mistakes_n_4643537.html I welcome it because it seems he gets it. I obviously don't listen to his ongoing radio show or whatever internet TV thing he's doing, but has that persona changed at all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 Some of us felt that Beck was playing a character during the height of his popularity. He's a smart guy who seems to know what he's going to say. This isn't a Palin situation where she is always on defense for saying something woefully incorrect and was fact checked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 Beck is still doing the exact same thing today. These are crocodile tears. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 Beck is still doing the exact same thing today. These are crocodile tears. Hubby read the article to me last night in the tone of voice like he believes Beck, but I don't for a second...he's just trying to steer his sheeple toward an alternate (yet somehow same) route. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 Beck is still doing the exact same thing today. These are crocodile tears. Booo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 The GOP made some changes in their nominating process, they hope will give them a better shot of winning in 2016. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/01/24/new_rnc_rules_move_up_2016_convention_121346.html http://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/republican-national-committee-2016-calendar-102585.html?hp=l4 This article says they are perils to what the GOP just did. http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/the-perils-of-a-speedy-2016-gop-primary-20140123 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.