DamnYankees: Hydra: Typical partisan circlejerk....

The Dems dig their heels in as much as Repubs on everything to placate their respective constituencies. NEITHER will compromise with the other because they don't want to appear weak.

And there it is.

SO VOTE DEMOCRATLOLOLOL

/because that's worked so well for us

DamnYankees: This complaint is, was, and remains incredibly stupid. We just had a larger turnover in House seats than ever before in history, and people are still complaining about gerrymandering keeping people in their seats?

Nice straw man. The complaint is completely valid where it applies. And I provided a specific instance, in NC, where it is happening.

Link

Now go away.

bdub77: The complaint is completely valid where it applies.

Now this is a truly impressive piece of English. Well done.bdub77: And I provided a specific instance, in NC, where it is happening.

The existence of gerrymandering != evidence that it does any harm to elections or democracy. In any way whatsoever.

sprawl15: skullkrusher: Saiga410: whidbey: I don't want the Dems and the Repubs to "work together."

We need to dismantle the Republican party and have a single-party system for a few years until someone comes up with a bright idea for something to replace the Republicans with. Hopefully something more progressive than both.

Yeah, it's gotten that bad.

Do you know who else wanted a single party state?

[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x221]

The Ass Emancipation party? Well played.

One Nation, One Party - paid for by taxes stolen at the point of a motherfunkin' Bop Gun

DamnYankees: The existence of gerrymandering != evidence that it does any harm to elections or democracy. In any way whatsoever.

Nor does making a statement such as yours mean that statement is correct, in any way. I would love to hear how gerrymandering is good for democracy. Please. Go right ahead.

bdub77: DamnYankees: The existence of gerrymandering != evidence that it does any harm to elections or democracy. In any way whatsoever.

Nor does making a statement such as yours mean that statement is correct, in any way. I would love to hear how gerrymandering is good for democracy. Please. Go right ahead.

It's not good for democracy. It's nothing at all for democracy. Gerrymandering is completely irrelevant to democracy. And if you thought about it for more than 1 minute, you might understand why.

DamnYankees: It's not good for democracy. It's nothing at all for democracy. Gerrymandering is completely irrelevant to democracy. And if you thought about it for more than 1 minute, you might understand why.

That is not an answer. That is a statement followed by an ad hominem attack. But OK you've got me. Gerrymandering is irrelevent. Now support it. How is it irrelevant? Also we aren't in a democracy. We are in a democratic republic. It's not the same thing.

bdub77: Also we aren't in a democracy. We are in a democratic republic. It's not the same thing.

And you're not a mammal.

bdub77: Gerrymandering is irrelevent. Now support it. How is it irrelevant?

I don't know what you want me to rebut. You haven't said how you think its bad, so I don't know what you're expecting me to say. There are an infinite amount of ways gerrymandering is irrelevant to democracy. For example, it doesn't change the location of your ballot box. If doesn't change the way we spell words. It doesn't give you cancer. There are lots of things gerrymandering *doesn't* do. Unless you tell me what you think it does do, I can't really respond to you.

Zeno-25: Back in the real world:

[i.imgur.com image 640x487]

So we raised the debt ceiling. Meaning more debt was borrowed by the Fed (since our legit creditors are already fearing for the value of our currency). Meaning more money was printed up.

When the world dumps the dollar and the Fed becomes the SOLE buyer of debt because no one else will finance it, the real world will come knocking VERY loudly right on your door - something your cute cartoon completely misses.


whidbey: This isn't about "disagreeing with Democrats."

This is about spitefully opposing anything they come up with until the election.
To me, that spells "forfeit."

No, actually, it isn't - since everything they've come up with is simply pandering FOR the election.

That's what politicians do in election years - they pander. Hence all this crap about the Buffett Rule - meanwhile, we haven't passed a budget that does ANYTHING to cut the deficit to any reasonable size at all while any talk about reforms to entitlements gets shouted down with demagoguery about killing Grandma.

You people will be the engines driving the economy off a fiscal cliff that leads to a currency crisis, yet you don't even want to talk about it because you don't want to listen to the people trying to explain it to you.

Hydra: (since our legit creditors are already fearing for the value of our currency)

No, they aren't. If they were actually fearing the value of our currency, they would stop borrowing.

Hydra: When the world dumps the dollar and the Fed becomes the SOLE buyer of debt because no one else will finance it,

Just to be clear, you are worried about the exact opposite of this. You *want* the Fed to buy debt. You want it to stop issuing it.

T-Servo: [i151.photobucket.com image 535x340]

Is it possible for someone to be too dumb to be a fascist?

She's almost too dumb to breathe, so I guess...

Antimatter: Gerrymandering effectively disenfranchises a person, by making their vote not count. They do this by say, grouping you with a large amount of their parties supporters, in order to dilute your influence as a voter.

I think you need to expand on this, because I do not understand this argument. You have just as much voting power as before. Whether or not your district is now, on the whole, more liberal or conservative than it used to be seems to me entirely irrelevant.

Antimatter: For example, Austin is fixing to lose all influence, as the city will be divided up, and each new area stacked with huge chunks of pro-GOP rural areas. The result is the city will have effectively no say in politics, despite having a half million people with some specific urban issues. This is legal because the voting rights act doesn't protect political ideology, only race.

You've just subtly changed argument. Is gerrymandering bad for you as an individual, or is it bad for Austin, as a city? Those are two very, very different arguments.

THIS

DamnYankees: I don't know what you want me to rebut. You haven't said how you think its bad, so I don't know what you're expecting me to say. There are an infinite amount of ways gerrymandering is irrelevant to democracy. For example, it doesn't change the location of your ballot box. If doesn't change the way we spell words. It doesn't give you cancer. There are lots of things gerrymandering *doesn't* do. Unless you tell me what you think it does do, I can't really respond to you.

Ahh the lazy man's logic. You fail at debate.

If someone gave you a farking homework assignment, and said, Is gerrymandering irrelevant to a democratic republic? Y/N and asked you to support your answer, your answer would be "I don't know what you want me to rebut. You haven't said how you think its bad, so I don't know what you're expecting me to say. There are an infinite amount of ways gerrymandering is irrelevant to democracy. For example, it doesn't change the location of your ballot box. If doesn't change the way we spell words. It doesn't give you cancer. There are lots of things gerrymandering *doesn't* do. Unless you tell me what you think it does do, I can't really respond to you"

And you would get an F. Which, in case you're wondering, means Fail.

You want me to support my logic. Fine.

Let's keep it simple. Say you have 6 districts, each with equal population of 100. Each district votes 50/50 for a party, with one person tie breaking one way. Say we're talking two parties. You have 300 republicans and 300 democrats. 300 votes on each side. And since it's all even, 3 Reps are R, 3 Reps are D.

Now you've gerrymandered the district. Now you have four districts where there are 75 republicans and 25 democrats, and 2 districts where there are 100 democrats. Same number of people, but now you've got a 66/33 percent advantage in representatives. Now blow it up on a national scale. Do you not see how that could disenfranchise a democratic republic?

Gerrymandering can provide an unfair political advantage for a particular party or group by manipulating boundaries. And yes it's wrong. And yes it happens.

How is that not relevant?

But seriously you're just one of many failed trolls who can't come up with their own research to support their fallacial logic, and resorts to ad hominem attacks or goes off subject.

Get a life.

New Farkin User Name: /not sure if that ramble was coherent

Totally.

bdub77: Now you've gerrymandered the district. Now you have four districts where there are 75 republicans and 25 democrats, and 2 districts where there are 100 democrats. Same number of people, but now you've got a 66/33 percent advantage in representatives. Now blow it up on a national scale. Do you not see how that could disenfranchise a democratic republic?

No, I don't. Ever single district still has a median voter, and every single district still has the ability to choose someone who will represent their views on issues. I'm not sure why your post-gerrymander situation is worse than the former. Why would it be a "good" think to let six individual swing voters have all the power in every single district?

Antimatter: Both. Urban areas have distinct issues from rural areas. Austin, for example, is known for being very liberal. To dilute our influence on a state and national level, we are being divided up and grouped with very conservative areas. As a result, most democrats or suburbanites will lose their seats on a local and national level. this was specifically done to achieve more GOP held seats on a state and national level.

This might be true, but to call this "better" or "worse" seems to me extremely hazy. Yes, Austin will no longer have a single liberal representative, but now every other district has become somewhat more liberal by absorbing Austin's voters. So what's better, 1 hardline liberal and 4 hardcore conservatives, or 5 less hard core conservatives? I don't think there's a simple answer to that question.

DamnYankees: No, they aren't. If they were actually fearing the value of our currency, they would stop borrowing.

It hasn't been overnight, but that's exactly what they're doing.

China has been a net seller of US treasuries for some time now.

In fact, this has been a major topic of discussion among economists for years now. Many books have already been written about this subject by prominent authors.

In your flippant response, you write all of this off as either nonsense or nothing to worry about - when I've already tried explaining to you (here and in past threads) exactly why there IS something to worry about.

Everything the government is doing right now is accelerating us towards this fiscal cliff, and it will be caused by what your Democrats (and the Republicans, but you and all the other FarkProgs in this thread already assigned 90% of the blame to them - the other 10% to the Democrats who, in y'all's eyes, keep "giving in") want to pass through Congress.

Yet anyone who tries to explain it is marginalized and demagogued and conflated with mainstream corporatist Republicans - which is exactly part of the problem we face with political discourse.

Hydra: China has been a net seller of US treasuries for some time now.

I like how you linked to a good search, and the top news result for that google search is "China: once again a net buyer of US Treasuries".

Hydra: you write all of this off as either nonsense or nothing to worry about

What is "all this stuff". I disagreed with a single, factual claim you made, which you were wrong about. And then you post links to article and books predicting the future.

You made a false claim about the present reality in an effort to boost your predictive legitimacy. That is what I "write off" - your falsehoods.

Antimatter: You don't seem to understand how representative democracy works. What this means is instead of having say, 3 liberals to 3 conservatives, you have 5 conservatives and 1 liberal. All those liberal voters in their minority liberal areas no have no one representing their views in office.

And yet, we somehow keep trading Congress back and forth between parties. People have been beating the gerrymandering drum for decades, but the predicted results simply don't happen in any meaningful way.

New Farkin User Name: Do representatives completely represent their district? Just because there might be 51 moderate conservatives and 49 hard-core dems in a district, a hard-core conservative elected, doesn't proportionately rpresent his area.

Maybe, maybe not. I don't know of any systematic information on this issue.