Let the drinking games begin

[sk8knight]

i want a mix of people in a specific area. the most important issues will rise in priority. the us is a grouping of communities; states, counties, cities, districts. communities are generally based on geography, that is why it should be the most important.

but again, let the states decide what they deem to be important for elections, not the fed.

Communities are built on clusters of people living together. Their political makeup changes within someone’s lifetime, maybe many times. Let’s say you’re in a community of single family homes in a 100% republican district. They then build some huge apartment complex’s across the street that is 100% Democrat and sways the district Democratic. You think this is fair?

 

[fried-chicken]

I'm saying that he would not have gained traction on a national level if he wasn't openly gay.

Trump wouldn't have gained traction if he didn't push an openly racist birther conspiracy.

 

[ucfversusbcs]

Trump wouldn't have gained traction if he didn't push an openly racist birther conspiracy.

I would argue he gave it some mainstream exposure more than its original openly racist birther conspiracy.
Then he opened his big mouth about how bad Mexicans were....and the rest his history.

 

[UCFKnight85]

Trump wouldn't have gained traction if he didn't push an openly racist birther conspiracy.

lol the guy has been a wealthy celebrity and successful TV personality for decades now yet you honestly think the above is true. Too funny. You're delusional.

 

[Cubs79]

If the population was evenly distributed with that 50% to 48% split, then all 13 seats would be Republican. If that were the case, you’d be arguing for gerrymandering to ensure some Democrat representation so the 48% are represented.

But it isnt evenly distributed, which is the entire purpose of having districts in the first place, because areas within a state can have vastly different concerns for a variety of reasons. And this is the point of gerrymandering, to draw the district lines to give one point a distinct advantage. What you are talking about is why we have senators, who are meant to represent the entire state. Districts are not meant to represent the entire state. But when you draw the lines so ridiculously that one party has a supermajority then is ceases to be reprentative of the citizens in the state, and only representative of the party in power, even if the party barely has a majority of support, if a majority at all.

 

[DaShuckster]

some districts are drawn in such ridiculous ways that it isnt really local representation for a large portion of the district.

once upon a time, being an elected official meant representing all the people in the district. Gerrymandering means you can be a party shrill and get away with it.

 

[Crazyhole]

Trump got traction because of the Apprentice. He won because the field was so big.

 

[sk8knight]

But it isnt evenly distributed, which is the entire purpose of having districts in the first place, because areas within a state can have vastly different concerns for a variety of reasons. And this is the point of gerrymandering, to draw the district lines to give one point a distinct advantage. What you are talking about is why we have senators, who are meant to represent the entire state. Districts are not meant to represent the entire state. But when you draw the lines so ridiculously that one party has a supermajority then is ceases to be reprentative of the citizens in the state, and only representative of the party in power, even if the party barely has a majority of support, if a majority at all.

So, are you saying that gerrymandering is not necessarily bad unless it is taken to the extreme?

Senators stopped representing the state when they switched to popular vote.

 

[Cubs79]

So, are you saying that gerrymandering is not necessarily bad unless it is taken to the extreme?

Senators stopped representing the state when they switched to popular vote.

Gerrymandering in and of itself is extreme, though certainly the levels can vary. Obviously you have to draw lines to form districts, and to some extent they are arbitrary, but it can still be done in a way that makes sense. Two bordering counties that have the population to form a district for example, I dont think anyone can really argue doesnt make sense. But drawing lines all over the place through to include/or exclude certain areas in order to dilute their vote for partisan purposes, is a different issue. The whole purpose of gerrymandering is to draw lines to give one party an advantage,. which I would argue is extreme

I would argue senators represent the state even more since they are directly elected by the people and not appointed.

 

[Cubs79]

once upon a time, being an elected official meant representing all the people in the district. Gerrymandering means you can be a party shrill and get away with it.

Exactly.

 

[UCFWayne]

Communities are built on clusters of people living together. Their political makeup changes within someone’s lifetime, maybe many times. Let’s say you’re in a community of single family homes in a 100% republican district. They then build some huge apartment complex’s across the street that is 100% Democrat and sways the district Democratic. You think this is fair?

well if that new massive apt complex were on the line with a neighboring district, then maybe it should be redrawn. if its the dead center of the district, no.

 

[Cubs79]

Communities are built on clusters of people living together. Their political makeup changes within someone’s lifetime, maybe many times. Let’s say you’re in a community of single family homes in a 100% republican district. They then build some huge apartment complex’s across the street that is 100% Democrat and sways the district Democratic. You think this is fair?

Why isnt it fair? Populations are always going to change and districts can certainly change from red to blue or vica versa, and historically they have. The South used to be heavily Democratic and now it is heavily Republican. But that is the people changing, not the politicians picking and choose who get to vote for them to maximize their chance of winning.

 

[sk8knight]

well if that new massive apt complex were on the line with a neighboring district, then maybe it should be redrawn. if its the dead center of the district, no.

What made the original district valid? Was it an arbitrary line based upon what? Squares? Circles? Rivers? Or was it a district delineated on some other value? What if the factory that is in a district dies and everyone moves out? Do you leave that district there or merge it into another? The legislations need to be able to redraw their districts in ways that make sense. The voting public is the check and balance. Maybe that needs to change but it shouldn't be a federal mandate.

 

[Crazyhole]

I went through and rewatched the highlights of last night's debate. Holy crap, Harris did to Biden what Trump did to Bush but it only took her 1 debate. She was also smart enough to know when she had won and then just kept her mouth shut from there on. Buttigieg probably had the most endearing moment of the night when he said "I couldn't get it done". That's enough to keep him going but eventually will come back to haunt him. Bernie was pretty much an afterthought because everybody know what he was going to say before the question was even finished. Biden is toast but he will hold on long enough to make it to super Tuesday and then bow out. To his own detriment, he has carved out his niche as being Hillary 2.0 and people will begin to see that.

I don't think like a democrat so I have no idea what they are going to end up going with and we haven't even gotten to the point where momentum takes over, but Trump's advisors better start prepping for Harris because she is clearly the most dangerous opponent he could face. He will lose the messaging battle to her on the border. He'll win on healthcare and the economy. Foreign relations are a tossup right now and outside of a new military action it probably will be inconsequential.

Ultimately I still think he wins reelection but if Harris is the opponent itll be close.

 

[sk8knight]

Why isnt it fair? Populations are always going to change and districts can certainly change from red to blue or vica versa, and historically they have. The South used to be heavily Democratic and now it is heavily Republican. But that is the people changing, not the politicians picking and choose who get to vote for them to maximize their chance of winning.

Do you think that parties in power cannot manipulate static districts based upon rezoning and enacting/championing social programs that attract residents favorable to their voting agenda. Again, why is simple geography a better delineation for Democracy that the elected representatives drawing lines?

 

[Cubs79]

Do you think that parties in power cannot manipulate static districts based upon rezoning and enacting/championing social programs that attract residents favorable to their voting agenda. Again, why is simple geography a better delineation for Democracy that the elected representatives drawing lines?

Zoning issues are going to be handled by the local governments, not the state legislature.

I dont think championing social programs is manipulating democracy. Every candidate runs on various issues, and then the people decide who they like the best and vote for them. So I am not sure how people voting for someone because of their stance on issues is manipulating democracy. I think large donors is a much bigger issue with regards to manipulating democracy than actually running on things that people support.

Geography is better because people in a specific community are going to be dealing with the same sort of issues. Drawing districts that span various communities and in some cases can consist of people living 4 or 5 hours apart from each other, are not necessarily going to have the same issues they are concerned with within their communities.

I will give you an example. I live in Nashville and we have a major issue with traffic now due to population growth and the infrastructure not keeping up. If they were to redraw the lines and split up the city among 3 or 4 congressional districts, it could very well end up that I have a representative that lives 3 or 4 counties away who is more focused on the smaller communities in the district than they are trying to do something about traffic in Nashville. Would that be fair represenation? I dont think so. And this of course works in reverse. It would make no sense to have a representative who primarily represents a city, but also has a lot of small rural towns in his/her district, who are more concerned agricultural issues or something along those lines.

 

[UCFKnight85]

Zoning issues are going to be handled by the local governments, not the state legislature.

I dont think championing social programs is manipulating democracy. Every candidate runs on various issues, and then the people decide who they like the best and vote for them. So I am not sure how people voting for someone because of their stance on issues is manipulating democracy. I think large donors is a much bigger issue with regards to manipulating democracy than actually running on things that people support.

Geography is better because people in a specific community are going to be dealing with the same sort of issues. Drawing districts that span various communities and in some cases can consist of people living 4 or 5 hours apart from each other, are not necessarily going to have the same issues they are concerned with within their communities.

I will give you an example. I live in Nashville and we have a major issue with traffic now due to population growth and the infrastructure not keeping up. If they were to redraw the lines and split up the city among 3 or 4 congressional districts, it could very well end up that I have a representative that lives 3 or 4 counties away who is more focused on the smaller communities in the district than they are trying to do something about traffic in Nashville. Would that be fair represenation? I dont think so. And this of course works in reverse. It would make no sense to have a representative who primarily represents a city, but also has a lot of small rural towns in his/her district, who are more concerned agricultural issues or something along those lines.

A Congressional Representative who spends most of their time in DC is the last person you'd want focusing on traffic issues in your area. That's a job for local city government and/or the State DOT. You realize that right?

 

[Cubs79]

A Congressional Representative who spends most of their time in DC is the last person you'd want focusing on traffic issues in your area. That's a job for local city government and/or the State DOT. You realize that right?

To a large extent sure, but infrastructure is often funded or at least subsidized by the federal government, so having someone at federal level who cares about local levels is not a bad thing, and quite honestly is a major part of having a represenative in the first place, to try and accomplish things to benefit their district. And when infrastructure has been talked about a lot at the federal level, having someone to lobby on the districts behalf is a positive. And this goes for a variety of issues obviously, I was just using infrastructure as an example.

 

[UCFBS]

To a large extent sure, but infrastructure is often funded or at least subsidized by the federal government, so having someone at federal level who cares about local levels is not a bad thing, and quite honestly is a major part of having a represenative in the first place, to try and accomplish things to benefit their district. And when infrastructure has been talked about a lot at the federal level, having someone to lobby on the districts behalf is a positive. And this goes for a variety of issues obviously, I was just using infrastructure as an example.

It was originally designed so low-population, but expansive states with resources, could have the 'cost shared' across the country. But now it's turned into a pork barrel on a massive scale.

E.g., Florida continues to get screwed on road infrastructure, which is why over 50% -- a majority -- of Florida's highways are not federally funded.

Libertarians are not against government or infrastructure programs, but think they should be far more localized because 'fair' is pretty much a crapshoot, especially when Florida's highway budget continues to be defined at the federal level by its 1950s population.

 

[beelit47]

From a 100% objective point of view, how can anyone honestly listen to Harris or Butti-G and not realize their intelligence level is 100X that of our current buffoon in office? I haven't watched a single second of these debates, nor do I care to, but watching 85 pick and choose sound blurbs for his own entertainment is hysterical considering the walking/talking/Tweeting, dunce he supports.

Just look at their lousy voting records. Obama was also eloquent but routinely had unemployment over 10%, toured the world apologizing for the us, signed us into really shitty deals like the paris climate deal and iran deal. Get some meds for that TDS

 

[beelit47]

You’re being disingenuous when you say “l respect the guy but...” The ‘talk’ surrounding Buttigieg has been about his compelling interviews and his impressive resume’, not his sexual preference.

You could argue his sexuality gives him a certain viability given this inclusive era of the Democratic primaries. But being ‘openly gay’ isn’t why people are intrigued with his candidacy.

Petey cant even run his small town effectively, but dems get excited because he checks the gay victim box.

 

[Sir Galahad]

Can someone explain to me how Kamala Harris was only the second class to integrate. She was born in 1964 and Berkeley schools integrated in 1963. Either she flat out lied, started school at 2 years old or her math skills suck.

 

[Crazyhole]

Can someone explain to me how Kamala Harris was only the second class to integrate. She was born in 1964 and Berkeley schools integrated in 1963. Either she flat out lied, started school at 2 years old or her math skills suck.

According to the fact checkers, she was in fact part of the 2nd class of students when full integration happened. There were black students in that school prior to her, but it wasn't fully integrated yet.

 

[Sir Galahad]

According to the fact checkers, she was in fact part of the 2nd class of students when full integration happened. There were black students in that school prior to her, but it wasn't fully integrated yet.

Well then the fact checkers are full of shit as well. It took me less than five minutes to google when the schools integrated. The rest is semantics.

 

[fried-chicken]

Well then the fact checkers are full of shit as well. It took me less than five minutes to google when the schools integrated. The rest is semantics.

I too find that facts are often biased against Republican shills like you.

 

[fried-chicken]

Well then the fact checkers are full of shit as well. It took me less than five minutes to google when the schools integrated. The rest is semantics.

http://revolution.berkeley.edu/projects/public-schools/

On September 10, 1968, the first day of a new school year, the buses rolled in Berkeley.

These thirty yellow school buses took on great significance within Berkeley, and as a headline in a larger national story about school desegregation. Martin Luther King Jr. even testified that, when it came to the project of school desegregation, it was only through the example of Berkeley that “Hope returned to my soul and spirit.”

As many observers noted, the Berkeley buses represented a historical watershed: for the first time, an American city had voluntarily adopted a two-way busing scheme involving the interchange of both white and black students.

 

[KnighttimeJoe]

http://revolution.berkeley.edu/projects/public-schools/

On September 10, 1968, the first day of a new school year, the buses rolled in Berkeley.

These thirty yellow school buses took on great significance within Berkeley, and as a headline in a larger national story about school desegregation. Martin Luther King Jr. even testified that, when it came to the project of school desegregation, it was only through the example of Berkeley that “Hope returned to my soul and spirit.”

As many observers noted, the Berkeley buses represented a historical watershed: for the first time, an American city had voluntarily adopted a two-way busing scheme involving the interchange of both white and black students.

Fake news. Gal said so.

 

[fried-chicken]

How many dumb old bitches out there read that article on an extremly biased website and just accepted it like @Sir Galahad did? They probably still think Harris lied because they don't have the benefit of interacting with anyone outside of their red hat circle jerk.

 

[Crazyhole]

Well then the fact checkers are full of shit as well. It took me less than five minutes to google when the schools integrated. The rest is semantics.

But you are arguing semantics. At what point is a school completely desegregated? If the population was 55-45 but the school in question only had 5% minorities then it was still segregated. Objectively speaking, if a school's enrollment isn't reasonably consistent with the population base in it's district then it isn't desegregated. Not a problem anymore, but it was an issue in the 60s.

 

[UCFKnight85]

But you are arguing semantics. At what point is a school completely desegregated? If the population was 55-45 but the school in question only had 5% minorities then it was still segregated. Objectively speaking, if a school's enrollment isn't reasonably consistent with the population base in it's district then it isn't desegregated. Not a problem anymore, but it was an issue in the 60s.

And seriously, this entire convo is just proof of how dumb and worthless the DNC is. Harris is trying to use something from 1970 against Biden because she thinks it has the right racist dog whistles attached and can get the Woke dumb bitches sufficiently outraged over this.

 

[sk8knight]

But you are arguing semantics. At what point is a school completely desegregated? If the population was 55-45 but the school in question only had 5% minorities then it was still segregated. Objectively speaking, if a school's enrollment isn't reasonably consistent with the population base in it's district then it isn't desegregated. Not a problem anymore, but it was an issue in the 60s.

More likely it was the other way. They bused children from an overwhelming majority black neighborhood into a school in an overwhelming majority white area. And vice versa. They still did this in Daytona Beach into the 90’s.

 

[ucfversusbcs]

More likely it was the other way. They bused children from an overwhelming majority black neighborhood into a school in an overwhelming majority white area. And vice versa. They still did this in Daytona Beach into the 90’s.

My high school newspaper was pushing the separating friends narrative and using terms like 'forced busing' in their stance against desegregation and that was in 1990 too.

 

[UCFWayne]

I went through and rewatched the highlights of last night's debate. Holy crap, Harris did to Biden what Trump did to Bush but it only took her 1 debate. She was also smart enough to know when she had won and then just kept her mouth shut from there on. Buttigieg probably had the most endearing moment of the night when he said "I couldn't get it done". That's enough to keep him going but eventually will come back to haunt him. Bernie was pretty much an afterthought because everybody know what he was going to say before the question was even finished. Biden is toast but he will hold on long enough to make it to super Tuesday and then bow out. To his own detriment, he has carved out his niche as being Hillary 2.0 and people will begin to see that.

I don't think like a democrat so I have no idea what they are going to end up going with and we haven't even gotten to the point where momentum takes over, but Trump's advisors better start prepping for Harris because she is clearly the most dangerous opponent he could face. He will lose the messaging battle to her on the border. He'll win on healthcare and the economy. Foreign relations are a tossup right now and outside of a new military action it probably will be inconsequential.

Ultimately I still think he wins reelection but if Harris is the opponent itll be close.

after watching the first debates, im pretty confident that harris is going to win the dnc vote. trumps team should really start the prep on her. i too think she will be the hardest for him to beat. hoping the dnc will rig it for joe.

 

[UCFKnight85]

after watching the first debates, im pretty confident that harris is going to win the dnc vote. trumps team should really start the prep on her. i too think she will be the hardest for him to beat. hoping the dnc will rig it for joe.

After the first RNC debate, Carly Fiorina bumped like 5% nationally and was seen as a front runner. We all saw how that ended. Harris can only latch onto calling Biden a racist for so long before people get tired of hearing the same rehashed attack line. Outside of that she's a dull, boring candidate who just promised to abolish private insurance. Good luck.

 

[Crazyhole]

After the first RNC debate, Carly Fiorina bumped like 5% nationally and was seen as a front runner. We all saw how that ended. Harris can only latch onto calling Biden a racist for so long before people get tired of hearing the same rehashed attack line. Outside of that she's a dull, boring candidate who just promised to abolish private insurance. Good luck.

Fiorina was never considered the front runner. She had a polling bump when she took the high road against Trump but it was never close to being enough to be the front runner.

The Democrats have no diversity in their positions so all the base is going to focus on is who has the best shot of beating Trump in the debates and Harris gives them their best shot at that. They don't have the "alternative candidate" like the Republicans did so they'll coalesce much quicker around 1 person. I won't be surprised if it's over before super Tuesday.

 

[UCFKnightfan08]

I feel like a lot of this doesn’t even matter. People are locked in for Trump or against him already.

 

[DaShuckster]

I feel like a lot of this doesn’t even matter. People are locked in for Trump or against him already.

Trump's oafish behavior makes it nearly impossible for anyone to stay neutral. You either love the way he trolls everybody or you're appalled by it all. There is no middle ground.

 

[Sir Galahad]

And seriously, this entire convo is just proof of how dumb and worthless the DNC is. Harris is trying to use something from 1970 against Biden because she thinks it has the right racist dog whistles attached and can get the Woke dumb bitches sufficiently outraged over this.

Busing was a complete failure but in typical liberal fashion living in revisionist history is always best.