(04-23-2017 11:26 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Gerrymandering is only bad when the wrong people do it.

Bingo.

(04-23-2017 05:40 PM)solohawks Wrote:  Never said it was ok. If you review my post history you will see how I said I wish republicans in NC held themselves to a higher standard.

Why? It's a zero sum game. You either overload them one way or dilute them in the other direction. Either way you end up with little representation and outnumbered in the legislature so it doesn't really make any difference in the grand scheme. People who get upset over stuff like this are full tard. Let them do it CA, conservatives will just keep leaving. Dems will hopefully leave NC, good riddance.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

(04-23-2017 09:20 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(04-23-2017 05:40 PM)solohawks Wrote:  Never said it was ok. If you review my post history you will see how I said I wish republicans in NC held themselves to a higher standard.

Why? It's a zero sum game. You either overload them one way or dilute them in the other direction. Either way you end up with little representation and outnumbered in the legislature so it doesn't really make any difference in the grand scheme. People who get upset over stuff like this are full tard. Let them do it CA, conservatives will just keep leaving. **** it.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

yes they will....in droves.....

the remainder will end up choking on their phlegm.....

(04-23-2017 09:22 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(04-23-2017 09:20 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(04-23-2017 05:40 PM)solohawks Wrote:  Never said it was ok. If you review my post history you will see how I said I wish republicans in NC held themselves to a higher standard.

Why? It's a zero sum game. You either overload them one way or dilute them in the other direction. Either way you end up with little representation and outnumbered in the legislature so it doesn't really make any difference in the grand scheme. People who get upset over stuff like this are full tard. Let them do it CA, conservatives will just keep leaving. **** it.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

yes they will....in droves.....

the remainder will end up choking on their phlegm.....

Just wait till Silicon Valley is tired of caring for the welfare "queens". That'll be a doozy.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

(04-23-2017 09:25 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(04-23-2017 09:22 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(04-23-2017 09:20 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(04-23-2017 05:40 PM)solohawks Wrote:  Never said it was ok. If you review my post history you will see how I said I wish republicans in NC held themselves to a higher standard.

Why? It's a zero sum game. You either overload them one way or dilute them in the other direction. Either way you end up with little representation and outnumbered in the legislature so it doesn't really make any difference in the grand scheme. People who get upset over stuff like this are full tard. Let them do it CA, conservatives will just keep leaving. **** it.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

yes they will....in droves.....

the remainder will end up choking on their phlegm.....

Just wait till Silicon Valley is tired of caring for the welfare "queens". That'll be a doozy.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

you read my mind.....once the main income base leaves (the exodus has already begun), it's only a matter of time before the silicon puppies relocate (or build a wall)

it will then be up to hollyshiteholewood to fund the remainder.....

I'll most likely be ashes when that's finalized.....however, it will be fun to watch along the way....

you know Reagan is tossing in his grave right now.....

also, it's hardly a coincidence that cali is heavily advertising right now for tourism dollars.....

what a cluster of tards that state has become.....

I'll never go there for tourism. I might visit once in a while if there's money to be made. they're pissing away a few billion on commuter rail right now through Gay, USA. I've been told they might need a little help. Oh well, It all spends the same.

edit - lookie here. they want Trump bucks. Imagine my surprise.

http://thehill.com/policy/transportation...ng-for?amp

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

As a neutral observer, the Democrats would be smart to Gerrymander, even if they have opposed it in other states. They would be dumb to sit by while the other side uses legal cheat codes to win while they lose for the sake of principle.

(04-23-2017 10:04 PM)Rob Wrote:  As a neutral observer, the Democrats would be smart to Gerrymander, even if they have opposed it in other states. They would be dumb to sit by while the other side uses legal cheat codes to win while they lose for the sake of principle.

So mr "neutral observer", do you really believe that it's one sided or that the republicans "started it"....

The Democratic principal against gerrymandering is the same as the GOP position... "ok for us, wrong for the other guys". It has always been that way.

(04-23-2017 10:04 PM)Rob Wrote:  As a neutral observer, the Democrats would be smart to Gerrymander, even if they have opposed it in other states. They would be dumb to sit by while the other side uses legal cheat codes to win while they lose for the sake of principle.

They only oppose it in states controlled by Republicans. Its crocodile tears. The worst ever was probably the Democratic gerrymander of Texas in 1990. Harris County had to go from 600 voting precincts to 1700 because of all the weird lines. They had no statewide offices in the mid-90s but 17 of 32 representatives. I got redistricted 3 times in the 90s because their lines kept getting thrown out. Yet they whined and whined about what the Republicans did in 2002.

(04-23-2017 10:23 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(04-23-2017 10:04 PM)Rob Wrote:  As a neutral observer, the Democrats would be smart to Gerrymander, even if they have opposed it in other states. They would be dumb to sit by while the other side uses legal cheat codes to win while they lose for the sake of principle.

So mr "neutral observer", do you really believe that it's one sided or that the republicans "started it"....

The Democratic principal against gerrymandering is the same as the GOP position... "ok for us, wrong for the other guys". It has always been that way.

Actually the Democrats did start it, in Massachusetts, in the early 1800s, before the Republicans were even around. Governor Gerry created a district that looked like a salamander-hence Gerrymander.

(04-23-2017 10:04 PM)Rob Wrote:  As a neutral observer,

North Carolina's 12th District. Care to guess the party of the Congressperson? And if you guessed Republican, you'd be wrong.

(04-24-2017 07:40 AM)LeFlâneur Wrote:  North Carolina's 12th District. Care to guess the party of the Congressperson? And if you guessed Republican, you'd be wrong.

Great example of what I meant earlier in the thread. If not for the gerrymander in one direction those AA votes would have been diluted everywhere else. It was created in the 90's to guarantee an AA person would be elected. Since 1992...

(04-24-2017 07:46 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 07:40 AM)LeFlâneur Wrote:  North Carolina's 12th District. Care to guess the party of the Congressperson? And if you guessed Republican, you'd be wrong.

Great example of what I meant earlier in the thread. If not for the gerrymander in one direction those AA votes would have been diluted everywhere else. It was created in the 90's to guarantee an AA person would be elected.

In Texas they gerrymandered to try to elect white Democrats. My state house district in 1981 was 93% Republican. It was the most one-sided district in the state.

(04-23-2017 09:34 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(04-23-2017 09:25 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  Just wait till Silicon Valley is tired of caring for the welfare "queens". That'll be a doozy.

you read my mind.....once the main income base leaves (the exodus has already begun), it's only a matter of time before the silicon puppies relocate (or build a wall)

it will then be up to hollyshiteholewood to fund the remainder.....

I'll most likely be ashes when that's finalized.....however, it will be fun to watch along the way....

Already been told it's happening... Tesla and Google making heavy moves toward the Nevada area. (Someone told me Google's not too long ago bought a lot of land in Nevada and are moving toward moving some major operations out in that direction).

Hollyhell is already a losing battle in California.. where are most of the new movies being focused on? Deep south/Louisiana, Canada, and even the Midwest..

(04-24-2017 08:12 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(04-23-2017 09:34 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(04-23-2017 09:25 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  Just wait till Silicon Valley is tired of caring for the welfare "queens". That'll be a doozy.

you read my mind.....once the main income base leaves (the exodus has already begun), it's only a matter of time before the silicon puppies relocate (or build a wall)

it will then be up to hollyshiteholewood to fund the remainder.....

I'll most likely be ashes when that's finalized.....however, it will be fun to watch along the way....

Already been told it's happening... Tesla and Google making heavy moves toward the Nevada area. (Someone told me Google's not too long ago bought a lot of land in Nevada and are moving toward moving some major operations out in that direction).

Hollyhell is already a losing battle in California.. where are most of the new movies being focused on? Deep south/Louisiana, Canada, and even the Midwest..

Atlanta is becoming a big movie mecca. New studios/sound stages announced every few months (not that they all happen).

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/article...33681.html

Politics of migration:

"...In 2016 alone, states that supported Donald Trump gained 400,000 domestic migrants from states that supported Hillary Clinton. This came on top of an existing advantage in net domestic red state migration of 1.45 million people from 2010 through 2015. Contrary to popular perception, these blue state emigres aren’t all fleeing economically challenged places such as upstate New York or inland California. Mostly, they have left the  biggest cities, which are the electoral base of the Democratic Party. Metropolitan New York has led the way in out-migration, followed by Los Angeles and Chicago. Since 2000, these metropolitan areas have lost a net 5.5 million domestic migrants to other parts of the country....

Note that this is domestic migration. Immigrants are filling in New York and LA. Chicago is losing people.

That is one thing about that French article that was interesting (France suffers from globalization). Paris is losing working class people. Its the well to do and the Muslim immigrants. The working class can't afford most of Paris. They are sometimes physically driven out of the other parts of town or simply find living conditions unacceptable. There are similar issues in London and Sydney. New York and San Francisco are certainly driving out not just the working class, but the middle class. Kotkin's article says most people in Silicon Valley want out.

(04-24-2017 08:29 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 08:12 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(04-23-2017 09:34 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(04-23-2017 09:25 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  Just wait till Silicon Valley is tired of caring for the welfare "queens". That'll be a doozy.

you read my mind.....once the main income base leaves (the exodus has already begun), it's only a matter of time before the silicon puppies relocate (or build a wall)

it will then be up to hollyshiteholewood to fund the remainder.....

I'll most likely be ashes when that's finalized.....however, it will be fun to watch along the way....

Already been told it's happening... Tesla and Google making heavy moves toward the Nevada area. (Someone told me Google's not too long ago bought a lot of land in Nevada and are moving toward moving some major operations out in that direction).

Hollyhell is already a losing battle in California.. where are most of the new movies being focused on? Deep south/Louisiana, Canada, and even the Midwest..

Atlanta is becoming a big movie mecca. New studios/sound stages announced every few months (not that they all happen).

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/article...33681.html

Politics of migration:

"...In 2016 alone, states that supported Donald Trump gained 400,000 domestic migrants from states that supported Hillary Clinton. This came on top of an existing advantage in net domestic red state migration of 1.45 million people from 2010 through 2015. Contrary to popular perception, these blue state emigres aren’t all fleeing economically challenged places such as upstate New York or inland California. Mostly, they have left the  biggest cities, which are the electoral base of the Democratic Party. Metropolitan New York has led the way in out-migration, followed by Los Angeles and Chicago. Since 2000, these metropolitan areas have lost a net 5.5 million domestic migrants to other parts of the country....

I'd just as soon they not come here to be honest. They can all get bent.

(04-23-2017 10:23 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(04-23-2017 10:04 PM)Rob Wrote:  As a neutral observer, the Democrats would be smart to Gerrymander, even if they have opposed it in other states. They would be dumb to sit by while the other side uses legal cheat codes to win while they lose for the sake of principle.

So mr "neutral observer", do you really believe that it's one sided or that the republicans "started it"....

The Democratic principal against gerrymandering is the same as the GOP position... "ok for us, wrong for the other guys". It has always been that way.

Don't twist my words. I didn't say anything about who started Gerrymandering. What I said was, even if Democrats(or Republicans but that's not the example we are discussing) think Gerrymandering is wrong, they would still be smart to take advantage of it as long as it's legal. Otherwise, they are letting the other party use the legal cheat code to rig elections.

(04-24-2017 12:09 PM)Rob Wrote:  

(04-23-2017 10:23 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(04-23-2017 10:04 PM)Rob Wrote:  As a neutral observer, the Democrats would be smart to Gerrymander, even if they have opposed it in other states. They would be dumb to sit by while the other side uses legal cheat codes to win while they lose for the sake of principle.

So mr "neutral observer", do you really believe that it's one sided or that the republicans "started it"....

The Democratic principal against gerrymandering is the same as the GOP position... "ok for us, wrong for the other guys". It has always been that way.

Don't twist my words. I didn't say anything about who started Gerrymandering. What I said was, even if Democrats(or Republicans but that's not the example we are discussing) think Gerrymandering is wrong, they would still be smart to take advantage of it as long as it's legal. Otherwise, they are letting the other party use the legal cheat code to rig elections.

Ok, the "or republicans" is kind of important...