(12-08-2020 10:51 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-08-2020 10:20 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-08-2020 12:28 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-07-2020 03:59 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-07-2020 03:52 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Where did I say they were dumb? Although, if you look at the quality of inner-city education, there is obviously an effort to perpetuate dumbness.
They are getting bribed with handouts. If I can make more money off handouts, while doing nothing, than I can by getting a job and having to work, then it's not dumb--or lazy--to take the handouts. It's actually the intelligent choice, at least short term.
In order to break the cycle, republicans have to come up with a better alternative than handouts. So far they haven't. I have, but they haven't.

"Where did I say they were dumb?" says the person who regularly writes:

Quote:"Keep 'em poor, keep 'em dumb, keep 'em dependent on handouts, and you'll keep 'em voting democrat," may be good for winning elections, but it's not good for fighting poverty.

https://csnbbs.com/thread-909902-post-17...id17102585

That is saying not that they are dumb, but that it is the strategy of the democrats to try to keep them too dumb to figure out that the welfare plantation is screwing them. More and more of them are starting to figure out that they are being screwed. If republicans were smart, they would jump all over that. Then again, expecting republicans to be smart is overly optimistic. The democrats offer a handout instead of a hand up.

Trump was beginning to make some inroads in the black community with his economic policies. Another reason they had to unseat him at all costs.

For a long time now, the slogan has been that the way out of poverty is education. I bought that too, for a while, but now it is apparent the way out is employment. If education prepares you for employment that you otherwise could not have applied for, fine, that is what it is for, but just a piece of paper on a wall does nothing.

That saying still holds true. Estimated lifetime earnings by education are significantly different - estimated to be approximately $900k between a high school diploma and a bachelor's degree.

https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/research...graduates.

That isn't say that it is a guarantee, but that is what the stats.

Oh, goody. Get that Women's History degree and the money will roll in.

Another case of the third kind of lie.

Of course, getting engineering degrees or degrees that prepare one for higher degrees like MDs or LLBs will increase earnings over yard work. And those earning will skew the average way up.

But I know too many people who have degrees but cannot get good jobs with them.

For a lot of people, I think a 4 month course in welding at the community college beats a four year degree in Art History in future earning power. And making a living as a welder sure beats sliding Starbucks across the counter with a sociology degree.

When i was interviewing for Rice, Dean McEnany asked me if I thought education had an intrinsic value. I had to ask what "intrinsic' meant, but when he explained, I answered "yes", an answer I still believe in to this day. But we are talking about education as a way out of poverty, and that entails getting paid for using that education.

Not a lot of people with a BA in a soft science get good jobs using that BA. Many of them would have brighter futures not pursuing a degree, but instead learning a trade.

I have followed this path with my eldest grandson, who is now earning high 5 figures as a plumber. I wonder what he would be earning as a barista with a sociology degree. But of course, he did not need either to get out of poverty - just to stay out.

(12-08-2020 11:12 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-08-2020 10:51 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-08-2020 10:20 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-08-2020 12:28 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-07-2020 03:59 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  "Where did I say they were dumb?" says the person who regularly writes:
https://csnbbs.com/thread-909902-post-17...id17102585

That is saying not that they are dumb, but that it is the strategy of the democrats to try to keep them too dumb to figure out that the welfare plantation is screwing them. More and more of them are starting to figure out that they are being screwed. If republicans were smart, they would jump all over that. Then again, expecting republicans to be smart is overly optimistic. The democrats offer a handout instead of a hand up.

Trump was beginning to make some inroads in the black community with his economic policies. Another reason they had to unseat him at all costs.

For a long time now, the slogan has been that the way out of poverty is education. I bought that too, for a while, but now it is apparent the way out is employment. If education prepares you for employment that you otherwise could not have applied for, fine, that is what it is for, but just a piece of paper on a wall does nothing.

That saying still holds true. Estimated lifetime earnings by education are significantly different - estimated to be approximately $900k between a high school diploma and a bachelor's degree.

https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/research...graduates.

That isn't say that it is a guarantee, but that is what the stats.

Oh, goody. Get that Women's History degree and the money will roll in.

Another case of the third kind of lie.

Of course, getting engineering degrees or degrees that prepare one for higher degrees like MDs or LLBs will increase earnings over yard work. And those earning will skew the average way up.

But I know too many people who have degrees but cannot get good jobs with them.

For a lot of people, I think a 4 month course in welding at the community college beats a four year degree in Art History in future earning power. And making a living as a welder sure beats sliding Starbucks across the counter with a sociology degree.

When i was interviewing for Rice, Dean McEnany asked me if I thought education had an intrinsic value. I had to ask what "intrinsic' meant, but when he explained, I answered "yes", an answer I still believe in to this day. But we are talking about education as a way out of poverty, and that entails getting paid for using that education.

Not a lot of people with a BA in a soft science get good jobs using that BA. Many of them would have brighter futures not pursuing a degree, but instead learning a trade.

I have followed this path with my eldest grandson, who is now earning high 5 figures as a plumber. I wonder what he would be earning as a barista with a sociology degree. But of course, he did not need either to get out of poverty - just to stay out.

I mean, it isn't a lie. A statistic is not a guarantee, but the results do tell us that, on average, a person with a post-high school degree makes more than someone with only a high school diploma. Just think of all the white collar and blue collar jobs that pay well - I bet the vast majority require some sort of degree.

You shouldn't let a single degree focus cloud your judgement about education as a whole.

I even said that this isn't a guarantee...

But do you have evidence to backup the bolded claim? I agree with the idea that college is not the right path for everyone, and that skilled labor should be valued more highly (so that people wouldn't avoid it and would consider it).

Important edit: the data presented was for median wages, so there is no skewing affect as you mentioned.

(11-18-2020 04:11 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  So it's not so much "supporting segregation" as much as "supporting legislation that limits the upward financial mobility of black people"?

Except one of those means is to create 'black districts' often using public housing or other 'government driven' determinants which by definition, trap many people in these areas. I mean, what is Gerrymandering based on race except segregation? It's not the law that people can't leave, but its the same essential outcome.

Whether they support segregation or whether they support legislation whereby people become segregated is a distinction without a difference, other than intent, which I have been very clear to differentiate between 1950's and 2020's Democrats.

All I'm asking for 2020 Democrats to do is to recognize that they're creating a solution that civil rights fought so hard against.

The best solution/alternative I've come up with though is electing representatives to the house based on identity/issues rather than geography... where a state with 20% black people could elect 20% of their reps based on issues that primarily impact black people. Other than that it involves things like school and housing choice/vouchers and giving the people who live in 'the projects' some equity from the sale of that land for now profitable redevelopment. Maybe even create a NFP to do the redevelopment, but one with a profit motive (just not for the owners) as opposed to a social motive. They do things to maximise the potential of a neighborhood and not to advance some group... and then they give those profits to a different team that advances those groups.

(12-08-2020 12:30 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(11-18-2020 04:11 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  So it's not so much "supporting segregation" as much as "supporting legislation that limits the upward financial mobility of black people"?

Except one of those means is to create 'black districts' often using public housing or other 'government driven' determinants which by definition, trap many people in these areas. I mean, what is Gerrymandering based on race except segregation? It's not the law that people can't leave, but its the same essential outcome.

Whether they support segregation or whether they support legislation whereby people become segregated is a distinction without a difference, other than intent, which I have been very clear to differentiate between 1950's and 2020's Democrats.

All I'm asking for 2020 Democrats to do is to recognize that they're creating a solution that civil rights fought so hard against.

The best solution/alternative I've come up with though is electing representatives to the house based on identity/issues rather than geography... where a state with 20% black people could elect 20% of their reps based on issues that primarily impact black people. Other than that it involves things like school and housing choice/vouchers and giving the people who live in 'the projects' some equity from the sale of that land for now profitable redevelopment. Maybe even create a NFP to do the redevelopment, but one with a profit motive (just not for the owners) as opposed to a social motive. They do things to maximise the potential of a neighborhood and not to advance some group... and then they give those profits to a different team that advances those groups.

I could have missed in the "Left Wing Talking Points - 2021" flyer we all received, but what Democratic candidate is in favor of gerrymandering?

I typically hear the opposite, especially given that Reps hold many state legislatures, which control mapping, so Dems have expressed public worry about maps being gerrymandered in 2020 (or further gerrymandered, depending on who you talk to). Notably, California set up a non-partisan commission in 2010.

(12-08-2020 12:42 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-08-2020 12:30 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(11-18-2020 04:11 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  So it's not so much "supporting segregation" as much as "supporting legislation that limits the upward financial mobility of black people"?

Except one of those means is to create 'black districts' often using public housing or other 'government driven' determinants which by definition, trap many people in these areas. I mean, what is Gerrymandering based on race except segregation? It's not the law that people can't leave, but its the same essential outcome.

Whether they support segregation or whether they support legislation whereby people become segregated is a distinction without a difference, other than intent, which I have been very clear to differentiate between 1950's and 2020's Democrats.

All I'm asking for 2020 Democrats to do is to recognize that they're creating a solution that civil rights fought so hard against.

The best solution/alternative I've come up with though is electing representatives to the house based on identity/issues rather than geography... where a state with 20% black people could elect 20% of their reps based on issues that primarily impact black people. Other than that it involves things like school and housing choice/vouchers and giving the people who live in 'the projects' some equity from the sale of that land for now profitable redevelopment. Maybe even create a NFP to do the redevelopment, but one with a profit motive (just not for the owners) as opposed to a social motive. They do things to maximise the potential of a neighborhood and not to advance some group... and then they give those profits to a different team that advances those groups.

I could have missed in the "Left Wing Talking Points - 2021" flyer we all received, but what Democratic candidate is in favor of gerrymandering?

I typically hear the opposite, especially given that Reps hold many state legislatures, which control mapping, so Dems have expressed public worry about maps being gerrymandered in 2020 (or further gerrymandered, depending on who you talk to). Notably, California set up a non-partisan commission in 2010.

I cannot believe that anybody thinks that one party is for gerrymandering and the other against it.

Both parties gerrymander to their own benefit when they can.

Maryland

(12-08-2020 12:42 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-08-2020 12:30 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(11-18-2020 04:11 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  So it's not so much "supporting segregation" as much as "supporting legislation that limits the upward financial mobility of black people"?

Except one of those means is to create 'black districts' often using public housing or other 'government driven' determinants which by definition, trap many people in these areas. I mean, what is Gerrymandering based on race except segregation? It's not the law that people can't leave, but its the same essential outcome.

Whether they support segregation or whether they support legislation whereby people become segregated is a distinction without a difference, other than intent, which I have been very clear to differentiate between 1950's and 2020's Democrats.

All I'm asking for 2020 Democrats to do is to recognize that they're creating a solution that civil rights fought so hard against.

The best solution/alternative I've come up with though is electing representatives to the house based on identity/issues rather than geography... where a state with 20% black people could elect 20% of their reps based on issues that primarily impact black people. Other than that it involves things like school and housing choice/vouchers and giving the people who live in 'the projects' some equity from the sale of that land for now profitable redevelopment. Maybe even create a NFP to do the redevelopment, but one with a profit motive (just not for the owners) as opposed to a social motive. They do things to maximise the potential of a neighborhood and not to advance some group... and then they give those profits to a different team that advances those groups.

I could have missed in the "Left Wing Talking Points - 2021" flyer we all received, but what Democratic candidate is in favor of gerrymandering?

I typically hear the opposite, especially given that Reps hold many state legislatures, which control mapping, so Dems have expressed public worry about maps being gerrymandered in 2020 (or further gerrymandered, depending on who you talk to). Notably, California set up a non-partisan commission in 2010.

I love to hear the young 'uns bullwhip about gerrymandering. It wasnt so long ago that the Dems in Texas were the king of that hill.

When they actually lost control of the state senate, and realized they were about to be on the receiving end of the horse whip that they had administered for 80 years, they did the noble thing ----- the Democratic state senators fled the state en masse to deny a quorum to the entire legislative process.

Amazing how the Dems are the pure as the driven snow in this now; one might wish that some of the 'right on top of it' youngsters might actually employ a little historical hindsight in their b-tch sessions.

As noted above -- every party gerrymanders to their benefit when they can. Never stopped any party previously. But to have someone come out and claim the Dems are the height of gerrymander purity is a load of partisan ****.

(12-08-2020 01:59 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-08-2020 12:42 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-08-2020 12:30 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(11-18-2020 04:11 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  So it's not so much "supporting segregation" as much as "supporting legislation that limits the upward financial mobility of black people"?

Except one of those means is to create 'black districts' often using public housing or other 'government driven' determinants which by definition, trap many people in these areas. I mean, what is Gerrymandering based on race except segregation? It's not the law that people can't leave, but its the same essential outcome.

Whether they support segregation or whether they support legislation whereby people become segregated is a distinction without a difference, other than intent, which I have been very clear to differentiate between 1950's and 2020's Democrats.

All I'm asking for 2020 Democrats to do is to recognize that they're creating a solution that civil rights fought so hard against.

The best solution/alternative I've come up with though is electing representatives to the house based on identity/issues rather than geography... where a state with 20% black people could elect 20% of their reps based on issues that primarily impact black people. Other than that it involves things like school and housing choice/vouchers and giving the people who live in 'the projects' some equity from the sale of that land for now profitable redevelopment. Maybe even create a NFP to do the redevelopment, but one with a profit motive (just not for the owners) as opposed to a social motive. They do things to maximise the potential of a neighborhood and not to advance some group... and then they give those profits to a different team that advances those groups.

I could have missed in the "Left Wing Talking Points - 2021" flyer we all received, but what Democratic candidate is in favor of gerrymandering?

I typically hear the opposite, especially given that Reps hold many state legislatures, which control mapping, so Dems have expressed public worry about maps being gerrymandered in 2020 (or further gerrymandered, depending on who you talk to). Notably, California set up a non-partisan commission in 2010.

I love to hear the young 'uns bullwhip about gerrymandering. It wasnt so long ago that the Dems in Texas were the king of that hill.

When they actually lost control of the state senate, and realized they were about to be on the receiving end of the horse whip that they had administered for 80 years, they did the noble thing ----- the Democratic state senators fled the state en masse to deny a quorum to the entire legislative process.

Amazing how the Dems are the pure as the driven snow in this now; one might wish that some of the 'right on top of it' youngsters might actually employ a little historical hindsight in their b-tch sessions.

As noted above -- every party gerrymanders to their benefit when they can. Never stopped any party previously. But to have someone come out and claim the Dems are the height of gerrymander purity is a load of partisan ****.

Again... who made this claim?! I think you are distorting Lad's words.

I think everybody here agrees that gerrymanding sucks and BOTH parties use it to their advantage when they are able to.

(12-08-2020 02:30 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(12-08-2020 01:59 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-08-2020 12:42 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-08-2020 12:30 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(11-18-2020 04:11 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  So it's not so much "supporting segregation" as much as "supporting legislation that limits the upward financial mobility of black people"?

Except one of those means is to create 'black districts' often using public housing or other 'government driven' determinants which by definition, trap many people in these areas. I mean, what is Gerrymandering based on race except segregation? It's not the law that people can't leave, but its the same essential outcome.

Whether they support segregation or whether they support legislation whereby people become segregated is a distinction without a difference, other than intent, which I have been very clear to differentiate between 1950's and 2020's Democrats.

All I'm asking for 2020 Democrats to do is to recognize that they're creating a solution that civil rights fought so hard against.

The best solution/alternative I've come up with though is electing representatives to the house based on identity/issues rather than geography... where a state with 20% black people could elect 20% of their reps based on issues that primarily impact black people. Other than that it involves things like school and housing choice/vouchers and giving the people who live in 'the projects' some equity from the sale of that land for now profitable redevelopment. Maybe even create a NFP to do the redevelopment, but one with a profit motive (just not for the owners) as opposed to a social motive. They do things to maximise the potential of a neighborhood and not to advance some group... and then they give those profits to a different team that advances those groups.

I could have missed in the "Left Wing Talking Points - 2021" flyer we all received, but what Democratic candidate is in favor of gerrymandering?

I typically hear the opposite, especially given that Reps hold many state legislatures, which control mapping, so Dems have expressed public worry about maps being gerrymandered in 2020 (or further gerrymandered, depending on who you talk to). Notably, California set up a non-partisan commission in 2010.

I love to hear the young 'uns bullwhip about gerrymandering. It wasnt so long ago that the Dems in Texas were the king of that hill.

When they actually lost control of the state senate, and realized they were about to be on the receiving end of the horse whip that they had administered for 80 years, they did the noble thing ----- the Democratic state senators fled the state en masse to deny a quorum to the entire legislative process.

Amazing how the Dems are the pure as the driven snow in this now; one might wish that some of the 'right on top of it' youngsters might actually employ a little historical hindsight in their b-tch sessions.

As noted above -- every party gerrymanders to their benefit when they can. Never stopped any party previously. But to have someone come out and claim the Dems are the height of gerrymander purity is a load of partisan ****.

Again... who made this claim?! I think you are distorting Lad's words.

I think everybody here agrees that gerrymanding sucks and BOTH parties use it to their advantage when they are able to.

Here are lad's words:

I could have missed in the "Left Wing Talking Points - 2021" flyer we all received, but what Democratic candidate is in favor of gerrymandering?

I typically hear the opposite, especially given that Reps hold many state legislatures, which control mapping, so Dems have expressed public worry about maps being gerrymandered in 2020 (or further gerrymandered, depending on who you talk to). Notably, California set up a non-partisan commission in 2010.

Sounds a lot to me like he is worried aboutRepublican gerrymandering and only Republican gerrymandering.

Perhaps if he would come out and explicitly say both parties do it as much and as often as they can to their own best benefit, it would sound different.

(12-08-2020 02:30 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(12-08-2020 01:59 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-08-2020 12:42 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-08-2020 12:30 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(11-18-2020 04:11 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  So it's not so much "supporting segregation" as much as "supporting legislation that limits the upward financial mobility of black people"?

Except one of those means is to create 'black districts' often using public housing or other 'government driven' determinants which by definition, trap many people in these areas. I mean, what is Gerrymandering based on race except segregation? It's not the law that people can't leave, but its the same essential outcome.

Whether they support segregation or whether they support legislation whereby people become segregated is a distinction without a difference, other than intent, which I have been very clear to differentiate between 1950's and 2020's Democrats.

All I'm asking for 2020 Democrats to do is to recognize that they're creating a solution that civil rights fought so hard against.

The best solution/alternative I've come up with though is electing representatives to the house based on identity/issues rather than geography... where a state with 20% black people could elect 20% of their reps based on issues that primarily impact black people. Other than that it involves things like school and housing choice/vouchers and giving the people who live in 'the projects' some equity from the sale of that land for now profitable redevelopment. Maybe even create a NFP to do the redevelopment, but one with a profit motive (just not for the owners) as opposed to a social motive. They do things to maximise the potential of a neighborhood and not to advance some group... and then they give those profits to a different team that advances those groups.

I could have missed in the "Left Wing Talking Points - 2021" flyer we all received, but what Democratic candidate is in favor of gerrymandering?

I typically hear the opposite, especially given that Reps hold many state legislatures, which control mapping, so Dems have expressed public worry about maps being gerrymandered in 2020 (or further gerrymandered, depending on who you talk to). Notably, California set up a non-partisan commission in 2010.

I love to hear the young 'uns bullwhip about gerrymandering. It wasnt so long ago that the Dems in Texas were the king of that hill.

When they actually lost control of the state senate, and realized they were about to be on the receiving end of the horse whip that they had administered for 80 years, they did the noble thing ----- the Democratic state senators fled the state en masse to deny a quorum to the entire legislative process.

Amazing how the Dems are the pure as the driven snow in this now; one might wish that some of the 'right on top of it' youngsters might actually employ a little historical hindsight in their b-tch sessions.

As noted above -- every party gerrymanders to their benefit when they can. Never stopped any party previously. But to have someone come out and claim the Dems are the height of gerrymander purity is a load of partisan ****.

Again... who made this claim?! I think you are distorting Lad's words.

I think everybody here agrees that gerrymanding sucks and BOTH parties use it to their advantage when they are able to.

These sentences:

Quote:I could have missed in the "Left Wing Talking Points - 2021" flyer we all received, but what Democratic candidate is in favor of gerrymandering?

I typically hear the opposite,

(12-08-2020 02:46 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-08-2020 02:30 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(12-08-2020 01:59 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-08-2020 12:42 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-08-2020 12:30 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Except one of those means is to create 'black districts' often using public housing or other 'government driven' determinants which by definition, trap many people in these areas. I mean, what is Gerrymandering based on race except segregation? It's not the law that people can't leave, but its the same essential outcome.

Whether they support segregation or whether they support legislation whereby people become segregated is a distinction without a difference, other than intent, which I have been very clear to differentiate between 1950's and 2020's Democrats.

All I'm asking for 2020 Democrats to do is to recognize that they're creating a solution that civil rights fought so hard against.

The best solution/alternative I've come up with though is electing representatives to the house based on identity/issues rather than geography... where a state with 20% black people could elect 20% of their reps based on issues that primarily impact black people. Other than that it involves things like school and housing choice/vouchers and giving the people who live in 'the projects' some equity from the sale of that land for now profitable redevelopment. Maybe even create a NFP to do the redevelopment, but one with a profit motive (just not for the owners) as opposed to a social motive. They do things to maximise the potential of a neighborhood and not to advance some group... and then they give those profits to a different team that advances those groups.

I could have missed in the "Left Wing Talking Points - 2021" flyer we all received, but what Democratic candidate is in favor of gerrymandering?

I typically hear the opposite, especially given that Reps hold many state legislatures, which control mapping, so Dems have expressed public worry about maps being gerrymandered in 2020 (or further gerrymandered, depending on who you talk to). Notably, California set up a non-partisan commission in 2010.

I love to hear the young 'uns bullwhip about gerrymandering. It wasnt so long ago that the Dems in Texas were the king of that hill.

When they actually lost control of the state senate, and realized they were about to be on the receiving end of the horse whip that they had administered for 80 years, they did the noble thing ----- the Democratic state senators fled the state en masse to deny a quorum to the entire legislative process.

Amazing how the Dems are the pure as the driven snow in this now; one might wish that some of the 'right on top of it' youngsters might actually employ a little historical hindsight in their b-tch sessions.

As noted above -- every party gerrymanders to their benefit when they can. Never stopped any party previously. But to have someone come out and claim the Dems are the height of gerrymander purity is a load of partisan ****.

Again... who made this claim?! I think you are distorting Lad's words.

I think everybody here agrees that gerrymanding sucks and BOTH parties use it to their advantage when they are able to.

Here are lad's words:

I could have missed in the "Left Wing Talking Points - 2021" flyer we all received, but what Democratic candidate is in favor of gerrymandering?

I typically hear the opposite, especially given that Reps hold many state legislatures, which control mapping, so Dems have expressed public worry about maps being gerrymandered in 2020 (or further gerrymandered, depending on who you talk to). Notably, California set up a non-partisan commission in 2010.

Sounds a lot to me like he is worried aboutRepublican gerrymandering and only Republican gerrymandering.

Perhaps if he would come out and explicitly say both parties do it as much and as often as they can to their own best benefit, it would sound different.

I mean... nobody is going to come out and say "I favor gerrymandering!". Not R's or D's. It's something that is quietly done to benefit the party all the while pointing fingers at the other side.

Republicans are the latest ones to turn up the nozzle on gerrymandering so they are the ones who have the sights set on them when the topic comes up. I'm sure the Democrats would have done the same had they had the opportunity. Reason #52348 that politics sucks.

Let me be more direct, since Lad is too involved with the voices in his head to pay attention to what people actually say... and then we argue over his moronic interpretation rather than what was actually said....

Both parties gerrymander, but Republicans aren't the ones creating 'minority majority' districts so they aren't part of this issue. Doesn't mean they aren't part of other issues, but they are NOT part of THIS one. If anyone disagrees with the point, we can have that discussion, but I don't think any of us... except apparently Lad, disagrees with that. Republicans (if they had the power) would gerrymander to eliminate 'black' districts. They would argue to integrate them into strong Republican districts to dilute their power, because they're DEMOCRATS, not because they're minorities. If they voted R, they'd want them in majority Democrat districts. Democrats create them under the guise of empowering them. I have proposed to eliminate them (because they are Unconstitutional and mostly, harmful) but still seek to provide the GOAL of them, which is to empower minorities... without the inherent 'unequal' results of segregation as well as the lack of meaningful investment (because it displaces minorities).

All I've heard in response is deflection. I can't even seem to get you guys to admit that inner cities have been an issue for decades and continue to be problems... even in places like LA, OAK, CHI or NYC where 'Republicans' are not much of an issue... certainly not enough to stand in the way of a good idea. You may not like my ideas and that's fine... I don't pretend to have answers... but YOU guys don't even seem to want to admit there are problems.

Hell, I'm ARGUABLY saying that Republicans would be happy to take 'short commute' property away from the poor and give it to big business at a huge discount, displacing minorities with no alternative and taking away their voting power.... and Democrats response has been to protect those districts and the minorities that live there.... which has the unintended consequence of KEEPING them there in an area with little investment. I have proposed a way to allow them to leave the area, to PROFIT from gentrification, to IMPROVE their educational and job opportunities... but in a way that doesn't give up their political power....

and all the left has said so far is 'we aren't the only ones who gerrymander'.... which isn't even something that ANYONE said.

(12-08-2020 03:03 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(12-08-2020 02:46 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-08-2020 02:30 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(12-08-2020 01:59 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-08-2020 12:42 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I could have missed in the "Left Wing Talking Points - 2021" flyer we all received, but what Democratic candidate is in favor of gerrymandering?

I typically hear the opposite, especially given that Reps hold many state legislatures, which control mapping, so Dems have expressed public worry about maps being gerrymandered in 2020 (or further gerrymandered, depending on who you talk to). Notably, California set up a non-partisan commission in 2010.

I love to hear the young 'uns bullwhip about gerrymandering. It wasnt so long ago that the Dems in Texas were the king of that hill.

When they actually lost control of the state senate, and realized they were about to be on the receiving end of the horse whip that they had administered for 80 years, they did the noble thing ----- the Democratic state senators fled the state en masse to deny a quorum to the entire legislative process.

Amazing how the Dems are the pure as the driven snow in this now; one might wish that some of the 'right on top of it' youngsters might actually employ a little historical hindsight in their b-tch sessions.

As noted above -- every party gerrymanders to their benefit when they can. Never stopped any party previously. But to have someone come out and claim the Dems are the height of gerrymander purity is a load of partisan ****.

Again... who made this claim?! I think you are distorting Lad's words.

I think everybody here agrees that gerrymanding sucks and BOTH parties use it to their advantage when they are able to.

Here are lad's words:

I could have missed in the "Left Wing Talking Points - 2021" flyer we all received, but what Democratic candidate is in favor of gerrymandering?

I typically hear the opposite, especially given that Reps hold many state legislatures, which control mapping, so Dems have expressed public worry about maps being gerrymandered in 2020 (or further gerrymandered, depending on who you talk to). Notably, California set up a non-partisan commission in 2010.

Sounds a lot to me like he is worried aboutRepublican gerrymandering and only Republican gerrymandering.

Perhaps if he would come out and explicitly say both parties do it as much and as often as they can to their own best benefit, it would sound different.

I mean... nobody is going to come out and say "I favor gerrymandering!". Not R's or D's. It's something that is quietly done to benefit the party all the while pointing fingers at the other side.

Republicans are the latest ones to turn up the nozzle on gerrymandering so they are the ones who have the sights set on them when the topic comes up. I'm sure the Democrats would have done the same had they had the opportunity. Reason #52348 that politics sucks.

First paragraph: Bingo! Nobody is going to say they favor it, everybody is going to say they oppose it, but both sides will do it ASAP.

Second paragraph: I don't think it is the Republican's recent efforts that have put the spotlight on them. It is just the MSM, doing what they can for the party.

One reason I am not so disheartened by the election, even though we lost the Big One to the Big Guy. We won control of 5 more statehouses in a re-districting year. Unless we lose both GA races, it will be a net good year for the red. I predict we will win control of both houses in 2022.

(12-08-2020 04:17 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Let me be more direct, since Lad is too involved with the voices in his head to pay attention to what people actually say... and then we argue over his moronic interpretation rather than what was actually said....

Both parties gerrymander, but Republicans aren't the ones creating 'minority majority' districts so they aren't part of this issue. Doesn't mean they aren't part of other issues, but they are NOT part of THIS one. If anyone disagrees with the point, we can have that discussion, but I don't think any of us... except apparently Lad, disagrees with that. Republicans (if they had the power) would gerrymander to eliminate 'black' districts. They would argue to integrate them into strong Republican districts to dilute their power, because they're DEMOCRATS, not because they're minorities. If they voted R, they'd want them in majority Democrat districts. Democrats create them under the guise of empowering them. I have proposed to eliminate them (because they are Unconstitutional and mostly, harmful) but still seek to provide the GOAL of them, which is to empower minorities... without the inherent 'unequal' results of segregation as well as the lack of meaningful investment (because it displaces minorities).

All I've heard in response is deflection. I can't even seem to get you guys to admit that inner cities have been an issue for decades and continue to be problems... even in places like LA, OAK, CHI or NYC where 'Republicans' are not much of an issue... certainly not enough to stand in the way of a good idea. You may not like my ideas and that's fine... I don't pretend to have answers... but YOU guys don't even seem to want to admit there are problems.

Hell, I'm ARGUABLY saying that Republicans would be happy to take 'short commute' property away from the poor and give it to big business at a huge discount, displacing minorities with no alternative and taking away their voting power.... and Democrats response has been to protect those districts and the minorities that live there.... which has the unintended consequence of KEEPING them there in an area with little investment. I have proposed a way to allow them to leave the area, to PROFIT from gentrification, to IMPROVE their educational and job opportunities... but in a way that doesn't give up their political power....

and all the left has said so far is 'we aren't the only ones who gerrymander'.... which isn't even something that ANYONE said.

Thank goodness you're hear, Ham. Without you and your all knowing wisdom, this moron would continue to go on listening to the voices in his head and not being put on the straight and narrow path of absolute truth!

Without all knowing Ham, this moron would continue wandering aimlessly in the desert of moron. Good thing you're hear, or this moron would likely degrade your degree's worth because of how moronic he is. It's shocking that this moron even got into Rice, with how much of a moron he is.

(12-08-2020 05:42 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-08-2020 04:17 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Let me be more direct, since Lad is too involved with the voices in his head to pay attention to what people actually say... and then we argue over his moronic interpretation rather than what was actually said....

Both parties gerrymander, but Republicans aren't the ones creating 'minority majority' districts so they aren't part of this issue. Doesn't mean they aren't part of other issues, but they are NOT part of THIS one. If anyone disagrees with the point, we can have that discussion, but I don't think any of us... except apparently Lad, disagrees with that. Republicans (if they had the power) would gerrymander to eliminate 'black' districts. They would argue to integrate them into strong Republican districts to dilute their power, because they're DEMOCRATS, not because they're minorities. If they voted R, they'd want them in majority Democrat districts. Democrats create them under the guise of empowering them. I have proposed to eliminate them (because they are Unconstitutional and mostly, harmful) but still seek to provide the GOAL of them, which is to empower minorities... without the inherent 'unequal' results of segregation as well as the lack of meaningful investment (because it displaces minorities).

All I've heard in response is deflection. I can't even seem to get you guys to admit that inner cities have been an issue for decades and continue to be problems... even in places like LA, OAK, CHI or NYC where 'Republicans' are not much of an issue... certainly not enough to stand in the way of a good idea. You may not like my ideas and that's fine... I don't pretend to have answers... but YOU guys don't even seem to want to admit there are problems.

Hell, I'm ARGUABLY saying that Republicans would be happy to take 'short commute' property away from the poor and give it to big business at a huge discount, displacing minorities with no alternative and taking away their voting power.... and Democrats response has been to protect those districts and the minorities that live there.... which has the unintended consequence of KEEPING them there in an area with little investment. I have proposed a way to allow them to leave the area, to PROFIT from gentrification, to IMPROVE their educational and job opportunities... but in a way that doesn't give up their political power....

and all the left has said so far is 'we aren't the only ones who gerrymander'.... which isn't even something that ANYONE said.

Thank goodness you're hear, Ham. Without you and your all knowing wisdom, this moron would continue to go on listening to the voices in his head and not being put on the straight and narrow path of absolute truth!

Without all knowing Ham, this moron would continue wandering aimlessly in the desert of moron. Good thing you're hear, or this moron would likely degrade your degree's worth because of how moronic he is. It's shocking that this moron even got into Rice, with how much of a moron he is.

You're welcome!

But the word is 'here', not 'hear'. Its nice to still be needed.

Your tendency to read moronic things in to what people actually write so that you can argue with what you want to believe they said as opposed to what they actually said is your downfall... and that's of your own doing. You do it incessantly.... even to a small degree here. I never spoke about truth, except in the factual presentation of what I wrote and clearly intended... and not about devaluing my degree... so because you can't really attack that (because you know you do it yourself) you act as if I'm trying to convince you that I'm right about something. I've admitted dozens of times... even 'hear' that these are just my ideas. I'd LOVE to get some input from your side... but you seem only interested in arguing about what you THINK someone else said and making them defend the 'voices in your head'. In the other active thread here, you blame your tendency to do that on others, taking no ownership yourself because you think they take too long to respond or don't quote you... even though you certainly had no trouble finding a message to you this time without the quote. We all get that we can't possibly read every message... but if you didn't make up what we said because it suits your preconception, we wouldn't have to dig back into dozens of responses to see what was actually said in its proper context.

The 'safest place' comment is another example. You read a quote of a quote... and you respond to that in isolation... ignoring the point he was making by quoting it and instead making a pointless issue of something that you WOULDN'T have said, if you actually read the quote.

So you read an edited comment and then have the hubris to challenge it, without taking 5 seconds to read the actual quote or context.... and despite the fact that it has nothing to do with anything anyone said... similar to my 'hear' comment above. I know what you meant.... I just chose to respond in kind to your constant BS.

More important.,.. nothing in your response above attempts to respond to the issues I've raised... just as you didn't with the 'safest place' comment... and you have the balls to act as if I'm the 'know it all'?? Sorry Chief... That's on you. I have opinions and am more than happy to be swayed by facts or persuasive arguments... you just rarely present any. Most of what you do is challenge pointless details of the comments of others.

I'll help you again...

HERE is the moronic comment.

Quote:I could have missed in the "Left Wing Talking Points - 2021" flyer we all received, but what Democratic candidate is in favor of gerrymandering?

1) nobody is talking about 2021. This dated back decades. The term was coined 200 years ago.
2) nobody talks about gerrymandering, except to accuse 'the other side' of it.
3) In a conversation where we're talking about the creation of majority minority districts in order to create representation in the house for those minorities, are you actually suggesting that Democrats don't engage in that but Republicans do? Get serious, Lad.... and this conversation came out of another of your moronic comments about Republicans 'coming around' on diversity. MOST democrats are PROUD of the fact that they create representation for minorities. You took pride in it initially, then backed away when it was pointed out that this comes with a downside.

If you want to play your games, I didn't say YOU were a moron... I said you made a moronic interpretation. I stand by that opinion of your comment. You do it so much, my choices are that it is intentional or that you really are dumb. I wouldn't get mad at you or be insulted by your comments if I thought you actually were a moron. I think you do it in order to avoid conversations that aren't going your way or when you don't have a good response... or when you just want to be a jerk.

(12-08-2020 06:52 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I'll help you again...

HERE is the moronic comment.

Quote:I could have missed in the "Left Wing Talking Points - 2021" flyer we all received, but what Democratic candidate is in favor of gerrymandering?

1) nobody is talking about 2021. This dated back decades. The term was coined 200 years ago.
2) nobody talks about gerrymandering, except to accuse 'the other side' of it.
3) In a conversation where we're talking about the creation of majority minority districts in order to create representation in the house for those minorities, are you actually suggesting that Democrats don't engage in that but Republicans do? Get serious, Lad.... and this conversation came out of another of your moronic comments about Republicans 'coming around' on diversity. MOST democrats are PROUD of the fact that they create representation for minorities. You took pride in it initially, then backed away when it was pointed out that this comes with a downside.

If you want to play your games, I didn't say YOU were a moron... I said you made a moronic interpretation. I stand by that opinion of your comment. You do it so much, my choices are that it is intentional or that you really are dumb. I wouldn't get mad at you or be insulted by your comments if I thought you actually were a moron. I think you do it in order to avoid conversations that aren't going your way or when you don't have a good response... or when you just want to be a jerk.

You know that is a strategy for Reps too, right?

Gerrymandering can be completed by concentrating power for your opponent in one district to distribute power more evenly across other districts, allowing you to win more of them. So I'm arguing that this issue (packing minorities into a voting district) isn't unique to Dems, since Reps engage in the same kind of gerrymandering.

(12-08-2020 06:52 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I'll help you again...

HERE is the moronic comment.

Quote:I could have missed in the "Left Wing Talking Points - 2021" flyer we all received, but what Democratic candidate is in favor of gerrymandering?

1) nobody is talking about 2021. This dated back decades. The term was coined 200 years ago.
2) nobody talks about gerrymandering, except to accuse 'the other side' of it.
3) In a conversation where we're talking about the creation of majority minority districts in order to create representation in the house for those minorities, are you actually suggesting that Democrats don't engage in that but Republicans do? Get serious, Lad.... and this conversation came out of another of your moronic comments about Republicans 'coming around' on diversity. MOST democrats are PROUD of the fact that they create representation for minorities. You took pride in it initially, then backed away when it was pointed out that this comes with a downside.

If you want to play your games, I didn't say YOU were a moron... I said you made a moronic interpretation. I stand by that opinion of your comment. You do it so much, my choices are that it is intentional or that you really are dumb. I wouldn't get mad at you or be insulted by your comments if I thought you actually were a moron. I think you do it in order to avoid conversations that aren't going your way or when you don't have a good response... or when you just want to be a jerk.

Ham, I think that you are are really smart guy and definitely not a moron. As such, I'm sure that you recognize the difference between language that is inflammatory ("your moronic interpretation") and language that is not ("your ridiculous interpretation"). You can crap on Lad all you want (I honestly don't know what the deal is between you) but you might as well own it IMO.

(12-08-2020 07:30 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(12-08-2020 06:52 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I'll help you again...

HERE is the moronic comment.

Quote:I could have missed in the "Left Wing Talking Points - 2021" flyer we all received, but what Democratic candidate is in favor of gerrymandering?

1) nobody is talking about 2021. This dated back decades. The term was coined 200 years ago.
2) nobody talks about gerrymandering, except to accuse 'the other side' of it.
3) In a conversation where we're talking about the creation of majority minority districts in order to create representation in the house for those minorities, are you actually suggesting that Democrats don't engage in that but Republicans do? Get serious, Lad.... and this conversation came out of another of your moronic comments about Republicans 'coming around' on diversity. MOST democrats are PROUD of the fact that they create representation for minorities. You took pride in it initially, then backed away when it was pointed out that this comes with a downside.

If you want to play your games, I didn't say YOU were a moron... I said you made a moronic interpretation. I stand by that opinion of your comment. You do it so much, my choices are that it is intentional or that you really are dumb. I wouldn't get mad at you or be insulted by your comments if I thought you actually were a moron. I think you do it in order to avoid conversations that aren't going your way or when you don't have a good response... or when you just want to be a jerk.

Ham, I think that you are are really smart guy and definitely not a moron. As such, I'm sure that you recognize the difference between language that is inflammatory ("your moronic interpretation") and language that is not ("your ridiculous interpretation"). You can crap on Lad all you want (I honestly don't know what the deal is between you) but you might as well own it IMO.

Maybe I'm living in a different world, but it's not as if every other back and forth on this board between every poster is completely and perfectly interpreted and understanding of the previous comment.

This board doesn't foster discussion or discourse by the sheer nature of it being a message board where back and forth is inherently more difficult than speaking with one another. You can't read one's tone, you can't easily ask clarifying questions, people are sometimes posting in between tasks, and on and on. But yeah, I'm the only one on here intentionally posting moronically... For ****'s sake.

I definitely post with snark on occasion (including the line about our 2021 talking points) and I will own that. I'll even own when I make a mistake. But I do make an honest effort 90% of the time to respond intelligently. So I must just be dumb.

(12-08-2020 07:17 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  So I'm arguing that this issue (packing minorities into a voting district) isn't unique to Dems, since Reps engage in the same kind of gerrymandering.

So now you are arguing in agreement with my point made umpteen posts ago? Good! Glad to see your opinions can be changed.

Now you are in full agreement with me and 93 and everybody else.

(12-08-2020 07:55 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-08-2020 07:17 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  So I'm arguing that this issue (packing minorities into a voting district) isn't unique to Dems, since Reps engage in the same kind of gerrymandering.

So now you are arguing in agreement with my point made umpteen posts ago? Good! Glad to see your opinions can be changed.

Now you are in full agreement with me and 93 and everybody else.

My opinion wasn’t changed - y’all misinterpreted what I was saying to Ham. I was providing a foil to Ham’s statement focusing on how Democrats are responsible for gerrymandering with respect to race - pointing out that Dems don’t hold the majority of state houses and have enacted bipartisan redistricting measures makes it clear that the “segregation” by gerrymandering clearly isn’t a Democrat only issue (so Republicans must also support segregation). It’s definitely a bit of a whataboutism, but I felt it necessary to point out that gerrymandering isn’t unique to D’s, or supported by all D’s.

I will make sure to explain my intentions more clearly next time.