(12-23-2016 06:33 PM)ClemVegas Wrote:  

(12-23-2016 05:53 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  One thing you are ignoring is that the restroom aspect of the bill is only one part that concerns people that oppose HB2. There is much more to the bill than where you pee.

i've noticed that the people who use this talking point all support 'transgenders' using opposite sex bathroom. you just know it is a loser so you reference the rest of the bill as horrible. you never actually talk about the rest of the bill though.

Read the bill sometime. There are five parts to it and only one deals with bathrooms. It prevents any local government, whether city, town, or county, from regulating wage levels, hours of labor, or benefits of private employers. It changes the way people pursue claims of discrimination because of race, religion, color, national origin, biological sex or handicap in state courts. At first in took away the rights of citizens to sue for this in state courts but after the uproar they amended the bill to restore that right, but shortened the window for filing complaints from three years to one. It makes it clear that the state will not allow a county, town or city to offer protections from job, accommodations, or services discrimination based on sexual orientation or identity.

yes, it said that cities don't have jurisdiction to pass specific laws that are supposed to be passed at state or federal level. there is nothing controversial about that. the charlotte ordinance was illegal.

i thought liberal Democrats were supposed to be pro-women but you don't care at all that many women and girls are not comfortable with men in their restrooms and lockerrooms.

moreover, y ou never provide any evidence that a man can be a woman. you don't even think this evidence is necessary, that's how irrational your thinking is. there is no such thing as transgendered rights if a person can't change his or her gender.

(12-23-2016 09:15 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(12-23-2016 06:36 PM)ClemVegas Wrote:  

(12-23-2016 05:50 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  You have are painting with very broad brush.

Ok.

fact is the HB2 only happened in a response to the ultra liberal Charlotte city council mandating private business allow 'transgenders' use opposite sex restrooms. it wasn't a conservative or moderate city council that passed this ordinance.

I don't know much about the make up of their council. I know there are two Republican members. Regardless I am referring to the opposition to HB2 not the CLTCC. You seem to think anyone that opposes it is a liberal. That is far from true.

it's mostly true.

(12-23-2016 10:04 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(12-23-2016 06:33 PM)ClemVegas Wrote:  

(12-23-2016 05:53 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  One thing you are ignoring is that the restroom aspect of the bill is only one part that concerns people that oppose HB2. There is much more to the bill than where you pee.

I've noticed that the people who use this talking point all support 'transgenders' using opposite sex bathroom. you just know it is a loser so you reference the rest of the bill as horrible. you never actually talk about the rest of the bill though.

Read the bill sometime. There are five parts to it and only one deals with bathrooms. It prevents any local government, whether city, town, or county, from regulating wage levels, hours of labor, or benefits of private employers. It changes the way people pursue claims of discrimination because of race, religion, color, national origin, biological sex or handicap in state courts. At first in took away the rights of citizens to sue for this in state courts but after the uproar they amended the bill to restore that right, but shortened the window for filing complaints from three years to one. It makes it clear that the state will not allow a county, town or city to offer protections from job, accommodations, or services discrimination based on sexual orientation or identity.

This is the crux of the problem. You don't have to pass the other four parts in order to pass the bathroom part. You don't have to repeal the bathroom part in order to repeal the other four parts. By tying all parts together, both sides are way, way overreaching on this issue.

There is a simple and viable solution. Repeal the other four parts. Leave the bathroom part in place. Let private businesses determine who can use which of their rest rooms, and let the market sort it from there.

(12-23-2016 04:12 PM)ClemVegas Wrote:  

(12-23-2016 03:09 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(12-23-2016 01:37 PM)ClemVegas Wrote:  

(12-23-2016 01:34 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(12-23-2016 01:04 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Terry, Clem doesn't have any schooling in the political history of the south or North Carolina. Fortunately that's one of my master's. For those in need of some learning:

The political parties switch back and forth over a general period of 40 to 80 year cycles. These cycles mirror the long wave economic Kondtrietive Cycle. When Lyndon Johnson pushed theoruhg the civil rights act he mentioned that the Democrats would lose the South for a generation, he underestimated.

In the South, racists are drawn into the Republican Party and have been since 1964. However even the term "racist" implies some thought. Most of the time the "racism" is really the economic fear of the lowest rung whites having to compete with the lowest rung blacks, and now Hispanics. You tap the fear with horror stories that fly in the face of the perosnal relationships these people have with people not like them.

The Democratic party in the South is now the party of those with higher education and black folk. It's that simple. And there are several reasons for that and will explain later if needed.

North Carolina was a one party state east of the mountains, after the Republican Party was destroyed in the late 1890's in events such as the Wilmington Coup where a black Republican government was burned out of town. Look it up.

Mountain folks who never supported the Civil War, were the state's few white Republicans.

The Democratic Party itself was split east and west for 80 years between 1900 and 1980.

Then after the Civil Rights Act, Republicans east of the mountains found they could use race as an issue. Jessie Helms was expert at this. Over time the rural, more backward areas that were white became more and more Republican as their economies faded, and people moved away.

When the carpetbagger Republicans moved in they nested in the white, conservative suburbs around Charlotte, and Raleigh. Bob Rucho east of Charlotte is the prime example of such a parasite.

This is the current situation - we have legislative districts that are made up of ignorant and fearful rural populations with blacks packed into weird shapes so that they have no influence over the white districts. The same thing was done with university area populations.

While the actual legislator might have a degree, his average constituent is parochial. Logical arguments don't work on people who are not very educated, don't appreciate logic, or "feel" rather than "think".

Men in drag have been using women's rooms for decades. There is no recorded case of an assault in a women's room by a man dressed as a women. Such crimes are committed by men who want to hurt women, not men dressed as women and considering themselves as women.

But this issue is a red herring to cover up what the NC General Assembly took from the Cities and Towns in regards to protections in housing, and employment. This is the real issue - to be able to fire people for being queer and to kick them out of an apartment for being queer.

I remember when an elected Republican in NC was respectable. A businessman, a graduate of UNC, Duke, WF, etc. He wasn't a damn lawn mower salesman or some other huckster. He understood business and he understood leaving people alone in their homes. He didn't try to ram his religion down your throat. You could respect him, even if you didn't share his politics.

Today we have a United States Senator without a real degree from UNC, Duke, Davidson, WF, or NC State - it's unfathomable based on how NC operated for most of the 20th Century.

All that is gone now.

We are entering the 7th Party System (look up the first 1-6) and it looks to be very disturbing as the parties are moving toward ideological and racial poles and not difference based on certain issues that have traction for 20-40 years.

If this course is maintained what you will get is political violence. It will make the left's violence of the 60's seem mild.

I'm not sure that many people outside North Carolina truly appreciate the stranglehold the NC Republican Party has managed to place on the state legislature. You can certainly argue that both parties have been guilty of gerrymandering in the past. But the fact is that the GOP is just a lot better at it than the dems ever were.

Those Republican legislators who passed HB2 are virtually immune from public opinion today. They are untouchable, and they know it. Governors, not so much, since they must run statewide. So McCrory lost in spite of the GOP's success in the state. Truth be told, I think he was largely a puppet anyway, and disposable. About the only power an NC governor has today is the veto (which he only recently got). But with the legislative majorities in place, that's a toothless power.

When the Governor is a Republican, the legislature allows him to make appointments and award patronage. When he is a Democrat, they just take that power away. Until the Democrats figure out a way to win a legislative majority in a census year (so they can reconfigure voting districts), they are going to remain powerless for a long time.

given the NC GOP only recently won the majority of the NC legislature (about 5 years ago) for the first time since after the Civil war, it is kind of odd that you are asserting that GOP has doe all these horrible things but Democrat party hasn't. The GOP hasn't had the power it has like it does now for very long.

Democrats invented gerrymandering.

i believe most people in NC support HB2, which is why Democrats pulled sporting events out of the state, to drum up opposition to it.

Actually....that is not correct.

The word gerrymander (originally written Gerry-mander) was used for the first time in the Boston Gazette on 26 March 1812. The word was created in reaction to a redrawing of Massachusetts state senate election districts under Governor Elbridge Gerry. In 1812, Governor Gerry signed a bill that redistricted Massachusetts to benefit his Democratic-Republican Party. When mapped, one of the contorted districts in the Boston area was said to resemble the shape of a salamander."

"The Democratic-Republican Party was founded in 1791 by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison as a party opposed to the policies of Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton and his Federalist Party. Members of the party generally believed that a strong federal government would weaken the rights of the states and the people and insisted on a strict construction of the Constitution. Fundamentally, they viewed the United States more as a confederation of sovereign entities woven together by a common interest.

The Democratic-Republican Party and Federalist Party differed most in their views on foreign policy and the economy. The Federalists believed that American foreign policy should favor British interests and strongly supported the Jay Treaty with Britain, while the Democratic-Republicans wanted to strengthen ties with the French, who they saw as more democratic after its recent revolution. On economic matters, the Democratic-Republicans believed in protecting the interests of the working classes through the promotion of an agrarian economy and saw the establishment of a national Bank of the United States (which Hamilton strongly favored) as a means of usurping power that belonged to individual states. The Federalists saw industry and manufacturing as the best means of domestic growth and economic self-sufficiency and favored the existence of protective tariffs both as a means of protecting domestic production and as a source of revenue.

The party had significant success during its existence, sending four candidates to the presidency and dominating Congress and most state governments outside of New England after 1800. By 1824, however, the party was split four ways and lacked a cohesive center. Members eventually gravitated towards the new Democratic Party forming under Andrew Jackson or to the National Republican Party, the precursor to the Whig Party."

http://us-political-parties.insidegov.co...ican-Party


The Republican Party grew out of the Whigs and the Democratic-Republican Party.

The party's founding members chose the name "Republican Party" in the mid-1850s as homage to the values of republicanism promoted by Thomas Jefferson's Republican party.

It was founded by anti-slavery activists, modernists, ex-Whigs, and ex-Free Soilers in 1854.

So, you see, the old Democratic-Republican Party of the "gerrymanding" fame is not the same as the Democratic Party of today.

That "Democratic-Republican Party" died in 1825.

While not identical, it is more closely aligned with the current Republican Party than the Democratic Party.

In fact, the GOP website says this:

"The name “Republican” was chosen, alluding to Thomas Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party...."


http://www.gop.com/history/


So, you would not have been completely accurate if you had said that the Republican Party invented gerrymandering, but you would have been more accurate than saying "Democrats invented gerrymandering."

i' thinking that people aren't going to get an accurate history lesson from a liberal like you who asserts white racists left the historically racist party because Nixon, a man who supported civil rights, adopted a 'southern strategy' based on white racism. You obviously don't care about facts , you goal is to do propaganda. you have a narrative that you push regardless of the facts.

Nixon ran against George Wallace. It does not get more racist than George Wallace. So any white racist would have voted for George Wallace, not a man in Nixon who had been praised by MLK.

I give you citations to back up my opinions or statements. Those are the "facts" that support my position.

You don't. You just make blanket statements and throw around disparaging remarks (notice that I don't do that).

(12-24-2016 10:59 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(12-23-2016 04:12 PM)ClemVegas Wrote:  

(12-23-2016 03:09 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(12-23-2016 01:37 PM)ClemVegas Wrote:  

(12-23-2016 01:34 PM)ken d Wrote:  I'm not sure that many people outside North Carolina truly appreciate the stranglehold the NC Republican Party has managed to place on the state legislature. You can certainly argue that both parties have been guilty of gerrymandering in the past. But the fact is that the GOP is just a lot better at it than the dems ever were.

Those Republican legislators who passed HB2 are virtually immune from public opinion today. They are untouchable, and they know it. Governors, not so much, since they must run statewide. So McCrory lost in spite of the GOP's success in the state. Truth be told, I think he was largely a puppet anyway, and disposable. About the only power an NC governor has today is the veto (which he only recently got). But with the legislative majorities in place, that's a toothless power.

When the Governor is a Republican, the legislature allows him to make appointments and award patronage. When he is a Democrat, they just take that power away. Until the Democrats figure out a way to win a legislative majority in a census year (so they can reconfigure voting districts), they are going to remain powerless for a long time.

given the NC GOP only recently won the majority of the NC legislature (about 5 years ago) for the first time since after the Civil war, it is kind of odd that you are asserting that GOP has doe all these horrible things but Democrat party hasn't. The GOP hasn't had the power it has like it does now for very long.

Democrats invented gerrymandering.

i believe most people in NC support HB2, which is why Democrats pulled sporting events out of the state, to drum up opposition to it.

Actually....that is not correct.

The word gerrymander (originally written Gerry-mander) was used for the first time in the Boston Gazette on 26 March 1812. The word was created in reaction to a redrawing of Massachusetts state senate election districts under Governor Elbridge Gerry. In 1812, Governor Gerry signed a bill that redistricted Massachusetts to benefit his Democratic-Republican Party. When mapped, one of the contorted districts in the Boston area was said to resemble the shape of a salamander."

"The Democratic-Republican Party was founded in 1791 by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison as a party opposed to the policies of Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton and his Federalist Party. Members of the party generally believed that a strong federal government would weaken the rights of the states and the people and insisted on a strict construction of the Constitution. Fundamentally, they viewed the United States more as a confederation of sovereign entities woven together by a common interest.

The Democratic-Republican Party and Federalist Party differed most in their views on foreign policy and the economy. The Federalists believed that American foreign policy should favor British interests and strongly supported the Jay Treaty with Britain, while the Democratic-Republicans wanted to strengthen ties with the French, who they saw as more democratic after its recent revolution. On economic matters, the Democratic-Republicans believed in protecting the interests of the working classes through the promotion of an agrarian economy and saw the establishment of a national Bank of the United States (which Hamilton strongly favored) as a means of usurping power that belonged to individual states. The Federalists saw industry and manufacturing as the best means of domestic growth and economic self-sufficiency and favored the existence of protective tariffs both as a means of protecting domestic production and as a source of revenue.

The party had significant success during its existence, sending four candidates to the presidency and dominating Congress and most state governments outside of New England after 1800. By 1824, however, the party was split four ways and lacked a cohesive center. Members eventually gravitated towards the new Democratic Party forming under Andrew Jackson or to the National Republican Party, the precursor to the Whig Party."

http://us-political-parties.insidegov.co...ican-Party


The Republican Party grew out of the Whigs and the Democratic-Republican Party.

The party's founding members chose the name "Republican Party" in the mid-1850s as homage to the values of republicanism promoted by Thomas Jefferson's Republican party.

It was founded by anti-slavery activists, modernists, ex-Whigs, and ex-Free Soilers in 1854.

So, you see, the old Democratic-Republican Party of the "gerrymanding" fame is not the same as the Democratic Party of today.

That "Democratic-Republican Party" died in 1825.

While not identical, it is more closely aligned with the current Republican Party than the Democratic Party.

In fact, the GOP website says this:

"The name “Republican” was chosen, alluding to Thomas Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party...."


http://www.gop.com/history/


So, you would not have been completely accurate if you had said that the Republican Party invented gerrymandering, but you would have been more accurate than saying "Democrats invented gerrymandering."

i' thinking that people aren't going to get an accurate history lesson from a liberal like you who asserts white racists left the historically racist party because Nixon, a man who supported civil rights, adopted a 'southern strategy' based on white racism. You obviously don't care about facts , you goal is to do propaganda. you have a narrative that you push regardless of the facts.

Nixon ran against George Wallace. It does not get more racist than George Wallace. So any white racist would have voted for George Wallace, not a man in Nixon who had been praised by MLK.

I give you citations to back up my opinions or statements. Those are the "facts" that support my position.

You don't. You just make blanket statements and throw around disparaging remarks (notice that I don't do that).

The Democrats are generally recognized as the successor to the Democratic-Republican Party. Just because the Federalists died and they had splinters turn into the Whigs doesn't change that.

But some of the worst gerrymanders were those of the dying Democratic party in the South, particularly in Texas and North Carolina, places where the Democrats whine the most about it.

They had to triple the number of election precincts in Harris County (Houston) from around 600 to 1700 to handle the Democratic gerrymanders in 1990. They kept re-drawing the districts and they kept getting thrown out by the courts. I got moved into different districts nearly every two years during that decade, Mike Andrews (one of the Democrats they drew the districts for), Tom Delay, Bill Archer.

(12-24-2016 07:33 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-23-2016 10:04 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(12-23-2016 06:33 PM)ClemVegas Wrote:  

(12-23-2016 05:53 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  One thing you are ignoring is that the restroom aspect of the bill is only one part that concerns people that oppose HB2. There is much more to the bill than where you pee.

I've noticed that the people who use this talking point all support 'transgenders' using opposite sex bathroom. you just know it is a loser so you reference the rest of the bill as horrible. you never actually talk about the rest of the bill though.

Read the bill sometime. There are five parts to it and only one deals with bathrooms. It prevents any local government, whether city, town, or county, from regulating wage levels, hours of labor, or benefits of private employers. It changes the way people pursue claims of discrimination because of race, religion, color, national origin, biological sex or handicap in state courts. At first in took away the rights of citizens to sue for this in state courts but after the uproar they amended the bill to restore that right, but shortened the window for filing complaints from three years to one. It makes it clear that the state will not allow a county, town or city to offer protections from job, accommodations, or services discrimination based on sexual orientation or identity.

This is the crux of the problem. You don't have to pass the other four parts in order to pass the bathroom part. You don't have to repeal the bathroom part in order to repeal the other four parts. By tying all parts together, both sides are way, way overreaching on this issue.

There is a simple and viable solution. Repeal the other four parts. Leave the bathroom part in place. Let private businesses determine who can use which of their rest rooms, and let the market sort it from there.

The bathroom part was just a vehicle in order to pass the other parts of the bill. There has been a five year long campaign by the GOP legislature to usurp the power of local government and tip the balance of shared power between the branches of state government overwhelmingly into the legislative branch. The state constitution grants the legislative branch more power than the other two and all authority to govern at the local government level is derived from the state, but a tradition of benevolent, evenhanded, measured rule has been broken. It is an abuse of power and transcends party, setting the table for cronyism and corruption from whomever happens to control the General Assembly at any point in time. The checks and balances are few and far between.

(12-24-2016 11:17 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-24-2016 10:59 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(12-23-2016 04:12 PM)ClemVegas Wrote:  

(12-23-2016 03:09 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(12-23-2016 01:37 PM)ClemVegas Wrote:  given the NC GOP only recently won the majority of the NC legislature (about 5 years ago) for the first time since after the Civil war, it is kind of odd that you are asserting that GOP has doe all these horrible things but Democrat party hasn't. The GOP hasn't had the power it has like it does now for very long.

Democrats invented gerrymandering.

i believe most people in NC support HB2, which is why Democrats pulled sporting events out of the state, to drum up opposition to it.

Actually....that is not correct.

The word gerrymander (originally written Gerry-mander) was used for the first time in the Boston Gazette on 26 March 1812. The word was created in reaction to a redrawing of Massachusetts state senate election districts under Governor Elbridge Gerry. In 1812, Governor Gerry signed a bill that redistricted Massachusetts to benefit his Democratic-Republican Party. When mapped, one of the contorted districts in the Boston area was said to resemble the shape of a salamander."

"The Democratic-Republican Party was founded in 1791 by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison as a party opposed to the policies of Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton and his Federalist Party. Members of the party generally believed that a strong federal government would weaken the rights of the states and the people and insisted on a strict construction of the Constitution. Fundamentally, they viewed the United States more as a confederation of sovereign entities woven together by a common interest.

The Democratic-Republican Party and Federalist Party differed most in their views on foreign policy and the economy. The Federalists believed that American foreign policy should favor British interests and strongly supported the Jay Treaty with Britain, while the Democratic-Republicans wanted to strengthen ties with the French, who they saw as more democratic after its recent revolution. On economic matters, the Democratic-Republicans believed in protecting the interests of the working classes through the promotion of an agrarian economy and saw the establishment of a national Bank of the United States (which Hamilton strongly favored) as a means of usurping power that belonged to individual states. The Federalists saw industry and manufacturing as the best means of domestic growth and economic self-sufficiency and favored the existence of protective tariffs both as a means of protecting domestic production and as a source of revenue.

The party had significant success during its existence, sending four candidates to the presidency and dominating Congress and most state governments outside of New England after 1800. By 1824, however, the party was split four ways and lacked a cohesive center. Members eventually gravitated towards the new Democratic Party forming under Andrew Jackson or to the National Republican Party, the precursor to the Whig Party."

http://us-political-parties.insidegov.co...ican-Party


The Republican Party grew out of the Whigs and the Democratic-Republican Party.

The party's founding members chose the name "Republican Party" in the mid-1850s as homage to the values of republicanism promoted by Thomas Jefferson's Republican party.

It was founded by anti-slavery activists, modernists, ex-Whigs, and ex-Free Soilers in 1854.

So, you see, the old Democratic-Republican Party of the "gerrymanding" fame is not the same as the Democratic Party of today.

That "Democratic-Republican Party" died in 1825.

While not identical, it is more closely aligned with the current Republican Party than the Democratic Party.

In fact, the GOP website says this:

"The name “Republican” was chosen, alluding to Thomas Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party...."


http://www.gop.com/history/


So, you would not have been completely accurate if you had said that the Republican Party invented gerrymandering, but you would have been more accurate than saying "Democrats invented gerrymandering."

i' thinking that people aren't going to get an accurate history lesson from a liberal like you who asserts white racists left the historically racist party because Nixon, a man who supported civil rights, adopted a 'southern strategy' based on white racism. You obviously don't care about facts , you goal is to do propaganda. you have a narrative that you push regardless of the facts.

Nixon ran against George Wallace. It does not get more racist than George Wallace. So any white racist would have voted for George Wallace, not a man in Nixon who had been praised by MLK.

I give you citations to back up my opinions or statements. Those are the "facts" that support my position.

You don't. You just make blanket statements and throw around disparaging remarks (notice that I don't do that).

The Democrats are generally recognized as the successor to the Democratic-Republican Party. Just because the Federalists died and they had splinters turn into the Whigs doesn't change that.

But some of the worst gerrymanders were those of the dying Democratic party in the South, particularly in Texas and North Carolina, places where the Democrats whine the most about it.

They had to triple the number of election precincts in Harris County (Houston) from around 600 to 1700 to handle the Democratic gerrymanders in 1990. They kept re-drawing the districts and they kept getting thrown out by the courts. I got moved into different districts nearly every two years during that decade, Mike Andrews (one of the Democrats they drew the districts for), Tom Delay, Bill Archer.

Where is your information about NC. It just isn't correct. The state was so overwhelmingly Democratic during most of the 20th century that elections were decided at primary. When the Republicans began to become competitive in the 80s there was gerrymandering by the Democrats but nothing to the extent of the current Republican version. I should know, my state Rep. drew them.

Again, the Gerrymandering is required to create districts guaranteed to elect minority representatives in order to comply with the federal Voting Rights Act. Once those districts are created, there are two inevitable knock-on effects. One, remaining districts will tend toward republicans more than the state at large. Two, at least some of the remaining districts will reflect some gerrymandering characteristics. You can't gerrymander a district without impacting adjoining districts. Work out the geometry for yourself.

If you don't want gerrymandered districts, the solution is easy. Get rid of the minority district requirements of the Voting Rights Act. Or go to proportional representation, which addresses the issue a different way.

(12-24-2016 11:30 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(12-24-2016 11:17 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-24-2016 10:59 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(12-23-2016 04:12 PM)ClemVegas Wrote:  

(12-23-2016 03:09 PM)TerryD Wrote:  Actually....that is not correct.

The word gerrymander (originally written Gerry-mander) was used for the first time in the Boston Gazette on 26 March 1812. The word was created in reaction to a redrawing of Massachusetts state senate election districts under Governor Elbridge Gerry. In 1812, Governor Gerry signed a bill that redistricted Massachusetts to benefit his Democratic-Republican Party. When mapped, one of the contorted districts in the Boston area was said to resemble the shape of a salamander."

"The Democratic-Republican Party was founded in 1791 by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison as a party opposed to the policies of Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton and his Federalist Party. Members of the party generally believed that a strong federal government would weaken the rights of the states and the people and insisted on a strict construction of the Constitution. Fundamentally, they viewed the United States more as a confederation of sovereign entities woven together by a common interest.

The Democratic-Republican Party and Federalist Party differed most in their views on foreign policy and the economy. The Federalists believed that American foreign policy should favor British interests and strongly supported the Jay Treaty with Britain, while the Democratic-Republicans wanted to strengthen ties with the French, who they saw as more democratic after its recent revolution. On economic matters, the Democratic-Republicans believed in protecting the interests of the working classes through the promotion of an agrarian economy and saw the establishment of a national Bank of the United States (which Hamilton strongly favored) as a means of usurping power that belonged to individual states. The Federalists saw industry and manufacturing as the best means of domestic growth and economic self-sufficiency and favored the existence of protective tariffs both as a means of protecting domestic production and as a source of revenue.

The party had significant success during its existence, sending four candidates to the presidency and dominating Congress and most state governments outside of New England after 1800. By 1824, however, the party was split four ways and lacked a cohesive center. Members eventually gravitated towards the new Democratic Party forming under Andrew Jackson or to the National Republican Party, the precursor to the Whig Party."

http://us-political-parties.insidegov.co...ican-Party


The Republican Party grew out of the Whigs and the Democratic-Republican Party.

The party's founding members chose the name "Republican Party" in the mid-1850s as homage to the values of republicanism promoted by Thomas Jefferson's Republican party.

It was founded by anti-slavery activists, modernists, ex-Whigs, and ex-Free Soilers in 1854.

So, you see, the old Democratic-Republican Party of the "gerrymanding" fame is not the same as the Democratic Party of today.

That "Democratic-Republican Party" died in 1825.

While not identical, it is more closely aligned with the current Republican Party than the Democratic Party.

In fact, the GOP website says this:

"The name “Republican” was chosen, alluding to Thomas Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party...."


http://www.gop.com/history/


So, you would not have been completely accurate if you had said that the Republican Party invented gerrymandering, but you would have been more accurate than saying "Democrats invented gerrymandering."

i' thinking that people aren't going to get an accurate history lesson from a liberal like you who asserts white racists left the historically racist party because Nixon, a man who supported civil rights, adopted a 'southern strategy' based on white racism. You obviously don't care about facts , you goal is to do propaganda. you have a narrative that you push regardless of the facts.

Nixon ran against George Wallace. It does not get more racist than George Wallace. So any white racist would have voted for George Wallace, not a man in Nixon who had been praised by MLK.

I give you citations to back up my opinions or statements. Those are the "facts" that support my position.

You don't. You just make blanket statements and throw around disparaging remarks (notice that I don't do that).

The Democrats are generally recognized as the successor to the Democratic-Republican Party. Just because the Federalists died and they had splinters turn into the Whigs doesn't change that.

But some of the worst gerrymanders were those of the dying Democratic party in the South, particularly in Texas and North Carolina, places where the Democrats whine the most about it.

They had to triple the number of election precincts in Harris County (Houston) from around 600 to 1700 to handle the Democratic gerrymanders in 1990. They kept re-drawing the districts and they kept getting thrown out by the courts. I got moved into different districts nearly every two years during that decade, Mike Andrews (one of the Democrats they drew the districts for), Tom Delay, Bill Archer.

Where is your information about NC. It just isn't correct. The state was so overwhelmingly Democratic during most of the 20th century that elections were decided at primary. When the Republicans began to become competitive in the 80s there was gerrymandering by the Democrats

That much is fact.

Quote:but nothing to the extent of the current Republican version. I should know, my state Rep. drew them.

That part is opinion.

(12-24-2016 05:14 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Again, the Gerrymandering is required to create districts guaranteed to elect minority representatives in order to comply with the federal Voting Rights Act. Once those districts are created, there are two inevitable knock-on effects. One, remaining districts will tend toward republicans more than the state at large. Two, at least some of the remaining districts will reflect some gerrymandering characteristics. You can't gerrymander a district without impacting adjoining districts. Work out the geometry for yourself.

If you don't want gerrymandered districts, the solution is easy. Get rid of the minority district requirements of the Voting Rights Act. Or go to proportional representation, which addresses the issue a different way.

No actually the district doesn't have to be created to guarantee a minority is elected. It simply has to be a district that allows the opportunity for a minority to be elected. Packing overwhelming numbers of minority voters into a district is not needed to comply with the requirements of the Voting Rights Act.

(12-24-2016 05:18 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-24-2016 11:30 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(12-24-2016 11:17 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-24-2016 10:59 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(12-23-2016 04:12 PM)ClemVegas Wrote:  i' thinking that people aren't going to get an accurate history lesson from a liberal like you who asserts white racists left the historically racist party because Nixon, a man who supported civil rights, adopted a 'southern strategy' based on white racism. You obviously don't care about facts , you goal is to do propaganda. you have a narrative that you push regardless of the facts.

Nixon ran against George Wallace. It does not get more racist than George Wallace. So any white racist would have voted for George Wallace, not a man in Nixon who had been praised by MLK.

I give you citations to back up my opinions or statements. Those are the "facts" that support my position.

You don't. You just make blanket statements and throw around disparaging remarks (notice that I don't do that).

The Democrats are generally recognized as the successor to the Democratic-Republican Party. Just because the Federalists died and they had splinters turn into the Whigs doesn't change that.

But some of the worst gerrymanders were those of the dying Democratic party in the South, particularly in Texas and North Carolina, places where the Democrats whine the most about it.

They had to triple the number of election precincts in Harris County (Houston) from around 600 to 1700 to handle the Democratic gerrymanders in 1990. They kept re-drawing the districts and they kept getting thrown out by the courts. I got moved into different districts nearly every two years during that decade, Mike Andrews (one of the Democrats they drew the districts for), Tom Delay, Bill Archer.

Where is your information about NC. It just isn't correct. The state was so overwhelmingly Democratic during most of the 20th century that elections were decided at primary. When the Republicans began to become competitive in the 80s there was gerrymandering by the Democrats

That much is fact.

Quote:but nothing to the extent of the current Republican version. I should know, my state Rep. drew them.

That part is opinion.

There are plenty of facts to back it up. The congressional delegation from years when Ds drew the districts compared to when Rs drew them. The comparisons of voter composition between each. The larger number of split counties and the combining dissimilar constituencies when similar constituencies can more easily be achieved when Rs have drawn districts. The rulings by the courts that districts are unconstitutional. Heck my county was in the 2nd district except for a narrow strip in the center of the county that ran north to south that eliminated the only two precincts that tended to vote D and the home of the biggest D threat to the sitting congresswoman. It placed these rural voters in an otherwise urban district. And it was orchestrated by a rep from that very county. Talk about party over county.