|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
This sounds like a typical US-Pol discussion, really. Someone points out a problem and wants it fixed, the counter argument is that the solution isn't perfect so leave everything broken.
|
On December 14 2017 06:50 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2017 06:40 Plansix wrote:On December 14 2017 06:21 Sermokala wrote:On December 14 2017 06:14 Plansix wrote:On December 14 2017 06:07 Sermokala wrote:On December 14 2017 05:18 Plansix wrote:On December 14 2017 05:01 Sermokala wrote:On December 14 2017 04:57 Plansix wrote:On December 14 2017 04:46 Sermokala wrote:
The problem with arguing about gerrymandering is that objectively the democrats would try to do the same thing so nothings going to happen. Its a catch-22 situation where the side benefiting from the situation is in power and uses their power to stay in power. Except the democrats have been pushing for an independent commission to do it for about 20 years. You know, like a civilized nation? Oh please thats so vague even you have to be able to see through that campaign hand wave. at the least thats exactly what I'm saying with the party in power. 20 years ago would have been during Clintons weak years. One issue that I would forsee in any case would be the predicting of whose a "republican" voter or a "Democratic" voter. I'm still really against the idea of registering for parties for this exact issue. getting to the level of predictive statistics in voting demographics is really corrosive for fairness. There is no reason why politicians should be able to pick their voters in the year 2017. It wasn't a problem back when we didn't have huge databases of voter information. But the times have changed. But hey, if you want to risk getting gerrymandered into the dirt in 2020, that's on you. Do you have some werid idea that I'm arguing for gerrymandering? Your very post says that you expect the democrats to do the exact same thing as republicans would on it. stop hitting your head against a wall. I expect the democrats to try to establish and independent commission and I expect the Republicans to file endless lawsuits challenging the creation and constitutionality of said commission. We have proven that politicians can't help but abuse this power, but one party can't deal with the concept that civil servants are better suited for the job. I challenged that the democrats wouldn't have any more motivation to do it then the republicans because the republicans happen to be in power and abusing it. You responded by saying the democrats have been pushing for a solution ever sense they were losing power and wouldn't be able to abuse it anymore. I responded that it was a campaign hand-wave because they were losing power and wouldn't be able to abuse it. You responded by saying that politicians shouldn't be able to pick their voters but if I didn't agree then the dems would pick their voters in the 2020 round of gerrymandering. Your most recent post ignores everything that came before and expresses hope that the democrats would try to establish a solution and the republicans would try to fight it because the democrats would be abusing the system now and then republicans would be protesting it. You are trying to argue with me by arguing for my points and arguing for my logic. You are hitting your head against a wall. So what you are saying is that you are cynical and I’m not? Because that is what I take from that. One side is abusing power and you don’t believe the other side will create a better system. The simple solution is for both of us to support and independent commission and for both of our political leanings to push for it. If the commission is created by both parties, it will be seen as trust worthy and fair. And it needs to happen because the current system isn’t healthy for democracy. These urban population centers are not going to tolerate being the bread winner for the state and getting screwed out of political power by a rigged system. I'm not saying anything. I'm repeated questioning what you are saying and you keep assuming that I don't mean what I'm posting and that I'm meaning the worst you can tribute my words in your head as. You're the one thats assuming that one side wouldn't abuse power now even though they've shown no evidence for this in the past and show no real evidence for it now but trust them because they agree with you're other political views. Just because everyone wants something doesn't mean that it'll be trustworthy and fair. Thats just silly to expect a magic organization to sprout up and do things exactly how we all apparently agree now we want without any real specifics or methods in this agreement. You didn't need the last sentence there for everyone to agree with you. You didn't need to bring a "us vs them" aspect into solving a problem that everyone agrees is a problem. Show nested quote +On December 14 2017 06:41 zlefin wrote:On December 14 2017 06:35 Sermokala wrote:On December 14 2017 06:30 zlefin wrote:On December 14 2017 06:21 Sermokala wrote:On December 14 2017 06:14 Plansix wrote:On December 14 2017 06:07 Sermokala wrote:On December 14 2017 05:18 Plansix wrote:On December 14 2017 05:01 Sermokala wrote:On December 14 2017 04:57 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Except the democrats have been pushing for an independent commission to do it for about 20 years. You know, like a civilized nation? Oh please thats so vague even you have to be able to see through that campaign hand wave. at the least thats exactly what I'm saying with the party in power. 20 years ago would have been during Clintons weak years. One issue that I would forsee in any case would be the predicting of whose a "republican" voter or a "Democratic" voter. I'm still really against the idea of registering for parties for this exact issue. getting to the level of predictive statistics in voting demographics is really corrosive for fairness. There is no reason why politicians should be able to pick their voters in the year 2017. It wasn't a problem back when we didn't have huge databases of voter information. But the times have changed. But hey, if you want to risk getting gerrymandered into the dirt in 2020, that's on you. Do you have some werid idea that I'm arguing for gerrymandering? Your very post says that you expect the democrats to do the exact same thing as republicans would on it. stop hitting your head against a wall. I expect the democrats to try to establish and independent commission and I expect the Republicans to file endless lawsuits challenging the creation and constitutionality of said commission. We have proven that politicians can't help but abuse this power, but one party can't deal with the concept that civil servants are better suited for the job. I challenged that the democrats wouldn't have any more motivation to do it then the republicans because the republicans happen to be in power and abusing it. You responded by saying the democrats have been pushing for a solution ever sense they were losing power and wouldn't be able to abuse it anymore. I responded that it was a campaign hand-wave because they were losing power and wouldn't be able to abuse it. You responded by saying that politicians shouldn't be able to pick their voters but if I didn't agree then the dems would pick their voters in the 2020 round of gerrymandering. Your most recent post ignores everything that came before and expresses hope that the democrats would try to establish a solution and the republicans would try to fight it because the democrats would be abusing the system now and then republicans would be protesting it. You are trying to argue with me by arguing for my points and arguing for my logic. You are hitting your head against a wall. I don' treally care about the arguin gwith plansix; I just wanna be clear on one specific point: are you for, against, or neutral on having independent redistricting commissions? I reject the question as its too vague in line with "are you for background checks". Yeah I'm for an independent election commission that attempts to create fair and equal elections but to simply accept that good intention and ignore the methods that the commission will use is gravely naive at best. that doesn' tsound like a rejection of the question at all. it sounds like a provisional yes to me. aka a yes (so long as it really is setup properly). I ever said to accept the good intention and methodology uncritically, therefore it's odd to even bring it up, as I was not talking about creating such a thing, as such that part of the response will be ignored as irrelevant. so i'm just gonna mark that down as a yes. You can mark it down as a provisional yes as much as you can mark down 90% of everyone as a provisional yes in the majority of solutions to problems. Thats why nothing gets done and the problems never get solved. You're already assuming that the problem with get solved because "so many people already agree to a solution why arn't you with all these people" can just be thrown at people that don't agree with you later. People can see that ball coming down the pipe really slowly now and it doesn't fool anyone.
it's not a hard problem to solve; the solutions are known. the question is whether the will is there, and whether scum will block it for partisan reasons.
you've said you won't. that makes it a yes.
the fact of ht ematter is a lot of people WILL block it for BS partisan reasons. and a lot of people wouldn't say yes. it really wouldn't be 90% at all; partisanship infects peoples thought so much it'd actually be far lower than that. just as a lot of people vote for candidates who're obviously the wrong choice.
the reason nothing gets done is because people don't WANT thinfs to get done. if people actually wanted things to get done, they'd get done.
|
On December 14 2017 06:56 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2017 06:50 Sermokala wrote:On December 14 2017 06:40 Plansix wrote:On December 14 2017 06:21 Sermokala wrote:On December 14 2017 06:14 Plansix wrote:On December 14 2017 06:07 Sermokala wrote:On December 14 2017 05:18 Plansix wrote:On December 14 2017 05:01 Sermokala wrote:On December 14 2017 04:57 Plansix wrote:On December 14 2017 04:46 Sermokala wrote:
The problem with arguing about gerrymandering is that objectively the democrats would try to do the same thing so nothings going to happen. Its a catch-22 situation where the side benefiting from the situation is in power and uses their power to stay in power. Except the democrats have been pushing for an independent commission to do it for about 20 years. You know, like a civilized nation? Oh please thats so vague even you have to be able to see through that campaign hand wave. at the least thats exactly what I'm saying with the party in power. 20 years ago would have been during Clintons weak years. One issue that I would forsee in any case would be the predicting of whose a "republican" voter or a "Democratic" voter. I'm still really against the idea of registering for parties for this exact issue. getting to the level of predictive statistics in voting demographics is really corrosive for fairness. There is no reason why politicians should be able to pick their voters in the year 2017. It wasn't a problem back when we didn't have huge databases of voter information. But the times have changed. But hey, if you want to risk getting gerrymandered into the dirt in 2020, that's on you. Do you have some werid idea that I'm arguing for gerrymandering? Your very post says that you expect the democrats to do the exact same thing as republicans would on it. stop hitting your head against a wall. I expect the democrats to try to establish and independent commission and I expect the Republicans to file endless lawsuits challenging the creation and constitutionality of said commission. We have proven that politicians can't help but abuse this power, but one party can't deal with the concept that civil servants are better suited for the job. I challenged that the democrats wouldn't have any more motivation to do it then the republicans because the republicans happen to be in power and abusing it. You responded by saying the democrats have been pushing for a solution ever sense they were losing power and wouldn't be able to abuse it anymore. I responded that it was a campaign hand-wave because they were losing power and wouldn't be able to abuse it. You responded by saying that politicians shouldn't be able to pick their voters but if I didn't agree then the dems would pick their voters in the 2020 round of gerrymandering. Your most recent post ignores everything that came before and expresses hope that the democrats would try to establish a solution and the republicans would try to fight it because the democrats would be abusing the system now and then republicans would be protesting it. You are trying to argue with me by arguing for my points and arguing for my logic. You are hitting your head against a wall. So what you are saying is that you are cynical and I’m not? Because that is what I take from that. One side is abusing power and you don’t believe the other side will create a better system. The simple solution is for both of us to support and independent commission and for both of our political leanings to push for it. If the commission is created by both parties, it will be seen as trust worthy and fair. And it needs to happen because the current system isn’t healthy for democracy. These urban population centers are not going to tolerate being the bread winner for the state and getting screwed out of political power by a rigged system. I'm not saying anything. I'm repeated questioning what you are saying and you keep assuming that I don't mean what I'm posting and that I'm meaning the worst you can tribute my words in your head as. You're the one thats assuming that one side wouldn't abuse power now even though they've shown no evidence for this in the past and show no real evidence for it now but trust them because they agree with you're other political views. Just because everyone wants something doesn't mean that it'll be trustworthy and fair. Thats just silly to expect a magic organization to sprout up and do things exactly how we all apparently agree now we want without any real specifics or methods in this agreement. You didn't need the last sentence there for everyone to agree with you. You didn't need to bring a "us vs them" aspect into solving a problem that everyone agrees is a problem. Ok, lets roll back since I seem to completely misunderstand you. Modern data collection and population modeling has made gerrymandering so much more effective and it likely can’t be left alone. What solution should congress and our political parties be working towards to address this issue, assuming both sides cannot resist abusing the power?
An Independent commission that is created with the agreement that it takes the reported results (station by station as I assume other states collect and report their vote counts) from the past 5-10 elections and maps out proportional (as in proportionally sorted by the proportional difference between the winner and the runner up)districts for each state on the federal level while the states have a commission for the county and city level.
What I'm digging at is that we can't be arguing about the commission itself handing over the problem to another government department but agree on the method and create the commission to oversea that method.
On December 14 2017 07:00 WolfintheSheep wrote:
This sounds like a typical US-Pol discussion, really. Someone points out a problem and wants it fixed, the counter argument is that the solution isn't perfect so leave everything broken.
sounds like the typical Us-pol response from someone that isn't american. No stakes means they don't care enough to understand the issue and just comes to point out the bad things in america. See kwark pre and post expatriation..
On December 14 2017 07:01 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2017 06:50 Sermokala wrote:On December 14 2017 06:40 Plansix wrote:On December 14 2017 06:21 Sermokala wrote:On December 14 2017 06:14 Plansix wrote:On December 14 2017 06:07 Sermokala wrote:On December 14 2017 05:18 Plansix wrote:On December 14 2017 05:01 Sermokala wrote:On December 14 2017 04:57 Plansix wrote:On December 14 2017 04:46 Sermokala wrote:
The problem with arguing about gerrymandering is that objectively the democrats would try to do the same thing so nothings going to happen. Its a catch-22 situation where the side benefiting from the situation is in power and uses their power to stay in power. Except the democrats have been pushing for an independent commission to do it for about 20 years. You know, like a civilized nation? Oh please thats so vague even you have to be able to see through that campaign hand wave. at the least thats exactly what I'm saying with the party in power. 20 years ago would have been during Clintons weak years. One issue that I would forsee in any case would be the predicting of whose a "republican" voter or a "Democratic" voter. I'm still really against the idea of registering for parties for this exact issue. getting to the level of predictive statistics in voting demographics is really corrosive for fairness. There is no reason why politicians should be able to pick their voters in the year 2017. It wasn't a problem back when we didn't have huge databases of voter information. But the times have changed. But hey, if you want to risk getting gerrymandered into the dirt in 2020, that's on you. Do you have some werid idea that I'm arguing for gerrymandering? Your very post says that you expect the democrats to do the exact same thing as republicans would on it. stop hitting your head against a wall. I expect the democrats to try to establish and independent commission and I expect the Republicans to file endless lawsuits challenging the creation and constitutionality of said commission. We have proven that politicians can't help but abuse this power, but one party can't deal with the concept that civil servants are better suited for the job. I challenged that the democrats wouldn't have any more motivation to do it then the republicans because the republicans happen to be in power and abusing it. You responded by saying the democrats have been pushing for a solution ever sense they were losing power and wouldn't be able to abuse it anymore. I responded that it was a campaign hand-wave because they were losing power and wouldn't be able to abuse it. You responded by saying that politicians shouldn't be able to pick their voters but if I didn't agree then the dems would pick their voters in the 2020 round of gerrymandering. Your most recent post ignores everything that came before and expresses hope that the democrats would try to establish a solution and the republicans would try to fight it because the democrats would be abusing the system now and then republicans would be protesting it. You are trying to argue with me by arguing for my points and arguing for my logic. You are hitting your head against a wall. So what you are saying is that you are cynical and I’m not? Because that is what I take from that. One side is abusing power and you don’t believe the other side will create a better system. The simple solution is for both of us to support and independent commission and for both of our political leanings to push for it. If the commission is created by both parties, it will be seen as trust worthy and fair. And it needs to happen because the current system isn’t healthy for democracy. These urban population centers are not going to tolerate being the bread winner for the state and getting screwed out of political power by a rigged system. I'm not saying anything. I'm repeated questioning what you are saying and you keep assuming that I don't mean what I'm posting and that I'm meaning the worst you can tribute my words in your head as. You're the one thats assuming that one side wouldn't abuse power now even though they've shown no evidence for this in the past and show no real evidence for it now but trust them because they agree with you're other political views. Just because everyone wants something doesn't mean that it'll be trustworthy and fair. Thats just silly to expect a magic organization to sprout up and do things exactly how we all apparently agree now we want without any real specifics or methods in this agreement. You didn't need the last sentence there for everyone to agree with you. You didn't need to bring a "us vs them" aspect into solving a problem that everyone agrees is a problem. On December 14 2017 06:41 zlefin wrote:On December 14 2017 06:35 Sermokala wrote:On December 14 2017 06:30 zlefin wrote:On December 14 2017 06:21 Sermokala wrote:On December 14 2017 06:14 Plansix wrote:On December 14 2017 06:07 Sermokala wrote:On December 14 2017 05:18 Plansix wrote:On December 14 2017 05:01 Sermokala wrote:
[quote]
Oh please thats so vague even you have to be able to see through that campaign hand wave. at the least thats exactly what I'm saying with the party in power. 20 years ago would have been during Clintons weak years.
One issue that I would forsee in any case would be the predicting of whose a "republican" voter or a "Democratic" voter. I'm still really against the idea of registering for parties for this exact issue. getting to the level of predictive statistics in voting demographics is really corrosive for fairness. There is no reason why politicians should be able to pick their voters in the year 2017. It wasn't a problem back when we didn't have huge databases of voter information. But the times have changed. But hey, if you want to risk getting gerrymandered into the dirt in 2020, that's on you. Do you have some werid idea that I'm arguing for gerrymandering? Your very post says that you expect the democrats to do the exact same thing as republicans would on it. stop hitting your head against a wall. I expect the democrats to try to establish and independent commission and I expect the Republicans to file endless lawsuits challenging the creation and constitutionality of said commission. We have proven that politicians can't help but abuse this power, but one party can't deal with the concept that civil servants are better suited for the job. I challenged that the democrats wouldn't have any more motivation to do it then the republicans because the republicans happen to be in power and abusing it. You responded by saying the democrats have been pushing for a solution ever sense they were losing power and wouldn't be able to abuse it anymore. I responded that it was a campaign hand-wave because they were losing power and wouldn't be able to abuse it. You responded by saying that politicians shouldn't be able to pick their voters but if I didn't agree then the dems would pick their voters in the 2020 round of gerrymandering. Your most recent post ignores everything that came before and expresses hope that the democrats would try to establish a solution and the republicans would try to fight it because the democrats would be abusing the system now and then republicans would be protesting it. You are trying to argue with me by arguing for my points and arguing for my logic. You are hitting your head against a wall. I don' treally care about the arguin gwith plansix; I just wanna be clear on one specific point: are you for, against, or neutral on having independent redistricting commissions? I reject the question as its too vague in line with "are you for background checks". Yeah I'm for an independent election commission that attempts to create fair and equal elections but to simply accept that good intention and ignore the methods that the commission will use is gravely naive at best. that doesn' tsound like a rejection of the question at all. it sounds like a provisional yes to me. aka a yes (so long as it really is setup properly). I ever said to accept the good intention and methodology uncritically, therefore it's odd to even bring it up, as I was not talking about creating such a thing, as such that part of the response will be ignored as irrelevant. so i'm just gonna mark that down as a yes. You can mark it down as a provisional yes as much as you can mark down 90% of everyone as a provisional yes in the majority of solutions to problems. Thats why nothing gets done and the problems never get solved. You're already assuming that the problem with get solved because "so many people already agree to a solution why arn't you with all these people" can just be thrown at people that don't agree with you later. People can see that ball coming down the pipe really slowly now and it doesn't fool anyone. it's not a hard problem to solve; the solutions are known. the question is whether the will is there, and whether scum will block it for partisan reasons. you've said you won't. that makes it a yes. the fact of ht ematter is a lot of people WILL block it for BS partisan reasons. and a lot of people wouldn't say yes. it really wouldn't be 90% at all; partisanship infects peoples thought so much it'd actually be far lower than that. just as a lot of people vote for candidates who're obviously the wrong choice. the reason nothing gets done is because people don't WANT thinfs to get done. if people actually wanted things to get done, they'd get done.
Life isn't a good vs evil story and things are more complex then "gee good people want good things and bad people want bad things". If you lack the self respect to even pretend to appreciate the complexity of reality then stop bothering those that do.
|
On December 14 2017 06:44 Nevuk wrote:
also from deep in the twitter sphere :
"Some very fine people on both sides."
|
On December 14 2017 07:06 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2017 07:00 WolfintheSheep wrote:
This sounds like a typical US-Pol discussion, really. Someone points out a problem and wants it fixed, the counter argument is that the solution isn't perfect so leave everything broken. sounds like the typical Us-pol response from someone that isn't american. No stakes means they don't care enough to understand the issue and just comes to point out the bad things in america. See kwark pre and post expatriation..
Simplify the problem when it benefits your side, simplify the opposition to the solution when it benefits your side, and point out that Europe already does it better. You then score bonus points for exasperation at not following your easy-Euro-solutions. Compare to admitting the complexity of original problem and any solutions that improve the situation.
The Supreme court’s oral arguments two months ago on gerrymandering are 70 pages examining the complexity (supremecourt). Particularly the arguments against the absolutely foreign political principle of proportional representation (and sociological gobbledygook).
|
sermo -> you're the one ignoring reality; yet you continue to bother us. so I shall ignore your request for the nonsense it is.
also, please stop respondin to everyone in the same quote, it makes the quote chains stack repeatedly (i.e. get multiple copies of the same posts, thsu expandin gin size geometrically)
the reality is, most people, on all sides, are bad (or at least largely incapable of telling right from wrong) and incompetent people; the point of government is to function anyways.
if you want to change your answer, then i'll just mark you down as obnoxiously obstreperous (aka will pretend to favor the idea, but will actually block all change via incessant and unsound complaining no matter how good of an idea it is).
i'm also no tseeing a counter to the actual points I made, so i'll assume you have none, unless you add them soon.
|
It sort of comes down to a distrust of civil servants being able to do a job without bias. But that argument is couched in the terms of “government agency” and that we give over power to it. It is preferable to have the district lines drawn and power abused by our elected officials. At least they get to vote on them.
But in reality the lines will end up being drawn by the court due to an endless line of litigation resulting from the 2010 gerrymandering. We will get another round in 2020. The courts take the place of a regulatory agency and can slowly be turned to rule in favor of the controlling party. And we can never fix this problem because of the distrust of the other party doing the exact same thing. The conservative fear of creating any government agency or system means we are doomed to governance by dysfunction. Because dysfunction is more comfortable than creating anything.
On December 14 2017 07:00 WolfintheSheep wrote:
This sounds like a typical US-Pol discussion, really. Someone points out a problem and wants it fixed, the counter argument is that the solution isn't perfect so leave everything broken.
For 20 years we have had a congress that’s sole purpose is to destroy the systems and agencies that we created in the last century. They have been championing shutting down the agency that tests all the states water for natural and manmade toxins. And tracks the weather. A good chuck of the current congress doesn’t’ even know that the EPA collects all that information for the public to use.
|
On December 14 2017 07:30 zlefin wrote:
sermo -> you're the one ignoring reality; yet you continue to bother us. so I shall ignore your request for the nonsense it is.
also, please stop respondin to everyone in the same quote, it makes the quote chains stack repeatedly (i.e. get multiple copies of the same posts, thsu expandin gin size geometrically)
the reality is, most people, on all sides, are bad (or at least largely incapable of telling right from wrong) and incompetent people; the point of government is to function anyways.
if you want to change your answer, then i'll just mark you down as obnoxiously obstreperous (aka will pretend to favor the idea, but will actually block all change via incessant and unsound complaining no matter how good of an idea it is).
i'm also no tseeing a counter to the actual points I made, so i'll assume you have none, unless you add them soon.
You made a post where you literally said that everyone already knows the solutions just that the reason why no one wants a better world is because everyone likes the bad world we have and don't want a better world. If you want to make an off handed request I'd ask you to at least read through your post at least once for spelling errors so people can assume you put the least amount of effort into your posting and don't miss silly spacing mistakes like moving the g at the end of an ing word to the next word.
You like an idea but you don't really care about the spefics of an idea. You're a simple person that only wants simple things.
On December 14 2017 07:37 Plansix wrote:
It sort of comes down to a distrust of civil servants being able to do a job without bias. But that argument is couched in the terms of “government agency” and that we give over power to it. It is preferable to have the district lines drawn and power abused by our elected officials. At least they get to vote on them.
But in reality the lines will end up being drawn by the court due to an endless line of litigation resulting from the 2010 gerrymandering. We will get another round in 2020. The courts take the place of a regulatory agency and can slowly be turned to rule in favor of the controlling party. And we can never fix this problem because of the distrust of the other party doing the exact same thing
But you probably just think this post and your post was the exact same so why should anyone bother with you. Its true btw and pre p6 feeling the need to be partisan for the sake of it.
|
The problem with conservativism is the same problem I seem with libertarianism: It is a political stance that is adverse to solving any problem that this nation faces.
When put to that task, the problem is either push to that states or simply unaddressed. Agencies like the EPA are seen as unelected officials that cannot be trusted, but no solution is offered to address the very real issues that the EPA deals with.
This discussion about gerrymandering is just a repeat of those same discussions. We face a problem that will erode faith in our democratic system over time. The courts have set guidelines for what legal redistricting would look like. But making an agency enforce that federal court ruling as a guideline across the country is not an option.
I fear government overreach as much as anyone, but we are so far from that world right now. We are in the absentee landlord world of government. Where our capitol ignores disasters, American citizens without power and fresh water and our leaders act like tax relief is the ticket prosperity. Just don’t read the fine print.
|
sermo,
what I said was true. it's often the case that the technical solutions are known, but they are not done because it is in the interest of some group or another to not do so. or that the correct solution is unpopular. the republicans do no want gerrymanderin fixed in case where it is to their advantage. they demonstrably do not want a better world therefore. you don't get to be as cynical as you're tryin to be and also claim people are genuinely and thoughtfully trying to make the world a better place.
there are states which already have designed non-partisan redistricting commissions; so it's not like it's an unsolvable problem. there are plenty of thins that could be copied and would do a job that's better than currently occurs. it does not happen because of partisan scummery and inertia.
I know I don't put enough effort into fixing typoes, I try to put some in, but I don't check all of them. but it's better than what you do, which is simply making bad arguments.
|
On December 14 2017 07:19 On_Slaught wrote:"Some very fine people on both sides."
Again: Racist in the US long ago adopted the topic secret super power of saying they were not really racists. Western Culture is the new States Rights, which was the new White Man’s Burden.
|
On December 14 2017 07:56 Plansix wrote:
The problem with conservativism is the same problem I seem with libertarianism: It is a political stance that is adverse to solving any problem that this nation faces.
When put to that task, the problem is either push to that states or simply unaddressed. Agencies like the EPA are seen as unelected officials that cannot be trusted, but no solution is offered to address the very real issues that the EPA deals with.
This discussion about gerrymandering is just a repeat of those same discussions. We face a problem that will erode faith in our democratic system over time. The courts have set guidelines for what legal redistricting would look like. But making an agency enforce that federal court ruling as a guideline across the country is not an option.
I fear government overreach as much as anyone, but we are so far from that world right now. We are in the absentee landlord world of government. Where our capitol ignores disasters, American citizens without power and fresh water and our leaders act like tax relief is the ticket prosperity. Just don’t read the fine print.
Don't mistake a non-governmental solution for being no solution at all. Conservatives simply have radically different answers to the problems that the nation has.
|
On December 14 2017 08:13 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2017 07:19 On_Slaught wrote:"Some very fine people on both sides." Again: Racist in the US long ago adopted the topic secret super power of saying they were not really racists. Western Culture is the new States Rights, which was the new White Man’s Burden.
A quick look at the current state of post-colonial Africa suggests that Kipling may have had a point.
|
The problem I have with liberalism is the same problem I seem to have with Communists. Its a political stance that places faith into collective action to solve all of our problems.
When put to any problem it will ignore any sort of Inherent flaw in humanity but rather insist that a problem existing is justification enough to solve it in the way we think we can solve it now and believe beyond any doubt that it is right to do because we can. That any questioning of progress is opposition to progress. That any arguments against a solution must be support of the problem.
This discussion is a repeat of every discussion. We face a problem that has existed throughout the nations history with democracy but only now that technology has adapted or that it has been noticed in the past few years its a critical flaw that will end the union in a matter or years.
I fear stagnation and I want things to get better and I believe that we can make things better. I just want to think things through before we do something that changes the foundation of the Empire.
|
On December 14 2017 08:17 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2017 08:13 Plansix wrote:On December 14 2017 07:19 On_Slaught wrote:"Some very fine people on both sides." Again: Racist in the US long ago adopted the topic secret super power of saying they were not really racists. Western Culture is the new States Rights, which was the new White Man’s Burden. A quick look at the current state of post-colonial Africa suggests that Kipling may have had a point.
At this point this post by you doesn’t even shock me. And if we hadn’t spent well over 200 years fucking with Africa, I might agree. But imperialism leaves it mark.
|
I'm pretty sure I've read somewhere (538?) that the public perception of the impact of gerrymandering far outweighs its practical impact (i.e. it's a real thing to be sure, but it's effect is pretty marginal). I'm all for having it fixed (compactness-minimizing algorithms are my preferred solutions), but unless I'm misinformed then painting gerrymandering as a crisis-level issue is sort of like calling this tax bill "armageddon."
|
On December 14 2017 08:18 Sermokala wrote:
The problem I have with liberalism is the same problem I seem to have with Communists. Its a political stance that places faith into collective action to solve all of our problems.
When put to any problem it will ignore any sort of Inherent flaw in humanity but rather insist that a problem existing is justification enough to solve it in the way we think we can solve it now and believe beyond any doubt that it is right to do because we can. That any questioning of progress is opposition to progress. That any arguments against a solution must be support of the problem.
This discussion is a repeat of every discussion. We face a problem that has existed throughout the nations history with democracy but only now that technology has adapted or that it has been noticed in the past few years its a critical flaw that will end the union in a matter or years.
I fear stagnation and I want things to get better and I believe that we can make things better. I just want to think things through before we do something that changes the foundation of the Empire.
Without an alternative solution to the problem, it is support through inaction. You are promoting doing nothing, which is support of the status quo.
|
In my view it’s not a liberal vs. conservative problem, it’s a Republican vs. everyone problem. Or does anyone actually think their tax bill is conservative?
There are plenty of serious conservative thinkers who come up with policy solutions. I disagree with a lot of them, but generally I can see why their solutions might be reasonable, given different political values and priorities.
None of these ideas are reflected in the Republican platform. That’s why they can’t get conservative policy experts to support any of their garbage bills.
|
On December 14 2017 08:22 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2017 08:17 xDaunt wrote:On December 14 2017 08:13 Plansix wrote:On December 14 2017 07:19 On_Slaught wrote:"Some very fine people on both sides." Again: Racist in the US long ago adopted the topic secret super power of saying they were not really racists. Western Culture is the new States Rights, which was the new White Man’s Burden. A quick look at the current state of post-colonial Africa suggests that Kipling may have had a point. At this point this post by you doesn’t even shock me. And if we hadn’t spent well over 200 years fucking with Africa, I might agree. But imperialism leaves it mark.
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/IKsgGxn.jpg)
Sound familiar to anyone?
|
On December 14 2017 08:22 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2017 08:17 xDaunt wrote:On December 14 2017 08:13 Plansix wrote:On December 14 2017 07:19 On_Slaught wrote:"Some very fine people on both sides." Again: Racist in the US long ago adopted the topic secret super power of saying they were not really racists. Western Culture is the new States Rights, which was the new White Man’s Burden. A quick look at the current state of post-colonial Africa suggests that Kipling may have had a point. At this point this post by you doesn’t even shock me. And if we hadn’t spent well over 200 years fucking with Africa, I might agree. But imperialism leaves it mark.
So how would you explain away the shittiness of pre-colonial Africa?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
