Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 44 of 44

Thread: Democrats eye gains in Pennsylvania trial on 'goofy' gerrymandering

  1. #41
    Advisor gmeyers1944's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Westfield,NY (on Lake Erie)
    Last Seen
    09-18-18 @ 12:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    564

    Re: Democrats eye gains in Pennsylvania trial on 'goofy' gerrymandering

    Quote Originally Posted by holbritter View Post
    To be honest, I never realized what gerrymandering was all about until this forum. Why don't they just use county lines? I have to research a bit more.
    Gerrymandering is not good. What you suggest cannot work because each member of the House of Representatives needs to represent approximately the same number of citizens. It is extremely unlikely that congressional districts will represent anything near the same number of citizens if district lines follow county lines.

  2. #42
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    06-04-18 @ 11:18 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    43,839

    Re: Democrats eye gains in Pennsylvania trial on 'goofy' gerrymandering

    Quote Originally Posted by worksforpigs View Post
    Quite an interesting way to attempt to brush off criticism of your unqualified racial conspiracy theories.
    You think that defending the EC is an unqualified racial conspiracy?

  3. #43
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    06-04-18 @ 11:18 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    43,839

    Re: Democrats eye gains in Pennsylvania trial on 'goofy' gerrymandering

    Quote Originally Posted by Lafayette View Post
    THE SCIENCE OF ECONOMICS



    The one we've got (as a governmental mechanism) is not bad. It's just badly run.

    The problem is NOT in the mechanism, but those who manipulate it. Whyzzat?

    Because, we have decided to make money the Central Attribute & Criteria of our lives. That is, it's touchstone. Which is "a standard or criterion by which something is judged or recognized".

    And we measure everything that we think is of any consequence to that standard. More important non-Monetary Values therefore suffer.

    In economics, how many times must it be repeated that Income Disparity is the major wrong of the American economy? And yet, as a nation, that is not any major concern. The major preoccupation is "Do we both have jobs?" and "How much do we earn?", and "Are we keeping up with the Joneses?". To such an extent, that our children, simply mimicking their parents, grow up learning exactly the same rote questions.

    We measure ourselves by comparison to one another in financial terms, as made obvious by where we live, how we live and the car we drive. Which are external economic manifestations of very little consequence to an attribute called "inner happiness".

    Whazzat? The very simple knowledge that what we are earning is sufficient to our level of existence and we could care less how much more or less others are earning. To a certain point - nobody should have to live permanently in poverty.

    The above response is more sociological than it is economic. Let's not forget that we are first sociological animals who depend upon one another - and only then economic beings. The science of economics is fundamentally a study of how we interact with one another given the necessity to earn a living for our families ...
    If it's not bad and it is not the mechanism, why did you say it was bad and needs replacing?

  4. #44
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    France
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,448

    Re: Democrats eye gains in Pennsylvania trial on 'goofy' gerrymandering

    WE LIVE IN INTERESTING TIMES

    Quote Originally Posted by joG View Post
    If it's not bad and it is not the mechanism, why did you say it was bad and needs replacing?
    Depends upon the context in which I supposedly said what you claim above.

    The advent at the turn of the 19th century was a Major Advance in mankind, not just the US. France too in the 1770s, a monarchy, was debating the issue of "democracy" and what it meant. Both Jefferson and Franklin were official representatives to France, which was aiding the US in its revolution against a common enemy - the British monarch. Both Americans and French debated "democracy" with French revolutionaries planning to topple the French king. (The US got around to freeing itself from the British King (1776) before the French decapitated their King in 1793.)

    Both nations went on to establish "democracies" without knowing quite what the word actually meant. After all, there was no such thing extant in Europe at the time, and therefore no political "role model".

    The essence of democracy lies in the tripartite nature of its structure - its three independent functional components. The Executive, the Legislative and the Judiciary that formulated a sense of "check and balance" in terms of political leadership.

    The economics of a nation at the time was not up for discussion. The word economy did not even exist.

    And it still is. After two World Wars, in which the US participated, Europe went on to Social Democracy. The US nurtured a Capitalist Democracy as huge fortunes were made from the Industrial Age (that was developing at the end of the 18th and the 19th centuries).

    And to this day, the US is still undecided as to what sort of democracy it wants. Europe opted for Social Democracies as a foundation upon which to rebuild itself.

    The US today is clearly still a Capitalist Democracy largely due to the fact that the nation elects a party dedicated to low-taxation that benefits significantly just the wealthy. Which is what economic research has demonstrated clearly - such as here.

    Is America changing? We live in interesting times - watch the handwriting on the walls ...
    Last edited by Lafayette; 12-16-17 at 01:33 AM.
    Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them; then neither persons nor property will be safe. (Frederick Douglass)

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •