RadioFreeLiberal.com

Smart Voices, Be Heard
It is currently Tue Dec 11, 2018 1:49 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 57 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2018 6:08 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 12706
Location: Sunny South Florida
I hate this "New York & California" nonsense.

Want to see the red-blue map when we break it down by county instead of by state?

Image

There's rivers of blue throughout the country.

Some interesting factoids from the site I found this from:

-- there are only 3 states on that map where all counties went red: Oklahoma, West Virginia, and Alaska. EVERY OTHER STATE HAS SOME BLUE IN IT.

-- It's true Trump won 2600 counties to around 500 for Clinton, or around 84% of the geographic U.S. But, surface area is not what we represent in Congress.
-- However, Clinton won 88 of of the 100 largest counties (including Washington D.C.) in the U.S.

It's not the coasts vs. the middle, the north vs. the south, the east vs. the west, NY & California vs. the rest of the U.S.. The real red-blue division in this country is mostly between its population centers and rural areas.

And, BTW, while I don't want rural voters ignored, they can't hold the rest of the country hostage, either. A balance needs to be found.

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2018 6:09 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 17708
No, glen, it's not obvious at all.

Some of us aren't with you, we don't believe the rich and the multinational corporations are supposed to rule by divine right, like you do.



Not at all, while you hate, despise and are envious of the successful I don't covet their property. Nor do I believe the reason I have 2.5 acres is because my neighbor has over 200.

_________________
"my choice is for people like you to be deported -Ike Bana 5/13/18

"within weeks of being rid of the likes of you, rid of every fucking one of you,we would begin to see what kind of country this ought to be" Ike Bana 6/14/18


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2018 6:09 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36489


What makes you believe that the people in flyover country would stand by and allow the people from California dictate the political views of our nation to them.

The only thing I can come up with is that you are such a believer in liberalism that you must believe people would love and adopt your views once they experienced living in your utopia of "social justice".

You still can't make the case, can you?

Say they split California into two pieces. Does that then mean that "flyover country" will no longer have a say?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2018 6:11 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36489


Not at all, while you hate, despise and are envious of the successful I don't covet their property. Nor do I believe the reason I have 2.5 acres is because my neighbor has over 200.

No, you WORSHIP the rich. You think Donald Trump was a great businessman that deserves respect for being rich. And I'll be happy to bring up all those posts of yours saying so.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2018 6:12 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 17708
I hate this "New York & California" nonsense.

Want to see the red-blue map when we break it down by county instead of by state?

Image

There's rivers of blue throughout the country.

Some interesting factoids from the site I found this from:

-- there are only 3 states on that map where all counties went red: Oklahoma, West Virginia, and Alaska. EVERY OTHER STATE HAS SOME BLUE IN IT.

-- It's true Trump won 2600 counties to around 500 for Clinton, or around 84% of the geographic U.S. But, surface area is not what we represent in Congress.
-- However, Clinton won 88 of of the 100 largest counties (including Washington D.C.) in the U.S.

It's not the coasts vs. the middle, the north vs. the south, the east vs. the west, NY & California vs. the rest of the U.S.. The real red-blue division in this country is mostly between its population centers and rural areas.

And, BTW, while I don't want rural voters ignored, they can't hold the rest of the country hostage, either. A balance needs to be found.



That map makes my point. Under GoU and others opinion those in all that red area deserve to have no voice.

_________________
"my choice is for people like you to be deported -Ike Bana 5/13/18

"within weeks of being rid of the likes of you, rid of every fucking one of you,we would begin to see what kind of country this ought to be" Ike Bana 6/14/18


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2018 6:17 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 17708
You still can't make the case, can you?

Say they split California into two pieces. Does that then mean that "flyover country" will no longer have a say?



I se you are changing the narrative. While earlier you were talking that Cally deserves more Senators than Vermont you are now saying something totally different.

As for me I personally believe we need to change many borders and redo our entire country's map.

Make Calif 2 states, Wash and Ore one state. One Dakota, One Carolina, combine Mississippi and Alabama, make DC part of Maryland. Vt and Ct and Maine one state. Along with other changes.

_________________
"my choice is for people like you to be deported -Ike Bana 5/13/18

"within weeks of being rid of the likes of you, rid of every fucking one of you,we would begin to see what kind of country this ought to be" Ike Bana 6/14/18


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2018 6:18 pm 
Offline
Policy Wonk

Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 12:39 am
Posts: 2083
I'm for equal representation but the notion that state can gerrymander itself so that the very few
would have as much power as the many is nuts. It would be absurd if 50 people moved to the
Mohave desert and wanted to form a state equal to the Millions living in Los Angeles.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... 09e20fb729

I do find glen's notion about making the wealthy the villains absurd for the wealthy already have enough
advantages and now with the GOP gaining power, the politicians now with the Trump Tax Cuts are going
out of their way to ensure the "villains" stay further ahead.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2018 6:18 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36489


That map makes my point. Under GoU and others opinion those in all that red area deserve to have no voice.

glen, if you split the country into 50 equal geographical areas, and gave each one two Senators, how would that give them no voice? You'd have two houses, one by geography, one by population.

Truth is, you don't WANT fair representation. You want a minority to continue to rule.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2018 6:19 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 12706
Location: Sunny South Florida
Not no voice, but not more voice than the population centers of the U.S. which are in many states.

Which are not just New York City & Los Angeles. ;)

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2018 6:20 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36489


I se you are changing the narrative. While earlier you were talking that Cally deserves more Senators than Vermont you are now saying something totally different.

As for me I personally believe we need to change many borders and redo our entire country's map.

Make Calif 2 states, Wash and Ore one state. One Dakota, One Carolina, combine Mississippi and Alabama, make DC part of Maryland. Vt and Ct and Maine one state. Along with other changes.

Yes, glen, I'm pointing out that it's ridiculous that a tiny sliver of land like Vermont should have the same representation as California. Vermont has neither land nor population.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2018 6:31 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 17708
Yes, glen, I'm pointing out that it's ridiculous that a tiny sliver of land like Vermont should have the same representation as California. Vermont has neither land nor population.



Under your system there would be 435 Senators with 80 of them being from California and 66 of those being Democrats.

How can you not see how that would end our country?

_________________
"my choice is for people like you to be deported -Ike Bana 5/13/18

"within weeks of being rid of the likes of you, rid of every fucking one of you,we would begin to see what kind of country this ought to be" Ike Bana 6/14/18


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2018 6:32 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 12706
Location: Sunny South Florida
These first two maps are pretty amazing.

Image

If people of color were the only voters, Trump would have won 0 electoral votes in the electoral college. Lost in a total countrywide landslide.

If women (of all races) were the only voters, Trump would have won only 71 votes in the electoral college.

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Last edited by ProfessorX on Sun Apr 15, 2018 6:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2018 6:35 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36489


Under your system there would be 435 Senators with 80 of them being from California and 66 of those being Democrats.

How can you not see how that would end our country?

No, dumbass. READ AGAIN. Still 100 Senators. Fifty equal geographic areas, roughly same number of square miles in each. And not gerrymandered, pretty square divisions. Then, give each 2 Senators, like now. Keep the Congress split by population, but end the gerrymandering.

How would that be unfair?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2018 6:56 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 17708
No, dumbass. READ AGAIN. Still 100 Senators. Fifty equal geographic areas, roughly same number of square miles in each. And not gerrymandered, pretty square divisions. Then, give each 2 Senators, like now. Keep the Congress split by population, but end the gerrymandering.

How would that be unfair?


I must have missed that. So you are saying that we should have 100 national Senators and they would not be divided by state lines? Making a area like New York City or LA or the greater SF area would have their own Senator based on their population. While on the other hand the Dakotas would basically have one between them. Giving certain heavily populated urban areas the same voice as entire states.

Not a good idea but, much better than what I thought you were saying.

_________________
"my choice is for people like you to be deported -Ike Bana 5/13/18

"within weeks of being rid of the likes of you, rid of every fucking one of you,we would begin to see what kind of country this ought to be" Ike Bana 6/14/18


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2018 7:19 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36489

I must have missed that. So you are saying that we should have 100 national Senators and they would not be divided by state lines? Making a area like New York City or LA or the greater SF area would have their own Senator based on their population. While on the other hand the Dakotas would basically have one between them. Giving certain heavily populated urban areas the same voice as entire states.

Not a good idea but, much better than what I thought you were saying.

No, you still don't get it. Look, if you REALLY WANT fairness, this would be the way to do it. For the Senate, cut the US into 50 square equal pieces. The US is 3,796,742 square miles. So, that would be about 76,000 miles per district. Alaska would have 16 Senators, instead of two. California would get four. North and South Carolina would get 2 between them. Florida would have to share their two with parts of another state.

So, we'd have two houses. One based upon geography - square miles. One based upon population, like Congress is now - but do away with gerrymandering.

But you don't WANT fairness. You want minority rule.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2018 7:24 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 17708
No, dumbass. READ AGAIN. Still 100 Senators. Fifty equal geographic areas, roughly same number of square miles in each. And not gerrymandered, pretty square divisions. Then, give each 2 Senators, like now. Keep the Congress split by population, but end the gerrymandering.

How would that be unfair?



First our Senators are suppose to represent the will of the people from the state, even though we know they represent their Party.

Second if we had your system where we had one Senator for about every 35 million citizens it would be terrible for the DNC, because so much of Democratic Party voters are concentrated into such a small geographical region.

Which is the real reason we have way more Democratic voters than we have Democratic Party US Reps. Even though the lie about Gerrymandering is a fine lie.

_________________
"my choice is for people like you to be deported -Ike Bana 5/13/18

"within weeks of being rid of the likes of you, rid of every fucking one of you,we would begin to see what kind of country this ought to be" Ike Bana 6/14/18


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2018 7:26 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 17708
No, you still don't get it. Look, if you REALLY WANT fairness, this would be the way to do it. For the Senate, cut the US into 50 square equal pieces. The US is 3,796,742 square miles. So, that would be about 76,000 miles per district. Alaska would have 16 Senators, instead of two. California would get four. North and South Carolina would get 2 between them. Florida would have to share their two with parts of another state.

So, we'd have two houses. One based upon geography - square miles. One based upon population, like Congress is now - but do away with gerrymandering.

But you don't WANT fairness. You want minority rule.


That would be unfair. The only fair way would be to divide by population.

_________________
"my choice is for people like you to be deported -Ike Bana 5/13/18

"within weeks of being rid of the likes of you, rid of every fucking one of you,we would begin to see what kind of country this ought to be" Ike Bana 6/14/18


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2018 7:28 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36489


First our Senators are suppose to represent the will of the people from the state, even though we know they represent their Party.

Second if we had your system where we had one Senator for about every 35 million citizens it would be terrible for the DNC, because so much of Democratic Party voters are concentrated into such a small geographical region.

Which is the real reason we have way more Democratic voters than we have Democratic Party US Reps. Even though the lie about Gerrymandering is a fine lie.

Again, you say you want fairness, and you don't. I simply came up with a truly fair way, and you reject that. I'm not surprised. The Great Compromise was made to give more power to the slave states, to keep slavery. And you want to keep that unfairness, because you hate anyone that isn't like you. You think YOUR vote is more important than MY vote, and YOUR vote should count for more than MINE. That's pretty simply it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2018 7:29 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36489

That would be unfair. The only fair way would be to divide by population.

Uh, glen? Did you not know that's how Congress is divided?

Do you REALLY not know that? Are you truly that ignorant?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2018 7:45 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 17708
Uh, glen? Did you not know that's how Congress is divided?

Do you REALLY not know that? Are you truly that ignorant?


Again you are changing the narrative. You said you wanted the Senate divided into 50 areas by land. Which is a terrible idea.

_________________
"my choice is for people like you to be deported -Ike Bana 5/13/18

"within weeks of being rid of the likes of you, rid of every fucking one of you,we would begin to see what kind of country this ought to be" Ike Bana 6/14/18


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2018 7:51 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36489

Again you are changing the narrative. You said you wanted the Senate divided into 50 areas by land. Which is a terrible idea.

First, you just showed your abject ignorance. You don't even have the basic knowledge of how our government works.

And no, you were making an argument about how "flyover country" (a loaded term that really doesn't affect reality), so I made a proposal that would make your argument fair. I'm not actually making such a proposal.

There is no fairness that Vermont, with less than 10 percent of the population AND the land mass of California, should have the same number of Senators. You can't justify it, and you have no interest in fairness. You want the white minority to rule. You think your vote should count for more than mine. It's that simple.

Here's the thing - Republicans can't put forth an agenda that the majority of Americans agree with, so you have to lie, steal and cheat to keep power. That's what it's all about.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2018 8:03 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 17708
First, you just showed your abject ignorance. You don't even have the basic knowledge of how our government works.

And no, you were making an argument about how "flyover country" (a loaded term that really doesn't affect reality), so I made a proposal that would make your argument fair. I'm not actually making such a proposal.

There is no fairness that Vermont, with less than 10 percent of the population AND the land mass of California, should have the same number of Senators. You can't justify it, and you have no interest in fairness. You want the white minority to rule. You think your vote should count for more than mine. It's that simple.

Here's the thing - Republicans can't put forth an agenda that the majority of Americans agree with, so you have to lie, steal and cheat to keep power. That's what it's all about.


Actually if anyone here doesn't understand how our Gov't works it would be you. As you obviously do not understand how our Gov't was set up as a system of checks and balances. One where the majority cannot dictate to the rest of the country.


Which is why California has over 50 members of the House and Vermont has 1. Under your system there would be no need for two chambers. But, like all good liberals you prefer a one party Gov't.

_________________
"my choice is for people like you to be deported -Ike Bana 5/13/18

"within weeks of being rid of the likes of you, rid of every fucking one of you,we would begin to see what kind of country this ought to be" Ike Bana 6/14/18


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2018 8:15 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36489

Actually if anyone here doesn't understand how our Gov't works it would be you. As you obviously do not understand how our Gov't was set up as a system of checks and balances. One where the majority cannot dictate to the rest of the country.


Which is why California has over 50 members of the House and Vermont has 1. Under your system there would be no need for two chambers. But, like all good liberals you prefer a one party Gov't.

What a fucking liar you are. I know the entire history of why we have the system we do, you don't. You don't even understand how the Congress is apportioned.

Vermont has 625,000 people. California has 39 Million. That's about 2% of the population of California. Do you fucking think that they should have the same number of Congressman, too?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2018 9:06 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2017 12:34 pm
Posts: 5079

That was the way it our founding fathers meant for it to be, a great idea then and still a great idea today. It is what makes us a representative republic as opposed to being the country so many on the left seem to desire. One where liberals from California and New York dictate to the rest of the country.


Get over your Southern White Male Inferiority Complex glen.

When you and all your Racist Fuck Wad Buddies who think shooting black men in back is all kinds of fine well, right and good actually see how evil such killings are, maybe just maybe you might have something to bitch about.

_________________
Glenfs posted about the Left's War On Women. Glenfs posted this after the Cosby Verdict "Gloria Allred is a media hound and an asshole. The most dangerous place to be is inbetween her and a microphone or camera". 04/27/2018.


Last edited by marindem on Mon Apr 16, 2018 10:26 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2018 10:05 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:07 am
Posts: 11451
No, you still don't get it. Look, if you REALLY WANT fairness, this would be the way to do it. For the Senate, cut the US into 50 square equal pieces. The US is 3,796,742 square miles. So, that would be about 76,000 miles per district. Alaska would have 16 Senators, instead of two. California would get four. North and South Carolina would get 2 between them. Florida would have to share their two with parts of another state.

So, we'd have two houses. One based upon geography - square miles. One based upon population, like Congress is now - but do away with gerrymandering.

But you don't WANT fairness. You want minority rule.


I don't like that idea one bit. Bare land doesn't have a mind or an opinion. Alaska getting 16 Senators, California only 4. Hell let's keep it the way it is if that nonsense is the best idea you have.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 57 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ike Bana, ZoWie and 34 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group