Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

Illinois 4.  Both sides gerrymander

Here's a god example of Cincy being a righty and not centrist.  He's not wrong, but let's ask him this:  do both sides gerrymander in nearly the same amounts?

Here's a god example of Cincy being a righty and not centrist.  He's not wrong, but let's ask him this:  do both sides gerrymander in nearly the same amounts?

Gerrymandering does favor Republicans but not because they are better or more ruthless about it.

Gerrymandering favors Republicans due to the way our society sorts itself. The fundamental reality is that, on almost every demographic measure, Republicans win small majorities of large groups while Democrats win large majorities of small groups.

Consequently, when you look at precincts there are a lot more VERY heavily Democratic precincts than VERY heavily Republican precincts. That makes it a lot easier for Republicans to pack Democrats into a few HEAVILY Democratic districts and leave the rest for themselves.

Example, by education:

• About 10% of the population has less than a HS Diploma or GED. These people generally vote heavily Democratic.
• About 77% of the population falls into the middle categories of HS Grad, Some College, Associates Degree, or Bachelors Degree. These people generally vote slightly Republican.
• About 13% of the population has a graduate degree. These people generally vote heavily Democratic.

Further example, (numbers are for the example only):

• If the 10% with <HS vote 90/10 D that is 9%/1% overall for D/R.
• If the 77% in the middle vote 62/38 R that is 29%/48% overall for D/R.
• If the 13% with grad degrees vote 90/10 D that is 11.7%/1.3% overall for D/R.

Overall that adds up to about 50/50 but notice that if you meet a random random person in one of the two Democratic leaning groups you can guess their affiliation with near certainty but if you meet a random person from the middle group you should guess that they are Republican but you only have about 60% confidence in that guess.

The other societal problem this creates is that a substantial portion of Democratic leaning voters (about 40% of them) have virtually no interaction with Republicans. There are practically zero Republicans who have little or no interaction with Democrats.

This ~40% of Democrats (roughly 20% of the population) lives in an echo chamber and for them it is very easy to see the other side not as fellow citizens with a different view but as evil monsters.

I'll go along with your numbers, not having a clue where they came from.  But these last 2 points are patently false.
,
If a Dem sees a Rep as an evil monster, it's probably because the GOP insists every fetus be born, but then abandoned by the state the moment it's delivered....would rather enrich 5 rich people than 500 poor people......and want Jesus' name and image everywhere, but seem to share none of his values.

In the echo chamber that you inhabit these are all commonly accepted beliefs.

If you took a step out of your echo chamber and looked at these issues as things on which reasonable people can disagree then you would actually learn something.

• Abortion: I believe that a reasonable person can believe either that a pregnant woman should have the absolute unfettered right to decide whether or not to carry the fetus to term and deliver it. Another equally reasonable person can believe that at some point prior to birth that fetus becomes more similar to a person than to a mere clump of cells and after that point terminating the pregnancy is tantamount to murder.
• State care of children: I believe that a reasonable person can believe either that the state should be actively and financially involved in the raising of children or that your phrasing of children being "abandoned" by the state is absurd because the state has no obligation to do any such thing and should not be involved.
• Economics generally: I believe that a reasonable person can believe either that the state should provide generously to the poor or that generous benefits to the poor simply encourage able bodied citizens to opt out of work to the detriment not only of society at large but themselves as well.
• Religion in the public sphere: I believe that a reasonable person can believe either that the separation of church and state should be enforced more rigidly than it is, or that the establishment clause should be limited to it's original purpose of preventing compulsory attendance or significant (as opposed to incidental) tax support of a specific religion.
• Jesus' values: Any half-wit can come up with biblical quotations to support their own beliefs. The attack you made here is just silly because even the biblical quotations you are implicitly referencing are personal rather than societal guidance. This is why, to the amazement of most liberals, conservatives are consistently more charitable than liberals. Instead of being anti-charity as you imply, the reality is that conservatives favor optional private charity rather than compulsory public charity for various reasons.

Two final points:

• Have a look around outside of your echo chamber, you'll learn that there are reasonable people who disagree with you.
• I've never understood your reason for bringing up politics. On here my perception is that you are in the ideological minority and yet when you do make a political post you invariably do it in the least persuasive possible way. Sometimes I shake my head and a few times I've actually wondered if you were actually a hard right conservative trying to get people to join your side by presenting the left's arguments in the most alienating manner possible. This is going to sound a lot more insulting than it is meant but this tendency of yours goes well beyond politics. When there is a debate on here, if you are on my side I usually find myself cringing when I see you post because I'm worried that you'll alienate people from our shared position and when you are on the other side I look forward to your posts. Seriously, it feels like your arguments are constructed so as to be as ineffective as possible.

Has this thread run its course? Asking for a friend...

Yuuuup.

(I wasn't really enjoying Medina's long posts, not because of him because it's just not something I enjoy here in many contexts, including his extremely analytical approach. But that last point kinda does nail it in a way that has me nodding)

Fro's spectrum

Right: cnn and msnbc
Center: fro, Antifa
Left: ???

Fro's spectrum

Right: cnn and msnbc
Center: fro, Antifa
Left: ???

Repeating something doesn't make it so. 
Antifa are despicable people who have done indefensible things.  But you lump me in with that.  Because you're an ignorant asshole.

In the echo chamber that you inhabit these are all commonly accepted beliefs.



Two final points:

• Have a look around outside of your echo chamber, you'll learn that there are reasonable people who disagree with you.  Odd thing to say in an echo chamber, lol.
• I've never understood your reason for bringing up politics. On here my perception is that you are in the ideological minority Because the idea of taboo subjects that are rude to discuss is a bullshit idea from the majority.  Don't talk about it, keep the status quo.

Here's a case where neither of my responses should be necessary, but apparently are.