CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: OrangeAfroMan on April 22, 2021, 01:29:18 PM
-
I know the highest vote-getter would be "screw ND, leave them out" if it was an option, so I left it off on purpose. I chose 8 of the historically woeful programs as the one and only P5 football program to be left out.
Football only.
-
I'm not sure who WOULD be left out, but I know I'd like for it to be Baylor. So I'll choose Baylor.
-
between Rutgers and Vandy for me
I went with the SEC SEC SEC
-
What is the premise that sets the magic number at 64 instead of 65 or any other random number?
-
Some article.
Plus its clean.
And it's actually doable. No one is over 16 teams, so all hope isn't lost.
-
I went with Wake, but could easily have gone for Baylor.
Vandy is in a cool city.
-
I'm going with the Beavers... Nobody out west cares about CFB anyway.
Although I'd be tempted to keep them just because they're the Beavers.
-
I kept them just because they're the Beavers
-
What would 8 team conferences look like?
NE: PSU, Rutgers, BC, Pitt, Cuse, WVU, Maryland, VT
Mid Atlantic: UVA, UNC, NCSU, Dook, USCe, Clemson, GT, FSU
SE: UF, Miami, UGA, Tenn, Bama, AU, msu, Ole Mrs.
S Central: LSU, Arky, UT, aTm, TCU, OU, oSu, Baylor
EMW: UM, MSU, OSU, IU, Purdue, Vandy, Kentucky, Louisville
WMW: UW, Minnie, Iowa, Iowa State, UNL, Illinois, ND, NU
PAC: USC, Cal, Ferd, uw, wsu, osu, UO, UCLA
Mountain: KSU, KU, UA, ASU, TTU, Utah, Colorado, Mizzou
-
If Notre Dame gets their spot, then it is Rutgers. Otherwise, I dunno... Wake?
-
What would 8 team conferences look like?
NE: PSU, Rutgers, BC, Pitt, Cuse, WVU, Maryland, VT
Mid Atlantic: UVA, UNC, NCSU, Dook, USCe, Clemson, GT, FSU
SE: UF, Miami, UGA, Tenn, Bama, AU, msu, Ole Mrs.
S Central: LSU, Arky, UT, aTm, TCU, OU, oSu, Baylor
EMW: UM, MSU, OSU, IU, Purdue, Vandy, Kentucky, Louisville
WMW: UW, Minnie, Iowa, Iowa State, UNL, Illinois, ND, NU
PAC: USC, Cal, Ferd, uw, wsu, osu, UO, UCLA
Mountain: KSU, KU, UA, ASU, TTU, Utah, Colorado, Mizzou
4 x 16
But when I used to toil with major realignment stuff, I'd always wind up with Iowa State or Baylor being left out. But Wake is tiny, too.
-
8x8
if you want to play a crossover team from the "other" 8 team conference that you're paired with for the first round playoff game, that's fine
call them 16-team conferences if you like, but they're (2) 8-team conferences
-
Yeah, 4x16 is effectively going to turn out as 8x8 anyway.
-
What would 16 team conferences look like?
NE: PSU, Rutgers, BC, Pitt, Cuse, WVU, Maryland, VT
Mid Atlantic: UVA, UNC, NCSU, Dook, USCe, Clemson, GT, FSU
*******
SE: UF, Miami, UGA, Tenn, Bama, AU, msu, Ole Mrs.
S Central: LSU, Arky, UT, aTm, TCU, OU, oSu, Baylor
*******
EMW: UM, MSU, OSU, IU, Purdue, Vandy, Kentucky, Louisville
WMW: UW, Minnie, Iowa, Iowa State, UNL, Illinois, ND, NU
*******
PAC: USC, Cal, Ferd, uw, wsu, osu, UO, UCLA
Mountain: KSU, KU, UA, ASU, TTU, Utah, Colorado, Mizzou
OK, so there's 2*4
-
For me....it was between Vandy and Wake. I went with Wake because even though they are a well thought of academic institution....Vandy is elite....and that can be a draw for top talent.
-
What would 8 team conferences look like?
Mountain: KSU, KU, UA, ASU, TTU, Utah, Colorado, Mizzou
Kansas and Missouri don't have any mountains, and the two Kansas schools are both quite a bit worse than BYU and Boise, who would be a much better fit geographically.
-
Realistic, building from the current landscape 16x4:
SEC +VT +NCST
B1G +UVA +KU
PAC +TEX +TCU +BU +BYU
ACC (-VT -NCSU -UVA) +ND +WV +OU +OKST +KSU
Left out: Texas Tech & Iowa State
.
How'd I get here?
The B1G has certain academic requirements + AAU status. Syracuse would have gone to the B1G, but no AAU status.
I drew the line at "acceptable" academically at 100th in the US World News rankings, aka "The Nebraska Line" (99th). https://www.reddit.com/r/CFB/comments/2g0uok/academic_ranks_of_power_5_schools_new_us_news_and/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/CFB/comments/2g0uok/academic_ranks_of_power_5_schools_new_us_news_and/)
.
Why is this difficult?
There are a lack of quality P5 academic universities in the middle of the country. There just is. I doubt it's due to anything other than population growth, as the east is the most dense, CA and the west coast boomed, with flyover country (north of the sun belt) still being sparse. With people come universities.
.
Those PAC additions are dumb.
They're 'out there," to be sure. But the PAC also has an academic cutoff line, at least some of the members do, and they'll want to add some decent institutions. BYU plays the role of ND Jr and nixes another middle-US school from the in-crowd.
.
Kansas? KANSAS?
Yes. Decent school. AAU member. Extends the footprint. If for no other reason, no other school checks those boxes, aside from some southern schools. Think of it as a step up from Mizzou.
.
Anyway, there's a feasible grouping, built on the existing construction of the conferences.
Now, for divisions (and the 16x4 turning 8x8):
SEC: VT, NCST, USCe, UF, UGA, UK, UTK, VAN.......Bama, AU, OM, MSU, LSU, ARK, A&M, MIZ
.
B1G: KU, IOWA, UNL, MIN, WIS, NW, ILL, PU......UM, MSU, OSU, IU, PSU, RU, UMD, UVA
.
PAC: UW, WSU, UO, ORST, CAL, STAN, USC, UCLA.......AZ, ASU, UTAH, BYU, CU, TEX, BAY, TCU
.
ACC: CLEM............MIAMI, FSU, GT, UNC, Duke, WF, BC, SU, Pitt, ND, UL, OU, WV, OKST, KSU
-
The OP stipulated "Football only"
Doesn't that preclude us from considering non football factors, such as Basketball or Academics?
-
I'm going with the Beavers... Nobody out west cares about CFB anyway.
Although I'd be tempted to keep them just because they're the Beavers.
We've all put up a lot less to keep Beavers around
-
Building my conferences, based on tenure and geography:
ACC - Clemson, Duke, Georgia Tech, Maryland, NC State, North Carolina, Virginia, Wake Forest
Big 8 - Colorado, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State
Big East - BC, Florida State, Miami, Penn State, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia Tech, West Virginia
Big Ten - Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio State, Purdue, Wisconsin
Misfits? - Kentucky, Louisville, Michigan State, Northwestern, Notre Dame, South Carolina, Utah, Vanderbilt
Pac 8 - California, Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, UCLA, USC, Washington, Washington State
SEC - Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, LSU, Mississippi State, Ole Miss, Tennessee
SWC - Arizona, Arizona State, Arkansas, Baylor, TCU, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech
-
The OP stipulated "Football only"
Doesn't that preclude us from considering non football factors, such as Basketball or Academics?
Idk, I just concerned myself with football.
-
Would the SEC be willing to ship Missouri off to the B1G? Would Missouri want to go?
-
The Midwest always gets screwed when you divide up a nationwide league into divisions, due to its location in the middle.
Badge is a Midwestern, geographically minded guy. He divided everyone up about as geographically sound as he could, under the parameters. Yet even with two Midwest divisions, he had to banish 3 Midwestern schools out west, while shoehorning 3 schools from Kentucky and Tennessee into one of the Midwest divisions.
Its like the NHL covid divisions. They are awesome from a geographical standpoint, but the Midwest was the region that got hosed. Some were sent westward, while the others got lumped in with the Southeast.
-
Would the SEC be willing to ship Missouri off to the B1G? Would Missouri want to go?
This exercise doesn't really seem to consider what any school would actually "want" but Mizzou would definitely go to the B1G if invited. That was their desire all along, but the B1G took Nebraska instead.
-
Oh also, Missouri actually is moving back to the Big 12.
https://www.flowrestling.org/articles/6987944-missouri-set-to-return-to-the-big-12
(in wrestling)
-
This exercise doesn't really seem to consider what any school would actually "want" but Mizzou would definitely go to the B1G if invited. That was their desire all along, but the B1G took Nebraska instead.
Would the B1G not prefer UVA? Mizzou is certainly better than KU in football, but so is everyone else, and Mizzou is largely irrelevant anyway. Is KU not a better option?
-
No.
-
Is it because St. Louie is midwestern and Kansas City is a bunch of silly western yokels?
-
Kansas is in the Midwest. Missouri is a Southeastern state.
-
I wonder, as do many here, why we want to "NFL" college football. I like disorder, it's inevitable anyway.
-
I don't mind an even setup with x-number of teams in every conference and all that. I do not want the postseason to be inclusive, though, like the NFL's is.
-
Kansas is in the Midwest. Missouri is a Southeastern state.
My first year in grad school, I overheard some other students from the northeast talking about how they considered Pennsylvania to be a southern state. I was thinking North Carolina was a northern state.
-
As is South Dakota a southern state
-
Oklahoma is a northern state.
-
Humans like tidy lists, and distinctions and categorizations.
-
My first year in grad school, I overheard some other students from the northeast talking about how they considered Pennsylvania to be a southern state. I was thinking North Carolina was a northern state.
This isn't one of those "perspective" things. I like having the Big Ten and the SEC divided along Civil War lines. Yes, I know that Kentucky and Missouri had a foot in each door, but I don't mind conceding them both to the south.
That said, I know that no one else cares about that. So looking up some maps that divide up the regions, this is the one I find to be most sound. What I like most about it is that it separates the Left coast off as its own thing, whereas most of the others just lumped it all together as "The West."
(https://www.cfb51.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Freardonhistory.weebly.com%2Fuploads%2F5%2F6%2F3%2F1%2F56317565%2F6278914.gif%3F897&hash=35f65656e18f36128ea3b36fba84c5d3)
-
To anyone on the Atlantic coast, everything west of the Appalachians is the frontier.
To anyone on the Pacific coast, everything east of the Rockies is "back east".
-
Mt Rushmore is a good example.
Most people in the East think of it as being somewhere way out west.
Nobody out west considers the Dakotas to be "out west."
-
Sounds like that space between the Mississippi river and the Rocky mountains is unclaimed.
Must be why it gets the short stick in major realignment talk.
-
There are reasonable debates as to which region states like Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, W Virginia, and Kentucky belong to.
Kansas up to N Dakota is clearly in the Midwest.
-
to midwesterners
-
Aside from folks that can't find Canada or the Pacific Ocean on a map, I doubt there are many folks that would consider those states anything other than the Midwest. I mean they are flat, cold and covered in corn.
The folks who think My Rushmore is out west probably don't know what state it is in. They just know what it looks like, and assume that it must be "out west."
-
Kentucky and West Virginia flat? Corn?
-
No, Kansas up through the Dakotas.
-
Think of the states in the "Northwest Territories" .... NW?
Maryland is south of the M-W line, to the extent that is of any note, and was a slave state with KY and MO. Is that the actual abbrev. for Missouri?
Delaware also was a slave state, but nobody cares about DE except corporations.
I think culturally and politically, states can evolve over time and become "something else". Look at the Presidential map of the 1976 election, the typical blue and red states are often reversed. Of course, there was a regional candidate to some extent (Carter). This was really a W vs E kind of result.
(https://i.imgur.com/Ee1NOFN.png)
-
Cali and Illinois red. Texas blue.
Illinois and Texas with the same # of electoral votes at 26.
Now Texas has 38, and growing. Illinois has 20, soon to be 15.
-
not soon enuff
-
1976 was also the final presidential election that factored in "The Solid South." Southerners hated the Republicans for what they considered to be unnecessary brutality during Radical Reconstruction after the Civil War.
So they voted solidly against the Democrats, until 1980 when many of them finally figured out that the party values had changed and that the Republicans were now the conservatives, and the Democrats had become the Progressive party. Even in 1976 they were effectively voting against their own interests, but that changed in 1980.
Of the Solid South, only Georgia remained Democrat, and that's probably explained by Carter's regional appeal/
(https://i.imgur.com/RY2VTN7.png)
-
The answer to this question is Rutgers. The only reason they are in power five, or even FCS at all maybe, is because big Jim had a burning desire to fly into Newark airport.
-
1976 was also the final presidential election that factored in "The Solid South." Southerners hated the Republicans for what they considered to be unnecessary brutality during Radical Reconstruction after the Civil War.
So they voted solidly against the Democrats, until 1980 when many of them finally figured out that the party values had changed and that the Republicans were now the conservatives, and the Democrats had become the Progressive party. Even in 1976 they were effectively voting against their own interests, but that changed in 1980.
Of the Solid South, only Georgia remained Democrat, and that's probably explained by Carter's regional appeal/
(https://i.imgur.com/RY2VTN7.png)
The pre-1960s Democratic Party was also a particularly odd big tent. Built on the backs of European immigrants in the north, a long history with the white power structure in the south.
That kind of split would be much harder to pull off these days. But in the 1960s, everyone sort of abandoned that part of the south for a bit, and parts of it were accepted back.
That 1980 election also turned on that mess in Iran, Carter’s handling of it and genera economic malaise. It’s weird to think about elections from 1968-1980 very often turning less on party feelings and more on particular situational factors. (Maybe that’s what we’ve been doing of late, though it seems more personality based)
-
The answer to this question is Rutgers. The only reason they are in power five, or even FCS at all maybe, is because big Jim had a burning desire to fly into Newark airport.
They have never been in the FCS, and they were in a BCS Conference before they joined the Big Ten.
But it might still be Rutgers. Just not for those reasons.
-
No, Kansas up through the Dakotas.
I consider those Great Plains states...
...as someone born in the Midwest.
-
The great plains is a sub-region within the Midwest.
-
1980 and Ronald was the first time my Grandfather, a staunch Democrat, voted for a Republican
never happened again
-
They have never been in the FCS, and they were in a BCS Conference before they joined the Big Ten.
But it might still be Rutgers. Just not for those reasons.
I guess I was overstating it, as they probably wouldn’t have been thrown out of the AAC. That said, Jim‘s largess is the only reason they’re still in a power five conference, instead of competing with east Carolina and probably getting waxed by navy more often than not.
-
Think of the states in the "Northwest Territories" .... NW?
Maryland is south of the M-W line, to the extent that is of any note, and was a slave state with KY and MO. Is that the actual abbrev. for Missouri?
Delaware also was a slave state, but nobody cares about DE except corporations.
I think culturally and politically, states can evolve over time and become "something else". Look at the Presidential map of the 1976 election, the typical blue and red states are often reversed. Of course, there was a regional candidate to some extent (Carter). This was really a W vs E kind of result.
(https://i.imgur.com/Ee1NOFN.png)
If this map happened in 2020, all of the pundits' heads would have exploded. I'm all for it.
-
Even in 1976 they were effectively voting against their own interests, but that changed in 1980.
Ehhh, most Rs vote against their own economic self-interests by voting on ideology even today....especially today.
-
So the right is driven by ethics, while the left is driven by greed?
You might be onto something.
-
So the right is driven by ethics, while the left is driven by greed?
You might be onto something.
Wow.
Ideology is ethics? I guess Hitler was the most pious of us all. Let's just stop here, because WOW.
-
Yes, please do stop. That is your best idea yet, although that bar has been set pretty low.
-
Why do so many people do that? You post something excruciatingly absurd, then agree to stop because of something I posted. What the what??
-
Find another leg to hump.
-
And this is how it always ends.....insult/dismissal aka "gee, I wish OAM didn't hold me accountable"
e-c-h-o c-h-a-m-b-e-r
-
Ehhh, most Rs vote against their own economic self-interests by voting on ideology even today....especially today.
Today and 40 years ago are quite different.
But I certainly agree with your suggestion about what the political parties are doing currently. Neither team is interested in my economic well-being, they're both just trying to steal my money for different reasons. Which is one reason I've voted for neither in a presidential election for almost two decades.
-
both sides of the isle are truly deplorable IMO
-
Fro really trashes this place up.
Derails his own thread with politics, invokes Godwin's Law on the first response, then crowns himself king of the debate when no one takes his troll bait.
I wish that he would simply post links to CNN and MSNBC, so that we could read "his" (lol) thoughts written out in a clear and legible manner for a change.
-
You can suggest I'm a blind liberal parrot, but it doesn't make it true.
-
Today and 40 years ago are quite different.
But I certainly agree with your suggestion about what the political parties are doing currently. Neither team is interested in my economic well-being, they're both just trying to steal my money for different reasons. Which is one reason I've voted for neither in a presidential election for almost two decades.
This is very true. So I ask myself which side is trying to benefit the most people. And that's an obvious answer.
-
You can suggest I'm a blind liberal parrot, but it doesn't make it true.
What are a couple of examples of issues with which you genuinely disagree with your fellow androgynous White liberal SJW stereotypes?
-
Can you boys take it to the open thread please? In other news?
-
There is unrest in the forest.
There is trouble with the trees.
-
What are a couple of examples of issues with which you genuinely disagree with your fellow androgynous White liberal SJW stereotypes?
i'd have to know what you consider their ideologies are, and that list would inevitably be a caricature of the truth, so I'm no sure what to even share.
-
If you are truly a "centrist" as you claim, then by definition you lean left on approximately 50% of the issues, and you lean right on the other 50% of the issues. Now perhaps you are a left-leaning "centrist" in which case it is more of a 60/40 divide, I don't know. Either way, you should easily be able to rattle off a dozen or so issues where you take the stance opposite the one that is aggressively promoted by the likes of MSNBC or CNN. I only asked for two or three examples though, because I already knew that you would be hard pressed to come up with so much as a singular example, due to the fact that you are obviously the most stereotypical White liberal SJW imaginable who couldn't form your own opinion on anything if your life depended on it.
-
Fro really trashes this place up.
Derails his own thread with politics, invokes Godwin's Law on the first response, then crowns himself king of the debate when no one takes his troll bait.
I wish that he would simply post links to CNN and MSNBC, so that we could read "his" (lol) thoughts written out in a clear and legible manner for a change.
While I do wish OAM would not bring certain topics to the forefront, he gets plenty of help making it a thing. He's kind of the embodiment of that arguing with an engineer vs wrestling a pig trope, and more than a few of us seem most ready to step into that particular ring/pen.
(What I'm saying is, if you feel like he's baiting, you are taking it by getting political and snappy)
-
While I do wish OAM would not bring certain topics to the forefront, he gets plenty of help making it a thing. He's kind of the embodiment of that arguing with an engineer vs wrestling a pig trope, and more than a few of us seem most ready to step into that particular ring/pen.
(What I'm saying is, if you feel like he's baiting, you are taking it by getting political and snappy)
I agree. I usually don't take his troll bait, but sometimes I get bored.
I do find it funny that no one ever says anything about him interjecting politics, ever, until someone finally takes the bait, at which point that person is treated as though they and fro are equally responsible for making the thread political. That's always cute.
-
I agree. I usually don't take his troll bait, but sometimes I get bored.
I do find it funny that no one ever says anything about him interjecting politics, ever, until someone finally takes the bait, at which point that person is treated as though they and fro are equally responsible for making the thread political. That's always cute.
I'd prefer he not do it. But I know I'm going to argue through someone who locks in strong with every damn thing and it's just going to spiral out. So I hope other people resist the urge to help it spiral out in a big way. I can't count on the man being mature, so I just hope other people try to be. Sometimes that leaves me disappointed, sometimes not.
-
And the posts echo.....echo......echo.....
-
If you are truly a "centrist" as you claim, then by definition you lean left on approximately 50% of the issues, and you lean right on the other 50% of the issues. Now perhaps you are a left-leaning "centrist" in which case it is more of a 60/40 divide, I don't know. Either way, you should easily be able to rattle off a dozen or so issues where you take the stance opposite the one that is aggressively promoted by the likes of MSNBC or CNN.
What are you dozen issues?
-
And the posts echo.....echo......echo.....
I’m sorry you don’t like that other people don’t enjoy you stirring up nonsense without much real point. Being a jerk, and not a particularly original jerk, doesn’t pierce an “echo chamber.” It convinces no one of anything, but only serves to create more noise and harden convictions.
If we’re arguing over G5 teams or QB quality or chili, that’s at least fun. This garbage is just toxic on all sides. We can do without it in most of the threads (and frankly, the one thread where it should go it’s considerably better when it is not on that topic).
More to the point, what’s the argument for any team but Rutgers? I guess Vandy could be in there, it at least Vandy has had a traditional place in P5. Rutgers has been bad, dis interesting and not even had that.
-
The argument against ghosting Rutgers is their acceptance into the 2nd-most prestigious football conference. It was a head-scratcher, but it happened.
-
The argument against ghosting Rutgers is their acceptance into the 2nd-most prestigious football conference. It was a head-scratcher, but it happened.
This is a magnificent argument for throwing them out.
-
This is very true. So I ask myself which side is trying to benefit the most people. And that's an obvious answer.
I don't find it obvious
I doubt either side is trying to benefit anyone but themselves
what do you mean by the "most people"??
-
The argument against ghosting Rutgers is their acceptance into the 2nd-most prestigious football conference. It was a head-scratcher, but it happened.
To back up a step, there was a reason that Rutgers got into the B1G. A lot of us here feel that it was not a good enough reason, but there was a reason. That reason was fanbase size/local population.
Rutgers is the State University of New Jersey. Their enrollment nearly 70k with almost 50k undergrads and nearly 20k grad students. New Jersey is the 11th most populous state with nearly 9M people and Rutgers is located in the fourth most populous metro area in the world (first in the US).
I'm not necessarily arguing here that this was a good enough reason, just pointing out that this was the main reason and it is a reasonable consideration.
-
From Omaha Herald Writer
Sam McKewon
The Big Ten was the best men’s basketball conference in the country and didn’t get a team in the Final Four. It had, by all accounts, the top volleyball conference in the country — six seeds in the top 13 — and didn’t have a team win the national title.
The Big Ten had the Nos. 3 and 4 seeds in the NCAA men’s hockey tournament, and Wisconsin and Minnesota lost to Bemidji State and Minnesota State, respectively, before the Frozen Four. Despite Ohio State’s surge to the title game, Big Ten football was a prolonged series of frustrations, and the women’s Final Four in basketball didn’t include any Big Ten teams.
We’ll see in baseball and softball, but if teams in neither sport make their respective College World Series, it will have been one of the rougher years in recent league history. And it will be hard not to argue that some of the struggles were self-imposed.
-
Hmmm, looks like Fearless is suggesting the entire B1G should be left out of a P5 breakaway.
-
We’ll see in baseball and softball, but if teams in neither sport make their respective College World Series, it will have been one of the rougher years in recent league history. And it will be hard not to argue that some of the struggles were self-imposed.
The SEC should have about 6 of the 8 spots in Omaha filled, if you look at the rankings today.
-
To back up a step, there was a reason that Rutgers got into the B1G. A lot of us here feel that it was not a good enough reason, but there was a reason. That reason was fanbase size/local population.
Rutgers is the State University of New Jersey. Their enrollment nearly 70k with almost 50k undergrads and nearly 20k grad students. New Jersey is the 11th most populous state with nearly 9M people and Rutgers is located in the fourth most populous metro area in the world (first in the US).
I'm not necessarily arguing here that this was a good enough reason, just pointing out that this was the main reason and it is a reasonable consideration.
Right, and if that's enough for inclusion into the mighty B1G, then how on earth is someone going to suggest they're the 65th program that should get snipped?
Personally, I think BYU should be included and 2 from the island of misfit toys should be snipped.
-
I don't find it obvious
I doubt either side is trying to benefit anyone but themselves
what do you mean by the "most people"??
Are there more lower-middle class and poor people or are there more wealthy and 1%ers? I'll give you a hint: you don't need a calculator.
-
Hmmm, looks like Fearless is suggesting the entire B1G should be left out of a P5 breakaway.
Fearless wasn't suggesting, just pasting
-
Are there more lower-middle class and poor people or are there more wealthy and 1%ers? I'll give you a hint: you don't need a calculator.
well, ALL politicians are much closer to wealthy and 1%ers.
no politicians are lower-middle class and/or poor
All politicians look out for their own, they don't give a damn about the lower-middle class and poor
if the Government cared even a little, your school lunches would be better
-
Fearless wasn't suggesting, just pasting
Sure... sure...
We all know how you Husker fans feel about the B1G right now. Go on... let it out...
-
We feel like the money is too good to pass up
regardless of other interests and emotions
-
Paul Finebaum rips Nebraska football, takes jab at 'delusional' fanbase
https://247sports.com/Article/Nebraska-Huskers-football-Paul-Finebaum-takes-jab-delusional-fanbase-164675591/ (https://247sports.com/Article/Nebraska-Huskers-football-Paul-Finebaum-takes-jab-delusional-fanbase-164675591/)
“The problem with Nebraska, too, is the fan base,” Finebaum explained. “You would have heard Keith (Jackson) and Frank (Broyles) talking about how there’s nobody more loyal. That’s true. They are a loyal fan base, but they’re also a delusional fan base, guys. They still think it’s 1980. They still think it’s 1990. They still think it’s 2000.
-
well, ALL politicians are much closer to wealthy and 1%ers.
no politicians are lower-middle class and/or poor
All politicians look out for their own, they don't give a damn about the lower-middle class and poor
if the Government cared even a little, your school lunches would be better
Like with the G5 lie, we should simply end the lie of the House and stop using the word 'representative.' They dictate more to their constituents than they listen to them. Maybe call it the "House of Self-Interests" or the "House of Lobbyists' Bitches", something like that?
-
House members DO "represent" us, by definition, they may not represent what we individually would prefer of course. Most bills these days have entirely partisan votes, on occasion 1-3 may cross the aisle. So, as much as anything else, the simply vote in lock step with their Party. On everything.
It's not as if lobbyists tell them how to vote, the Party does that. Lobbyists MAY help insert certain clauses into legislation if the Representative has enough influence.
-
Like with the G5 lie, we should simply end the lie of the House and stop using the word 'representative.' They dictate more to their constituents than they listen to them. Maybe call it the "House of Self-Interests" or the "House of Lobbyists' Bitches", something like that?
As CD mentions, it's what the voters want.
They don't care about who their representative is, they care which party he represents. Most voters barely even know who their representative is.
BTW it's just as true at the Senate level, it's just on a bigger scale since it's a statewide vote. They care more about the letter after the name than the candidate.
-
I'd have probably voted for this one:
Tulsi Gabbard Urges Americans to 'Stop the Racialization of Everyone and Everything' (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/tulsi-gabbard-urges-americans-to-stop-the-racialization-of-everyone-and-everything/ar-BB1g2B38?ocid=uxbndlbing)
-
BTW it's just as true at the Senate level, it's just on a bigger scale since it's a statewide vote. They care more about the letter after the name than the candidate.
"Life" is easier if you're a D or an R, you never have to try and decide anything. You get spoon fed your positions and Talking Points. And those Other Guys are idiots.
It's akin to being a Buckeye or a wolferine.
What is a wolferine anyway?
-
Reps vote to get re-elected, I know that. But they are told by the power-brokers what to do and in turn, tell it to their districts, who gobble up whatever they say, because of that letter by their name.
-
"Life" is easier if you're a D or an R, you never have to try and decide anything. You get spoon fed your positions and Talking Points. And those Other Guys are idiots.
It's akin to being a Buckeye or a wolferine.
What is a wolferine anyway?
(https://images.craigslist.org/00000_gYPJk71EQyRz_0CI0t2_600x450.jpg)
-
Reps vote to get re-elected, I know that. But they are told by the power-brokers what to do and in turn, tell it to their districts, who gobble up whatever they say, because of that letter by their name.
There is of course SOME change over in purple districts each election cycle. Many are hard core blue or red, but quite a few are not.
-
There is of course SOME change over in purple districts each election cycle. Many are hard core blue or red, but quite a few are not.
Folks also get to pick their voters to one degree or another.
And then there’s stuff like states where they tried to build “majority minority” districts, which is kinda a weird and power-swinging idea in retrospect.
-
Cincydawg is a good example of what a centrist actually looks like. On some issues he sounds like a liberal, on others he sounds like a conservative. Posters from both parties are convinced that he belongs to the opposite party than they do. On most issues like climate change he isn't buying what either side is selling.
What a centrist doesn't look like is a guy in a bright orange clown wig whose schtick is to belch out left wing talking points in threads that have absolutely nothing to do with politics, so that he can goad people into going round and round with him for pages upon pages while he masterbates.
-
Reps vote to get re-elected, I know that. But they are told by the power-brokers what to do and in turn, tell it to their districts, who gobble up whatever they say, because of that letter by their name.
Yes, and as we've discussed ad nauseum, our entire political system is unable to remain in a stable legislative configuration of more than two parties. This is due to our "first past the post" election system and our system of direct representation.
However, to have access to actually get anything done, to have access to party funds and support for re-election, and to make sure you don't get primary'd by your own party, you have to play ball.
The truth is that nearly everyone votes based on party and not person anyway, so in that sense the system actually "works".
-
Cincydawg is a good example of what a centrist actually looks like. On some issues he sounds like a liberal, on others he sounds like a conservative. Posters from both parties are convinced that he belongs to the opposite party than they do. On most issues like climate change he isn't buying what either side is selling.
What a centrist doesn't look like is a guy in a bright orange clown wig whose schtick is to belch out left wing talking points in threads that have absolutely nothing to do with politics, so that he can goad people into going round and round with him for pages upon pages while he masterbates.
And I see Cincy as a normal, of-this-reality republican.
For anyone of either party to fail at trying to instruct what a centrist is.....that's hot garbage. Neither party would know what a centrist is if it bit them in the ass. You're both so far away from the middle that your sniper-rifle scopes can't see us.
As for my masturbation habits....I guess that's between me and all the pictures of you I have on my ceiling.
-
One of my best friends leans pretty far left, and he and I go shooting. He has 8 guns.
-
a person can have his or her own thoughts on political issues
ya don't have to be all red or all blue
-
a person can have his or her own thoughts on political issues
ya don't have to be all red or all blue
Yeah, but that's a lot of work.
It's almost like it requires independent research, thought, and decision-making.
-
Not a strength of the masses.
-
well then, perhaps the masses should be required to jump through a few very easy hoops, to see if they're worthy?
like visiting a government site to obtain an official ID
-
Let's radically gerrymander while we're at it.
One party wants every citizen to vote.
One party doesn't want every citizen to vote.
That's really all you need to know.
AND THAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE, CUZ MSNBC SAID SO :96:
-
Illinois 4. Both sides gerrymander
-
a person can have his or her own thoughts on political issues
ya don't have to be all red or all blue
The problem is the nationalization of platforms kind of means you are.
Coastal Democrats want to primary against Joe Manchin in WV because he isn't liberal enough for them. Guess who he is very much like? A West Virginia liberal.
I say I don't want to vote straight ticket, but every candidate has the same platform, so it's kind of hard not to be. I generally find myself voting against the party in power.
-
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?
-
One of my best friends leans pretty far left, and he and I go shooting. He has 8 guns.
The gun thing is perpetually weird. At a point, it's more symbolic than anything. Very much more about feelings than function at a point, and a topic that will have less movement than WWI trenches.
I also have had many gun-enjoying friends and many convos about joining them shooting, but alas, they've never come together. I had an ex whose dad I was hoping would take me shooting either as an act of bonding or intimidation, but he never really came around to the idea of me, and she eventually didn't see me as a long-haul prospect (but that's a story for another day).
-
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.
-
Gerrymandering does favor Republicans but not because they are better or more ruthless about it.
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.
-
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...
-
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)
-
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?
I didn't claim they did. You inferred that.
When asked casually if I'm a D or an R, I tell folks I'm an "extreme moderate", which usually results in a chuckle and end to the conversation.
I think my views are complex, not really suited for some short discussion with a stranger. I certainly do not align with either political party.
The fact I know to point to IL 4 hardly means I'm a rightist.
In some states, gerrymandering is, in part, to ensure a black representative (or two) can be elected to Congress, as in NC for example. This isn't a bad thing in itself, in my view, but it also has the effect of making the remaining districts "more white", which favors Republicans in the main. If NC had "rationally" divided districts, like what a group of us would normally create, they would have zero black Representatives in the House.
Georgia is different in that we have majority black populations within areas that one could rationally define as districts, though that keeps changing over time. This map probably is gerrymandered to an extent, but it isn't as obvious.
(https://i.imgur.com/Nv6DPWZ.png)
-
Fro's spectrum
Right: cnn and msnbc
Center: fro, Antifa
Left: ???
-
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. This is truly incredible. If it can be involved enough to make a woman keep her pregnancy, why should it not be involved once the unwanted baby is born????
- 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.
This is what a side does when it's most often wrong. Oh, I can see both sides. We can all be reasonable here. No, there aren't reasonable people on both sides of every issue. Some issues have a right and a wrong.
Hypocrisy is cataclysmic in the US, specifically on the right. The same crowd who get a boner for the constitution want the bible and jesus everywhere, ignoring the separation. They insist the US is a christian nation, when it is specifically not.
.
If Jesus was alive today, which party would he join? The GUNSGUNSGUNSKEEPTHEPEOPLEFROMSHITHOLECOUNTRIESOUT party or the other one?
-
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.
-
The name calling needs to stop, now.
-
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.
-
The name calling needs to stop, now.
What do we label someone who doens't know what he's talk about and goes out of his way to insult me?