Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567
Results 91 to 96 of 96

Thread: OT: Berkeley protests weren't pro-Trump vs. anti-Trump

  1. #91
    True Blue Golden Bear sycasey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Oakland
    Posts
    15,205
    Quote Originally Posted by calbear93 View Post
    Take my word for it? How about actually reading what I wrote instead of assuming what I wrote. These are the only things I wrote about gerrymandering. This is why it is a waste of time engaging when you guys have no interest in discussing in good faith but just assume what we believe without reading:
    Dude, I am actually trying to be nice here. I'm saying I now understand what you meant. How is that not discussing in good faith?

    Quote Originally Posted by calbear93 View Post
    This is the definition of gerrymander:

    manipulate the boundaries of (an electoral constituency) so as to favor one party or class.
    achieve (a result) by manipulating the boundaries of an electoral constituency.

    So if districts are dominated by one party because of self-selection and you draw up the districts to give (i) Democrats more say by including liberal neighborhoods in a district otherwise dominated by Republicans and thereby give an unnatural leverage to the Democrats and force moderate candidates or (ii) Republicans more say by including conservative neighborhoods in a district otherwise dominated by Democrats and thereby give an unnatural leverage to Republicans and force moderates, how is that not gerrymandering? And I stated numerous times that I am not in favor of it but that it would be one of the only solution (short of people stop self-selecting to live in a community with like-minded people) to force moderate candidates instead of extreme candidates.
    I understand what you are advocating for. I'm just saying that to me that's not gerrymandering, which is why your earlier usage of the term was confusing to me (and also apparently to Unit2). Gerrymandering typically means you are drawing districts intended to advantage one side or the other. Your proposal would be to draw districts specifically to REMOVE that advantage.

    Quote Originally Posted by calbear93 View Post
    You guys are ridiculous.
    If you want to have discussions free of personal, ad-hominem attacks, stop making them.

  2. #92
    Quote Originally Posted by sycasey View Post
    Dude, I am actually trying to be nice here. I'm saying I now understand what you meant. How is that not discussing in good faith?



    I understand what you are advocating for. I'm just saying that to me that's not gerrymandering, which is why your earlier usage of the term was confusing to me (and also apparently to Unit2). Gerrymandering typically means you are drawing districts intended to advantage one side or the other. Your proposal would be to draw districts specifically to REMOVE that advantage.



    If you want to have discussions free of personal, ad-hominem attacks, stop making them.
    You are being nice? OK, let's take it from the top and see why I don't see much value in discussing with you and Unit. This is what I wrote in the beginning that really had nothing to do with gerrymadering - just a throw away comment about gerrymandering that it will never go away but that we need more moderate candidates. My main point was that primaries, especially without independent participants, give too much voice to the extreme:

    Quote Originally Posted by calbear93 View Post
    I wish they would just get rid of the primaries. I don't think they can do anything about gerrymandering, but at least moderates would have a better chance in state and national elections. The extremes have too much power because of the primaries.

    And from that one post, you guys accuse me of defending gerrymandering. How is that a worthwhile discussion with you guys who, as I previously demonstrated, completely ignored what I repeatedly wrote, jumped to your own conclusion about what I wrote (I don't care what you infer from the word "gerrymander" - if you actually read a single thing I wrote about it, there is no way you could be confused that I supported the type of gerrymandering you accused me of supporting), and kept accusing me of supporting a position that I repeatedly wrote that I do not support. That is your idea of being nice and discussing in good faith. So, yeah, I think you guys are ridiculous in claiming that you want to engage in discussions but then ignoring what I actually write and forcing me to defend and argue a position I never took. And if this were the first time, I would understand. This happens every single time. So, no thanks. Nothing personal. I just don't see any value in playing that game.

  3. #93
    Are the depositions over yet?

  4. #94
    True Blue Golden Bear sycasey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Oakland
    Posts
    15,205
    Quote Originally Posted by calbear93 View Post
    And from that one post, you guys accuse me of defending gerrymandering. How is that a worthwhile discussion with you guys who, as I previously demonstrated, completely ignored what I repeatedly wrote, jumped to your own conclusion about what I wrote (I don't care what you infer from the word "gerrymander" - if you actually read a single thing I wrote about it, there is no way you could be confused that I supported the type of gerrymandering you accused me of supporting), and kept accusing me of supporting a position that I repeatedly wrote that I do not support. That is your idea of being nice and discussing in good faith. So, yeah, I think you guys are ridiculous in claiming that you want to engage in discussions but then ignoring what I actually write and forcing me to defend and argue a position I never took. And if this were the first time, I would understand. This happens every single time. So, no thanks. Nothing personal. I just don't see any value in playing that game.
    You keep saying "you guys" here, but I wasn't the one arguing with you back-and-forth about gerrymandering. That was Unit2. Now of course at the end I did say that I was also confused about the gerrymandering comments, but that your subsequent explanations were enough for me. Look it up. That's what happened.

    So coming from someone who likes to frequently complain about other people making assumptions about his views and arguments . . . this is rich.

  5. #95
    Quote Originally Posted by sycasey View Post
    You keep saying "you guys" here, but I wasn't the one arguing with you back-and-forth about gerrymandering. That was Unit2. Now of course at the end I did say that I was also confused about the gerrymandering comments, but that your subsequent explanations were enough for me. Look it up. That's what happened.

    So coming from someone who likes to frequently complain about other people making assumptions about his views and arguments . . . this is rich.
    OK, that's a fair point. My fault for lumping you with Unit on this point. That was laziness.

  6. #96
    Can we retitle this thread:

    calbear93's posts weren't pro-gerrymandering vs. anti-gerrymandering?




Posting Permissions

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