Where have our Conservative members gone?

[Maxima1]

That's not really true wrt HOR representation. There are a few outliers because everybody gets 1 & because of the way that some states fall above or below the split point.

https://www.thegreenpapers.com/Census10/FedRep.phtml

Less populous states are def over represented in the electoral college, however, because everybody gets at least 3.

Didn't exactly say what specifically was wrong in that, but okay. Your last bit is what I was referring to with how a larger number for the House would dilute the 50 state Senate electoral count. Here's a graph showing how Gore could have won with a modest increase.

 

[ivwshane]

That's not really true wrt HOR representation. There are a few outliers because everybody gets 1 & because of the way that some states fall above or below the split point.

https://www.thegreenpapers.com/Census10/FedRep.phtml

Less populous states are def over represented in the electoral college, however, because everybody gets at least 3.

I don't think you understand his point. He isn't saying that the house isn't distributed fairly, he's saying that the people, in general, aren't being properly represented and he's right. 700k represented by one person guarantees people aren't having their views represented. The constitution originally called for one representative per 30k people, we are 23 times higher than that!

 

[Jhhnn]

I don't think that was Trump's inappropriate ad. Correct? You can thank media outlets for releasing the ad and giving it a wider audience than Trump's tweet ever would . If the video was fake about Gillum's campaign staff, why were they dismissed? Are you saying that there have not been fugitives identified and captured or reports of criminals from the caravans? Go ahead and call that fake news as well.

If Gillum's staff got fired for remarks in private, when does Trump get fired for racist fearmongering in public?

Blame the media for repeating what the POTUS says? Are they just supposed to pretend it didn't happen?

 

[Perknose]

You made that post a few pages back. And yes, I did look at Taj's and Spyder's history a bit to make sure I wasn't mistaken. If there's anything egregious, it must be further back.

Yours is simply not a credible response. Not even close.

 

[ivwshane]

If Gillum's staff got fired for remarks in private, when does Trump get fired for racist fearmongering in public?

Blame the media for repeating what the POTUS says? Are they just supposed to pretend it didn't happen?

Honestly my hope is that they would completely ignore him and simply focus on actual actions and that can be said for his entire administration. After all, what good is it to cover the guy and his admin if all they do is lie?

 

[Jhhnn]

I don't think you understand his point. He isn't saying that the house isn't distributed fairly, he's saying that the people, in general, aren't being properly represented and he's right. 700k represented by one person guarantees people aren't having their views represented. The constitution originally called for one representative per 30k people, we are 23 times higher than that!

I don't think you understand his point. He isn't saying that the house isn't distributed fairly, he's saying that the people, in general, aren't being properly represented and he's right. 700k represented by one person guarantees people aren't having their views represented. The constitution originally called for one representative per 30k people, we are 23 times higher than that!

I'm pretty sure that having 435 HOR members is already like herding cats. I'm also sure going on about that ignores the much greater inequality in the Senate. Increasing the number of HOR reps would require changing the law & GOP Senators from small states won't go for it. Hell- Dem Senators from small states probably won't go for it either.

It's like the discussions about Dems stacking the courts or the GOP changing the 14th amendment, mostly pointless w/o huge wins within the existing structure.

 

[Jhhnn]

Honestly my hope is that they would completely ignore him and simply focus on actual actions and that can be said for his entire administration. After all, what good is it to cover the guy and his admin if all they do is lie?

It's impossible to ignore the ravings of the President of the United States.

 

[Atreus21]

I know @werepossum said he’s been real busy with work a few months ago, I know Doc rage quit. Where are the others?
Have the responsible members gotten tired of defending an obviously corrupt & incompetent administration? Have they accepted that the current batch of Republican Congress critters are not willing to do any hard work plus totally caved regarding the deficit?

Something else?

What do you think?

(Please keep it courteous)

I'm still here. Just very busy these days.

 

[rvborgh]

same here... i'm a Deplorable... but in this Trump economy i'm working too much to comment much. i have the feeling that things are going to get worse with this as we start winning even more Besides, i'm kind of tired of not being able to have civil conversations with folks on the other side... so i tend to lurk and let the other side have their echo chamber (venting helps keep sanity).

I'm still here. Just very busy these days.

 

[mect]

While I agree there are several posters here on the left that don't contribute much beyond one line insults, at the same time I recognize that sometimes that is all the effort one is willing to give when the posters that continue to defend the republican party refuse deal in facts. The republicans have fully embraced the post truth world, and its impossible to have an intelligent discussion with someone that makes up their own definitions for words, makes up their own numbers, has no understanding of probability and statistics, fundamental science, or history. Basically, its impossible to have an intelligent discussion with someone that acts like Trump, and that seems to be where the entire republican party has gone, including their base.

 

[ivwshane]

I'm pretty sure that having 435 HOR members is already like herding cats. I'm also sure going on about that ignores the much greater inequality in the Senate. Increasing the number of HOR reps would require changing the law & GOP Senators from small states won't go for it. Hell- Dem Senators from small states probably won't go for it either.

It's like the discussions about Dems stacking the courts or the GOP changing the 14th amendment, mostly pointless w/o huge wins within the existing structure.

Again, whether it's 400+ or 900+ the feasibility is the same, the difference is that people will better be represented and there would likely be less big money influence as it would take a lot more money to persuade more house members.

The senate was designed to be unfair as the founding fathers saw it fit to give smaller states equal power to ensure their interests weren't drowned out. The senate, was also working as expected prior to Mitch McConnell's rule.

Its also a hell of a lot easier to pass a law making such changes than it is to fix gerrymandering or any other number of voter suppression schemes the Republicans are enacting.

 

[Atreus21]

While I agree there are several posters here on the left that don't contribute much beyond one line insults, at the same time I recognize that sometimes that is all the effort one is willing to give when the posters that continue to defend the republican party refuse deal in facts. The republicans have fully embraced the post truth world, and its impossible to have an intelligent discussion with someone that makes up their own definitions for words, makes up their own numbers, has no understanding of probability and statistics, fundamental science, or history. Basically, its impossible to have an intelligent discussion with someone that acts like Trump, and that seems to be where the entire republican party has gone, including their base.

What issue(s) are you referring to?

 

[UberNeuman]

ACT II - SCENE 1

What are "conservative" values as defined by our self declared forum "conseratives"? It seems to be that Trump et al. has enacted or has tried to forward the ideas that "conseratives" hold dear. Correct me, since I'm not wrong... lol.

 

[mect]

What issue(s) are you referring to?

Just off the top puff my head, the definitions of words like racism and gender. The results of the polling for the 2016 election. The results thus far for the Mueller investigation. The market performance preTrump. Global warming. The impacts of Trump's tariffs. Crime rates among illegal aliens in America. The 14 th amendment. Voter suppression. Voter fraud. Deficits. The size of crowds at Trump events. The frequency of sexual assault against women compared to the frequency of women making false claims about sexual assault. Obvious perjury by a now supreme court justice. Basically, any issue from the serious to the frivolous.

 

[Jhhnn]

Again, whether it's 400+ or 900+ the feasibility is the same, the difference is that people will better be represented and there would likely be less big money influence as it would take a lot more money to persuade more house members.

The senate was designed to be unfair as the founding fathers saw it fit to give smaller states equal power to ensure their interests weren't drowned out. The senate, was also working as expected prior to Mitch McConnell's rule.

Its also a hell of a lot easier to pass a law making such changes than it is to fix gerrymandering or any other number of voter suppression schemes the Republicans are enacting.

So what? The chances of Congress changing it anytime RSN are nil. It's also off topic.

 

[Atreus21]

Just off the top puff my head, the definitions of words like racism and gender. The results of the polling for the 2016 election. The results thus far for the Mueller investigation. The market performance preTrump. Global warming. The impacts of Trump's tariffs. Crime rates among illegal aliens in America. The 14 th amendment. Voter suppression. Voter fraud. Deficits. The size of crowds at Trump events. The frequency of sexual assault against women compared to the frequency of women making false claims about sexual assault. Obvious perjury by a now supreme court justice. Basically, any issue from the serious to the frivolous.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

Let's take the first one because it's probably the most difficult: How would you define racism? I'm not sure how to define it myself.

 

[mect]

Let's take the first one because it's probably the most difficult: How would you define racism? I'm not sure how to define it myself.

Whether you know how top define it is irrelevant. Racism has an accepted definition, and a person can't just reject definitions because they don't support his worldview. Inherent in the definition of racism is the requirement of a belief that another's race is inferior to another. Now I do agree, determining if individual events are inspired by racism is more difficult. But Republicans trying to argue that the real racism in America is pushed by democrats against whites blatantly ignores the fundamental definition.

 

[Maxima1]

Whether you know how top define it is irrelevant. Racism has an accepted definition, and a person can't just reject definitions because they don't support his worldview. Inherent in the definition of racism is the requirement of a belief that another's race is inferior to another.

Depends on what you mean by "inferior". I think a lot of conservatives nowadays don't subscribe to the innately unintelligent theory. Many will say it's bad parenting, black culture, or liberal programs holding them back. Here are three kinds of racists that I think exist. The last one I think is the primary reason why dictionaries tend to have an "or" statement.

The biological inferiority racist discriminates because he believes they are dumber and more violent innately.

The lookism racist discriminates because he doesn't have a preference for their appearance.

The environmental racist discriminates because he resents how they are due to various factors that make them violent and uneducated.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/racist

a person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/racist

a person who believes that some races are better than others, or who acts unfairly to someone because of his or her race

 

[realibrad]

...

The environmental racist discriminates because he resents how they are due to various factors that make them violent and uneducated.

...

a person who believes that some races are better than others, or who acts unfairly to someone because of his or her race

So is it racism to mock "rednecks"?

 

[Atreus21]

Whether you know how top define it is irrelevant. Racism has an accepted definition, and a person can't just reject definitions because they don't support his worldview. Inherent in the definition of racism is the requirement of a belief that another's race is inferior to another. Now I do agree, determining if individual events are inspired by racism is more difficult. But Republicans trying to argue that the real racism in America is pushed by democrats against whites blatantly ignores the fundamental definition.

What is the fundamental definition?

 

[Atreus21]

So is it racism to mock "rednecks"?

I wouldn't say its racist. Prejudiced, certainly.

 

[mect]

What is the fundamental definition?

A good start. Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.

 

[feralkid]

So is it racism to mock "rednecks"?

How could it be?

Redneck is a description of a person who acts, thinks and treats others in a certain way; not a race or ethnic group.

Is it racist to mock assholes?

Is it racist to mock pedophiles?

Is it racist to mock drunken fools?

How about liberals or conservatives?

Same difference...not a race nor ethnicity.

 

[umbrella39]

So is it racism to mock "rednecks"?

Why do try so hard to create false equivalence...

 

[HurleyBird]

A good start. Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.

Your definition is too strict and thus fails to cover the whole gamut of scenarios.

For example, an Indian business owner may only hire east Asian scientists and Jewish accountants on the belief that those races are naturally gifted over all others in such areas. That doesn't fit your definition, but is certainly racism.

Or you could have a white supremacist that sees Jews and Aryans as adversaries locked in a zero sum game, where violence against Jews is necessary not because some innate inferiority but rather because their specific strengths make them a threat.

And you also have racists that argue for a certain group getting preferential treatment to compensate for their inferiority.

I'd simply define racism as the belief that one's race overridingly determines their characteristics, or at least their behaviour and intelligence. Eg. that the range of racial variability is greater than the range of individual variability, and therefore it is proper to treat people based on their racial identity first and foremost.