Parts Catalog Accessories Catalog How To Articles Tech Forums
Call Pelican Parts at 888-280-7799
Shopping Cart Cart | Project List | Order Status | Help




Go Back   PeachParts Mercedes ShopForum > General Discussions > Off-Topic Discussion > Off Topic Discussion - Politics and Religion

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old 07-09-2015, 09:15 PM
MTI's Avatar
MTI MTI is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona
Posts: 10,626
Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst View Post
That's evasive, counselor. Answer the question posed, not the one you would like to answer.
Stayed in a Holiday Inn Express lately?

Do districting maps fairly represent the population?

Some do and some don't. There's no absolute answer in an inherently political process, as devised by the Founders. As today's Florida decision shows, there is a judicial process that can address badly drawn districts, so at least there is a remedy to this once a decade, census based process.

If your position is that there should be some absolutely, politics-free, perfect way of mapping congressional districts, then you're asking for it under the wrong Constitution.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 07-10-2015, 04:55 PM
Botnst's Avatar
What knockers!
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: There castle.
Posts: 25,445
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTI View Post
Stayed in a Holiday Inn Express lately?

Do districting maps fairly represent the population?

Some do and some don't. There's no absolute answer in an inherently political process, as devised by the Founders. As today's Florida decision shows, there is a judicial process that can address badly drawn districts, so at least there is a remedy to this once a decade, census based process.

If your position is that there should be some absolutely, politics-free, perfect way of mapping congressional districts, then you're asking for it under the wrong Constitution.
Nice to see we agree: Redistricting is inherently political and is under the complete domination of the two parties. This necessarily results in majority party districts, which sidelines third party power. Challenges can be based on race or ethnicity but I doubt anybody could successfully plead that the process is unfair because it minimizes Greens, Commies, Federalists, Libertarians, etc.

Coincidentally, federal judges are themselves nominated and appointed by the major parties.

Two parties will become stable around certain orbits, whether it is politics or gravity. Three parties are inherently unstable. Stability, like security, is a constant threat to freedom.

It's curious we decry monopolization in commerce but not politics.
__________________
'Government is like a baby:
An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and
no sense of responsibility at the other'
- Ronald Reagan
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 07-10-2015, 05:11 PM
MTI's Avatar
MTI MTI is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona
Posts: 10,626
yes, we agree to the political nature of our government, that's not much of an agreement as it was designed to be so.

Your limited view of "two parties" I believed is flawed as it seems to presume that each party is a monolith entity without differing internal elements. That's hardly ever been the case and each of the two parties has had their hawks, doves, firebrands, populists, and various elemental wings. As a result, I see no severe loss of representation by the absences of a "third party." What do you see as a virtue of such? Having to form coalitions?
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 07-10-2015, 05:44 PM
Botnst's Avatar
What knockers!
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: There castle.
Posts: 25,445
I don't believe the people who vote for a party nominee are monolithic. I think a plurality choose a major party nominee because 1) those are the only options available 2) we have been educated into believing a "two party system" is how the system was designed 3) lack of imagination 4) believe on a third party vote is wasted 5) pulled the wrong lever while texting.

I do see the parties themselves as being falsely perceived as offering a choice. Though admittedly, sometimes we get clear choices like Carter v Reagan or Obama v McCain. But mostly its like Clinton v Bush I, Clinton v Dole, Gore v Bush II, Kerry v Bush II, Obama v the blockhead.

IMO, both parties are too Washington-centric, nouveau anti-federalists. Their long-term goals are practically identical (like Obamacare, which was hated by the Democrats when it came from Heritage Foundation then later hated by Repos when it came from Obama). WTF?
__________________
'Government is like a baby:
An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and
no sense of responsibility at the other'
- Ronald Reagan
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 07-11-2015, 12:39 AM
INSIDIOUS's Avatar
Electron spewer
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Honah Lee
Posts: 6,683
Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst View Post
I don't believe the people who vote for a party nominee are monolithic. I think a plurality choose a major party nominee because 1) those are the only options available 2) we have been educated into believing a "two party system" is how the system was designed 3) lack of imagination 4) believe on a third party vote is wasted 5) pulled the wrong lever while texting.

I do see the parties themselves as being falsely perceived as offering a choice. Though admittedly, sometimes we get clear choices like Carter v Reagan or Obama v McCain. But mostly its like Clinton v Bush I, Clinton v Dole, Gore v Bush II, Kerry v Bush II, Obama v the blockhead.

IMO, both parties are too Washington-centric, nouveau anti-federalists. Their long-term goals are practically identical (like Obamacare, which was hated by the Democrats when it came from Heritage Foundation then later hated by Repos when it came from Obama). WTF?
That was a close one with blockhead - para la bukay !!!!
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 07-11-2015, 01:48 AM
davidmash's Avatar
Supercalifragilisticexpia
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Arlington, TX
Posts: 11,738
Don't we need to talk about the electoral college before we talk about third party? With a winner take all system there is no way a red party has a chance. I don't care how well funded or electable. I think if the electoral college were gone people might see higher numbers for 3rd party candidates and it would snow ball over time.
__________________
Sent from an agnostic abacus

2014 C250 21,XXX my new DD ** 2013 GLK 350 18,000 Wife's new DD**

- With out god, life is everything.
- God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance that's getting smaller and smaller as time moves on..." Neil DeGrasse Tyson
- You can pray for me, I'll think for you.
- When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 07-11-2015, 05:11 PM
panZZer's Avatar
The SuperSport
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Texafornia
Posts: 5,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst View Post
I don't believe the people who vote for a party nominee are monolithic. I think a plurality choose a major party nominee because 1) those are the only options available 2) we have been educated into believing a "two party system" is how the system was designed 3) lack of imagination 4) believe on a third party vote is wasted 5) pulled the wrong lever while texting.

I do see the parties themselves as being falsely perceived as offering a choice. Though admittedly, sometimes we get clear choices like Carter v Reagan or Obama v McCain. But mostly its like Clinton v Bush I, Clinton v Dole, Gore v Bush II, Kerry v Bush II, Obama v the blockhead.

IMO, both parties are too Washington-centric, nouveau anti-federalists. Their long-term goals are practically identical (like Obamacare, which was hated by the Democrats when it came from Heritage Foundation then later hated by Repos when it came from Obama). WTF?

"I don't believe the people who vote for a party nominee are monolithic"

And you claimed I don't know the meaning of the word sanctioned.

Scientist dude -you really need to get yourself a college dictionary.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 07-12-2015, 12:21 AM
Botnst's Avatar
What knockers!
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: There castle.
Posts: 25,445
^^^^ Aside from the personal insult, Can anybody tell me what that even means?
__________________
'Government is like a baby:
An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and
no sense of responsibility at the other'
- Ronald Reagan
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 07-12-2015, 12:23 AM
INSIDIOUS's Avatar
Electron spewer
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Honah Lee
Posts: 6,683
Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst View Post
^^^^ Aside from the personal insult, Can anybody tell me what that even means?
Since when is being called a scientist an insult?
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 07-12-2015, 06:10 PM
panZZer's Avatar
The SuperSport
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Texafornia
Posts: 5,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst View Post
^^^^ Aside from the personal insult, Can anybody tell me what that even means?
As you already know, not understanding someone -when that's your intention,
is the easiest feat in the world.
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 07-12-2015, 07:29 PM
panZZer's Avatar
The SuperSport
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Texafornia
Posts: 5,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst View Post
^^^^ Aside from the personal insult, Can anybody tell me what that even means?


Ok ill try to make it ReaL simple for you.

A huge part of the populace acting as one --> is NOT the meaning of monolithic.

And the meaning of Sanctioned dosent have anything to do with some old Clint Eastwood movie,, unless someone wishes to cherry pick some odd~ backwater version of the definition.
Where the heck do you live anyway- in the back of a swamp somewhere?

This is a monliith.



and this is monolithic.

Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 07-13-2015, 09:14 PM
Botnst's Avatar
What knockers!
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: There castle.
Posts: 25,445
If were were talking about geology you might have a point. But were weren't, so the other definition comes into play. Look at a dictionary.

However, in either case, I argued that the two parties are NOT monolithic. So they are neither a single stone nor "(of an organization or system) large, powerful, and intractably indivisible and uniform." -- Bing
__________________
'Government is like a baby:
An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and
no sense of responsibility at the other'
- Ronald Reagan
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 07-14-2015, 05:43 PM
panZZer's Avatar
The SuperSport
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Texafornia
Posts: 5,019
Look pal some~ conservative going around thinking he gets to customize word meanings for his pleasure..
I WILL NOT STAND FOR IT.

Get Real and get back on the progressive band wagon- We are Magnanomous.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On




All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:53 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2011 Pelican Parts - Posts may be archived for display on the Peach Parts or Pelican Parts Website -    DMCA Registered Agent Contact Page