Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by masterbouncer, May 15, 2020.
Very mod-like of you.
Which has nothing to do with anything. Nobody is arguing that we aren’t a Republic. However we are a Republic that doesn’t have proportional representation due to issues like gerrymandering
I know these concepts are difficult for you to understand because they are inconvenient for your world view and your brain which has long since rotted no longer has the capacity to keep two separate concepts apart. So you have my sympathy. However, I implore you to seek help and check yourself into the nearest retirement home where you can be taken care of so you don’t have to trip all over yourself here.
A) of course we have proportionate representation. It’s just in the proportion the founding fathers called for rather than you.
B) You clearly have no idea what gerrymandering is.
The typical response of someone who has no clue what they are talking about is to make an ad hominem attack on the person who knows more because they can’t argue honestly. Congrats you aced that one.
For fun please explain
1) What you think it means that we are a republic of the UNITED STATES vis-a-vis proportionate representation
2) why you think gerrymandering would affect proportional representation in the UNITED STATES
this should be entertaining.
1. The founding fathers did not envision a scenario where a state like Wisconsin which was practically empty existed alongside a massively populated New York and each voter would count nearly 300x more than a New Yorker went it came to proportional weight in representation in Congress and Presidential elections. Nothing close to that scenario existed.
2. the founding fathers didn’t envision a scenario where a state would draw up a congressional district like this....
To ensure certain parties would win.
A Republic is meant to be representative. Both those concepts undermine representation
3. Your ignorance of basic civics is only outdone by your horrendous misunderstanding of football
i'm one of the few who supported this. Here's why.
First, there's no direct penalty for not doing it.
Second, if you make a bad choice, it's going to hurt your franchise. That means it just encourages a team to look really hard at minority HC or GM candidates in a league with a high percentage of players who are minorities. I don't have a problem with that.
Third. Except in very rare cases, moving up a few slots in the draft isn't going to make or break a franchise...Ryan Leaf or Andrew Luck anyone? But picking a bad HC or GM...could set a team back for years.
Of course they did. They were verbose about the importance of states rights and not allowing large population centers to control the entire country.
It’s kinda like their main basic concept in fact.
NY has less than 4x the population of Wisconsin not 300 times. Ny had 27 reps in the house to 8 from Wisconsin
Now let’s test your theory that the founding fathers never envisioned this because nothing like it existed.
In the first house of reps Virginia had 10 delegates and Delaware and RI each had 1. So when they made the rules there were larger differences than what you cite, and guess what they created a senate with equal representation for each state. Enjoy your crow.
You are claiming that gerrymandering causes disproportionate representation. This is mind numbingly wrong because no matter how you draw lines of districts every voter is represented.
The UNITED STATES of America is meant to have representation both by national
Populace and by states. This is why there is a senate and a house. Duh
It’s funny but in one post I just made you look like an idiot because each factual item you posted is 100% wrong and you still throw insults. You literally just insulted yourself.
The first part of your post is naive at best. When, in the history of civilization, have humans done the right thing? I'm sorry but that's a joke, no? Considering a sentence later you admitted how unlikely it is? More like impossible, esp when it's rich, ignorant billionaires making the decision.
Regarding your 2nd paragraph, maybe not as bad? I'd rather be hired and than not.
What's worse being hired and given a chance or not? Not a hard decision.
By the way it’s just fun to also point out that the Texas district 2 that you cite has cited the same way before and after redistricting so “to ensure certain parties win” is another case of you being WRONG.
You have multiple accounts arguing both sides of the topic at hand.
Why should a team be "encouraged to look at minority candidates"? Why would race be a factor at all?
1) That was the exact and expressed intent of the founders. The southern states were concerned that they would be overwhelmed by northern states with large cities like NY, Phila and Boston. So they conceived the idea of two senators from every state, no matter what it's size (and, btw, the senators were elected by the state legislatures, not the people for many, many years) and an electoral college which would give them more equal footing with their larger northern neighbors....kind of one of the reasons for the Civil War, actually. In fact, the founders didn't even want "ordinary people" voting for the President...only white, land owners. Read the Federalist Papers.
Gerrymandering is a separate issue. It is a matter of political "convenience" that has benefited the left and the right over the years, depending on the time and the location.
Free to read, will teach you a lot
The Complete Federalist Papers < 1786-1800 < Documents < American History From Revolution To Reconstruction and beyond
But gerrymandering was listed as a method of disproportionate representation which regardless of your opinion about gerrymandering it’s certainly not that.
Because minorities are disproportionately represented in the HC and GM offices in relation to those playing the game. Worth taking a look to see if there isn't some systemic bias against them.
As I said in my post, the franchise can't afford to make a mistake in hiring at that level...so it just suggests that NFL teams look at the pipeline among Assistants, etc.
No one is making anyone do anything. There are no "quotas," just the idea that franchises should look at a broad universe of potential candidates. I really don't have an issue with encouraging that.
"Looking at a broad universe of potential candidates" is not the same as being encouraged to look at minority candidates specifically.
I didn't say there wasn't a vigorous debate. The Electoral College and a Senate selected by state legislatures was a compromise.
But it is what our system is based upon.
We wouldn't have seen so many unqualified white people get an interview, a job, a 2nd chance, a 3rd chance if race wasn't involved.
Of course race is factored in.
I'm sure Caldwell is fine being replaced by Patricia (who hasn't exactly looked good or average)
Caldwell btw has the highest winning % in Lions history I believe or is second all-time and came off back to back 9-7 seasons.
Jon Gruden has a 510 winning % for some context.
Race is overwhelmingly factored in and the results are a joke for a league overwhelmingly black.
Look...you have 30 mega rich white guys, a mega rich Indian and a mega rich woman of Chinese extraction part owner. These are the majority stockholders in an exclusive club business. Not to sound cynical, but until the Billionaire Boys Club admits an African-american owner or three into their ranks, the upper management will remain predominately white. Change starts at the TOP in a business construct such as this one. I mean, it's nice to fantasize about an African-amercian commissioner one day but let's be honest, the Boys Club WANTS a dumb white ba$tard rich kid clown "running" their league and "making" decisions.
Troy Vincent runs NFL operations...here is a snippet of his duties..
Troy Vincent, the NFL’s executive vice president of Football Operations, and his team work to institute a culture of clarity, consistency and credibility to develop the future of the game, to honor its past while preparing for its future and to strengthen the NFL brand for players, coaches, clubs and fans.
Is there anyone associated with pro sports today who thinks Troy Vincent will be named Commissioner of the NFL anytime soon? Ever? Given Goodell's prodigious ability to continually step on his own d!ck, one would normally assume Vincent would have ascended into that role six or seven years ago. The truth is...it is never going to happen. The white plantation owners love their blubbering little Lord Fauntleroy overseer, Roger.
This can only change when African Americans of similar stature and wealth in this country purchase seats at the table of the Chosen 32. Until then, I'm afraid we're all pizzing into the wind arguing any of this.
Separate names with a comma.