Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

Living under Obama's presidency


Off-Topic Discussions

1,251 to 1,300 of 1,595 << first < prev | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | next > last >>

Gerrymandering can be used either way. It can be used to make extremely safe districts or it can be used to maximize the number of seats your party holds. This is usually done by cramming as many of the other parties strong areas into as few districts as possible, giving the other party a few guaranteed seats and spreading the rest out among your districts.
For example if you had an evenly split (50/50) state with 10 districts, you could in theory make 8 (60/40) districts and 2 (10/90) districts, giving a 50/50 state an 8/2 representative split.
Historically it's been used to minimize the representation of minority voters, which is why states covered by the Voting Rights Act need federal preclearance for their districting.

PA is apparently extremely Gerrymandered. PA may be red in the middle and blue on the outside, but look at the actual House election results. In the statewide elections PA split slightly for the Democrats (52/47 for President, 54/45 for the Senate seat), but only elected 5 Democratic Representatives out of 18. Without actually adding up the numbers, it looks like the Democrats won by much larger margins than the Republicans (85%, 89%, 69%, 77% 61%). Republicans were all in the 50s or 60s.
If you added the vote totals, I'll bet it would split much like the statewide races.
Results are here

Edit: Of course, some of that may be natural. If the Democratic vote has huge majorities in the cities, but the rural vote is closer but leans Republican that can account for some of it. Still if you look at the shapes of some of the districts it's hard to think they aren't being deliberately shaped. Look at PA-12 or 6, for example.
It's hard to see just how deliberate it was without crunching the data far more than I'm willing to do for now.

Andoran

Texas has horrible gerrymandering issues with congressional districts. We should probably be a little more "blue" (when they do those "real" red/blue maps we're comfortably in "swing state purple", and five of our six major population centers lean left a bit) than we are, but statewide we still lean a bit right because we do have a large suburban/rural population compared to other states with major metropolitan centers.

I think Texas will be a swing state by as early as 2016, but no later than 2020. Lot's of Yankees and immigrants coming in all the time should make that so.


houstonderek wrote:

Texas has horrible gerrymandering issues with congressional districts. We should probably be a little more "blue" (when they do those "real" red/blue maps we're comfortably in "swing state purple", and five of our six major population centers lean left a bit) than we are, but statewide we still lean a bit right because we do have a large suburban/rural population compared to other states with major metropolitan centers.

I think Texas will be a swing state by as early as 2016, but no later than 2020. Lot's of Yankees and immigrants coming in all the time should make that so.

And until then the Democrats will just flee the state whenever the republicans call for a quorum to redistrict, right? :P

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, because they conveniently forget that they do the same thing when they're in power. See: California.

Politicians are posturing idiots who rarely have any interest in "fairness" or "truth". Just getting reelected and serving as faithful lap dogs to their corporate masters.


houstonderek wrote:

Yeah, because they conveniently forget that they do the same thing when they're in power. See: California.

Politicians are posturing idiots who rarely have any interest in "fairness" or "truth". Just getting reelected and serving as faithful lap dogs to their corporate masters.

I wasn't dissing the Democrats there, that's government in action. If the rules say everyone has to show up, not showing up becomes a political act, right?

I don't know if you saw my post in the I Voted thread (check my posts, it's there), but obstructionist moves within the government are exactly why I think Doodlebug is a fool for not voting. (No offense, Doodlebug.)


What?!? Where's Dicey?!?

Inhale Reality, Exhale the Truth: What to Makes of the 2012 Elections by Vijay Prashad.


I'm not allowed to vote, but m'lord Dice takes my advice "under consideration."

(His intonation, not mine.)

Edit: Look, I'm trying; I like beer. /wink (It's legal in Colorado.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Dicey, is that you?

For Citizen Meatrace, and, no, it's not the Dead

EDIT: There you are! [Smack]

EDIT EDIT: No worries, Dice, it's Fryyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy-day!.

What a f%!!ing week. Stupid Frankenstorm...


thejeff wrote:

Gerrymandering can be used either way. It can be used to make extremely safe districts or it can be used to maximize the number of seats your party holds. This is usually done by cramming as many of the other parties strong areas into as few districts as possible, giving the other party a few guaranteed seats and spreading the rest out among your districts.

For example if you had an evenly split (50/50) state with 10 districts, you could in theory make 8 (60/40) districts and 2 (10/90) districts, giving a 50/50 state an 8/2 representative split.
Historically it's been used to minimize the representation of minority voters, which is why states covered by the Voting Rights Act need federal preclearance for their districting.

PA is apparently extremely Gerrymandered. PA may be red in the middle and blue on the outside, but look at the actual House election results. In the statewide elections PA split slightly for the Democrats (52/47 for President, 54/45 for the Senate seat), but only elected 5 Democratic Representatives out of 18. Without actually adding up the numbers, it looks like the Democrats won by much larger margins than the Republicans (85%, 89%, 69%, 77% 61%). Republicans were all in the 50s or 60s.
If you added the vote totals, I'll bet it would split much like the statewide races.
Results are here

Edit: Of course, some of that may be natural. If the Democratic vote has huge majorities in the cities, but the rural vote is closer but leans Republican that can account for some of it. Still if you look at the shapes of some of the districts it's hard to think they aren't being deliberately shaped. Look at PA-12 or 6, for example.
It's hard to see just how deliberate it was without crunching the data far more than I'm willing to do for now.

Oh, PA is very very gerrymandered. (is that the correct word?) The districts change alot. But PA state politics are very much stuck in the 60's. The 1760's. For instance, we are just now (within the last decade, the specifics are still being fought over) getting state level freedom of information laws.

Qadira

Freehold DM wrote:
Actually, he was quite civil.
The 8th Dwarf wrote:
yellowdingo wrote:
Sorry Guys, its FOUR MORE YEARS
Be nice Dingo... Display some manners and a little respect.

You say that like you were taken by surprise...

Qadira

Scott Betts wrote:
SuperSlayer wrote:
I'm referring to those who voted without even looking at the issues.

No, SuperSlayer, you were referring to me.

And I can absolutely guarantee you that I have spent a whole lot longer looking at the issues than you have.

Your insults are empty, and you're not particularly good at defending them.

Icyshadow, that goes for you, too. It never occurred to you that haphazardly clicking "favorite" on a post that talks about making superficial decisions without due consideration would be ironic, hm?

Holds up mirror...

Qadira

thejeff wrote:
Icyshadow wrote:

I doubt the e-mail ever reached the president.

My bet is some secretary skimmed it and then tossed it in the trash.

But hey, people call me cynical even when I give a realistic remark about something.

Well, it's not the president could actually read his own email. Of course he has people to filter it for him. I mean literally he probably gets more email and mail than he could get through if he did nothing else.

At best yellowdingo's email would get sent to the relevant agency, where it would promptly be dumped as crackpot.

I mean, seriously enough profit from windfarms to pay out $30K to each citizen? Back of the envelope calculation: US population ~300million *30K = $9 trillion
I haven't found hard numbers, but that seems to be much higher than the current total revenue of the whole energy sector, much less it's profits. So that's ignoring the cost of building and maintaining those windfarms.
It's nonsense.

I used to know the numbers for wind farms...

Siemens new Offshore Turbine has a 6.0 megawatt capacity

6000 kilowatt-hour at 10 cents per kilowatt hour retail price of electricity is 131,400,000 dollars over twenty five years. at 4 million a year in maintenance and twenty five million to purchase and install that would be a profit of 6.4 million per turbine over 25 years. That would provide eight citizens with a thirty thousand dollar per year base income leaving 15 thousand dollars to the US government per turbine per year (16.875 x 10^18 dollars per year in annual income).

so as you said 9 trillion dollars would require 1.125 trillion turbines To support the US Populace. 6.75 exawatts (6.75 x 10^18) output of energy at 10 cents per kilowatt-hour retail.

As a shareholder in usawindpower.gov you will be pretty well off.

The USA Government would of course need to spend 28.125 million - trillion dollars to build and place all the the turbines. Its own income from the sale of electricity would allow the total cost to be recovered in 4.61 years. Say ten years total to cover the interest huzzah! America is richest nation in the world as are its citizens.

Qadira

The advantages of that level of energy output: With a 1 exawatt maglev you could throw an ocean liner sized spaceship into orbit hourly.


Living under Gillard's Prime Ministership:

Union Tops' Ugly Furore Over Temporary Overseas Workers: No to Nationalist Poison - For Proletarian Internationalism! Full Citizenship Rights for All Immigrants! Break With Laborism! We Need a Revolutionary Workers Party!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I nominate yellowdingo to be the face on the million-trillion dollar bill!


yellowdingo wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
SuperSlayer wrote:
I'm referring to those who voted without even looking at the issues.

No, SuperSlayer, you were referring to me.

And I can absolutely guarantee you that I have spent a whole lot longer looking at the issues than you have.

Your insults are empty, and you're not particularly good at defending them.

Icyshadow, that goes for you, too. It never occurred to you that haphazardly clicking "favorite" on a post that talks about making superficial decisions without due consideration would be ironic, hm?

Holds up mirror...

Which part of that are you trying to assert also applies to me?

Or is this another attempt at an empty insult?

Really, guys, you're digging so fast I feel like I should be handing out spare shovels.


Me and Ron like shovels...

Anyway, I can't remember where I posted about this before, but, Woot!


Did someone just say something complimentary?

LORD DICE RULES!


Lord Dice is okay, I guess, for a plutocrat an' all, but I haven't seen him in the Books Thread in quite awhile.

I am also mourning the absence of Citizen Gersen during these wondrous politroll times.


I think Comrade Kirth is in the process of moving to the greatest city in the union. (Pittsburgh) If I recall correctly.


As one of the lucky players in his PbP, I think he has arrived and is settled in, but then found out his new employer is stricter about lollygagging on the internet!

:(


Living under Harper's Prime Ministership

Although, frankly, I bet it's all Obama's fault.

Also.


TheWhiteknife wrote:
I think Comrade Kirth is in the process of moving to the greatest city in the union. (New York) If I recall correctly.

fify


TheWhiteknife wrote:
I think Comrade Kirth is in the process of moving to the greatest city in the union. (Pittsburgh) If I recall correctly.

Well which is it?


I can't speak with much authority, but I believe Comrade Kirth moved to the environs of Pittsburgh, PA, but Comrade Freehold would have us believe that NYC is the greatest city in the Union.

All I know is that

Spoiler:
YANKEES SUCK!!!
Or so I have been told.


Depends on the Yank(ee).


I used to work at a record store near Fenway Park and after the first season I came to the conclusion that Red Sox fans are the most obnoxious people in the world.

One time, my good friend The Black Goblin went to a game with a bunch of our Southie friends. One of the women, a young slip of a thing, 22, got very, very drunk. As they walked past my place of employment, The Black Goblin pointed me out and said "I heard that guy is a Yankees fan."

She walked into the store and let out a string of expletives that would make sailors blush. Something to do with Jeter [anti-homosexual slurs] and A-Rod [more anti-homosexual slurs].


NYC? No thanks.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

I came to the conclusion that Red Sox fans are the most obnoxious people in the world.

Nah.

Deadheads.


Cricket the Sexy Goblin Druid wrote:

I can't speak with much authority, but I believe Comrade Kirth moved to the environs of Pittsburgh, PA, but Comrade Freehold would have us believe that NYC is the greatest city in the Union.

All I know is that ** spoiler omitted ** Or so I have been told.

It is truly unfortunate that fans of other teams must grow so jealous of our awesomeness.


TheWhiteknife wrote:
NYC? No thanks.

*sigh*


I'm not actually an anarchist myself (even though I know what that word actually means), but I find anarchist philosophy fascinating. Not for what it says or doesn't say, mind you, but rather for its strange ability to unite even the most disparate other philosophies.

You get Joseph Stalin, Adolph Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Said Qteb, Leo Strauss, Winston Churchill, Mao Tse Tong, Chiang Kai-shek, and Franklin D. Roosevelt in a room together for a discussion about political philosophy, and regardless of what gets said or doesn't get said, two statements will be supported 100% by every man in the room.

A). That Anarchism must never be allowed to be properly defined, by anyone. That every single tool available, from media to business to academia, must absolutely be put to full use ensuring that the common man always defines "Anarchy" as the absence of government, and nothing else.

B). That after Anarchism has been maligned in said fashion, it must then be stamped out (it isn't enough to simply redefine it, you see), no matter how much blood or violence it will take. Principles of decency and national honour are not even tertiary considerations, which is why (for instance), at the end of WWII, it was perfectly acceptable, even desirable, for the United States (the world's great defender of democracy) to build concentration camps in Greece (the birthplace of democracy) in order to crush a democratic movement.

What's really interesting about that last bit is that even though many of the Greek anarchists referred to themselves as "Communist", they were decentralized, participatory, and bore no resemblance whatsoever to Soviet Russia...which may explain the fact that while America was exterminating about 100,000 or so Greek "communists" in concentration camps, Stalin had nothing but praise for the action.

So, no, I'm not at all shocked about what the actual subject of this thread. There hasn't, in the 20th or 21st centuries, been a man elected to the White House who would treat anarchists any differently. There never will be.


Yeah, that's right, Obama did it!

(Man, who the hell is Said Qteb? Wanders off to google...)


meatrace wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

I came to the conclusion that Red Sox fans are the most obnoxious people in the world.

Nah.

Deadheads.

Could be, but I doubt it. I have never been on a train full of Deadheads when, say, someone wearing an Allman Brothers Band t-shirt gets on and have the whole car errupt into a cacophany of anti-homosexual slurs.

On the other hand, I never went to a Dead concert (or any hippie confab, for that matter) so maybe I'm wrong.


meatrace wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

I came to the conclusion that Red Sox fans are the most obnoxious people in the world.

Nah.

Deadheads.

Surely you jest.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
meatrace wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

I came to the conclusion that Red Sox fans are the most obnoxious people in the world.

Nah.

Deadheads.

Could be, but I doubt it. I have never been on a train full of Deadheads when, say, someone wearing an Allman Brothers Band t-shirt gets on and have the whole car errupt into a cacophany of anti-homosexual slurs.

On the other hand, I never went to a Dead concert (or any hippie confab, for that matter) so maybe I'm wrong.

You're both wrong. The most obnoxious people in the world are Pampered Chef sales-people...followed very closely by the Party-Lite scum. A pox on them all!


Elbe-el wrote:

What's really interesting about that last bit is that even though many of the Greek anarchists referred to themselves as "Communist", they were decentralized, participatory, and bore no resemblance whatsoever to Soviet Russia...which may explain the fact that while America was exterminating about 100,000 or so Greek "communists" in concentration camps, Stalin had nothing but praise for the action.

I had never heard that the Greek communists were actually anarchists. As for Stalin putting his seal of approval to the murder of a bunch of commies, well, I guess it was a step up from Spain where Stalin ordered the murder of tons of anarchists and commies.

And since we're spitting out random historical stuff: I have always found it interesting that if you take all of the famous "fellow-travelers" of Stalinism (G.B. Shaw and the Fabians, the European Social-Democrats, American FDR-style liberals) they almost all, to a man, were vicious opponents of revolutionary Bolshevik Russia and its terrorism, but were able to reach a rapprochement with Stalin after he started murdering off the Old Guard during the Moscow Trials, drowned the Spanish Revolution in the blood of the working class, collectivized the peasantry at gunpoint, etc., etc. I have always considered it to be one of the great ironies of the 20th century.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Could be, but I doubt it. I have never been on a train full of Deadheads when, say, someone wearing an Allman Brothers Band t-shirt gets on and have the whole car errupt into a cacophany of anti-homosexual slurs.

On the other hand, I never went to a Dead concert (or any hippie confab, for that matter) so maybe I'm wrong.

Fair enough. I write off anyone who is a "fan" of a sports team as an imbecile anyway.

I think, throughout my life, I've been called homophobic slurs for just about every opinion I've voiced.


[redacted]


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
[redacted]

:D


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You guys all heard Obama's cancelling Twinkies, right?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
You guys all heard Obama's cancelling Twinkies, right?

Absolutely. The Internet is abuzz with Rand-ian maker/taker fantasies blaming the bakers, the president, and everyone else, except the financial interests that saddled the company with debt in an attempt to make a quick buck. The whole thing dovetails nicely with Romney's post-election finger-pointing.

As far as I'm concerned the longer the Republican party puts off true introspection, the better.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
You guys all heard Obama's cancelling Twinkies, right?

Absolutely. The Internet is abuzz with Rand-ian maker/taker fantasies blaming the bakers, the president, and everyone else, except the financial interests that saddled the company with debt in an attempt to make a quick buck. The whole thing dovetails nicely with Romney's post-election finger-pointing.

As far as I'm concerned the longer the Republican party puts off true introspection, the better.

Last night I watched a PBS program on Woody Guthrie, and cried myself to sleep like a little sissy. When I woke up I was sane again, so I gave Dicey Twinkies for breakfast, instead of the usual Pop-tarts.

I don't mind Hostess going out of business; the economy is harsh mistress, right? I do worry that if we take junk food off the market, the lower classes won't die of obesity and malnutrition. Then they'll have an ensconced cultural base, which will, invariably, rise up to overthrow the Dice Regime.

Long story short: I will pay top dollar for any unopened Hostess Fruit Pies starting now, OR accept donations of junk food for the Goblin Kennel Food Pile Charity.


bugleyman wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
You guys all heard Obama's cancelling Twinkies, right?

Absolutely. The Internet is abuzz with Rand-ian maker/taker fantasies blaming the bakers, the president, and everyone else, except the financial interests that saddled the company with debt in an attempt to make a quick buck. The whole thing dovetails nicely with Romney's post-election finger-pointing.

As far as I'm concerned the longer the Republican party puts off true introspection, the better.

Wait, so you mean it is NOT Obama's fault, but instead the blame belongs to Romney+Wall Street?


We can bail out the banks and the auto companies, but not a snack food giant? 18,000 jobs lost, not to mention all the other companies that work with it. But no way is the man going to get on his lady's bad side by helping a junk food business.

I guess Spider-Man could help the president, but the president can't even help Spidey get some Hostess Fruit Pies to distract and stop the Vulture.

Music Tribute


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
bugleyman wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
You guys all heard Obama's cancelling Twinkies, right?

Absolutely. The Internet is abuzz with Rand-ian maker/taker fantasies blaming the bakers, the president, and everyone else, except the financial interests that saddled the company with debt in an attempt to make a quick buck. The whole thing dovetails nicely with Romney's post-election finger-pointing.

As far as I'm concerned the longer the Republican party puts off true introspection, the better.

It took the Democrats decades to fully shed being the White Man's Party. The American left (which wasn't just Democrats back then) was for Civil Rights as a rule by the end of the 30s but the last major retirement I'm aware of happening in 2004.

If the GOP respects precedent, they'll become introspective around 2080 and will have a left wing committed to decency around 2990. They will realign in a big way around that about 2110 and the last members of the Klan bloc will leave office about 2150.


Moro wrote:
Wait, so you mean it is NOT Obama's fault, but instead the blame belongs to Romney+Wall Street?

No, I don't blame "Romney+Wall Street" -- I don't know who to blame, though I'm sure it wasn't the bakers (sorry! Takers). I would start by looking at the specific corporate raiders (sorry again! venture capitalists) who leveraged the company into insolvency.

However, I do have a pretty good idea who is to blame for Romney's loss, and it isn't the people at whom Mr. Romney (and much of the GOP) are currently pointing fingers. The only true "taker" I know of is someone who is born wealthy and never holds an actual job. Hmmm...

Nice try, though.


pres man wrote:
We can bail out the banks and the auto companies, but not a snack food giant? 18,000 jobs lost, not to mention all the other companies that work with it. But no way is the man going to get on his lady's bad side by helping a junk food business.

I'll believe it when I see it. This is just an extreme case of hard-line anti-union negotiations.


Samnell wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
You guys all heard Obama's cancelling Twinkies, right?

Absolutely. The Internet is abuzz with Rand-ian maker/taker fantasies blaming the bakers, the president, and everyone else, except the financial interests that saddled the company with debt in an attempt to make a quick buck. The whole thing dovetails nicely with Romney's post-election finger-pointing.

As far as I'm concerned the longer the Republican party puts off true introspection, the better.

It took the Democrats decades to fully shed being the White Man's Party. The American left (which wasn't just Democrats back then) was for Civil Rights as a rule by the end of the 30s but the last major retirement I'm aware of happening in 2004.

If the GOP respects precedent, they'll become introspective around 2080 and will have a left wing committed to decency around 2990. They will realign in a big way around that about 2110 and the last members of the Klan bloc will leave office about 2150.

This is a real question, not an insult: Do you think the Democrats have fully shed being the White Man's Party? I think we Old White Dudes still hold a controlling percentage.

Don't get me wrong, I'm perfectly happy with the Republicans taking any number of decades, ending in a century, to regroup :P


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
I'll believe it when I see it. This is just an extreme case of hard-line anti-union negotiations.

Hee hee!

Didn't mean to bring on an economics debate. I sometimes forget not everybody sees the world the same way I see it.

Yeah, I was only interested in the extreme union-busting angle. I haven't read any articles, but The Black Goblin says the company is going for broke. The union already made concessions the last two contracts, but the company now says they better offer up more or they're liquidating. Meanwhile, of course, the CEO and the board all pocketed hefty bonuses and pay raises this year.

The only answer, of course, is international proletarian socialist revolution.

Vive le Galt!

1,251 to 1,300 of 1,595 << first < prev | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Off-Topic Discussions / Living under Obama's presidency All Messageboards

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.