You Can Have the Red States

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Greyskye\";p=\"104626)</div>

Don't really have time now to look it up, -- and cite a link -- but if you count every vote for every Repubican and Democrat US Congressperson, for house and Senate, there were more total votes for Democrats than there were for Republicans in the 2004 election.

It has to do with the fact that highly populous states get 2 senators, and states with tiny populations also get 2 senators.

So when you make colored charts on the basis of geography, it makes the USA look RED. When you make colored charts on the basis of PEOPLE, the chart is closer to purple, and if you don't use shades of coloring, the nation is blue.

And since our constitution was written for people and not real estate, it can be argued that the proper color is quite bluer than most people realize. But alas, our constitution was designed to protect minority rights, thus the minority party is now in control of congress, just like GW was in his first term. And in his second, he won by 3%.

 

Excellent points, P4.

For anyone interested, a fellow took some of these ideas and made some cartograms of the election results. Don't know what a cartogram is? I didn't either! :lol: Here is a snippit from the web page:

Can you warp the counties so that each county's area is proportional to its total vote count? Such warped maps are called cartograms. There are already several of these at the state-by-state level on the web. I haven't seen any at the county-by-county level. A few years ago I collaborated briefly with David Dobkin and Stephen North on algorithms for producing cartograms. I can say that making a cartogram with so many individual elements (counties) would be very difficult.

Here is an example of one for the 2004 election:
[Broken External Image]:http://www.research.att.com/~suresh/cartogram/textured-small.gif

And here is a link to the page is anyone is inclined to investigate further:

http://geomblog.blogspot.com/2004/11/purpl...-revisited.html

 

cool stat dud

 

Hey Hybrid DAVE..got news for you:

The only State in the United States that CAN constitutionally and legally separate itself from the United States without this being considered sedition and/or an act of war is.....TEXAS

This is in the original incorporation agreements and the constitution of the GREAT State of Texas, that this territory signed, with this country back when TEXAS was brought into the United States. So forget it man...you got to stay!!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IALTMANN\";p=\"104695)</div>

What are you waiting for?

:lolup: :wave: :lol:

P.S. I am only kidding.

 

why not? only be losing a bunch of people that are not from the US anyway

 

Oh nice.., there 1stAmeric Pri and DaveinLA., it is nice to hear political "satire" converted to just vicious slurr..Good HD...keep doing that., this is what is your undoing. Political hatred cannot be hidden by satire. My kids and school kids had the statement after a hateful mouthful..."I was JOKING"., My response was always NO you were not.

And good to hear I am not the lone wolf here, THANK YOU Marlin, JFSchultz, and Robert Taylor. And also THANK YOU Moderator Efusco, you did figure them out. Hope I can measure up to better standards myself., it is so hard with my life and the service I and my kids are doing., that I sometimes lose good conscience myself. Good JOB for the moderator. I did like that one about going to the U of CA at Berkeley with a Bush Agenda., you'd be injured if not just run out of town.

Have had students in POL SCI., at our own local college taking political courses, and idealogue professors. It was a problem for them, they did good work but did not accept political OPINION from the Prof..one got "D's". This would be bad on EITHER SIDE.., sad, sad ..SAD. I have not seen this from our side, BUT that is my opinion!

 

Gee, I have been working and missing out on all the fun.

Question: why does no one ever take me up on discussions about demographic trends and the effects on Europe and the various states in America?

Question: Since I obviously support the Hispanic immigration wave coming into the USA and "Right wing extremists" do not, why do I get tagged as such by the good Dr. Fusco?

Question: I brought up Thomas Sowell's thesis about how Celtic tribal characteristics have likely affected the African American community for the worse, but no one addressed that either. I don't consider giving his researched view some credibilty the act of a "right wing extremist" either.

Question: Since Fred's IHOP states that the "First Amendment is your friend", why can't the original poster and I express various views openly? I don't feel the need to attack anyone here, sure I throw out different views that are not typical to the media defined images of left or right.

Every time I take one of those "where are you" tests on the political scale I keep coming up as a slightly right of center moderate, which makes me wonder about the tendency of some to tag me as a resident extremist.

The bit about "attacking my patriotism" I find curious. Frequently here some discussions remind me of the Blind men of Hindustan Who Fell Upon an Elephant...


http://duke.usask.ca/~eppw/misc/prose/hinustan.htm

There were six men of Hindustan,
to learning much inclined,
Who went to see an elephant,
though all of them were blind,
That each by observation
might satisfy his mind.

The first approached the elephant,
and happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
at once began to bawl,
"This mystery of an elephant
is very like a wall."

The second, feeling of the tusk,
cried, "Ho, what have we here,
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me 'tis mighty clear,
This wonder of an elephant
is very like a spear."

The third approached the elephant,
and happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
thus boldly up and spake,
"I see," quoth he,
"the elephant is very like a snake."

The fourth reached out an eager hand,
and felt above the knee,
"What this most wondrous beast
is like is very plain" said he,
"'Tis clear enough the elephant
is very like a tree."

The fifth who chanced to touch the ear
said, "E'en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
deny the fact who can;
This marvel of an elephant
is very like a fan."

The sixth no sooner had begun
about the beast to grope,
Than seizing on the swinging tail
that fell within his scope;
"I see," said he, "the elephant
is very like a rope."

So six blind men of Hindustan
disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
exceeding stiff and strong;
Though each was partly in the right,
they all were in the wrong!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Marlin\";p=\"104573)</div>

You chose the wrong example.

CAL Berkeley has a large, vocal and very active chapter of College Republicans. Last month, Michael Davidson of UC Berkeley came within six votes of being elected the new chairman of the College Republican National Committee.

About Berkeley College Republicans

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius\";p=\"104730)</div>

You chose the wrong example.

CAL Berkeley has a large, vocal and very active chapter of College Republicans. Last month, Michael Davidson of UC Berkeley came within six votes of being elected the new chairman of the College Republican National Committee.

About Berkeley College Republicans
[/b][/quote]

I think you are both right, and both of you can be right. Think about it.

 

Look last time I was there it was a hotbed of trooouble. You cannot tell me an open and equal situation exists for todays youth on college campus. If you can counter one instance, it is not a common or thing you count on on college campuses. If you think you treat and tread in an open and honest way even here, I am at loss to try and convince you otherwise. Your answers and your premises from top to bottom insult and demean anyone who dares to question anything you say. And PSS College Republican National Committe is not a UC Berkeley organization, I would VENTURE to say the Repukes at Berkeley as you would call them are not running or doing much there and a very small group. What was said or implied was that, if a national audience was watching an event at that school, and the REP. showed up, they likely would not be treated courteously especially on the AIR. Hope that did not go over your head, but I do believe that was the intent of that statement. Debaters that can talk are like statistics that can lie....

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IALTMANN\";p=\"104743)</div>

You are a hopeless flame baiter. No one called them by that name in this forum and I personally have never used that word in my life.

You are out of the main stream. You keep ignoring documented facts in order to adhere to your personal false and unsubstantiated beliefs.

My debate with you is over.

 

bye IsrAmeriPrius

and to quote Durban talking to school children "the President is a loser"....And the Republican term on college campus, that is a VERY common term.....//??/##%%$$ Californians.....just dish it out and then get sensitive...

 

Hey, I'm a Texan, too, and I was taught in a state university that Texas' right to secede was no longer valid after we joined the Confederate States and then returned to the United States after the Civil War. (At the time I got my teaching certificate, one could not be certified in Texas without Texas history and Texas government.) I've also heard some debate about that, but that could be a legal argument.

Beth

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IALTMANN\";p=\"104743)</div>

When was the last time you were on the Berkeley campus? Just curious...

And your answers and premises do not?

He did not claim that this was the case. What he said, was that a Berkeley student almost won the chairmanship of the College Republican National Committee. I doubt that he would have come within 6 votes of winning without substantial support from the Berkeley Student Republican Organization. Did you bother to follow the link he provided up-thread? Here it is again: http://berkeley.collegegop.org/index.cfm/AboutUs.htm They seem to be a well represented and well organized group. And if you do go to this link, you will see that they are indeed affiliated with the College.

And you are the only one who has used that derogatory term "Repuke". You attempted to put that word in his mouth - it did not come from him. That was totally out of line.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Hybrid_Dave\";p=\"104828)</div>

That's cool.

But be careful. We don't want to sink to his approach, and in past threads this is exactly what we have done. My self included. Even though he pays little attention to our facts and conclusions, and instead simply questions our decency, honesty, and patriotism, we should not do the same to him. So lets try to simply confront his inaccurate facts and conclusions as best we can. And when he is right, we should say that too.

But don't make this personal, even though this has been his technique all along.

And to IA, here is a debating suggestion...
Attacking the ideas and facts and conclusions of any poster that you want This is a good thing and is a positive debating technique.

Making a personal attack on the sincerity, honesty, decency or patriotism of the person making the post. This is a bad thing and people will not take well to it.

And your point about Texas above is no longer true. It is quite true that when Texas entered the Union, they specifically retained the right to leave the union, and the USA allowed this at the time. Thus, for a period they could have done what you said and succeeded from the Union. They also retained the right to break themselves up into up to 5 states if they wanted to. This too was accepted by the USA when they entered the Union. However, this changed after the Civil War. Texas no longer has that special right. I'll do some google searching later to find out what law was passed to make this change.

 

oh Texas aint going nowhere. they cant afford it

 

I've done some research and apparently the only thing that allows Texas to secede from the Union is the belief that Texans have this right.

Apparently, the US resolution allowing Texas to enter the union, as well as the law at the time passed by the Republic of Texas at the time to enter the Union have absolutely NO terminology that allows Texas to leave the Union.

And as we all know, 11 states left the union and the other states fought to bring them back in. We will never know what would have happened had South Carolina decided to negotiate the abandonment of Ft Sumpter by the North, and not attacked it.

But this belief is still widely held in Texas. And as has been pointed out by some people in this thread, widely believing something is all you really need. Facts are not necessary.

So Texas has no defined right to leave the Union. But if they chose to, only then would it get abjudicated as to whether they had that right. Personally, I'm not sure I would want to fight to get them back. They don't even have that much oil any more. And this is also true of all states. Although many have argued that the Civil War settled this issue, it has not been formally resolved by any court or legislature.

As for the "break up" into 5 states, Texas does still have the right to do this. There is wording to that affect in both the US Resolution to admit them, and the Texas Resolution to join us. And it is totally up to Texas.

Another interesting fact: The Republic of Texas also included large parts of what is now Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Wyoming.

And another: When every other state entered the Union, all un-owned land at the time, or land not specifically owned by the state or local Government, reverted to the Federal Gov. In the resolution that allowed Texas entry, all that land specifically reverted to the State of Texas. That only happened with Texas.

It is also widely believed in Texas that Texas entered the Union via Treaty unlike any other state. This is not true. Apparently treaty negotiations were underway, but at the last minute Texas was annexed the same way all states were.