Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,166
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
06 Oct 2015, 10:27 pm
06 Oct 2015, 10:38 pm
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,166
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
06 Oct 2015, 11:07 pm
07 Oct 2015, 10:58 am
Kraichgauer wrote:
glebel wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
glebel wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
glebel wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
Wow, such dodging for such a simple question; the non-answers are answers in themselves.
And how is my answer a non-answer? Black voters have never benefitted at the expense of white voters, except in the minds of racist whites who imagine giving voting rights to blacks takes something away from their deified white race.
Take a good look at L.A.-L.A. Land gerrymandering. They come right out and say that they change district boundaries in order to create ethnic districts. The upshot of this is that various minority groups have a disproportionately large voice in the governance of L.A.
Take a look at what they just did in Palmdale, a city that has always had open ( non-precinct) voting. Now they say that the city has to go to a precinct system because it would benefit a small portion of the population at the expense of the majority.
But are whites losing anything?
This is a clear violation of the rules of proportional representation. If we allow these things to continue, who knows what will happen next.
And it's not just whites. This isn't a race thing, these are people who chose to leave L.A. because of many factors brought on by typical big city misgovernance. Many of these people opted to have a long commute to their work in L.A. so as to have a better life for themselves and their families. Then Los Angeles County enacted inner city renewal projects, which forced out the inhabitants. And where did they go? To the desert, where the rents are lower. So not only do the inhabitants now have to put up with increased crime and the typical over-taxing of social services, but also the tyranny of the minority. Oh, and for a capper, the county is on them to provide more services, which increases taxes, which also hurts working families. How is this fair?
I can't speak on the situation in L.A. as I don't know anything about it, save to say that demographics change with the natural influx of people, and hence, taxes are going to go up with it.
This isn't a case of ' natural influx'. This is a case of government ousting the 'undesirables' out of an area they wish to develop and dumping them onto an area that at this point in time they don't want. And then these self-same bureaucrats harass the outlying areas because their existing services can't handle the increased crime and other demands.
Ousting? Is anyone actually being evicted, or being bought out?
When you set up conditions where people can no longer afford to live in their neighborhoods, you have effectively ousted them.
07 Oct 2015, 2:38 pm
07 Oct 2015, 2:52 pm
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,166
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
07 Oct 2015, 2:54 pm
glebel wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
glebel wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
glebel wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
glebel wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
Wow, such dodging for such a simple question; the non-answers are answers in themselves.
And how is my answer a non-answer? Black voters have never benefitted at the expense of white voters, except in the minds of racist whites who imagine giving voting rights to blacks takes something away from their deified white race.
Take a good look at L.A.-L.A. Land gerrymandering. They come right out and say that they change district boundaries in order to create ethnic districts. The upshot of this is that various minority groups have a disproportionately large voice in the governance of L.A.
Take a look at what they just did in Palmdale, a city that has always had open ( non-precinct) voting. Now they say that the city has to go to a precinct system because it would benefit a small portion of the population at the expense of the majority.
But are whites losing anything?
This is a clear violation of the rules of proportional representation. If we allow these things to continue, who knows what will happen next.
And it's not just whites. This isn't a race thing, these are people who chose to leave L.A. because of many factors brought on by typical big city misgovernance. Many of these people opted to have a long commute to their work in L.A. so as to have a better life for themselves and their families. Then Los Angeles County enacted inner city renewal projects, which forced out the inhabitants. And where did they go? To the desert, where the rents are lower. So not only do the inhabitants now have to put up with increased crime and the typical over-taxing of social services, but also the tyranny of the minority. Oh, and for a capper, the county is on them to provide more services, which increases taxes, which also hurts working families. How is this fair?
I can't speak on the situation in L.A. as I don't know anything about it, save to say that demographics change with the natural influx of people, and hence, taxes are going to go up with it.
This isn't a case of ' natural influx'. This is a case of government ousting the 'undesirables' out of an area they wish to develop and dumping them onto an area that at this point in time they don't want. And then these self-same bureaucrats harass the outlying areas because their existing services can't handle the increased crime and other demands.
Ousting? Is anyone actually being evicted, or being bought out?
When you set up conditions where people can no longer afford to live in their neighborhoods, you have effectively ousted them.
But was that ever the actual intent? Or was it to get certain groups more power, and the mass migration out was possibly just an unintended side effect?
07 Oct 2015, 2:55 pm
