Will You Accept the Findings of the Muller Probe?

[The Thriller]

We disagree! That's ok.

I think we do agree that this is our stage, and international entities shouldn't have a part to play.

1. I feel like we’ve never seen such an immoral narcissist, like trump, in any public office. The guy literally doesn’t give a **** about the office he holds or about the country. All he cares about is himself and the present moment. No thought of the greater good or future. Even Nixon, Hoover, Harding, Johnson, and Jackson weren’t this corrupt.

2. Never before has there been such a well established apparatus of disinformation in America. If Nixon had cover from am radio, Fox News, and social media, he would’ve never been impeached. The echo chamber that feeds 35 percent of Americans crap news and intimidates republicans from speaking out against Trump emboldens (Republican) politicians to do what was unthinkable just a few years ago.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

I still think you're missing my point. We should NOT praise our politicians for this behavior. This SHOULD NOT be a thing. I'm not naive enough to think most candidates wouldn't accept dirt on their opponents. I feel like we should prefer our politicians not to encourage OR use it.

Politics is a dirty business, and power-hungry narcissists who are willing to do whatever they must to prevail are the ones who almost always rise to the top. We can wish that the world worked differently, but I don't see any reason to expect that it will ever change.

 

[fishonjazz]

I still think you're missing my point. We should NOT praise our politicians for this behavior. This SHOULD NOT be a thing. I'm not naive enough to think most candidates wouldn't accept dirt on their opponents. I feel like we should prefer our politicians not to encourage OR use it.

This

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[Harambe]

Politics is a dirty business, and power-hungry narcissists who are willing to do whatever they must to prevail are the ones who almost always rise to the top. We can wish that the world worked differently, but I don't see any reason to expect that it will ever change.

Changing a culture is a long, terrible process. Dancing with Elephants(I guess donky's too) is not an easy, or simple task. None the less, it's imperative that we follow through.

 

[Harambe]

1. I feel like we’ve never seen such an immoral narcissist, like trump, in any public office. The guy literally doesn’t give a **** about the office he holds or about the country. All he cares about is himself and the present moment. No thought of the greater good or future. Even Nixon, Hoover, Harding, Johnson, and Jackson weren’t this corrupt.

2. Never before has there been such a well established apparatus of disinformation in America. If Nixon had cover from am radio, Fox News, and social media, he would’ve never been impeached. The echo chamber that feeds 35 percent of Americans crap news and intimidates republicans from speaking out against Trump emboldens (Republican) politicians to do what was unthinkable just a few years ago.

I don't disagree with you on either of these statements. But both of these statements are more pontificating, and less doing something.

 

[The Thriller]

Changing a culture is a long, terrible process. Dancing with Elephants(I guess donky's too) is not an easy, or simple task. None the less, it's imperative that we follow through.

Getting rid of gerrymandering would help change a lot imo. Right now so many republican districts are so red that candidates must climb over themselves to out extreme the other in primaries or otherwise be labeled a “cuck” or “RINO.” This creates the climate for extremism and corruption. Create fair districts and candidates must maintain balance and moderation

 

[colton]

Prime example of hyper partisanship.

Collapse that wall of text, and ask yourself "Do I want to see someone telling me what they would do, or lie about it and do it anyway"

False dichotomy.

 

[The Thriller]

Interesting.

 

[The Thriller]

False dichotomy.

It was mostly a bad attempt at humor since we’ve discussed the details of the Mueller investigation ad nauseam. Cmon no need to rub it in.

 

[colton]

Getting rid of gerrymandering would help change a lot imo. Right now so many republican districts are so red that candidates must climb over themselves to out extreme the other in primaries or otherwise be labeled a “cuck” or “RINO.” This creates the climate for extremism and corruption. Create fair districts and candidates must maintain balance and moderation

This.

 

[framer]

Getting rid of gerrymandering would help change a lot imo. Right now so many republican districts are so red that candidates must climb over themselves to out extreme the other in primaries or otherwise be labeled a “cuck” or “RINO.” This creates the climate for extremism and corruption. Create fair districts and candidates must maintain balance and moderation

Overwhelmingly "Red" Districts aren't the problem with Gerrymandering. The problem is when you create districts that are too red or too blue while carving out a "competitive" district that only leans like 5-10% in the direction you want. By doing that you can split two seats in an area that would lean 75-25 if you just split the boundaries by communities of interest. Anytime you see a district that is weighted 80% to one party, it is not to help that party. It is meant to isolate the influence of those voters to a limited area.

I'm not even going to touch the fact that you seem to think that Gerrymandering is solely a Republican problem.

 

[The Thriller]

Overwhelmingly "Red" Districts aren't the problem with Gerrymandering. The problem is when you create districts that are too red or too blue while carving out a "competitive" district that only leans like 5-10% in the direction you want. By doing that you can split two seats in an area that would lean 75-25 if you just split the boundaries by communities of interest. Anytime you see a district that is weighted 80% to one party, it is not to help that party. It is meant to isolate the influence of those voters to a limited area.

I'm not even going to touch the fact that you seem to think that Gerrymandering is solely a Republican problem.

Yeah I’m familiar with what gerrymandering is. The republican goal two years after Obama’s election was to gerrymander districts so that democrats had wasted votes and republicans had safe seats. While it isn’t solely a republican problem it is mostly a republican problem. Why? Data:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ander-but-only-one-of-them-is-any-good-at-it/

"In the 26 states that account for 85 percent of congressional districts, Republicans derive a net benefit of at least 16-17 congressional seats in the current Congress from partisan bias," the researchers found.

Most of that bias is concentrated in just seven Republican-controlled states: Michigan, North Carolina and Pennsylvania exhibit the most extreme partisan skew, while bias toward Republicans is also strongly evident in Florida, Ohio, Texas and Virginia.

Take a look at the chart from Brennan below, which estimates the net seat benefit to Republicans or Democrats in the 26 states they analyzed via the "wasted" votes method.

And

Democrats aren't innocent in this whole affair either, but two factors severely limited their ability to redistrict themselves to a majority: for starters, more statehouses are now controlled by Republicans. Post-2010, there are simply fewer opportunities for Democrats to gerrymander

Finally

the Brennan analysis suggests that a minimum of 16 to 17 seats are in Republican hands because of partisan gerrymandering alone. There's one huge piece of damning evidence in support of this notion: "All of the states we found to have extreme partisan bias had maps drawn solely by one party," they found. Specifically, the Republican party.

And we wonder why they’re so afraid of speaking out against trump? By creating such gerrymandered and Safe districts, republicans have eliminated the threats from their left flank. Their primary threat is someone primarying against them hoping to “out trump” them.

That, among other factors, is what’s leading to such a sharp increase in extremism in the Republican Party. Of the two parties, one has gone off the rails.

 

[JazzGal]

My theory: Trump didn't want to be president (other than the ego-boost of campaigning and then actually being elected). He has been trying everything he can to get kicked out of office, but nothing happens. So he keeps getting more and more outrageous, assuming that at some point he'll cross a line that will not be tolerated. There apparently is no such line.

We get the government we deserve.

 

[framer]

Yeah I’m familiar with what gerrymandering is. The republican goal two years after Obama’s election was to gerrymander districts so that democrats had wasted votes and republicans had safe seats. While it isn’t solely a republican problem it is mostly a republican problem. Why? Data:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ander-but-only-one-of-them-is-any-good-at-it/



And



Finally



And we wonder why they’re so afraid of speaking out against trump? By creating such gerrymandered and Safe districts, republicans have eliminated the threats from their left flank. Their primary threat is someone primarying against them hoping to “out trump” them.

That, among other factors, is what’s leading to such a sharp increase in extremism in the Republican Party. Of the two parties, one has gone off the rails.

So you are saying that Republicans have disproportionate representation because they won more statewide races? If given the chance, Democrats gerrymander without guilt it's just that, in the last decade, they have received less votes to do so. Look at your Democratic congressional delegation. How many Blue Dogs do you see? In your world, nothing is EVER the fault of Democrats, every evil and inconvenient thing in the world is the fault of someone OTHER than the group that you belong to.

And yet you sit here complaining about political extremism? Self aware much?

 

[Zombie]

So you are saying that Republicans have disproportionate representation because they won more statewide races? If given the chance, Democrats gerrymander without guilt it's just that, in the last decade, they have received less votes to do so. Look at your Democratic congressional delegation. How many Blue Dogs do you see? In your world, nothing is EVER the fault of Democrats, every evil and inconvenient thing in the world is the fault of someone OTHER than the group that you belong to.

And yet you sit here complaining about political extremism? Self aware much?

He pointed out a paragraph explaining that Democrats aren't innocent in this either ffs.

 

[The Thriller]

So you are saying that Republicans have disproportionate representation because they won more statewide races? If given the chance, Democrats gerrymander without guilt it's just that, in the last decade, they have received less votes to do so. Look at your Democratic congressional delegation. How many Blue Dogs do you see? In your world, nothing is EVER the fault of Democrats, every evil and inconvenient thing in the world is the fault of someone OTHER than the group that you belong to.

And yet you sit here complaining about political extremism? Self aware much?

Thanks for ignoring the last post. Are you even going to try to discuss the points raised in that previous post? I mean, you insinuated that “both sides” seemed equally at fault with gerrymandering. Something clearly dismantled in my previous post, the one you ignored. So if you hope to proceed with this discussion, you’ll need to address those points.

Democrats are doing a better job of engaging at the local level than before. Currently, Dems have 23 governorships. That’s better than they did in 2008 and 2010.

It’s still a struggle as Democratic strongholds are where the most population base centers are, the coasts. That leaves a lot of land space in the middle that automatically make it more difficult (not impossible) for democrats to compete. Additionally, there are cultural and economic shifts that are leading to polarization. However, gerrymandering is one of the leading causes of dysfunction in our democracy as it hinders representative democracy, discourages moderation, and shields legislators from accountability. Why work with the other side of you know you’re in a gerrymandered district and will be protected by extremism?

In 2008 and 2010 republicans owned a majority of state legislatures and governorships.

This effort led to the most blatant gerrymandering we’ve seen which has led (no surprise) to an extremist congress that’s afraid to stand up to Trump. Now be careful with your next post, it’ll determine whether this discussion continues or ends with me blocking you.

 

[The Thriller]

He pointed out a paragraph explaining that Democrats aren't innocent in this either ffs.

Right? He spouts off and demands that I recognize his points, and then ignores when people address his points. It’s like hes posting without reading my posts.

 

[The Thriller]

My theory: Trump didn't want to be president (other than the ego-boost of campaigning and then actually being elected). He has been trying everything he can to get kicked out of office, but nothing happens. So he keeps getting more and more outrageous, assuming that at some point he'll cross a line that will not be tolerated. There apparently is no such line.

We get the government we deserve.

Sadly, I think you’re mostly right.

Did you ever watch Seinfeld? Remember the episode where George keeps doing stupid things in order to get fired? But the more he tries the more he’s promoted? That’s like Trump. At some point you’d think that republicans would grow tired of excusing his behavior. But they’re so afraid of being primaried that they just can’t speak out.

This poll granted (I’m unsure how reliable it is) demonstrates exactly what I’m talking about. This rep is one of the most conservative members of Congress. Yet, he spoke out against trump. Now look:

 

[framer]

Thanks for ignoring the last post. Are you even going to try to discuss the points raised in that previous post? I mean, you insinuated that “both sides” seemed equally at fault with gerrymandering. Something clearly dismantled in my previous post, the one you ignored. So if you hope to proceed with this discussion, you’ll need to address those points.

Democrats are doing a better job of engaging at the local level than before. Currently, Dems have 23 governorships. That’s better than they did in 2008 and 2010.

It’s still a struggle as Democratic strongholds are where the most population base centers are, the coasts. That leaves a lot of land space in the middle that automatically make it more difficult (not impossible) for democrats to compete. Additionally, there are cultural and economic shifts that are leading to polarization. However, gerrymandering is one of the leading causes of dysfunction in our democracy as it hinders representative democracy, discourages moderation, and shields legislators from accountability. Why work with the other side of you know you’re in a gerrymandered district and will be protected by extremism?

In 2008 and 2010 republicans owned a majority of state legislatures and governorships.

This effort led to the most blatant gerrymandering we’ve seen which has led (no surprise) to an extremist congress that’s afraid to stand up to Trump. Now be careful with your next post, it’ll determine whether this discussion continues or ends with me blocking you.

The problem with this analysis is that you are assuming a whole bunch of things. If you grant that Republicans had big majorities in 2008 and 2010, why do you think that was? You make the assumption that someone was forcing or tricking people into voting a certain way. It has been my experience that voters are pretty darn lazy and only vote in force as a reaction to something they don't like. Generally what they don't like is supreme power by one party or another. Obama or Clinton with a Rubberstamp congress? Nope. Bush with one party rule? Can't have that. Just like voters took away Trump's congress. The Senate got left alone because I believe the average voter wanted more balance in the courts which is where we are headed. I guess you can yell about gerrymandering, but it had little to do with the presidential race or the Republican senate.

On the flip side, each of these presidents got reelected after getting their monopoly taken from them because they were less of an existential threat to the status quo.

History didn't begin two years ago. Each party, when put into power, overreaches then gets slapped down for it. It is true now just like it ever was. The only reason you think partisanship is so one sided now, is because the media you read pushes that narrative. Partisanship has been much, much worse. There has been violence in the capitol building. Most of these politicians are playing a role for you on television. They aren't as spun up abut this as you and other people watching cable are. The only enemy they have is whoever stands between them and their next upgrade of power, which can often be someone in their own party.

There is no systematic plot from Russia or the Koch brothers, just as Obama wasn't a plant from the Muslim brotherhood here to install Sharia Law. Trump got elected because people voted for him for valid concerns and reasons and lost his congress because other valid concerns and reasons. Some of it was personality, sure, but that is the choice you make when you elect Hillary Clinton in the Primaries. He won the election. There was no foul play.

The country is as more peaceful now than it has ever been. There is less crime, less poverty, less institutional racism, less out of wedlock pregnancy, less all kinds of bad things. That doesn't sell papers though. All kinds of mountains are made into molehills on all sides of the political spectrum. And yet, there are problems that are never discussed as well because there is no grift associated with the issue. I mean, once you see the grift, all of it, I can't see how you can completely follow party line after that.

I mean, can you see the grift?

 

[The Thriller]

The problem with this analysis is that you are assuming a whole bunch of things. If you grant that Republicans had big majorities in 2008 and 2010, why do you think that was? You make the assumption that someone was forcing or tricking people into voting a certain way. It has been my experience that voters are pretty darn lazy and only vote in force as a reaction to something they don't like. Generally what they don't like is supreme power by one party or another. Obama or Clinton with a Rubberstamp congress? Nope. Bush with one party rule? Can't have that. Just like voters took away Trump's congress. The Senate got left alone because I believe the average voter wanted more balance in the courts which is where we are headed. I guess you can yell about gerrymandering, but it had little to do with the presidential race or the Republican senate.

On the flip side, each of these presidents got reelected after getting their monopoly taken from them because they were less of an existential threat to the status quo.

History didn't begin two years ago. Each party, when put into power, overreaches then gets slapped down for it. It is true now just like it ever was. The only reason you think partisanship is so one sided now, is because the media you read pushes that narrative. Partisanship has been much, much worse. There has been violence in the capitol building. Most of these politicians are playing a role for you on television. They aren't as spun up abut this as you and other people watching cable are. The only enemy they have is whoever stands between them and their next upgrade of power, which can often be someone in their own party.

There is no systematic plot from Russia or the Koch brothers, just as Obama wasn't a plant from the Muslim brotherhood here to install Sharia Law. Trump got elected because people voted for him for valid concerns and reasons and lost his congress because other valid concerns and reasons. Some of it was personality, sure, but that is the choice you make when you elect Hillary Clinton in the Primaries. He won the election. There was no foul play.

The country is as more peaceful now than it has ever been. There is less crime, less poverty, less institutional racism, less out of wedlock pregnancy, less all kinds of bad things. That doesn't sell papers though. All kinds of mountains are made into molehills on all sides of the political spectrum. And yet, there are problems that are never discussed as well because there is no grift associated with the issue. I mean, once you see the grift, all of it, I can't see how you can completely follow party line after that.

I mean, can you see the grift?

So three things:

1. I’m unsure as to why you’re fixated on how republicans controlled the majority of states in 2008 and 2010.

It doesn’t justify the blatant gerrymandering we’ve seen. Right? Or do you think gerrymandering is justified because republicans have controlled the majority of states for so long?

Gerrymandering is bad, right?

2. A number of factors lead to Dems struggling to control the majority of state houses. From poor outreach to simple demographics. As urbanization takes place fewer people will live in the middle of America while populations will continue to concentrate on the coasts. Even in 2018’s wave year, Dems still don’t control the majority of states. So someone needs to control the middle states of America, right? Which party appeals the most to older, whiter, and non-college educated rural populations?

3. Gerrymandering should be eliminated, right? Get rid of it so neither party can do it. Agree?