What's new
By:
Filters

Will You Accept the Findings of the Muller Probe?

Will You Accept the Findings of the Muller Probe?

  • Total voters
    29
Crime has been decreasing for decades. And I’m unsure how that relates to gerrymandering. Should we talk about how Ice cream sales are up too? So weird

The issue at hand is how gerrymandering creates extremism in our democracy, not how it lowers crime or racism or whatever you’re trying to associate it with.
 
Last edited:
The Thriller said:
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?

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?
Click to expand...

So, if we are getting rid of gerrymandering, there still needs to be a process to allocate reps, right? What is that process? At some point someone needs to draw lines. Who is that person or people? We had a "commission" do it in Arizona and still got Gerrymandering. What are you going to do about "majority minority" districts which many see as "good gerrymandering."

As to "Which party appeals the most to older, whiter, and non-college educated rural populations?" I mean, you can make this choice. Stop crapping on their values, smearing them as racists, and regaling them about how unsophisticated they are. They didn't so much "choose" Trump as they were driven to him. We had Gabby Giffords here, she didn't feel the need to smear people. Neither does Kristin Sinema, and now the local Democrats are threatening to primary her for being reasonable. She got all sorts of older white votes.
 
framer said:
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?
Click to expand...
Actually the history of Congressional voting proves heavier partisanship over the last 30 years.
 
framer said:
So, if we are getting rid of gerrymandering, there still needs to be a process to allocate reps, right? What is that process? At some point someone needs to draw lines. Who is that person or people? We had a "commission" do it in Arizona and still got Gerrymandering. What are you going to do about "majority minority" districts which many see as "good gerrymandering."

As to "Which party appeals the most to older, whiter, and non-college educated rural populations?" I mean, you can make this choice. Stop crapping on their values, smearing them as racists, and regaling them about how unsophisticated they are. They didn't so much "choose" Trump as they were driven to him. We had Gabby Giffords here, she didn't feel the need to smear people. Neither does Kristin Sinema, and now the local Democrats are threatening to primary her for being reasonable. She got all sorts of older white votes.
Click to expand...

I’ve seen independent commissions suggested before. In states that use them gerrymandering has decreased (not completely eliminated as humans all have biases).

I’ve seen having a computer algorithm suggested.

I like proportional voting (option 2) of this vox video. It encourages voter participation, plurality, and destroys gerrymandering

 
The Thriller said:
I’ve seen independent commissions suggested before. In states that use them gerrymandering has decreased (not completely eliminated as humans all have biases).

I’ve seen having a computer algorithm suggested.

I like proportional voting (option 2) of this vox video. It encourages voter participation, plurality, and destroys gerrymandering

Click to expand...


Proportional voting would do more than just about anything else to help break us out of this ****** binary situation we're in.

Of course it will massively reduce the power of both current parties and so has no chance of ever happening.
 
Last edited:
I’m in. Anything legal to break the R and D hold on this country.

Proportional works for me. The two that spring to mind are kind of hinted at in that video. Libertarian and Greens.
 
Stoked said:
I’m in. Anything legal to break the R and D hold on this country.

Proportional works for me. The two that spring to mind are kind of hinted at in that video. Libertarian and Greens.
Click to expand...

Good luck. The Democrats are trying to pass a partisan bill to deepen the stranglehold.

Funny in one thread we are complaining about gerrymandering and in another complaining about McConnell blocking similarly dirty legislation.
 
The Thriller said:
1. Do you seriously not see any difference between the Russian and the British governments with regards to American interests, human rights, and democratic norms?

2. Do you see no difference between hiring a private firm for research and using stolen data from a server that a hostile government illegally obtained?

3. You understand that the counter-intelligence operation began not with the Steele dossier but when the ambassador of one of our allies notified law enforcement of a potential national security threat after Trump’s George Papadopoulos admitted to him that they had Russian contacts, right? What should our allies do next time? Not tell our FBI? What should the FBI do next time? Not conduct counter-investigations?

Eliminating these lines of right and wrong is exactly what authoritarian regimes like Putin’s want.
Click to expand...
1. Trump mentioned Norway. Where do they fall on your scale? There are reports that Hillary's campaign communicated with the Ukrane. Where do you rank that? If some of the Russian dirt in the dossier originated from Russian sources would that be problematic for you or is it okay for the Hillary campaign to collect that as long as it goes through enough of their intermediaries before finding it's way into our politics?

2. Would you be making the same sorts of distinctions if a liberal candidate was in Trump's position and vice-versa? I don't believe you would. During the Clinton era conservatives were going crazy over the president's sexual misconduct, but the libs literally didn't care. They lectured right wingers for years on how little that stuff mattered... until Trump came along and then suddenly the sort of hanky panky that Clinton enjoyed was absolutely disgusting and unacceptable to the left. It's amazing how willing people on both sides are to overlook bad behavior when they agree with the politics of the person in question.

3. I'm interested in learning when and how the investigation actually began. I think there are people who likely know more about that than you.
 
And here is the election law in question:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30121

And why the Steele Dossier comparisons by Trump supporters can be interpreted as a red herring:

https://news.yahoo.com/what-is-the-...d-trumps-opporesearch-comments-191857892.html

I tend to agree with Rep. Adam Schiff's take on what is going on here:

In an interview with me, Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.), the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, pointed out that the message Trump has now sent to Russia — effectively greenlighting another assault on his behalf — is also bolstered by the fact that “he’s putting his own intelligence agencies under investigation.”

Trump told ABC News that he might not call the FBI if his campaign were offered help again by a foreign power, and that there would be nothing wrong with accepting information on that basis.

In other words, Trump has now suggested he will not alert law enforcement agencies about such an offer of help, even as his attorney general appears to be simultaneously working to discredit law enforcement’s findings about the last Russian attack, thus absolving Russia of that effort even as Trump invites a new one....

"Barr’s sole objective as attorney general when it comes to foreign interference in our election is to inoculate the president, by investigating his critics,” Schiff told me, and “by investigating the law enforcement agencies who had the temerity to do their jobs and protect the country against an unscrupulous campaign that was accepting foreign help.”

Underscoring these concerns, the New York Times reportsthat Barr’s inquiry seems aimed at questioning whether it was valid for intelligence officials to conclude that Russia interfered in the election for the purpose of helping Trump, and not just to sow discord generally.

In short, Barr may be trying to discredit conclusions about Russia’s motivation to help Trump win — never mind that Mueller extensively documented this — even as Trump has now said he’d welcome more interference on his behalf.

“I think what the attorney general has in mind is doing his own version of the Nunes memorandum, where he will selectively declassify information to give a false or fraudulent picture of what took place, in order to help the president,” Schiff continued. See: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/06/13/adam-schiff-russia-heard-trump-loud-clear/
 
Basically everything I have heard about Trump's comments about receiving help from other countries to win an election has been that Trump was totally out of line. Even Fox News and many Republicans have been blasting him.

Yet you still have the sheep on jazz fans, some of whom actually claim to not like Trump lol, defending him.

I mean come on Joe. Just admit that Trump shouldn't have said that ****.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
framer said:
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.
Click to expand...

Ironic that persecution complex and victim mentality are Trump's main calling cards.
 
fishonjazz said:
Basically everything I have heard about Trump's comments about receiving help from other countries to win an election has been that Trump was totally out of line. Even Fox News and many Republicans have been blasting him.

Yet you still have the sheep on jazz fans, some of whom actually claim to not like Trump lol, defending him.

I mean come on Joe. Just admit that Trump shouldn't have said that ****.
Click to expand...

40% of voters would support the guy if he was caught on tape with an assault rifle in an elementary school mass shooting. They may even support him more. Second amendment, yo.

But Obama wore that tan suit. Outrageous!!!!
 
gerrymandering could be solved with a constitutional amendment that requires that the map with the fewest miles of "border" must be used. Anyone can propose a map. Quant dudes can writer their sophisticated algorithms, others can use an etch-a-sketch. Easy to find an objective winner. Totally apolitical. Who disagrees?
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
1. Trump mentioned Norway. Where do they fall on your scale? There are reports that Hillary's campaign communicated with the Ukrane. Where do you rank that? If some of the Russian dirt in the dossier originated from Russian sources would that be problematic for you or is it okay for the Hillary campaign to collect that as long as it goes through enough of their intermediaries before finding it's way into our politics?

2. Would you be making the same sorts of distinctions if a liberal candidate was in Trump's position and vice-versa? I don't believe you would. During the Clinton era conservatives were going crazy over the president's sexual misconduct, but the libs literally didn't care. They lectured right wingers for years on how little that stuff mattered... until Trump came along and then suddenly the sort of hanky panky that Clinton enjoyed was absolutely disgusting and unacceptable to the left. It's amazing how willing people on both sides are to overlook bad behavior when they agree with the politics of the person in question.

3. I'm interested in learning when and how the investigation actually began. I think there are people who likely know more about that than you.
Click to expand...

Which one of us is hyper partisan again?
 
At this point, anyone who still brings up Hillary to justify anything that trump says or does should be immediately dismissed as the troll that they are. My goodness, it’s 2019 and the right is STILL bringing up Hillary ****ing Clinton.
 
The Thriller said:
At this point, anyone who still brings up Hillary to justify anything that trump says or does should be immediately dismissed as the troll that they are. My goodness, it’s 2019 and the right is STILL bringing up Hillary ****ing Clinton.
Click to expand...


"the election is over, get over it" Oh, and by the way "Hillary" smile.
 
The Thriller said:
At this point, anyone who still brings up Hillary to justify anything that trump says or does should be immediately dismissed as the troll that they are. My goodness, it’s 2019 and the right is STILL bringing up Hillary ****ing Clinton.
Click to expand...

Anyone who supports Trump is a traitor to the USA. A traitor to the truth. A traitor to decency.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top