Jump to content

US ambassador can't get his calls answered.


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 108
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

All one need do is look at the 2014 midterms to see how well the GOP has worked gerrymandering. PA and NC are good examples where the democrats garnered nearly half of the votes and ended up with 27 and 23 % of the seats. Similar numbers in many other states, mostly in the south, surprise, surprise.

Once again, I'll repeat, it doesn't impact the election of governors, senators or presidents. Btw, I don't remember the whining when Democrats gerrymandered districts. Double standard for $1000 Alex!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That "plan" never happened. And that source is a far leftwing source. If you're not gonna consider Fox News a credible source, you're gonna have to hold the same standard for other sources, epecially partisan ones like The Nation. Regardless, almost every single state awards it's electoral votes to the popular vote winner. Why is this so hard for people to understand???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again, I'll repeat, it doesn't impact the election of governors, senators or presidents. Btw, I don't remember the whining when Democrats gerrymandered districts. Double standard for $1000 Alex!

The dems tried it in 2 states. Didnt work very well. I could name you 10 states that were partisan gerrymandered without even thinking too hard.

Edited by On Guard for Thee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I agree, it's centuries old. All I'm saying is that it only matters in house races. A composition of a district doesn't matter at all in most elections that involve the popular vote from the state as a whole.

Edited by Shady
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I agree, it's centuries old. All I'm saying is that it only matters in house races. A composition of a district doesn't matter at all in most elections that involve the popular vote from the state as a whole.

What gerrymandering is meant to do, and what it does do, especially in the hands of the GOP is to trump the popular vote. It does this by either cracking or packing districts as the terminology goes. Its been around since 1812.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What gerrymandering is meant to do, and what it does do, especially in the hands of the GOP is to trump the popular vote. It does this by either cracking or packing districts as the terminology goes. Its been around since 1812.

It can't trump the popular vote in presidential elections, elections for governors, or senators. The Dems were experts at in from the 1930s to the 1990s. Since 1994 though, they haven't been in control at the times when districts get redrawn for population growth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It can't trump the popular vote in presidential elections, elections for governors, or senators. The Dems were experts at in from the 1930s to the 1990s. Since 1994 though, they haven't been in control at the times when districts get redrawn for population growth.

Now that the GOP are the experts, its seems to be done much more often to either crack or pack districts than anything to do with population growth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again, I'll repeat, it doesn't impact the election of governors, senators or presidents. Btw, I don't remember the whining when Democrats gerrymandered districts. Double standard for $1000 Alex!

And Bush won a second term via courts and not the democratic process. Hypocrites indeed Shady.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And Bush won a second term via courts and not the democratic process. Hypocrites indeed Shady.

Poppycock. He won because Al Gore wanted only 3 counties recounted. Counties that Gore won heavily. And the standards of the ballots counted weren't uniform. Both instances violated the equal protection clauses of the constitution. If Gore had asked for a state wide recount, things might have been different. Regardless, Bush never trailed in Florida even once during the counting of ballots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Poppycock. He won because Al Gore wanted only 3 counties recounted. Counties that Gore won heavily. And the standards of the ballots counted weren't uniform. Both instances violated the equal protection clauses of the constitution. If Gore had asked for a state wide recount, things might have been different. Regardless, Bush never trailed in Florida even once during the counting of ballots.

Revisionist tripe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, that's exactly what the courts ruled on. Your ignorance is profound. Stop embarassing yourself. Seriously.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/future/landmark_bush.html

Votes not counted, punch cards not reflecting the voter's choice.

On December 12, 2000, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 "per curiam" (non-specially authored) decision, ruled that the Florida Supreme Court's recount order was unconstitutional because it granted more protection to some ballots than to others, violating the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. This clause forbids states from denying "to any person within their jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The Court argued that voting for a president constituted a "fundamental right" strictly guarded by the Equal Protection Clause, and that the Florida Supreme Court's order violated this right because it was "arbitrary." The Court alleged that the order contained standardless and unequal processes to divine the "intent of the voter" that were above and beyond the settled processes required by Florida election law.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/politics/12VOTE.html

But the consortium, looking at a broader group of rejected ballots than those covered in the court decisions, 175,010 in all, found that Mr. Gore might have won if the courts had ordered a full statewide recount of all the rejected ballots. This also assumes that county canvassing boards would have reached the same conclusions about the disputed ballots that the consortium's independent observers did. The findings indicate that Mr. Gore might have eked out a victory if he had pursued in court a course like the one he publicly advocated when he called on the state to "count all the votes."

The vote difference was very small between Gore and Bush, so I would have pursued a complete recount myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/future/landmark_bush.html

Votes not counted, punch cards not reflecting the voter's choice.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/politics/12VOTE.html

The vote difference was very small between Gore and Bush, so I would have pursued a complete recount myself.

I agree. A full recount would have been the best idea. Unfortunately that wasn't what Gore's lawsuit filed for. And that wasn't what was before the court. The issue before the court was that only 3 counties were to be recounted, and the standard used to consider a ballot a vote was different in each county.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. A full recount would have been the best idea. Unfortunately that wasn't what Gore's lawsuit filed for. And that wasn't what was before the court. The issue before the court was that only 3 counties were to be recounted, and the standard used to consider a ballot a vote was different in each county.

Right so it came down to a court decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shady wrote: He didn't end anything in Iraq as we've recently seen. In fact his reckless complete withdrawal squandered all of the gains that had been made, and his venture in Afghanistan is on-going. Not to mention his new wars, like in Libya, which have been a complete and utter disaster, as well as in Egypt.

----------------------------------------

These euphemisms just have to stop. The US doesn't do "wars"; the USA does War Crimes and capital T Terrorism.

Edited by Je suis Omar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shady wrote: He didn't end anything in Iraq as we've recently seen. In fact his reckless complete withdrawal squandered all of the gains that had been made, and his venture in Afghanistan is on-going. Not to mention his new wars, like in Libya, which have been a complete and utter disaster, as well as in Egypt.

----------------------------------------

These euphemisms just have to stop. The US doesn't do "wars"; the USA does War Crimes and capital T Terrorism.

Apparently Afghanistan has now become Obamas venture. The poster tends to re shape historical facts when it suits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently Afghanistan has now become Obamas venture. The poster tends to re shape historical facts when it suits.

It is much of Obama's venture. He's the one the decided to triple the number of troops there. He's the one that decided to expand their roles. And he's the one that's decided to keep them there longer than he previously stated. Facts can be stubborn things sometimes, especially when they fly in the face of Dear Leader and his Noble peace prize.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is much of Obama's venture. He's the one the decided to triple the number of troops there. He's the one that decided to expand their roles. And he's the one that's decided to keep them there longer than he previously stated. Facts can be stubborn things sometimes, especially when they fly in the face of Dear Leader and his Noble peace prize.

Who ordered the troops into Afghanistan, and when...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Facts can be stubborn things sometimes, especially when they fly in the face of Dear Leader and his Noble peace prize.

Odd that you mention facts, Shady.

That peace prize really was quite a hilarious event and one does hope that the Nobel committee recognizes their humour. It's like trying to weigh on a scale who is worse, Hitler or Himmler, Bush or Obama.

War criminals are war criminals - should the worse of the two be dropped from a higher gallows?

Edited by Je suis Omar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who tripled the number of troops and expanded their role?

I guess you didnt want to answer my question, but of course we all know the answer. Your numbers are faulty but yes, Obama did his own troop surge in AFG, as he scaled down Iraq, in the hopes of trying to hasten an end to the agenda from hell that Bush left him. What was that Iraq war all about again...speaking of things legal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,746
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    historyradio.org
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • CDN1 went up a rank
      Rookie
    • User went up a rank
      Experienced
    • exPS went up a rank
      Contributor
    • DUI_Offender earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • exPS went up a rank
      Explorer
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...