Nationalist Posted February 9 Report Posted February 9 21 minutes ago, John Stone said: I'm assuming you're familiar with the Electoral College ........... so-called, 'safe' districts and Electors? Gerrymandering favors the electoral college by creating so-called, 'safe' districts that ensure a particular party's candidates consistently win elections. Implementation is simple - spread voters who support the opposition thinly across multiple districts, diluting their voting power and by extension preventing them from forming a majority in any single district. Another strategy involves concentrating a large number of opposition voters into a few districts, ensuring they win those districts and by overwhelming margins but minimizing their influence in surrounding areas. If u understand the electoral college process then u immediately realize that even small gerrymandering adjustments can have a huge impact on being that ideology being awarded that States electors and by extension a general election win. The popular vote is meaningless ................. It is a corrupt maneuver - legal - both the black and white cat employ it but it underlines the point that the political hack (ideology) picks the voters. ........... arguably what is even more corrupt are Political Action Committees PAC's are going to get totally out of control - if they aren't already. U know it's corrupt when one individual, indirectly, can support an ideology by hundreds of millions of dollars - seeking political favors. Democracy is an industry - it employs thousands of people and generates and consumes billions. The voters are the 'marks'. Well john, perhaps it'll make you feel better if you stop partaking in elections? Quote Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died.
John Stone Posted February 9 Report Posted February 9 12 minutes ago, Nationalist said: Well john, perhaps it'll make you feel better if you stop partaking in elections? .........free election of the masters does not abolish the masters or the slaves? I'm discouraged by those who are pi$$ed on and are told it's rainfall. Quote
John Stone Posted February 9 Report Posted February 9 19 minutes ago, Nationalist said: So...making America great and closing the border is controversial to you? moot! Was closing the border controversial? Was Roe vs Wade ..............controversial? Is the 2nd Amendment controversial? Was Vietnam controversial? Is birthright citizenship controversial? Controversy is the oxygen of any political hack .......... u might prefer the term, 'wedge issues Quote
User Posted February 9 Report Posted February 9 3 hours ago, John Stone said: If u understand the electoral college process then u immediately realize that even small gerrymandering adjustments can have a huge impact on being that ideology being awarded that States electors and by extension a general election win. You are conflating how the President is elected with how members of Congress get elected. It doesn't matter how Gerry-mandered any district is when the State is still popular-vote... So, come back when you understand the electoral college process. Quote
Deluge Posted February 9 Report Posted February 9 On 2/7/2026 at 12:35 PM, blackbird said: quote All the unconstitutional behavior or enforcement illegality perpetrated by Trump — and therefore the galvanizing positive reaction to “Operation Metro Surge” in Minneapolis — has only been experienced because the Supreme Court anointed Trump as someone “above the law.” Had it not been for that anti-constitutional decision, Trump would not have returned to the White House. Most importantly, this hideous decision empowered the racketeer- and insurrectionist-in-chief, enabling him to neuter the Republican Congress and neutralize the “checks and balances” that are supposed to govern our federal republic. Perhaps Trump’s two most amazing “accomplishments” are: ・Turning the DOJ into his personal law firm and the FBI into his private investigative agency, as evidenced by the raid on a Georgia election office. ・Breaking the law on a regular basis without any accountability at all, even when ordered hundreds of times by courts of law to cease and desist. In sum, what is and is not a “crime” is being defined by a certifiable sociopath. But that definition cannot last forever. ・Gregg Barak is an emeritus professor of criminology and criminal justice at Eastern Michigan University and the author of several award winning books on the crimes of the powerful, includingCriminology on Trump (2022) and its sequel,Indicting the 45th President: Boss Trump, the GOP, and What We Can Do About the Threat to American Democracy (2024). The third book in this Trump trilogy, Regime Change, Authoritarian Treason, and the Outlaw-in-Chief: President Donald Trump’s Struggle to Kill U.S. Democracy & Realign American Global Power, will be published after the 2026 midterm election. unquote Amid Trump's relentless criminality, he's desperate you don't learn this truth | Opinion I believe it doesn't really matter whether a country is Republican, as the U.S. is, or a Constitutional monarchy, such as Canada. What matters is the kind of people that are put in power. Are they honest and respecting the rights of the people enumerated in the written constitution, or do they ignore those rights with impunity. That would seem to be what really matters. Admittedly in Canada we have problems with government as well, including ethics violations. Also we have problems with government massive overspending and running massive debts. It seems some governments are better than others at times and more respectful of the rights guaranteed in the Constitution. Translation: Is it time for us traitors to take over the US? Quote
John Stone Posted February 9 Report Posted February 9 (edited) 21 minutes ago, User said: You are conflating how the President is elected with how members of Congress get elected. It doesn't matter how Gerry-mandered any district is when the State is still popular-vote... So, come back when you understand the electoral college process. dude ..............I'm not going to flog a dead horse except to say gerrymandering can significantly affect presidential elections by manipulating electoral district boundaries - which by extension distorts representation and influence an election outcome - case closed! Edited February 9 by John Stone Quote
User Posted February 9 Report Posted February 9 Just now, John Stone said: dude ..............I'm not going to flog a dead horse except to say gerrymandering can significantly affect presidential elections by manipulating electoral district boundaries - which by extension distorts representation and influence on election outcome - case closed! All you have to do is have enough integrity to admit you were wrong instead of doubling down on the same ignorant claim. Quote
John Stone Posted February 9 Report Posted February 9 55 minutes ago, User said: All you have to do is have enough integrity to admit you were wrong instead of doubling down on the same ignorant claim. re: ..........It doesn't matter how Gerry-mandered any district is when the State is still popular-vote... culpa mia ......... it is the State's popular vote that determines the awarding of electoral votes. That said, gerrymandering can have an impact on House of Representative distribution and by extension Executive power / Legislation. 1 Quote
User Posted February 9 Report Posted February 9 5 minutes ago, John Stone said: re: ..........It doesn't matter how Gerry-mandered any district is when the State is still popular-vote... culpa mia ......... it is the State's popular vote that determines the awarding of electoral votes. That said, gerrymandering can have an impact on House of Representative distribution and by extension Executive power / Legislation. You know what else affects the distribution of representation? The Census and the counting of illegal immigrants in it. Yes, Gerrymandering impacts the House distribution, but at the end of the day, it still comes down to people voting. Quote
WestCanMan Posted February 9 Report Posted February 9 On 2/7/2026 at 12:35 PM, blackbird said: Perhaps Trump’s two most amazing “accomplishments” are:・Turning the DOJ into his personal law firm and the FBI into his private investigative agency, as evidenced by the raid on a Georgia election office. ^That's^ what I hate the most about left4rd disphits. Here's a sample of what the Dems/FBI did, just during Russian collusion: set up a private/secret office at Perkins Coie, where Hillary's associates could meet in secret with the FBI to discuss the Russian-made dossier hooked Hillary's lawyer up with a swipe card for FBI HQ so that he could meet with them directly lied for months about the level of authenticity, corroboration and validity of the dossier, both to the FISA Court and the mainstream media lied about the existence of a secret server connecting Trump with the Kremlin through Alfa Bank or some crap like that leaked known lies about Trump associates, by name fabricated evidence and provided it to the FISA Court tried to coerce false testimony about Trump by offering reduced sentences to people who were never convicted of collusion-related offences That's just the starter version of the crimes committed by the FBI during their witch hunt, which was only done to influence elections. In addition to their lies about Russian collusion they: came up with their own FBI-created plot to kidnap Gretchen Whitmer -> used entrapment to try to get people to commit crimes in relation to their plot, but failed, and indicted them anyways -> had more of their own agents and informants involved in their plot than there were actual conspirators -> solved their own plot just one month before the 2020 election as an October surprise, so that there wasn't enough time for anyone to find out that it was their own plot, or about their entrapment, until after the election lied about the Hunter laptop before the 2020 election had dozens of agent provocateurs at J6, but lied and said that they had none there, while people were being held in jail without a trial for years The FBI operated as the Dems' personal racketeering operation for years, in cooperation with the MSM, committing a laundry list of crimes and lying hundreds of times, while the imbecile who started this thread shrugged off all of that, and now the little imbecile somehow jumped to the conclusion that "an investigation into the Georgia election just has to be illegitimate 💩", just based on opinions and ZERO evidence whatsoever. I'm so done considering leftards human. They have zero intelligence, zero accountability, no scruples, no morals, a complete lack of ethics, they're shameless, and have no redeeming qualities whatsoever. I can't even think of the last time that a leftist here, or anywhere for that matter, said anything honest or intelligent. 1 1 Quote If the Cultist Narrative Network/Cultist Broadcasting Corporation gave an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters, leftists would believe everything they typed. "I don't hate American's, I pointed out the literacy rate to Uncle Sam." - LinkSoul "It's just a parable about rocks and trees talking to muslims to help them kill Jews who are trying to hide. It's open to interpretation." - robobigot
robosmith Posted February 9 Report Posted February 9 2 hours ago, John Stone said: re: ..........It doesn't matter how Gerry-mandered any district is when the State is still popular-vote... culpa mia ......... it is the State's popular vote that determines the awarding of electoral votes. That said, gerrymandering can have an impact on House of Representative distribution and by extension Executive power / Legislation. And it makes a difference in a (rarely used) contingent election when the majority Party of a state votes to elect the POTUS. 1 hour ago, WestCanMan said: ^That's^ what I hate the most about left4rd disphits. Here's a sample of what the Dems/FBI did, just during Russian collusion: set up a private/secret office at Perkins Coie, where Hillary's associates could meet in secret with the FBI to discuss the Russian-made dossier hooked Hillary's lawyer up with a swipe card for FBI HQ so that he could meet with them directly lied for months about the level of authenticity, corroboration and validity of the dossier, both to the FISA Court and the mainstream media lied about the existence of a secret server connecting Trump with the Kremlin through Alfa Bank or some crap like that leaked known lies about Trump associates, by name fabricated evidence and provided it to the FISA Court tried to coerce false testimony about Trump by offering reduced sentences to people who were never convicted of collusion-related offences That's just the starter version of the crimes committed by the FBI during their witch hunt, which was only done to influence elections. In addition to their lies about Russian collusion they: came up with their own FBI-created plot to kidnap Gretchen Whitmer -> used entrapment to try to get people to commit crimes in relation to their plot, but failed, and indicted them anyways -> had more of their own agents and informants involved in their plot than there were actual conspirators -> solved their own plot just one month before the 2020 election as an October surprise, so that there wasn't enough time for anyone to find out that it was their own plot, or about their entrapment, until after the election lied about the Hunter laptop before the 2020 election had dozens of agent provocateurs at J6, but lied and said that they had none there, while people were being held in jail without a trial for years The FBI operated as the Dems' personal racketeering operation for years, in cooperation with the MSM, committing a laundry list of crimes and lying hundreds of times, while the imbecile who started this thread shrugged off all of that, and now the little imbecile somehow jumped to the conclusion that "an investigation into the Georgia election just has to be illegitimate 💩", just based on opinions and ZERO evidence whatsoever. I'm so done considering leftards human. They have zero intelligence, zero accountability, no scruples, no morals, a complete lack of ethics, they're shameless, and have no redeeming qualities whatsoever. I can't even think of the last time that a leftist here, or anywhere for that matter, said anything honest or intelligent. Who told you ^this CRAP? LMAO Quote
CdnFox Posted February 9 Report Posted February 9 8 hours ago, John Stone said: OMG...................... played a huge role in getting Trump elected maybe? Not really. Dishonesty and getting busted for it played a huge role in the sense that the democrats got caught with Biden but controversy itself didn't get trump elected Quote "That which doesn't kill me... Had better start running."
Nationalist Posted February 9 Report Posted February 9 9 hours ago, John Stone said: .........free election of the masters does not abolish the masters or the slaves? I'm discouraged by those who are pi$$ed on and are told it's rainfall. We all are. What would you suggest? Quote Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died.
Nationalist Posted February 9 Report Posted February 9 9 hours ago, John Stone said: moot! Was closing the border controversial? Was Roe vs Wade ..............controversial? Is the 2nd Amendment controversial? Was Vietnam controversial? Is birthright citizenship controversial? Controversy is the oxygen of any political hack .......... u might prefer the term, 'wedge issues I dont think closing the border was controversial. Most wanted control again. Roe V Wade has been righted. It was always a states domain. The 2nd is impossible to repeal. Vietnam was indeed controversial. Birthright citizenship does need refining IMO. Controversy is how the population is divided. A united population would serve better. People need uniting forces...not divisive forces. Quote Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died.
John Stone Posted February 10 Report Posted February 10 15 hours ago, Nationalist said: I dont think closing the border was controversial. Most wanted control again. Roe V Wade has been righted. It was always a states domain. The 2nd is impossible to repeal. Vietnam was indeed controversial. Birthright citizenship does need refining IMO. Controversy is how the population is divided. A united population would serve better. People need uniting forces...not divisive forces. I’m not going to debate the morals of political hacks – winning is all that matters and the proof of the cooking is in the eating (winning) In the prehistoric age an individual like Trump would have little chance of winning the presidency (twice). Today, technology and by extension communication has created an environment much removed from when the dinosaurs roamed the earth. (the anachronistic GOP) Trump’s opposition (twice)? What??? Who would deny that Trump is a controversial figure in politics. His communication style (??) and use of social media to channel his populist agenda is unparalleled. The question is whether he is a phenomenon or a trend going forward. Globally, it is a trend. Quote
John Stone Posted February 10 Report Posted February 10 (edited) 17 hours ago, CdnFox said: Not really. Dishonesty and getting busted for it played a huge role in the sense that the democrats got caught with Biden but controversy itself didn't get trump elected I think u would agree that Trump is and remains a controversial figure in style, speech and actions? To paraphrase, Trump was not concerned to state long and loud what most people thought. .......... and damn the torpedoes re: critics - they were old school. What was surprising was that it worked .............. twice! A nod to the competition .......... Hildebeest / Biden (Harris) .............. I'll be blunt .......... their non-controversial style lost it for them (oooold school) ..on the other hand there is likely only a person like Trump every generation or so when the planets align? The question is whether Trump's style is a trend or just a flash-in-the-pan. The World seems to indicate it's a trend - Democracy is dying - built on expected norms. In style, there is no U.S. political figure in history like him - not even close - u have to compare him to historical global figures. Edited February 10 by John Stone Quote
John Stone Posted February 10 Report Posted February 10 20 hours ago, User said: You know what else affects the distribution of representation? The Census and the counting of illegal immigrants in it. Yes, Gerrymandering impacts the House distribution, but at the end of the day, it still comes down to people voting. Indeed .......... I think we can agree that redistricting is most effective in a two party, partisanship environment. The founding fathers, including Washington, Madison and Adams expressed deep concerns about the dangers of political factionalism and the potential for a two party political system. They warned that such divisions could create an ‘us versus them’ mentality, eroding the common good in favor of narrow, partisan interests. Quote
Deluge Posted February 10 Report Posted February 10 (edited) On 2/7/2026 at 12:35 PM, blackbird said: quote All the unconstitutional behavior... A Republican system is what's best right now. Once we stamp out the marxism in the democrat party, we can get to work voting in classical liberals. Edited February 10 by Deluge Quote
Nationalist Posted February 10 Report Posted February 10 1 hour ago, John Stone said: I’m not going to debate the morals of political hacks – winning is all that matters and the proof of the cooking is in the eating (winning) In the prehistoric age an individual like Trump would have little chance of winning the presidency (twice). Today, technology and by extension communication has created an environment much removed from when the dinosaurs roamed the earth. (the anachronistic GOP) Trump’s opposition (twice)? What??? Who would deny that Trump is a controversial figure in politics. His communication style (??) and use of social media to channel his populist agenda is unparalleled. The question is whether he is a phenomenon or a trend going forward. Globally, it is a trend. And since you like controversy...you must like Trump...no? Quote Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died.
CdnFox Posted February 10 Report Posted February 10 3 hours ago, John Stone said: I think u would agree that Trump is and remains a controversial figure in style, speech and actions? That may very well be true but You can't offer that as evidence that controversy got him elected. Literally every political figure is controversial, god knows Kamala Harris and the whole incident surrounding biden was extremely controversial. It's fair if you want to say that trump is a controversial figure but you can't say that he was elected by controversy. Or the like And saying what people wanted to hear is kind of the opposite of controversy I don't want to put words in your mouth so correct me if I'm wrong but perhaps you didn't mean so much that he was winning it through controversy, perhaps what you meant would be more accurately described as he's very disruptive and the disruption is what gave him appeal. He does tend to take the accepted norms and throw them out the window, and there was a lot of people who felt especially in his first term that American politics weren't working anymore and they needed someone who would come in and kick over all the tables and all the ant hills and force restructuring. Even if what he was doing wasn't terribly controversial doing it in a brutal and direct fashion and getting immediate results is very disruptive and many people felt that's what was necessary And that certainly explains his win the first time, but to be honest this time I think he just looked like the least bad candidate. Kamala was a complete disaster and more importantly it's a disaster put forward by a democrat party that very obviously and deliberately had been backing a president who had lost his mental faculties and hid that from the public. So there were trust issues Quote "That which doesn't kill me... Had better start running."
John Stone Posted February 10 Report Posted February 10 (edited) 1 hour ago, CdnFox said: That may very well be true but You can't offer that as evidence that controversy got him elected. Literally every political figure is controversial, god knows Kamala Harris and the whole incident surrounding biden was extremely controversial. It's fair if you want to say that trump is a controversial figure but you can't say that he was elected by controversy. Or the like And saying what people wanted to hear is kind of the opposite of controversy I don't want to put words in your mouth so correct me if I'm wrong but perhaps you didn't mean so much that he was winning it through controversy, perhaps what you meant would be more accurately described as he's very disruptive and the disruption is what gave him appeal. He does tend to take the accepted norms and throw them out the window, and there was a lot of people who felt especially in his first term that American politics weren't working anymore and they needed someone who would come in and kick over all the tables and all the ant hills and force restructuring. Even if what he was doing wasn't terribly controversial doing it in a brutal and direct fashion and getting immediate results is very disruptive and many people felt that's what was necessary And that certainly explains his win the first time, but to be honest this time I think he just looked like the least bad candidate. Kamala was a complete disaster and more importantly it's a disaster put forward by a democrat party that very obviously and deliberately had been backing a president who had lost his mental faculties and hid that from the public. So there were trust issues re: And saying what people wanted to hear is kind of the opposite of controversy Trump? I'd argue a good strategy with Trump would be to expect the unexpected, first, most and always. Granted he loves preaching to the choir .........haha. I do believe they attend his popular rallies (red meat notwithstanding)so as to hear what controversial statements he'll make, or his defense of controversial statements he's made - all good .................. did I mention the media? Edited February 10 by John Stone Quote
John Stone Posted February 10 Report Posted February 10 3 hours ago, Nationalist said: And since you like controversy...you must like Trump...no? The most accurate description I've heard came from a far right political supporter, 'Trump is awe-full' Describes someone you're in awe of while at the same time critical to a degree? Quote
CdnFox Posted February 10 Report Posted February 10 2 hours ago, John Stone said: re: And saying what people wanted to hear is kind of the opposite of controversy Trump? Yes, trump. IF he's saying what people want to hear he's not being controversial. That would be populist. That's not the same. Quote I'd argue a good strategy with Trump would be to expect the unexpected, first, most and always. I think he's pretty predictable. Quote Granted he loves preaching to the choir .........haha. Most megalomaniacs do. Quote I do believe they attend his popular rallies (red meat notwithstanding)so as to hear what controversial statements he'll make, or his defense of controversial statements he's made - all good .................. did I mention the media? I think he's throwing the word controversial around a little inappropriately. You seem to feel if there's anything that has two sides to an argument it's controversial. Technically that may be true but for a practical use of the word a lot of what trump says isn't actually all that controversial, but it's execution is often extreme. We should lower taxes. Controversial? Not really. We should enforce immigration laws. Controversial? Again not really I mean Biden and obama did enforce the laws to a degree or another. Some of what he says is controversial but it's more about how he goes about things that's the problem. It's very disruptive Quote "That which doesn't kill me... Had better start running."
Nationalist Posted February 10 Report Posted February 10 3 hours ago, John Stone said: The most accurate description I've heard came from a far right political supporter, 'Trump is awe-full' Describes someone you're in awe of while at the same time critical to a degree? He is abrasive. But if it works... Quote Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died.
John Stone Posted February 11 Report Posted February 11 15 hours ago, CdnFox said: Yes, trump. IF he's saying what people want to hear he's not being controversial. That would be populist. That's not the same. I think he's pretty predictable. Most megalomaniacs do. I think he's throwing the word controversial around a little inappropriately. You seem to feel if there's anything that has two sides to an argument it's controversial. Technically that may be true but for a practical use of the word a lot of what trump says isn't actually all that controversial, but it's execution is often extreme. We should lower taxes. Controversial? Not really. We should enforce immigration laws. Controversial? Again not really I mean Biden and obama did enforce the laws to a degree or another. Some of what he says is controversial but it's more about how he goes about things that's the problem. It's very disruptive tomayto, tomahto Quote
Recommended Posts
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.