Reply With Quote
Has nothing to do with controlling both the house and senate though.
I called it first. Me.
Has nothing to do with controlling both the house and senate though.
I never realized what an absolute poster you are until you started floating around this sub forum. It's mind blowing how little value you add.
Wtf are you talking about? The states gerrymander the US house by way of the districts they draw. The senate obviously can't be gerrymandered.
Really? I realized that about you right away when you would butt in and run your aperture, then dismiss yourself when research was required.
Just admit you had no idea what they were even talking about and we can FFWD to the part where you quit.
CN said the democrats gerrymandered their way to 40 year control of congress. Pgardn asks when the democrats had a 40 year control of congress. CC then asks what gerrymandering has to do with the US congress like a moron. Then you pop in with some low value . Sound about right?
Only for ers who like to change words to suit their narrative. CN said stranglehold. He didn't say control. What about that word is so unappealing that you need to change it?
I was paraphrasing. It changes absolutely nothing.
Because the one touch "quote" function is so difficult as to sway you to type your paraphrase instead.
A word has several possible synonyms. You and a few others here use one of your choosing instead of the original word and then you set out arguing against it as if the original word became unavailable. Your bias forces you to pick whatever meaning suits your narrative. Then that word itself has several possible definitions, and those and the original word's definitions don't exactly line up. Eventually you're not even talking about the same thing, but that's how you prefer to argue.
You're just babbling now in an effort to shift the argument because you know you're wrong.
No research needed on that one
I try to refocus on the original comment. Many like you wander off into the wilderness and get lost. That's why you give up on it when you realize the trek back is going to be arduous.You're just babbling now in an effort to shift the argument because you know you're wrong.
No research needed on that one
I'm not giving up anything. CC said "What does the US Congress have to do with Gerrymandering?", which is a ing ridiculous statement. You butted in with some incorrect bull .
Now go post in another thread. You lost this one.
Last edited by Th'Pusher; 11-23-2016 at 06:33 PM.
There is more brain power in Silicon Valley alone than there is in many countries.
Quit acting like a dumbass. States set the congressional districts every 10 years after the census.
Us Congressional action has nothing to do with gerrymandering.
Congressional control is a result, not a cause.
No congressional control is a result. CN was suggesting that the RESULT of gerrymandering was ok with democrats when democrats were doing the gerrymandering.
You jumped in like a dumbass and asked what the US Congress has to with gerrymandering. That's a ing stupid question. The US congress is the beneficiary of gerrymandering.
In a political forum I normally assume I don't have to spell out basic details about how gerrymandering is created by both parties. I guess you are the exception. 1960s democrats gerrymandered Texas districts. 2000's republicans do. 2000's democrats gerrymander New York districts. Is what it is.
I understand how it works and that both parties do it. But, when you read the above, it's pretty obvious you have no idea what the you are talking about. What does the US Congress have to do with gerrymandering you ask? It's the ing primary beneficiary which is exactly what CN was suggesting and pgardn was questioning.
Just rub DMC's old balls a little. The two of you need to pretend this thread didn't happen because you both look really stupid.
Walk away.
I understand how it works and that both parties do it. But, when you read the above, it's pretty obvious you have no idea what the you are talking about. What does the US Congress have to do with gerrymandering you ask? It's the ing primary beneficiary which is exactly what CN was suggesting and pgardn was questioning.
Just rub DMC's old balls a little. The two of you need to pretend this thread didn't happen because you both look really stupid.
Walk away.
If you agree that representation in congress is due to census driven gerrymangering by the states why are you arguing with me? Thats exactly what I said.
You certainly are an unreasonably argumentative little .
"Census driven" seems to be the fundamental disagreement here.
If you agree that representation in congress is due to census driven gerrymangering by the states
Really? Why? The number of States representantives rise and fall every 10 years when the census comes out which means district lines have to be redrawn. The party currently in power in the State redraws the lines. As Obama said, elections matter.
Our country is called the United STATES for a reason. In the great cons utional compromise that created the US, States reserved a lot of power. thus the Electoral system and Gerrymandering.
The question Democrats should be asking themselves is why do 30 plus states elect Republican state officers?
Right. The redistricting is census-timed and the party in power redraws the lines, usually in a way that gives them an advantage in future elections. We all know this.
The question is do half of us say "tough " when it benefits our side while the other cries "bull " or do we all agree that it's kind of bull both ways? The former seems like lazy partisan cheerleading to me. The intent of redistricting is to rebalance voting districts based on the census, not based on strategic vote manipulation.
regarding political brain power, Calif scores -0-, Silicon Valley or not.
lol, based on what?
In a republic, the voting responsibility is greater than one man one vote. This is why we are a republic of individual states each with measured responsibility. You can always move to Wyoming if it bothers you so much.
Also, California has 17.9 million registered voters, while Texas had 15 million registered voters. Texas only gets 38 electoral votes to California's 55. 20% greater voting population, but over 40% more votes. Seems to balance out in the end.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
