Not a fan Gerrymandering, but the Republicans really f’ed themselves.

QP! said:
I used to play on the company softball team and many times, the two teams would adapt the rules depending on turn out and the field we were given to use.

Both sides would agree. Maybe we play with one less person on the field. Maybe we use a line to determine where a home run exists.

As long as both sides agree and stick to those rules you played and had fun.

If one side cheated. If one side instead sent out an extra player or resorted to another rule, only a stupid person says to his own team 'we need to stick to the rules we just agreed to even though they are not instead of adapting to the rules they are using against you'.

You are a stupid person, so you think the second team should stick to the other rule and play with one less person, but no smart person does that.
Click to expand...
Oh, so like when Teddy Kennedy squashed Robert Borks nomination and then you guys got pissed because The Turtle wouldn't confirm someone while Obama was President? You mean like that?

Because before Kennedy, Supreme Court nominees weren't that controversial, but you guys started us down that slippery slope. Is that what you are talking about?
 
T. A. Gardner said:
It's more interesting how the 17th Amendment has destroyed the Senate.

If it didn't exist, and we assume for a moment that all Republican controlled states had two Republican appointed Republican senators under the previous system to that amendment that would put 54 Senators as Republicans versus 36 for the Democrats. The rest of the states are split (5) giving one each let's say. That would be 59 Republicans versus 41 Democrats.

Instead of gridlock, the Senate would be close to a 60-vote majority that could override filibusters and move legislation along.
Click to expand...

Since the nation is more even, can't say that one is going to keep me up at night. SCOTUS is already pretty disproportionate compared to the make-up of the electorate (and yes, they're partisan).
 
Teflon Don said:
Oh, so like when Teddy Kennedy squashed Robert Borks nomination and then you guys got pissed because The Turtle wouldn't confirm someone while Obama was President? You mean like that?

Because before Kennedy, Supreme Court nominees weren't that controversial, but you guys started us down that slippery slope. Is that what you are talking about?
Click to expand...
i can see what you are saying if i look at it like a stupid person would, but otherwise no.

What Kennedy was absolutely NORMAL for each and every SC nominee prior where the Senators liked or did not like a nominee and waged a war of words before a vote trying to impact the vote. In the same way if someone did not think Kennedy was a good Senator (fair to think) they could argue he was terrible and try and defeat him at the ballot box.

That was NOT what Mitch did Obama which defied all prior precedent and set new precedent in the same way Trump was trying to do with this mid term rredistricting.

So again NO. To a stupid person (ie you) you may think you made a point, but you just made my point.
 
BartenderElite said:
Since the nation is more even, can't say that one is going to keep me up at night. SCOTUS is already pretty disproportionate compared to the make-up of the electorate (and yes, they're partisan).
Click to expand...
The Senate is, and has been for well over a decade, closer to at least two if not three, gridlocked and unable to get much if anything done. That is a major problem. Obama came in for his first term and got a two-year window with a 60 vote majority and passed that Obamanation, Obamacare. That caused a major, negative reaction in the mid-terms and he lost both houses of Congress. In a word, Obama squandered all his political capital with Congress and the American people on a for shit health insurance scam that serves less than 12% of Americans today.
 
QP! said:
i can see what you are saying if i look at it like a stupid person would, but otherwise no.

What Kennedy was absolutely NORMAL for each and every SC nominee prior where the Senators liked or did not like a nominee and waged a war of words before a vote trying to impact the vote. In the same way if someone did not think Kennedy was a good Senator (fair to think) they could argue he was terrible and try and defeat him at the ballot box.

That was NOT what Mitch did Obama which defied all prior precedent and set new precedent in the same way Trump was trying to do with this mid term rredistricting.

So again NO. To a stupid person (ie you) you may think you made a point, but you just made my point.
Click to expand...
Learn your history
 
evince said:
The Republicans have gerrymandered their states to keep black and brown AMERICANS from voting all my life

Now

All of the sudden you idiots don’t like Gerrymandering

But only when the states vote to do it to protect the nation from Republicans Gerrymandering without consulting the actual VOTERS


DUDES

YOU SUCK VERY BADLY AT LOOKING HUMAN
Click to expand...
Are you black or brown? Probably not most racist cunts that are the loudest are fat white women. That's what you are. A porked out white bitch.
 
Damocles said:
Trump ran on releasing Epstein files and "no new wars" and both times he failed intensely, purposefully, and without supporter ramifications.
Click to expand...
That's not actually true. The Epstein files were not a part of his platform. He did not promise pre election to do anything with or about them.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
wish-careful.gif


OIP.rX15DbMlf0DiUOEEWj-AFgHaEV
Click to expand...
And you and your asshole Trump asked for this

Enjoy the shit sandwich you ordered up
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top