RE: Gerrymandering -- Unintended Consequence

RE: Gerrymandering -- Unintended Consequence (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

FatDomDaddy -> RE: Gerrymandering -- Unintended Consequence (9/27/2013 5:21:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: If this was done in Maryland, a Bluest of Blue Blue States, as it stands now, the likely make up in US House would be 3 R and 5 D. That is, if the Congressional lines were draw, strictly on population and geographic cohesiveness. How do we know this? Because I live here and we just went through this....The Maryland 3rd is connected in one place by six feet of creek bed to to sure up the numbers! Prior to the last drawing Maryland was 2 R 6 D but the Maryland 2nd was full of Blue Dogs and a Republicans. The Numbers were not good so they had to sure up the second. That created problems in the 3rd, fixed by the a fore mentioned creek bed. quote: Why on earth would the Democrat powers that be, draw the lines that would favor the opposition party quote: I imagine that, across the U.S., both parties would resist giving up the ability to gerrymander. I'm sure it's just coincidence that you focused solely on a blue state (which had a Republican governor as recently as 2007). No, I used Maryland because I live here. But here is the thing, even in states where they control the legislature, Republicans generally draw lines on population and geographic cohesiveness (not everywhere of course, but it tends to be a default.). Democrats tend not to favor this approach basically because it cannot guarantee minority seats and representation. And in cases where that was an historically bad problem, "gerrymandering" was deemed a necessary solution. The problem now is, at least in Maryland is how to create Hispanic districts and not take away Black seats? The Hispanic population, while leaning left, just does not break down in voting numbers the way the Black population does. Blacks in Maryland are showing at a 92%-8& split voting towards the Democrats. The new voting Hispanics are just not breaking along those lines.

Phydeaux -> RE: Gerrymandering -- Unintended Consequence (9/27/2013 6:44:55 PM)
Aldredge Gerry. Democrat.

cloudboy -> RE: Gerrymandering -- Unintended Consequence (9/27/2013 7:52:38 PM)
quote: Romney and the rest of the field had to go to the extreme right and there was no coming back from that. Romney did quite a pivot during the first debate.....

FatDomDaddy -> RE: Gerrymandering -- Unintended Consequence (9/27/2013 9:56:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Aldredge Gerry. Democrat. Elbridge Gerry (hard G) and he was a (Jeffersonian) Republican. He was also a very important Founder and was just about everywhere a patriot could be around Boston from 1770-1775. He was a founding member of the "Committee of Safety" and just about single highhandedly, ensured the storing of weapons and ammunition at Concord. Gerry was also major player in both the Second Continental Congress and in the Constitutional Convention.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Gerrymandering -- Unintended Consequence (9/27/2013 10:07:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy DS and others are missing the point. Pointing out that democrats gerrymander misses the subject entirely. The subject is how and why the Republican Party is lurching further to the right, far, far from mainstream America while deomonizing moderates and attacking business and pragmatic incumbents. This group is willing to risk the usa's credit rating because it failed to win either the senate or the presidency. It is willing to burn the house down for its own ideological principles. Centrist republicans call the uber-right's tactics - a recipe for failure and voter backlash. No, I'm not missing the point. Both parties do it. Both parties are to be blamed for doing it. It's bad when either party does it. The House GOP is not going to be the only ones to blame for any Federal shutdowns or credit ratings losses. Senate Democrats will also be to blame. The Senate didn't pass the House-passed bill. How is that not risking shutdown and the credit rating? How is it that the House not passing the Senate-passed bill will carry the blame?

FatDomDaddy -> RE: Gerrymandering -- Unintended Consequence (9/27/2013 10:14:28 PM)
I don't disagree but only ONE of the two party's squeals like a stuck pig and fights tooth and nail to stop anything that would reform and stop gerrymandering.

DomKen -> RE: Gerrymandering -- Unintended Consequence (9/27/2013 10:32:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy DS and others are missing the point. Pointing out that democrats gerrymander misses the subject entirely. The subject is how and why the Republican Party is lurching further to the right, far, far from mainstream America while deomonizing moderates and attacking business and pragmatic incumbents. This group is willing to risk the usa's credit rating because it failed to win either the senate or the presidency. It is willing to burn the house down for its own ideological principles. Centrist republicans call the uber-right's tactics - a recipe for failure and voter backlash. No, I'm not missing the point. Both parties do it. Both parties are to be blamed for doing it. It's bad when either party does it. The House GOP is not going to be the only ones to blame for any Federal shutdowns or credit ratings losses. Senate Democrats will also be to blame. The Senate didn't pass the House-passed bill. How is that not risking shutdown and the credit rating? How is it that the House not passing the Senate-passed bill will carry the blame? Because the Republicans are trying to win a fight they lost. You don't get to get your way just because you throw a hissy fit.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Gerrymandering -- Unintended Consequence (9/28/2013 5:25:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy DS and others are missing the point. Pointing out that democrats gerrymander misses the subject entirely. The subject is how and why the Republican Party is lurching further to the right, far, far from mainstream America while deomonizing moderates and attacking business and pragmatic incumbents. This group is willing to risk the usa's credit rating because it failed to win either the senate or the presidency. It is willing to burn the house down for its own ideological principles. Centrist republicans call the uber-right's tactics - a recipe for failure and voter backlash. No, I'm not missing the point. Both parties do it. Both parties are to be blamed for doing it. It's bad when either party does it. The House GOP is not going to be the only ones to blame for any Federal shutdowns or credit ratings losses. Senate Democrats will also be to blame. The Senate didn't pass the House-passed bill. How is that not risking shutdown and the credit rating? How is it that the House not passing the Senate-passed bill will carry the blame? Because the Republicans are trying to win a fight they lost. You don't get to get your way just because you throw a hissy fit. The Republicans are allowed to oppose whatever they want. The Democrats are allowed to oppose whatever they want. The House R's have purse string leverage. They aren't throwing a "hissy fit." They are legislating as they were elected to legislate. The only differences in the chamber bills is Obamacare funding. Obviously, this is an important thing to both parties/chambers. If the D's won't pass a bill that de-funds Obamacare, knowing that the rest of Government won't be funded, how is that not risking the same thing the Republicans are risking if they don't pass the Senate's bill?

DomKen -> RE: Gerrymandering -- Unintended Consequence (9/28/2013 5:34:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy DS and others are missing the point. Pointing out that democrats gerrymander misses the subject entirely. The subject is how and why the Republican Party is lurching further to the right, far, far from mainstream America while deomonizing moderates and attacking business and pragmatic incumbents. This group is willing to risk the usa's credit rating because it failed to win either the senate or the presidency. It is willing to burn the house down for its own ideological principles. Centrist republicans call the uber-right's tactics - a recipe for failure and voter backlash. No, I'm not missing the point. Both parties do it. Both parties are to be blamed for doing it. It's bad when either party does it. The House GOP is not going to be the only ones to blame for any Federal shutdowns or credit ratings losses. Senate Democrats will also be to blame. The Senate didn't pass the House-passed bill. How is that not risking shutdown and the credit rating? How is it that the House not passing the Senate-passed bill will carry the blame? Because the Republicans are trying to win a fight they lost. You don't get to get your way just because you throw a hissy fit. The Republicans are allowed to oppose whatever they want. The Democrats are allowed to oppose whatever they want. The House R's have purse string leverage. They aren't throwing a "hissy fit." They are legislating as they were elected to legislate. The only differences in the chamber bills is Obamacare funding. Obviously, this is an important thing to both parties/chambers. If the D's won't pass a bill that de-funds Obamacare, knowing that the rest of Government won't be funded, how is that not risking the same thing the Republicans are risking if they don't pass the Senate's bill? Because we just held this big national election in which Obamacare was a huge issue and the Republicans lost. They lost the Presidency, they lost seats in the Senate, lost seats in the House and actually lost the total votes cast nationally in each of those. The people have spoken.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Gerrymandering -- Unintended Consequence (9/28/2013 5:40:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy DS and others are missing the point. Pointing out that democrats gerrymander misses the subject entirely. The subject is how and why the Republican Party is lurching further to the right, far, far from mainstream America while deomonizing moderates and attacking business and pragmatic incumbents. This group is willing to risk the usa's credit rating because it failed to win either the senate or the presidency. It is willing to burn the house down for its own ideological principles. Centrist republicans call the uber-right's tactics - a recipe for failure and voter backlash. No, I'm not missing the point. Both parties do it. Both parties are to be blamed for doing it. It's bad when either party does it. The House GOP is not going to be the only ones to blame for any Federal shutdowns or credit ratings losses. Senate Democrats will also be to blame. The Senate didn't pass the House-passed bill. How is that not risking shutdown and the credit rating? How is it that the House not passing the Senate-passed bill will carry the blame? Because the Republicans are trying to win a fight they lost. You don't get to get your way just because you throw a hissy fit. The Republicans are allowed to oppose whatever they want. The Democrats are allowed to oppose whatever they want. The House R's have purse string leverage. They aren't throwing a "hissy fit." They are legislating as they were elected to legislate. The only differences in the chamber bills is Obamacare funding. Obviously, this is an important thing to both parties/chambers. If the D's won't pass a bill that de-funds Obamacare, knowing that the rest of Government won't be funded, how is that not risking the same thing the Republicans are risking if they don't pass the Senate's bill? Because we just held this big national election in which Obamacare was a huge issue and the Republicans lost. They lost the Presidency, they lost seats in the Senate, lost seats in the House and actually lost the total votes cast nationally in each of those. The people have spoken. Yeah, this was just about Health care. lmao. The people also spoke when they put these people into office, did they not?

DomKen -> RE: Gerrymandering -- Unintended Consequence (9/28/2013 6:06:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy DS and others are missing the point. Pointing out that democrats gerrymander misses the subject entirely. The subject is how and why the Republican Party is lurching further to the right, far, far from mainstream America while deomonizing moderates and attacking business and pragmatic incumbents. This group is willing to risk the usa's credit rating because it failed to win either the senate or the presidency. It is willing to burn the house down for its own ideological principles. Centrist republicans call the uber-right's tactics - a recipe for failure and voter backlash. No, I'm not missing the point. Both parties do it. Both parties are to be blamed for doing it. It's bad when either party does it. The House GOP is not going to be the only ones to blame for any Federal shutdowns or credit ratings losses. Senate Democrats will also be to blame. The Senate didn't pass the House-passed bill. How is that not risking shutdown and the credit rating? How is it that the House not passing the Senate-passed bill will carry the blame? Because the Republicans are trying to win a fight they lost. You don't get to get your way just because you throw a hissy fit. The Republicans are allowed to oppose whatever they want. The Democrats are allowed to oppose whatever they want. The House R's have purse string leverage. They aren't throwing a "hissy fit." They are legislating as they were elected to legislate. The only differences in the chamber bills is Obamacare funding. Obviously, this is an important thing to both parties/chambers. If the D's won't pass a bill that de-funds Obamacare, knowing that the rest of Government won't be funded, how is that not risking the same thing the Republicans are risking if they don't pass the Senate's bill? Because we just held this big national election in which Obamacare was a huge issue and the Republicans lost. They lost the Presidency, they lost seats in the Senate, lost seats in the House and actually lost the total votes cast nationally in each of those. The people have spoken. Yeah, this was just about Health care. lmao. The people also spoke when they put these people into office, did they not? Actually not as I pointed out, more votes were cast for Democrats in House races than were for Republicans. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/11/09/house-democrats-got-more-votes-than-house-republicans-yet-boehner-says-hes-got-a-mandate/ So yes the people have spoken and the House is wrong. Further the House has the duty to pass a budget that can become law which means they have to compromise with the Senate and the President.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Gerrymandering -- Unintended Consequence (9/28/2013 6:28:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Actually not as I pointed out, more votes were cast for Democrats in House races than were for Republicans. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/11/09/house-democrats-got-more-votes-than-house-republicans-yet-boehner-says-hes-got-a-mandate/ So yes the people have spoken and the House is wrong. So, Boehner's claim of a mandate is wrong. Big fucking deal. The winners tend to gloat like that all the fucking time. quote: Further the House has the duty to pass a budget that can become law which means they have to compromise with the Senate and the President. I completely agree with that. But, what is the first step to compromise? One side makes an offer. The other side makes an offer. The negotiating starts. And, doesn't this also mean the President and the Senate will have to compromise with the House?

DomKen -> RE: Gerrymandering -- Unintended Consequence (9/28/2013 6:47:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Actually not as I pointed out, more votes were cast for Democrats in House races than were for Republicans. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/11/09/house-democrats-got-more-votes-than-house-republicans-yet-boehner-says-hes-got-a-mandate/ So yes the people have spoken and the House is wrong. So, Boehner's claim of a mandate is wrong. Big fucking deal. The winners tend to gloat like that all the fucking time. quote: Further the House has the duty to pass a budget that can become law which means they have to compromise with the Senate and the President. I completely agree with that. But, what is the first step to compromise? One side makes an offer. The other side makes an offer. The negotiating starts. And, doesn't this also mean the President and the Senate will have to compromise with the House? The Senate tried to compromise. They left the spending level at the sequester level and shortened the CR by a month. And you need to read that article again. Boehner didn't just lie when he said he had a mandate the simple fact is more citizens voted for Democrats in the House than for Republicans. If not for the gerrymandered districts the House would be in Democratic hands and we wouldn't be looking at a shutdown or a default.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Gerrymandering -- Unintended Consequence (9/28/2013 6:52:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Actually not as I pointed out, more votes were cast for Democrats in House races than were for Republicans. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/11/09/house-democrats-got-more-votes-than-house-republicans-yet-boehner-says-hes-got-a-mandate/ So yes the people have spoken and the House is wrong. So, Boehner's claim of a mandate is wrong. Big fucking deal. The winners tend to gloat like that all the fucking time. quote: Further the House has the duty to pass a budget that can become law which means they have to compromise with the Senate and the President. I completely agree with that. But, what is the first step to compromise? One side makes an offer. The other side makes an offer. The negotiating starts. And, doesn't this also mean the President and the Senate will have to compromise with the House? The Senate tried to compromise. They left the spending level at the sequester level and shortened the CR by a month. And you need to read that article again. Boehner didn't just lie when he said he had a mandate the simple fact is more citizens voted for Democrats in the House than for Republicans. If not for the gerrymandered districts the House would be in Democratic hands and we wouldn't be looking at a shutdown or a default. Left spending at sequester levels? Isn't that, "mandatory?" Shortened the CR by a month? WTF kind of compromise is that?!? The House passed all the necessary government funding, outside of Obamacare, in their bill. Shortening the CR by a month only means that they'll be doing this again a month earlier than otherwise. That's not a compromise.

DomKen -> RE: Gerrymandering -- Unintended Consequence (9/28/2013 6:59:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Actually not as I pointed out, more votes were cast for Democrats in House races than were for Republicans. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/11/09/house-democrats-got-more-votes-than-house-republicans-yet-boehner-says-hes-got-a-mandate/ So yes the people have spoken and the House is wrong. So, Boehner's claim of a mandate is wrong. Big fucking deal. The winners tend to gloat like that all the fucking time. quote: Further the House has the duty to pass a budget that can become law which means they have to compromise with the Senate and the President. I completely agree with that. But, what is the first step to compromise? One side makes an offer. The other side makes an offer. The negotiating starts. And, doesn't this also mean the President and the Senate will have to compromise with the House? The Senate tried to compromise. They left the spending level at the sequester level and shortened the CR by a month. And you need to read that article again. Boehner didn't just lie when he said he had a mandate the simple fact is more citizens voted for Democrats in the House than for Republicans. If not for the gerrymandered districts the House would be in Democratic hands and we wouldn't be looking at a shutdown or a default. Left spending at sequester levels? Isn't that, "mandatory?" Shortened the CR by a month? WTF kind of compromise is that?!? The House passed all the necessary government funding, outside of Obamacare, in their bill. Shortening the CR by a month only means that they'll be doing this again a month earlier than otherwise. That's not a compromise. No the sequester spending levels are not mandatory. The budget can be set at any level that can be passed. There was a strong desire in the Senate to revert to pre sequester spending levels but they left it so as to not add another thing for the House crazies to freak out over. Shortening the CR was apparently something Boehner said he wanted if the one he sent over didn't pass unmodified so the Senate gave it to him. The issue remains the House Republicans represent a minority of the people who voted for House races and are trying to force their extreme agenda through despite the rest of government being opposed to that agenda. Since when is that acceptable?

DOM68005 -> RE: Gerrymandering -- Unintended Consequence (9/28/2013 7:13:57 AM)
Nebraska is the counterbalance to your argument. The numnut state senators at the state unicameral (legislature) in 2010 redistricted the congressional districts to insure the Omaha District favor the Democrats. It was designed to insure at least one Federal Electoral College vote go to the Democrats in a traditional Republican state. That was to insure Obama at least one vote. Nebraska is one of a few states that due to other Democrat tricks in a prior year may split the Electoral College Vote.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Gerrymandering -- Unintended Consequence (9/28/2013 7:33:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen No the sequester spending levels are not mandatory. The budget can be set at any level that can be passed. There was a strong desire in the Senate to revert to pre sequester spending levels but they left it so as to not add another thing for the House crazies to freak out over. Shortening the CR was apparently something Boehner said he wanted if the one he sent over didn't pass unmodified so the Senate gave it to him. The issue remains the House Republicans represent a minority of the people who voted for House races and are trying to force their extreme agenda through despite the rest of government being opposed to that agenda. Since when is that acceptable? Since we became a representative democracy. When has the majority of people been in favor of Obamacare or PPACA?

dcnovice -> RE: Gerrymandering -- Unintended Consequence (9/28/2013 8:30:19 AM)
quote: They are legislating as they were elected to legislate. Threatening to shut down the entire U.S. government (upending the lives of federal workers used as pawns, cutting off services for countless citizens, and making us a global laughingstock) strikes me more as blackmailing than legislating. But then, perspectives vary.

DomKen -> RE: Gerrymandering -- Unintended Consequence (9/28/2013 8:32:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri When has the majority of people been in favor of Obamacare or PPACA? Ever since it was passed. Just check the polling where it is described or not called obamacare.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Gerrymandering -- Unintended Consequence (9/28/2013 9:04:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri When has the majority of people been in favor of Obamacare or PPACA? Ever since it was passed. Just check the polling where it is described or not called obamacare. http://kff.org/interactive/health-tracking-poll-exploring-the-publics-views-on-the-affordable-care-act-aca/ Yep, there were times. But, for most of the time the KFF graph shows more people were against it.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625