2. You're also very mistaken about gerrymandering. Your second post makes the claim that the people drawing the districts are gerrymandering for their own elections.
This is untrue. The districts being drawn are for congressional elections. In other words, it determines districts for the congressmen that Pennsylvania sends to the United States House of Representatives, not who local districts send to the Pennsylvania legislature.
The PA GOP has been up to redistricting shenanigans at the state and federal levels.
The state legislative districts are drawn by a commission that consists of four assembly members (the majority and minority leaders of each house) and a chairman. Last time around, the chairman was a Republican judge who was appointed by the (at the time) majority Republican state supreme court. The commission approved a redistricting map 3-2 along party lines, and it was thrown out by the state supreme court for being unlawful. They later settled on a compromise map.
2. You're also very mistaken about gerrymandering. Your second post makes the claim that the people drawing the districts are gerrymandering for their own elections.
This is untrue. The districts being drawn are for congressional elections. In other words, it determines districts for the congressmen that Pennsylvania sends to the United States House of Representatives, not who local districts send to the Pennsylvania legislature.
The PA GOP has been up to redistricting shenanigans at the state and federal levels.
The state legislative districts are drawn by a commission that consists of four assembly members (the majority and minority leaders of each house) and a chairman. Last time around, the chairman was a Republican judge who was appointed by the (at the time) majority Republican state supreme court. The commission approved a redistricting map 3-2 along party lines, and it was thrown out by the state supreme court for being unlawful. They later settled on a compromise map.
That's a non sequitur. This conversation has not been about what happened a decade ago, but about the merits of the current redistricting project.
@BallpointMan 's argument was that there is no check on the PA legislature in this case because they are determining there own districts here. That is untrue.
2. You're also very mistaken about gerrymandering. Your second post makes the claim that the people drawing the districts are gerrymandering for their own elections.
This is untrue. The districts being drawn are for congressional elections. In other words, it determines districts for the congressmen that Pennsylvania sends to the United States House of Representatives, not who local districts send to the Pennsylvania legislature.
The PA GOP has been up to redistricting shenanigans at the state and federal levels.
The state legislative districts are drawn by a commission that consists of four assembly members (the majority and minority leaders of each house) and a chairman. Last time around, the chairman was a Republican judge who was appointed by the (at the time) majority Republican state supreme court. The commission approved a redistricting map 3-2 along party lines, and it was thrown out by the state supreme court for being unlawful. They later settled on a compromise map.
That's a non sequitur. This conversation has not been about what happened a decade ago, but about the merits of the current redistricting project.
@BallpointMan 's argument was that there is no check on the PA legislature in this case because they are determining there own districts here. That is untrue.
All of this is about the redistricting process that was initiated in 2011. It only happens after the decennial census. Four of the five members of the state redistricting commission were from the PA legislature.
It's not even a matter of two wrongs making a right.
The old map favored Republicans at the expense of the Democrats. The new map does not "favor the Democrats"; it is now fair to both parties. That's not switching from Republican gerrymandering to Democratic gerrymandering; it's the removal of gerrymandering.
The goal here is to get a nonpartisan map that accurately reflects the will of the voters. That is what the new map does.
I'm going to venture a guess and say you arent basing your claims of fairness and nonpartisanship on anything but the fact that you favor the Democrats, though i'd love to be proven wrong.
To be clear, I don't believe for even a second anyone here would look at a republican stocked Supreme Court changing maps that objectively and by almost all accounts are a big boost for republicans and jump to conclusions that it is fair and balanced, so im not calling you out specifically.
I think Camdawg has the most accurate assesment, these maps are an explictly partisan process, only an independant commission working under objective standards that can be evaulated and are agreed upon by everyone could change that.
It's a big boost to the Democrats relative to the previous map. There are objective standards to judge it by, but there aren't any that are ever going to be agreed upon by everyone.
The GOP can still expect more than proportional representation from the new map, per 538. That's not necessarily the correct standard, but it makes Republican cries of unfairness a lot harder to take seriously.
It's a big boost to the Democrats relative to the previous map. There are objective standards to judge it by, but there aren't any that are ever going to be agreed upon by everyone.
The GOP can still expect more than proportional representation from the new map, per 538. That's not necessarily the correct standard, but it makes Republican cries of unfairness a lot harder to take seriously.
Your own source explains what that means and how it is not an intentional slant towards republicans:
"Based on the how the state voted in the past two presidential elections, we would expect the districts to be split evenly between the two parties. But because of how Democratic voters are distributed in the state — clustered in and around Philadelphia and Pittsburgh — congressional maps (even nonpartisan, non-gerrymandered ones) tend to give Republicans an advantage, especially when they also try to maximize district compactness, as the court-drawn one does."
It is not the courts job to compensate democrats for natural geographic disadvantages any more than it is the courts job to ensure Republican victories in urban districts.
It's not even a matter of two wrongs making a right.
The old map favored Republicans at the expense of the Democrats. The new map does not "favor the Democrats"; it is now fair to both parties. That's not switching from Republican gerrymandering to Democratic gerrymandering; it's the removal of gerrymandering.
The goal here is to get a nonpartisan map that accurately reflects the will of the voters. That is what the new map does.
I'm going to venture a guess and say you arent basing your claims of fairness and nonpartisanship on anything but the fact that you favor the Democrats, though i'd love to be proven wrong.
To be clear, I don't believe for even a second anyone here would look at a republican stocked Supreme Court changing maps that objectively and by almost all accounts are a big boost for republicans and jump to conclusions that it is fair and balanced, so im not calling you out specifically.
I think Camdawg has the most accurate assesment, these maps are an explictly partisan process, only an independant commission working under objective standards that can be evaulated and are agreed upon by everyone could change that.
Here's the thing, if something is taken away, the person that gets the item taken away is always going to object, therefore nothing can be agreed upon by everyone.
If anything, an independent person should have been chosen in which both sides agreed to have the maps redrawn. GOP wasn't playing the game of corporation though, why should they knew regardless of who drew the maps, if it wasn't them entirely, they'd be a huge disadvantage.
If anything, an independent person should have been chosen in which both sides agreed to have the maps redrawn. GOP wasn't playing the game of corporation though, why should they knew regardless of who drew the maps, if it wasn't them entirely, they'd be a huge disadvantage.
They were given the opportunity to draw a new map, and they refused.
An independent commission is definitely a better way of handling the districting process than entrusting that power to the legislature, and it's probably safer than just handing that responsibility to the courts, since the courts are also subject to some level of political pressure.
I recommend listening to the 538 Politics Podcast Gerrymandering Project episodes "Arizona" and "California" to hear about some of the many pitfalls and moderate successes of independent redistricting commissions. I still think it's probably the best idea, but it is not at all straightforward to implement in a satisfactory way. (The rest of the Gerrymandering Project is also recommended.)
The lead-in to the Stormy Daniels interview tonight is Kansas/Duke for a shot at the Final Four, which means millions more people will be watching than might normally.
For the record, the Tea Party wave swept into the House in 2010, and there wasn't a Tea Party rally anywhere in the country that had even a scintilla of this kind of turnout. The kids are going to vote this time, and it's the GOP's worst nightmare come to life. Especially this generation, who has no tolerance for their racial dog whistles and transgender military bans. Trump and the NRA are going to cost them an entire generation. It's doesn't seem conceivable to me that all these people are traveling across the country or marching in their own cities on a Saturday in the middle of March and are then going to sit home on election day. That doesn't pass any logic test.
The kids from Parkland who put this together understand political theater instinctively, and they are really quite good at it. And I'm not even really open to any arguments about the supposed laziness or coddled nature of this generation of kids anymore. It's a bunch of bull. The biggest gathering of my generation was Woodstock '99.
For the record, the Tea Party wave swept into the House in 2010, and there wasn't a Tea Party rally anywhere in the country that had even a scintilla of this kind of turnout. The kids are going to vote this time, and it's the GOP's worst nightmare come to life. Especially this generation, who has no tolerance for their racial dog whistles and transgender military bans. Trump and the NRA are going to cost them an entire generation. It's doesn't seem conceivable to me that all these people are traveling across the country or marching in their own cities on a Saturday in the middle of March and are then going to sit home on election day. That doesn't pass any logic test.
The kids from Parkland who put this together understand political theater instinctively, and they are really quite good at it. And I'm not even really open to any arguments about the supposed laziness or coddled nature of this generation of kids anymore. It's a bunch of bull. The biggest gathering of my generation was Woodstock '99.
"Tomorrow Belongs To Me"?
That ended so well.
Ok, so now we've reached the "kids who decided to take action on gun control after their friends were murdered are just like Nazis" portion of the argument......
For the record, the Tea Party wave swept into the House in 2010, and there wasn't a Tea Party rally anywhere in the country that had even a scintilla of this kind of turnout. The kids are going to vote this time, and it's the GOP's worst nightmare come to life. Especially this generation, who has no tolerance for their racial dog whistles and transgender military bans. Trump and the NRA are going to cost them an entire generation. It's doesn't seem conceivable to me that all these people are traveling across the country or marching in their own cities on a Saturday in the middle of March and are then going to sit home on election day. That doesn't pass any logic test.
The kids from Parkland who put this together understand political theater instinctively, and they are really quite good at it. And I'm not even really open to any arguments about the supposed laziness or coddled nature of this generation of kids anymore. It's a bunch of bull. The biggest gathering of my generation was Woodstock '99.
"Tomorrow Belongs To Me"?
That ended so well.
Ok, so now we've reached the "kids who decided to take action on gun control after their friends were murdered are just like Nazis" portion of the argument......
No, I'm suggesting that people like yourself who try to sew division between different generations are dangerous.
Why assume that people who are older have some nefarious purposes to have the views they do and that a new generation will sweep them and their ideas away? Why not show a little respect for people who have raised these children? And encourage a little humility in the face of experience?
I don't have a stake in the gun laws of America, but reading the post quoted scares the bejesus out of me. This kind of rhetoric never ends well.
For the record, the Tea Party wave swept into the House in 2010, and there wasn't a Tea Party rally anywhere in the country that had even a scintilla of this kind of turnout. The kids are going to vote this time, and it's the GOP's worst nightmare come to life. Especially this generation, who has no tolerance for their racial dog whistles and transgender military bans. Trump and the NRA are going to cost them an entire generation. It's doesn't seem conceivable to me that all these people are traveling across the country or marching in their own cities on a Saturday in the middle of March and are then going to sit home on election day. That doesn't pass any logic test.
The kids from Parkland who put this together understand political theater instinctively, and they are really quite good at it. And I'm not even really open to any arguments about the supposed laziness or coddled nature of this generation of kids anymore. It's a bunch of bull. The biggest gathering of my generation was Woodstock '99.
"Tomorrow Belongs To Me"?
That ended so well.
Ok, so now we've reached the "kids who decided to take action on gun control after their friends were murdered are just like Nazis" portion of the argument......
No, I'm suggesting that people like yourself who try to sew division between different generations are dangerous.
Why assume that people who are older have some nefarious purposes to have the views they do and that a new generation will sweep them and their ideas away? Why not show a little respect for people who have raised these children? And encourage a little humility in the face of experience?
I don't have a stake in the gun laws of America, but reading the post quoted scares the bejesus out of me. This kind of rhetoric never ends well.
I didn't say anything remotely like that. I was commenting on the fact that when I was the age of most of these kids, there was no massive political engagement or zeitgeist like the one taking place now in country. I graduated about a year after Columbine. These kids were basically born right around that time. It took an an entire generation of school shootings for this to actually be taken seriously. I also said it because there is a constant narrative pushed about millennials (though I suppose I technically qualify as being part of the first batch of them) as being coddled, disengaged, and lazy, which I think essentially amounts to "back in my day, we walked to uphill to school in the snow both ways".
For the record, the Tea Party wave swept into the House in 2010, and there wasn't a Tea Party rally anywhere in the country that had even a scintilla of this kind of turnout. The kids are going to vote this time, and it's the GOP's worst nightmare come to life. Especially this generation, who has no tolerance for their racial dog whistles and transgender military bans. Trump and the NRA are going to cost them an entire generation. It's doesn't seem conceivable to me that all these people are traveling across the country or marching in their own cities on a Saturday in the middle of March and are then going to sit home on election day. That doesn't pass any logic test.
The kids from Parkland who put this together understand political theater instinctively, and they are really quite good at it. And I'm not even really open to any arguments about the supposed laziness or coddled nature of this generation of kids anymore. It's a bunch of bull. The biggest gathering of my generation was Woodstock '99.
"Tomorrow Belongs To Me"?
That ended so well.
Ok, so now we've reached the "kids who decided to take action on gun control after their friends were murdered are just like Nazis" portion of the argument......
No, I'm suggesting that people like yourself who try to sew division between different generations are dangerous.
Why assume that people who are older have some nefarious purposes to have the views they do and that a new generation will sweep them and their ideas away? Why not show a little respect for people who have raised these children? And encourage a little humility in the face of experience?
I don't have a stake in the gun laws of America, but reading the post quoted scares the bejesus out of me. This kind of rhetoric never ends well.
I didn't say anything remotely like that. I was commenting on the fact that when I was the age of most of these kids, there was no massive political engagement or zeitgeist like the one taking place now in country. I graduated about a year after Columbine. These kids were basically born right around that time. It took an an entire generation of school shootings for this to actually be taken seriously. I also said it because there is a constant narrative pushed about millennials (though I suppose I technically qualify as being part of the first batch of them) as being coddled, disengaged, and lazy, which I think essentially amounts to "back in my day, we walked to uphill to school in the snow both ways".
I'm still not convinced that rallies really accomplish much anymore. The kids are riding on emotions right now and understandably so. Emotions are fleeting however, and I really haven't heard what exactly these kids are demanding. Do 'something' is a little vague...
For the record, the Tea Party wave swept into the House in 2010, and there wasn't a Tea Party rally anywhere in the country that had even a scintilla of this kind of turnout. The kids are going to vote this time, and it's the GOP's worst nightmare come to life. Especially this generation, who has no tolerance for their racial dog whistles and transgender military bans. Trump and the NRA are going to cost them an entire generation. It's doesn't seem conceivable to me that all these people are traveling across the country or marching in their own cities on a Saturday in the middle of March and are then going to sit home on election day. That doesn't pass any logic test.
The kids from Parkland who put this together understand political theater instinctively, and they are really quite good at it. And I'm not even really open to any arguments about the supposed laziness or coddled nature of this generation of kids anymore. It's a bunch of bull. The biggest gathering of my generation was Woodstock '99.
"Tomorrow Belongs To Me"?
That ended so well.
Ok, so now we've reached the "kids who decided to take action on gun control after their friends were murdered are just like Nazis" portion of the argument......
No, I'm suggesting that people like yourself who try to sew division between different generations are dangerous.
Why assume that people who are older have some nefarious purposes to have the views they do and that a new generation will sweep them and their ideas away? Why not show a little respect for people who have raised these children? And encourage a little humility in the face of experience?
I don't have a stake in the gun laws of America, but reading the post quoted scares the bejesus out of me. This kind of rhetoric never ends well.
I didn't say anything remotely like that. I was commenting on the fact that when I was the age of most of these kids, there was no massive political engagement or zeitgeist like the one taking place now in country. I graduated about a year after Columbine. These kids were basically born right around that time. It took an an entire generation of school shootings for this to actually be taken seriously. I also said it because there is a constant narrative pushed about millennials (though I suppose I technically qualify as being part of the first batch of them) as being coddled, disengaged, and lazy, which I think essentially amounts to "back in my day, we walked to uphill to school in the snow both ways".
I'm still not convinced that rallies really accomplish much anymore. The kids are riding on emotions right now and understandably so. Emotions are fleeting however, and I really haven't heard what exactly these kids are demanding. Do 'something' is a little vague...
They've accomplished the mission of turning the NRA into a pariah, which is more than enough for starters. Beyond that, the right has ALWAYS been able to ratchet up base enthusiasm on the gun issue, but the left never has. This changes that dynamic, at least for this year. It's a top 3 voting issue now.
For the record, the Tea Party wave swept into the House in 2010, and there wasn't a Tea Party rally anywhere in the country that had even a scintilla of this kind of turnout. The kids are going to vote this time, and it's the GOP's worst nightmare come to life. Especially this generation, who has no tolerance for their racial dog whistles and transgender military bans. Trump and the NRA are going to cost them an entire generation. It's doesn't seem conceivable to me that all these people are traveling across the country or marching in their own cities on a Saturday in the middle of March and are then going to sit home on election day. That doesn't pass any logic test.
The kids from Parkland who put this together understand political theater instinctively, and they are really quite good at it. And I'm not even really open to any arguments about the supposed laziness or coddled nature of this generation of kids anymore. It's a bunch of bull. The biggest gathering of my generation was Woodstock '99.
"Tomorrow Belongs To Me"?
That ended so well.
Ok, so now we've reached the "kids who decided to take action on gun control after their friends were murdered are just like Nazis" portion of the argument......
No, I'm suggesting that people like yourself who try to sew division between different generations are dangerous.
Why assume that people who are older have some nefarious purposes to have the views they do and that a new generation will sweep them and their ideas away? Why not show a little respect for people who have raised these children? And encourage a little humility in the face of experience?
I don't have a stake in the gun laws of America, but reading the post quoted scares the bejesus out of me. This kind of rhetoric never ends well.
I didn't say anything remotely like that. I was commenting on the fact that when I was the age of most of these kids, there was no massive political engagement or zeitgeist like the one taking place now in country. I graduated about a year after Columbine. These kids were basically born right around that time. It took an an entire generation of school shootings for this to actually be taken seriously. I also said it because there is a constant narrative pushed about millennials (though I suppose I technically qualify as being part of the first batch of them) as being coddled, disengaged, and lazy, which I think essentially amounts to "back in my day, we walked to uphill to school in the snow both ways".
I'm still not convinced that rallies really accomplish much anymore. The kids are riding on emotions right now and understandably so. Emotions are fleeting however, and I really haven't heard what exactly these kids are demanding. Do 'something' is a little vague...
They've accomplished the mission of turning the NRA into a pariah, which is more than enough for starters. Beyond that, the right has ALWAYS been able to ratchet up base enthusiasm on the gun issue, but the left never has. This changes that dynamic, at least for this year. It's a top 3 voting issue now.
I'm not so sure they're turning the NRA into a pariah among people who didn't already hate the NRA. I'd like to see evidence of that if I'm wrong. I also don't believe these rallies are changing anybody's votes. Also, if they're High School students, more than 75% won't be able to vote in this year's election so don't tell me that they're going to become part of the 'Blue Wave'. When I was 18 I was actually pretty liberal and remained so through college. I had huge arguments with my parents about it. Being liberal is part of being young. After I got a job and started paying taxes I got more and more conservative, mostly because I saw how the government pissed my money away.
I really haven't heard what exactly these kids are demanding. Do 'something' is a little vague...
They're demanding stricter gun laws.
Stricter how? Details ARE important.
The NRA and Republicans will be against any details and will squirm and distort and lie like they always do. So why give them specifics?
Do rallies accomplish anything? The last time we had rallies like this was during Vietnam and Watergate. Did that accomplish anything? I wasn't alive but I'd say yes they did get some stuff done - Nixon got the boot and Vietnam War ended. Then over time Republicans undid everything that the flower children worked for because they rallied and got what they wanted and thought the war was over. It wasn't. Things are currently worse than ever.
We had a black president, not so long ago, and now racism is worse than ever starting at the top.
I really haven't heard what exactly these kids are demanding. Do 'something' is a little vague...
They're demanding stricter gun laws.
Stricter how? Details ARE important.
The NRA and Republicans will be against any details and will squirm and distort and lie like they always do. So why give them specifics?
Do rallies accomplish anything? The last time we had rallies like this was during Vietnam and Watergate. Did that accomplish anything? I wasn't alive but I'd say yes they did get some stuff done - then Republicans undid everythibg that the flower children worked for and things are currently worse than ever. We had a black president, not so long ago, and now racism is worse than ever starting at the top.
The EU is such a conundrum for classical liberals. I favor free trade but I also favor political localization. I love free movement but I loathe too much bureaucracy. I generally favor the EU on the balance, but I understand the concerns. I also understand the problems that Greece has, being unable to respond to their debt through monetary means (I'm sure @screamingpalm agrees here) while the Germans are able to boost their exports by enjoying an artificially undervalued currency.
My biggest regret about Brexit was that the UK was a powerful voice against centralizing authority within the EU. The UK will no longer have that influence from the outside, and I think the remaining nations will be worse off for it. That said, I don't think that should be the focus of British voters.
Sorry late to respond to an old post, but thought you might find this presentation interesting. Absolutely outstanding, but a bit long. Some MMT academics recommend a more localized approach for some member states of the EU like Greece by using a "complimentary currency" to regain some monetary sovereignty. It's a concept that's new to me, but I find it intriguing. Can also be applied to impoverished areas elsewhere to expand sovereignty and enjoy a positive multiplier effect.
Every 'major' war since the 20th century started was started by a Democrat. WW1 - Wilson (D) WW2 - Roosevelt (D) Korea - Truman (D) Vietnam - Kennedy (D) escalated by Johnson (D)
Republicans are responsible for most of the minor wars with much less casualties (on our side anyway).
Phillipines - Teddy Roosevelt (R) Bay of Pigs - Kennedy (D) Grenada - Reagan (R) Gulf War - Bush Sr. (R) Bosnia - Clinton (D) Afghanistan - Bush Jr. (R) Iraq - Bush Jr. (R)
This whole idea that Democrats are somehow anti-war is ludicrous. Last time I checked, Obama didn't even bother to end either of the wars that the hated Bush Junior started. Also don't forget, atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Truman (D).
Edit: forgot about the half-assed rescue mission of the Iran hostages - Carter (D).
1. I'm amazed that you can say that the judiciary's role is to compel legislation.
The courts have a power to declare laws unconstitutional, not compel legislators to pass laws. I don't want to make a snarky comment about 8th grade civics, but I'm sure you understand that the judiciary is the "least dangerous branch" because it is specifically designed not to initiate (ie "compel) legislation.
2. You're also very mistaken about gerrymandering. Your second post makes the claim that the people drawing the districts are gerrymandering for their own elections.
This is untrue. The districts being drawn are for congressional elections. In other words, it determines districts for the congressmen that Pennsylvania sends to the United States House of Representatives, not who local districts send to the Pennsylvania legislature.
Please, please rethink your post in light of that knowledge.
Second, I'll respond to your contention that "That... isnt a solution. You see that, right? If the court has no means or ability to compel the legislators to write laws that are constitutional, then the legislators will not make constitutional laws."
Yes, it is a solution. If there is no districting elections cannot take place. Therefore if unconstitutional redistricting is shot down, the state legislature will have to try again until it comes up with a solution that passes constitutional muster (according to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court). The power to strike down unconstitutional redistricting plans ensures that a constitutional redistricting plan would be in place.
A few things. First - you're not being respectful. I dont particularly care if you're being condescending in the process, but let's not also pretend we're doing otherwise, okay?
To your points - 1) Recall that I asked you for a solution. You didnt really answer, all you said is "It's not the judiciary's responsibility to fix the districts". That's not a solution, it's avoiding answering a question. Your second point was "Let them keep trying". Which you refuse to acknowledge the absurdity of - What happens if the PA house continues to put forward maps that do not conform to the judiciary's requirements (Because they're deemed unconstitutional. I want to note VERY clearly that I dont give a fig if you agree with the court's decision here)?
Personally - I think you're being a bit intellectually disingenuous here. I know that the court isnt supposed to usurp powers of the legislature. When a law is determined to be unconstitutional, usually it's either modified or removed entirely. Districting is clearly a different sort of issue. They cant just "go back" to the districts from the last time they were drawn. I see two solutions:
A ) - The courts draw a map designed to fit their idea of being constitutional. Those are used moving forward.
B ) - The courts continue to throw out every district map presented until one is deemed constitutional. If none are provided, elections arent held and each member of the PA delegation is forced out of office at the end of the term. The governor then appoints a new delegation (which will invariably be 18 people from the same party as the governor). This is an absolutely insane idea... and I'm guessing wouldnt be any more legal than the courts drawing the map.
Give me choice A.
2) - You have to be naive to believe that the PA house would gerrymander the federal level of representation and not also being gerrymandering the state level. I'm curious - what do you think the house seats are, Republican vs Democrat? Let me save you the trouble. 121 to 82. Once again, this is a state that has more registered Democrats than Republicans, a Democratic governor, has only gone twice to the GOP in presidential elections in the last 30 years, and has a senator from each party.
Down to brass tacks. I've rethought my argument in light of your position. It hasnt changed. Something needs to be done about the unfair maps in PA. They're now drawn constitutionally. The GOP was clearly incapable of doing that.
Every 'major' war since the 20th century started was started by a Democrat. WW1 - Wilson (D) WW2 - Roosevelt (D) Korea - Truman (D) Vietnam - Kennedy (D) escalated by Johnson (D)
Republicans are responsible for most of the minor wars with much less casualties (on our side anyway).
Phillipines - Teddy Roosevelt (R) Bay of Pigs - Kennedy (D) Grenada - Reagan (R) Gulf War - Bush Sr. (R) Bosnia - Clinton (D) Afghanistan - Bush Jr. (R) Iraq - Bush Jr. (R)
This whole idea that Democrats are somehow anti-war is ludicrous. Last time I checked, Obama didn't even bother to end either of the wars that the hated Bush Junior started. Also don't forget, atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Truman (D).
This is largely true. I do want to point out that in WW1, WW2 and Korea, the US didnt initiate the war specifically. In the first two, we absolutely played a part in prodding the wars along (WW1 - we were clearly sending munitions to the Allies, Germany told us to stop and began unrestricted submarine warfare. WW2 - we cut off oil exports to Japan, effectively starving them of resources. We also provoked them a few times with the positioning of our navy and our foreign poilicy rhetoric).
Every 'major' war since the 20th century started was started by a Democrat. WW1 - Wilson (D) WW2 - Roosevelt (D) Korea - Truman (D) Vietnam - Kennedy (D) escalated by Johnson (D)
Republicans are responsible for most of the minor wars with much less casualties (on our side anyway).
Phillipines - Teddy Roosevelt (R) Bay of Pigs - Kennedy (D) Grenada - Reagan (R) Gulf War - Bush Sr. (R) Bosnia - Clinton (D) Afghanistan - Bush Jr. (R) Iraq - Bush Jr. (R)
This whole idea that Democrats are somehow anti-war is ludicrous. Last time I checked, Obama didn't even bother to end either of the wars that the hated Bush Junior started. Also don't forget, atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Truman (D).
Vietnam is the real black eye.
No shit and that is somehow blamed on the Republicans when all that Nixon did was try to win it before getting out.
There's no 'largely' correct about it. I'm totally correct. Liberals all claim to care about 'body count' when the body count is probably about 1000× higher in wars they initiated compared to wars Republicans initiated. That cannot be denied...
No shit and that is somehow blamed on the Republicans when all that Nixon did was try to win it before getting out.
There's no 'largely' correct about it. I'm totally correct. Liberals all claim to care about 'body count' when the body count is probably about 1000× higher in wars they initiated compared to wars Republicans initiated. That cannot be denied...
You omitted absolutely vital context. Suggesting that the US involvement in World War 2 was somehow "started by a Democrat" is completely factually incorrect.
Ergo - "largely correct". Democrats have been at the helm of the nation during the major conflict of the last century.
Edit - For the record. I dont blame Republicans for starting Vietnam. Vietnam will always be a black eye on the legacy of Kennedy.
That said, dont gloss over Nixon's part in it. The fact that he tried to ruin the peace talks in 1968 in order to help secure the presidency is absolutely loathsome. There's also his bombing of Cambodia and Laos that cannot and should not ever be overlooked
We could have stayed out of all conflicts just as we could have stayed out of both Gulf Wars or any other f'ing conflict. I'm just sick and tired of hearing how Conservatives are war-mongerers. It's complete bullshit. We wouldn't have been involved in either World War if the conservatives would have been in power. They were isolationist at the time (back then conservatism was more libertarian). I'm not saying they were right. History has proven that at least WW2 was a righteous war (WW1 is less defendable as a necessary involvement on the part of the U.S.). I won't even argue that the atomic bombs weren't necessary because I think dropping them saved lives. Just stop with the Democrats are anti-war and Republicans are pro-war BS!
Comments
The state legislative districts are drawn by a commission that consists of four assembly members (the majority and minority leaders of each house) and a chairman. Last time around, the chairman was a Republican judge who was appointed by the (at the time) majority Republican state supreme court. The commission approved a redistricting map 3-2 along party lines, and it was thrown out by the state supreme court for being unlawful. They later settled on a compromise map.
@BallpointMan 's argument was that there is no check on the PA legislature in this case because they are determining there own districts here. That is untrue.
To be clear, I don't believe for even a second anyone here would look at a republican stocked Supreme Court changing maps that objectively and by almost all accounts are a big boost for republicans and jump to conclusions that it is fair and balanced, so im not calling you out specifically.
I think Camdawg has the most accurate assesment, these maps are an explictly partisan process, only an independant commission working under objective standards that can be evaulated and are agreed upon by everyone could change that.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/19/pennsylvania-redistrict-democrats-midterms-354432
The GOP can still expect more than proportional representation from the new map, per 538. That's not necessarily the correct standard, but it makes Republican cries of unfairness a lot harder to take seriously.
"Based on the how the state voted in the past two presidential elections, we would expect the districts to be split evenly between the two parties. But because of how Democratic voters are distributed in the state — clustered in and around Philadelphia and Pittsburgh — congressional maps (even nonpartisan, non-gerrymandered ones) tend to give Republicans an advantage, especially when they also try to maximize district compactness, as the court-drawn one does."
It is not the courts job to compensate democrats for natural geographic disadvantages any more than it is the courts job to ensure Republican victories in urban districts.
Joggers In 'Gerrymander 5K' Must Run Oddly Shaped Route : The Two-Way : NPR
If anything, an independent person should have been chosen in which both sides agreed to have the maps redrawn. GOP wasn't playing the game of corporation though, why should they knew regardless of who drew the maps, if it wasn't them entirely, they'd be a huge disadvantage.
"Tomorrow Belongs To Me"?
That ended so well.
No, I'm suggesting that people like yourself who try to sew division between different generations are dangerous.
Why assume that people who are older have some nefarious purposes to have the views they do and that a new generation will sweep them and their ideas away?
Why not show a little respect for people who have raised these children?
And encourage a little humility in the face of experience?
I don't have a stake in the gun laws of America, but reading the post quoted scares the bejesus out of me. This kind of rhetoric never ends well.
Do rallies accomplish anything? The last time we had rallies like this was during Vietnam and Watergate. Did that accomplish anything? I wasn't alive but I'd say yes they did get some stuff done - Nixon got the boot and Vietnam War ended. Then over time Republicans undid everything that the flower children worked for because they rallied and got what they wanted and thought the war was over. It wasn't. Things are currently worse than ever.
We had a black president, not so long ago, and now racism is worse than ever starting at the top.
WW1 - Wilson (D)
WW2 - Roosevelt (D)
Korea - Truman (D)
Vietnam - Kennedy (D) escalated by Johnson (D)
Republicans are responsible for most of the minor wars with much less casualties (on our side anyway).
Phillipines - Teddy Roosevelt (R)
Bay of Pigs - Kennedy (D)
Grenada - Reagan (R)
Gulf War - Bush Sr. (R)
Bosnia - Clinton (D)
Afghanistan - Bush Jr. (R)
Iraq - Bush Jr. (R)
This whole idea that Democrats are somehow anti-war is ludicrous. Last time I checked, Obama didn't even bother to end either of the wars that the hated Bush Junior started. Also don't forget, atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Truman (D).
Edit: forgot about the half-assed rescue mission of the Iran hostages - Carter (D).
A few things. First - you're not being respectful. I dont particularly care if you're being condescending in the process, but let's not also pretend we're doing otherwise, okay?
To your points - 1) Recall that I asked you for a solution. You didnt really answer, all you said is "It's not the judiciary's responsibility to fix the districts". That's not a solution, it's avoiding answering a question. Your second point was "Let them keep trying". Which you refuse to acknowledge the absurdity of - What happens if the PA house continues to put forward maps that do not conform to the judiciary's requirements (Because they're deemed unconstitutional. I want to note VERY clearly that I dont give a fig if you agree with the court's decision here)?
Personally - I think you're being a bit intellectually disingenuous here. I know that the court isnt supposed to usurp powers of the legislature. When a law is determined to be unconstitutional, usually it's either modified or removed entirely. Districting is clearly a different sort of issue. They cant just "go back" to the districts from the last time they were drawn. I see two solutions:
A ) - The courts draw a map designed to fit their idea of being constitutional. Those are used moving forward.
B ) - The courts continue to throw out every district map presented until one is deemed constitutional. If none are provided, elections arent held and each member of the PA delegation is forced out of office at the end of the term. The governor then appoints a new delegation (which will invariably be 18 people from the same party as the governor). This is an absolutely insane idea... and I'm guessing wouldnt be any more legal than the courts drawing the map.
Give me choice A.
2) - You have to be naive to believe that the PA house would gerrymander the federal level of representation and not also being gerrymandering the state level. I'm curious - what do you think the house seats are, Republican vs Democrat? Let me save you the trouble. 121 to 82. Once again, this is a state that has more registered Democrats than Republicans, a Democratic governor, has only gone twice to the GOP in presidential elections in the last 30 years, and has a senator from each party.
Down to brass tacks. I've rethought my argument in light of your position. It hasnt changed. Something needs to be done about the unfair maps in PA. They're now drawn constitutionally. The GOP was clearly incapable of doing that.
This is largely true. I do want to point out that in WW1, WW2 and Korea, the US didnt initiate the war specifically. In the first two, we absolutely played a part in prodding the wars along (WW1 - we were clearly sending munitions to the Allies, Germany told us to stop and began unrestricted submarine warfare. WW2 - we cut off oil exports to Japan, effectively starving them of resources. We also provoked them a few times with the positioning of our navy and our foreign poilicy rhetoric).
Vietnam is the real black eye.
There's no 'largely' correct about it. I'm totally correct. Liberals all claim to care about 'body count' when the body count is probably about 1000× higher in wars they initiated compared to wars Republicans initiated. That cannot be denied...
Ergo - "largely correct". Democrats have been at the helm of the nation during the major conflict of the last century.
Edit - For the record. I dont blame Republicans for starting Vietnam. Vietnam will always be a black eye on the legacy of Kennedy.
That said, dont gloss over Nixon's part in it. The fact that he tried to ruin the peace talks in 1968 in order to help secure the presidency is absolutely loathsome. There's also his bombing of Cambodia and Laos that cannot and should not ever be overlooked