The gaffe queen that has only a 21% approval rating in her own distract... But I guess that isn't a problem when you get primaried in!
That's not even close to true. Were you thinking of the national poll among white likely voters with two years or less of college education?
You mean the vast majority in this country? Do you mean the swing voters? This is the game identitarians love to place, when something isn't in their favor that'll try yo break it into a group which they can down play it.
What are you talking about?? YOU are the one who brought up the poll, and that is literally the ONLY people the poll you quoted questioned. It was a cross-tab of that demographic group. He didn't break anything down into anything, that is simply how polling works.
The gaffe queen that has only a 21% approval rating in her own distract... But I guess that isn't a problem when you get primaried in!
That's not even close to true. Were you thinking of the national poll among white likely voters with two years or less of college education?
You mean the vast majority in this country? Do you mean the swing voters? This is the game identitarians love to place, when something isn't in their favor that'll try yo break it into a group which they can down play it.
What are you talking about?? YOU are the one who brought up the poll, and that is literally the ONLY people the poll you quoted questioned. It was a cross-tab of that demographic group. He didn't break anything down into anything, that is simply how polling works.
It doesn't really matter anyway unless gerrymandering is done away with at some point. AOC could be polling 1% favorable in her district and there still isn't any chance in Hell that Republicans would waste money trying to challenge her. They have about as much chance of winning that district as the sun has of rising in the West tomorrow...
Edit: Just as an FYI, I was reading a bit about gerrymandering last weekend and was surprised to learn that there are actually two different ways districts can be drawn to advantage your party. One way is easy to see. You slice up areas where your opponents hold an advantage into itty bitty parts and throw those parts into districts where your party holds a sizeable advantage. That one was pretty easy for me to see and is what I thought was the only advantage of gerrymandering. However, the other way is less obvious but almost as effective. You can carve up districts so that one or several of them are so far in your favor that the ruling party has to spend little or no money to defend them. That leaves those resources free to be used to increase your odds in the more competitive districts.
The gaffe queen that has only a 21% approval rating in her own distract... But I guess that isn't a problem when you get primaried in!
That's not even close to true. Were you thinking of the national poll among white likely voters with two years or less of college education?
You mean the vast majority in this country? Do you mean the swing voters? This is the game identitarians love to place, when something isn't in their favor that'll try yo break it into a group which they can down play it.
What are you talking about?? YOU are the one who brought up the poll, and that is literally the ONLY people the poll you quoted questioned. It was a cross-tab of that demographic group. He didn't break anything down into anything, that is simply how polling works.
It doesn't really matter anyway unless gerrymandering is done away with at some point. AOC could be polling 1% favorable in her district and there still isn't any chance in Hell that Republicans would waste money trying to challenge her. They have about as much chance of winning that district as the sun has of rising in the West tomorrow...
My issue is with the cultural definition of the "working-class voter". It is always (especially in the media) meant to describe exactly what this limited poll did. White, non-college grads. Blacks, Latinos, or any other ethnic group are NEVER included in this category. Moreover, what the fuck is "working class"?? Like everyone else who goes into their job isn't worthy of having this saintly, salt-of-the-earth distinction bestowed upon them, and only white men who tar roads or fix tractors work hard.
I don't even consider 3 out of the four squad members to be 'people of color' myself (the Somalian is close). I've never considered Latinos or Middle Easterners as 'colored'. They're basically whites with a nice tan. Many white folks are risking skin cancer to look like them! I guess I just don't get how so many people think...
I understand what you're saying - but soceity absolutely treats them as a minority and like they treat other people of color. So while they aren't in the same exact boat as an African American (for example), they're treated close to equivalently. For the sake of discussing race-relations in the country, they have more in common with African Americans than they do with white people.
Now you've got me wondering if there was a future population explosion of Native Americans and they became the majority, they'd be telling people like me to 'go back to where I came from'? I've never even been to Ireland or Germany. I took 3 years of German in college so I guess I could try to relocate there. At least I'd know how to ask where the bathrooms and train stations are. "Ein dunkles, bitte" would get me a dark beer at the bar too!
Was the favor watching his video? If the news is that there are pricks in the world, then they've been scooped many times. Fire the asshole and move on...
And 2020 got a lot more hilarious.
It doesn't really matter anyway unless gerrymandering is done away with at some point. AOC could be polling 1% favorable in her district and there still isn't any chance in Hell that Republicans would waste money trying to challenge her. They have about as much chance of winning that district as the sun has of rising in the West tomorrow...
Edit: Just as an FYI, I was reading a bit about gerrymandering last weekend and was surprised to learn that there are actually two different ways districts can be drawn to advantage your party. One way is easy to see. You slice up areas where your opponents hold an advantage into itty bitty parts and throw those parts into districts where your party holds a sizeable advantage. That one was pretty easy for me to see and is what I thought was the only advantage of gerrymandering. However, the other way is less obvious but almost as effective. You can carve up districts so that one or several of them are so far in your favor that the ruling party has to spend little or no money to defend them. That leaves those resources free to be used to increase your odds in the more competitive districts.
With gerrymandering the only thing you have to worry about is a candidate of more extreme ideology beating you out.
And the Supreme Court's activist judges 5-4 decision upheld gerrymandering federally and say that no federal court could ever hear a case again.
They gave the green light to gerrymandering.
Those Conservative judges are terrible.
Compare this to the Census decision - they ruled against the Trump administration but only because they clearly lied about the reasons that they wanted to include the question. They left often the opportunity to include the question if they can invent another reason it should be there.
Gerrymandering, no it's here forever and there's nothing you can do about it in a federal court thanks to activist conservative judges.
Have we noticed that Trump is a wee bit lawless and not interested in following the law when it doesn't suit him? Just like the sexual assaults he's been accused of - he doesn't take no for an answer.
But anyway, if he gets more Supreme Court justices things will get worse. Like bring back child labor, no minimum wage, no accountability because he will continue to put his toadies personally loyal to him on the courts as a 'Trump card'. Like we could see a Donald Trump Jr. Supreme Court justice lol.
His supporters are fooled by distractions like abortion, omg immigrants, etc. His agenda is enriching himself on your back.
@DragonKing: It wouldn't surprise me that Democrats in Congress previously refused to fund the locations that are currently housing detained immigrants, simply because the explanation is rather basic: they weren't so overcrowded during the Obama administration. The facilities require extra resources now because they have more people to care for while they're in U.S. custody.
I think the reason these facilities are overcrowded is because the administration has been sluggish in processing the immigrants and figuring out which ones qualify for entry and which ones need to be deported. I doubt the overcrowding is due to some sudden influx of immigrants during the Trump administration.
Here's what's going on - this is another Donald Trump created crisis that he created. He creates problems then gives up. Then complains about the problems he creates. Rinse. Repeat.
This wasn't a problem with Obama because he's not an asshole. Yes, unaccompanied minors were held - but the family separation crisis and indefinite detention is all Trump. He's also in charge of immigration judges - Trump's said multiple times he doesn't want them. He's making the problem worse he'd creating the problems himself.
Democrats in Congress (Nancy Pelosi) funded the concentration camps that are currently housing detained immigrants, even with zero explanation or oversight. AOC and others rightly voted against the blank check of billions of dollars.
All those people that are crammed into cages with no toothbrushes, shower access, and being told to drink from the toilet is making somebody $700 per night each. Clearly the money is not being spent on the immigrants and asylum seekers.
And 2020 got a lot more hilarious.
It doesn't really matter anyway unless gerrymandering is done away with at some point. AOC could be polling 1% favorable in her district and there still isn't any chance in Hell that Republicans would waste money trying to challenge her. They have about as much chance of winning that district as the sun has of rising in the West tomorrow...
Edit: Just as an FYI, I was reading a bit about gerrymandering last weekend and was surprised to learn that there are actually two different ways districts can be drawn to advantage your party. One way is easy to see. You slice up areas where your opponents hold an advantage into itty bitty parts and throw those parts into districts where your party holds a sizeable advantage. That one was pretty easy for me to see and is what I thought was the only advantage of gerrymandering. However, the other way is less obvious but almost as effective. You can carve up districts so that one or several of them are so far in your favor that the ruling party has to spend little or no money to defend them. That leaves those resources free to be used to increase your odds in the more competitive districts.
With gerrymandering the only thing you have to worry about is a candidate of more extreme ideology beating you out.
And the Supreme Court's activist judges 5-4 decision upheld gerrymandering federally and say that no federal court could ever hear a case again.
They gave the green light to gerrymandering.
Those Conservative judges are terrible.
Compare this to the Census decision - they ruled against the Trump administration but only because they clearly lied about the reasons that they wanted to include the question. They left often the opportunity to include the question if they can invent another reason it should be there.
Gerrymandering, no it's here forever and there's nothing you can do about it in a federal court thanks to activist conservative judges.
Have we noticed that Trump is a wee bit lawless and not interested in following the law when it doesn't suit him? Just like the sexual assaults he's been accused of - he doesn't take no for an answer.
But anyway, if he gets more Supreme Court justices things will get worse. Like bring back child labor, no minimum wage, no accountability because he will continue to put his toadies personally loyal to him on the courts as a 'Trump card'. Like we could see a Donald Trump Jr. Supreme Court justice lol.
His supporters are fooled by distractions like abortion, omg immigrants, etc. His agenda is enriching himself on your back.
Unfortunately there's no data to back up your gerrymandering argument since the court was clearly going to decide in favor. It benefits both parties when they're in power so I don't agree that the constituency of the SCOTUS made a difference. This could have been brought before the court many times before and it never has. There's a reason for that. Neither party wants to get rid of it despite the rhetoric. Both parties want to be able to keep control once they have it.
Was the favor watching his video? If the news is that there are pricks in the world, then they've been scooped many times. Fire the asshole and move on...
He is obviously sending the video because he knows he has power over her. He works in the facility her son is in. He has the power to allow or disallow her to speak or communicate with him. The video is CLEARLY meant to convey that engaging in online sexual favors may result in him allowing her more communication with her son. This shouldn't need to be explained. It isn't just asshole behavior, it is EVIL, and example #1354 of the moral rot and dehumanization at the heart of the immgration agency's rank and file.
Was the favor watching his video? If the news is that there are pricks in the world, then they've been scooped many times. Fire the asshole and move on...
He is obviously sending the video because he knows he has power over her. He works in the facility her son is in. He has the power to allow or disallow her to speak or communicate with him. The video is CLEARLY meant to convey that engaging in online sexual favors may result in him allowing her more communication with her son. This shouldn't need to be explained. It isn't just asshole behavior, it is EVIL, and example #1354 of the moral rot and dehumanization at the heart of the immgration agency's rank and file.
Agreed. Fire the prick! Prosecute him if you can. I just think you'll find just as many pricks working the counters at the local 7-11's if you dig into them. There are a certain percentage of pricks in every profession. Granting them power makes them all the more dangerous though. That's why those ones should be dealt with immediately...
Edit:
Rape should = prison time.
Harassment should = firing and either heavy fines or jail time (or both)
Strangely, I'll bet you find more support on the religious right for prosecuting sexual crimes like this then you will for outright murder by lawmen in power (if my family is any indication)...
Unequal distributions of power create assholes. If you put me in a position of power over lots of vulnerable people then there's a chance I'd do something reprehensible too. It's not just the victims who get dehumanised by this sort of system, over time it has a negative effect on everyone involved, and the wider society that wearies of hearing about the endless abuses of authority.
Edit: A chance to repeat the Nietzsche quote used by BG1: "if you gaze too long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into you."
Unequal distributions of power create assholes. If you put me in a position of power over lots of vulnerable people then there's a chance I'd do something reprehensible too. It's not just the victims who get dehumanised by this sort of system, over time it has a negative effect on everyone involved, and the wider society that wearies of hearing about the endless abuses of authority.
I likely wouldn't lord over the vulnerable because that's anathema to my nature. However, people who don't listen to reason would likely feel my wrath, (or at least would find me extremely callous). It's probably just as well I'll never know what I'd be like if I had power...
And 2020 got a lot more hilarious.
It doesn't really matter anyway unless gerrymandering is done away with at some point. AOC could be polling 1% favorable in her district and there still isn't any chance in Hell that Republicans would waste money trying to challenge her. They have about as much chance of winning that district as the sun has of rising in the West tomorrow...
Edit: Just as an FYI, I was reading a bit about gerrymandering last weekend and was surprised to learn that there are actually two different ways districts can be drawn to advantage your party. One way is easy to see. You slice up areas where your opponents hold an advantage into itty bitty parts and throw those parts into districts where your party holds a sizeable advantage. That one was pretty easy for me to see and is what I thought was the only advantage of gerrymandering. However, the other way is less obvious but almost as effective. You can carve up districts so that one or several of them are so far in your favor that the ruling party has to spend little or no money to defend them. That leaves those resources free to be used to increase your odds in the more competitive districts.
With gerrymandering the only thing you have to worry about is a candidate of more extreme ideology beating you out.
And the Supreme Court's activist judges 5-4 decision upheld gerrymandering federally and say that no federal court could ever hear a case again.
They gave the green light to gerrymandering.
Those Conservative judges are terrible.
Compare this to the Census decision - they ruled against the Trump administration but only because they clearly lied about the reasons that they wanted to include the question. They left often the opportunity to include the question if they can invent another reason it should be there.
Gerrymandering, no it's here forever and there's nothing you can do about it in a federal court thanks to activist conservative judges.
Have we noticed that Trump is a wee bit lawless and not interested in following the law when it doesn't suit him? Just like the sexual assaults he's been accused of - he doesn't take no for an answer.
But anyway, if he gets more Supreme Court justices things will get worse. Like bring back child labor, no minimum wage, no accountability because he will continue to put his toadies personally loyal to him on the courts as a 'Trump card'. Like we could see a Donald Trump Jr. Supreme Court justice lol.
His supporters are fooled by distractions like abortion, omg immigrants, etc. His agenda is enriching himself on your back.
Unfortunately there's no data to back up your gerrymandering argument since the court was clearly going to decide in favor. It benefits both parties when they're in power so I don't agree that the constituency of the SCOTUS made a difference. This could have been brought before the court many times before and it never has. There's a reason for that. Neither party wants to get rid of it despite the rhetoric. Both parties want to be able to keep control once they have it.
There IS data to back up my gerrymandering argument. Did you do research before making that claim?
You will find the worst gerrymandered states are Republican.
Do Democrats ever gerrymander? Yes. But it's not 50/50. It's not 60/40. It's closer to like 80%/20%. But either way, yes, it is bad for politicians to pick their voters, it's just common sense. Republicans and Democrats should both be against gerrymandering. Republicans and Democrats both should be against corporations being people. Both things were foisted on America by Conservative activist Judges. Would Democratic judges have done that? Well those things got no liberal judge votes, that's all we can go on. There's no 50/50 that's just not true.
Why should Republicans and Democrats both be against gerrymandering? In gerrymandered Republican districts the only challenge will be from the more extreme right. You ensure gridlock like we have by getting extreme right wing politicians. These people know as well that the voters will excuse anything and they don't represent you they represent their donors. Which ties in the other problem with unlimited corporate cash buying elections as given to us by the conservative activist judges with Citizens United ruling.
- In 2016, AP analysis found that Republicans won as many as 22 additional U.S. House seats over what would have been expected based on the average vote share in congressional districts across the country. That helped provide the GOP with a comfortable majority over Democrats instead of a narrow one.
- The AP's findings are similar to recent ones from the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law, which used three statistical tests to analyze the 2012-2016 congressional elections. Its report found a persistent Republican advantage and "clear evidence that aggressive gerrymandering is distorting the nation's congressional maps," posing a "threat to democracy." The Brennan Center did not analyze state legislative elections.
And 2020 got a lot more hilarious.
It doesn't really matter anyway unless gerrymandering is done away with at some point. AOC could be polling 1% favorable in her district and there still isn't any chance in Hell that Republicans would waste money trying to challenge her. They have about as much chance of winning that district as the sun has of rising in the West tomorrow...
Edit: Just as an FYI, I was reading a bit about gerrymandering last weekend and was surprised to learn that there are actually two different ways districts can be drawn to advantage your party. One way is easy to see. You slice up areas where your opponents hold an advantage into itty bitty parts and throw those parts into districts where your party holds a sizeable advantage. That one was pretty easy for me to see and is what I thought was the only advantage of gerrymandering. However, the other way is less obvious but almost as effective. You can carve up districts so that one or several of them are so far in your favor that the ruling party has to spend little or no money to defend them. That leaves those resources free to be used to increase your odds in the more competitive districts.
With gerrymandering the only thing you have to worry about is a candidate of more extreme ideology beating you out.
And the Supreme Court's activist judges 5-4 decision upheld gerrymandering federally and say that no federal court could ever hear a case again.
They gave the green light to gerrymandering.
Those Conservative judges are terrible.
Compare this to the Census decision - they ruled against the Trump administration but only because they clearly lied about the reasons that they wanted to include the question. They left often the opportunity to include the question if they can invent another reason it should be there.
Gerrymandering, no it's here forever and there's nothing you can do about it in a federal court thanks to activist conservative judges.
Have we noticed that Trump is a wee bit lawless and not interested in following the law when it doesn't suit him? Just like the sexual assaults he's been accused of - he doesn't take no for an answer.
But anyway, if he gets more Supreme Court justices things will get worse. Like bring back child labor, no minimum wage, no accountability because he will continue to put his toadies personally loyal to him on the courts as a 'Trump card'. Like we could see a Donald Trump Jr. Supreme Court justice lol.
His supporters are fooled by distractions like abortion, omg immigrants, etc. His agenda is enriching himself on your back.
Unfortunately there's no data to back up your gerrymandering argument since the court was clearly going to decide in favor. It benefits both parties when they're in power so I don't agree that the constituency of the SCOTUS made a difference. This could have been brought before the court many times before and it never has. There's a reason for that. Neither party wants to get rid of it despite the rhetoric. Both parties want to be able to keep control once they have it.
There IS data to back up my gerrymandering argument. Did you do research before making that claim?
You will find the worst gerrymandered states are Republican.
Do Democrats ever gerrymander? Yes. But it's not 50/50. It's not 60/40. It's closer to like 80%/20%. But either way, yes, it is bad for politicians to pick their voters, it's just common sense. Republicans and Democrats should both be against gerrymandering. Republicans and Democrats both should be against corporations being people. Both things were foisted on America by Conservative activist Judges. Would Democratic judges have done that? Well those things got no liberal judge votes, that's all we can go on. There's no 50/50 that's just not true.
Why should Republicans and Democrats both be against gerrymandering? In gerrymandered Republican districts the only challenge will be from the more extreme right. You ensure gridlock like we have by getting extreme right wing politicians. These people know as well that the voters will excuse anything and they don't represent you they represent their donors. Which ties in the other problem with unlimited corporate cash buying elections as given to us by the conservative activist judges with Citizens United ruling.
- In 2016, AP analysis found that Republicans won as many as 22 additional U.S. House seats over what would have been expected based on the average vote share in congressional districts across the country. That helped provide the GOP with a comfortable majority over Democrats instead of a narrow one.
- The AP's findings are similar to recent ones from the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law, which used three statistical tests to analyze the 2012-2016 congressional elections. Its report found a persistent Republican advantage and "clear evidence that aggressive gerrymandering is distorting the nation's congressional maps," posing a "threat to democracy." The Brennan Center did not analyze state legislative elections.
I didn't research current gerrymandering as much as I did past gerrymandering solely because the current shenanigans are by the Republicans while the cases I looked at were immediately following Watergate when the Dems gerrymandered to try to keep their power in perpetuity. Sorry, but my argument has never been that conservatives don't do it, but that liberals do it too when it serves their purpose. Including now in states where they hold the power...
That's why it'll never be abolished in our current two party system. That's not just my opinion, it's backed up by the fact that it's never been tackled until just now recently when the liberals see it as a disadvantage to them in the the instant gratification society we're in now...
At Trump's rally tonight, the chants about Hillary have been replaced with chants of "send her back" in regards to Ilhan Omar. Whatever else you think of her, she was a Somali refugee who came here at the age of two. The people in this crowd are calling for nothing less than having your CITIZENSHIP stripped from you if you disagree with them, and then (seemingly) a forced exile. Can we put to bed the idea that Hillary was even REMOTELY wrong about her deplorables comment?? But I'm sure we're just "taking them out of context". These people who so garishly wear their so-called patriotism on their sleeve understand next to NOTHING about what this country is supposed to be, and actively despise so many people in it that they literally don't want them to be allowed to live here anymore. Shit, in Omar's case, it isn't even ostensibly because she doesn't support America enough, it's because she doesn't support ISRAEL enough, which apparently is now an official 51st state or something. Everything I've ever said about hardcore Trump supporters, harsh as it is, has been too kind by half. They are nothing but authoritarians who would follow Trump into the absolute abyss. And some food for thought:
At Trump's rally tonight, the chants about Hillary have been replaced with chants of "send her back" in regards to Ilhan Omar. Whatever else you think of her, she was a Somali refugee who came here at the age of two. The people in this crowd are calling for nothing less than having your CITIZENSHIP stripped from you if you disagree with them, and then (seemingly) a forced exile. Can we put to bed the idea that Hillary was even REMOTELY wrong about her deplorables comment?? But I'm sure we're just "taking them out of context". These people who so garishly wear their so-called patriotism on their sleeve understand next to NOTHING about what this country is supposed to be, and actively despise so many people in it that they literally don't want them to be allowed to live here anymore. Shit, in Omar's case, it isn't even ostensibly because she doesn't support America enough, it's because she doesn't support ISRAEL enough, which apparently is now an official 51st state or something. Everything I've ever said about hardcore Trump supporters, harsh as it is, has been too kind by half. They are nothing but authoritarians who would follow Trump into the absolute abyss. And some food for thought:
Are we a 'democracy' or not? Democracy is a double-edged sword. It's great if the masses are for you, but it's oppressive if it's not. What's the fix? I want to hear what everybody thinks what should be done if the majority doesn't agree with your feelings of what is 'right' or 'moral'. Is that enough to shitcan 'democracy'? Both sides seem to think so in current America. Is democracy itself in question now? Maybe it's time to rethink democracy itself. Does anybody have a valid alternative? Is a 51-49 or a 52-48 majority enough to ignore the minority? Just wondering what folk here think. I actually respect everybody's view on this thread so I want feedback from everyone, American or not...
At what point has anyone in this thread called for Republican voters to be literally EXILED back to a different country?? When has anyone done anything other than take jabs at them and disagree with them?? These people are fundamentally saying she doesn't have a right to even BE. As much as I talk about voter suppression of minority voters have I ever called for a law to be enacted that did the same thing white rural voters?? I have raised the idea as a hypothetical and how they would react, I have never ADVOCATED for it to happen. Not liking or even hating someone is NOT the same thing as this. And you know that. No matter how much I hate any individual politician or even any individual person, the idea that I would have the right to demand their CITIZENSHIP be taken away or called into question is not something that would ever cross my mind.
Please stop playing this both-sides game. Barack Obama would never in a BILLION years lead this kind of rally. On at least 3 occasions I have posted video of him admonishing his OWN SUPPORTERS for trying to drown out a right-wing protester at a late 2016 rally. I know you've watched it, and I know you know the difference between that and Trump's fascist spectacles. The most objectionable thing at a Democratic Presidential rally is if you happen to hate late-period U2 or Springsteen music. No one is saying these people don't have a RIGHT to chant this, but let's not put them on the same moral plane as people who don't. This isn't some 50/50 issue. Trump is the most powerful man in the world and THIS is how he wields that power. And if you can't see why that's a problem, or where this ends up, then I don't know man, I can't be of any more help on the issue. And I'll also point out that Congressional Reps do not have the luxury of Secret Service details. And people might want to keep that in mind going forward, because I have a serious feeling there is going to be an attempt on her life in the not too distant future.
Tyranny of the majority was an old bugaboo of the 'Republicans' fear of democracy but 'Democracy' itself was a tenet of 'Democrats'. It's in their fricking names. Nothing has really changed but the current very close to 50/50 split in the electorate. Both sides are desperate to show that they're in the majority when clearly neither side is. It's total BS fueled by partisanship and the media. Nothing of any import that will be lasting can be accomplished with both sides acting like they're the majority. God forbid there be any bipartisanship because their tenuous 51-49 majority might only last 2 years. This is ludicrous! Why the Hell are we still pretending that either one of the two only parties can possibly represent us?
At what point has anyone in this thread called for Republican voters to be literally EXILED back to a different country?? When has anyone done anything other than take jabs at them and disagree with them?? These people are fundamentally saying she doesn't have a right to even BE. As much as I talk about voter suppression of minority voters have I ever called for a law to be enacted that did the same thing white rural voters?? I have raised the idea as a hypothetical and how they would react, I have never ADVOCATED for it to happen. Not liking or even hating someone is NOT the same thing as this. And you know that. No matter how much I hate any individual politician or even any individual person, the idea that I would have the right to demand their CITIZENSHIP be taken away or called into question is not something that would ever cross my mind.
Please stop playing this both-sides game. Barack Obama would never in a BILLION years lead this kind of rally. On at least 3 occasions I have posted video of him admonishing his OWN SUPPORTERS for trying to drown out a right-wing protester at a late 2016 rally. I know you've watched it, and I know you know the difference between that and Trump's fascist spectacles. The most objectionable thing at a Democratic Presidential rally is if you happen to hate late-period U2 or Springsteen music. No one is saying these people don't have a RIGHT to chant this, but let's not put them on the same moral plane as people who don't. This isn't some 50/50 issue. Trump is the most powerful man in the world and THIS is how he wields that power. And if you can't see why that's a problem, or where this ends up, then I don't know man, I can't be of any more help on the issue. And I'll also point out that Congressional Reps do not have the luxury of Secret Service details. And people might want to keep that in mind going forward, because I have a serious feeling there is going to be an attempt on her life in the not too distant future.
I'm replying to your edit because I didn't see it until I already posted my most recent post.
Barack Obama wasn't really the problem. The left-wing media and their self-righteous attitudes fueled this fire more than Obama or even Hillary did. You can thank CNN, MSNBC and the major non-cable networks for this backlash. Almost all of the damage was done long before Trump became a phenomenon. There are good ideas on my side of the spectrum but the overwhelming scorn showed to conservatives pre-Trump pissed me off, and I suspect I'm not the only one who felt that way...
@smeagolheart "
There IS data to back up my gerrymandering argument. Did you do research before making that claim?"
No, he's a scientist, so he doesn't trust scientific study. For some reason.
What was your argument? I really wasn't defending gerrymandering, just pointing out that both sides use it so there's not going be a real drive to get rid of it. My scientific side doesn't really matter here since it's just my opinion backed up a bit by history...
In case you're wondering what that is all about, Rand Paul blocked the 9/11 first responders funding, because OF COURSE he did. Because we can vote all we like for handing billions of dollars back to soulless, blood-sucking corporations, but god forbid we provide medical care for people dying because they ran into hell on that day. The idea that Republicans still claim to own 9/11, national security and patriotism itself is and has been enough to make me want to vomit for the past two decades.
It really is one of the most tremendously hypocritical things. The GOP screams about fiscal conservatism when they arent in power, and when they are? Huge, deficit exploding tax cuts - but money for natural disasters? Too expensive. Money for 9/11 first responders? Too much money.
It's gross.
Other random tangential thoughts: Plenty of people dont love the 2 party system, but it's my understanding that multiparty parliamentary systems are equally as broken. I think it's a probably not true that the ills of the American democratic system would be cured by a viable 3rd party.
Gerrymandering has gone on in both directions. Right now, Republicans are benefiting and Democrats are fighting like hell to kill it, and this is despite the fact that Democrats are in a position to take advantage of Gerrymandering after 2020.
If we kill it now, it stays dead for the future. That's to everyone's benefit, so it is entirely on the GOP right now for keeping it alive. In 20 years, maybe that argument will flip, but it wont have a chance if we do what we need to do right now. Both parties have been on the wrong side of history on this issue, but only 1 party is on the wrong side right now
Lastly - Any time anyone says that Leftwing media bias is poisoning the country, it's important to remember that talk radio and locally syndicated news media are absolutely dominated by conservative sources. Cable new media is more left than right, when you add the other forms of media... it quickly balances out (I'm think Rush Limbaugh has a larger audience than CNN does, for example).
Comments
Idk, I'm more into basketball myself especially the ankle breakers.
Anyways, I am through here, gotta finish this comic page.
What are you talking about?? YOU are the one who brought up the poll, and that is literally the ONLY people the poll you quoted questioned. It was a cross-tab of that demographic group. He didn't break anything down into anything, that is simply how polling works.
It doesn't really matter anyway unless gerrymandering is done away with at some point. AOC could be polling 1% favorable in her district and there still isn't any chance in Hell that Republicans would waste money trying to challenge her. They have about as much chance of winning that district as the sun has of rising in the West tomorrow...
Edit: Just as an FYI, I was reading a bit about gerrymandering last weekend and was surprised to learn that there are actually two different ways districts can be drawn to advantage your party. One way is easy to see. You slice up areas where your opponents hold an advantage into itty bitty parts and throw those parts into districts where your party holds a sizeable advantage. That one was pretty easy for me to see and is what I thought was the only advantage of gerrymandering. However, the other way is less obvious but almost as effective. You can carve up districts so that one or several of them are so far in your favor that the ruling party has to spend little or no money to defend them. That leaves those resources free to be used to increase your odds in the more competitive districts.
My issue is with the cultural definition of the "working-class voter". It is always (especially in the media) meant to describe exactly what this limited poll did. White, non-college grads. Blacks, Latinos, or any other ethnic group are NEVER included in this category. Moreover, what the fuck is "working class"?? Like everyone else who goes into their job isn't worthy of having this saintly, salt-of-the-earth distinction bestowed upon them, and only white men who tar roads or fix tractors work hard.
Now you've got me wondering if there was a future population explosion of Native Americans and they became the majority, they'd be telling people like me to 'go back to where I came from'? I've never even been to Ireland or Germany. I took 3 years of German in college so I guess I could try to relocate there. At least I'd know how to ask where the bathrooms and train stations are. "Ein dunkles, bitte" would get me a dark beer at the bar too!
Was the favor watching his video? If the news is that there are pricks in the world, then they've been scooped many times. Fire the asshole and move on...
With gerrymandering the only thing you have to worry about is a candidate of more extreme ideology beating you out.
And the Supreme Court's activist judges 5-4 decision upheld gerrymandering federally and say that no federal court could ever hear a case again.
They gave the green light to gerrymandering.
Those Conservative judges are terrible.
Compare this to the Census decision - they ruled against the Trump administration but only because they clearly lied about the reasons that they wanted to include the question. They left often the opportunity to include the question if they can invent another reason it should be there.
Gerrymandering, no it's here forever and there's nothing you can do about it in a federal court thanks to activist conservative judges.
Have we noticed that Trump is a wee bit lawless and not interested in following the law when it doesn't suit him? Just like the sexual assaults he's been accused of - he doesn't take no for an answer.
But anyway, if he gets more Supreme Court justices things will get worse. Like bring back child labor, no minimum wage, no accountability because he will continue to put his toadies personally loyal to him on the courts as a 'Trump card'. Like we could see a Donald Trump Jr. Supreme Court justice lol.
His supporters are fooled by distractions like abortion, omg immigrants, etc. His agenda is enriching himself on your back.
Here's what's going on - this is another Donald Trump created crisis that he created. He creates problems then gives up. Then complains about the problems he creates. Rinse. Repeat.
This wasn't a problem with Obama because he's not an asshole. Yes, unaccompanied minors were held - but the family separation crisis and indefinite detention is all Trump. He's also in charge of immigration judges - Trump's said multiple times he doesn't want them. He's making the problem worse he'd creating the problems himself.
Democrats in Congress (Nancy Pelosi) funded the concentration camps that are currently housing detained immigrants, even with zero explanation or oversight. AOC and others rightly voted against the blank check of billions of dollars.
All those people that are crammed into cages with no toothbrushes, shower access, and being told to drink from the toilet is making somebody $700 per night each. Clearly the money is not being spent on the immigrants and asylum seekers.
Unfortunately there's no data to back up your gerrymandering argument since the court was clearly going to decide in favor. It benefits both parties when they're in power so I don't agree that the constituency of the SCOTUS made a difference. This could have been brought before the court many times before and it never has. There's a reason for that. Neither party wants to get rid of it despite the rhetoric. Both parties want to be able to keep control once they have it.
He is obviously sending the video because he knows he has power over her. He works in the facility her son is in. He has the power to allow or disallow her to speak or communicate with him. The video is CLEARLY meant to convey that engaging in online sexual favors may result in him allowing her more communication with her son. This shouldn't need to be explained. It isn't just asshole behavior, it is EVIL, and example #1354 of the moral rot and dehumanization at the heart of the immgration agency's rank and file.
Agreed. Fire the prick! Prosecute him if you can. I just think you'll find just as many pricks working the counters at the local 7-11's if you dig into them. There are a certain percentage of pricks in every profession. Granting them power makes them all the more dangerous though. That's why those ones should be dealt with immediately...
Edit:
Rape should = prison time.
Harassment should = firing and either heavy fines or jail time (or both)
Strangely, I'll bet you find more support on the religious right for prosecuting sexual crimes like this then you will for outright murder by lawmen in power (if my family is any indication)...
Edit: A chance to repeat the Nietzsche quote used by BG1: "if you gaze too long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into you."
I likely wouldn't lord over the vulnerable because that's anathema to my nature. However, people who don't listen to reason would likely feel my wrath, (or at least would find me extremely callous). It's probably just as well I'll never know what I'd be like if I had power...
There IS data to back up my gerrymandering argument. Did you do research before making that claim?
You will find the worst gerrymandered states are Republican.
Here's a list of the top 10 worst. 9/10 are to the benefit of Republicans.
https://rantt.com/the-top-10-most-gerrymandered-states-in-america/
Do Democrats ever gerrymander? Yes. But it's not 50/50. It's not 60/40. It's closer to like 80%/20%. But either way, yes, it is bad for politicians to pick their voters, it's just common sense. Republicans and Democrats should both be against gerrymandering. Republicans and Democrats both should be against corporations being people. Both things were foisted on America by Conservative activist Judges. Would Democratic judges have done that? Well those things got no liberal judge votes, that's all we can go on. There's no 50/50 that's just not true.
Why should Republicans and Democrats both be against gerrymandering? In gerrymandered Republican districts the only challenge will be from the more extreme right. You ensure gridlock like we have by getting extreme right wing politicians. These people know as well that the voters will excuse anything and they don't represent you they represent their donors. Which ties in the other problem with unlimited corporate cash buying elections as given to us by the conservative activist judges with Citizens United ruling.
Some more facts about gerrymandering:
https://www.businessinsider.com/partisan-gerrymandering-has-benefited-republicans-more-than-democrats-2017-6
- In 2016, AP analysis found that Republicans won as many as 22 additional U.S. House seats over what would have been expected based on the average vote share in congressional districts across the country. That helped provide the GOP with a comfortable majority over Democrats instead of a narrow one.
- The AP's findings are similar to recent ones from the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law, which used three statistical tests to analyze the 2012-2016 congressional elections. Its report found a persistent Republican advantage and "clear evidence that aggressive gerrymandering is distorting the nation's congressional maps," posing a "threat to democracy." The Brennan Center did not analyze state legislative elections.
I didn't research current gerrymandering as much as I did past gerrymandering solely because the current shenanigans are by the Republicans while the cases I looked at were immediately following Watergate when the Dems gerrymandered to try to keep their power in perpetuity. Sorry, but my argument has never been that conservatives don't do it, but that liberals do it too when it serves their purpose. Including now in states where they hold the power...
That's why it'll never be abolished in our current two party system. That's not just my opinion, it's backed up by the fact that it's never been tackled until just now recently when the liberals see it as a disadvantage to them in the the instant gratification society we're in now...
Are we a 'democracy' or not? Democracy is a double-edged sword. It's great if the masses are for you, but it's oppressive if it's not. What's the fix? I want to hear what everybody thinks what should be done if the majority doesn't agree with your feelings of what is 'right' or 'moral'. Is that enough to shitcan 'democracy'? Both sides seem to think so in current America. Is democracy itself in question now? Maybe it's time to rethink democracy itself. Does anybody have a valid alternative? Is a 51-49 or a 52-48 majority enough to ignore the minority? Just wondering what folk here think. I actually respect everybody's view on this thread so I want feedback from everyone, American or not...
There's no way this ends well. There will be more Charlottesvilles. Americans are going to die because of this guy's ego.
Is this in reply to my post? If so then you didn't answer my question...
Please stop playing this both-sides game. Barack Obama would never in a BILLION years lead this kind of rally. On at least 3 occasions I have posted video of him admonishing his OWN SUPPORTERS for trying to drown out a right-wing protester at a late 2016 rally. I know you've watched it, and I know you know the difference between that and Trump's fascist spectacles. The most objectionable thing at a Democratic Presidential rally is if you happen to hate late-period U2 or Springsteen music. No one is saying these people don't have a RIGHT to chant this, but let's not put them on the same moral plane as people who don't. This isn't some 50/50 issue. Trump is the most powerful man in the world and THIS is how he wields that power. And if you can't see why that's a problem, or where this ends up, then I don't know man, I can't be of any more help on the issue. And I'll also point out that Congressional Reps do not have the luxury of Secret Service details. And people might want to keep that in mind going forward, because I have a serious feeling there is going to be an attempt on her life in the not too distant future.
I'm replying to your edit because I didn't see it until I already posted my most recent post.
Barack Obama wasn't really the problem. The left-wing media and their self-righteous attitudes fueled this fire more than Obama or even Hillary did. You can thank CNN, MSNBC and the major non-cable networks for this backlash. Almost all of the damage was done long before Trump became a phenomenon. There are good ideas on my side of the spectrum but the overwhelming scorn showed to conservatives pre-Trump pissed me off, and I suspect I'm not the only one who felt that way...
No it was a reply to jj. This is not normal rallying of people. This is inciting people to hate. This is not disagreement about policy.
There IS data to back up my gerrymandering argument. Did you do research before making that claim?"
No, he's a scientist, so he doesn't trust scientific study. For some reason.
What was your argument? I really wasn't defending gerrymandering, just pointing out that both sides use it so there's not going be a real drive to get rid of it. My scientific side doesn't really matter here since it's just my opinion backed up a bit by history...
In case you're wondering what that is all about, Rand Paul blocked the 9/11 first responders funding, because OF COURSE he did. Because we can vote all we like for handing billions of dollars back to soulless, blood-sucking corporations, but god forbid we provide medical care for people dying because they ran into hell on that day. The idea that Republicans still claim to own 9/11, national security and patriotism itself is and has been enough to make me want to vomit for the past two decades.
It really is one of the most tremendously hypocritical things. The GOP screams about fiscal conservatism when they arent in power, and when they are? Huge, deficit exploding tax cuts - but money for natural disasters? Too expensive. Money for 9/11 first responders? Too much money.
It's gross.
Other random tangential thoughts: Plenty of people dont love the 2 party system, but it's my understanding that multiparty parliamentary systems are equally as broken. I think it's a probably not true that the ills of the American democratic system would be cured by a viable 3rd party.
Gerrymandering has gone on in both directions. Right now, Republicans are benefiting and Democrats are fighting like hell to kill it, and this is despite the fact that Democrats are in a position to take advantage of Gerrymandering after 2020.
If we kill it now, it stays dead for the future. That's to everyone's benefit, so it is entirely on the GOP right now for keeping it alive. In 20 years, maybe that argument will flip, but it wont have a chance if we do what we need to do right now. Both parties have been on the wrong side of history on this issue, but only 1 party is on the wrong side right now
Lastly - Any time anyone says that Leftwing media bias is poisoning the country, it's important to remember that talk radio and locally syndicated news media are absolutely dominated by conservative sources. Cable new media is more left than right, when you add the other forms of media... it quickly balances out (I'm think Rush Limbaugh has a larger audience than CNN does, for example).