Anyway to eliminate the far right nutbags?

[Matt1970]

or did the Repubs jerry rig the districts such that they're a shoe-in 4 re-election?

Oh hell while we are at it lets just do away with congress and give the President total control.

 

[waggy]

hmm i'm mixed on this to tell the truth. on one hand i want both the far right and left out. maybe then something would get done.

but the trouble is something would get done. right now at least the extremes are looking out for protecting the citizens and keeping our rights. but i don't care how they went about it.

 

[michal1980]

Oh hell while we are at it lets just do away with congress and give the President total control.

as long as its a democrat.

Or someone democrats approve of.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

or did the Repubs jerry rig the districts such that they're a shoe-in 4 re-election?

So Democrats haven't gerrymandered districts in the states they control? I do believe they're tit for tat in this category.

 

[JEDI]

Anyway to eliminate the far left nutbags?
While we are at it, let's get rid of Crackers, Dagos, ******s, Beaners, Kikes and Towel Heads. Get over yourself and realize that it takes all kinds of people to make this world go round. Left wingers are throwing the most nastiest barbs I have ever witnessed in my life. All morality seems to have been lost.

grouchy since lola left u?

 

[glenn1]

Any way to eliminate the far right nutbags?

Sure, just move to a city or state with one-party Democratic control. Detroit would be a fine example, you won't have to worry about any of those pesky republicans there and can enjoy the fruits of progressive government.

 

[AViking]

Not people. The left.

They are calling them terrorists as part of a well orchestrated campaign, which aims to demonize and marginalize anyone that does not fit the liberal agenda.

If you label your opponents terrorists, you don't have work with them.

And that's the point, the left doesn't want compromise, they are hell bent on destroying republicans so they can do whatever they want.

I'm not a liberal. I am calling them terrorists and fundamentalists. They're crazy and a poison to the American political system. They need to be thrown out of the Republican party and marginalized.

 

[nehalem256]

or did the Repubs jerry rig the districts such that they're a shoe-in 4 re-election?

The only way liberals wouldn't complain about "jerry rigging" is if we eliminated districts and just assigned congressional house seats based on a nationwide popular vote.

 

[Genx87]

They're domestic terrorists, possibly causing more harm to this country than even Osama Bin Laden. The only reason they're not being targeted by drones and Seal Team Six is because of white privilege. Make gross abuse of white privilege a felony and they'll all be in jail.

If serious it isnt hard to understand all the massacares at the hands of govt over the course of human history with people like you cheering it on.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I'm not a liberal. I am calling them terrorists and fundamentalists. They're crazy and a poison to the American political system. They need to be thrown out of the Republican party and marginalized.

Well you have canoworms who wants a Final Solution and the NSA violating Constitutional principles so you have your rational counterbalance.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The answer to how to eliminate any group is to follow Orwell

 

[Siddhartha]

Isn't "eliminate" just a synonym for killing? You have a political movement you disagree with and you want to murder them?

Murder? No, what ever damage that has been and will be done to the GOP will be self inflicted.

If the Republicans shut down the government down again and drive it into default:

1. In 2014, they will lose control of the House and give the Democrats a Senate supermajority.

2. In 2016, they will lose the White House again.

The cool thing is some Republicans are saying they failed this week because they were betrayed by Republicans who stopped them from driving the government into default. They plan to start the process over again in 89 days and not stop unless they get their demands met.

I wonder if they will blame the media again when the voters fire their asses...

 

[EagleKeeper]

or did the Repubs jerry rig the districts such that they're a shoe-in 4 re-election?

Your "jerry rig" is partially due to the Dems liking to overload the urban areas.

Dems like to gerrymander also to control districts to be safe.

Locals seems to prefer what their local state creates because they re-elect those same legislatures. It is the locals that create their maps. there will always be sour grapes from within and without.

Without can be ignored, they want the deck to be stacked in their favor; within can be corrected by the voters and/or legal challenges.

 

[Jaskalas]

hmm i'm mixed on this to tell the truth. on one hand i want both the far right and left out. maybe then something would get done.

but the trouble is something would get done. right now at least the extremes are looking out for protecting the citizens and keeping our rights. but i don't care how they went about it.

I don't support the debt limit existing, those battle should be budgetary as with the shutdown. If you throw the concept of default off the table - then it doesn't look so bad.

Republicans never should have fought with the limit, and they should have passed a clean bill on that alone - while continuing to force the President to the table on the budget.

They failed every which way on this one.

 

[glenn1]

I'm not a liberal. I am calling them terrorists and fundamentalists. They're crazy and a poison to the American political system. They need to be thrown out of the Republican party and marginalized.

If they're "crazy" and "poison to the system" like you say, I don't know why Democrats would even want to try to govern on their behalf. Seems like a waste of efforts on your part when you could just focus on the real people who matter, like those on entitlements in the inner cities who really need your help.

 

[glenn1]

I don't support the debt limit existing, those battle should be budgetary as with the shutdown. If you throw the concept of default off the table - then it doesn't look so bad.

Republicans never should have fought with the limit, and they should have passed a clean bill on that alone - while continuing to force the President to the table on the budget.

They failed every which way on this one.

Actually, a signed-into law budget should include the debt ceiling increase. And likewise, this "continuing resolution" bullshit should be constitutionally prohibited. You want to spend federal money, pass a fucking regular, formal budget. It's your goddamn job. That's one feature I like of some parliamentary systems, if a budget isn't passed, the government is dissoved and new elections are held. We need that feature here.

 

[Jaskalas]

Actually, a signed-into law budget should include the debt ceiling increase. And likewise, this "continuing resolution" bullshit should be constitutionally prohibited. You want to spend federal money, pass a fucking regular, formal budget. It's your goddamn job. That's one feature I like of some parliamentary systems, if a budget isn't passed, the government is dissoved and new elections are held. We need that feature here.

Heh, a consequence of passing a "continuing resolution". It sounds good at least. Shame we won't convince them of such a plan.

 

[fskimospy]

Actually, a signed-into law budget should include the debt ceiling increase. And likewise, this "continuing resolution" bullshit should be constitutionally prohibited. You want to spend federal money, pass a fucking regular, formal budget. It's your goddamn job. That's one feature I like of some parliamentary systems, if a budget isn't passed, the government is dissoved and new elections are held. We need that feature here.

I actually agree that failure to fund the government should lead to immediate elections, but that would be very tough in our kind of system. When you get elections in a parliamentary system you are highly likely to get a governing majority out of a new election. In our system it is highly likely that you will simply retain the same gridlock.

For example, whether you like it or not, Democrats won a majority of the vote for every elected body of government, yet the GOP retained the ability to block the budget.

 

[fskimospy]

Your "jerry rig" is partially due to the Dems liking to overload the urban areas.

Dems like to gerrymander also to control districts to be safe.

Locals seems to prefer what their local state creates because they re-elect those same legislatures. It is the locals that create their maps. there will always be sour grapes from within and without.

Without can be ignored, they want the deck to be stacked in their favor; within can be corrected by the voters and/or legal challenges.

You think that voters vote based on an individual candidate's position on the redrawing of federal house districts? I mean... seriously?

Democrats don't "like" to overload urban areas, that's just the natural outcome of voter distribution. There are some particularly egregious examples currently, ones that everyone should reasonably be able to agree are not representative.

For example, in Pennsylvania the Democrats got about 51% of the vote, but that led to only 5 out of 18 seats. Clearly that's pretty absurd. And yes Democrats do it too, but the current breakdown of state gerrymandering strongly favors the Republicans.

Regardless, the idea that voters like gerrymandering because they elect certain people to state legislatures is quite a stretch. I sincerely doubt that factors into decision making.

 

[EagleKeeper]

I actually agree that failure to fund the government should lead to immediate elections, but that would be very tough in our kind of system. When you get elections in a parliamentary system you are highly likely to get a governing majority out of a new election. In our system it is highly likely that you will simply retain the same gridlock.

For example, whether you like it or not, Democrats won a majority of the vote for every elected body of government, yet the GOP retained the ability to block the budget.

If the Dems won the majority for every elected body; then how is the House in the control of the Republicans?

 

[hal2kilo]

Good news: Due to the decline of religion in America the religious right is losing power.

Bad news: The generation of conservatives replacing them might be worse from the lefts perspective. Compassion is completely going out the window, as is the ability for the left to point out the hypocrisy that they don't follow communist Jesus's teachings.


Personally I think the left will long for days of battles over ten commandment monuments, abortion and gay marriage when the new group of conservatives are twisting the political process to undo societal safety nets.

Without a religious distraction conservatism becomes the "fuck you I got mine" party.[Quote
:thumbsup:

 

[fskimospy]

If the Dems won the majority for every elected body; then how is the House in the control of the Republicans?

Because popular vote does not directly translate to elected members of Congress in our electoral system?

Democrats won the House popular vote by about 1.5 million votes, won the Senate popular vote by about 10 million votes, and won the presidential popular vote by about 5 million votes. (note that the senate numbers are not directly comparable due to the fact that all Senate seats are not in play in any given election)

 

[EagleKeeper]

You think that voters vote based on an individual candidate's position on the redrawing of federal house districts? I mean... seriously?

Democrats don't "like" to overload urban areas, that's just the natural outcome of voter distribution. There are some particularly egregious examples currently, ones that everyone should reasonably be able to agree are not representative.

For example, in Pennsylvania the Democrats got about 51% of the vote, but that led to only 5 out of 18 seats. Clearly that's pretty absurd. And yes Democrats do it too, but the current breakdown of state gerrymandering strongly favors the Republicans.

Regardless, the idea that voters like gerrymandering because they elect certain people to state legislatures is quite a stretch. I sincerely doubt that factors into decision making.

The state has 4 urban areas that are roughly 90% Democratic. (Philly, Pitt, Scranton and Harrisburg/State College)
So the Democrats have as an example 30% of votes that are "wasted" within their district because it is a safe district. It is not gerrymandering; but a result of the voters locations. Unless you are going to carve up the 5 safe Dem districts; you have a representation of the state.

If the voters do not like such representation; they will oust the locals that control the districts drawing. How many were dumped in 2012 or 2002? Those were the ones that controlled the district remapping.

Given that this has been the situation in PA for the past couple of censuses; they seem to be happy with the way their votes are being processed.


And I would suspect that this is the situation in most states. People will grumble, but still elect their rep. most grumbling comes from outside when the results do not meet their desires.

What you want is not representation by location but by population. Equivalent of removing the electoral college. And then letting 10 large states dictate to the rest of the country; such is one of the reasons for the War between the States; the feeling that the Northern states were dictating to the Southern states.

Does one really want NY, PA, VA, IL, CA making decisions for the complete country?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Damn these Libhadist are getting bad and must be run out of town.

 

[fskimospy]

The state has 4 urban areas that are roughly 90% Democratic. (Philly, Pitt, Scranton and Harrisburg/State College)
so the Democrats have as an example 30% of votes that are "wasted" within their district because it is a safe district. It is not gerrymandering; but a result of the voters locations. Unless you are going to carve up the 5 safe Dem districts; you have a representation of the state.

If the voters do not like such representation; they will oust the locals that control the districts drawing. How many were dumped in 2012 or 2002? Those were the ones that controlled the district remapping.

Given that this has been the situation in PA for the past couple of censuses; they seem to be happy with the way their votes are being processed.

And I would suspect that this is the situation in most states. People will grumble, but still elect their rep. most grumbling comes from outside when the results do not meet their desires.

Again, the idea that people vote for their state representatives based on census redistricting is preposterous. Do you have a single shred of evidence that those considerations are what voters are taking into account? (exit polling data, etc) I sincerely doubt it. It's silliness.

As for geographic distribution, I already mentioned that. The idea that the party that wins 51% of the vote getting 30% of the House members is an accurate representation of that state is absurd on its face and you know it.