GOP threatens big business if they don't agree with Republican policies or exercise their 1A rights

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

JWade

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
3,273
197
106
www.heatware.com
You should learn the basics of how the US government is structured before posting again.
i do, and was simply pointing out how it is possible for those who say it isnt for the Senate. it is indeed possible to divide the two senate districts of a state to favor one party, it is far easier to do it for the House, which is why those cases are all we hear about. Senate districts in states did change their geographical areas from the last census. When they redid the districts from they could have done it then, but it is harder, not impossible. again, far easier with assemblymen than senators
 
  • Haha
  • Wow
Reactions: iRONic and hal2kilo

repoman0

Diamond Member
Jun 17, 2010
4,701
3,727
136
i do, and was simply pointing out how it is possible for those who say it isnt for the Senate. it is indeed possible to divide the two senate districts of a state to favor one party, it is far easier to do it for the House, which is why those cases are all we hear about. Senate districts in states did change their geographical areas from the last census. When they redid the districts from they could have done it then, but it is harder, not impossible. again, far easier with assemblymen than senators

The fail train keeps on rolling

Maybe the fact that you are full of shit on there even being such a thing as senate districts should clue you in that you generally have no idea what you’re talking about, ever.
 

Pens1566

Lifer
Oct 11, 2005
12,284
9,113
136
i do, and was simply pointing out how it is possible for those who say it isnt for the Senate. it is indeed possible to divide the two senate districts of a state to favor one party, it is far easier to do it for the House, which is why those cases are all we hear about. Senate districts in states did change their geographical areas from the last census. When they redid the districts from they could have done it then, but it is harder, not impossible. again, far easier with assemblymen than senators

You should stop digging now. Or better yet, 2-3 posts ago.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,735
28,908
136
trying to fix it, yet still practice it themselves, again, NY is the best example of it, but lets give the Democrats a pass on it. But but but Republicans do it more. Even if the ONLY case of Democrat gerrymandering was NY, doing it only once is one too many.
I'll re ask my boxing question. Answer that and you will know why
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
48,094
37,297
136
i said they are equally guilty of gerrymandering, and in the case of NY, a NY judge appointed by a Democrat, struck it down. This proves my point exactly. They tried to do it, it was struck down because it was gerrymandering. Let's make an excuse on why it was struck down, the judge appointed by a Democrat was conservative, thats why. not because it was illegal. But when Democrats bring gerrymandering cases against Republicans, if its struck down its gerrymandering, if it stays and is said to be legal by a judge, its a bad judge, its that way because it favors Republicans.

seriously, you all are just as bad as the MAGA crowd. you blindly follow the left and everything they say. Make excuses for the things democrats do, when republicans do the same thing they get condemned.

Democrats gerrymander because unilateral disarmament would be stupid. They are the only people offering to end the practice entirely on a national basis. The legality of gerrymandering on the state level fundamentally comes down to who sits on the state Supreme Court. For example Florida's gerrymander imposed by DeSantis is illegal under the FL constitution but their court ignored it. These are just the facts.
 

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
25,480
3,976
126
for those who say you cant gerrymander the senate. majority of cities tend to be Democrat, look at any election map. Divide the two senate seats of a state so that there are majority of blue voters in each half. Use Missouri as an example. Line could be to have both st louis and Kansas City in the same senate districts, both have significant democrat populations, divide them up and put them each into separate disctricts to give both a better chance of going blue. Looking at the population map of Missouri, it could easily be done to redistrict to have them together.
it is indeed possible to divide the two senate districts of a state to favor one party, it is far easier to do it for the House, which is why those cases are all we hear about. Senate districts in states did change their geographical areas from the last census. When they redid the districts from they could have done it then, but it is harder, not impossible. again, far easier with assemblymen than senators
The WHOLE state votes for senators. Let me repeat: the whole state votes for senators. There is no "divide the two senate seats of a state". The whole state votes. See the 17th amendment.
 
Last edited:
  • Love
Reactions: hal2kilo

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,754
2,344
126
I'm guessing that Jwade saw that he only voted for 1 Senator this year and thinks that's the only Senator he gets to vote for. Let's see if he can figure out why he's wrong.
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,754
2,344
126
Haha, the champ seems to have disabled his account.

He seems to do that a lot, post a bunch of the dumbest shit you'll ever see then disable his account until it's time to vomit all over the keyboard again.
 

Meghan54

Lifer
Oct 18, 2009
11,684
5,222
136
i do, and was simply pointing out how it is possible for those who say it isnt for the Senate. it is indeed possible to divide the two senate districts of a state to favor one party, it is far easier to do it for the House, which is why those cases are all we hear about. Senate districts in states did change their geographical areas from the last census. When they redid the districts from they could have done it then, but it is harder, not impossible. again, far easier with assemblymen than senators

What a fucking moron! Absolutely clueless.

Are you American, per chance? NO? Thought so......
 

SteveGrabowski

Diamond Member
Oct 20, 2014
7,428
6,157
136
Always scary that people like JWade get an equal vote.

When someone posts right wing talking points while showing a complete misunderstanding of how American elections work I usually take that as a clear indication it's some russian shitposter. Anyone who has ever voted in a US state knows senators are elected from statewide races.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meghan54

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,640
50,868
136
When someone posts right wing talking points while showing a complete misunderstanding of how American elections work I usually take that as a clear indication it's some russian shitposter. Anyone who has ever voted in a US state knows senators are elected from statewide races.
While human stupidity is almost endless it’s hard for me to believe that an American would think senators are elected by splitting the state in half or whatever.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
Same message Putin gave Russian business. Fascists of feather flock together.
Weren't these same people lecturing us on corporations having free speech rights after Citizens United?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,640
50,868
136
Same message Putin gave Russian business. Fascists of feather flock together.
Weren't these same people lecturing us on corporations having free speech rights after Citizens United?
Yes the ‘money is speech’ people are not only going after money but also straight out speech.

This is because they never actually cared about these principles. I think the most important thing is to change the media so they no longer feel compelled to pretend to believe these clowns when they say it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
13,636
8,522
136
The NY gerrymander was struck down due to Cuomo's conservative appointment to the NY Supreme Court.

I'm not even American so don't really follow this minutiae, but even I know that NY's "Democrat" gerrymander got thrown out by the State Supreme court (presumably they should have waited for the Supremes to block state courts from doing that? Seems like a serious mis-step to attempt it and fail as they did, from what I hear it ended up worse than if they'd not attempted a gerrymander in the first place).
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,735
28,908
136
I'm not even American so don't really follow this minutiae, but even I know that NY's "Democrat" gerrymander got thrown out by the State Supreme court (presumably they should have waited for the Supremes to block state courts from doing that? Seems like a serious mis-step to attempt it and fail as they did, from what I hear it ended up worse than if they'd not attempted a gerrymander in the first place).
They attempted it because unilateral disarmament would be suicide. You don't go into a boxing ring with your 10oz gloves when your opponent shaves off 2-3 oz
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
13,636
8,522
136
They attempted it because unilateral disarmament would be suicide. You don't go into a boxing ring with your 10oz gloves when your opponent shaves off 2-3 oz

Well, in practice it seems it was entirely counter-productive. They should surely have predicted that the court would throw it out?

What I heard suggested they might have been better off going for a much milder gerrymander, that might have gotten past the court, because what they ended up with was much worse. You don't disarm unilaterally but nor do you employ weapons you know the enemy can easily take out.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,640
50,868
136
Well, in practice it seems it was entirely counter-productive. They should surely have predicted that the court would throw it out?

What I heard suggested they might have been better off going for a much milder gerrymander, that might have gotten past the court, because what they ended up with was much worse. You don't disarm unilaterally but nor do you employ weapons you know the enemy can easily take out.
I think that's a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking. Why would they have predicted the court would throw it out?
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
13,636
8,522
136
Also, this is partially the left's fault, the democrats funnelled millions into capaigns of far right candidates in hopes it would be easier to beat them,

I leave others, who know more about the details of the system, to address the rest of this post (I suspect it misunderstands how the Senate works). But I've heard this bit from other sources, and it does sound like it was a _very_ high-risk strategy - really playing with fire. Is it true that this happened, and to what extent? (was it really 'millions'?)