Ohio Early Voting Will No Longer Take Place On Sundays, Weekday Evenings

[emperus]

Your assumption that I give a shit would be an incorrect one but thanks for sharing. Your rage against the "Republican machine" has no relevance for me.

Yes, we understand. You don't give a shit. You also don't give a shit about facts. So, again, why post in a thread you don't give a shit about and about atopic you clearly don't give a shit about to research?

But, I'm sure you'll find a way to write more ad-hominem attacks. It seems that's the only thing you do give a shit about.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

The conservative brain at work... Lol.

I gave you 4 other articles saying the exact same thing, yet you have found one ridiculous reason to try to dismiss one of them and so then therefore that means you can dismiss all of them and therefore dismiss my point? Jesus. That is breathtakingly dishonest.

Try this, Read the Rolling Stone article assuming it has a liberal slant. And ask yourself how that assumed liberal slant affected the story. Now seeing that 4 other papers wrote the same thing. You should have your answer.

You guys should try harder to pretend you have come at a reasoned articulated position. It just seems like you are marching in lock step with the Republican party without nary an understanding as to why.

boomerang was pointing out the blatant bias in the Rolling Stone op-ed and I agreed that it's essentially par for the course for that magazine. That's it. I didn't dismiss your other sources in the slightest. That's all you and your liberal brain at work...making up shit and then actually believing it's true. You're a master of twisting reality to suit your hyperpartisan delusions. Pathetic.

 

[emperus]

boomerang was pointing out the blatant bias in the Rolling Stone op-ed and I agreed that it's essentially par for the course for that magazine. That's it. I didn't dismiss your other sources in the slightest. That's all you and your liberal brain at work...making up shit and then actually believing it's true. You're a master of twisting reality to suit your hyperpartisan delusions. Pathetic.

This is what you originally wrote....

Vast right wing conspiracy for sure!

So, I posted this...

This is all part and parcel of a bigger strategy. It's actually been written about a lot. Why do you think the GOP won less votes then the Dems last election and still picked up seats?

[URL="http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-republicans-rig-the-game-20131111"]http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-republicans-rig-the-game-20131111[/URL]

You then tried to use a "supposed" bias to discredit the article's reporting. Yet, this had been wildly reported on (see the 4 other sources I posted).

This seems to be a pattern with you Doc. You take a flawed position, you get called on it, and then you deflect to something else to take away from having to defend your original position.

 

[Matt1970]

The conservative brain at work... Lol.

I gave you 4 other articles saying the exact same thing, yet you have found one ridiculous reason to try to dismiss one of them and so then therefore that means you can dismiss all of them and therefore dismiss my point? Jesus. That is breathtakingly dishonest.

Try this, Read the Rolling Stone article assuming it has a liberal slant. And ask yourself how that assumed liberal slant affected the story. Now seeing that 4 other papers wrote the same thing. You should have your answer.

You guys should try harder to pretend you have come at a reasoned articulated position. It just seems like you are marching in lock step with the Republican party without nary an understanding as to why.

There is no other way TO read the Rolling Stone.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

This is what you originally wrote....



So, I posted this...



You then tried to use a "supposed" bias to discredit the article's reporting. Yet, this had been wildly reported on (see the 4 other sources I posted).

This seems to be a pattern with you Doc. You take a flawed position, you get called on it, and then you deflect to something else to take away from having to defend your original position.

Those two quotes of mine are completely unrelated...you understand that right? What flawed position did I take...that the Rolling Stone is biased?

 

[Matt1970]

This is all part and parcel of a bigger strategy. It's actually been written about a lot. Why do you think the GOP won less votes then the Dems last election and still picked up seats?

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-republicans-rig-the-game-20131111

The GOP lost 8 seats in the House and 2 Seats in the Senate last election. Figures you wouldn't know that, you do read the Rolling Stone.

 

[Bowfinger]

Your assumption that I give a shit would be an incorrect one but thanks for sharing. Your rage against the "Republican machine" has no relevance for me.

You can be equally assured I value your opinions not in the slightest. You've repeatedly shown you're proud to swallow party dogma no matter how much factual information is in front of you. You cower in your nutter bubble, blissfully immune to reality, and you love it. Indeed, you demand it. It's so much easier than thinking for yourself.

I will point out that I never said a word about the "Republican machine", so your purported quote is either a lie or a sign of severe reading impairment. That's probably why your brain tripped over Rolling Stone and never got up again.

Toodles.

 

[boomerang]

Yes, we understand. You don't give a shit. You also don't give a shit about facts. So, again, why post in a thread you don't give a shit about and about atopic you clearly don't give a shit about to research?

But, I'm sure you'll find a way to write more ad-hominem attacks. It seems that's the only thing you do give a shit about.

But I did give a shit in the beginning. I told you that you wouldn't change anything with this thread. But this thread is a like a set of worry beads for you.

What's your end game with this thread? What would have to play out for it to be a success for you? How do you "win"?

 

[emperus]

But I did give a shit in the beginning. I told you that you wouldn't change anything with this thread. But this thread is a like a set of worry beads for you.

What's your end game with this thread? What would have to play out for it to be a success for you? How do you "win"?

Are you serious? I hate the word Troll, but at this point that is what you are.

What is the end goal of any thread here? What is the end goal of your posts? How do you "win" with the ad hominem attacks?

 

[emperus]

The GOP lost 8 seats in the House and 2 Seats in the Senate last election. Figures you wouldn't know that, you do read the Rolling Stone.

And all these?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/11/08/how-redistricting-could-keep-the-house-red-for-a-decade/

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2013/07/01/republican-redistricting-wins-are-hurting-the-party

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/us/politics/redistricting-helped-republicans-hold-onto-congress.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-19/republicans-win-congress-as-democrats-get-most-votes.html

That is a very lazy argument you made. Read through them and it'll help you explain those numbers you posted.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Here's an interesting and fair (imo) article regarding gerrymandering . What's interesting is that other "studies" regarding recent gerrymandering don't take into account the huge value of incumbency...which essentially negates the apparent pro-Republican shift that occurred between 2010 and 2012. It appears that the 'Great Gerrymander of 2012' is more myth than fact.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...edistricting-didnt-win-republicans-the-house/

 

[boomerang]

What is the end goal of any thread here? What is the end goal of your posts?

You're getting closer. But now you're answering questions with questions.

What is your end game with this thread? At what point would you be satisfied and move on? It's fulfilling some need. What is that need? I've asked the same question in a very simple fashion several ways. If you don't want to answer, say so. I will accept that answer.

 

[emperus]

Here's an interesting and fair (imo) article regarding gerrymandering . What's interesting is that other "studies" regarding recent gerrymandering don't take into account the huge value of incumbency...which essentially negates the apparent pro-Republican shift that occurred between 2010 and 2012. It appears that the 'Great Gerrymander of 2012' is more myth than fact.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...edistricting-didnt-win-republicans-the-house/

I read that one as well years back. Based on the various studies, I do believe Gerrymandering had an impact on those seats. But, everyone can have their opinion on that.

The argument we were having here though was whether there was some overreaching strategy with this new bill. A couple of articles have spoken to the strategy. Whether the strategy has born fruit or not doesn't change the fact that the there has been this Republican strategy.

 

[emperus]

You're getting closer. But now you're answering questions with questions.

What is your end game with this thread? At what point would you be satisfied and move on? It's fulfilling some need. What is that need? I've asked the same question in a very simple fashion several ways. If you don't want to answer, say so. I will accept that answer.

Lol. Troll.

 

[boomerang]

Here's an interesting and fair (imo) article regarding gerrymandering . What's interesting is that other "studies" regarding recent gerrymandering don't take into account the huge value of incumbency...which essentially negates the apparent pro-Republican shift that occurred between 2010 and 2012. It appears that the 'Great Gerrymander of 2012' is more myth than fact.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...edistricting-didnt-win-republicans-the-house/

Regardless whether it is myth of fact, when Democrats are in the position to gerrymander, they will gerrymander as they have done before. The left gets all emotional over it and demands that somebody do something! But only when it affects them negatively. Turn the table and they are more than willing to feign ignorance.

Which is why I don't give.a.shit.

 

[emperus]

Regardless whether it is myth of fact, when Democrats are in the position to gerrymander, they will gerrymander as they have done before. The left gets all emotional over it and demands that somebody do something! But only when it affects them negatively. Turn the table and they are more than willing to feign ignorance.

Which is why I don't give.a.shit.

What type of person comes on a discussion board and repeatedly posts about not giving a shit. I would think if you didn't "give a shit", you wouldn't repeatedly post.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I read that one as well years back. Based on the various studies, I do believe Gerrymandering had an impact on those seats. But, everyone can have their opinion on that.

The argument we were having here though was whether there was some overreaching strategy with this new bill. A couple of articles have spoken to the strategy. Whether the strategy has born fruit or not doesn't change the fact that the there has been this Republican strategy.

When it comes to gerrymandering (or anything else for that matter), both parties typically act in their own best interests whenever possible. I don't get outraged over it...it's just the way politics work. The only thing that even remotely bothers me about this issue is the hypocrisy when one side starts pointing an accusing finger at the other. This is fodder for partisan hacks imo. Anyway, I personally would like to see an unbiased approach taken.

 

[Matt1970]

And all these?



That is a very lazy argument you made. Read through them and it'll help you explain those numbers you posted.

Lazy argument? You said the GOP picked up seats in the last election. That's absolutely untrue. Also, quit it with the gerrymandering bullshit. The House elections were 47.6% to 48.8%. That's just over 1% difference. If you think that is enough to cause them to lose their over 50 seat majority you are out of your mind. When they gained the 63 seats in 2010, that was from a 51.7% vs 44.9%, that's almost 7%.

 

[Moonbeam]

There you go again, always the other guy.

Yup

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/o...-gerrymander-of-2012.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Regardless whether it is myth of fact, when Democrats are in the position to gerrymander, they will gerrymander as they have done before. The left gets all emotional over it and demands that somebody do something! But only when it affects them negatively. Turn the table and they are more than willing to feign ignorance.

Which is why I don't give.a.shit.

Pelosi and Watson have actively fought anti-gerrymandering measures in California on several occasions...but you don't hear squat from Democrats criticizing her. The stench of hypocrisy on this issue is overwhelming. Dems like safe seats as well.

http://www.laweekly.com/informer/20...election-fixing-and-why-you-should-give-a-rip

And in Illinois they abuse gerrymandering like a red-headed stepchild. And Dems have the audacity to be outraged when it's used against them? WTF? Here's one the the districts they drew.

I give them an A+ for creativity though.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Yup

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/o...-gerrymander-of-2012.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Did you read the article I previously posted on this? #161

 

[emperus]

Pelosi and Watson have actively fought anti-gerrymandering measures in California on several occasions...but you don't hear squat from Democrats criticizing her. The stench of hypocrisy on this issue is overwhelming. Dems like safe seats as well.

http://www.laweekly.com/informer/20...election-fixing-and-why-you-should-give-a-rip

And in Illinois they abuse gerrymandering like a red-headed stepchild. And Dems have the audacity to be outraged when it's used against them? WTF? Here's one the the districts they drew.

I give them an A+ for creativity though.

When did this morph into a Gerrymandering thread?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

When did this morph into a Gerrymandering thread?

When you brought it up. Have you suffered a severe blow to the head recently?

 

[Matt1970]

When did this morph into a Gerrymandering thread?

Post 136 maybe?

 

[marincounty]

Pelosi and Watson have actively fought anti-gerrymandering measures in California on several occasions...but you don't hear squat from Democrats criticizing her. The stench of hypocrisy on this issue is overwhelming. Dems like safe seats as well.

http://www.laweekly.com/informer/20...election-fixing-and-why-you-should-give-a-rip

And in Illinois they abuse gerrymandering like a red-headed stepchild. And Dems have the audacity to be outraged when it's used against them? WTF? Here's one the the districts they drew.

I give them an A+ for creativity though.

According to Wikipedia, proposition 20 Ballot language was filed by Charles Munger, Jr., who was also Proposition 20's largest financial supporter. Munger, the son of billionaire Charlie Munger, was a supporter of Proposition 11 in 2008, which created a new way for political districts to be drawn for California's state legislators and its state Board of Equalization.
Supporters of Proposition 20 included:

California Chamber of Commerce
California State Conference of the NAACP
AARP
California Common Cause
Bay Area Council
Arnold Schwarzenegger and Gray Davis
The petition drive management company hired to collect the signatures was National Petition Management. NPM was paid $1,937,380 (through May 6) for their signature-gathering services.[25]

Sounds like a real grassroots effort, not. Funded by a billionaire with an axe to grind.
This is why California's initiative process needs to be reformed. Any rich asshole with an issue can have it placed on the ballot.
This is the initiative that Republicans were for before they were against it.
This is just the out of power party trying to change the rules to their benefit. It sorta worked. They got this stupid initiative passed, then got their asses kicked in the elections.
Not one state elected official in California is Republican, and things are running better than they have in years.