Campaign isn't a day old and Trump poodle Ron Desantis already had a "macaca" moment

Stargazer said:
What's happened here is the Communist wing of the Democrats have secured the nomination which is a surefire guarantee to lose. I'm sure the moderates of that party are shitting a gold brick cuz the writing is on the wall and they will lose.

All the race-baiting and fake news in the world ain't gonna win this for them. It's over.

Had Graham won, I would be concerned. Now, I'm overjoyed. That win was a gift to the Republican party.
Click to expand...
just lying doesn't work as well now that people know you worked with the russians
 
Sailor said:
In today's sensitive PC world I can see your point.
Click to expand...
Politicians should just leave monkey out of the dialogue.

Honest question, how would you perceive it if someone called you a monkey? I know it would depend on the person and the situation, but in criticism of you.
 
Phantasmal said:
Politicians should just leave monkey out of the dialogue.

Honest question, how would you perceive it if someone called you a monkey? I know it would depend on the person and the situation, but in criticism of you.
Click to expand...
No one called anyone a monkey....
 
Phantasmal said:
Politicians should just leave monkey out of the dialogue.

Honest question, how would you perceive it if someone called you a monkey? I know it would depend on the person and the situation, but in criticism of you.
Click to expand...

I would punch him in the head depending on how it was used. It is actually a compliment to tell a sailor he climbs like a monkey in the rigging.
 
Phantasmal said:
I even checked the urban dictionary, no reference
Click to expand...

no you didn't.....https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=monkeying%20around

TOP DEFINITION
monkeying around
Manipulating dependent variables to change a independent variable(s) whether is produces a positive outcome or not with the sample/subject often not realizing the extent of manipulation upon variables that creates great deviancy with a person, family, or population directly as well as indirectly.
We didn't mean to create adversity or a negative outcome in someone's life, I was only monkeying around ! LOL!
Click to expand...
 
PostmodernProphet said:
lol.......sorry dude......the electoral college vote is based on the total votes won on a state by state basis, not by congressional districts........have you always been hopelessly ignorant or did it just start in November, 2016?.......
Click to expand...

Hold on there idiot, before you and your mouth starts writing checks your ass can't cash!

https://www.brennancenter.org/blog/...ngressional-districts-will-sabotage-elections

Tying Presidential Electors to Gerrymandered Congressional Districts Sabotages Elections

Tying the distribution of electoral votes for president to the outcome of individual congressional districts would take all the problems with redistricting and import that partisan dysfunction into the presidential election.

January 22, 2013

Recently Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Virginia introduced legislation to make the distribution of electoral votes for president dependent on the votes in each congressional districts instead of statewide results. Legislation to that effect has been introduced in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Virginia, and there are serious discussions in Pennsylvania. Legislators in states like Florida and Ohio also may introduce similar legislation. Currently, only Maine and Nebraska (a state with a unicameral, bipartisan legislature) allocate their electoral votes in a similar fashion.

Most critics of this plan identify it as a scheme by the GOP to rig the election to improve its chances to elect a president. But there are a number of reasons to object to this proposal beyond its partisan intent or impact. Significantly, it would import into the presidential election process the dysfunction that plagues the congressional districting process. The problems with redistricting include not only partisan gerrymandering but also citizen exclusion from the redistricting process, imbalanced districts based on prison-based gerrymandering, and chronic problems with Census undercounts.

An increasing number of congressional districts also reflect calculations by those in power about how they can best preserve their power. Incumbents carve the citizens of their state into districts for maximum personal and partisan advantage. Democracy suffers while neighborhoods are split, competing candidates are drawn out of districts, and groups of voters are ‘cracked' or ‘packed' to manipulate their voting power. Most recently we saw single party legislative control of the redistricting process in most states – Democrats controlled redistricting in 6 states and Republicans controlled redistricting in 17 states. Some of the most egregious plans came from Republicans in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Michigan; and Democrats in Illinois and Maryland. In all of those states, partisans manipulated districts to disproportionately benefit the party drawing the lines; it would be an injustice to use those same district lines to determine the allocation of electoral votes in a presidential election.

Proponents of this change assert that since presidential candidates do not win 100 percent of the votes in a state, awarding electors based upon the results in congressional district is more representative of how voters voted. This would only be true if congressional districts were drawn to fairly represent citizens, rather than to protect political parties.

The Cook Political Report tells us that despite already having a majority of the popular vote, the current district lines make it almost impossible for the Democrats to win control of the House of Representatives. Specifically, “Democrats might need to win nearly 55 percent of all House votes cast in order to win a majority at any point in the coming decade. In 13 of the last 15 cycles, neither party has hit 55 percent of the vote.”

In the 2012 election, President Obama won both the popular vote and the Electoral College. Yet the GOP maintained control of the House in spite of the fact that the popular vote went to Democratic candidates for the House of Representatives. While 2012 is the most extreme example of partisan redistricting control – it is not the only example.

Redistricting prevents the true voice of the people from being heard time and time again. In 1980, Republicans broke even, winning 49% of the popular vote, while Democrats won 56% of the seats. Similarly, there was an especially large gap between the Republican percentage of the vote in 1990 with Republicans winning 46% of the popular vote, but only 38% of the House seats. These examples demonstrate that time and again, allocating electoral votes based upon congressional districts is not necessarily reflective of the national popular vote.

Unquestionably, redistricting processes are desperate for reform. We like to think that voters choose their politicians, but in the redistricting process politicians often choose their voters. States like Arizona, California, Florida and others are adopting more independent and transparent redistricting processes, but the mechanisms remain vulnerable to partisan machinations. Certainly, well-designed redistricting systems can help ensure that the voices of voters are heard and can inspire public confidence in both a process and an outcome recognized as fair. Until that happens, however, we should not permit the problems that infect redistricting to contaminate our presidential elections.
 
Adolf_Twitler said:
Hold on there idiot, before you and your mouth starts writing checks your ass can't cash!

https://www.brennancenter.org/blog/...ngressional-districts-will-sabotage-elections

Tying Presidential Electors to Gerrymandered Congressional Districts Sabotages Elections

Tying the distribution of electoral votes for president to the outcome of individual congressional districts would take all the problems with redistricting and import that partisan dysfunction into the presidential election.

January 22, 2013

Recently Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Virginia introduced legislation to make the distribution of electoral votes for president dependent on the votes in each congressional districts instead of statewide results. Legislation to that effect has been introduced in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Virginia, and there are serious discussions in Pennsylvania. Legislators in states like Florida and Ohio also may introduce similar legislation. Currently, only Maine and Nebraska (a state with a unicameral, bipartisan legislature) allocate their electoral votes in a similar fashion.

Most critics of this plan identify it as a scheme by the GOP to rig the election to improve its chances to elect a president. But there are a number of reasons to object to this proposal beyond its partisan intent or impact. Significantly, it would import into the presidential election process the dysfunction that plagues the congressional districting process. The problems with redistricting include not only partisan gerrymandering but also citizen exclusion from the redistricting process, imbalanced districts based on prison-based gerrymandering, and chronic problems with Census undercounts.

An increasing number of congressional districts also reflect calculations by those in power about how they can best preserve their power. Incumbents carve the citizens of their state into districts for maximum personal and partisan advantage. Democracy suffers while neighborhoods are split, competing candidates are drawn out of districts, and groups of voters are ‘cracked' or ‘packed' to manipulate their voting power. Most recently we saw single party legislative control of the redistricting process in most states – Democrats controlled redistricting in 6 states and Republicans controlled redistricting in 17 states. Some of the most egregious plans came from Republicans in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Michigan; and Democrats in Illinois and Maryland. In all of those states, partisans manipulated districts to disproportionately benefit the party drawing the lines; it would be an injustice to use those same district lines to determine the allocation of electoral votes in a presidential election.

Proponents of this change assert that since presidential candidates do not win 100 percent of the votes in a state, awarding electors based upon the results in congressional district is more representative of how voters voted. This would only be true if congressional districts were drawn to fairly represent citizens, rather than to protect political parties.

The Cook Political Report tells us that despite already having a majority of the popular vote, the current district lines make it almost impossible for the Democrats to win control of the House of Representatives. Specifically, “Democrats might need to win nearly 55 percent of all House votes cast in order to win a majority at any point in the coming decade. In 13 of the last 15 cycles, neither party has hit 55 percent of the vote.”

In the 2012 election, President Obama won both the popular vote and the Electoral College. Yet the GOP maintained control of the House in spite of the fact that the popular vote went to Democratic candidates for the House of Representatives. While 2012 is the most extreme example of partisan redistricting control – it is not the only example.

Redistricting prevents the true voice of the people from being heard time and time again. In 1980, Republicans broke even, winning 49% of the popular vote, while Democrats won 56% of the seats. Similarly, there was an especially large gap between the Republican percentage of the vote in 1990 with Republicans winning 46% of the popular vote, but only 38% of the House seats. These examples demonstrate that time and again, allocating electoral votes based upon congressional districts is not necessarily reflective of the national popular vote.

Unquestionably, redistricting processes are desperate for reform. We like to think that voters choose their politicians, but in the redistricting process politicians often choose their voters. States like Arizona, California, Florida and others are adopting more independent and transparent redistricting processes, but the mechanisms remain vulnerable to partisan machinations. Certainly, well-designed redistricting systems can help ensure that the voices of voters are heard and can inspire public confidence in both a process and an outcome recognized as fair. Until that happens, however, we should not permit the problems that infect redistricting to contaminate our presidential elections.
Click to expand...

What does your post have to do with the post you responded to?
 
TOP said:
Did you check Merriam-Webster for "monkey around"? Meaning not going to waste time or do things that are not serious...
the words were:
"The last thing we need to do is to monkey this up by trying to embrace a socialist agenda with huge tax increases and bankrupting the state."
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter to these lefties. If they can turn a conservatives words around to make them look bad they will and to hell with honesty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top