What is the purpose of government?

Dutch Uncle said:
Do you agree with the practice? Do you think that was the intent of the Founders?
Click to expand...

Well, the Founders gave the authority to a political body (state legislatures), so they probably assumed it would be a political process.

The Founders did not put anything in the Constitution about separate districts and in the early years most states elected members at-large, so I'm not sure what the Founders favored (Madison did refer to single-member districts in one of the Federalist Papers). Founders also did not provide for political parties so there would be no gerrymandering by party.

I don't think it is possible to have districts representative of the state without some amount of gerrymandering. If you just drew lines of equal population with the straightest possible lines, the percent of Democrats/Republicans and minorities would probably be very unrepresentative.
 
BidenPresident said:
Trump obviously organized the insurrection. You're just another right wing nutbag.
Click to expand...

You think everybody has to be as partisan as yourself. What is one thing I said that right-wingers would agree with? What is obvious to you cannot necessarily be proven for purposes of prosecution. They are as unlikely to prosecute Trump for insurrection as they were to impeach/convict him, claim he violated the emoluments clause, or anything else. Democrats were just seeking something to attack him with usually showing very little knowledge of what they were talking about.

You obviously have not read any of my posts about voter fraud, January 6, or anything else to label me a right-winger. It is just a way to attack somebody.
 
Flash said:
You think everybody has to be as partisan as yourself. What is one thing I said that right-wingers would agree with? What is obvious to you cannot necessarily be proven for purposes of prosecution. They are as unlikely to prosecute Trump for insurrection as they were to impeach/convict him, claim he violated the emoluments clause, or anything else. Democrats were just seeking something to attack him with usually showing very little knowledge of what they were talking about.

You obviously have not read any of my posts about voter fraud, January 6, or anything else to label me a right-winger. It is just a way to attack somebody.
Click to expand...

Either you condemn the violent attack or you don't. GOP does not condemn the attack. You're either very stupid or think others are stupid.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
I have no problem with parties; my problem is when parties become too powerful. The Republicans want only one party, one president and one country. They want to eliminate diversity in all things except what they like. Our government works best when there is balance.
Click to expand...

this differs from the Democrats how ?
 
Flash said:
I was talking about the political parties and their tactics, not members of the public that were rioting. I clearly wrote that my comments were about tactics used by the parties which are the same and said I reserved more of my criticism of the Republicans to their truly wacky differences--like the voter fraud (although Hillary also claimed 2016 was not legitimate).

What cop was killed?
Click to expand...

democrats have killed a great number of cops in their looting and pillaging activities.
 
Flash said:
Well, the Founders gave the authority to a political body (state legislatures), so they probably assumed it would be a political process.

The Founders did not put anything in the Constitution about separate districts and in the early years most states elected members at-large, so I'm not sure what the Founders favored (Madison did refer to single-member districts in one of the Federalist Papers). Founders also did not provide for political parties so there would be no gerrymandering by party.

I don't think it is possible to have districts representative of the state without some amount of gerrymandering. If you just drew lines of equal population with the straightest possible lines, the percent of Democrats/Republicans and minorities would probably be very unrepresentative.
Click to expand...
Do you think the Founders intended the law to be twisted so that the votes of 40% never count? Technically only 49.9% given it was 50/50 which it often is.

I voted Libertarian in both elections so I expected my vote to get trounced by the Tyranny of the Majority, but if a town became strongly Libertarian and taking their county Libertarian too, would it be considered fair for another political party to redraw the voting districts so that local Libertarian majority evaporated?

It doesn't strike me as being in the spirit of Truth, Justice and the American Way.
4wm26y.gif
 
BidenPresident said:
Either you condemn the violent attack or you don't. GOP does not condemn the attack. You're either very stupid or think others are stupid.
Click to expand...

I condemn the violent attack on the Capitol and the BLM violent riots. Condemning one and not the other is hypocrisy.

I didn't say anything that would suggest I didn't condemn the January 6 terrorist attack. Condemning the attack is not the same thing as believing Trump could be convicted for "inciting" anything since we have no proof of his intent (at this time). We do have proof of the intent of the Proud Boys which is why they have been charged with seditious conspiracy and none of the other rioters have not.
 
Celticguy said:
only death was a demonstrator.
Click to expand...

Next time the seditionists will face death to the applause of millions of Americans happy to see the racist lying fuckwads removed from society. W00t!

Lemme guess, you're another JPP RWer who won't be there. :laugh: :rofl2: :laugh:

5hecui.jpg
 
Celticguy said:
apology for your gratuitous lies accepted.
Click to expand...

What lies? I've told the truth. The fact you are scared by the accuracy of my guesses is your problem, not mine.

I'm actually pleased you aren't stupid enough to believe this shit so much you throw away your life on it. :thup:

5tai2a.gif
 
Flash said:
I condemn the violent attack on the Capitol and the BLM violent riots. Condemning one and not the other is hypocrisy.

I didn't say anything that would suggest I didn't condemn the January 6 terrorist attack. Condemning the attack is not the same thing as believing Trump could be convicted for "inciting" anything since we have no proof of his intent (at this time). We do have proof of the intent of the Proud Boys which is why they have been charged with seditious conspiracy and none of the other rioters have not.
Click to expand...

wow, you condemn those crazy negroes. how white of you
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Do you think the Founders intended the law to be twisted so that the votes of 40% never count? Technically only 49.9% given it was 50/50 which it often is.

I voted Libertarian in both elections so I expected my vote to get trounced by the Tyranny of the Majority, but if a town became strongly Libertarian and taking their county Libertarian too, would it be considered fair for another political party to redraw the voting districts so that local Libertarian majority evaporated?

It doesn't strike me as being in the spirit of Truth, Justice and the American Way.
Click to expand...

Dutch Uncle said:
Do you think the Founders intended the law to be twisted so that the votes of 40% never count? Technically only 49.9% given it was 50/50 which it often is.
Click to expand...

I don't follow. What is often 50/50. Congress?

I don't think the Founders would think the law is twisted. After all, the Electoral College is set up so that the electoral votes of all the states in the minority do not count. A person can win the presidency by winning only 11 states.

Also, many of the Founders held political office when the first (labeled) gerrymander occurred in 1812 when a MA district was drawn to give an advantage to the Democrat-Republicans over the Federalists.

It was criticized then just as we criticize it today. “The horrid Monster of which this drawing is a correct representation, appeared in the County of Essex, during the last session of the Legislature,” read the caption below the cartoon. “All believe it is a creature of infernal origin, both from its aspect and from the circumstance of its birth…The monster shall be denominated a Gerry-mander.”

Dutch Uncle said:
I voted Libertarian in both elections so I expected my vote to get trounced by the Tyranny of the Majority, but if a town became strongly Libertarian and taking their county Libertarian too, would it be considered fair for another political party to redraw the voting districts so that local Libertarian majority evaporated?

It doesn't strike me as being in the spirit of Truth, Justice and the American Way.
Click to expand...

I also vote Libertarian for president. One reason is because a certain percent of votes is necessary for a party to automatically qualify for the ballot in the next election. I don't feel like I am "wasting" my vote since my one vote will not determine the outcome in a heavily Republican state.

"Truth, Justice, and the American Way" is often squeamish about using power such as gerrymandering. Republicans started a strategy to control the states in 1980 and became dominant by 2010. Now, they use that control to dominate the redistricting process.

As some posters remind us, "elections have consequences."

We want our party to gain power, we are just afraid to use that power and we especially do not want the other party to use their power. One party told us we should not nominate a Supreme Court Justice in a presidential election year until they had the opportunity to do so. Rather than just admitting they had the power to make that appointment, they both tried to use moral or ethical explanations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top