|
|
Post by Emblematic Wolfblade on Nov 20, 2018 20:32:19 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2018 20:37:55 GMT -5
If the reality is either “Hillary is guilty” or “DOJ coverup/whitewash”, you’re neverntoing to get an admission that she didn’t commit a crime.
It also ignores the reality that 2 years of “lock her up” Sessions and many other Trump appointed DOJ officials and GOP controlled congress didn’t do anything since they’ve been in power.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2018 20:41:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by hatoflords on Nov 20, 2018 20:52:59 GMT -5
That's a little tom foolery. In terms of how elections in districts work, if I win 70% in one as a Dem, the democrat next door doesn't get the 20% extra. Other than Wisconsin those margins aren't that odd. Heavy blue votes in some districts and slim Red wins in others can produce them. Wisconsin looks kind of odd, but not enough to be automatically questionable. Feel free to poke around the tallies. I'd be pretty suspicious if I see a lot of slim wins by Republicans, and a 2/3 majority Red outcome. That's a pretty good sign that the lines are rigged. It's also possible though that the Dems won by landslides in their districts, but only narrowly lost in ones that went GOP, which isn't very odd.
If there is a flaw here, it's that seat wins are not reflective of how voters swing across multiple districts. That's a problem, but it's not necessarily rigging. One could make a good argument that the US should switch to proportional representation to better reflect this, but that also doesn't mesh with a Representative system.
If the reality is either “Hillary is guilty” or “DOJ coverup/whitewash”, you’re neverntoing to get an admission that she didn’t commit a crime. It also ignores the reality that 2 years of “lock her up” Sessions and many other Trump appointed DOJ officials and GOP controlled congress didn’t do anything since they’ve been in power. The party of "I respect due process" refusing to accept anything by the verdict it wants when convenient? The hypocrisy! Say it ain't so! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2018 20:53:11 GMT -5
McGahn was right to stop Trump in the sense that it would exacerbated the Mueller prob... maybe even impeachment. |
|
|
|
Post by Emblematic Wolfblade on Nov 20, 2018 21:17:06 GMT -5
That's a little tom foolery. In terms of how elections in districts work, if I win 70% in one as a Dem, the democrat next door doesn't get the 20% extra. Other than Wisconsin those margins aren't that odd. Heavy blue votes in some districts and slim Red wins in others can produce them. Wisconsin looks kind of odd, but not enough to be automatically questionable. Feel free to poke around the tallies. I'd be pretty suspicious if I see a lot of slim wins by Republicans, and a 2/3 majority Red outcome. That's a pretty good sign that the lines are rigged. It's also possible though that the Dems won by landslides in their districts, but only narrowly lost in ones that went GOP, which isn't very odd.
If there is a flaw here, it's that seat wins are not reflective of how voters swing across multiple districts. That's a problem, but it's not necessarily rigging. One could make a good argument that the US should switch to proportional representation to better reflect this, but that also doesn't mesh with a Representative system.
If dems win ~55-60% of votes across the state, republicans shouldn't get 60% of the seats somehow. Those "slim wins" you keep babbling about are the result of gerrymandering, not a fair election. Defending gerrymandering is mindbogglingly stupid. Have you really stooped that low? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2018 21:21:18 GMT -5
That's a little tom foolery. In terms of how elections in districts work, if I win 70% in one as a Dem, the democrat next door doesn't get the 20% extra. Other than Wisconsin those margins aren't that odd. Heavy blue votes in some districts and slim Red wins in others can produce them. Wisconsin looks kind of odd, but not enough to be automatically questionable. Feel free to poke around the tallies. I'd be pretty suspicious if I see a lot of slim wins by Republicans, and a 2/3 majority Red outcome. That's a pretty good sign that the lines are rigged. It's also possible though that the Dems won by landslides in their districts, but only narrowly lost in ones that went GOP, which isn't very odd.
If there is a flaw here, it's that seat wins are not reflective of how voters swing across multiple districts. That's a problem, but it's not necessarily rigging. One could make a good argument that the US should switch to proportional representation to better reflect this, but that also doesn't mesh with a Representative system.
Come on down to PA and say that hats. There are districts so Gerrymandered that a Democrat can't even get on the ballot. It was so brazen that the then head of PA's republican party bragged about it on TV and how it was going to give them the election. And then did it again to show how many Democrats they disenfranchised afterwards. 5% toward Republicans was the numbers they claimed on air.
|
|
|
|
Post by hatoflords on Nov 20, 2018 21:26:11 GMT -5
That's a little tom foolery. In terms of how elections in districts work, if I win 70% in one as a Dem, the democrat next door doesn't get the 20% extra. Other than Wisconsin those margins aren't that odd. Heavy blue votes in some districts and slim Red wins in others can produce them. Wisconsin looks kind of odd, but not enough to be automatically questionable. Feel free to poke around the tallies. I'd be pretty suspicious if I see a lot of slim wins by Republicans, and a 2/3 majority Red outcome. That's a pretty good sign that the lines are rigged. It's also possible though that the Dems won by landslides in their districts, but only narrowly lost in ones that went GOP, which isn't very odd.
If there is a flaw here, it's that seat wins are not reflective of how voters swing across multiple districts. That's a problem, but it's not necessarily rigging. One could make a good argument that the US should switch to proportional representation to better reflect this, but that also doesn't mesh with a Representative system.
If dems win ~55-60% of votes across the state, republicans shouldn't get 60% of the seats somehow. Those "slim wins" you keep babbling about are the result of gerrymandering, not a fair election. Defending gerrymandering is mindbogglingly stupid. Have you really stooped that low? I'm not defending gerrymandering. Read the argument.
Taking a single election round, and noting that the overall votes don't match the seat wins, is not definitive evidence of Gerrymandering (and again I think Wisconsin looks odd). Especially right now when we're seeing a shift in how certain demographics vote. Taking this and calling it definitive proof of gerrymandering and that's what produced the outcomes is dishonest. It ignores how a representative system works and that it isn't going to produce results reflective of the popular vote across multiple districts. If it's a persistent issue over several elections, then it might be Gerrymandering, but it also could just be a fluke of how the districts played out.
Please go. A little more research and you could probably determine unfair district lines. Look at the districts in question since the last line draw in 2010 and see if lop sided outcomes are consistent across districts. I'm not saying it's definitely not Gerrymandering, I'm saying that video is playing fast and loose with election stats in a disingenuous way. It's a representative first past the post system. You vote for John Democrat or Joe Republican in each district. That inherently means that the popular vote will rarely be a strong reflection of the actual win spread even if the lines are "fair." With the way lines are drawn every ten years you're guessing at best what a district will look like eight years out. A line could be a result of rigging or it could be that demographics have significantly changed in a small period.
|
|
|
|
Post by hatoflords on Nov 20, 2018 21:28:37 GMT -5
Come on down to PA and say that hats. There are districts so Gerrymandered that a Democrat can't even get on the ballot. It was so brazen that the then head of PA's republican party bragged about it on TV and how it was going to give them the election. And then did it again to show how many Democrats they disenfranchised afterwards. 5% toward Republicans was the numbers they claimed on air.
I don't know what PA's districts are like, and it's not my point.
My point is that taking one election, ignoring that you vote for reps not parties, and then throwing out election stats and crying unfair ignores how the electoral system works. It's insufficient evidence in itself, and blatantly misleading. It's easy enough to make a strong case for Gerrymandering by doing the same thing over multiple elections. They can go ahead and do that and I'll believe them, or they can half ass it and I'll call them out for half assing it.
Jesus does no one read anymore...
|
|
|
|
Post by Emblematic Wolfblade on Nov 20, 2018 21:45:00 GMT -5
If dems win ~55-60% of votes across the state, republicans shouldn't get 60% of the seats somehow. Those "slim wins" you keep babbling about are the result of gerrymandering, not a fair election. Defending gerrymandering is mindbogglingly stupid. Have you really stooped that low? I'm not defending gerrymandering. Read the argument.
Taking a single election round, and noting that the overall votes don't match the seat wins, is not definitive evidence of Gerrymandering (and again I think Wisconsin looks odd). Especially right now when we're seeing a shift in how certain demographics vote. Taking this and calling it definitive proof of gerrymandering and that's what produced the outcomes is dishonest. It ignores how a representative system works and that it isn't going to produce results reflective of the popular vote across multiple districts. If it's a persistent issue over several elections, then it might be Gerrymandering, but it also could just be a fluke of how the districts played out.
Please go. A little more research and you could probably determine unfair district lines. Look at the districts in question since the last line draw in 2010 and see if lop sided outcomes are consistent across districts. I'm not saying it's definitely not Gerrymandering, I'm saying that video is playing fast and loose with election stats in a disingenuous way. It's a representative first past the post system. You vote for John Democrat or Joe Republican in each district. That inherently means that the popular vote will rarely be a strong reflection of the actual win spread even if the lines are "fair." With the way lines are drawn every ten years you're guessing at best what a district will look like eight years out. A line could be a result of rigging or it could be that demographics have significantly changed in a small period.
Do you REALLY need to do research when republicans OPENLY admit it? What more do you need? A map showing how all of the districts are drawn? They have those, and they're disgusting. C'mon, republicans have been crowing about how they engineered the gerrymandered districts all over the country, and the fact that 60% of a state can vote democrat (or republican in blue states I suppose) and LOSE is proof of unfair districts. If the districts were fair the results would echo how the people voted with very, VERY rare exceptions. On top of that it's not JUST Wisconsin, this started back in 2010 when republicans made a coordinated effort in this regard. I recommend "Rigged" (if it's still free on their site), but it goes into more than just gerrymandering. Here's some info on it from 2014MoreI also want to note that dems do it too, but on a FAR smaller scale than republicans, and less aggressively. |
|
|
|
Post by hatoflords on Nov 20, 2018 22:04:20 GMT -5
Do you REALLY need to do research when republicans OPENLY admit it? I mentioned they do this a page ago, but they don't do it in every state, and taking one guy's words isn't particularly definitive. The guy could just be a moron. The Republicans have lots of morons around lately.
EDIT: Seriously though how intelligent can they be if they're openly bragging about the scam?
Good evidence. It's easy enough to find with the leg work. Literally in the past few minutes I went poking around Virginia's final electoral maps. Court kept throwing them out as unfair right up until the week before election day. I don't think anyone knew what they looked like till the polls opened. The entire eastern side of the state is fishy. Don't get me started on district 3. It's not that hard to look up district election results in 2012, 2014, 2016, and 2018, and examine how they panned out. Even that's awkward though cause 2016 and 2018 have not been typical election years. Taking any one year and declaring it definitive makes you look like a loon. Put in the effort to prove the point and don't half ass it. Why do you think I ride Whembly's ass so much? Aspire to be better than a repeating voice for what's on TV news. Lots are, but that's just bad Gerrymandering. You really think no one's clever enough to draw lines that look perfectly reasonable, but are completely unfair? I was poking around Orange County CA just yesterday. There's a reason some of those districts have been consistently red/blue the past two decades, and it involves cutting a couple cities right in half for no apparent reason. A cynical man might suggest those lines were drawn to bottle the blues up in two districts, make two more solid red, and leave the rest leaning red, a scheme defeated this year only because there's significant movement in which direction suburban America votes. |
|
|
|
Post by Emblematic Wolfblade on Nov 20, 2018 22:09:10 GMT -5
I mean, if MULTIPLE republicans are admitting it, and the gerrymandering is obvious on the maps, AND I provided you a couple more sources besides the "talking head on tv", lemme know what else you want.
Hell I even recommended a documentary to watch for more info. Nor am I claiming this any one year hard proof, but rather every previous election since 2010.
|
|
|
|
Post by hatoflords on Nov 20, 2018 22:18:21 GMT -5
I mean, if MULTIPLE republicans are admitting it, and the gerrymandering is obvious on the maps, AND I provided you a couple more sources besides the "talking head on tv", lemme know what else you want. Hell I even recommended a documentary to watch for more info. Nor am I claiming this any one year hard proof, but rather every previous election since 2010. Accusations on this front go way back before 2010. Republicans have been consistently strong in state houses for much of the last 30 years. It's more than enough time to manipulate lines to advantage. I'm sure there's any number of good sources. I've seen some of them.
It's no excuse for lazy reporting, and reckless misrepresentation of information. If John Oliver can get a point across clean and clear in 15 minutes with time for a dozen jokes (or a showtune), MSNBC doesn't have an excuse for a 7 minute segment consisting of bad stats.
|
|
|
|
Post by Emblematic Wolfblade on Nov 20, 2018 22:58:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by hatoflords on Nov 20, 2018 23:28:26 GMT -5
My only point is that bad information is bad whether you like the point that’s being made or not. Even if the accusation is accurate if you make it in a bad way you end up leaving room for doubt. Especially with the current precarious situation of the electoral process now isn’t the time to be making bad claims in blatantly bad ways. All that does is muddy the water.
|
|
