very progressive of you to be against somebody evolving their views over the course of 4 years!
Let the drinking games begin
- Thread starter Sir Galahad
- Start date
Harris should scare the shit out of Trump. Watch for him to start attacking her on Twitter asap to try to bring her down.
I am not a great fan of her but she and Pete were the best on stage last night.
There were instances where Joe Biden basically looked like he was praying that the red light came on so that he could get out of answering the question. "Oh, my time's up?" is what he said several times. I don't think I have ever seen that in a debate. Usually the moderators have to do everything but turn off their mics to get them to stfu.
Everyone was there to tear him down, complete with Harris rolling out the good ole claims of racism. He basically just had to survive the night and make it through which he did.
He also didn’t make the claim for open borders or abolishing private insurance like the other radicals on the stage did
That is true. But he still had the appearance of someone looking for sanctuary with the red light.
so i disagree with you on the gerrymandering thing. first off its terrible and everyone thinks its bad except politicians of both parties. but i think the states need to decide for themselves. i am with you on the blood thing though.
From a 100% objective point of view, how can anyone honestly listen to Harris or Butti-G and not realize their intelligence level is 100X that of our current buffoon in office? I haven't watched a single second of these debates, nor do I care to, but watching 85 pick and choose sound blurbs for his own entertainment is hysterical considering the walking/talking/Tweeting, dunce he supports.
I know the arguments against, but I have to ask you, why do you personally think gerrymandering is bad?
that is not how the system is supposed to work. are all of them this bad. probably not, but this should not be allowed.
She doesn't scare him, but then again I don't think anything does. I'm sure that he sees her being a formidable candidate so you're probably right about him going after her on Twitter.
FTR, I know she isn't moderate by any measure but that isnt why she poses a threat to trump. She is just a superior debater to anyone who was on the stage in the last 2 nights and she checks all of the boxes for the democrat base. If it comes down to Trump and Harris in the general election he won't be able to fall back on "wrong" and "loser" with her in the debates, and if he tries, he will lose the undecideds. If he is able to be substantive and focus on issues then he wins easily but we haven't seen that out of him in an election.
Abolishing the entire private health care system in the US is a "blurb"?
God, you're a dishonest buffoon.
i didnt watch last night, but im streaming it on my phone right now. my god the first night was civil, this second night is nothing but people talking over each other. pretty terrible so far
The 2 states that basically got this to the SC are NC and Maryland, which are perfect examples of why it is bad NC is a state that is roughly 50/50 with voters voting Rep or Dem, but because of Gerrymandering, Democrats only had 3 congressional seats to Republicans having 10. That isnt Representative of the people of North Carolina, which defeats the whole purpose of having representatives in the first place. The situation in Maryland is the opposite. There was a long time Republican district that was split up, and the new district lines made it a Democratic seat. In both cases, politicans admitted that redrawing the lines was to help their party pick up more seats. It isnt democratic to have politicians drawing districts for no other reason than to help their side win more seats.
Last edited:
It reminds me of the Republican debates of 2015/16. Just a bunch of got damn noise with at least 15 people who have no business being on stage.
And SCOTUS said that they don't like the practice, they recognize these are cases of politics at its' worst, but ruled by saying that if they were to make a decision on this then they'd be perpetually tied up with similar cases that are constantly arguing around the margins on what is or isn't "partisan" redistricting or just "normal" redistricting.
They kicked it back to the lower courts and the States which is exactly where this belongs.
The kiddie table debates, yes, but everybody in the main debates all had a legitimate shot of winning. Just off the top of my head, they had Trump, Bush, Cruz, Christie, Paul, Kasich, Carson, and Fiorina. All of them had a legitimate path to win the nomination. The Democrats should have done the same format and just had Bernie, Biden, Harris, Buttigieg, Booker, and Warren in the main debate because quite honestly nobody else has a chance. Gabbard may have a shot now, but she could have come through the lower debate like Fiorina did.
Except the states are ran by the people making the rules. You dont see that as being a problem? In both the NC and Maryland cases, politicans from each state admitted they did it for partisan reasons. You can't have legitimate representative governments if the politicans in power rig things to keep themselves in power not caring one bit about what the actual citizens of the state want.
it is obvious that the Democrats best options for the future are Harris, Buttigieg, Warren, and Biden. Biden is only in this list because he is a DNC shill who will get the most push from the DNC, much like Hillary did in the last election. Both Harris and Buttigieg would absolutely embarrass Trump in a debate environment, though that doesn't really seem to matter much in today's political climate.
States have their own Constitutions and Supreme Courts for a reason. You could have 2 gerrymanderinig cases in 2 different states, both egregious, but both could be under totally different circumstances. That's why SCOTUS refused to make some blanket ruling since this literally spans across 50 different states, 50 different sets of laws, 50 different lower courts, etc
Kagans dissent was scathing and totally out of bounds. I was surprised to see that from her.
I still want someone to explain to me what makes gerrymandering so anti-democratic but the winner-take-all system for POTUS in 48 states be a-ok. I don't like how gerrymandering works, but if you are allocating congressional seats based on population then there really isn't an objective way to draw those lines. No matter what, there are going to be people who are disenfranchised. Winner-take-all just takes that to the extreme and disenfranchises multitudes more.
Buttigieg is well spoken but he's at least 8 years from being a legitimate presidential candidate. He should have ran for Congress first and gotten his feet wet. As of now, and I respect the guy so this isn't a dig, but the only reason he is being talked about is because he's openly gay.
That's basically why SCOTUS ruled as they did, and they said that verbatim. Every single redistricting could be pointed at by someone, or some group of people, as being potentially "partisan" in nature depending on where that end line is for that district. The lawsuits would be almost endless if everyone thought that their gripe with a redistricting had precedent at SCOTUS and would make it to SCOTUS for striking down.
Kagan can weep all she wants but the majority is right here.
Cruz finished second to trump, and Paul won presidential straw polls for 3 years before the primaries. Carson would have probably been the cult of personality candidate if Trump hadn't gotten in. Christie could have appealed to moderates and the war-hawks in the party if he had won the nomination. Trump was just the perfect storm at the right time, but that doesn't mean the other candidates didn't have a shot. I still think that Paul would have beaten Hillary in both the electoral college and in the popular polls.
there was no way in hell for those in bold
She just never struck me as someone who would write a dissent with so much vitriol. You could tell she was pissed that the Judicial wasn't willing to take more authority.
You’re being disingenuous when you say “l respect the guy but...” The ‘talk’ surrounding Buttigieg has been about his compelling interviews and his impressive resume’, not his sexual preference.
You could argue his sexuality gives him a certain viability given this inclusive era of the Democratic primaries. But being ‘openly gay’ isn’t why people are intrigued with his candidacy.
I'm saying that he would not have gained traction on a national level if he wasn't openly gay.
So all decided on geography. What about grouping people with like viewpoints together so that they can have their viewpoint represented? Why is geography any more valid than common values for determining a voting jurisdiction?
that is not how the system is supposed to work. are all of them this bad. probably not, but this should not be allowed.
Exactly. The elected reps draw up the rules for defining districts and then vote on them. After that, as long as they ply by the rules, I don’t have a problem with it. Especially since it works both ways. Having them make active decisions is better than some arbitrary shape on a map.
It works both ways if you look at it from a national perspective. It does not work both ways if you look at it within a state perspective . Democrats in North Carolina are vastly under represented in congress for no other reason than how the lines are drawn. In the 2018 midterms Republican canidates received 50.4%, Democrats received 48.35%. Yet for no other reason thann the ridiculous district lines that were drawn, Republicans control over 3/4s of the congressional seats, 10 out of 13. Can you honestly argue the make up of the governmet is Representative of the state?
i want a mix of people in a specific area. the most important issues will rise in priority. the us is a grouping of communities; states, counties, cities, districts. communities are generally based on geography, that is why it should be the most important.
but again, let the states decide what they deem to be important for elections, not the fed.
Exactly, and different areas have different concerns. An urban area is going to be concerned with different issues than a rural agricultral area, and vice versa. Gerrymandering districts that essentially splits up urban areas to dilute the vote, or divides small towns and puts their vote in with an urban district, basically takes away representation from those areas. And we know they do this type of thing intentionally, both the governor of Maryland and a NC state representative admitted it.
and not just that, if you are in a city, a highway, traintracks, or even a big street can have big changes in demographics and issues. so they need to be drawn accordingly.
again i still defer to let the states decide. they need to make the changes themselves.
Correct. And I think people look at this specifically from a blue-red standpoint, which is certainly part of it. But also just having local representation is just as big an issue, and some districts are drawn in such ridiculous ways that it isnt really local representation for a large portion of the district.
after watching the june 27th debate, here are my thoughts. harris and pete were the strongest. i think biden struggled and bernie didnt really say anything new. all the others were pretty much throw aways.
If the population was evenly distributed with that 50% to 48% split, then all 13 seats would be Republican. If that were the case, you’d be arguing for gerrymandering to ensure some Democrat representation so the 48% are represented.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
OT: War in Israel 🇮🇱, Iran launches attack on Israel- Latest: San Diego Knight
-
-
-
