No one believes the fucking news anymore

Rocinante wrote:

steveschneider wrote:

You are making an assumption.

Was the RNC more secure? Possible, then if so how? This info should be shared across the board to make our government more secure.

or the other question is

Did hackers choose to not hack the RNC? If so why?

They did. They were likely successful to some degree. They likely have information on the R's that will come out when they are fully in power to further spread the chaos. Trump is probably not an asset to the Russians and as soon as he is not useful, they will dump what they have on him and the RNC. Probably through Wikileaks which will serve two purposes: destabilize further the U.S. and throw public opinion off the trail that Wikileaks is a Russian intel front. Which it is.

The media already buried Wikileaks as it pertains to the DNC, why would Wikileaks all of a sudden become some great national story? The media has done its best to bury and discredit them.

Or are you saying the media and the left will do a 180 if its the other side under the gun?

This is why people dont trust the news or respect it anymore...the fact CNN even gives a guy like this a headline article is pathetic and just another reason why they lost.

When people say CNN, NYT, etc are worse than Fox...its because its true and not even close. Find me a Fox op ed thats even remotely close to this piece of shit racist article.

But think for a second...if you only got your news from NBC and CNN How complete delusional you must be of the reality that surrounds you.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/14/opinions/trump-kanye-west-jim-brown-joseph-opinion/index.html

Rocinante wrote:

steveschneider wrote:

You are making an assumption.

Was the RNC more secure? Possible, then if so how? This info should be shared across the board to make our government more secure.

or the other question is

Did hackers choose to not hack the RNC? If so why?

They did. They were likely successful to some degree. They likely have information on the R's that will come out when they are fully in power to further spread the chaos. Trump is probably not an asset to the Russians and as soon as he is not useful, they will dump what they have on him and the RNC. Probably through Wikileaks which will serve two purposes: destabilize further the U.S. and throw public opinion off the trail that Wikileaks is a Russian intel front. Which it is.

Yeah, 'credible sources' keep confirming the RNC was hacked.

Possible someone inside the RNC with a conscience is leaking this? Just a wild guess, take it for what its worth but I buy it they were hacked.

If they weren't, then there's two questions: is it because they were more secure, if not then why weren't they hacked?

The_Dude wrote:This is why people dont trust the news or respect it anymore...the fact CNN even gives a guy like this a headline article is pathetic and just another reason why they lost.

When people say CNN, NYT, etc are worse than Fox...its because its true and not even close. Find me a Fox op ed thats even remotely close to this piece of shit racist article.

But think for a second...if you only got your news from NBC and CNN How complete delusional you must be of the reality that surrounds you.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/14/opinions/trump-kanye-west-jim-brown-joseph-opinion/index.html

How many times do I have to tell you that CNN is garbage? Don't lump all media in with CNN.

http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/jay-rosen-on-the-possible-crisis-for-the-press-833772611982

Good thoughtful discussion on covering Trump and critiques of the press.

Ed Frank ‏@frankstrategies 3h3 hours ago
Ed Frank Retweeted PolitiFact
In '08 @Politifact rated “You can keep your plan” as “True." Five years later they rated it “Lie of the Year.” Now they can ban stuff on FB?

PolitiFactVerified account ‏@PolitiFact
We're teaming up with Facebook to fight against fake news http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/dec/15/fighting-back-against-fake-news/ …

Thank God that potshot is devoid of context or else it might not have so much win, Goose.

LooseGoose wrote:Ed Frank ‏@frankstrategies  3h3 hours ago
Ed Frank Retweeted PolitiFact
In '08 @Politifact rated “You can keep your plan” as “True." Five years later they rated it “Lie of the Year.” Now they can ban stuff on FB?

PolitiFactVerified account ‏@PolitiFact
We're teaming up with Facebook to fight against fake news http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/dec/15/fighting-back-against-fake-news/ …

If interested

https://twitter.com/jayrosen_nyu/status/809499679272607744

Jay Rosen raises some questions around this move by FB.

Rocinante wrote:This is dumb. X, you're talking about what "The government" tells us. But the press is not the government.

I realize this. But it all depends on who you ask.

steveschneider wrote:

The_Dude wrote:This is why people dont trust the news or respect it anymore...the fact CNN even gives a guy like this a headline article is pathetic and just another reason why they lost.

When people say CNN, NYT, etc are worse than Fox...its because its true and not even close. Find me a Fox op ed thats even remotely close to this piece of shit racist article.

But think for a second...if you only got your news from NBC and CNN How complete delusional you must be of the reality that surrounds you.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/14/opinions/trump-kanye-west-jim-brown-joseph-opinion/index.html

How many times do I have to tell you that CNN is garbage? Don't lump all media in with CNN.

They're the epitome of horribly biased media. But they still play a primary role in delegating information given to them by the government not to mention play a role choosing winners and losers in our elections (see: the debates). It's an important piece of this puzzle... just as the bs coming out of Fox News or Breitbart (this one to a much lesser degree) is.

xsanguine wrote:

steveschneider wrote:

How many times do I have to tell you that CNN is garbage? Don't lump all media in with CNN.  

They're the epitome of horribly biased media. But they still play a primary role in delegating information given to them by the government not to mention play a role choosing winners and losers in our elections (see: the debates). It's an important piece of this puzzle... just as the bs coming out of Fox News or Breitbart (this one to a much lesser degree) is.

I think all three cable networks are incredibly flawed.

I love PBS News Hour. yes, our taxes pay for it but they have leading conservatives on there and leading liberals. I know this is cliche but I feel like it's the most fair and balanced tv news program. You will hear stuff on that show that you disagree with, I really think that's the best thing for all of us in post-truth America 2016.

Also, we lost Gwen Eiffel to this miserable year 2016. RIP.

The_Dude wrote:

Rocinante wrote:

They did. They were likely successful to some degree. They likely have information on the R's that will come out when they are fully in power to further spread the chaos. Trump is probably not an asset to the Russians and as soon as he is not useful, they will dump what they have on him and the RNC. Probably through Wikileaks which will serve two purposes: destabilize further the U.S. and throw public opinion off the trail that Wikileaks is a Russian intel front. Which it is.

Unlike you, Im all for exposing politicians for their hidden bigotry, private vs public opinions, their gaming of undermining American democracy, how they collude with the media, etc. All of these things were proven true through the DNC leaks.

Id love to see RNC leaks. I want to know the truth for people that we give great power to. The truth and facts scare the left though.

It's good that you want transparency. How do you feel about Trump's lack of press conferences? From what I've read there's the Bob Schieffer law where each administration gets more secretive to the press, and the current press feels like the Trump administration has gone far beyond what previous administrations allowed in terms of access.

Trump made him self super accessible early in his campaign, now he's not very accessible at all. I feel like our founding fathers would want our press to grill him on his policy.

I forgot one thing, Roc. Who do you think is giving the media their information?

steveschneider wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

They're the epitome of horribly biased media. But they still play a primary role in delegating information given to them by the government not to mention play a role choosing winners and losers in our elections (see: the debates). It's an important piece of this puzzle... just as the bs coming out of Fox News or Breitbart (this one to a much lesser degree) is.

I think all three cable networks are incredibly flawed.

I love PBS News Hour. yes, our taxes pay for it but they have leading conservatives on there and leading liberals. I know this is cliche but I feel like it's the most fair and balanced tv news program. You will hear stuff on that show that you disagree with, I really think that's the best thing for all of us in post-truth America 2016.

Also, we lost Gwen Eiffel to this miserable year 2016. RIP.

I've been reading and listening to NPR a lot. I dunno... seems like the rest. I'll have to check out PBS.

Regardless, I guess my point was no matter what we're just trusting what someone else is telling us. After witnessing it first hand and the half dozen or so situations the past year everyone has seen when a big network has to apologize for attempting to completely change the context of a situation, I just don't see how I could trust any news report (video or not) of any situation.

xsanguine wrote:

Rocinante wrote:This is dumb. X, you're talking about what "The government" tells us. But the press is not the government.

I realize this. But it all depends on who you ask.

I had a dumb ass epiphany the other day. This mistrust of the press reminds me a bit of the OJ Simpson Trial. If we ignore the factors that race played in the trial his legal defense mostly played up conspiracy.

I don't think any of us would deny that OJ was guilty.

The entire trial his defense hammered away at credible experts, facts and created doubt in the jury where they mistrusted everything.

I feel like that's where we are at. We are a culture of mistrust. I feel like it's overall toxic for our democracy that we don't have a press we can trust. I feel like it's a two way street though. The press are elitists and they've made mistakes they haven't learned from and two we have a culture in our country that has a blind mistrust of all things labeled the press.

Jay Rosen NYU prof is my favorite voice on current journalism. If you are on twitter his feed is a good one to keep an eye on.

steveschneider wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

I realize this. But it all depends on who you ask.

I had a dumb ass epiphany the other day. This mistrust of the press reminds me a bit of the OJ Simpson Trial. If we ignore the factors that race played in the trial his legal defense mostly played up conspiracy.

I don't think any of us would deny that OJ was guilty.

The entire trial his defense hammered away at credible experts, facts and created doubt in the jury where they mistrusted everything.

I feel like that's where we are at. We are a culture of mistrust. I feel like it's overall toxic for our democracy that we don't have a press we can trust. I feel like it's a two way street thought. The press are elitists and they've made mistakes they haven't learned from and two we have a culture in our country that has a blind mistrust of all things labeled the press.

Jay Rosen NYU prof is my favorite voice on current journalism. If you are on twitter his feed is a good one to keep an eye on.

That's a good way of putting it. But I feel one component in that analogy is missing and that is the fuckery that goes on. I don't feel it is possible to police, either. Maybe catch one here and there.

I need to up my podcast game. I'll see if Jay does any.

I hate to seem fatalistic but the free press was a fairly recent phenomena, maybe this is inevitable no matter what the system.

Or...

Maybe we've never had a free press. Maybe this type of shit has always gone on. The internet is a pretty powerful tool in exposing these things and that might be the new variable that exposes what's always happened. Maybe that's all that it is... perhaps they've always fabricated stories and cozied up to government power and tried to decide candidates, etc.

I sound like Alex Jones. But what else am I supposed to think?

I'm struggling to envision a motivation for finding trust in what a stranger tells me is going on. I'm just jaded.

xsanguine wrote:I hate to seem fatalistic but the free press was a fairly recent phenomena, maybe this is inevitable no matter what the system.

Or...

Maybe we've never had a free press. Maybe this type of shit has always gone on. The internet is a pretty powerful tool in exposing these things and that might be the new variable that exposes what's always happened. Maybe that's all that it is... perhaps they've always fabricated stories and cozied up to government power and tried to decide candidates, etc.

I sound like Alex Jones. But what else am I supposed to think?

I'm struggling to envision a motivation for finding trust in what a stranger tells me is going on. I'm just jaded.

I don't know where it went all wrong with objective journalists becoming activists now and openly rooting for certain news.

Maybe once competition got so high and the fight for ratings became real?

Damn Steve, you are really into the news

Herbie Green wrote:Damn Steve, you are really into the news

Yeah, i admit I've become a news junky. I'm absolutely horrified by Trump and Trumpism. But oh well, if a reality tv star leads us towards the collapse of our country or the apocalypse it will at least be interesting.

Plus it has me reading. Before I lived my life out like beavis and butthead. Just watching the tube, scratching my balls and drinking beer. I really want to get back to that, I do miss those days.

Don't your realize a ton of people were equally scared of Hilary? And despite the media constantly attacking trump he was elected.

He's been in public life for decades. You know he's not dangerous. He's not a religious boob or political ideologue. That pretty much makes him less dangerous than any POTUS in recent memory. He's practical and wants to get things built and get things done.

What exactly are you afraid of?

steveschneider wrote:

Herbie Green wrote:Damn Steve, you are really into the news

Yeah, i admit I've become a news junky. I'm absolutely horrified by Trump and Trumpism. But oh well, if a reality tv star leads us towards the collapse of our country or the apocalypse it will at least be interesting.

Yeah I have never had any interest in politics or the news myself but now I feel this duty to stay on top of this.
This thread is fascinating as events have unfolded because I am so frustrated trying to figure out what the news really is.

The_Dude wrote:Don't your realize a ton of people were equally scared of Hilary? And despite the media constantly attacking trump he was elected.

He's been in public life for decades. You know he's not dangerous. He's not a religious boob or political ideologue. That pretty much makes him less dangerous than any POTUS in recent memory. He's practical and wants to get things built and get things done.

What exactly are you afraid of?

The radical right that are in his ear. He's able to be influenced really and I think sharia type Christians are taking advantage of that.

The_Dude wrote:Don't your realize a ton of people were equally scared of Hilary? And despite the media constantly attacking trump he was elected.

He's been in public life for decades. You know he's not dangerous. He's not a religious boob or political ideologue. That pretty much makes him less dangerous than any POTUS in recent memory. He's practical and wants to get things built and get things done.

What exactly are you afraid of?

People on here do not tolerate Republican voters or their opinions. It was made clear earlier tonight that I need to just shut up and not speak my mind.

That shows you they are willing to tolerate when their candidate wins, but when things don't go their way, they stereotype and bash others.

While you were gone, I was asked why I voted the way I did. When I presented my opinions, I got destroyed for it. People ASKED and I ANSWERED, yet it wasn't good enough. It felt like someone put a rug over a hole in the floor and I walked right in.

The_Dude wrote:Don't your realize a ton of people were equally scared of Hilary? And despite the media constantly attacking trump he was elected.

He's been in public life for decades. You know he's not dangerous. He's not a religious boob or political ideologue. That pretty much makes him less dangerous than any POTUS in recent memory. He's practical and wants to get things built and get things done.

What exactly are you afraid of?

Well, for one thing, our next commander in chief seems quite enamored of our nuclear arsenal. But perhaps he's not speaking literally when he asks "if we have nukes, why can't we use them?"

For crisssake DR don't confuse a willingness to disagree with corresponding strong opinions with lack of tolerance.

Except for a few folks who keep getting shown the door for repeatedly crossing the few lines that are here this is about as an open and opinionated place there is.

I have thought Trump and his son-in-law have been doing finance deals with Russian oligarchs for a long time which is a major reason we will never see any tax returns for years prior to his first year in office while his business is shifted to his sons and things are sanitized.

Trump has been a very private person in public life. We will never see tax returns and I'm reasonably sure he'll never come close to putting his holdings in a blind trust.

I question why his 3 oldest children and son-in-law were invited to the meeting with the tech leadership.

He's going to be here for at least 4 years and I fear we are going to see a kleptocracy. What's worse is if Trump would not fnish his term he'd be replaced by Pence and we'd be headed for a theocracy.

I won't quit posting here DR. I don't agree with a lot of things you post and I don't expect you to stop either.

Death Roe wrote:

The_Dude wrote:Don't your realize a ton of people were equally scared of Hilary? And despite the media constantly attacking trump he was elected.

He's been in public life for decades. You know he's not dangerous. He's not a religious boob or political ideologue. That pretty much makes him less dangerous than any POTUS in recent memory. He's practical and wants to get things built and get things done.

What exactly are you afraid of?

People on here do not tolerate Republican voters or their opinions. It was made clear earlier tonight that I need to just shut up and not speak my mind.

That shows you they are willing to tolerate when their candidate wins, but when things don't go their way, they stereotype and bash others.

While you were gone, I was asked why I voted the way I did. When I presented my opinions, I got destroyed for it. People ASKED and I ANSWERED, yet it wasn't good enough. It felt like someone put a rug over a hole in the floor and I walked right in.

Lol, 85% of your posts are personal attacks.

Instilling distrust in what is now branded as mainstream media like NYT, WAPost, Boston Globe, Chicago Trib, LA Times has its political benefits.

It boosts viewership and readership to other sources that are tailored for specific demo's, develops people who decide nothing is to be believed and makes others decide to avoid politics and government as much as possible

It all plays into what the late Paul Weyrich, a founder of The Heritage Foundation and conservative activist said about winning elections and getting the right people to the polls.
"I don't want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of the people. They never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down."

Its a different game for the GOP.  We saw them wait out nominating a SCOTUS justice after Justice Scalia died in Feb '16 and when pollng was indicating a Clinton win there was serious discussion on why the country could have a SCOTUS of less than 9 or 8 or even less.

Most here aren't paying attention but in NC after a very close gubernatorial race where the Democratic candidate  was finally declared the winner, the GOP controlled legislature has called an emergency session to strip away a lot of the incoming governor's powers. That would include changing 100's of jobs to be protected as civil servants rather than being political appointees who got their jobs from the outgoing GOP governor. They also want to expand the state supreme court from its current 7 members to 9 after the candidate they supported lost giving a 4-3 majority they objected to.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/14/us/politics/north-carolina-governor-roy-cooper-republicans.html?_r=0

GRR Spartan wrote:Instilling distrust in what is now branded as mainstream media like NYT, WAPost, Boston Globe, Chicago Trib, LA Times has its political benefits.

It boosts viewership and readership to other sources that are tailored for specific demo's, develops people who decide nothing is to be believed and makes others decide to avoid politics and government as much as possible

It all plays into what the late Paul Weyrich, a founder of The Heritage Foundation and conservative activist said about winning elections and getting the right people to the polls.
"I don't want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of the people. They never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down."

Its a different game for the GOP.  We saw them wait out nominating a SCOTUS justice after Justice Scalia died in Feb '16 and when pollng was indicating a Clinton win there was serious discussion on why the country could have a SCOTUS of less than 9 or 8 or even less.

Most here aren't paying attention but in NC after a very close gubernatorial race where the Democratic candidate  was finally declared the winner, the GOP controlled legislature has called an emergency session to strip away a lot of the incoming governor's powers. That would include changing 100's of jobs to be protected as civil servants rather than being political appointees who got their jobs from the outgoing GOP governor. They also want to expand the state supreme court from its current 7 members to 9 after the candidate they supported lost giving a 4-3 majority they objected to.

Politics is a contact sport. Both parties have done that shit for centuries. The Dems are doing it right now on the Federal level. Funny thing is that I don't see the NYT or you whining over that.

Why have you beome so antagonistic Goose.

I am stating opinion with some facts.  The GOP has played the long game to get to this point and now we see in places like NC they are willing to pass major changes in the power of the executive branch to retain power before an opposing party's candidate takes office.

That's even extreme compared to MI where the GOP is now regularly attaching legislation to spending bills to stop any repeal by petitions.

I played nice with the faux news getting legs and you agreed.  
Why back off now?

GRR Spartan wrote:Why have you beome so antagonistic Goose.

I am stating opinion with some facts.  The GOP has played the long game to get to this point and now we see in places like NC they are willing to pass major changes in the power of the executive branch to retain power before an opposing party's candidate takes office.

That's even extreme compared to MI where the GOP is now regularly attaching legislation to spending bills to stop any repeal by petitions.

I played nice with the faux news getting legs and you agreed.  
Why back off now?

Is it really antagonistic to point out that this happens from both parties at all levels? It's not new. People have been trying to embed political appointees into the civil service for well over 100 years. The Obama administration is putting sweeping new rules on the books right now. They're not getting much coverage now but watch what happens if the Trump administration overturns them.

I agree with the "long game" statement, the R's are playing it, the D's are playing it....I just don't get why anyone would act like it was new or why they would expect anything else.

Well golly gee look at the story that shows up in my twitter feed.....looks like this is "Remember '87" rather than "Remember the Alamo".

Special session’s testy first day may preview future battles

“We’ve always known that the North Carolina legislature is the dominant branch, more dominant than a lot of other states in the country,” said John Dinan, a professor of politics and international affairs at Wake Forest University. “We’re getting a reminder of that.”

David McLennan, visiting professor of political science at Meredith College, said what happened Wednesday is reminiscent of 1987, when Democrats controlled the General Assembly and welcomed new GOP Gov. Jim Martin.

“In 1987, when Martin was in power, the Democrats took some powers away from the governor,” McLennan said. “It really has a longstanding tradition in North Carolina, this fight.”

LooseGoose wrote:

GRR Spartan wrote:Why have you beome so antagonistic Goose.

I am stating opinion with some facts.  The GOP has played the long game to get to this point and now we see in places like NC they are willing to pass major changes in the power of the executive branch to retain power before an opposing party's candidate takes office.

That's even extreme compared to MI where the GOP is now regularly attaching legislation to spending bills to stop any repeal by petitions.

I played nice with the faux news getting legs and you agreed.  
Why back off now?

Is it really antagonistic to point out that this happens from both parties at all levels?    It's not new.   People have been trying to embed political appointees into the civil service for well over 100 years.  The Obama administration is putting sweeping new rules on the books right now.   They're not getting much coverage now but watch what happens if the Trump administration overturns them.

I agree with the "long game" statement, the R's are playing it, the D's are playing it....I just don't get why anyone would act like it was new or why they would expect anything else.

I agree that both sides are playing the game, but it seems like Republicans are playing a dirtier game. Maybe I don't frequent enough conservative news sources but I've never seen an example of legislation being forced through at the last minute in such an egregiously corrupt manner by Democrats.

California for example is the Democratic hub of the entire country, and they passed legislation that requires all bills be posted online for the public at least 72 hours prior to a vote.

Democrat controlled states are also not guilty of horribly biased gerrymandering activities to preserve their power. Only one state that is Democrat controlled, Illinois, is guilty of gerrymandering to their advantage. On the other hand 6 Republican controlled states have gerrymandered their way to a net advantage of 11 gerrymandered seats in the house. Now that's not a massive insurmountable advantage in the House of Reps on a federal level, however it does drastically alter the State Government and NC is the clearest example of the effect this has on State legislation.

I can find the source for the above information if needed but it's easily found on google as the study eventually led to a supreme court ruling that requires NC to redo their districts.

Edit: I see you already posted an example of Dems doing this in NC from 1987, will have to look into that.

I am looking at what you posted previously about fewer members to the SCOTUS and drawing a corollary to what the GOP is doing in 2016.

What side of the street are we supposed to walk?
The ancient history forget about it or it hapened 29 years ago.

GRR Spartan wrote:Democrat controlled states are also not guilty of horribly biased gerrymandering activities to preserve their power. Only one state that is Democrat controlled, Illinois, is guilty of gerrymandering to their advantage.

Maryland isn't gerrymandered? What reality do you live in? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland's_congressional_districts

The problem with finding gerrymandering favoring the Dems is finding States they control enough to do that. Once upon a time back 30-40 years ago then they DID control more States they gerrymandered more. Just as the R's now have a 3-4% advantage they did too. One of the main reasons they controlled the US House for 40 years from 1954-1994 while losing Presidential elections. Many R's haven't forgotten those days though I know the Press and the Dems want to.

AnomanderRake wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

Is it really antagonistic to point out that this happens from both parties at all levels?    It's not new.   People have been trying to embed political appointees into the civil service for well over 100 years.  The Obama administration is putting sweeping new rules on the books right now.   They're not getting much coverage now but watch what happens if the Trump administration overturns them.

I agree with the "long game" statement, the R's are playing it, the D's are playing it....I just don't get why anyone would act like it was new or why they would expect anything else.

I agree that both sides are playing the game, but it seems like Republicans are playing a dirtier game. Maybe I don't frequent enough conservative news sources but I've never seen an example of legislation being forced through at the last minute in such an egregiously corrupt manner by Democrats.

California for example is the Democratic hub of the entire country, and they passed legislation that requires all bills be posted online for the public at least 72 hours prior to a vote.

Democrat controlled states are also not guilty of horribly biased gerrymandering activities to preserve their power. Only one state that is Democrat controlled, Illinois, is guilty of gerrymandering to their advantage. On the other hand 6 Republican controlled states have gerrymandered their way to a net advantage of 11 gerrymandered seats in the house. Now that's not a massive insurmountable advantage in the House of Reps on a federal level, however it does drastically alter the State Government and NC is the clearest example of the effect this has on State legislation.

I can find the source for the above information if needed but it's easily found on google as the study eventually led to a supreme court ruling that requires NC to redo their districts.

Edit: I see you already posted an example of Dems doing this in NC from 1987, will have to look into that.

Really? Harry Reid was the kind of snake oil legislation and Obama passed Obamacare under extremely, extremely dirty circumstances.

If you cant admit both sides use cheap tactics, then you just refuse to accept reality.

The_Dude wrote:

AnomanderRake wrote:

I agree that both sides are playing the game, but it seems like Republicans are playing a dirtier game. Maybe I don't frequent enough conservative news sources but I've never seen an example of legislation being forced through at the last minute in such an egregiously corrupt manner by Democrats.

California for example is the Democratic hub of the entire country, and they passed legislation that requires all bills be posted online for the public at least 72 hours prior to a vote.

Democrat controlled states are also not guilty of horribly biased gerrymandering activities to preserve their power. Only one state that is Democrat controlled, Illinois, is guilty of gerrymandering to their advantage. On the other hand 6 Republican controlled states have gerrymandered their way to a net advantage of 11 gerrymandered seats in the house. Now that's not a massive insurmountable advantage in the House of Reps on a federal level, however it does drastically alter the State Government and NC is the clearest example of the effect this has on State legislation.

I can find the source for the above information if needed but it's easily found on google as the study eventually led to a supreme court ruling that requires NC to redo their districts.

Edit: I see you already posted an example of Dems doing this in NC from 1987, will have to look into that.

Really? Harry Reid was the kind of snake oil legislation and Obama passed Obamacare under extremely, extremely dirty circumstances.

If you cant admit both sides use cheap tactics, then you just refuse to accept reality.

"We're going to have to pass it to find out what's in it". One of the most ridiculous political statements of all time!

CheesySpartan wrote:

The_Dude wrote:

Really? Harry Reid was the kind of snake oil legislation and Obama passed Obamacare under extremely, extremely dirty circumstances.

If you cant admit both sides use cheap tactics, then you just refuse to accept reality.

"We're going to have to pass it to find out what's in it". One of the most ridiculous political statements of all time!

And the irony is Obamacare helped elect Trump.

The media and press don't hold Democrats accountable. If a republican said that and tried to pass a massive bill under cloak and dagger circumstances the press would run front page stories for weeks ripping them. Instead they support it because it fits their personal beliefs.

LooseGoose wrote:

GRR Spartan wrote:Democrat controlled states are also not guilty of horribly biased gerrymandering activities to preserve their power. Only one state that is Democrat controlled, Illinois, is guilty of gerrymandering to their advantage.

Maryland isn't gerrymandered? What reality do you live in? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland's_congressional_districts

The problem with finding gerrymandering favoring the Dems is finding States they control enough to do that. Once upon a time back 30-40 years ago then they DID control more States they gerrymandered more. Just as the R's now have a 3-4% advantage they did too. One of the main reasons they controlled the US House for 40 years from 1954-1994 while losing Presidential elections. Many R's haven't forgotten those days though I know the Press and the Dems want to.

I'm not really familiar with the Gerrymandering activities of the parties before my lifetime, just commenting on what I have seen during my years.

Regarding Maryland, it seems to be Gerrymandered to favor 1 additional seat in the house for Democrats. No that's not fair, but it also isn't exactly egregious like what happened in NC.

In any case, Gerrymandering needs to be done away with completely but it will never happen because the party it benefits (the party in power) are the ones that would have to vote to get rid of it.