Trump is a sociopath and will further ruin this country

TheReal_LWS wrote:

steveschneider wrote:

My label was at least accurate, yours is just an ad hominem attack. Because your positions are weak it is all you have.

Ah, so you're a liar. That is probably the most accurate label there is for you.

Rocinante wrote:Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Ohio have been working on legislation tying congressional districts to the allocation of electoral college votes.  The two that have it already are Nebraska and Maine.

Here's how gerrymandering CAN effect the E.C. even in "winner take all" states: Redistricting helps the party in power make changes in the voting laws of the state, allows the party in power to allocate resources to properly execute the statewide vote and allows them to determine how votes will be counted.  Example - in the recent Wisconsin recount a hand recount was requested and denied.  The votes were rerun through the same machines that were being questioned, also no access was given to those machines or their software.  This happened to be an R controlled state, but it could happen anywhere.  I'm sure R's feel marginalized in Washington, or Oregon for instance.  The numbers are set, yes, but the way the allocation of those numbers are decided is affected by redistricting.  Equitable districts, not set by political affiliation would help insure fairer elections, both state and federal.

TheReal_LWS wrote:

Rocinante wrote:Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Ohio have been working on legislation tying congressional districts to the allocation of electoral college votes.  The two that have it already are Nebraska and Maine.

Here's how gerrymandering CAN effect the E.C. even in "winner take all" states: Redistricting helps the party in power make changes in the voting laws of the state, allows the party in power to allocate resources to properly execute the statewide vote and allows them to determine how votes will be counted.  Example - in the recent Wisconsin recount a hand recount was requested and denied.  The votes were rerun through the same machines that were being questioned, also no access was given to those machines or their software.  This happened to be an R controlled state, but it could happen anywhere.  I'm sure R's feel marginalized in Washington, or Oregon for instance.  The numbers are set, yes, but the way the allocation of those numbers are decided is affected by redistricting.  Equitable districts, not set by political affiliation would help insure fairer elections, both state and federal.

That is an edge case at best. Also, we'll see how many of those 4 states actually pass those bills.

LooseGoose wrote:

WhiteBoyHatcher wrote:Loose if you can't objectively admit that there are serious concerns with the way Mr. President Elect is conducting himself prior to his inauguration just give the game up. You can't legitimately pretend to lend objective observations to this conversation any longer. You know you're my boy. But come on.

 (And yes here comes the partisan shit) Harry Reid comes to the Congress pisspoor and somehow retires while living at the Ritz Carlton and being worth millions.   And HE sits back and shoots darts at Trump for being crooked and gets away with it.  Where the hell did all your $$ come from Harry? Jesus Christ.

Has the conduct of the Democrats worried you?   They're doing everything they can to undermine the election and de-legitimize him.
I hope they enjoy themselves because just like getting rid of the filibuster I'll bet it bites them in the ass down the road.

Rocinante wrote:

TheReal_LWS wrote:

That is an edge case at best. Also, we'll see how many of those 4 states actually pass those bills.

Nice to see you actually reading my arguments for a change.  Edge cases, which I assume you mean have little effect, have a hugely important affect in the last few election cycles.  The country is so ideological and evenly split recently that little things matter a lot.  If less than 50K votes make a difference in a state, can you really say these things aren't important?

TheReal_LWS wrote:

Rocinante wrote:

Nice to see you actually reading my arguments for a change.  Edge cases, which I assume you mean have little effect, have a hugely important affect in the last few election cycles.  The country is so ideological and evenly split recently that little things matter a lot.  If less than 50K votes make a difference in a state, can you really say these things aren't important?

I just don't see this swinging an election, Roc. Yes it does have a small impact, and could flip a state or two. But I have no doubt that Trump reached 306 electoral votes in this election for reasons that didn't include what we are discussing here.

And 50K votes is still a lot. 10k votes is probably more than a recount would ever overturn. In 2000, the 1200 or 600 votes (whatever it ended up being) in Florida is much more likely to fall into this type of a scenario.

And thanks for responding with only a mild personal attack!  

WhiteBoyHatcher wrote:I'm not butt hurt at all LWS. I'm pretty objective and apolitical. I did not really like Clinton.

Cameron wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:
 (And yes here comes the partisan shit) Harry Reid comes to the Congress pisspoor and somehow retires while living at the Ritz Carlton and being worth millions.   And HE sits back and shoots darts at Trump for being crooked and gets away with it.  Where the hell did all your $$ come from Harry? Jesus Christ.

Has the conduct of the Democrats worried you?   They're doing everything they can to undermine the election and de-legitimize him.
I hope they enjoy themselves because just like getting rid of the filibuster I'll bet it bites them in the ass down the road.

For fuck's sake. Goose. Nothing to do with the topic at hand. Blanch/Lebowski level shit right there, and you're better than that.

Well, actually, you're not better than that. But you could be if you'd get your head out of your ass.

The_Dude wrote:

Cameron wrote:
For fuck's sake. Goose. Nothing to do with the topic at hand. Blanch/Lebowski level shit right there, and you're better than that.

Well, actually, you're not better than that. But you could be if you'd get your head out of your ass.

Actually it does.

Partisans from the left saying Trump is (fill in blank) while supporting Obama and Hilary, both who are sociopathic.

The left constantly hurling insults and saying the works will end if ______ gets elected doesnt work anymore. They ran an entire presidential campaign on it and lost decisively.

Rocinante wrote:

TheReal_LWS wrote:

I just don't see this swinging an election, Roc. Yes it does have a small impact, and could flip a state or two. But I have no doubt that Trump reached 306 electoral votes in this election for reasons that didn't include what we are discussing here.

And 50K votes is still a lot. 10k votes is probably more than a recount would ever overturn. In 2000, the 1200 or 600 votes (whatever it ended up being) in Florida is much more likely to fall into this type of a scenario.

And thanks for responding with only a mild personal attack!  

Okay, well, if these changes wouldn't make a difference, then we should push for them to be passed. perhaps we find out, with more logical, less partisan redistricting, that we have more in common with our neighbors than we think and the ideological splits become less pronounced. It would certainly help tone down the messages of politicians trying to inflame passions in their perfectly engineered districts.

The_Dude wrote:

Cameron wrote:
For fuck's sake. Goose. Nothing to do with the topic at hand. Blanch/Lebowski level shit right there, and you're better than that.

Well, actually, you're not better than that. But you could be if you'd get your head out of your ass.

Actually it does.

Partisans from the left saying Trump is (fill in blank) while supporting Obama and Hilary, both who are sociopathic.

The left constantly hurling insults and saying the works will end if ______ gets elected doesnt work anymore. They ran an entire presidential campaign on it and lost decisively.

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

This popular vote shit bothers me a LOT because it's so stupid and unfortunately riles up low information voters.  Let's get real people - we beat Penn State in time of possession - should we overturn the result of that game?   In the 1960 World Series the Yankees outscored the Pirates 55-27 and lost.   Should we re-write that history?   NO.   Because everyone was playing by the rules of the game that were in place.   Hills won the popular vote in CA by 4.3M where the R's had no Senate candidate on the ballot and essentially didn't contest the election - she lost the rest of the country.  So STFU with that stuff, it's meaningless.

If you want to be taken seriously you probably shouldn't lie.

Rocinante wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

Apples and Oranges Roc - you know that. Gerrymandering has zero to do with the Presidential election.

I see people mention Gerrymandering in regard to the Senate too at times and just shake my head. Random usage of buzzwords with no knowledge behind them.

You're going to have to explain that one chief. Reappointment, redistricting, and electors are all very interconnected. The formula for how many electors a state gets is set by the party in power. In addition, there's a few states currently pushing through legislation that will make them MORE interconnected (Elector's votes directly tied to districts instead of the statewide vote). See, the problem is, you have to look past one move into the future and think about the long game, like clearly politicians do. Right now the right does it better than the left. So let's play. You tell me why they have nothing to do with the election and I'll tell you why they do.

LooseGoose wrote:

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

If you want to be taken seriously you probably shouldn't lie.

Where am I lying?

It's simple math my friend.

National popular vote - presidential results  Hills won by 2,833,220 votes.

California popular vote - california results  Hills won CA by 3,446,281.

So simple math tells you she lost the rest of the country by 613,061 votes.   (And yes I see I had the CA result transposed to 4.3 not 3.4.   The result remains unchanged and my statement is still truthful)

Rocinante wrote:Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Ohio have been working on legislation tying congressional districts to the allocation of electoral college votes.  The two that have it already are Nebraska and Maine.

Here's how gerrymandering CAN effect the E.C. even in "winner take all" states: Redistricting helps the party in power make changes in the voting laws of the state, allows the party in power to allocate resources to properly execute the statewide vote and allows them to determine how votes will be counted.  Example - in the recent Wisconsin recount a hand recount was requested and denied.  The votes were rerun through the same machines that were being questioned, also no access was given to those machines or their software.  This happened to be an R controlled state, but it could happen anywhere.  I'm sure R's feel marginalized in Washington, or Oregon for instance.  The numbers are set, yes, but the way the allocation of those numbers are decided is affected by redistricting.  Equitable districts, not set by political affiliation would help insure fairer elections, both state and federal.

LooseGoose wrote:

Rocinante wrote:Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Ohio have been working on legislation tying congressional districts to the allocation of electoral college votes.  The two that have it already are Nebraska and Maine.

Here's how gerrymandering CAN effect the E.C. even in "winner take all" states: Redistricting helps the party in power make changes in the voting laws of the state, allows the party in power to allocate resources to properly execute the statewide vote and allows them to determine how votes will be counted.  Example - in the recent Wisconsin recount a hand recount was requested and denied.  The votes were rerun through the same machines that were being questioned, also no access was given to those machines or their software.  This happened to be an R controlled state, but it could happen anywhere.  I'm sure R's feel marginalized in Washington, or Oregon for instance.  The numbers are set, yes, but the way the allocation of those numbers are decided is affected by redistricting.  Equitable districts, not set by political affiliation would help insure fairer elections, both state and federal.

My preference would be computer drawn districts keeping as many geographical areas intact as possible.    Counties, cities, townships, etc.   In order to do that you would probably have to repeal parts of the VRA and that's not happening any time soon.

Why?   Because no matter how much they whine many of the problems being caused by gerrymandering are traceable to the requirement for minority majority districts.  Note I said "many" not all....but when you pack districts full of D voters so the candidates there are getting 90%+ of the votes you generate a lot of "wasted" votes.    BUT the D candidates in those district don't want and will FIGHT competitive districts because then they have to raise $$ and campaign like everyone else.

So the blame here falls on both parties. The R's like what happens when the D's demand non competitive minority majority districts. What a shocker that politicians are scratching each other's backs.

Cameron wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:
 (And yes here comes the partisan shit) Harry Reid comes to the Congress pisspoor and somehow retires while living at the Ritz Carlton and being worth millions.   And HE sits back and shoots darts at Trump for being crooked and gets away with it.  Where the hell did all your $$ come from Harry? Jesus Christ.

Has the conduct of the Democrats worried you?   They're doing everything they can to undermine the election and de-legitimize him.
I hope they enjoy themselves because just like getting rid of the filibuster I'll bet it bites them in the ass down the road.

For fuck's sake. Goose. Nothing to do with the topic at hand. Blanch/Lebowski level shit right there, and you're better than that.

Well, actually, you're not better than that. But you could be if you'd get your head out of your ass.

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

Where am I lying?

It's simple math my friend.

National popular vote - presidential results  Hills won by 2,833,220 votes.

California popular vote - california results  Hills won CA by 3,446,281.

So simple math tells you she lost the rest of the country by 613,061 votes.   (And yes I see I had the CA result transposed to 4.3 not 3.4.   The result remains unchanged and my statement is still truthful)

By your own argument popular vote doesn't matter. Or does in now in this one case. You spin so much you can't keep your own arguments straight.

LooseGoose wrote:

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

By your own argument popular vote doesn't matter. Or does in now in this one case. You spin so much you can't keep your own arguments straight.

So now I'm not a liar?   Thanks for the apology.            

The popular vote matters only on a state by state basis it only mattered in this post to show you were wrong to call me a liar.  IF the election were popular vote than obviously all sides would have run different campaigns.

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

So now I'm not a liar?   Thanks for the apology.            

The popular vote matters only on a state by state basis it only mattered in this post to show you were wrong to call me a liar.  IF the election were popular vote than obviously all sides would have run different campaigns.

I never said you weren't a liar. You are pretty much the most intellectually dishonest poster on this board.

You lied by saying Clinton lost the rest of the country. Going by your very own argument, using the electoral college, not popular vote, she won other states. So either you are dumb or lying. I don't think you're dumb.

LooseGoose wrote:

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

I never said you weren't a liar. You are pretty much the most intellectually dishonest poster on this board.

You lied by saying Clinton lost the rest of the country. Going by your very own argument, using the electoral college, not popular vote, she won other states. So either you are dumb or lying. I don't think you're dumb.

lol, spin away.

She lost the electoral college and vote totals in the rest of the country.   Either way she's losing again today.   And will lose again January 6th.  

On January 20th we'll begin to see whether Trump is a failure or not.  I plan to give him until mid Summer before I get too judgmental.

LooseGoose wrote:

Cameron wrote:
For fuck's sake. Goose. Nothing to do with the topic at hand. Blanch/Lebowski level shit right there, and you're better than that.

Well, actually, you're not better than that. But you could be if you'd get your head out of your ass.

See I think it is germane. All of these politicians that got rich from politics are worried about Trump doing the same. The difference being that Trump doesn't need to be a crooked politician to get rich - they did.

Rocinante wrote:"My preference would be computer drawn districts keeping as many geographical areas intact as possible. "

That wouldn't be equitable because counties can have very different demographics. I think the idea the guy I linked has works best because it does not take demographics into account at all.

How is it possible that the Democrats, who have won the popular vote in five of the last six presidential elections, are at such a disadvantage in the House, theoretically the most representative body of government? It is the biggest paradox in American electoral politics.

Democrats often blame gerrymandering, but that’s not the whole story. More than ever, the kind of place where Americans live — metropolitan or rural — dictates their political views. The country is increasingly divided between liberal cities and close-in suburbs, on one hand, and conservative exurbs and rural areas, on the other. Even in red states, the counties containing the large cities — like Dallas, Atlanta, St. Louis and Birmingham — lean Democratic.

In presidential races, Democrats used to win by expanding their appeal beyond urban areas, particularly in the South, but Mr. Obama took a different path to victory in 2008 and 2012. He won the nation’s largest cities with more than 80 percent of the vote — margins that Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon B. Johnson could only have dreamed of. Mitt Romney, meanwhile, didn’t win the countryside as decisively as Mr. Obama won the big cities.

The role of partisan gerrymandering in all of this is hotly debated. It has indeed allowed Republicans to squeeze extra districts out of states like Michigan and Virginia, and strategically reinforce vulnerable incumbents. Those additional districts might make the difference between an insurmountable Republican advantage or a merely significant one. But gerrymandering is not responsible for the entire Republican edge in the House.

The political scientists Jowei Chen, of the University of Michigan, and Jonathan Rodden, of Stanford University, estimate that gerrymandering costs Democrats about six to eight seats in the House. Even so, “by far the most important factor contributing to the Republican advantage,” Mr. Chen says, “is the natural geographic factor of Democrats’ being overwhelmingly concentrated in these urban districts, especially in states like Michigan and Florida.”

To retake the House, Democrats would not just need another great election year, like 2006 or 2008; they would need to build a much broader coalition than the one they currently focus on in presidential elections. They would need to attract the voters that some liberals thought they could abandon: the conservative Democrats of the South and Appalachia, where the vanquished Blue Dogs once reigned.

LooseGoose wrote:NYTimes article on gerrymandering and it's role in the US House majority....from 2014.

Why Democrats Can’t Win the House

How is it possible that the Democrats, who have won the popular vote in five of the last six presidential elections, are at such a disadvantage in the House, theoretically the most representative body of government? It is the biggest paradox in American electoral politics.

Democrats often blame gerrymandering, but that’s not the whole story. More than ever, the kind of place where Americans live — metropolitan or rural — dictates their political views. The country is increasingly divided between liberal cities and close-in suburbs, on one hand, and conservative exurbs and rural areas, on the other. Even in red states, the counties containing the large cities — like Dallas, Atlanta, St. Louis and Birmingham — lean Democratic.

In presidential races, Democrats used to win by expanding their appeal beyond urban areas, particularly in the South, but Mr. Obama took a different path to victory in 2008 and 2012. He won the nation’s largest cities with more than 80 percent of the vote — margins that Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon B. Johnson could only have dreamed of. Mitt Romney, meanwhile, didn’t win the countryside as decisively as Mr. Obama won the big cities.

The role of partisan gerrymandering in all of this is hotly debated. It has indeed allowed Republicans to squeeze extra districts out of states like Michigan and Virginia, and strategically reinforce vulnerable incumbents. Those additional districts might make the difference between an insurmountable Republican advantage or a merely significant one. But gerrymandering is not responsible for the entire Republican edge in the House.

The political scientists Jowei Chen, of the University of Michigan, and Jonathan Rodden, of Stanford University, estimate that gerrymandering costs Democrats about six to eight seats in the House. Even so, “by far the most important factor contributing to the Republican advantage,” Mr. Chen says, “is the natural geographic factor of Democrats’ being overwhelmingly concentrated in these urban districts, especially in states like Michigan and Florida.”

To retake the House, Democrats would not just need another great election year, like 2006 or 2008; they would need to build a much broader coalition than the one they currently focus on in presidential elections. They would need to attract the voters that some liberals thought they could abandon: the conservative Democrats of the South and Appalachia, where the vanquished Blue Dogs once reigned.

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:NYTimes article on gerrymandering and it's role in the US House majority....from 2014.

Why Democrats Can’t Win the House

Please start a new thread if this is what you want to discuss.

Rocinante wrote:

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

Please start a new thread if this is what you want to discuss.

Eat shit Pylon. At least we aren't fighting.