PDA

View Full Version : Elections America voted the House GOP out. Gerrymandering kept them in.


Direckshun
11-10-2012, 08:03 PM
The math:

Between the two parties, voters voted for the Democratic House candidates nationally, 48.8% to 48.5%.

That would translate to Democrats having 214 DNP seats to 212 GOP.

The end results as of now (votes are still being counted in 6 races): 233 GOP to 194 DNP.

That's 53.5% GOP to 44.6% DNP.

A 9-point, 21-seat swing.

Want to know why John Boehner was so quick to extend the olive branch (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=266329)?

That's why.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/11/09/house-democrats-got-more-votes-than-house-republicans-yet-boehner-says-hes-got-a-mandate/

House Democrats got more votes than House Republicans. Yet Boehner says he’s got a mandate?
Posted by Ezra Klein
November 9, 2012 at 10:15 am

The political-science evidence (http://themonkeycage.org/blog/2012/11/07/the-2012-election-was-not-a-mandate/) is clear on this: There’s no such thing as an election mandate. There’s only what a president is able to get done with the Congress the American people gave him.

But few politicians agree. And so the days and weeks after elections are heavy with arguments about who has a mandate, and for what. The latest debate is about whether President Obama, who ran a campaign explicitly promising to raise taxes on high earners and who beat a candidate explicitly promising to refuse any and all tax increases, has a mandate to raise taxes.

Speaker John Boehner says he doesn’t. “Listen, our majority is going to get reelected,” he said the day before the election. “We’ll have as much of a mandate as he [President Obama] will … to not raise taxes.”

Boehner’s logic is, on its face, sound. House Republicans have been as clear in their opposition to new taxes on the rich as Obama has been in his support for them. And House Republicans were reelected. They have as much right to claim a popular mandate as the president does.

Or they would if they’d actually won more votes. But they didn’t. House Republicans did the equivalent of winning the electoral college while losing the popular vote.

It can be a bit difficult to tally up the popular vote in House elections because you have to go ballot by ballot, and many incumbents run unopposed. But The Washington Post’s Dan Keating did the work and found that Democrats got 54,301,095 votes while Republicans got 53,822,442. That’s a close election — 48.8%-48.5% –but it’s still a popular vote win for the Democrats. Those precise numbers might change a bit as the count finalizes, but the tally isn’t likely to flip.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/11/redistricting-republicans-v-president.jpeg

What saved Boehner’s majority wasn’t the will of the people but the power of redistricting. As my colleague Dylan Matthews showed (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/11/08/how-redistricting-could-keep-the-house-red-for-a-decade/?wprss=rss_ezra-klein), Republicans used their control over the redistricting process to great effect, packing Democrats into tighter and tighter districts and managing to restructure races so even a slight loss for Republicans in the popular vote still meant a healthy majority in the House.

That’s a neat trick, but it’s not a popular mandate, or anything near to it — and Boehner knows it. That’s why his first move after the election was to announce, in a vague-but-important statement, that he was open to some kind of compromise on taxes.

HonestChieffan
11-10-2012, 08:10 PM
Population density be damned. Amazing how a district like vicky Hartzlers has fewer people than nancy Pelosis!!!! Oh my god!!!!

Direckshun
11-10-2012, 08:16 PM
Another great piece on gerrymandering was posted here (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=266247), for those wanting to see specific instances of it.

BucEyedPea
11-10-2012, 08:29 PM
Redistricting is done by the party in power...and those Republicans won elections so won the right to do that. Gerrymandering stays because both parties don't want to get rid of it. I saw that article earlier. It's bogus without all the information and we don't count votes like that. Liberals are trying every which way to claim a mandate.

You have NO mandate.

SNR
11-10-2012, 08:34 PM
If the "true" left-leaning America didn't want to get gerrymandered, they shouldn't have voted in so many Republicans in 2010.

BucEyedPea
11-10-2012, 08:36 PM
If the "true" left-leaning America didn't want to get gerrymandered, they shouldn't have voted in so many Republicans in 2010.

Exactly :clap:

Pawnmower
11-10-2012, 08:41 PM
Wouldnt a better example of gerrymandering be that despite winning by a couple % of the popular vote, Obama won by about 330 electoral votes to 200?

listopencil
11-10-2012, 08:45 PM
Popular vote: Obama 51%-Romney 48%. Election results: Obama 1-Romney 0. That's 51% turned into 100%. Stop whining.

InChiefsHell
11-10-2012, 08:45 PM
Jeez Direkshun...get laid or something. Seriously. You need to take a break. Enjoy your victory and just take a damn break!

Ebolapox
11-10-2012, 08:47 PM
will you not give up until every senator, congressman and member of the executive and judicial branches agrees with you, direckshun?

Ugly Duck
11-10-2012, 09:18 PM
Population density be damned.

Its not the population density, its how you carve districts into the population to give your party an advantage. You carve up any weird, convoluted shapes you can to either isolate densely concentrated opponent areas or dilute them by breaking 'em up into pieces & adding the pieces to your areas. Lookit Pennsylvania - Repubs only went 47% for Romney, but have 72% of the house seats. Even though 53% of Pennsylvanians voted for Obama, all the Democrats in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia were cut up & cramed into a mere four seats, and the other 14 were left for Republicans.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/11/pa_gerry.jpg

Brainiac
11-10-2012, 09:22 PM
Jeez Direkshun...get laid or something. Seriously. You need to take a break. Enjoy your victory and just take a damn break!

I was thinking the same thing. Direckshun is starting to get pretty goddamn annoying.

J Diddy
11-10-2012, 09:24 PM
I think the concept of gerrymandering is bullshit, however I can't pin it's use on anyone. They'd be stupid not to.

cosmo20002
11-10-2012, 10:05 PM
Wouldnt a better example of gerrymandering be that despite winning by a couple % of the popular vote, Obama won by about 330 electoral votes to 200?

No, unless the state borders were set based on political party affiliation.

Mrs. Loopner
11-10-2012, 10:14 PM
Jeez Direkshun...get laid or something. Seriously. You need to take a break. Enjoy your victory and just take a damn break!

THIS!!!

listopencil
11-10-2012, 10:23 PM
Wouldnt a better example of gerrymandering be that despite winning by a couple % of the popular vote, Obama won by about 330 electoral votes to 200?


Summary

Presidential electors are selected on a state-by-state basis, as determined by the laws of each state. Generally (with Maine and Nebraska being the exceptions), each state appoints its electors on a winner-take-all (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurality_voting_system) basis, based on the statewide popular vote on Election Day (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_Day_%28United_States%29). Although ballots list the names of the presidential candidates, voters within the 50 states and Washington, D.C. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington,_D.C.) actually choose electors for their state when they vote for President and Vice President. These presidential electors in turn cast electoral votes for those two offices.

Even though the aggregate national popular vote is calculated by state officials and media organizations, the national popular vote is not the basis for electing a President or Vice President.

J Diddy
11-10-2012, 10:35 PM
THIS!!!:hmmm:

volunteering services?

SNR
11-10-2012, 10:36 PM
Direckshun, the election's fucking over. You have yet to talk about ANY of the QBs coming out in the 2013 draft. I've got a thread all nice and set up just for you in the lounge.

Get the fuck out of here and start talking about the draft, damn it. I want your opinion and I want it now.

Direckshun
11-10-2012, 11:07 PM
If the "true" left-leaning America didn't want to get gerrymandered, they shouldn't have voted in so many Republicans in 2010.

Really.

That's why people voted the Republicans in in 2010.

To gerrymander.

Direckshun
11-10-2012, 11:07 PM
Wouldnt a better example of gerrymandering be that despite winning by a couple % of the popular vote, Obama won by about 330 electoral votes to 200?

That's not gerrymandering.

Direckshun
11-10-2012, 11:08 PM
Popular vote: Obama 51%-Romney 48%. Election results: Obama 1-Romney 0. That's 51% turned into 100%. Stop whining.

What argument is this, even?

You're saying that gerrymandering shouldn't matter because the DNP retained the Presidency?

Direckshun
11-10-2012, 11:09 PM
will you not give up until every senator, congressman and member of the executive and judicial branches agrees with you, direckshun?

I'm big on self-determination.

The current partisan makeup in the House is undemocratic.

Direckshun
11-10-2012, 11:10 PM
Its not the population density, its how you carve districts into the population to give your party an advantage. You carve up any weird, convoluted shapes you can to either isolate densely concentrated opponent areas or dilute them by breaking 'em up into pieces & adding the pieces to your areas. Lookit Pennsylvania - Repubs only went 47% for Romney, but have 72% of the house seats. Even though 53% of Pennsylvanians voted for Obama, all the Democrats in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia were cut up & cramed into a mere four seats, and the other 14 were left for Republicans.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/11/pa_gerry.jpg

Yup.

Direckshun
11-10-2012, 11:10 PM
Jeez Direkshun...get laid or something. Seriously. You need to take a break. Enjoy your victory and just take a damn break!

I was thinking the same thing. Direckshun is starting to get pretty goddamn annoying.

THIS!!!

Get the sand out of your vagina. It's fucking DC.

mikey23545
11-10-2012, 11:11 PM
Really.

That's why people voted the Republicans in in 2010.

To gerrymander.

A little sugar would work wonders for those sour grapes.

Direckshun
11-10-2012, 11:12 PM
Direckshun, the election's ****ing over. You have yet to talk about ANY of the QBs coming out in the 2013 draft. I've got a thread all nice and set up just for you in the lounge.

Get the **** out of here and start talking about the draft, damn it. I want your opinion and I want it now.

LMAO

I'll get there when I get there.

Ebolapox
11-10-2012, 11:12 PM
I'm big on self-determination.

The current partisan makeup in the House is undemocratic.

was it completely cool when the democratic congresses did this in the past? serious question.

listopencil
11-10-2012, 11:13 PM
What argument is this, even?

You're saying that gerrymandering shouldn't matter because the DNP retained the Presidency?

Go outside.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/yiPqeeMfmfA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Direckshun
11-10-2012, 11:15 PM
was it completely cool when the democratic congresses did this in the past? serious question.

Of course not. The Democratic Congress did it somewhat recently.

Simply put, the GOP is the NBA of gerrymandering. The most recent Democratic gerrymandering was not this pervasive or radical.

To bilk the American people out of 21 seats... It's criminal.

I embrace a ban on gerrymandering, as we all should.

Fat chance, of course, because both parties support it.

Mrs. Loopner
11-10-2012, 11:17 PM
:hmmm:

volunteering services?

Sure but Iíll need to bring a ball gag, restraints and penis extension for Direcshun to wear.

Direckshun
11-10-2012, 11:19 PM
Sure but Iíll need to bring a ball gag, restraints and penis extension for Direcshun to wear.

This thread has potential.

mikey23545
11-10-2012, 11:23 PM
I'm big on self-determination.

The current partisan makeup in the House is undemocratic.


I hope the House Republicans can grow a pair and shoot down every bit of legislation Hussein and the Dems crap out the next four years as they beg Congressional Republicans to save the country from the hellhole Obama has set up to happen right after his reelection.

I would love to see us fall to a bloody death off of this fiscal cliff they bought and paid for by voting the little Muslim-Communist dictator back into power...

:evil:

Comrade Crapski
11-11-2012, 01:31 AM
I would love to see us fall to a bloody death off of this fiscal cliff they bought and paid for by voting the little Muslim-Communist dictator back into power...

:evil:

I don't know why this "fiscal cliff" is such a bad thing. It will create massive cuts and tax increases.

Thats what both sides want, so everybody should be happy.

By not doing anything, this wonderful compromise will occur automatically.

J Diddy
11-11-2012, 01:45 AM
I don't know why this "fiscal cliff" is such a bad thing. It will create massive cuts and tax increases.

Thats what both sides want, so everybody should be happy.

By not doing anything, this wonderful compromise will occur automatically.

Now we have proof the world is ending. I agree. Let it happen.

J Diddy
11-11-2012, 01:48 AM
I hope the House Republicans can grow a pair and shoot down every bit of legislation Hussein and the Dems crap out the next four years as they beg Congressional Republicans to save the country from the hellhole Obama has set up to happen right after his reelection.

I would love to see us fall to a bloody death off of this fiscal cliff they bought and paid for by voting the little Muslim-Communist dictator back into power...

:evil:

Yep, guarandamnedteed way of making sure your party doesn't win shit. Eyes are open now, let the HOR try to take the country hostage some more. You'll enjoy watching the President fall, the senate fall and then the house fall to dems.

To quote Haley, "people are talking shit about you now"

mlyonsd
11-11-2012, 05:15 AM
What's the over and under on how many times uses the word gerrymandering in this thread?

patteeu
11-11-2012, 05:48 AM
The olive branch Boehner offered was essentially the tax reform Mitt Romney was running on. Sounds like he's really frightened of this counter-intuitive dem mandate.

mikey23545
11-11-2012, 07:51 AM
Yep, guarandamnedteed way of making sure your party doesn't win shit. Eyes are open now, let the HOR try to take the country hostage some more. You'll enjoy watching the President fall, the senate fall and then the house fall to dems.

To quote Haley, "people are talking shit about you now"


Let the people see just what it is they voted for!

BwaHaaaHaaa!!!

whoman69
11-11-2012, 08:07 AM
Redistricting is done by the party in power...and those Republicans won elections so won the right to do that. Gerrymandering stays because both parties don't want to get rid of it. I saw that article earlier. It's bogus without all the information and we don't count votes like that. Liberals are trying every which way to claim a mandate.

You have NO mandate.

Not true at all. Iowa has done away with the gerrymandering process.

In the Presidential election the electoral college is designed to give the winner a mandate. Even if you won't begrudge us a mandate, it was still a clear victory.

whoman69
11-11-2012, 08:08 AM
I don't know why this "fiscal cliff" is such a bad thing. It will create massive cuts and tax increases.

Thats what both sides want, so everybody should be happy.

By not doing anything, this wonderful compromise will occur automatically.

I didn't know Michelle Bachman posted here.

whoman69
11-11-2012, 08:12 AM
I hope the House Republicans can grow a pair and shoot down every bit of legislation Hussein and the Dems crap out the next four years as they beg Congressional Republicans to save the country from the hellhole Obama has set up to happen right after his reelection.

I would love to see us fall to a bloody death off of this fiscal cliff they bought and paid for by voting the little Muslim-Communist dictator back into power...

:evil:

They've already done that and in the following election lost seats in both houses.

Back away from the hyperbole, empty rhetoric and propaganda. Wanting the country to go down the toilet just to spite Obama is...what is the word?...crazy.

Direckshun
11-11-2012, 02:32 PM
The olive branch Boehner offered was essentially the tax reform Mitt Romney was running on.

I'm all ears. Go on. Details.

BucEyedPea
11-11-2012, 03:25 PM
Not true at all. Iowa has done away with the gerrymandering process.

A few places, this has happened. Still, gm has a long history.

In the Presidential election the electoral college is designed to give the winner a mandate. Even if you won't begrudge us a mandate, it was still a clear victory.

No it does not give you a mandate for the whole govt. The EC makes sure there is a clear winner for the presidential branch—not the rest of the govt. We have other branches. That's what you have confused. We have divided govt and it's ONLY in the House where revenue bills originate from. The power of the purse is nothing to diss. It's power. The presidential branch is the weakest, despite the propaganda from the left and the right of an "Imperial Presidency." We do not have one man rule or what is otherwise known as a dictator.

Shaid
11-11-2012, 04:23 PM
Jeez Direkshun...get laid or something. Seriously. You need to take a break. Enjoy your victory and just take a damn break!

LMAO

patteeu
11-11-2012, 04:56 PM
I'm all ears. Go on. Details.

No rate increases, additional revenue from closing loopholes. The difference between this and Romney's proposal was that Romney was going for something more like lower rates with revenue neutrality. So there's your movement, but it's the same concept focused on keeping rates down while eliminating loopholes (as Bowles-Simpson recommended).

Direckshun
11-11-2012, 05:44 PM
No rate increases, additional revenue from closing loopholes. The difference between this and Romney's proposal was that Romney was going for something more like lower rates with revenue neutrality. So there's your movement, but it's the same concept focused on keeping rates down while eliminating loopholes (as Bowles-Simpson recommended).

Fair enough. But that's certainly not "essentially the same" as Romney's plan.

Romney's plan called for a $5 trillion tax cut and amped up defense spending, by closing unspecified loopholes.

This is a call to simply close unspecified loopholes.

So perhaps if having one element retained is "essentially the same as," we can admit that Obama's proposals thus far in his presidency are "essentially the same as" major Republican proposals in modern history.

BucEyedPea
11-11-2012, 05:50 PM
The difference between the two budgets in overall spending was minimal. Neither party wants to stop spending.

BucEyedPea
11-11-2012, 06:17 PM
61% America is on the wrong track
75% Favor a Full Audit of the Federal Reserve
65% Troops in Afghanistan does not make us safer
91% Oppose Renewal of Patriot Act
80% would have like different candidates for 2012
Less that 10% Trust the Federal Government

Don't get too cocky Democrats. It could lead to your being put out to pasture again too.

patteeu
11-11-2012, 07:32 PM
Fair enough. But that's certainly not "essentially the same" as Romney's plan.

Romney's plan called for a $5 trillion tax cut and amped up defense spending, by closing unspecified loopholes.

This is a call to simply close unspecified loopholes.

So perhaps if having one element retained is "essentially the same as," we can admit that Obama's proposals thus far in his presidency are "essentially the same as" major Republican proposals in modern history.

Romney's defense spending ideas have nothing to do with this. I'm talking about tax policy.

As has been the case since the Bowles-Simpson commission reported it's recommendations, we have Obama and most democrats on one side (raise rates and create more loopholes) and Bowles-Simpson, Mitt Romney, John Boehner, and Republicans on the other (cut rates and close loopholes). The differences in details, between Boehner and Romney for example, are far less important than the similarities in philosophy.

WoodDraw
11-11-2012, 07:39 PM
I hate gerrymandering. The Republicans aren't the only guilty ones. They have some of the worse examples, but Democrats gerrymandered the fuck out of Illinois this last census.

But that won't change without demographic changes in some key states. A few swing states might be able to force through amendments, but the interests are normally so well aligned against it, it's hard.

Pawnmower
11-11-2012, 08:02 PM
That's not gerrymandering.

Call it what you will, it still is a gross misrepresentation of the actual will of the population as a whole.

Direckshun
11-11-2012, 08:50 PM
Romney's defense spending ideas have nothing to do with this. I'm talking about tax policy.

As has been the case since the Bowles-Simpson commission reported it's recommendations, we have Obama and most democrats on one side (raise rates and create more loopholes) and Bowles-Simpson, Mitt Romney, John Boehner, and Republicans on the other (cut rates and close loopholes). The differences in details, between Boehner and Romney for example, are far less important than the similarities in philosophy.

There are some of your usual misrepresentations in there, but this is fine for the most part.

Direckshun
11-11-2012, 08:50 PM
Call it what you will, it still is a gross misrepresentation of the actual will of the population as a whole.

I don't disagree. I'm in favor of selecting the President by pure popular vote.

BucEyedPea
11-11-2012, 09:45 PM
I hate gerrymandering. The Republicans aren't the only guilty ones. They have some of the worse examples, but Democrats gerrymandered the **** out of Illinois this last census.

But that won't change without demographic changes in some key states. A few swing states might be able to force through amendments, but the interests are normally so well aligned against it, it's hard.

The Republicans in Texas gerrymandered Ron Paul's district to get rid of him. They put him in what would favor a democrat with more minorities. He retired anyway so they could just lose the seat anyway. The R still won and even defeated a Libertarian running.

patteeu
11-12-2012, 03:42 AM
There are some of your usual misrepresentations in there, but this is fine for the most part.

What misrepresentations?

whoman69
11-12-2012, 05:35 AM
What misrepresentations?

There isn't any upside to answering this question. You will not acknowledge the salient points in his argument against you anyway. You only want him to respond so that you can pick out a portion of his response to attack.

patteeu
11-12-2012, 05:40 AM
There isn't any upside to answering this question. You will not acknowledge the salient points in his argument against you anyway. You only want him to respond so that you can pick out a portion of his response to attack.

What salient points? He accused me of making misrepresentations. I think he owes it to me to specify them instead of smearing me while leaving me no opportunity to set the record straight. I don't think Direckshun is as afraid of getting into a debate with me as you are.

whoman69
11-12-2012, 07:32 AM
What salient points? He accused me of making misrepresentations. I think he owes it to me to specify them instead of smearing me while leaving me no opportunity to set the record straight. I don't think Direckshun is as afraid of getting into a debate with me as you are.

You don't debate. You ignore the other person's points while misrepresenting a specific portion of their rebuttal. You are only interested in scoring points in your own column. Their is no other version of the world besides yours. In short you are a troll.

patteeu
11-12-2012, 07:56 AM
You don't debate. You ignore the other person's points while misrepresenting a specific portion of their rebuttal. You are only interested in scoring points in your own column. Their is no other version of the world besides yours. In short you are a troll.

You mean like the way you ignored my central question about salient points to focus on my use of the word "debate"?

Direckshun
11-12-2012, 08:07 AM
What misrepresentations?

The GOP has long stood in the way of eliminating tax loopholes for corporations and the wealthy.

patteeu
11-12-2012, 08:29 AM
The GOP has long stood in the way of eliminating tax loopholes for corporations and the wealthy.

Whether that's true or not, it has nothing to do with my representations. The tax reform position of Bowles-Simpson, Mitt Romney, John Boehner and Republicans has been to lower rates and close loopholes. That doesn't mean that they all agree on how much rates should be reduced or which loopholes should be eliminated, but it does mean they are in philosophical agreement. By contrast, the President and his democrats want increased rates and targeted tax cuts (aka loopholes). That's their philosophy.

That's not to say that you can't find democrats (like Erskine Bowles, for example) who side with Republicans. Or Republicans who oppose the elimination of certain deductions. Or democrats who want some rates lowered. But generally speaking, my representations as to the competing philosophies are as accurate as anything you've ever posted.

BucEyedPea
11-12-2012, 08:35 AM
Closing loopholes is a tax increase.

Direckshun
11-12-2012, 08:36 AM
That's not to say that you can't find democrats (like Erskine Bowles, for example) who side with Republicans. Or Republicans who oppose the elimination of certain deductions. Or democrats who want some rates lowered.

Nicely done. Welcome back to reality.

Xanathol
11-12-2012, 11:17 AM
Its not the population density, its how you carve districts into the population to give your party an advantage. You carve up any weird, convoluted shapes you can to either isolate densely concentrated opponent areas or dilute them by breaking 'em up into pieces & adding the pieces to your areas. Lookit Pennsylvania - Repubs only went 47% for Romney, but have 72% of the house seats. Even though 53% of Pennsylvanians voted for Obama, all the Democrats in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia were cut up & cramed into a mere four seats, and the other 14 were left for Republicans.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/11/pa_gerry.jpg

Is this sarcasm? Look at it this way - what that map shows is that if you can indoctrinate the city populations, you can control the entire state's electoral votes, despite the vast majority of the landmass voting in favor of one candidate.

Its the democratic plan - make people dependent on the government, group them together, and create the perpetual downward spiral that keeps them in power. Its the same thing happening the whole country over. Poorly ran states / cities where people amass are telling the successful states / counties 'you have to pay for us, despite ourselves'. If you learn your history, its the kind of stuff that leads to civil unrest.

patteeu
11-12-2012, 11:58 AM
Nicely done. Welcome back to reality.

I haven't left reality. Post 45 was like an Edward Hopper painting of reality.

Hoover
11-12-2012, 12:04 PM
The federal government doesn't have anything to do with the make up of congressional districts, the state's do. So I don't know what the bitch with Boehner is about.

Every state does it a little differently. I think Iowa have by far one of the best systems.

You know, candidates can only run in the districts the states create. The idea that this is somehow a stolen Republican house is laughable.

Carry on.

LiveSteam
11-12-2012, 12:06 PM
Allen West is still pushing in Florida

Direckshun
11-12-2012, 12:37 PM
I haven't left reality. Post 45 was like an Edward Hopper painting of reality.

Not knowing anything about artists, I'm assuming Edward Hopper is a surrealist. ;)

Direckshun
11-12-2012, 12:38 PM
The federal government doesn't have anything to do with the make up of congressional districts, the state's do. So I don't know what the bitch with Boehner is about.

Boehner claimed the House GOP received a mandate because they still have a majority.

Every state does it a little differently. I think Iowa have by far one of the best systems.

Agreed.

You know, candidates can only run in the districts the states' politicians create.

FYP

patteeu
11-12-2012, 12:53 PM
Not knowing anything about artists, I'm assuming Edward Hopper is a surrealist. ;)

:LOL:

http://images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/532/800/Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_372120.jpg

Direckshun
11-12-2012, 01:07 PM
LMAO

Frazod
11-12-2012, 02:08 PM
Speaking of bullshit, why did my ballot come with Spanish subtitles? I don't recall voting in Madrid.

BucEyedPea
11-12-2012, 02:40 PM
Boehner claimed the House GOP received a mandate because they still have a majority.

They do...in the people's house, where all revenue and tax bills must originate. This is the legal error Robert's made in his decision because ACA came from the Senate via trickery. It's no wonder there's another legal challenge that may be coming. If it's to be ruled as a tax when that didn't originate in the House.

Obama edged out Mitt for the Presidency which represents the nation as a whole for foreign policy, ambassadors, treaties, meeting dignataries, agencies and executing war as commander in chief. He doesn't even get to craft legislation. Remember, the Framers made it a weaker branch despite claims of the "Imperial Presidency" by both parties in the modern era.

BucEyedPea
11-12-2012, 02:43 PM
The federal government doesn't have anything to do with the make up of congressional districts, the state's do. So I don't know what the bitch with Boehner is about.

Every state does it a little differently. I think Iowa have by far one of the best systems.

You know, candidates can only run in the districts the states create. The idea that this is somehow a stolen Republican house is laughable.

Carry on.

Plus, some Rs still lost seats with gerrymandering. Even in Texas the Rs redistricted him to one with a large share of minorities and union supporters. He retired instead but a Republican still one that one even with a libertarian losing.

J Diddy
11-12-2012, 02:44 PM
Speaking of bullshit, why did my ballot come with Spanish subtitles? I don't recall voting in Madrid.

porque es necessario por la gente que no habla ingles o no habla bueno

Frazod
11-12-2012, 02:52 PM
porque es necessario por la gente que no habla ingles o no habla bueno

How do you say FUCK 'EM in Spanish?

Oh wait, I don't care.

RNR
11-12-2012, 02:53 PM
How do you say **** 'EM in Spanish?

Oh wait, I don't care.

They all speak enough English to understand that :p