Will You Accept the Findings of the Muller Probe?

[Deleted member 365]

He pointed out a paragraph explaining that Democrats aren't innocent in this either ffs.

Right? He spouts off and demands that I recognize his points, and then ignores when people address his points. It’s like hes posting without reading my posts.

 

[Deleted member 365]

My theory: Trump didn't want to be president (other than the ego-boost of campaigning and then actually being elected). He has been trying everything he can to get kicked out of office, but nothing happens. So he keeps getting more and more outrageous, assuming that at some point he'll cross a line that will not be tolerated. There apparently is no such line.

We get the government we deserve.

Sadly, I think you’re mostly right.

Did you ever watch Seinfeld? Remember the episode where George keeps doing stupid things in order to get fired? But the more he tries the more he’s promoted? That’s like Trump. At some point you’d think that republicans would grow tired of excusing his behavior. But they’re so afraid of being primaried that they just can’t speak out.

This poll granted (I’m unsure how reliable it is) demonstrates exactly what I’m talking about. This rep is one of the most conservative members of Congress. Yet, he spoke out against trump. Now look:

 

[framer]

Thanks for ignoring the last post. Are you even going to try to discuss the points raised in that previous post? I mean, you insinuated that “both sides” seemed equally at fault with gerrymandering. Something clearly dismantled in my previous post, the one you ignored. So if you hope to proceed with this discussion, you’ll need to address those points.

Democrats are doing a better job of engaging at the local level than before. Currently, Dems have 23 governorships. That’s better than they did in 2008 and 2010.

It’s still a struggle as Democratic strongholds are where the most population base centers are, the coasts. That leaves a lot of land space in the middle that automatically make it more difficult (not impossible) for democrats to compete. Additionally, there are cultural and economic shifts that are leading to polarization. However, gerrymandering is one of the leading causes of dysfunction in our democracy as it hinders representative democracy, discourages moderation, and shields legislators from accountability. Why work with the other side of you know you’re in a gerrymandered district and will be protected by extremism?

In 2008 and 2010 republicans owned a majority of state legislatures and governorships.

This effort led to the most blatant gerrymandering we’ve seen which has led (no surprise) to an extremist congress that’s afraid to stand up to Trump. Now be careful with your next post, it’ll determine whether this discussion continues or ends with me blocking you.

The problem with this analysis is that you are assuming a whole bunch of things. If you grant that Republicans had big majorities in 2008 and 2010, why do you think that was? You make the assumption that someone was forcing or tricking people into voting a certain way. It has been my experience that voters are pretty darn lazy and only vote in force as a reaction to something they don't like. Generally what they don't like is supreme power by one party or another. Obama or Clinton with a Rubberstamp congress? Nope. Bush with one party rule? Can't have that. Just like voters took away Trump's congress. The Senate got left alone because I believe the average voter wanted more balance in the courts which is where we are headed. I guess you can yell about gerrymandering, but it had little to do with the presidential race or the Republican senate.

On the flip side, each of these presidents got reelected after getting their monopoly taken from them because they were less of an existential threat to the status quo.

History didn't begin two years ago. Each party, when put into power, overreaches then gets slapped down for it. It is true now just like it ever was. The only reason you think partisanship is so one sided now, is because the media you read pushes that narrative. Partisanship has been much, much worse. There has been violence in the capitol building. Most of these politicians are playing a role for you on television. They aren't as spun up abut this as you and other people watching cable are. The only enemy they have is whoever stands between them and their next upgrade of power, which can often be someone in their own party.

There is no systematic plot from Russia or the Koch brothers, just as Obama wasn't a plant from the Muslim brotherhood here to install Sharia Law. Trump got elected because people voted for him for valid concerns and reasons and lost his congress because other valid concerns and reasons. Some of it was personality, sure, but that is the choice you make when you elect Hillary Clinton in the Primaries. He won the election. There was no foul play.

The country is as more peaceful now than it has ever been. There is less crime, less poverty, less institutional racism, less out of wedlock pregnancy, less all kinds of bad things. That doesn't sell papers though. All kinds of mountains are made into molehills on all sides of the political spectrum. And yet, there are problems that are never discussed as well because there is no grift associated with the issue. I mean, once you see the grift, all of it, I can't see how you can completely follow party line after that.

I mean, can you see the grift?

 

[Deleted member 365]

The problem with this analysis is that you are assuming a whole bunch of things. If you grant that Republicans had big majorities in 2008 and 2010, why do you think that was? You make the assumption that someone was forcing or tricking people into voting a certain way. It has been my experience that voters are pretty darn lazy and only vote in force as a reaction to something they don't like. Generally what they don't like is supreme power by one party or another. Obama or Clinton with a Rubberstamp congress? Nope. Bush with one party rule? Can't have that. Just like voters took away Trump's congress. The Senate got left alone because I believe the average voter wanted more balance in the courts which is where we are headed. I guess you can yell about gerrymandering, but it had little to do with the presidential race or the Republican senate.

On the flip side, each of these presidents got reelected after getting their monopoly taken from them because they were less of an existential threat to the status quo.

History didn't begin two years ago. Each party, when put into power, overreaches then gets slapped down for it. It is true now just like it ever was. The only reason you think partisanship is so one sided now, is because the media you read pushes that narrative. Partisanship has been much, much worse. There has been violence in the capitol building. Most of these politicians are playing a role for you on television. They aren't as spun up abut this as you and other people watching cable are. The only enemy they have is whoever stands between them and their next upgrade of power, which can often be someone in their own party.

There is no systematic plot from Russia or the Koch brothers, just as Obama wasn't a plant from the Muslim brotherhood here to install Sharia Law. Trump got elected because people voted for him for valid concerns and reasons and lost his congress because other valid concerns and reasons. Some of it was personality, sure, but that is the choice you make when you elect Hillary Clinton in the Primaries. He won the election. There was no foul play.

The country is as more peaceful now than it has ever been. There is less crime, less poverty, less institutional racism, less out of wedlock pregnancy, less all kinds of bad things. That doesn't sell papers though. All kinds of mountains are made into molehills on all sides of the political spectrum. And yet, there are problems that are never discussed as well because there is no grift associated with the issue. I mean, once you see the grift, all of it, I can't see how you can completely follow party line after that.

I mean, can you see the grift?

So three things:

1. I’m unsure as to why you’re fixated on how republicans controlled the majority of states in 2008 and 2010.

It doesn’t justify the blatant gerrymandering we’ve seen. Right? Or do you think gerrymandering is justified because republicans have controlled the majority of states for so long?

Gerrymandering is bad, right?

2. A number of factors lead to Dems struggling to control the majority of state houses. From poor outreach to simple demographics. As urbanization takes place fewer people will live in the middle of America while populations will continue to concentrate on the coasts. Even in 2018’s wave year, Dems still don’t control the majority of states. So someone needs to control the middle states of America, right? Which party appeals the most to older, whiter, and non-college educated rural populations?

3. Gerrymandering should be eliminated, right? Get rid of it so neither party can do it. Agree?

 

[Deleted member 365]

Crime has been decreasing for decades. And I’m unsure how that relates to gerrymandering. Should we talk about how Ice cream sales are up too? So weird

The issue at hand is how gerrymandering creates extremism in our democracy, not how it lowers crime or racism or whatever you’re trying to associate it with.

 

[framer]

So three things:

1. I’m unsure as to why you’re fixated on how republicans controlled the majority of states in 2008 and 2010.

It doesn’t justify the blatant gerrymandering we’ve seen. Right?

Gerrymandering is bad, right?

2. A number of factors lead to Dems struggling to control the majority of state houses. From poor outreach to simple demographics. As urbanization takes place fewer people will live in the middle of America while populations will continue to concentrate on the coasts. Even in 2018’s wave year, Dems still don’t control the majority of states. So someone needs to control the middle states of America, right? Which party appeals the most to older, whiter, and non-college educated rural populations?

3. Gerrymandering should be eliminated, right?

So, if we are getting rid of gerrymandering, there still needs to be a process to allocate reps, right? What is that process? At some point someone needs to draw lines. Who is that person or people? We had a "commission" do it in Arizona and still got Gerrymandering. What are you going to do about "majority minority" districts which many see as "good gerrymandering."

As to "Which party appeals the most to older, whiter, and non-college educated rural populations?" I mean, you can make this choice. Stop crapping on their values, smearing them as racists, and regaling them about how unsophisticated they are. They didn't so much "choose" Trump as they were driven to him. We had Gabby Giffords here, she didn't feel the need to smear people. Neither does Kristin Sinema, and now the local Democrats are threatening to primary her for being reasonable. She got all sorts of older white votes.

 

[LogGrad98]

The problem with this analysis is that you are assuming a whole bunch of things. If you grant that Republicans had big majorities in 2008 and 2010, why do you think that was? You make the assumption that someone was forcing or tricking people into voting a certain way. It has been my experience that voters are pretty darn lazy and only vote in force as a reaction to something they don't like. Generally what they don't like is supreme power by one party or another. Obama or Clinton with a Rubberstamp congress? Nope. Bush with one party rule? Can't have that. Just like voters took away Trump's congress. The Senate got left alone because I believe the average voter wanted more balance in the courts which is where we are headed. I guess you can yell about gerrymandering, but it had little to do with the presidential race or the Republican senate.

On the flip side, each of these presidents got reelected after getting their monopoly taken from them because they were less of an existential threat to the status quo.

History didn't begin two years ago. Each party, when put into power, overreaches then gets slapped down for it. It is true now just like it ever was. The only reason you think partisanship is so one sided now, is because the media you read pushes that narrative. Partisanship has been much, much worse. There has been violence in the capitol building. Most of these politicians are playing a role for you on television. They aren't as spun up abut this as you and other people watching cable are. The only enemy they have is whoever stands between them and their next upgrade of power, which can often be someone in their own party.

There is no systematic plot from Russia or the Koch brothers, just as Obama wasn't a plant from the Muslim brotherhood here to install Sharia Law. Trump got elected because people voted for him for valid concerns and reasons and lost his congress because other valid concerns and reasons. Some of it was personality, sure, but that is the choice you make when you elect Hillary Clinton in the Primaries. He won the election. There was no foul play.

The country is as more peaceful now than it has ever been. There is less crime, less poverty, less institutional racism, less out of wedlock pregnancy, less all kinds of bad things. That doesn't sell papers though. All kinds of mountains are made into molehills on all sides of the political spectrum. And yet, there are problems that are never discussed as well because there is no grift associated with the issue. I mean, once you see the grift, all of it, I can't see how you can completely follow party line after that.

I mean, can you see the grift?

Actually the history of Congressional voting proves heavier partisanship over the last 30 years.

 

[Deleted member 365]

So, if we are getting rid of gerrymandering, there still needs to be a process to allocate reps, right? What is that process? At some point someone needs to draw lines. Who is that person or people? We had a "commission" do it in Arizona and still got Gerrymandering. What are you going to do about "majority minority" districts which many see as "good gerrymandering."

As to "Which party appeals the most to older, whiter, and non-college educated rural populations?" I mean, you can make this choice. Stop crapping on their values, smearing them as racists, and regaling them about how unsophisticated they are. They didn't so much "choose" Trump as they were driven to him. We had Gabby Giffords here, she didn't feel the need to smear people. Neither does Kristin Sinema, and now the local Democrats are threatening to primary her for being reasonable. She got all sorts of older white votes.

I’ve seen independent commissions suggested before. In states that use them gerrymandering has decreased (not completely eliminated as humans all have biases).

I’ve seen having a computer algorithm suggested.

I like proportional voting (option 2) of this vox video. It encourages voter participation, plurality, and destroys gerrymandering

 

[Zombie]

I’ve seen independent commissions suggested before. In states that use them gerrymandering has decreased (not completely eliminated as humans all have biases).

I’ve seen having a computer algorithm suggested.

I like proportional voting (option 2) of this vox video. It encourages voter participation, plurality, and destroys gerrymandering

Proportional voting would do more than just about anything else to help break us out of this ****** binary situation we're in.

Of course it will massively reduce the power of both current parties and so has no chance of ever happening.

 

[Stoked]

I’m in. Anything legal to break the R and D hold on this country.

Proportional works for me. The two that spring to mind are kind of hinted at in that video. Libertarian and Greens.

 

[idestroyedthetoilet]

I’m in. Anything legal to break the R and D hold on this country.

Proportional works for me. The two that spring to mind are kind of hinted at in that video. Libertarian and Greens.

Good luck. The Democrats are trying to pass a partisan bill to deepen the stranglehold.

Funny in one thread we are complaining about gerrymandering and in another complaining about McConnell blocking similarly dirty legislation.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

1. Do you seriously not see any difference between the Russian and the British governments with regards to American interests, human rights, and democratic norms?

2. Do you see no difference between hiring a private firm for research and using stolen data from a server that a hostile government illegally obtained?

3. You understand that the counter-intelligence operation began not with the Steele dossier but when the ambassador of one of our allies notified law enforcement of a potential national security threat after Trump’s George Papadopoulos admitted to him that they had Russian contacts, right? What should our allies do next time? Not tell our FBI? What should the FBI do next time? Not conduct counter-investigations?

Eliminating these lines of right and wrong is exactly what authoritarian regimes like Putin’s want.

1. Trump mentioned Norway. Where do they fall on your scale? There are reports that Hillary's campaign communicated with the Ukrane. Where do you rank that? If some of the Russian dirt in the dossier originated from Russian sources would that be problematic for you or is it okay for the Hillary campaign to collect that as long as it goes through enough of their intermediaries before finding it's way into our politics?

2. Would you be making the same sorts of distinctions if a liberal candidate was in Trump's position and vice-versa? I don't believe you would. During the Clinton era conservatives were going crazy over the president's sexual misconduct, but the libs literally didn't care. They lectured right wingers for years on how little that stuff mattered... until Trump came along and then suddenly the sort of hanky panky that Clinton enjoyed was absolutely disgusting and unacceptable to the left. It's amazing how willing people on both sides are to overlook bad behavior when they agree with the politics of the person in question.

3. I'm interested in learning when and how the investigation actually began. I think there are people who likely know more about that than you.