Shutdown

[BraveUlysses]

^
I got the context, I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of pointing fingers at just one side pulling the stunt. Your calling me out only shows that in your rush to jump on a gotcha you missed the point entirely

It's not pointing fingers, we were explicitly discussing the fact that the TEA PARTY members are mostly from gerrymandered districts and may not lose their positions due this immense act of douchebaggery. It has nothing to do with other parties. Stop with the false equivalency fallacy bullshit.

[tjts1]

Done by an independent commission.

Like in California.

Where hunting is lame.

The lameness of hunting knows no borders.

[einhander]

^
I am not pro gerrymandering either, just pointing out that both sides are guilty of this, no more no less. I think districts should be random and squared off.

Done by an independent commission.

Like in California.

Where hunting is lame.

[mrsleeve]

^
I am not pro gerrymandering either, just pointing out that both sides are guilty of this, no more no less. I think districts should be random and squared off.

[rwh11385]

Nope, there is approx. 40-45 "Tea Party" R's in the House, once the rest of the party sees that these nut-jobs who believe in the Rapture (Made up in the 1800s), cause the rest of them to lose their seats, they will quickly send them back into the shadows.

Plus, I mean, there's this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...45b_story.html
Business groups stand by Boehner, plot against tea party

Now that the shutdown and debt-ceiling fight have exposed a rift in the Republican Party, lines are being drawn in the battle for control: On one side, there is Boehner and his circle of powerful business allies. On the other, tea party lawmakers and activist groups such as Heritage Action and the Club for Growth.

“I don’t know of anybody in the business community who takes the side of the Taliban minority,” said Dirk Van Dongen, longtime chief lobbyist for the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors who has known Boehner since the lawmaker’s first election.

In the hallways of the country’s leading trade associations, there is talk about taking on tea party Republicans in at least three states.

The first is Michigan, where Rep. Justin Amash, who had been challenging Boehner during the debt-ceiling fight, is facing a possible challenge from a business-backed candidate. Business lobbyists also talk about funding a challenge to another tea-party-backed Republican incumbent, Rep. Kerry Bentivolio.

Another area for possible combat occurs in a special election next month in the 1st District of Alabama, where former state senator Bradley Byrne, a self-described business-oriented Republican, faces off against Dean Young, a tea-party-endorsed candidate who says he’s “against homosexuals pretending that they are married.”

The fourth possible race is in Idaho, where business groups are talking of lending support to Rep. Mike Simpson, a Republican incumbent. Simpson faces a tea party challenger who has pushed the eight-term House veteran to support the “defund Obamacare” strategy adopted by the tea party.

There may still be grassroots effort with people wearing colonial hats, but the big dollar donors in business suits will be supporting the other, more moderate and reasonable guy in the primaries.

[rwh11385]

^
I got the context, I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of pointing fingers at just one side pulling the stunt. Your calling me out only shows that in your rush to jump on a gotcha you missed the point entirely

Are you claiming that the magnitude currently is equivalent? Because maybe you ought to get a dose of reality...

Of course... maybe not:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democ...gerrymandering

In the National Journal, Ron Brownstein, David Wasserman and Ben Terris write that Republicans in the House don't have to worry about the backlash against the shutdown because compared to a few years ago, gerrymandering has guaranteed that they're now in much safer, more deeply Republican districts. At the same time, as we wrote just after the 2012 elections, gerrymandering helped increase the number of seats won by Republicans such that they retained a solid 33-seat majority in the House despite losing the overall popular congressional vote by 1.4m votes. One might wonder: how can both these things be true?

The Economist continues...

Yet that is what these reports are saying Republicans achieved with the 2010 redistricting, which they largely controlled, since they held most state legislatures. The Republican State Leadership Committee itself boasted that clever GOP redistricting efforts were behind the party's retention of the House last year despite losing the popular vote.

Following an embedded link to TP and then to RSLC, you will find this:

http://www.rslc.com/redmap_2012_summary_report

Straight from the horse's mouth:
How a Strategy of Targeting State Legislative Races in 2010
Led to a Republican U.S. House Majority in 2013

However, all components of a successful congressional race, including recruitment, message development and resource allocation, rest on the congressional district lines, and this was an area where Republicans had an unquestioned advantage.

Today, nearly two months after Election Day, and one day after the 113th United States Congress took the Oath of Office on Capitol Hill, the Republican State Leadership Committee (RSLC) is releasing this review of its strategy and execution of its efforts in the 2010 election cycle to erect a Republican firewall through the redistricting process that paved the way to Republicans retaining a U.S. House majority in 2012.

2010 State Elections: REDMAP’s Execution
As the 2010 Census approached, the RSLC began planning for the subsequent election cycle, formulating a strategy to keep or win Republican control of state legislatures with the largest impact on congressional redistricting as a result of reapportionment. That effort, the REDistricting MAjority Project (REDMAP), focused critical resources on legislative chambers in states projected to gain or lose congressional seats in 2011 based on Census data.
The rationale was straightforward: Controlling the redistricting process in these states would have the greatest impact on determining how both state legislative and congressional district boundaries would be drawn. Drawing new district lines in states with the most redistricting activity presented the opportunity to solidify conservative policymaking at the state level and maintain a Republican stronghold in the U.S. House of Representatives for the next decade.
To fund the initiative, the RSLC raised more than $30 million in 2009-2010, and invested $18 million after Labor Day 2010 alone. Specifically, the RSLC:

Spent $1.4 million targeting four New York State Senate seats, winning two and control of the New York State Senate. (-2 Congressional seats).
Spent nearly $1 million in Pennsylvania House races, targeting and winning three of the toughest races in the state. (-1 Congressional seat).
Spent nearly $1 million in Ohio House races, targeting six seats, five of which were won by Republicans. Notably, President Obama carried five of these six legislative districts in 2008. (-2 Congressional seats).
Spent $1 million in Michigan working with the Michigan House Republican Campaign Committee and Michigan Republican Party to pick up 20 seats. (-1 Congressional seat).
Spent $750,000 in Texas as part of an effort that resulted in 22 House pick-ups. (+4 Congressional seats).
Spent $1.1 million in Wisconsin to take control of the Senate and Assembly.
Committed resources to Colorado (more than $550,000) and North Carolina (more than $1.2 million).
The RSLC also invested more than $3 million across a number of other states including Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon, Tennessee and Washington. (Five of these eleven states gained or lost Congressional seats).

Election Day 2010 proved to be a “wave” election nationally, in both REDMAP targeted states and others across the country. Prior to Election Day 2010, Democrats controlled 60 state legislative chambers to the Republicans’ 36. After the 2010 elections, Democrats controlled 40 chambers, Republicans controlled 55 chambers, and two remained tied. In all, Republicans took control of 21 legislative bodies and moved one from Democratic control to being evenly divided. After Election Day 2010, Republicans held majorities in both legislative chambers in 25 states – and, in most cases, control of redistricting – up from 14.

Conclusion
After REDMAP’s success on Election Day 2010, Republicans held majorities in 10 of the 15 states that gained or lost U.S. House seats and where the legislature played a role in redrawing the state legislative and congressional district map. In the 70 congressional districts that were labeled by National Public Radio as “competitive” in 2010, Republicans controlled the redrawing of at least 47 of those districts; Democrats were responsible for 15, and a non-partisan process determined eight.

Yes, not only did they make gerrymandering a pivotal part of their strategy to "maintain a Republican stronghold in the U.S. House of Representatives for the next decade.", THEY BRAGGED ABOUT IT!

A generalized "you guys" context of one side Vs another, not you in particular

Who exactly is on the pro gerrymandering team? (I mean, besides obviously the Republican State Leadership Committee)

That's like being pro changing the rules of who can bring a bill to a vote in the House of Reps in order to shutdown the federal government.

[mrsleeve]

^
I got the context, I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of pointing fingers at just one side pulling the stunt. Your calling me out only shows that in your rush to jump on a gotcha you missed the point entirely

You guys? Who are you referring to? I have nothing to do with how districts are laid out or who gets to stay in power.

A generalized "you guys" context of one side Vs another, not you in particular

[BraveUlysses]

That was my whole fucking point, the whole 2 wrongs dont make a right thing, and how hypocritical it is to point out the gerrymandering by just one side. I see that went right over your heads


Yes brave that was the argument being put forward that thanks to gerrymandering the "crazy people" will still get to keep their seat. The very same tatic has been used the past to keep the crazy lefties in their seats as well.................. SO the point there was just what, its ok for you guys to do it but not people whos views are different when the tables are turned then????????

You have no understanding of the concept of context when we're specifically talking about a particular party not losing their positions due to gerrymandering. Don't be stupid and assume that I support gerrymandering because I called you out for making yet another shit argument.

[nando]

That was my whole fucking point, the whole 2 wrongs dont make a right thing, and how hypocritical it is to point out the gerrymandering by just one side. I see that went right over your heads


Yes brave that was the argument being put forward that thanks to gerrymandering the "crazy people" will still get to keep their seat. The very same tatic has been used the past to keep the crazy lefties in their seats as well.................. SO the point there was just what, its ok for you guys to do it but not people whos views are different when the tables are turned then????????

You guys? Who are you referring to? I have nothing to do with how districts are laid out or who gets to stay in power.

[Cabriolet]

Buddy, you are talking about the Pre-Tribulation Rapture I assume, right? If you did some reading, you would know there is an ancient Greek word that is the root of the use of the concept of rapture("catching up"/"taking away"), right? So, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say they don't all specifically subscribe to the context of rapture in your 1800's definition or intent.

Dam. dis man knows his shiz

[mrsleeve]

that's pretty bad logic.

so if one person does it, that makes it OK? whoever said it was a good thing if democrats did it?

Yeah, that was the argument he made. Oh wait, it wasn't. stupidshitthatsleevesays.txt

That was my whole fucking point, the whole 2 wrongs dont make a right thing, and how hypocritical it is to point out the gerrymandering by just one side. I see that went right over your heads


Yes brave that was the argument being put forward that thanks to gerrymandering the "crazy people" will still get to keep their seat. The very same tatic has been used the past to keep the crazy lefties in their seats as well.................. SO the point there was just what, its ok for you guys to do it but not people whos views are different when the tables are turned then????????

[Farbin Kaiber]

I just love you tijuana transsexual1.

[tjts1]

Buddy, you are talking about the Pre-Tribulation Rapture I assume, right? If you did some reading, you would know there is an ancient Greek word that is the root of the use of the concept of rapture("catching up"/"taking away"), right? So, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say they don't all specifically subscribe to the context of rapture in your 1800's definition or intent.

You've seen one crazy right wing nut job, you've seen them all. So what else is new?

[Farbin Kaiber]

Buddy, you are talking about the Pre-Tribulation Rapture I assume, right? If you did some reading, you would know there is an ancient Greek word that is the root of the use of the concept of rapture("catching up"/"taking away"), right? So, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say they don't all specifically subscribe to the context of rapture in your 1800's definition or intent.

[BraveUlysses]

Yes and the Dems have never gerrymandered a district to the width of a street to keep control of a seat before

Yeah, that was the argument he made. Oh wait, it wasn't. stupidshitthatsleevesays.txt