Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, January 24, 2018

Rolling Stone's Ari Berman writes a story about gerrymandering and other vote distorting tactics that should anger anyone who cares about a healthy democracy. The story details how Wisconsin Republicans created a horseshoe-shaped district to ensure that their candidate would win and keep on winning. Berman points out that Democrats also try to rig the system. Berman's details paint a vivid picture of tactics that bring real clarity to the voter suppression problem. Here is a paragraph that has some disturbing details about Wisconsin's redistricting process: "In the summer of 2011, soon after activists occupied the rotunda of the Wisconsin state capitol to protest Walker's bill stripping public-employee unions of collective-bargaining rights, Republican members of the legislature visited the offices of Michael Best & Friedrich, the party's go-to law firm. The GOP was in control of the state's redistricting process for the first time since the 1950s, and Republicans were shown to the 'map room,' where their aides were drawing new political districts in secret following the 2010 census. The legislators signed confidentiality agreements, pledging not to discuss the work with anyone, even though the redistricting was financed with taxpayer funds. 'Public comments on this map may be different than what you hear in this room,' read the talking points distributed to GOP legislators. 'Ignore the public comments.'"

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

More from the article:

The gerrymandering in Wisconsin, which experts call among the most extreme in U.S. history, is but one part of Republicans' stealth plan to stay in office. Since Gov. Scott Walker and the Republican Legislature took power, they've also introduced some of the country's harshest voting restrictions, passing laws that make it harder for Democratic-leaning constituencies to register to vote and cast ballots. At the same time, the state has become the "Wild West of dark money," according to Lisa Graves, a senior fellow at the Madison-based Center for Media and Democracy, with Republican politicians like Walker raising unprecedented sums from billionaire donors to finance their campaigns.

"All three of these things have to be seen as part of a whole," says Eric Holder, Barack Obama's attorney general, who founded the National Democratic Redistricting Committee in 2016 to challenge Republican gerrymandering efforts. "Unregulated dark money combined with these voter-ID laws combined with gerrymandering is inconsistent with how our nation's system is supposed to be set up. American citizens ought to be concerned about the state of our democracy. We could end up with a system where a well-financed minority that has views inconsistent with the vast majority of the American people runs this country."

#1 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-01-24 07:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

This is the important part for Democrats to read and understand (italics mine):

This isn't just a problem in Wisconsin. Following the 2010 elections, Republicans had full control of the redistricting process for state legislative and U.S. House seats in 21 states, compared with eight states for Democrats. Republicans now hold as many as 22 additional House seats because of gerrymandering, according to an analysis by the Associated Press – nearly the same margin as the 24 seats Democrats need in order to take back the House. During the 2012 elections, Democratic House candidates won 1.4 million more votes nationally than Republicans, but the GOP won 33 more seats. Of course, Democrats have also employed gerrymandering to gain partisan advantage, including in blue states like Illinois and Maryland. But in the past decade Republicans have turned the manipulation of political lines into an art form.

#2 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-01-24 07:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Italics mine:

Of course, Democrats have also employed gerrymandering to gain partisan advantage, including in blue states like Illinois and Maryland

California and New York were both ridiculously gerrymandered by the Dems for decades, was that "voter suppression" as well?

#3 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-01-25 01:30 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

"California and New York were both ridiculously gerrymandered by the Dems for decades, was that "voter suppression" as well?"

Do you not know what Gerrymandering is?

#4 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-25 01:37 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

What kind of retarded question was that?

I mean, you are known for them, but that was one of your worst.

#5 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-01-25 01:43 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

LOL. It's like you're talking to yourself, expsecially with that answer.

California was once a bipartisan Gerrymander. Now it has a non-partisan districting regime.

Tt's a lot more competitive these days, and a lot more diverse, in terms of who California chooses to represent California.

#6 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-25 01:53 AM | Reply

Scott Walker is a Republican. Of course he cheats. That's the first rule in the Republican playbook.

#7 | Posted by Twinpac at 2018-01-25 03:33 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

California and New York were both ridiculously gerrymandered by the Dems for decades, was that "voter suppression" as well?

#3 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

You missed this part.

Democrats have also employed gerrymandering to gain partisan advantage, including in blue states like Illinois and Maryland. But in the past decade Republicans have turned the manipulation of political lines into an art form.

#2 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY


All things being equal (not equal), Republicans are, at the moment, worse -- you should admit the obvious.

#8 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2018-01-25 06:31 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

ROC playing the whataboutism card like a true stalinist.

#9 | Posted by 726 at 2018-01-25 07:49 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

California and New York were always Democratic strong hold states, there probably was some gerrymandering but not enough to swing those state from their Democratic roots. FDR was the former Governor of New York, Jerry Brown and his father Pat Brown were both Governors of California beginning in the 1950's. They did not attain those offices by gerrymandering considering that the office of Governor is a statewide election. ROC is playing the all too familiar "both sides are the same" but they are not even close to the same. The Republicans have made a science of election theft and then used made up "voter fraud" as a cover for their dishonest actions. Quite simply, the Republican Party has decided that power is so valuable that any crime which helps them attain it is ok. They are crooks and the inequality of income is the result.

#10 | Posted by danni at 2018-01-25 07:51 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

Advertisement

Advertisement

Madison, The capital of Wisconsin is heavily Blue. Last week the state closed the 2 west side downtown DMV offices and opened a new office in the far western suburbs. Now people downtown have the choice of the far west office which takes 2 hours and 3 bus changes to be finally dropped off 1/3rd of a mile from the office. In addition the last leg route only runs a couple hours each morning and evening. At midday no bus goes within 2 miles of the new DMV office. The city has filed a civil complaint but with the Wisconsin courts stuffed with conservative appointees it is unlikely to go anywhere.

In addition the new office is only open 8:30am to 4:45pm monday through friday. There are no evening or weekend hours for people who work for a living.

#11 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2018-01-25 09:30 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

Of course he cheats. That's the first rule in the Republican playbook. - #7 | Posted by Twinpac at 2018-01-25 03:33 AM
Republican Playbook:
Rule 1. Emulate Democrats
Rule 2. Stigginit
Rule 3. uh...Oops.

#12 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-01-25 10:00 AM | Reply

How to make cheating acceptable; pretend Democrats are just as guilty. It's simple a lie but don't tell Goatman that, he lives in his own reality based on the stupid idea that "both sides are the same." Such a stupid premise but many need it to justify their own party doing things that they know are absolutely dishonest and undemocratic. They lose their claim to decency when they do so. They become part of the corruption which they pretend to detest.

#13 | Posted by danni at 2018-01-25 10:10 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

The Republicans have made a science of election theft and then used made up "voter fraud" as a cover for their dishonest actions. Quite simply, the Republican Party has decided that power is so valuable that any crime which helps them attain it is ok. They are crooks and the inequality of income is the result.

#10 | POSTED BY DANNI AT 2018-01-25 07:51 AM | FLAG:

I'm only mentioning this because you claim only republicans cheat, when are you going to show any outrage to the FACT that Hillary cheated out YOUR candidate Bernie?

#14 | Posted by fishpaw at 2018-01-25 11:23 AM | Reply

Republican Playbook:
Rule 1. Emulate Democrats
Rule 2. Stigginit
Rule 3. uh...Oops.

#12 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

Is it hard being that stupid? I mean, honestly, we kind of want to know?

To argue that what the Republicans are doing now "emulates" the Democrats is pretty idiotic. It's about extremes. And the Republicans took it to the absolute extreme; something we've never anticipated or seen in US history.

You should quit posting until you can get help.

#15 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-01-25 11:24 AM | Reply

#15 Typical Syco response, "you are stupid". You can never debate because you can't do so you simply say "stupid"
I would assume your other favorite word is "cuz".

#16 | Posted by fishpaw at 2018-01-25 11:30 AM | Reply

#3 | Posted by Rightocenter

One big mistake was already pointed out to you. Here's another - don't confuse voter suppression with gerrymandering. They are completely different. Voter suppression is all the laws with stringent ID requirements the Republicans are passing in states they control the legislatures in. Widespread voter fraud is a myth perpetrated to suppress American voters. Laws courts have consistently found and have been described as scalpel precision targeting minorities. Then there is Danni's favorite on the topic Crosscheck - 200 misidentifications for every potential 1 double registered person - literally over 99% of the time it gets it wrong yet the GOP wants it nationwide. Yet somehow it is "ok" to use in Red controlled states. Keep in mind this was first created in Kansas. Without it Michigan would have went for Hillary and so would other states.

Gerrymandering on the other hand is not suppressing votes but redistricting in order to dilute the voting power of the people. The SCOTUS ruled partisan Gerrymandering is illegal. That said the GOP raised it to an art form after the 2010 by employing big data and AI. We must insist on non-partisan redistricting NOW. The issues will only get worse in the future as both the data sets and AI get better.

#17 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2018-01-25 11:51 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

California was once a heavily democratic Gerrymander, which carved out districts for certain republicans so that they wouldn't complain too much. The Democratic Party fought tooth and nail in the Courts to keep their boundaries, but first the Courts and then the voters forced a non-partisan districting regime on the State. However, decades of gerrymandering helped cement a solid Democratic majority that favored the more heavily populated coastal areas. With more contested races this is expected to change over time.

FTFY, sorry to destroy your narrative.

And the Republicans took it to the absolute extreme; something we've never anticipated or seen in US history.

Wrong, you certainly know how hard it is being stupid from personal experience.

California was so heavily gerrymandered by the Democratic Party that in 2010, for the fourth time in 12 years, not a single seat, nationally or statewide, was lost by the party holding it and only 2 races were decided by less than double digits. After the Reform Commission redrew the districts (over massive Democratic objection), in 2012, for the first time since the 1950's, there were nine highly-contested House races, with a number of senior members of Congress either opting to retire or losing their reelection bids. Thirty-eight new members were elected to the State Assembly, eight new State Senators were elected. While the Democrats maintained their majority, 48 races (as opposed to 2) were decided by single digits. The Democratic Party has twice circulated petitions to go back to the old system, but failed to get enough signatures.

Now California is being looked at as the nation wide model for non-partisan redistricting,

Harvard Kennedy School: California's Ambitious Experiment on Redistricting Reform Gets Nod from Harvard

#18 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-01-25 12:02 PM | Reply

#17

That was my point, thanks for making it for me...again. You should have addressed that post to Gal and the DRtards that claim that gerrymandering=voter suppression.

And Gal, for the record, I don't consider you a DRtard.

#19 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-01-25 12:05 PM | Reply

I heard some fairly detailed analysis on a podcast (SYSK) on the subject of name/date matches, and the "millions" of votes. Some macro-statisticians eliminated every variable, but finally couldn't fully explain ~20,000 exact matches of names and birthdates.

Until they saw an interesting pattern: The Autumn matches were all for folks born in the autumn.

Same for June, May, April, Holly, Noel, Summer, etc. The single most common match was a female with an Hispanic surname, born on March 19th. Another common match was an Irish surnamed boy, born on March 17th. I'm sure you can guess the first names.

That accounted for the last 20,000.

They also pointed out if 23 people are in the same room, the odds are 50-50 two people have the same birthdate.

#20 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-01-25 12:10 PM | Reply

I'd rig elections too if I had zero morals, didn't give a crap about the United States, and couldn't win with the merit of my ideas.

RoC, you sure are a caricature of republicanism.

#21 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-01-25 12:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Here is a look at California's maps before and after redistricting:

California Redistricting Maps: Before and After

As LA Weekly (hardly a conservative mouthpiece) had to say in 2011

The honorable commission of average Joes that's been slaving over California's out-of-wack districts for the last six months finally revealed a first draft of changes this morning, totally surpassing "Pretty Woman" for Best Makeover Story ever.

Bold, we know --

But no other state in the nation has ever been able say their legislative and congressional districts were drawn, agenda-free, by a nonpartisan group of non-politicians. The pride is almost painful! (Then again, no other state in the nation has been marred by a congressional ribbon as gerrymandered as that shameful stripe of blue down Cen Cal. So embarrassing!)

At first glance, the new districts are completely unrecognizable. Sacramento must be going up in flames right now.

Don't confuse "whataboutism" with setting the record straight, as even the article notes, the Dems were total masters of extreme Gerrymandering before the GOP took control, only now they are the ones screaming about it.

#22 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-01-25 12:19 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

I'd rig elections too if I had zero morals, didn't give a crap about the United States, and couldn't win with the merit of my ideas.

Which is why the Democrats did it for decades, as shown above.

#23 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-01-25 12:20 PM | Reply

#18 | Posted by Rightocenter

The truth is California is no longer heavily Gerrymandered and I believe that was the point?

#24 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2018-01-25 12:22 PM | Reply

Why don't you educate yourselves on the history of Gerrymandering, as set forth in this article from the Sacramento Bee, one of the most liberal papers in the US:

Drawing maps of legislative and congressional districts for partisan advantage – commonly called "gerrymandering" – is ethically wrong, and the U.S. Supreme Court may soon decide whether it's also a constitutional violation.

Democrats complain that the state-by-state gerrymanders of legislative districts, and through them the partisan redrawing of congressional districts, unconstitutionally thwart the ability of voters to decide which party and candidates they prefer.

Regardless of how the court rules, however, it's amusing to see Democrats, all the way up to former President Barack Obama, expressing outrage about gerrymandering. Republicans are merely doing what Democrats did for many decades, until the GOP figured out how to turn the tables.

California is virtually a case study in the politics of gerrymandering.

When they controlled all the levers in 1981 during Jerry Brown's first governorship, Democrats gleefully grabbed every legislative and congressional district they could.

The late Congressman Phil Burton (D) drew congressional maps so partisan and convoluted that he described them as "my contribution to modern art."

After the 1970 and 1990 censuses, Republican Govs. Ronald Reagan and Pete Wilson refused to sign the Democrats' gerrymanders and threw the issue to the state Supreme Court, which drew the maps itself.

Democrats once again controlled the Legislature and the governorship after the 2000 census. But Republicans cleverly threatened intervention by the U.S. Justice Department, forcing Democrats to accede to a bipartisan gerrymander that protected the status quo.

Those maps, however, were as outrageously distorted as any other gerrymander. That sparked a drive, financed by wealthy Stanford University scientist Charles Munger, Jr., and backed by Arnold Schwarzenegger, who was then governor, to remove redistricting from the Legislature and give it instead to an independent commission.

Voters agreed, passing Proposition 11 in 2008 to shift legislative redistricting to a commission, followed by Proposition 20 in 2010 to extend its authority to congressional seats.

Tellingly, Democratic leaders such as Barbara Boxer, then a U.S. senator, and Democratic congressional leader Nancy Pelosi opposed Proposition 11 in 2008. Other Democrats sponsored a rival measure, Proposition 27, in 2010 that would have repealed the independent commission altogether.

Proposition 27 failed, and the commission did its work after the 2010 census. Its maps may not be perfect, and Republicans didn't like their effect, but they are paragons of fairness compared to past gerrymanders.

Democrats, having been burned by the Republican drive to take over legislatures and Congress, are now suddenly enamored of having independent commissions draw districts.

As the worm turns.

With tables turned, Democrats now oppose gerrymandering

#25 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-01-25 12:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

For the sake of democracy, it would be best if neither side got to gerrymander electoral districts.

#26 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-01-25 12:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Pete, I was referring to your voter suppression statement.

The overall point, as stated by the SacBee, is that for Democrats to now complain about Gerrymandering is the height of hypocrisy given what they did for decades, not only in CA but in NY, IL, NY, MA, etc. They are now furious that the game has been flipped on them after they played it so well for so long.

I am a huge fan of non-partisan redistricting commissions, I think that all States should be required to have them.

That will truly let the voters decide, on the state and congressional level, who represents them.

#27 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-01-25 12:33 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#26

I agree completely. That, however, is not in the best interests of incumbents everywhere, regardless of party, except in California.

SCOTUS, in Gill v. Whitford can't technically force the State of Wisconsin to adopt a non-partisan districting commission, but it certainly could frame its ruling that only such a commission would ensure equal protection under the law.

#28 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-01-25 12:37 PM | Reply

Why couldn't neutral variables be entered into data programs, and a computer spit out a random, useable map?

Argue on a block here or there, for sensible reasons, and be done with it.

The concept anyone in power should be allowed to purposefully pack and crack is anathema to the Constitution.

#29 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-01-25 12:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"for Democrats to now complain about Gerrymandering is the height of hypocrisy."

Its no higher a hypocrisy than you complaining about their hypocrisy.

There was a time when I thought lawyers would shy away from relying on logical fallacies to make their arguments. This place sure put that notion to rest.

#30 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-25 12:48 PM | Reply

I assume Republicans have always gerrymandered red states they've had control of over the years. I assume both sides have always done it, where and when they could, but that doesn't make it good for the country. I am reminded of a quote by Pat Buchanan that I can almost remember. Something like "The Democrats stole IL. I was asked why we didn't contest that. Because we stole TX!" Just because everybody did/does it, don't make it right.

#31 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-01-25 12:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#13 | Posted by Danni at 2018-01-25 10:10 AM
#15 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-01-25 11:24 AM
I understand you two have some reading comprehension deficiencies, so I'll help you out.
The post you were referring to was satire. As evidenced by the 2nd rule Stigginit and the 3rd rule based on Gov. Rick Perry's infamous 'Oops' statement when, during a debate, he couldn't come up with the third federal department he would eliminate.
Do us all a favor and instead of spouting off, ask someone for help if you continue to not understand what's going on around you.

#32 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-01-25 01:03 PM | Reply

This is an important post:

Madison, The capital of Wisconsin is heavily Blue. Last week the state closed the 2 west side downtown DMV offices and opened a new office in the far western suburbs. Now people downtown have the choice of the far west office which takes 2 hours and 3 bus changes to be finally dropped off 1/3rd of a mile from the office. In addition the last leg route only runs a couple hours each morning and evening. At midday no bus goes within 2 miles of the new DMV office. The city has filed a civil complaint but with the Wisconsin courts stuffed with conservative appointees it is unlikely to go anywhere.

In addition the new office is only open 8:30am to 4:45pm monday through friday. There are no evening or weekend hours for people who work for a living.
#11 | Posted by hatter5183

A maneuver like this adversely affects working parents and the elderly and is designed to suppress their votes.

#33 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-01-25 01:19 PM | Reply

#22 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

Moron, those California maps may as well be voronoi maps! Look at some gerrymandering you ignorant: www.google.com

#34 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-01-25 01:24 PM | Reply

"The post you were referring to was satire."

I stand by my post, you were playing "both sides are the same" and you know it. Somehow, if you can pretend Democrats did the same thing 20 or 30 years ago then it is ok for Republicans to do it today.

#35 | Posted by danni at 2018-01-25 01:34 PM | Reply

#34

God you are stupid, did you even bother to read my links or look at the district maps in IL or MA on your own link? John Burton even admited that his districts were "modern art".

Do yourself a favor and read the links before spewing your inanity. Here's another one, sound out the big words and you will be just fine:

Political Road Map: How California went from worst to first in drawing fair political maps

As the U.S. Supreme Court considers its role in forcing states to draw fair political maps, Californians know well how the process can be manipulated. They saw it happen over and over again, for decades.

But an argument can be made that California rocketed from worst to first in making redistricting fairer.

Much of California's modern political history was shaped by battles over political boundaries, fought over a 60-year span that parallels the state's transformation into the country's most populous and diverse. Unprecedented social and cultural change fueled the political gamesmanship, but the real prize was clout in Washington.

California's growing population resulted in an astounding 29 new seats in the House of Representatives in just the last half of the 20th century. Quinn cites 1951 as "the first modern gerrymander" in California, as then-dominant Republicans intentionally skewed the once-a-decade reshaping of legislative and congressional boundaries. When the map making was over, they held a majority of the state's congressional districts.

Those maps slowed, but didn't block, the growing clout of Democrats. In 1961's redrawing, newly empowered Democrats exacted revenge and skewed the maps in their favor.

By the time Ronald Reagan was governor and California had 20 million people, each redrawing of maps led to open political warfare. Reagan vetoed redistricting plans sent to his desk in 1971, calling one version "a mockery of good government." The result was a legal stalemate. The task of drawing legislative and congressional boundaries was left to the California Supreme Court. The courts again intervened in 1991, when then-Gov. Pete Wilson rejected maps drawn by Democratic legislators.

Voters were pulled into the 1982 fight when Republicans -- accusing Democrats of blatantly attempting to fill the new California congressional seats with liberal lawmakers -- tried to overturn maps through a statewide referendum. The only time the two parties worked together, when they jointly signed off on new legislative and congressional seats in 2001, it was to protect incumbents. The message by then was clear: The redistricting process was a mess. Multiple efforts to strip the Legislature of the job failed before voters approved Proposition 11 in 2008. That created the California Citizens Redistricting Commission to draw state legislative districts, and voters in 2010 handed over congressional district map drawing to the panel.

The big cities in California are no different: take a look at LA District 15 for an example of how California wrote the book on crazy gerrymandering:

5 of LA's Craziest City Council District Gerrymanders

#36 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-01-25 01:38 PM | Reply

Somehow, if you can pretend Democrats did the same thing 20 or 30 years ago then it is ok for Republicans to do it today.

No one is pretending anything Danni, the Democrats are just pissed that it is now being used against them.

#37 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-01-25 01:39 PM | Reply

There was a time when I thought lawyers would shy away from relying on logical fallacies to make their arguments. This place sure put that notion to rest.

Point out my "logical fallacy" or STFU.

I'll wait.

#38 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-01-25 01:42 PM | Reply

if you can pretend Democrats did the same thing 20 or 30 years ago then it is ok for Republicans to do it today. - #35 | Posted by Danni at 2018-01-25 01:34 PM

Once again you falsely assign to me a position that I have not taken. That's twice just today. Are you unable to discuss what I actually say? Why is it you feel forced to defend a position I haven't espoused?

#39 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-01-25 01:44 PM | Reply

Here's another article from LA Weekly that emphasizes my point:

Un-Gerrymandering Los Angeles

For decades, except when the courts stepped in, entrenched California legislators drew up the electoral maps, creating bizarrely shaped, heavily gerrymandered voting districts that marched over mountain ranges and chopped neighborhoods to bits -- all to ensure that the incumbent got re-elected.

Known as "redistricting," the once-per-decade map-making increasingly was used not to help represent voters, but to create safe seats for politicians already in power. Using computer programs, California legislators went behind closed doors, where their consultants painstakingly segregated areas along party lines -- often by leaving out specific blocks or streets -- to isolate Democrats and Republicans into heavily stacked voting districts.

Common sense boundaries such as mountain ranges and city borders often were ignored when legislators controlled this map-making. But even if common sense returns, no place is more difficult to divvy up than greater Los Angeles.

From a map-maker's view, the area is a tangled mess of overlapping neighborhoods, geographic features and communities of interest.

Take state Senate District 25, which includes Compton, Inglewood, Palos Verdes and the edges of Long Beach, and looks on the map like a spindly-legged bird standing on a rock. This "district" narrows in downtown Long Beach to only a block or two in width. Then it veers hard west to take in wealthy, mostly Asian and white Palos Verdes.

Why the crazy, all-but-disconnected shape?

The 25th Senate District was drawn by legislators in 2001 to create a black voting district, carefully excising several areas where more Latinos and whites lived. According to lore, the map-makers had a second goal, too, snaking south and west to leafy Palos Verdes because the incumbent, black state Sen. Ed Vincent, kept his horses there.

"A spindly legged bird".

#40 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-01-25 01:47 PM | Reply

Gerrymandering, by any party, should be illegal. Period.

#41 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-01-25 01:47 PM | Reply

Righto killed this thread.

I think it's hilarious that only once the GOP turned the tables do Democrats squawk about gerrymandering.

#42 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-25 02:11 PM | Reply

I think it's hilarious that only once the GOP turned the tables do Democrats squawk about gerrymandering.

#42 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-01-25 02:11 PM | REPLY |

So are you trying to say this makes it OK for the GOP to gerrymander?

I am offended when either side cheats. Are you?

#43 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2018-01-25 03:00 PM | Reply

"Gerrymandering, by any party, should be illegal. Period."

Democrats would approve a Constitutional amendment to make that happen right now but Republicans would refuse and denying that is just lying.

#44 | Posted by danni at 2018-01-25 03:05 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

#41 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

Holy ----. It took two damn days for you to come to some sense. Finally you have some reasonable position instead of "the dems did it once, so its okay for the GOP in perpetuity". Its nice to see one of you DR Right idiots finally shed some of that partisanship-obsession.

#45 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-01-25 03:07 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

So are you trying to say this makes it OK for the GOP to gerrymander?

No, not at all. I do however appreciate that you asked me in lieu of just assigning a position to me.

#46 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-25 03:13 PM | Reply

"I think it's hilarious that only once the GOP turned the tables do Democrats squawk about gerrymandering."

I would like some sort of proof that Democrats ever gerrymandered to the extent that the Republicans do today, personally I just don't believe it is true. I think it is a sad attempt at a new talking point to legitimize the crimes that the Republican now commits as normal policy. There is billions of dollars and tons of power at stake and they will do ANYTHING to retain it as their treatment of Judge Garland proved. They just couldn't risk their stranglehold on the SC by treating him fairly. Republicans prove the old adage that "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely." The Republicans hold Congress, the Presidency and the SC and are absolutely corrupt. CU and corporate personhood created this mess, Constitutional amendment reversing both will be required to fix it. The world watches in wonderment as we just let these crooks steal our country.

#47 | Posted by danni at 2018-01-25 03:14 PM | Reply

"No, not at all. I do however appreciate that you asked me in lieu of just assigning a position to me."

You can say that but I think all of us here know better. You're fine with it but if it were the Democrats doing it you'd go out of your mind.

#48 | Posted by danni at 2018-01-25 03:16 PM | Reply

You can say that but I think all of us here know better.

#48 | POSTED BY DANNI

When you can't win the argument, falsely assign a position.

#49 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-25 03:17 PM | Reply

I would like some sort of proof that Democrats ever gerrymandered to the extent that the Republicans do today

Rightocenter has provided multiple links and excerpts doing just that.

personally I just don't believe it is true.

Evidence has been presented that proves it's true, yet you don't believe it anyway. You can lead a horse to water but you con't force the horse to drink.

#50 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-25 03:19 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Thing is Jeff, whether or not it's true, it wouldn't justify what the Republicans have done in the last decade. Many of them don't even hide their glee when they corrupt democracy, suppress the vote, even hack computer voting machines. The GOP is totally corrupt and I think pretty much, everyone knows it.

#51 | Posted by danni at 2018-01-25 03:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I'm just wondering Jeff, would you deny the corruption which dominates and rewards the Republican Party today?
Or, are you just so willing to pretend that saying the other side did it in the past makes it ok to do it today? Both sides are the same, right?

#52 | Posted by danni at 2018-01-25 03:26 PM | Reply

I think both political parties are corrupt and both are morally bankrupt. Both parties do whatever they can to enhance their own power. You come across as thinking that it should be criminal for the GOP to even exist.

#53 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-25 03:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Aww, did I hurt your widdle feewings Indy? My position has remained consistent throughout the thread:

I am a huge fan of non-partisan redistricting commissions, I think that all States should be required to have them.
That will truly let the voters decide, on the state and congressional level, who represents them.

#27 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER AT 2018-01-25 12:33 PM

#26
I agree completely.

#28 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER AT 2018-01-25 12:37 PM

Gerrymandering, by any party, should be illegal. Period.

#41 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER AT 2018-01-25 01:47 PM

And those are just the posts where I specifically spelled out my position for you "reading comprehension is optional" DRtards.

#54 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-01-25 03:29 PM | Reply

Or, are you just so willing to pretend that saying the other side did it in the past makes it ok to do it today?

There is no pretend. Democrats were doing it for decades. Righto has provided several links absolutely proving this.

That Democrats did it doesn't make it right for the GOP to do it. 2 wrongs don't make a right. BTW - your question was already answered in #46.

#55 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-25 03:30 PM | Reply

#54 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

Sometimes, no matter how clear one is being, it doesn't alter the narrative. It's an amazing thing to behold.

#56 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-25 03:32 PM | Reply

Democrats would approve a Constitutional amendment to make that happen right now but Republicans would refuse and denying that is just lying.

#44 | POSTED BY DANNI AT 2018-01-25 03:05 PM

If the GOP did what you say they would do, then the Dems would have decades of the GOP crying about it in CA to point to.

Besides, good luck with any type of Constitutional Amendment on pretty much anything. If you want your State to do what California did you are going to have to force your State to adopt it.

#57 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-01-25 03:33 PM | Reply

The amazing thing is people who say they don't like Trump spending 90 percent of their posts defending his his BS... because it is mostly just GOP BS.

#58 | Posted by Corky at 2018-01-25 03:35 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

GOP has been doing it for a while too. Tom Delay in TX in the early 2000's, for example.

#59 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-01-25 03:36 PM | Reply

"2 wrongs don't make a right."

You clearly don't have meaningful thoughts on this beyond "it's hilarious."

There's no policy you or your party supports which would end Gerrymandering.

#60 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-25 03:36 PM | Reply

Sometimes, no matter how clear one is being, it doesn't alter the narrative. It's an amazing thing to behold.

#56 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-01-25 03:32 PM

That's because, as evidenced by Danni refusing to believe, even in the face of overwhelming proof that the Dems did this in CA for decades, their partisan blinders won't let them accept that the narrative they have been fed is wrong.

This holds true for the Usual Suspects on both sides of the DR divide.

#61 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-01-25 03:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#60

I support what was done in California. I would love for Michigan to put something similar into place.

#62 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-25 03:38 PM | Reply

#58

LOL, when pushed into a corner, blame it on Trump.

#63 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-01-25 03:39 PM | Reply

##60

My party already supported the Initiative which ended Gerrymandering in California, unlike yours, which not only vehemently opposed it but put forth their own Initiative to repeal the independent commission, which failed spectacularly:

"That sparked a drive, financed by wealthy Stanford University scientist Charles Munger, Jr., and backed by Arnold Schwarzenegger, who was then governor, to remove redistricting from the Legislature and give it instead to an independent commission.

Voters agreed, passing Proposition 11 in 2008 to shift legislative redistricting to a commission, followed by Proposition 20 in 2010 to extend its authority to congressional seats.

Tellingly, Democratic leaders such as Barbara Boxer, then a U.S. senator, and Democratic congressional leader Nancy Pelosi opposed Proposition 11 in 2008. Other Democrats sponsored a rival measure, Proposition 27, in 2010 that would have repealed the independent commission altogether.

Proposition 27 failed, and the commission did its work after the 2010 census."

Nice try to resurrect your narrative, however.

#64 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-01-25 03:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

ROC, I've already said I would support a Constitutional amendment to end gerrymandering, would you? And no, I have not seen anything you posted that really showed that Democrats gerrymandered to the extent that the Republican do today, it would have been virturally impossible to do without computers. As courts have already found some gerrymandered districts are so exactly designed that you couldn't have done it without moder computers and software.

#65 | Posted by danni at 2018-01-25 03:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#64 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

Boom!

#66 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-25 03:46 PM | Reply

"I would like some sort of proof that Democrats ever gerrymandered to the extent that the Republicans do today, personally I just don't believe it is true."

I don't think they did. As the article states:

"Of course, Democrats have also employed gerrymandering to gain partisan advantage, including in blue states like Illinois and Maryland. But in the past decade Republicans have turned the manipulation of political lines into an art form."

As I understand it, part of the reason the GOP has turned it into an art form has to do with technology. Computerized census and voter registration rolls along with tools like Mapquest make precision redistricting possible in a way that would not have been doable 50 years ago. (I read that in an article earlier today that I can't find now.)

#67 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-01-25 03:49 PM | Reply

"it would have been virturally impossible to do without computers."

Yes, see my above post, which I wrote without seeing your comment.

#68 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-01-25 03:51 PM | Reply

"My party already supported the Initiative which ended Gerrymandering in California"

But how about in all the other states? Nationally, it is of little significance, California is a blue state and probably always will be but many other states have Republican controlled legislatures even though there are more Democratic voters. States like Michigan.

"Once again, Michigan Dems receive more votes in the State House, but Republicans hold onto power"

www.metrotimes.com

#69 | Posted by danni at 2018-01-25 03:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

- Nationally, it is of little significance,

Bingo!

#70 | Posted by Corky at 2018-01-25 03:55 PM | Reply

"Boom!"

And after the commission drew the districts the Democrats still controlled the Legislature, still elected Pelosi, still elected Brown. Boom is more like pffft.
You guys try to argue with the pretense that I don't know Democrats are also politicians, I never pretended Democrats are saints, just that they aren't as evil as are the Republicans. Republicans denied their own people Medicaid expansion all over the country, who benefited from that? How many people died unnecessarily? That one point destroys all of your points. When you are willing to sacrifice the lives of your own constituents for an ideology you are evil.

#71 | Posted by danni at 2018-01-25 03:59 PM | Reply

"Democrats would approve a Constitutional amendment to make that happen right now but Republicans would refuse and denying that is just lying."

They should have presented this when they had control of the House, Senate, and White House.

They could have proposed a Constitutional Amendment to limit the House and Senate to two terms, like the Office of the President.

They could have thought up DACA then and made it law.

#72 | Posted by Petrous at 2018-01-25 04:01 PM | Reply

#65

I have already answered almost every one of these questions above. As to the "impossible without computers", that is a BS talking point, this is an excerpt from a 2005 LA Times article called Learning to love gerrymandering:

Drawing the lines of political battle is sometimes said to be more important than the actual voting. And it's certainly true that California has a long history of shameless gerrymandering. Splitting apart cohesive cities, carving up ethnic enclaves or keeping them whole, leaping across waterways or wild lands to bundle together geographically distant clusters of the like-minded -- these are the demographic tools of imposed political dominance. Phil Burton, the legendary Democratic congressman, once concocted a district so bizarrely shaped that he referred to it as "my contribution to modern art." It contained four separate sections, two of which were connected only by water and two by railroad yards.
I supported Proposition 11 and was against Prop. 27. As I said repeatedly (see post #54), gerrymandering should be illegal for any party to do.

California is a blue state and probably always will be but many other states have Republican controlled legislatures even though there are more Democratic voters. States like Michigan.

And as you note, California was a Blue State yet the minority party still got rid of gerrymandering, there is no reason why that can't happen in Michigan, Wisconsin or Pennsylvania.

#73 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-01-25 04:19 PM | Reply

"They should have presented this when they had control of the House, Senate, and White House."

"So, to the extent there was a filibuster proof majority in the Senate it lasted during two brief periods which lasted for a total of just over five months when counted altogether (and Congress was in its traditional summer recess for most of the July-August 2009 time frame).

It's important to keep this fact in mind when discussing what could have happened in the 111th Congress, I think, and it's probably something I haven't kept in mind myself in the past."

www.outsidethebeltway.com

And they were a bit busy with ACA, Dodd Frank and trying to resurrect a failed Bush economy.

#74 | Posted by danni at 2018-01-25 04:20 PM | Reply

#70

Dorky, that is what you guys are crying about, so the fact that California solved its gerrymandering problem is of huge national significance.

Please at least try to keep up.

#75 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-01-25 04:22 PM | Reply

#74

Annnnd Danni is forced to resort to the "filibuster proof majority" defense.

Too funny.

#76 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-01-25 04:24 PM | Reply

#75

Porky, a Republican in CA is more like a Dem anywhere else, so using that state as a measuring stick for what the GOP does is only something an idiot would do... oh, wait... never mind.

#77 | Posted by Corky at 2018-01-25 04:25 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

I think both political parties are corrupt and both are morally bankrupt. Both parties do whatever they can to enhance their own power. You come across as thinking that it should be criminal for the GOP to even exist.

#53 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

This is why people think you are such a fool. Both parties can be corrupt; that does not make them equal. Your insistence that they are demonstrates your inability to process information rationally.

#73 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

All you have provided is proof that California ended gerrymandering despite it helping California's primary party, as well as showing that the extent to which California Dems gerrymandered was minuscule compared to modern GOP gerrymandering. Why you think demonstrating how much worse it is under the GOP's deployment supports you narrative is simply beyond reason.

#78 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-01-25 04:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

More excuses. Are you sure the Russians aren't redrawing voting districts? Seriously, the left has never done it. Is that what you nuts are claiming here? Man, good luck.

#79 | Posted by wisgod at 2018-01-25 04:28 PM | Reply

"Annnnd Danni is forced to resort to the "filibuster proof majority" defense. "

Something Republicans aren't familiar with....the fact based defense.

#80 | Posted by danni at 2018-01-25 04:30 PM | Reply

#78

Your lack of comprehension is expected, but still disappointing. California Democrats wrote the book on extreme gerrymandering ("my contribution to modern art". "A spindly legged bird", "The 25th Senate District was drawn by legislators in 2001 to create a black voting district ...snaking south and west to leafy Palos Verdes because the incumbent, black state Sen. Ed Vincent, kept his horses there." etc.) and you are just pissed because the GOP stole a page out of the Dems playbook.

My "narrative" is that it should be made illegal, nationwide. Nothing more, nothing less.

#81 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-01-25 04:31 PM | Reply

Both parties can be corrupt; that does not make them equal

Your reading comprehension sucks, Jones.

I didn't said they were equal and I didn't say they were the same.

#82 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-25 04:32 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"They could have proposed a Constitutional Amendment to limit the House and Senate to two terms, like the Office of the President."

Personally, I'd oppose that. Voters should be allowed to elect whoever they choose who is legally entitled to run and for as many terms as the voters want to keep them there. I'd personally love to reelect Barrack Obama right now.

#83 | Posted by danni at 2018-01-25 04:32 PM | Reply

#77

Translation: Still got nothing.

#84 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-01-25 04:34 PM | Reply

"They should have presented this when they had control of the House, Senate, and White House."

That's not how it works.

It takes 3/4 of states to approve a Constitutional Amendment.

Zero red states support and end to Gerrymandering. A few of them wouldn't even be red without Gerrymandering.

#85 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-25 04:34 PM | Reply

. Republicans denied their own people Medicaid expansion all over the country, who benefited from that? How many people died unnecessarily?

Health outcomes are no better for those on Medicaid than for those who are not.

#86 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-25 04:34 PM | Reply

The Equal Rights Amendment never was approved much to the shame of this country.

#87 | Posted by danni at 2018-01-25 04:35 PM | Reply

Zero blue states support an end to Gerrymandering. A few of them wouldn't even be blue without Gerrymandering.

See how easy that was?

Make it illegal.

#88 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-01-25 04:36 PM | Reply

"My "narrative" is that it should be made illegal, nationwide. Nothing more, nothing less."

See if you can dream up a way of making it illegal for your "narrative."

Not just a statement of the problem, but a remedy for the problem as well.

#89 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-25 04:37 PM | Reply

"Health outcomes are no better for those on Medicaid than for those who are not."

LOL.

"Not on Medicaid" covers a lot of ground. Four on five Americans are not on Medicaid.

#90 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-25 04:40 PM | Reply

"Make it illegal."

Like the GOP will ever do that!

#91 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-25 04:41 PM | Reply

Oregon Study: Medicaid 'Had No Significant Effect' On Health Outcomes vs. Being Uninsured

www.forbes.com

#92 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-25 04:44 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Make it illegal."
Like the GOP will ever do that!

#91 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

They made it happen in California and the Democrats fought it tooth and nail.

#93 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-25 04:45 PM | Reply

"Health outcomes are no better for those on Medicaid than for those who are not."

Stupid statement by Rick Perry. If you honestly believe that a poor person with diabetes or high blood pressure is not better off with healthcare than without you're simply lying to yourself.
Thing is Medicaid is available in all states, just not Medicaid expansion.

"While it does adjust for socioeconomic factors, the study notes that if you're on Medicaid, you're probably suffering from a whole host of risk factors other categories of patients don't have, he said. Medicaid recipients are the poorest, least educated and sickest of all patients, and often don't seek medical help until conditions are at their worst.

Those patients have the highest incidence of AIDS, depression, liver disease, neurologic disorders, psychoses and metastatic cancer, the study said."

www.politifact.com

Guys like Perry use statistics which are totally misleading and pretend they are facts. When you start out with the sickest group of people you shouldn't be surprised when their outcomes are not better than those who aren't members of that group.
Until you fall into the lowest economic strata you can't qualify for Medicaid, so when you are poor enough you are then probably also sick enough to have a poor outcome.

#94 | Posted by danni at 2018-01-25 04:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

My "narrative" is that it should be made illegal, nationwide. Nothing more, nothing less.

#81 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

Yes, we all saw your narrative change halfway through the thread. Now if we could just get it through that neanderthal skull of yours, maybe you'd understand how much worse it is now.

#95 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-01-25 04:47 PM | Reply

#91

As Jeff correctly points out, they already did in California.

Maybe you and Indy should share the cost of a reading comprehension tutor.

#96 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-01-25 04:48 PM | Reply

And you can present all the studies you want Jeff, I've sat in the waiting room for Chemo treatments and radiation treatments with my daughter, Medicaid patients came through and were treated regularly who would have gone without any treatment without Medicaid. That's simply a fact. Those treatments saved their lives just like they saved my daughter's life. You can say whatever you want but I think I'll continue to believe my lying eyes.

#97 | Posted by danni at 2018-01-25 04:48 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"My "narrative" is that it should be made illegal, nationwide. Nothing more, nothing less."

Commendable, now if we could just get the Republicans in most red states to agree with you.

#98 | Posted by danni at 2018-01-25 04:50 PM | Reply

I didn't said they were equal and I didn't say they were the same.

#82 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

There was no reason to say "both parties are corrupt" other than to equate Democrats to Republicans. Nice try but it still makes you look like a moron.

#99 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-01-25 04:50 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#96 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

Why should we split the cost to tutor your illiterate ass?

#100 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-01-25 04:50 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

And you can present all the studies you want Jeff, I've sat....

Studies are a bit more authoritative than your personal anecdotes.

#101 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-25 04:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

There was no reason to say "both parties are corrupt" other than to equate Democrats to Republicans. Nice try but it still makes you look like a moron.

#99 | POSTED BY INDIANAJONES

Both parties are corrupt. It was a statement of fact. It's not my fault that it eviscerates your narrative.

#102 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-25 04:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Yes, we all saw your narrative change halfway through the thread.
#95 | POSTED BY INDIANAJONES

He's been consistent.

You're just pissed off that he's laying waste to your beloved narrative.

#103 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-25 04:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Why should we split the cost to tutor your illiterate ass?

#100 | POSTED BY INDIANAJONES

You're getting your ass handed to you. Ditch the shovel.

#104 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-25 04:54 PM | Reply

we all saw your narrative change halfway through the thread.

Riiight.

Late last night, in my first and only post, I call out the fact that California was once the most gerrymandered State in the US, and my first posts this morning I reiterate that and say it is now the model for non-partisan districting. To make is simpler for you "reading comprehension optional" posters, I simplified my position.

Do you understand now?

Probably not, but at least I tried.

#105 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-01-25 04:54 PM | Reply

#102 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Either you wasted bandwidth with that non-sequitur or you had a point to it. What is your point then in stating both parties are corrupt? Unless you attempting to justify the actions of the GOP by saying the democrats did it too, there was no reason to point out such an obvious statement.

Of course, I know the real answer is that you are a GOP apologist that will do all sorts of mental gymnastics to convince yourself they are not worse than the democrats.

#106 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-01-25 04:54 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#105;

California and New York were both ridiculously gerrymandered by the Dems for decades, was that "voter suppression" as well?

#3 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

Are you going to use the JEFFJ excuse of just stating facts or was there an actual point to that post then?

That's right, you were trying to justify the GOP doing it. Is it something to do with self-confidence? Like, since you subscribed to the GOP, now you have to fight for it tooth and nail? I just cannot understand why people like the two of you are so willing to through rationality out in order to preserve some made-up version of "winning" It is sad to see such mental weakness.

#107 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-01-25 04:58 PM | Reply

Commendable, now if we could just get the Republicans in most red states to agree with you.

#98 | POSTED BY DANNI AT 2018-01-25 04:50 PM

Why do you need the Republicans to agree? California Republicans forced the issue over the vehement objections of the Democrats, why can't other States do exactly the same thing in reverse? Or are saying that the Democrats in those States are incapable of doing what the California GOP accomplished.

#108 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-01-25 04:58 PM | Reply

- Why should we split the cost to tutor your illiterate ass?

Even Mackris couldn't cover those costs! I would chip in, but talk about throwing good money after bad..

#109 | Posted by Corky at 2018-01-25 04:58 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

It was a statement of fact. Nothing more.

I've already stated, more than once, that gerrymandering is wrong and the GOP shouldn't do it, regardless of the fact that Democrats successfully did it for decades. I've been very clear about that.

Both parties are corrupt. Both parties are morally bankrupt.

When the Democratic Party takes a specific action, something we can directly point to, that is clearly corrupt, I'm going to call it out for what it is.

When the Republican Party takes a specific action, something we can directly point to, that is clearly corrupt, I'm going to call it out for what it is.

If that kind of consistency is too nuanced for your tribal, bigoted ass, I suggest a reading comprehension tutor as Righto recommended above.

#110 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-25 04:59 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

That's right, you were trying to justify the GOP doing it. Is it something to do with self-confidence? Like, since you subscribed to the GOP, now you have to fight for it tooth and nail? I just cannot understand why people like the two of you are so willing to through rationality out in order to preserve some made-up version of "winning" It is sad to see such mental weakness.

#107 | POSTED BY INDIANAJONES

He's abusing you like a red-headed stepchild.

You're resorting to straw man arguments now. It should be embarrassing, even to a bigot.

#111 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-25 05:02 PM | Reply

#107

Calm down gaspumper, take a deep breath and you will be okay.

If you had actually read and comprehended the article, you would have seen that the author equates gerrymandering with voter suppression:

"Berman's details paint a vivid picture of tactics that bring real clarity to the voter suppression problem."

My retort, at 1:00 am, was to that part of the article. If Berman is claiming that gerrymandering results in voter suppression (it doesn't, as Pete and I discuss later) then the question of whether it cuts both ways is a valid one.

This morning, the discussion became about gerrymandering as a whole, and I provided proof that it wasn't a one way street.

Not too hard for almost everyone else but you to understand.

#112 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-01-25 05:03 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

"They made it happen in California"

Except... Republicans didn't make Gerrymandering illegal.

Californians voted in favor of a ballot initiative that put a non-partisan group in charge of drawing districts. They removed partisan actors from the process.

Nothing was made illegal, and seeing as California is pretty heavily Democratic, it's unreasonable to think the ballot initiative passed with only GOP support.

Make it illegal... hey maybe we should make murder illegal too, then it will go away!

#113 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-25 05:04 PM | Reply

#119

The only people who had comprehension problems on this thread were Snoofy and Indy until you arrived...

#114 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-01-25 05:05 PM | Reply

#113

Nice splitting hairs followed up with a strawman...you, Corky and Indy really do belong in the Seven Mental Dwarves.

#115 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-01-25 05:07 PM | Reply

119=109

#116 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-01-25 05:08 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

seeing as California is pretty heavily Democratic, it's unreasonable to think the ballot initiative passed with only GOP support.

That's because the Initiative system is ostensibly non-partisan.

Democrats campaigned against Prop. 11, the GOP supported it and the people of California saw who was on the right side of that argument and voted it in.

Two years later, when the Dems put Prop. 27 on the ballot to repeal Prop. 11 and the GOP opposed Prop. 27, the people of California saw who was, once again, on the right side of that argument and voted Prop. 27 down.

#117 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-01-25 05:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#117 | Posted by Rightocenter

Sorry for my long absence as this kept going... Davis_v._Bandemer - 1985 SCOTUS - Partisan Gerrymandering is declared Illegal. The issues is they didn't set a judicial review standard for what was Partisan Gerrymandering. Point is - Partisan Gerrymandering has been wrong for a LONG time now. My point is with AI and Big Data it will only get worse over time. And I do mean that period. I read articles about how this was accomplished this last round. I am learning a lot about Big Data and very frankly it is SCARY. It with AI is going to do to the world what the advent of the Personal Computer did times 10. And as with the Personal Computer some will be good and some will be bad.

I for one believe MANY things that are partisan today should not be period. It is not in the interest of the people or country. I have been opposed to gerrymandering since I understood what it was. It is ethically wrong. ANYONE for allowing partisan gerrymandering has serious ethics problems.

#118 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2018-01-25 05:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"Why do you need the Republicans to agree? California Republicans forced the issue over the vehement objections of the Democrats, why can't other States do exactly the same thing in reverse?"

Your narrative is full of misinformation.
Republicans didn't force the issue.
The people forced it via ballot initiative.
That can't happen in states that don't have a ballot initiative, which is 26 of them.

You raise an interesting question, though, which is why do you need the Republicans to agree.

This suggests Republican legislators don't agree that Republican legislators should end Gerrymandering in Republican controlled ststes, which is true.

#119 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-25 05:37 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

Your narrative is full of misinformation.
Republicans didn't force the issue.
The people forced it via ballot initiative.

Wrong. Prop. 11 was authored by Governor Schwarzenegger's office, funded by Shawarzenegger's California Dream team and Charles Munger Jr., a Stanford physicist who is a major GOP donor and it was backed by the California GOP, Common Cause and most Chambers of Commerce. It's opposition was Pelosi, Boxer, the California Democratic Party and the NAACP, among others.

I am going to pull a Corky and repost this, since your comprehension appears to be worse than Indy's:

"That sparked a drive, financed by wealthy Stanford University scientist Charles Munger, Jr., and backed by Arnold Schwarzenegger, who was then governor, to remove redistricting from the Legislature and give it instead to an independent commission.

Voters agreed, passing Proposition 11 in 2008 to shift legislative redistricting to a commission, followed by Proposition 20 in 2010 to extend its authority to congressional seats.

Tellingly, Democratic leaders such as Barbara Boxer, then a U.S. senator, and Democratic congressional leader Nancy Pelosi opposed Proposition 11 in 2008. Other Democrats sponsored a rival measure, Proposition 27, in 2010 that would have repealed the independent commission altogether.

Proposition 27 failed, and the commission did its work after the 2010 census."

This suggests Democratic legislators don't agree that Democratic legislators should end Gerrymandering in Democratic controlled ststes, which is true.

See how easy that was as well?

#120 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-01-25 06:02 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 3

#118

I agree 100% on all points.

#121 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-01-25 06:04 PM | Reply

#120 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

Moron, I get it -- you take pride in competing with JEFFJ and others on being the biggest hack on this site, but once you learn about the advancements in data processing that occurred over the last decade, then maybe you can lecture others on comprehension. Until then, you might want to save yourself from further embarrassment and at least learn what gerrymandering is. www.google.com

#122 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-01-25 06:07 PM | Reply

The bigot, Jones, must be a masochist. It's rare to witness someone take this kind of a beating and keep coming back for more.

#124 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-25 06:31 PM | Reply

"Prop. 11 was authored by Governor Schwarzenegger's office."

Yeah.

The way propositions get on the ballot is enough voters sign the petition.

So, that was done by Californians. Not by a party. A party can't even put a proposition on the ballot!

Or, as it says over at Wikipedia, "Proposition 11 of 2008 (or the Voters FIRST Act) was a law enacted by California voters..."

Not Reupblicans. Voters.

#125 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-25 06:39 PM | Reply | Funny: 4 | Newsworthy 1

#123

#124

Beating? More evidence you morons are completely unhinged.

All RoC has managed in this thread has been demonstrating that GOP gerrymandering is much worse, he doesn't understand how gerrymandering is different from voter suppression, and that he knows jack ---- about database systems or artificial intelligence.

#126 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-01-25 06:47 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

Watching ROC and JEFFJ school you with citation, facts, quotes, and data is almost as much fun as watching you try to squirm, lie, and logical fallacy your way out of it.

#127 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-01-25 07:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#127 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

Are you also completely unhinged or are the meanings of "citation, facts, quotes, and data" lost on you?

If you read RoC's links, it is very clear that GOP gerrymandering is much, much worse today. If you read his links, you will also see nothing that backs up his and Jeffj's original stance that because the Democrats did something in the past, it is okay for the GOP to do it today.

Keep on drinking that sweeeeet red Koolaid though!

#128 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-01-25 07:24 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

The way propositions get on the ballot is enough voters sign the petition.

So, that was done by Californians. Not by a party. A party can't even put a proposition on the ballot!

You sad little man, hope you didn't pull something with that stretch. From Ballotpedia:

As an initiated constitutional amendment, 694,354 signatures were required to qualify Proposition 11 for the ballot.

Kimball Petition Management was paid $2,332,988 from two separate GOP funded campaign committees to collect signatures to put this measure on the ballot.[38][39][40][41]Signatures to qualify the measure for the November 2008 ballot were submitted to election officials on May 6, 2008. On June 17, the California Secretary of State announced that a check of the signatures had established that the measure had qualified for the ballot.[42][43]

you will also see nothing that backs up his and Jeffj's original stance that because the Democrats did something in the past, it is okay for the GOP to do it today.

Considering we never said any such thing, your attempts to assign positions need improving.

Snoofy Indy, at this point, you should both just quit, otherwise the beatings will continue until your comprehension improves.

#129 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-01-25 07:40 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Indy or Snoofy, so hard to tell.

#130 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-01-25 07:45 PM | Reply

"As an initiated constitutional amendment, 694,354 signatures were required to qualify Proposition 11 for the ballot."

So you're saying all 694,354 signatures were from Republicans.

#131 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-25 08:10 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

What he's saying is that Republicans pushed for the ballot proposal. Dems fought it tooth and nail. Were it not for the actions of California Republicans that proposal never makes it onto the ballot.

#132 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-25 08:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Or maybe you're saying it received a majority of votes from Republicans and that's why it passed in a majority Democrat State I guess the Democrats just didn't bother to vote for or against it just stay home that day.

#133 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-25 08:12 PM | Reply

"...Republicans pushed for the ballot proposal. Dems fought it tooth and nail. Were it not for the actions of California Republicans that proposal never makes it onto the ballot." - #132 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-25 08:11 PM

Go east about 2,000 or so miles and it is:

Democrats pushed for the ballot proposal. Republicans fought it tooth and nail. Were it not for the actions of Florida Democrats that proposal never makes it onto the ballot.
Florida voters gave the 2 amendments enough votes to amend the Florida Constitution.

And what makes it even more interesting is that Florida Republicans did what they could to circumvent the will of the voters of Florida after the Constitution was amended.

#134 | Posted by Hans at 2018-01-25 08:25 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Were it not for the actions of California Republicans that proposal never makes it onto the ballot."

Were it not for the signatures of 694,354 registered California voters that proposal never makes it onto the ballot.

You're giving credit to the paid signature gatherers.

I'm giving credit to the signatures they gathered.

We can both be right.

Surely you're not going to argue it became California law without the support of any Democrat voters, so stop flirting with the notion.

#135 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-25 08:39 PM | Reply

#134

That was my point to Danni, the minority can get rid of gerrymandering if they really want to.

And Jeff is right Snoofy, I posted the Ballotpedia info to show that it was a GOP funded effort. Spin away as much as you like, I am sure it helps the butthurt creme dry.

#136 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-01-25 08:46 PM | Reply

"That was my point to Danni, the minority can get rid of gerrymandering if they really want to."

Oh.
I get it.
It's the minority's fault that Gerrymandering still exists.

#137 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-25 08:51 PM | Reply

"it was a GOP funded effort."

So they bought the election, then?
That seems illegal. Shame on the GOP!

#138 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-25 08:51 PM | Reply

his and Jeffj's original stance that because the Democrats did something in the past, it is okay for the GOP to do it today. - #128 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-01-25 07:24 PM

It literally took you 1 post to make another logical fallacy? Please quote for me where Either ROC or JeffJ have said that it is ok for the GOP to do it today, OR admit that you made it up.

#139 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-01-25 09:40 PM | Reply

As in so many other discussions we get lost in the details. The basic question is "do Republicans actually get elected due to various means of cheating like voter suppression, gerrymandering, etc.?

My contention is that yes, they do but that by owning thousands of radio stations and news networks like Fox they also control the message that their voters hear or see. There used to be a "fairness doctine" one does have to ask why we ever had that? It seems that we have decided that "fairness" is not something our news media needs to consider and we get the government that results when "fairness" doesn't matter.
I, honestly, would like to read a post justifying the elimination of the "fairness doctrine" with the reasoning that justified it.

#140 | Posted by danni at 2018-01-26 08:34 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Not a bad piece, actually. It does cover a lot of points that the GOP can't really debate.

Now, let's see how fair the media and Drudge is by linking to an article about how Dems rig elections. There are plenty of things to write about. I'm sure that will be ignored but I'll still keep holding out for fairness until the day I die.

#141 | Posted by humtake at 2018-01-26 12:37 PM | Reply

I get it.
It's the minority's fault that Gerrymandering still exists.

#137 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2018-01-25 08:51 PM

You obviously don't "get it", but that is not surprising in the least.

Run along, your comprehension tutor is waiting for you and Indy.

#142 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-01-26 01:12 PM | Reply

#130 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

Your notion of "beating" is akin to a trump supporter's idea of "winning". Give it up, skirting around your own comments, shifting our position, and then trying to defend the point we all made at the beginning for another day is just making you look more and more foolish.

At this point you're just flinging bullsh** like a schizo backed into a corner.

#143 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-01-26 01:32 PM | Reply

#143

None of that happened except the beating that you so richly deserved. Does your step daddy still call you "Gingerboy?"

#144 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-01-26 02:26 PM | Reply

#144; A projection and a Freudian slip all in one.

#145 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-01-26 02:36 PM | Reply

Florida voters gave the 2 amendments enough votes to amend the Florida Constitution.
And what makes it even more interesting is that Florida Republicans did what they could to circumvent the will of the voters of Florida after the Constitution was amended.

#134 | POSTED BY HANS

Which party is benefiting more via gerrymandering in Florida? My bet it's the GOP, hence their opposition.

One of the primary reasons the GOP pushed so hard to change how California did it was because nonpartisan district drawing would give them a better shot at winning. That is the reason Democrats fought it.

Like I said upthread - both parties are morally bankrupt.

#146 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-26 03:22 PM | Reply

"Like I said upthread - both parties are morally bankrupt."

Which one is more bankrupt? :)

#147 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-26 03:24 PM | Reply

Jones is back for even more punishment?

#148 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-26 03:24 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Which one is more bankrupt?

Probably the party who continued to support a pedophile even after it was grossly apparent he was guilty.

Because even "a pedophile is better than a democrat."

#149 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-01-26 03:27 PM | Reply

It literally took you 1 post to make another logical fallacy? Please quote for me where Either ROC or JeffJ have said that it is ok for the GOP to do it today, OR admit that you made it up.
#139 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE AT 2018-01-25 09:40 PM | FLAG:

You must selectively choose not to read posts from Jeff where he constantly deflects to Obama, or posts from conservative posters deflecting to the Clintons, as justification for actions of currently seated Republican politicians.

#150 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-01-26 03:33 PM | Reply

--You must selectively choose not to read posts from Jeff where he constantly deflects to Obama

It's not a deflection to mention the president for 8 of the last 9 years. Team Blue is still whining about Reagan, for chrissakes.

#151 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-01-26 03:40 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 6

151

no ----!!!

Clown, when you start jumping on Danni when she trots our Reagan's corpse, then we'll believe you think it's wrong for anybody to refer to Obama, who left office merely a year ago.

#152 | Posted by eberly at 2018-01-26 04:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It's not a deflection to mention the president for 8 of the last 9 years. Team Blue is still whining about Reagan, for chrissakes.

No one is bringing up Regan as a deflection. I've yet to read one post where anyone tried to justify the actions of a democratic politician by bringing up Reagan.

Swing and a miss Nulli.

I get you've joined team red. But your deflection doesn't change the fact that conservatives love bringing up the Clintons as justification for something Republicans are currently guilty of.

And Jeff can't keep Obama's name out of his posts if he tried.

Which. Was my response to ABigBore.

Now you're caught up.

#153 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-01-26 04:42 PM | Reply

#152 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2018-01-26 04:39 PM | FLAG: once a cheerleader, always a cheerleader

Girl, you really should stop leading with your chin.

#154 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-01-26 04:44 PM | Reply

"No one is bringing up Regan as a deflection"

so, you've plonked Danni, Hans, and --------?

#155 | Posted by eberly at 2018-01-26 04:44 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

At least you went 1 post without calling me a racist.

a cheerleader this time.....hmmm..okay.

#156 | Posted by eberly at 2018-01-26 04:45 PM | Reply

"No one is bringing up Regan as a deflection"

-Clownshart

why just a few hours ago.......

Here's my take on Obama's decision to grant Dreamers DACA. If I were President and I saw those young people facing deportation from the only country they have ever know I would use every power at my disposal to prevent those deportation even if it was later decided that I had exceeded my authority because, at the very least, it would provide a window for Congress to act which they have, obviously, failed to do. I would continue DACA as long as I could, I would fight their deportations in all of the courts. I would do everything humanly possible for a President to do to prevent those deportation and, to me, those folk like Jeff, who are so concerned with the legalities of it are so inconsistent as to be irrelevant. Did you, Jeff, support the impeachment of Ronald Reagan over Iran Contra? Or George Bush for lying us into a war and occupation of Iraq? Those HUGE offenses can be ignored by an act of mercy for the Dreamers should be judged as illegal? Your sense of justice is very distorted.

Posted by danni at 2018-01-26 11:37 AM | Reply

#157 | Posted by eberly at 2018-01-26 04:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"No one is bringing up Regan as a deflection"

so, you've plonked Danni, Hans, and --------?
#155 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2018-01-26 04:44 PM | FLAG:

Hans is pretty good at keeping records.

Let's ask him (if he ends up reading this).

Hans, have you, Danni, or Rein ever deflected to Reagan in order to justify something a Democratic politician was responsible for?

#158 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-01-26 04:49 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

At least you went 1 post without calling me a racist.
a cheerleader this time.....hmmm..okay.
#156 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2018-01-26 04:45 PM | FLAG:

Thanks for the reminder. How are your Tea Party brethren?

I've called you a cheerleader before. You love piggy backing on posters comments and telling them how great they are at verbal witticisms.

#159 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-01-26 04:54 PM | Reply

Also.

This conversation just became excusing posters deflections because other posters use deflections as well.

Eitherway. My original post was directed to #139 posted by ABigBore, and was side tracked by Nulli who took exception with an excerpt of my post.

And you jumped in to cheerlead.

#160 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-01-26 05:01 PM | Reply

I just found it odd you pretend nobody deflects to Reagan or Bush when it happens every day here, and backed up with evidence......and then you cry about an Obama deflection.

hypocritical, don't you think?

You understand it's obvious now that you aren't bothered by Obama deflections except for 100% partisan reasons, right?

#161 | Posted by eberly at 2018-01-26 05:06 PM | Reply

#161 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Don't generalize hypocrisy. Call it out against those who are actually guilty of it.

#162 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2018-01-26 05:07 PM | Reply

I just found it odd you pretend nobody deflects to Reagan or Bush

I've yet to read someone use Reagan as a justification for an action by a democratic politician. Perhaps you're misunderstanding what you're reading. The example you gave of Danni's post isn't her justifying anyone's actions. But, I will concede, she did invoke him.

You added Bush.

I never included him because he is deflected to. At least be honest Beverly.

when it happens every day here, and backed up with evidence......and then you cry about an Obama deflection.
hypocritical, don't you think?

Not at all. Because there's a lot of times Obama is simply deflected to for no reason. As I've called Jeff out on before. So. Again you're wrong.

And the Clintons. Whom I'm not a defender of in anyway. Are brought up all the time with no evidence of anything.

I notice you left out the Clintons, because it doesn't fit your narrative.

You understand it's obvious now that you aren't bothered by Obama deflections except for 100% partisan reasons, right?

If Obama is brought up, and it's not a deflection. I don't comment about it being one.

Sorry Eberly. You're a cute cheerleader. But not much of a thinker.

#163 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-01-26 06:12 PM | Reply

"Don't generalize hypocrisy. Call it out against those who are actually guilty of it."

I accused 1 person of it and posted substantiation for it.

#164 | Posted by eberly at 2018-01-27 10:03 AM | Reply

Wow, those cheerleader jabs really cut poor shart to the bone.

He's dragging his bloody vag around in total despair.

#165 | Posted by eberly at 2018-01-27 10:05 AM | Reply

conservatives love bringing up the Clintons as justification for something Republicans are currently guilty of. - #153 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-01-26 04:42 PM

Here is one of your failures in comprehension. It is possible to admit that 2 different things are screwed up without that being an excuse for either.
You may now consider yourself slightly less ignorant.
I keep reading you using the words 'as justification'...I think that you just don't understand what the word justification means. When JeffJ specifically says:
That Democrats did it doesn't make it right for the GOP to do it. 2 wrongs don't make a right. - #55 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-25 03:30 PM
It makes it abundantly clear that only a true and complete moron would think that he is justifying the actions of the GOP.

If I'm wrong, it should be simple for you to quote for us here some examples of JEFFJ 'constantly deflect(ing) to Obama, or posts from conservative posters deflecting to the Clintons, as justification for actions of currently seated Republican politicians. "
The justification part is important. You say that it happens 'constantly'. Put your integrity out there and SHOW us that you're not telling lies that we all have come to believe that you are.

ABigBore. #153 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-01-26 04:42 PM
When people of lower IQ have their views challenged in ways they can't refute, they react by getting violent, abusive, and engage in childish name calling - #315 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-10-30 07:09 PM

#166 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-01-27 12:40 PM | Reply

#166 posted by ABigBore

You sure wrote a lot of nothing. Hope you had fun.

Jeff knows he's deflected to Obama for no reason. Ask him.

As far as people deflecting to the Clintons, it happens all the time. If you missed it. That's on you. I'm not here to hold your hang through life. Take some responsibility for yourself.

#167 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-01-27 01:34 PM | Reply

Wow, those cheerleader jabs really cut poor shart to the bone.
He's dragging his bloody vag around in total despair.
#165 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2018-01-27 10:05 AM | FLAG:

Hey Beverly, ABigBore has been posting this nonstop, perhaps it will help you in life: (it's his Confucianism, SpeakSoftly is his Confucius)

"When people of lower IQ have their views challenged in ways they can't refute, they react by getting violent, abusive, and engage in childish name calling - #315 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-10-30 07:09 PM"

If you need the link, it's in his 166. He likes to hyperlink it in case anyone wants to click on it.

He carries around SpeakSoftly's words and spreads them for all to hear.

#168 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-01-27 01:43 PM | Reply

@#167 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-01-27 01:34 PM
You don't have the integrity to admit you were telling lies. Thanks for verifying it.

#169 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-01-27 01:58 PM | Reply

As far as people deflecting to the Clintons

#167 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

I have to say, it doesn't happen nearly as often now that some certain conservative contributors rarely appear on this site. Although, special acknowledgement may still go out to Sniper, Fishpaw and a couple others.

#170 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2018-01-27 02:14 PM | Reply

deflecting to the Clintons, as justification for actions

It's not a justification. Its just a deflection. Whataboutism, as it were.

#171 | Posted by REDIAL at 2018-01-27 02:15 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You don't have the integrity to admit you were telling lies. Thanks for verifying it.
#169 | POSTED BY ABIGBORE

I'm not lying.

Sad day for you.

#172 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-01-27 02:26 PM | Reply

I have to say, it doesn't happen nearly as often

Not as often. But it still does.

Honestly.

Both sides of the isle do it.

#173 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-01-27 02:32 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort