49% Of Republicans Think That...

[Rohirrim]

I just might remind some people on here, Boehner's Republican controlled House has received from historians the worst rating in American history.

[frerottenextelway]

Originally Posted by lonestar

You act like there was a clear mandate were you won big and have all the government in your pocket.

Nobama won a bare majority and the real government in the law making portion remained the same no change whatsoever.

The will of the people?

Fun fact: Democrats had a million more votes in the House than Republicans.

[frerottenextelway]

Originally Posted by Bob

I think that cheating in general helped Obama is some swing states -- that is fairly well documented. Not sure how much took place on both sides - either way, for our republic to stand all cheating of every kind needs to be better addressed.

No, it's not documented at all. Because voter fraud by and large does not happen.

[houghtam]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

Yeah, you're right, the way it should work is the House should just keep passing random **** until Harry likes what he sees well enough to take a break from his busy lobbyist fundraising schedule to start twisting arms. And they shall call it "Good Government"

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freee...tary-procedure

It is true that the Senate can pass a budget resolution with a simple majority vote. But for that budget resolution to take effect, it must have either the cooperation of the house, or at least 60 votes in the Senate... So yes, the Senate could pass a budget resolution, but without the cooperation of the house or 60 votes, that resolution would not take effect; it would be an empty gesture.

So when a majority of the House and enough Senators to prevent a budget from taking effect have refused to increase taxes for any reason, exactly what budget do you expect would pass?

[houghtam]

Originally Posted by frerottenextelway

No, it's not documented at all. Because voter fraud by and large does not happen.

Correction: in-person voter fraud (the kind supposedly targeted by evil voter ID laws) by and large does not happen. Election fraud both before and after the election happens, albeit extremely rarely and the most recent cases are overwhelmingly instances of Republican fraud.

Glad I could help!

[frerottenextelway]

Originally Posted by houghtam

Correction: in-person voter fraud (the kind supposedly targeted by evil voter ID laws) by and large does not happen. Election fraud both before and after the election happens, albeit extremely rarely and the most recent cases are overwhelmingly instances of Republican fraud.

Glad I could help!

Well, it's not a correction, as they are separate things, it's an additional point.

There are 4 things in the broad category. Voter fraud, voter registration fraud, election fraud, and voter suppression.

Only one of those had a significant impact, voter suppression. Election fraud would be second, with a minor to negligible impact. The one the Republicans always point to, tho they are equally guilty of, voter registration fraud, has exactly 0 impact on election outcomes.

[lonestar]

Originally Posted by frerottenextelway

Fun fact: Democrats had a million more votes in the House than Republicans.

So more morons live in blue states than red ones. Still seems that there are more more one the red side of the aisle. Unless I missed something.

[lonestar]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

I just might remind some people on here, Boehner's Republican controlled House has received from historians the worst rating in American history.

Yet he was reelected. Yet they were reelected. I guess that those voting KNEW that there had to be balance in government.

Amazing.

[Fedaykin]

Originally Posted by lonestar

So more morons live in blue states than red ones. Still seems that there are more more one the red side of the aisle. Unless I missed something.

Do you understand what the purpose of the House is, in terms of its representational function in the government?

[houghtam]

Originally Posted by lonestar

So more morons live in blue states than red ones. Still seems that there are more more one the red side of the aisle. Unless I missed something.

Yes, you completely missed it.

Essay question for tomorrow: Please explain how gerrymandering affected the House elections in such a way that Romney got 48 percent of the vote but Republicans have 55 percent of the House seats.

Answer:

"Imagine four neighboring congressional districts, two of which are 60 percent Democratic and two of which are 60 percent Republican. One would expect that each party would win two seats in the House. But if the Republican state legislature re-draws the district lines so as to make one district 100 percent Democratic, and the other three districts each 67 percent Republican, then instead of each party winning two representatives, the Republicans will win in three of the four districts."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobile...b_2110673.html

Again, simple math stumps the Republican.

[Fedaykin]

Originally Posted by lonestar

Yet he was reelected. Yet they were reelected. I guess that those voting KNEW that there had to be balance in government.

Amazing.

If elections happened in a purely honest and fair way, The "left" would control the house, the senate and the white house.

Elections are not honest and fair, so the House was taken by the right -- due entirely the gerrymandering. That's what "democratic congress members had more votes than republicans" tells us -- at least those of us that understand math, reality and how the system is supposed to work.

We could debate whether full control by one party is good (I don't happen to agree with that) but that's a separate matter.

[frerottenextelway]

Originally Posted by lonestar

So more morons live in blue states than red ones. Still seems that there are more more one the red side of the aisle. Unless I missed something.

I live in PA. The House is overwhelmingly R, despite the people voting overwhelmingly D. All people are not created equal in Republicanland.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by lonestar

Yet he was reelected. Yet they were reelected. I guess that those voting KNEW that there had to be balance in government.

Amazing.

2gerrymander transitive verb
gerrymanderedgerrymander·ing
Definition of GERRYMANDER

1
: to divide (a territorial unit) into election districts to give one political party an electoral majority in a large number of districts while concentrating the voting strength of the opposition in as few districts as possible
2
: to divide (an area) into political units to give special advantages to one group

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by houghtam

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freee...tary-procedure



So when a majority of the House and enough Senators to prevent a budget from taking effect have refused to increase taxes for any reason, exactly what budget do you expect would pass?

See, the thing with negotiations is both sides have to start out by telling the other what they'd like to see. That's the only way compromise can work in a situation where both sides have leverage.

This recent approach of "Ok, tell me what you want. Baaahahahaha. No way. Ok now tell me again what you want. Baahahahaha. Keep talking until I hear something I like" is kind of a problem. The Senate should be working through its own budget. If they can't get the votes to pass one, they need to work on a compromise. Sitting on your hands because you can't get exactly what you want is an interesting view of this "Democracy" I've heard so much about.

[lonestar]

Originally Posted by frerottenextelway

I live in PA. The House is overwhelmingly R, despite the people voting overwhelmingly D. All people are not created equal in Republicanland.

Which people are those? does PA have any R congressmen? If so then take it as they also know there needs to be balance.

If they do not then what is your point?

[lonestar]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

2gerrymander transitive verb
gerrymanderedgerrymander·ing
Definition of GERRYMANDER

1
: to divide (a territorial unit) into election districts to give one political party an electoral majority in a large number of districts while concentrating the voting strength of the opposition in as few districts as possible
2
: to divide (an area) into political units to give special advantages to one group

As I've said many times before. Payback is a b****. The republicans learned from the DUMOCRATs and just turned the tables on them after they had done it for decades.

[lonestar]

Originally Posted by Fedaykin

If elections happened in a purely honest and fair way, The "left" would control the house, the senate and the white house.

Elections are not honest and fair, so the House was taken by the right -- due entirely the gerrymandering. That's what "democratic congress members had more votes than republicans" tells us -- at least those of us that understand math, reality and how the system is supposed to work.

We could debate whether full control by one party is good (I don't happen to agree with that) but that's a separate matter.

See post above. Then whine some more about things not being fair.

[Fedaykin]

Originally Posted by lonestar

See post above. Then whine some more about things not being fair.

Not whining at all. Just pointing out the bubble you're in for thinking that the R's controlling the House means anything more than the game's rigged.

You wingnuts do have a lot of issues dealing with reality.

[houghtam]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

See, the thing with negotiations is both sides have to start out by telling the other what they'd like to see. That's the only way compromise can work in a situation where both sides have leverage.

This recent approach of "Ok, tell me what you want. Baaahahahaha. No way. Ok now tell me again what you want. Baahahahaha. Keep talking until I hear something I like" is kind of a problem. The Senate should be working through its own budget. If they can't get the votes to pass one, they need to work on a compromise. Sitting on your hands because you can't get exactly what you want is an interesting view of this "Democracy" I've heard so much about.

How do you compromise with the "no raising taxes" crowd when raising taxes must be one of the answers?

It's called parliamentary procedure, and it's the way the government works. It's also why the "vote everyone out of office, they're all a bunch of clowns" crowd is so dead wrong.

[houghtam]

Originally Posted by lonestar

As I've said many times before. Payback is a b****. The republicans learned from the DUMOCRATs and just turned the tables on them after they had done it for decades.

this is the best conversation ever, and proves what a disjointed out of touch top flight douchnozzle limpstar is.

frerottenextelway - "The Dems got more votes for the House than the Reps."

lonestar - "That just proves more morons live in blue states."

Everyone - "?"

Fedaykin - "Do you understand how government works?"

Me - "Do you know what effect gerrymandering has?"

Rohirrim - "This is what gerrymandering is."

lonestar - "Yeah, payback's a b**** isn't it?"

[Cito Pelon]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

I just might remind some people on here, Boehner's Republican controlled House has received from historians the worst rating in American history.

Boehner is trying to correct that, dude is trying to marginalize the right wingers. I hope he's successful and can accomplish a compromise.

[Cito Pelon]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

See, the thing with negotiations is both sides have to start out by telling the other what they'd like to see. That's the only way compromise can work in a situation where both sides have leverage.

This recent approach of "Ok, tell me what you want. Baaahahahaha. No way. Ok now tell me again what you want. Baahahahaha. Keep talking until I hear something I like" is kind of a problem. The Senate should be working through its own budget. If they can't get the votes to pass one, they need to work on a compromise. Sitting on your hands because you can't get exactly what you want is an interesting view of this "Democracy" I've heard so much about.

Yup. Need some movement by both sides.

[Obushma]

Originally Posted by Cito Pelon

Boehner is trying to correct that, dude is trying to marginalize the right wingers. I hope he's successful and can accomplish a compromise.

He moved 4 Freshman (Goldwater) Rebublicans off House and Financial Comm. I don't see how throwing the guys out who want to solve the debt problem would be the solution most Americans want. Why not throw out the SoCons who think God chose girls to get raped and prego? Why not throw out the NeoCons, who never saw a shade of brown, they didn't like to bomb

Instead, you are happy Boner is throwing out the four people that care for future generations, care about the debt they will inherit. Dumb ****ing Marxist.

[Obushma]

My bad, three Freshman and this guy...who all backed Ron Paul.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/...#ixzz2EJwyl0D6

Rep. Walter Jones, a rare moderate Republican, said he was "very disappointed" and "a little bit surprised" he was booted from a plum committee assignment after he repeatedly voted against House Speaker John A. Boehner's wishes.

But the North Carolina lawmaker said he isn't angry, has no regrets and vowed to continue to vote his conscience.

"I'm not going to sacrifice my integrity for anyone or any party," Mr. Jones told a gathering of reporters at the Capitol Tuesday. "It's the price you pay. I didn't come up here to be a puppet for anyone. And I think the public back in my district, which is the most important, has seen I'm willing to do what I think is right."

Mr. Jones, who easily won a 10th term to the House last month, and fellow Republican Rep. David Schweikert of Arizona are losing their seats on the House Financial Services Committee, while GOP Reps. Tim Huelskamp of Kansas and Justin Amash of Michigan will lose their seats on the House Budget Committee.

Mr. Jones has voted against his party about 30 percent of the time, records show.

Michael Steel, a spokesman for Mr. Boehner, said Tuesday the party's steering committee made the decision "based on a range of factors," the Associated Press reported.

Mr. Jones said he learned won't be returning to the financial services panel "on the Internet" — not from his party's leadership.

The Republican, 69, said he wasn't worried about future reprimands from the speaker, joking he was "too old" to worry about such things.

"In the long run, any time, any leadership, Republican or Democrat, takes this kind of action ... I think you hurt yourself more than you hurt anyone else," he said.

He added that lawmakers' obsession with campaign fundraising is crippling Congress.

"This whole place is all about money. Money is more important than policy," he said. "Both parties are all consumed with raising money."

Remember this guy, you can skip to 1:40



Or something a little easier for you Democrats to understand.



These people are being punished by the GOP for supporting Ron Paul. **** these establishment Republicans, they'll be gone soon enough.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by Obushma

My bad, three Freshman and this guy...who all backed Ron Paul.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/...#ixzz2EJwyl0D6


Remember this guy, you can skip to 1:40



Or something a little easier for you Democrats to understand.



These people are being punished by the GOP for supporting Ron Paul. **** these establishment Republicans, they'll be gone soon enough.

If Ron Paul's ideas were implemented in America, the country would be a devastated ruin for a hundred years.