• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The thread for stupidity from GQP politicians who don't have their own thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
But they did gain control. And at the end of the day that is what matters. If they "unlawfully" gerrymandered, take it to to court and win. Right?

I am pretty sure that history is full of virtuous losers in politics.

Once again, your case study proving that Democrats are alienating voters is a congressional district where Republicans lost ground and Democrats gained ground.

It is very obviously painfully, stupidly wrong and yet for some reason you keep repeating it as if you are proud of being painfully, stupidly wrong.
 
But they did gain control. And at the end of the day that is what matters. If they "unlawfully" gerrymandered, take it to to court and win. Right?

I am pretty sure that history is full of virtuous losers in politics.

You seem like you might be misunderstanding something here. I'm speaking about multiple states where the maps actually being used have already been ruled to be unlawful gerrymanders in court. The cases were won, but GOP crime still prevailed. If you weren't misunderstanding, of course, then all you've got there is a simple pro crime position and trolling.
 
You seem like you might be misunderstanding something here. I'm speaking about multiple states where the maps actually being used have already been ruled to be unlawful gerrymanders in court. The cases were won, but GOP crime still prevailed. If you weren't misunderstanding, of course, then all you've got there is a simple pro crime position and trolling.


So, if they won...why were the actions allowed to stand? I don't get that.

Please elaborate.
 
So, if they won...why were the actions allowed to stand? I don't get that.

Please elaborate.

Varies a little by state. Ohio, for example? The court has the power to reject illegal maps, but not to select who redraws them, so the GOP just engaged in presenting an endless series of unlawful gerrymanders. Elsewhere, a Supreme Court ruling prevented Alabama courts from requiring the state to fix their newly adopted unlawful maps, with implications across the US. More states could likely be poked at, but those are examples of exactly what I said.
 
Last edited:
Varies a little by state. Ohio, for example? The court has the power to reject illegal maps, but not to select who redraws them, so the GOP just engaged in presenting an endless series of extreme gerrymanders. Elsewhere, a Supreme Court ruling prevented Alabama courts from requiring the state to fix their newly adopted unlawful maps, with implications across the US. More states could likely be poked at, but those are examples of exactly what I said.


Oh, ok.

So what we have is really smart use of the system? In other words, the theoretical vs the practical application of the law. I am totally fine with that. It seems like smart business.

Like, Dems can either play by the real rules of the game, or prance around as virtuous political losers, right? I mean, Dems aren't stupid...they should be taking advantage of these things.
 
Oh, ok.

So what we have is really smart use of the system? In other words, the theoretical vs the practical application of the law. I am totally fine with that. It seems like smart business.

Like, Dems can either play by the real rules of the game, or prance around as virtuous political losers, right? I mean, Dems aren't stupid...they should be taking advantage of these things.

Pro crime it is.
 
So, if they won...why were the actions allowed to stand? I don't get that.

Please elaborate.

It's covered here here. (New York Times paywalled, but worth a free article)
Since January, judges in Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana and Ohio have found that Republican legislators illegally drew those states’ congressional maps along racial or partisan lines, or that a trial very likely would conclude that they did. In years past, judges who have reached similar findings have ordered new maps, or had an expert draw them, to ensure that coming elections were fair.

But a shift in election law philosophy at the Supreme Court, combined with a new aggressiveness among Republicans who drew the maps, has upended that model for the elections in November. This time, all four states are using the rejected maps, and questions about their legality for future elections will be hashed out in court later.

The immediate upshot, election experts say, is that Republicans almost certainly will gain more seats in midterm elections at a time when Democrats already are struggling to maintain their bare majority.

David Wasserman, who follows congressional redistricting for the Cook Political Report, said that using rejected maps in the four states, which make up nearly 10 percent of the seats in the House, was likely to hand Republicans five to seven House seats that they otherwise would not have won.

Basically, GOP state legislatures in Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Ohio drew up maps that state judges said were illegal gerrymanders based on race or party, then ran out the clock until there was no time for new maps (Oopsie!).

Upshot is that if the GOP House majority is less than seven, then their majority is based on maps that have already been declared illegal. "Yes, we broke the law, but we should get to control a house of Congress anyway. That's fair, right?"
 
Oh, ok.

So what we have is really smart use of the system? In other words, the theoretical vs the practical application of the law. I am totally fine with that. It seems like smart business.

Like, Dems can either play by the real rules of the game, or prance around as virtuous political losers, right? I mean, Dems aren't stupid...they should be taking advantage of these things.

Yeah, it's like when the batter swings at three pitches, misses all of them, has the umpire call him out, and the batter decides to advance to first base anyway. It's a clever tactic...
 
Last edited:
Oh, ok.

So what we have is really smart use of the system? In other words, the theoretical vs the practical application of the law. I am totally fine with that. It seems like smart business.

Like, Dems can either play by the real rules of the game, or prance around as virtuous political losers, right? I mean, Dems aren't stupid...they should be taking advantage of these things.

Quite a showing for what conservatives are all about in this thread. Bad at basic math and zero integrity.
 
Yeah, it's like when the batter swings at three pitches, misses all of them, has the umpire call him out, and the batter decides to advance to first base anyway. It's a clever tactic...


Well if you could get away with it, why wouldn't you do that?
 
Last edited:
Well if you could away with it, why wouldn't you do that?

It’s also hilarious that you’re going with “cheating is fine” not long after insisting that Republican victories mean voters are alienated by Democrats.

“Republicans win on their merits” to “Republicans cheat to win and I’m cool with that” in less than a day.
 
It’s also hilarious that you’re going with “cheating is fine” not long after insisting that Republican victories mean voters are alienated by Democrats.

“Republicans win on their merits” to “Republicans cheat to win and I’m cool with that” in less than a day.


It doesn't sound like cheating to me. It sounds like taking full advantage of the rules as they stand. As they say, "Don't hate the player, hate the game".

If you can get away with it under current law, without penalty...there is no reason to act otherwise if it gives you a political advantage, imo. It certainly doesn't sound like "stupidity from GOP politicians".

It sounds smart.
 
Last edited:
It doesn't sound like cheating to me. It sounds like taking full advantage of the rules as they stand. As they say, "Don't hate the player, hate the game".

If you can get away with it under current law, without penalty...there is no reason to act otherwise if it gives you a political advantage, imo. It certainly doesn't sound like "stupidity from GOP politicians".

It sounds smart.

If you really want to poke at the stupidity aspect - It's short-sighted and ends up making things worse for all of us. That's nothing out of the ordinary for the Republican party, though.
 
When I was a young child, I once stole some candy from the store. I had always felt ashamed and guilty about that, but now I see things in a new light. I got away with it, under the laws, without penalty. Why shouldn't I have done it? Why I should have stole every chance I had. If you can get away with something, why not do it? OJ got away with murder, but that's fine, cause no penalty.
 
It doesn't sound like cheating to me. It sounds like taking full advantage of the rules as they stand. As they say, "Don't hate the player, hate the game".

If you can get away with it under current law, without penalty...there is no reason to act otherwise if it gives you a political advantage, imo. It certainly doesn't sound like "stupidity from GOP politicians".

It sounds smart.

Of course it sounds like cheating to you. That’s why you said “Well if you could away with it, why wouldn't you do that?”. People don’t say that in reference to activities that are above board and ethical. They say it about cheating.
 
Oh, ok.

So what we have is really smart use of the system? In other words, the theoretical vs the practical application of the law. I am totally fine with that. It seems like smart business.

Like, Dems can either play by the real rules of the game, or prance around as virtuous political losers, right? I mean, Dems aren't stupid...they should be taking advantage of these things.
So the essence of this is that the answer to crime is better crime. I don't think Democrats are stupid either, but they may be handicapped by the unfortunate realization that a victory is meaningless if it requires you to become your own opponent. Of course that might depend on how you define "stupid." If by "stupid" you mean unwilling to sell your soul for power, then perhaps you're right.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom