Trump's Post Election Fallout: Legal & Obstruction actions

knapplc said:
Hah! The Federalist!   @FrantzHardySwag you were right.   :lol:
Click to expand...
It’s also funny you never said it wasn’t accurate.  Tells me all I need to know about you. 

BigRedBuster said:
Ummm....that is one example where a a lawsuit happened.  Has there been lawsuits in Nebraska?  No?  Maybe they don't always happen when there is gerrymandering.  
Click to expand...
Maybe they should. 

 
BigRedBuster said:
Good to know that you really don't have a problem with liars.
Click to expand...
Hehehehe.  Biden literally told reporters he went to an HBCU.  He lied about his law school class rank, he lied about Obamacare, he had to stop running for President because he got caught for plagiarism.  
 





it’s a pretty funny ad.  Good to know you don’t have a problem with liars either. 
 

and yes Trump lies constantly too about pretty stupid stuff.   

 
knapplc said:
My pleasure.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/07/22/with-the-release-of-new-documents-devin-nunes-memo-on-carter-page-has-gotten-even-less-credible/

https://www.vox.com/world/2018/2/24/17048936/democrat-rebuttal-nunes-schiff-memo
Click to expand...
Pretty crazy that you are this clueless about current affairs.  You linked to 2 article written in 2018, PRIOR TO THE IG REPORT ON FISA ABUSE, that the Federalist article is about.  Your links are trash with incorrect information. If you would like refreshed, I’m sure you can find a CSPAN  link to those hearings.  
 

 
knapplc said:
By whom? Gerrymandering is always illegal. There are no good reasons to gerrymander a district. It disenfranchises voters. 

I have no idea who gerrymandered these districts. Don't care. It's wrong. Full stop.

Click to expand...


I have no idea either, and I bet there are D examples and R examples because both sides engage in the process, but I know that they were redistricting when the gerrymandering occurred. Hence, my original stance that it is hard to see the difference.  

https://www.chron.com/politics/texas/article/Ranking-Texas-most-gerrymandered-districts-13024898.php

Unlike the years of litigations and appeals might have one think, figuring out whether a district is gerrymandered is pretty simple. For example, it's worth looking back at a 2015 study that found "squiggly" districts, or districts with boundaries all over the place, are mathematically more likely to be gerrymandered.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
DevoHusker said:
I have no idea either, and I bet there are D examples and R examples because both sides engage in the process, but I know that they were redistricting when the gerrymandering occurred. Hence, my original stance that it is hard to see the difference.  

https://www.chron.com/politics/texas/article/Ranking-Texas-most-gerrymandered-districts-13024898.php

Unlike the years of litigations and appeals might have one think, figuring out whether a district is gerrymandered is pretty simple. For example, it's worth looking back at a 2015 study that found "squiggly" districts, or districts with boundaries all over the place, are mathematically more likely to be gerrymandered.
Click to expand...




That definition you provided of redistricting is wrong, unless the grey text was just your comment. The comment is what was wrong. Redistricting is when you change the borders to make the populations within districts more equal again after a new Census. The districts are required to have equal populations or as close to as possible. They have to do this and ideally they do it fairly without regard to who is helped the most by how they draw it.

Gerrymandering is when you purposely draw the borders to support your party. It's often easy to know when this is happening because you'll have a victory in the popular vote by one party but the districts favor the loser. It's possible for this to happen without gerrymandering but the more lopsided it is the more obvious that there was gerrymandering. And like this quote says another big piece of evidences is the # of sides to the district border.

It would also be fairly simple to significantly reduce the possibility of gerrymandering. They could add a requirement that there are no more 6 sides to a district, with bodies of water or other naturally occurring borders counting as 1 side.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Archy1221 said:
Pretty crazy that you are this clueless about current affairs.  You linked to 2 article written in 2018, PRIOR TO THE IG REPORT ON FISA ABUSE, that the Federalist article is about.  Your links are trash with incorrect information. If you would like refreshed, I’m sure you can find a CSPAN  link to those hearings.  
 
Click to expand...


Good one.

The Federalist says Schiff has been lying "from the beginning" when he debunked Nunes' spurious memo. It claims trump's lackey Barr's DOJ exonerates Nunes and casts doubt on Schiff. Neither stance holds water, and were ripped to shreds IN 2018 BEFORE THE TAME IG EVER RELEASED THEIR REPORT.

Did you read the articles? You just looked at the dates and jumped. Too bad.

Funny story - trump was impeached after this IG report. Can't rig Congress the way you can rig the DOJ. Sad.

 
Moiraine said:
That definition you provided of redistricting is wrong, unless the grey text was just your comment. The comment is what was wrong. Redistricting is when you change the borders to make the populations within districts more equal again after a new Census. The districts are required to have equal populations or as close to as possible. They have to do this and ideally they do it fairly without regard to who is helped the most by how they draw it.

Gerrymandering is when you purposely draw the borders to support your party. It's often easy to know when this is happening because you'll have a victory in the popular vote by one party but the districts favor the loser. It's possible for this to happen without gerrymandering but the more lopsided it is the more obvious that there was gerrymandering. And like this quote says another big piece of evidences is the # of sides to the district border.

It would also be fairly simple to significantly reduce the possibility of gerrymandering. They could add a requirement that there are no more 6 sides to a district, with bodies of water or other naturally occurring borders counting as 1 side.
Click to expand...


Literally copied and pasted from Google Search dictionary. I added no comments or words. 

Again, I understand the difference in the TERMS redistricting and gerrymandering. I have merely tried (apparently with little success) to show that the two differ only if the party doing the redistricting to their advantage gets caught and/or accused of gerrymandering. And even then, as @RedDenver article pointed out, long drawn out court proceedings still can't always come to a concrete finding. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
DevoHusker said:
Literally copied and pasted from Google Search dictionary. I added no comments or words. 

Again, I understand the difference in the TERMS redistricting and gerrymandering. I have merely tried (apparently with little success) to show that the two differ only if the party doing the redistricting to their advantage gets caught and/or accused of gerrymandering. And even then, as @RedDenver article pointed out, long drawn out court proceedings still can't always come to a concrete finding. 
Click to expand...




This is what I get when I google it and this is what redistricting is "Redistricting in the United States is the process of drawing electoral district boundaries."

Of course someone gerrymandering is going to say they were merely redistricting. I'm really not sure what point you're trying to get at there. All gerrymandering is due to redistricting. Not all redistricting is gerrymandering. In fact there are lots of places where it's hard to redistrict, either because of the population density or the state government doesn't lean far enough in one direction. The less blatant/harmful the gerrymandering is, the harder it is to prove it's gerrymandering. But there are many obvious cases and easy ways to make it harder. There is no reason we shouldn't try to fix it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Moiraine said:
This is what I get when I google it and this is what redistricting is "Redistricting in the United States is the process of drawing electoral district boundaries."

Of course someone gerrymandering is going to say they were merely redistricting. I'm really not sure what point you're trying to get at there. Not everyone redistricting is gerrymandering. In fact there are lots of places where it's hard to redistrict, either because of the population density or the state government doesn't lean far enough in one direction. The less blatant/harmful the gerrymandering is, the harder it is to prove it's gerrymandering. But there are many obvious cases and easy ways to make it harder. There is no reason we shouldn't try to fix it.
Click to expand...


It won't let me take a screen shot of the results my computer gave me, as it says the file exceeds the size limit for the site. I used to use Screenspresso screen captures all the time, not sure what happened. I assure you I added nothing to the definitions. 

I agree with you on the bold, and thank-you for your explanation. The point I was making is exactly what you just stated, that they look similar until one party goes to far, and gets called out. 

 
knapplc said:
Good one.

The Federalist says Schiff has been lying "from the beginning" when he debunked Nunes' spurious memo. It claims trump's lackey Barr's DOJ exonerates Nunes and casts doubt on Schiff. Neither stance holds water, and were ripped to shreds IN 2018 BEFORE THE TAME IG EVER RELEASED THEIR REPORT.

Did you read the articles? You just looked at the dates and jumped. Too bad.

Funny story - trump was impeached after this IG report. Can't rig Congress the way you can rig the DOJ. Sad.
Click to expand...
Yes I read the article.  Sounds like you didn’t.  Too bad.

Read the IG report, listen to Comey and McCabes sworn testimony about the Steel Dossier and how it relates to FISA warrants. 
 

your articles and the Democrat memo are trash and were debunked by the Inspector General report 

 
Archy1221 said:
Yes I read the article.  Sounds like you didn’t.  Too bad.

Read the IG report, listen to Comey and McCabes sworn testimony about the Steel Dossier and how it relates to FISA warrants. 
 

your articles and the Democrat memo are trash and were debunked by the Inspector General report 
Click to expand...
BTW Schiff keeps Lying also recently said Hunter Biden’s laptop was Russian disinformation and Yet the FBI says it has a hunter Biden laptop and it is not Russian disinformation.  

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top