Trump meeting rocket man

[El Kabong]

This post is like Lyle bingo. After having made a completely ignorant statement that is disproved by facts double down on the stupid with a ridiculous argument that just made a ten year old girl laugh out loud when I got her to read it (she said "he's trolling you", I said no he really is that dumb ), dismiss a factual article full of linked checkable facts as rubbish because you don't like the source, BLOCK CAPS. I call stupid house. Ffs Lyle.

You made my brother's daughter laugh though. God bless you.

Here's some more GOP gerrymandering from your home state.

http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/...197852639.html

If you wish to read and believe Ezra Klein or Matthew Yglesias or David Corn, that's fine go right ahead and just take everything they write as the gospel truth. I'm not stopping you, but I'm not taking them as "middle of the road" "non partisan" objective journalists because they aren't and that is an absolute undeniable fact. The head of Vox, Ezra Klein started the JournoList...ever hear of the JournoList? I mean you wouldn't care anyway because you're sympathetic to their views.

NC =/= PA not sure if you understand redistricting or geography but those are actual things which you might want to actually learn about.


Cute you have a "woke" niece....that's lovely....I let my dog read your post and he called you a faggot so there ya go

[walrus]

This post is like Lyle bingo. After having made a completely ignorant statement that is disproved by facts double down on the stupid with a ridiculous argument that just made a ten year old girl laugh out loud when I got her to read it (she said "he's trolling you", I said no he really is that dumb ), dismiss a factual article full of linked checkable facts as rubbish because you don't like the source, BLOCK CAPS. I call stupid house. Ffs Lyle.

You made my brother's daughter laugh though. God bless you.

Here's some more GOP gerrymandering from your home state.

http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/...197852639.html

If you wish to read and believe Ezra Klein or Matthew Yglesias or David Corn, that's fine go right ahead and just take everything they write as the gospel truth. I'm not stopping you, but I'm not taking them as "middle of the road" "non partisan" objective journalists because they aren't and that is an absolute undeniable fact. The head of Vox, Ezra Klein started the JournoList...ever hear of the JournoList? I mean you wouldn't care anyway because you're sympathetic to their views.

NC =/= PA not sure if you understand redistricting or geography but those are actual things which you might want to actually learn about.


Cute you have a "woke" niece....that's lovely....I let my dog read your post and he called you a faggot so there ya go

Ha ha lyles dog called Kirk gay, top that one Kirk

[Gandalf]

Get your dog behind the keyboard, Lyle because that's Kirk's only chance in FGOTY.

[Beanz]

Just more Lyle posting what he wants to be true and then refusing to engage in debate when he gets confronted with what is widely reported as actually having happened by Kirkland.

[walrus]

Just more Lyle posting what he wants to be true and then refusing to engage in debate when he gets confronted with what is widely reported as actually having happened by Kirkland.

Good point and Kirk only tells the truth

[Beanz]

Just more Lyle posting what he wants to be true and then refusing to engage in debate when he gets confronted with what is widely reported as actually having happened by Kirkland.

Good point and Kirk only tells the truth

He is certainly more objective, which is why Lyle has to invent the lie that he Kirkland is a Hilary supporter etc. We have never subscribed to the binary polemic of red or blue quite so much in the UK, until recently, and yet yourself and Lyle seem unable to accept the fact that non of us criticizing Trump were ever Obama or Clinton supporters. Quite the opposite. It doesn't fit the narrative though and so you all insist on trying to lower the bar and make it all about binary politics. Everyone is rendered into a meme and opinons or life experience etc is ignored in favour of point scoring rubbish. For a millennial hipster like Lyle who thinks the interweb and TV he chooses to watch represents reality, I get it, but I assumed you were a bit more old school and would have seen the bullshit from every administration, just as we have here, whoever is in power.

[El Kabong]

Just more Lyle posting what he wants to be true and then refusing to engage in debate when he gets confronted with what is widely reported as actually having happened by Kirkland.

Good point and Kirk only tells the truth

He is certainly more objective, which is why Lyle has to invent the lie that he Kirkland is a Hilary supporter etc. We have never subscribed to the binary polemic of red or blue quite so much in the UK, until recently, and yet yourself and Lyle seem unable to accept the fact that non of us criticizing Trump were ever Obama or Clinton supporters. Quite the opposite. It doesn't fit the narrative though and so you all insist on trying to lower the bar and make it all about binary politics. Everyone is rendered into a meme and opinons or life experience etc is ignored in favour of point scoring rubbish. For a millennial hipster like Lyle who thinks the interweb and TV he chooses to watch represents reality, I get it, but I assumed you were a bit more old school and would have seen the bullshit from every administration, just as we have here, whoever is in power.

Alright then @Beanz who did Kirkland support in the election? He wasn't for Trump, you're telling me he wasn't for Hillary....was he for Gary Johnson the Libertarian? Was he for Jill Stein of the Green Party? Was he for Evan McMullin who ran as an Independent? Was he for Darrell Castle of the Constitution Party? Because those were the only people running. Maybe he was for Bernie Sanders, maybe he was THAT naive (that's a lot of naive seeing how the old Socialist allowed himself to be bought off to lose that primary and everyone knows it....well maybe Kirk doesn't fathom that just yet). If Kirkland didn't support ANY of those folks then he's just a Trump hater which is hardly an objective position.

I don't understand why you are even in here Beanz, you're not American, you don't seem to care for Americans, and you certainly don't come over to vote. So I guess you just feel this urge to stick up for Kirkland which I guess good on you for helping him out maybe he'll give you some charts and graphs in return.

So you've opted to not call me a Nazi but a "millennial hipster" ....ok that's progress I guess

[Kirkland Laing]

Just more Lyle posting what he wants to be true and then refusing to engage in debate when he gets confronted with what is widely reported as actually having happened by Kirkland.

Good point and Kirk only tells the truth

He is certainly more objective, which is why Lyle has to invent the lie that he Kirkland is a Hilary supporter etc. We have never subscribed to the binary polemic of red or blue quite so much in the UK, until recently, and yet yourself and Lyle seem unable to accept the fact that non of us criticizing Trump were ever Obama or Clinton supporters. Quite the opposite. It doesn't fit the narrative though and so you all insist on trying to lower the bar and make it all about binary politics. Everyone is rendered into a meme and opinons or life experience etc is ignored in favour of point scoring rubbish. For a millennial hipster like Lyle who thinks the interweb and TV he chooses to watch represents reality, I get it, but I assumed you were a bit more old school and would have seen the bullshit from every administration, just as we have here, whoever is in power.

https://twitter.com/nowthisnews/stat...50928714747906

[Kirkland Laing]

This post is like Lyle bingo. After having made a completely ignorant statement that is disproved by facts double down on the stupid with a ridiculous argument that just made a ten year old girl laugh out loud when I got her to read it (she said "he's trolling you", I said no he really is that dumb ), dismiss a factual article full of linked checkable facts as rubbish because you don't like the source, BLOCK CAPS. I call stupid house. Ffs Lyle.

You made my brother's daughter laugh though. God bless you.

Here's some more GOP gerrymandering from your home state.

http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/...197852639.html

If you wish to read and believe Ezra Klein or Matthew Yglesias or David Corn, that's fine go right ahead and just take everything they write as the gospel truth. I'm not stopping you, but I'm not taking them as "middle of the road" "non partisan" objective journalists because they aren't and that is an absolute undeniable fact. The head of Vox, Ezra Klein started the JournoList...ever hear of the JournoList? I mean you wouldn't care anyway because you're sympathetic to their views.

NC =/= PA not sure if you understand redistricting or geography but those are actual things which you might want to actually learn about.


Cute you have a "woke" niece....that's lovely....I let my dog read your post and he called you a faggot so there ya go

The gerrymandering the article is covering has been widely reported in every outlet and newspaper you can mention. You would already know about it if you read a fucking newspaper. From the Commies at the WSJ:

Pennsylvania GOP Lawmakers Submit New Map in Gerrymandering Case

State’s Supreme Court had overturned current congressional districts as unfair to Democrats


Voters in Pennsylvania, a perennial battleground state, often split closely between Democrats and Republicans in statewide elections. The state’s congressional delegation, however, tilts 13-to-5 in favor of Republicans under the district lines the GOP drew in 2011.
Political analysts say Democrats could pick up three to four additional seats under new district boundaries. The party needs to gain a net 24 seats nationwide in November to retake the U.S. House, which has been under Republican control since 2011.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/pennsyl...ase-1518202728


Here's Fox News :



North Carolina congressional map illegally gerrymandered, judges rule


Federal judges ruled Tuesday that North Carolina's congressional district map drawn by legislative Republicans is illegally gerrymandered because of excessive partisanship that gave GOP a rock-solid advantage for most seats and must quickly be redone.
The ruling marks the second time this decade that the GOP's congressional boundaries in North Carolina have been thrown out by a three-judge panel. In 2016, another panel tossed out two majority black congressional districts initially drawn in 2011, saying there was no justification for using race as the predominant factor in forming them. The redrawn map was the basis for a new round of lawsuits.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...dges-rule.html








I picked Vox as it's a nice easy explainer with lots of links. And just bear in mind for a minute the ridiculousness of somebody who gets their news from Alex Jones, Fox News and nutcases on the radio complaining about nonexistent bias in a factual article. And then telling me I "might want to actually read" about something to learn about it. You do a nice line in unintentional comedy Lyle.

[El Kabong]

The gerrymandering the article is covering has been widely reported in every outlet and newspaper you can mention. You would already know about it if you read a fucking newspaper. From the Commies at the WSJ:

Pennsylvania GOP Lawmakers Submit New Map in Gerrymandering Case

State’s Supreme Court had overturned current congressional districts as unfair to Democrats


Voters in Pennsylvania, a perennial battleground state, often split closely between Democrats and Republicans in statewide elections. The state’s congressional delegation, however, tilts 13-to-5 in favor of Republicans under the district lines the GOP drew in 2011.
Political analysts say Democrats could pick up three to four additional seats under new district boundaries. The party needs to gain a net 24 seats nationwide in November to retake the U.S. House, which has been under Republican control since 2011.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/pennsyl...ase-1518202728


Here's Fox News :



North Carolina congressional map illegally gerrymandered, judges rule


Federal judges ruled Tuesday that North Carolina's congressional district map drawn by legislative Republicans is illegally gerrymandered because of excessive partisanship that gave GOP a rock-solid advantage for most seats and must quickly be redone.
The ruling marks the second time this decade that the GOP's congressional boundaries in North Carolina have been thrown out by a three-judge panel. In 2016, another panel tossed out two majority black congressional districts initially drawn in 2011, saying there was no justification for using race as the predominant factor in forming them. The redrawn map was the basis for a new round of lawsuits.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...dges-rule.html








I picked Vox as it's a nice easy explainer with lots of links. And just bear in mind for a minute the ridiculousness of somebody who gets their news from Alex Jones, Fox News and nutcases on the radio complaining about nonexistent bias in a factual article. And then telling me I "might want to actually read" about something to learn about it. You do a nice line in unintentional comedy Lyle.

Thanks again for not addressing the crux of my response:

Democrats do it and it's called "redistricting".....Republicans do it and it's ALWAYS called "gerrymandering", every single time, and it never fails.

Redistricting occurs every 10 years and the party in power in the individual state decides how to go about redistricting some of which answer to the federal government.

You picked Vox because Vox is 100% unabashedly LEFT, they operate under the assumption that the left is always correct and the right is always evil. Same when you use Mother Jones which you don't even think is left leaning despite being named after a trade union activist.

[Kirkland Laing]

The gerrymandering the article is covering has been widely reported in every outlet and newspaper you can mention. You would already know about it if you read a fucking newspaper. From the Commies at the WSJ:

Pennsylvania GOP Lawmakers Submit New Map in Gerrymandering Case

State’s Supreme Court had overturned current congressional districts as unfair to Democrats



Voters in Pennsylvania, a perennial battleground state, often split closely between Democrats and Republicans in statewide elections. The state’s congressional delegation, however, tilts 13-to-5 in favor of Republicans under the district lines the GOP drew in 2011.
Political analysts say Democrats could pick up three to four additional seats under new district boundaries. The party needs to gain a net 24 seats nationwide in November to retake the U.S. House, which has been under Republican control since 2011.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/pennsyl...ase-1518202728


Here's Fox News :



North Carolina congressional map illegally gerrymandered, judges rule



Federal judges ruled Tuesday that North Carolina's congressional district map drawn by legislative Republicans is illegally gerrymandered because of excessive partisanship that gave GOP a rock-solid advantage for most seats and must quickly be redone.
The ruling marks the second time this decade that the GOP's congressional boundaries in North Carolina have been thrown out by a three-judge panel. In 2016, another panel tossed out two majority black congressional districts initially drawn in 2011, saying there was no justification for using race as the predominant factor in forming them. The redrawn map was the basis for a new round of lawsuits.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...dges-rule.html








I picked Vox as it's a nice easy explainer with lots of links. And just bear in mind for a minute the ridiculousness of somebody who gets their news from Alex Jones, Fox News and nutcases on the radio complaining about nonexistent bias in a factual article. And then telling me I "might want to actually read" about something to learn about it. You do a nice line in unintentional comedy Lyle.

Thanks again for not addressing the crux of my response:

Democrats do it and it's called "redistricting".....Republicans do it and it's ALWAYS called "gerrymandering", every single time, and it never fails.

Redistricting occurs every 10 years and the party in power in the individual state decides how to go about redistricting some of which answer to the federal government.

You picked Vox because Vox is 100% unabashedly LEFT, they operate under the assumption that the left is always correct and the right is always evil. Same when you use Mother Jones which you don't even think is left leaning despite being named after a trade union activist.

Even Fox News are calling it gerrymandering. Not redisctricting.

Redistricting is the periodic process of changing the boundaries of districts according to the rules governing the redistricting process. It's a process with a comprehensive jurisprudence and with a legal definition. Gerrymandering is something else entirely. Had the GOP gerrymandering not been gerrymandering and had followed the established redistricting process it would never have gone to court and the GOP would not have been accused of gerrymandering and would not have had a succession of federal judges find that they were guilty of gerrymandering.

As usual you jumped in and mouthed off about something you knew absolutely nothing about and now you're furiously trying to misdirect and change the subject to media bias or whatever. I know how difficult it is for you with your shelf and you won't be able to remember the start of this argument due to it beginning several days ago but just go back and reread the whole thing. It's ridiculous. It's like arguing with a small child. Just try fucking googling stuff just once the next time you're about to put your foot in it.

[El Kabong]

Even Fox News are calling it gerrymandering. Not redisctricting.

Redistricting is the periodic process of changing the boundaries of districts according to the rules governing the redistricting process. It's a process with a comprehensive jurisprudence and with a legal definition. Gerrymandering is something else entirely. Had the GOP gerrymandering not been gerrymandering and had followed the established redistricting process it would never have gone to court and the GOP would not have been accused of gerrymandering and would not have had a succession of federal judges find that they were guilty of gerrymandering.

As usual you jumped in and mouthed off about something you knew absolutely nothing about and now you're furiously trying to misdirect and change the subject to media bias or whatever. I know how difficult it is for you with your shelf and you won't be able to remember the start of this argument due to it beginning several days ago but just go back and reread the whole thing. It's ridiculous. It's like arguing with a small child. Just try fucking googling stuff just once the next time you're about to put your foot in it.

Good for them.

Yeah, I know the difference between the two and I know certainly how they are used it's almost like when I posted "Democrats do it and it's called "redistricting".....Republicans do it and it's ALWAYS called "gerrymandering"." that it was 100% the case....astonishing how you can continue to attempt to talk past me and then act like I'm dense.


Kirkland, I'll ask you something, I figure you won't participate but just in case you do try to Google "Democrat gerrymandering" or "Democrat Party gerrymandering" or "Democratic gerrymandering" or any mix of the words and find me a story that talks about the Democrats gerrymandering ANYTHING it could be about a race for dog catcher, and I care not about the source it could be from DailyKos it could be from Infowars it could be from Breitbart it could be from Buzzfeed it could be from your favorite mother Jones....show me ANYTHING related to 1 or many Democrats gerrymandering anything.


All of the gerrymandering talk is sour grapes about the Dems focusing on the White house instead of local races which they ended up losing pre 2010 and here were are in 2018 after the redistricting of several states which made it more favorable for Republicans and non-Democrats and now looking ahead for 2020 they're getting nervous again.

Why worry about Republicans in North Carolina anyway? I know that you specifically believe in the Southern strategy and this idea of a great shift in politics where the Southern states became republican instead of Democrat because a Democrat President LBJ voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (passed almost entirely by Republicans) so they switched from Democrat to Republican because the Republican Party was more open to racism .....it makes 0 sense, but whatever I suppose you know what you're doing.

[Kirkland Laing]

Even Fox News are calling it gerrymandering. Not redisctricting. Redistricting is the periodic process of changing the boundaries of districts according to the rules governing the redistricting process. It's a process with a comprehensive jurisprudence and with a legal definition. Gerrymandering is something else entirely. Had the GOP gerrymandering not been gerrymandering and had followed the established redistricting process it would never have gone to court and the GOP would not have been accused of gerrymandering and would not have had a succession of federal judges find that they were guilty of gerrymandering. As usual you jumped in and mouthed off about something you knew absolutely nothing about and now you're furiously trying to misdirect and change the subject to media bias or whatever. I know how difficult it is for you with your shelf and you won't be able to remember the start of this argument due to it beginning several days ago but just go back and reread the whole thing. It's ridiculous. It's like arguing with a small child. Just try fucking googling stuff just once the next time you're about to put your foot in it.

Good for them. Yeah, I know the difference between the two and I know certainly how they are used it's almost like when I posted "Democrats do it and it's called "redistricting".....Republicans do it and it's ALWAYS called "gerrymandering"." that it was 100% the case....astonishing how you can continue to attempt to talk past me and then act like I'm dense. Kirkland, I'll ask you something, I figure you won't participate but just in case you do try to Google "Democrat gerrymandering" or "Democrat Party gerrymandering" or "Democratic gerrymandering" or any mix of the words and find me a story that talks about the Democrats gerrymandering ANYTHING it could be about a race for dog catcher, and I care not about the source it could be from DailyKos it could be from Infowars it could be from Breitbart it could be from Buzzfeed it could be from your favorite mother Jones....show me ANYTHING related to 1 or many Democrats gerrymandering anything. All of the gerrymandering talk is sour grapes about the Dems focusing on the White house instead of local races which they ended up losing pre 2010 and here were are in 2018 after the redistricting of several states which made it more favorable for Republicans and non-Democrats and now looking ahead for 2020 they're getting nervous again. Why worry about Republicans in North Carolina anyway? I know that you specifically believe in the Southern strategy and this idea of a great shift in politics where the Southern states became republican instead of Democrat because a Democrat President LBJ voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (passed almost entirely by Republicans) so they switched from Democrat to Republican because the Republican Party was more open to racism .....it makes 0 sense, but whatever I suppose you know what you're doing.

At least I got you to google something. I'm guessing you googled Democratic gerrymandering, couldn't find anything remotely equivalent to the various GOP gerrymandering cases currently going through the court system and because you couldn't find anything you see this as the liberal media ignoring Democratic gerrymandering. Am I right?

I mentioned North Carolina after you initially claimed that the gerrymandering in question was actually redistricting. The North Carolina gerrymandering case has been national news for a long time now and has been back and forwards to the Supreme Court. I was showing you that you don't even have a clue what's going on in your own state. The GOP southern strategy is well documented history.

Lee Atwater worked on every major presidential campaign from the sixties onwards and ran Reagan and Bush 41's presidential campaigns. Here's what he said about it:

Atwater: As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry Dent and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now [Reagan] doesn't have to do that. All you have to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues he's campaigned on since 1964 ... and that's fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster... Questioner: But the fact is, isn't it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps? Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

Some more reading for you:

https://newrepublic.com/article/1300...trump-possible

https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswi...y-in-the-1960s

[Kirkland Laing]

Yes, This Is Going to Be Worse Than Watergate

In 1973, there were still some independent-minded lawmakers in the Grand Old Party. Today, not so much.

Where are we headed? If Trump fires Sessions and brings in whomever, and that person does fire Mueller, we will be in the midst of a major constitutional crisis. The standard line is “the worst since Watergate.” But this one is looking like it could be far worse than Watergate. Why?

Because in 1973, we had a Republican Party with some independent-minded lawmakers in it..............




https://www.thedailybeast.com/yes-th...than-watergate

This is not looking good for Trump. He just got turned down by one of the top lawyers in Washington for the second time. Not one of the top lawyers in the country want to represent him. I wonder why that is. He's starting to attack Mueller openly now as well. He definitely seems worried about something. If you're innocent the last thing you're going to do is attack the credibility of the man you know will clear you of all charges.