Trump meeting rocket man

[walrus]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.the...gerrymandering

@Kirkland Laing

It's an American thing

[El Kabong]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.the...gerrymandering

@Kirkland Laing

It's an American thing

And there too it's Conservatives doing the "gerrymandering"....I'm sure that is only a coincidence though

[walrus]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.the...gerrymandering

@Kirkland Laing

It's an American thing

And there too it's Conservatives doing the "gerrymandering"....I'm sure that is only a coincidence though

Yes Lyle but I'm sure Kirk can't reconcile this

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.the...r-constituency

[Kirkland Laing]

I'm not under the impression that the south as a whole is racist. However there are a lot of racists in the south.

Back in 2008 the republican brand was in the toilet. Iraq, Katrina and a whole bunch of scandals had left Bush and Cheney and the GOP with historical low approval ratings and historically high disapproval ratings. And then to top it off their eight year abdication of any regulation or oversight of the financial industry resulted in the biggest financial crash since 1929.

As this map of the country shows, it was impossible for the GOP facing those kind of headwinds to get more votes in districts/states in 2008 than they had done in 2004. Apart from a large swathe of the south and Appalachia where somehow they improved on the 2004 showing:




Blue is where Obama did better than Kerry. Red is where he did worse.

You actually said "The north/south vote breakdown is about as clear as you can get, isn't it." where you included Southern Republicans and lumped them in with Southern Democrats for the 1968 Civil Rights Act vote. That's what you did and THEN you complain about gerrymandering in the South which makes little to no sense if you're accusing both parties in that geographical area of being racist.

Also you DO realize that the map you've decided to use has North Carolina, a state you wanted to make a great deal about their "gerrymandering", as pretty much blue from Murphy (Westernmost city in NC) to Rodanthe (Easternmost city in NC). Why would that be the case if North Carolina is gerrymandered and/or racist?


So I guess I don't understand what it is you're actually attempting to push here.....are just the Southern Republicans racist? Is it the South in general? Is it North Carolina specifically that is racist?

You're conflating southern racists voting against the Civil Rights Act over half a century ago with current day events.

What difference would gerrymandering make in a statewide election? In what way do you think gerrymandering would affect changes in the vote between 2004 and 2008 in the same NC districts? You still don't understand what it is. I'm going to get my ten year old niece to register here and explain it to you.

[Kirkland Laing]

And a sitting president can't be indicted, only impeached. Even if he's guilty he can pardon himself or anybody else. But only for federal crimes. If there's evidence of money laundering or tax evasion or fraud, the NY Attorney General can prosecute him and/or the rest of his family.

Wether or not a president has the authority to pardon himself is debatable. He may very well have such power but it has never come before the courts. There was an article about it in a recent law journal. Trump may very well be impeached, just as Clinton and Bush were. Impeachment has become a political thing. If the dems get a majority mid term schumer and pelosi will get great air time if they move for impeachment but it will be meaningless. After all the scandal in the mueller investigation no one, other than CNN has faith in his investigation, he allowed too many bias characters access to the investigation and had documented trump haters on board who were not even pretending to be impartial. It seems like you should be a bit more concerned with your own country Kirk. Oh, and to whatever your response is it's a crock of shit

It's biased, not bias. Bias is a verb as well as a noun.

Although polls show the public has far more faith in Mueller than in Trump to tell the truth over the Russia investigation it doesn't matter either way. Evidence isn't Democratic or Republican, it's evidence. Proof is proof. If there are any people with bias on the Mueller investigation then they've shown Republican bias. Those "Trump haters" slagged off both Trump and Hillary in various texts, the only 2016 candidate either of them liked was John Kasich. And either way, having a political opinion doesn't prevent you from investigating somebody otherwise politicians could never be investigated.

Maybe you should be a little concerned that the response of Trump and people around him to being investigated is to immediately attack the credibility of the people investigating him and attempt to shut it down. If he really was innocent the last thing he would do to the man who is going to publicly exonerate him is attack his credibility.

[El Kabong]

You're conflating southern racists voting against the Civil Rights Act over half a century ago with current day events.

What difference would gerrymandering make in a statewide election? In what way do you think gerrymandering would affect changes in the vote between 2004 and 2008 in the same NC districts? You still don't understand what it is. I'm going to get my ten year old niece to register here and explain it to you.

Well you called the South racist and both parties in the South racist and if they were still racist why did NC vote for Obama and not support John Kerry?

Again, you called the South and both parties racist, NC voted more for Obama than Kerry which begs the question "Where's the racism?"


Yeah maybe your niece makes more sense than you Kirk...fucking ridiculous.

[walrus]

And a sitting president can't be indicted, only impeached. Even if he's guilty he can pardon himself or anybody else. But only for federal crimes. If there's evidence of money laundering or tax evasion or fraud, the NY Attorney General can prosecute him and/or the rest of his family.

Wether or not a president has the authority to pardon himself is debatable. He may very well have such power but it has never come before the courts. There was an article about it in a recent law journal. Trump may very well be impeached, just as Clinton and Bush were. Impeachment has become a political thing. If the dems get a majority mid term schumer and pelosi will get great air time if they move for impeachment but it will be meaningless. After all the scandal in the mueller investigation no one, other than CNN has faith in his investigation, he allowed too many bias characters access to the investigation and had documented trump haters on board who were not even pretending to be impartial. It seems like you should be a bit more concerned with your own country Kirk. Oh, and to whatever your response is it's a crock of shit

It's biased, not bias. Bias is a verb as well as a noun.

Although polls show the public has far more faith in Mueller than in Trump to tell the truth over the Russia investigation it doesn't matter either way. Evidence isn't Democratic or Republican, it's evidence. Proof is proof. If there are any people with bias on the Mueller investigation then they've shown Republican bias. Those "Trump haters" slagged off both Trump and Hillary in various texts, the only 2016 candidate either of them liked was John Kasich. And either way, having a political opinion doesn't prevent you from investigating somebody otherwise politicians could never be investigated.

Maybe you should be a little concerned that the response of Trump and people around him to being investigated is to immediately attack the credibility of the people investigating him and attempt to shut it down. If he really was innocent the last thing he would do to the man who is going to publicly exonerate him is attack his credibility.

Ok so nothing on English gerrymandering pal I'm not bothered by the misuse of a word as spell check always makes it interesting

[Kirkland Laing]

You're conflating southern racists voting against the Civil Rights Act over half a century ago with current day events. What difference would gerrymandering make in a statewide election? In what way do you think gerrymandering would affect changes in the vote between 2004 and 2008 in the same NC districts? You still don't understand what it is. I'm going to get my ten year old niece to register here and explain it to you.

Well you called the South racist and both parties in the South racist and if they were still racist why did NC vote for Obama and not support John Kerry? Again, you called the South and both parties racist, NC voted more for Obama than Kerry which begs the question "Where's the racism?" Yeah maybe your niece makes more sense than you Kirk...fucking ridiculous.

You're conflating what I said about the south over half a century ago with the events of a few years ago. And once again I didn't say the entire south was racist. I just said there are lots of racists in the south.

[Kirkland Laing]

And a sitting president can't be indicted, only impeached. Even if he's guilty he can pardon himself or anybody else. But only for federal crimes. If there's evidence of money laundering or tax evasion or fraud, the NY Attorney General can prosecute him and/or the rest of his family.

Wether or not a president has the authority to pardon himself is debatable. He may very well have such power but it has never come before the courts. There was an article about it in a recent law journal. Trump may very well be impeached, just as Clinton and Bush were. Impeachment has become a political thing. If the dems get a majority mid term schumer and pelosi will get great air time if they move for impeachment but it will be meaningless. After all the scandal in the mueller investigation no one, other than CNN has faith in his investigation, he allowed too many bias characters access to the investigation and had documented trump haters on board who were not even pretending to be impartial. It seems like you should be a bit more concerned with your own country Kirk. Oh, and to whatever your response is it's a crock of shit

It's biased, not bias. Bias is a verb as well as a noun. Although polls show the public has far more faith in Mueller than in Trump to tell the truth over the Russia investigation it doesn't matter either way. Evidence isn't Democratic or Republican, it's evidence. Proof is proof. If there are any people with bias on the Mueller investigation then they've shown Republican bias. Those "Trump haters" slagged off both Trump and Hillary in various texts, the only 2016 candidate either of them liked was John Kasich. And either way, having a political opinion doesn't prevent you from investigating somebody otherwise politicians could never be investigated. Maybe you should be a little concerned that the response of Trump and people around him to being investigated is to immediately attack the credibility of the people investigating him and attempt to shut it down. If he really was innocent the last thing he would do to the man who is going to publicly exonerate him is attack his credibility.

Ok so nothing on English gerrymandering pal I'm not bothered by the misuse of a word as spell check always makes it interesting

So conservatives are gerrymandering in England too. So what?

Anyway, the Mueller witch hunt as seen through the eyes of a Fox News contributor:

Four decades ago, as a U.S. Army second lieutenant, I took an oath to “support and defend the Constitution.” In moral and ethical terms, that oath never expires. As Fox’s assault on our constitutional order intensified, spearheaded by its after-dinner demagogues, I had no choice but to leave.

[...]

Fox never tried to put words in my mouth, nor was I told explicitly that I was taboo on Trump-Putin matters. I simply was no longer called on for topics central to my expertise. I was relegated to Groundhog Day analysis of North Korea and the Middle East, or to Russia-related news that didn’t touch the administration. Listening to political hacks with no knowledge of things Russian tell the vast Fox audience that the special counsel’s investigation was a “witch hunt,” while I could not respond, became too much to bear. There is indeed a witch hunt, and it’s led by Fox against Robert Mueller.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/why-i-left-fox-news/2018/03/30/d1224648-32bb-11e8-8bdd-cdb33a5eef83_story.html

[walrus]

And a sitting president can't be indicted, only impeached. Even if he's guilty he can pardon himself or anybody else. But only for federal crimes. If there's evidence of money laundering or tax evasion or fraud, the NY Attorney General can prosecute him and/or the rest of his family.

Wether or not a president has the authority to pardon himself is debatable. He may very well have such power but it has never come before the courts. There was an article about it in a recent law journal. Trump may very well be impeached, just as Clinton and Bush were. Impeachment has become a political thing. If the dems get a majority mid term schumer and pelosi will get great air time if they move for impeachment but it will be meaningless. After all the scandal in the mueller investigation no one, other than CNN has faith in his investigation, he allowed too many bias characters access to the investigation and had documented trump haters on board who were not even pretending to be impartial. It seems like you should be a bit more concerned with your own country Kirk. Oh, and to whatever your response is it's a crock of shit

It's biased, not bias. Bias is a verb as well as a noun. Although polls show the public has far more faith in Mueller than in Trump to tell the truth over the Russia investigation it doesn't matter either way. Evidence isn't Democratic or Republican, it's evidence. Proof is proof. If there are any people with bias on the Mueller investigation then they've shown Republican bias. Those "Trump haters" slagged off both Trump and Hillary in various texts, the only 2016 candidate either of them liked was John Kasich. And either way, having a political opinion doesn't prevent you from investigating somebody otherwise politicians could never be investigated. Maybe you should be a little concerned that the response of Trump and people around him to being investigated is to immediately attack the credibility of the people investigating him and attempt to shut it down. If he really was innocent the last thing he would do to the man who is going to publicly exonerate him is attack his credibility.

Ok so nothing on English gerrymandering pal I'm not bothered by the misuse of a word as spell check always makes it interesting

So conservatives are gerrymandering in England too. So what?

Anyway, the Mueller witch hunt as seen through the eyes of a Fox News contributor:

Four decades ago, as a U.S. Army second lieutenant, I took an oath to “support and defend the Constitution.” In moral and ethical terms, that oath never expires. As Fox’s assault on our constitutional order intensified, spearheaded by its after-dinner demagogues, I had no choice but to leave.

[...]

Fox never tried to put words in my mouth, nor was I told explicitly that I was taboo on Trump-Putin matters. I simply was no longer called on for topics central to my expertise. I was relegated to Groundhog Day analysis of North Korea and the Middle East, or to Russia-related news that didn’t touch the administration. Listening to political hacks with no knowledge of things Russian tell the vast Fox audience that the special counsel’s investigation was a “witch hunt,” while I could not respond, became too much to bear. There is indeed a witch hunt, and it’s led by Fox against Robert Mueller.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/why-i-left-fox-news/2018/03/30/d1224648-32bb-11e8-8bdd-cdb33a5eef83_story.html

The England has all kinds of political ties to Russia. Every smoke screen you bring up actually takes place in ur own country. It's a bit hypocritical of you. I don't get why you don't focus on the issues in your own country like nazi dogs and the erosion of freedom. Why is Russia planting fake news such an issue. We all try to influence elections, England, the US, Israel Russia and more. Are you surprised? The collusion thing is a joke compared to the Hillary cash trail and out democratic senate taking money from Iron man Putin

[walrus]

So what gerrymandering is happening in England? Aren't u currently posting fake news about the same in the US like some kind of whistle blower.

[El Kabong]

You're conflating what I said about the south over half a century ago with the events of a few years ago. And once again I didn't say the entire south was racist. I just said there are lots of racists in the south

No I'm not conflating it at all. Has something changed in the South since 1968? If there has been any major political event to shift parties or have the people be better educated and less racist you certainly have not made mention of it. Indeed, you didn't say the entire South was racist only Southern Democrats AND Southern Republicans, I assume everyone else was alright though, I don't know because you've not said how this has all played out other than to suggest that because Strom Thurmond decided to become a Republican that is proof positive of 'The Southern Strategy' that was made use of by Republicans.


So walk us through a timeline of how the Southern man votes and why

[El Kabong]

Democrats Hate Gerrymandering—Except When They Get to Do It
https://www.thedailybeast.com/democr...ter&via=mobile

I’m from western Maryland, the 6th Congressional district that was for many years represented by conservative Republican Roscoe Bartlett (the Supreme Court is currently looking into this). This is culturally more akin to West Virginia or central Pennsylvania than it is to the Maryland of the Baltimore-Washington nexus (I went to college in West Virginia, and my mom now lives in Pennsylvania). This point is buttressed by the fact that Bartlett is now a survivalist living in the Mountain State, and that his heir apparent, former Maryland State Senator Alex Mooney, is now West Virginia Congressman Mooney.

Why did Bartlett go off the grid and why did Mooney have to move across the James Rumsey bridge? Because Democrats decided to give themselves another Congressional seat. As Mother Jones describes it, “Democrats added a strange-looking appendage to the district, reaching all the way down into the affluent Washington DC, suburbs to scoop up Democratic voters. More than 360,000 people were moved out of the district, and nearly as many were moved in. It went from solidly Republican to reliably Democratic; the Cook Political Report identified it as the biggest district swing in the country.”


Imagine.....my......shock......

[Kirkland Laing]

You're conflating what I said about the south over half a century ago with the events of a few years ago. And once again I didn't say the entire south was racist. I just said there are lots of racists in the south

No I'm not conflating it at all. Has something changed in the South since 1968? If there has been any major political event to shift parties or have the people be better educated and less racist you certainly have not made mention of it. Indeed, you didn't say the entire South was racist only Southern Democrats AND Southern Republicans, I assume everyone else was alright though, I don't know because you've not said how this has all played out other than to suggest that because Strom Thurmond decided to become a Republican that is proof positive of 'The Southern Strategy' that was made use of by Republicans.


So walk us through a timeline of how the Southern man votes and why

Conflating the events of over half a century ago with the present day is exactly what you're doing. Try reading over the last few posts Lyle. They happened a few days ago now so they've already fallen off your shelf. The only actual coherent point you make is that North Carolina now has enough Democratic voters to vote Democratic. That's mainly due to the concentration of the financial industry there over recent years. It means lots of educated people from the shoe-wearing regions of the country have moved there and they overwhelmingly vote Democratic.

As far as changes in voting patterns in the south go here's a nice little summary for you. There are endless much longer in depth articles but there's zero chance you'll ever read one:


But a couple of researchers recently found some: Gallup poll data starting in the late 50s that asks if you’d be willing to vote for a qualified presidential candidate who happened to be black. Respondents who answered no were coded (quite reasonably) as racially conservative. They then looked at differences between the Democratic Party ID of Southern whites who were and weren’t racially conservative. Here’s their conclusion:

We find that except for issues involving racial integration and discrimination, whites in the South and elsewhere have indistinguishable preferences on both domestic and foreign policy in the 1950s….We find no evidence that white Southerners who have negative views of women, Catholics or Jews differentially leave the Democratic party in 1963; the exodus is specific to those who are racially conservative. Finally, we find no role for Southern economic development in explaining dealignment.

The charts on the right show one specific data point: JFK’s televised civil rights speech of June 11, 1963. Among Southern whites, approval of JFK plummets right at that moment (top chart). And in the Gallup polls, racially conservative Southern whites leave the party in droves (bottom chart). This is not a steady decline. It’s a sharp, sudden exodus at a specific moment in time.
So: why did Democrats lose the white South? For the reason common sense and all the evidence suggests: because the party became too liberal on civil rights, and racist white Southerners didn’t like it. Southern white flight from the party began in the 1940s, took a sharp dive in the early 60s, and continued to decline for several decades after as Democrats became ever more committed to black equality. This might not be the only reason for Southern realignment, but it’s surely the most important by a long stretch.

https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dr...e-white-south/


And don't complain about the source. It's a factual piece referencing poll data, facts and evidence. Once the Democratic party came out for equal rights for black people white southerners started leaving it in droves. That's it in a nutshell Lyle.

[Kirkland Laing]

And a sitting president can't be indicted, only impeached. Even if he's guilty he can pardon himself or anybody else. But only for federal crimes. If there's evidence of money laundering or tax evasion or fraud, the NY Attorney General can prosecute him and/or the rest of his family.

Wether or not a president has the authority to pardon himself is debatable. He may very well have such power but it has never come before the courts. There was an article about it in a recent law journal. Trump may very well be impeached, just as Clinton and Bush were. Impeachment has become a political thing. If the dems get a majority mid term schumer and pelosi will get great air time if they move for impeachment but it will be meaningless. After all the scandal in the mueller investigation no one, other than CNN has faith in his investigation, he allowed too many bias characters access to the investigation and had documented trump haters on board who were not even pretending to be impartial. It seems like you should be a bit more concerned with your own country Kirk. Oh, and to whatever your response is it's a crock of shit

It's biased, not bias. Bias is a verb as well as a noun. Although polls show the public has far more faith in Mueller than in Trump to tell the truth over the Russia investigation it doesn't matter either way. Evidence isn't Democratic or Republican, it's evidence. Proof is proof. If there are any people with bias on the Mueller investigation then they've shown Republican bias. Those "Trump haters" slagged off both Trump and Hillary in various texts, the only 2016 candidate either of them liked was John Kasich. And either way, having a political opinion doesn't prevent you from investigating somebody otherwise politicians could never be investigated. Maybe you should be a little concerned that the response of Trump and people around him to being investigated is to immediately attack the credibility of the people investigating him and attempt to shut it down. If he really was innocent the last thing he would do to the man who is going to publicly exonerate him is attack his credibility.

Ok so nothing on English gerrymandering pal I'm not bothered by the misuse of a word as spell check always makes it interesting

So conservatives are gerrymandering in England too. So what?

Anyway, the Mueller witch hunt as seen through the eyes of a Fox News contributor:

Four decades ago, as a U.S. Army second lieutenant, I took an oath to “support and defend the Constitution.” In moral and ethical terms, that oath never expires. As Fox’s assault on our constitutional order intensified, spearheaded by its after-dinner demagogues, I had no choice but to leave.

[...]

Fox never tried to put words in my mouth, nor was I told explicitly that I was taboo on Trump-Putin matters. I simply was no longer called on for topics central to my expertise. I was relegated to Groundhog Day analysis of North Korea and the Middle East, or to Russia-related news that didn’t touch the administration. Listening to political hacks with no knowledge of things Russian tell the vast Fox audience that the special counsel’s investigation was a “witch hunt,” while I could not respond, became too much to bear. There is indeed a witch hunt, and it’s led by Fox against Robert Mueller.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/why-i-left-fox-news/2018/03/30/d1224648-32bb-11e8-8bdd-cdb33a5eef83_story.html

The England has all kinds of political ties to Russia. Every smoke screen you bring up actually takes place in ur own country. It's a bit hypocritical of you. I don't get why you don't focus on the issues in your own country like nazi dogs and the erosion of freedom. Why is Russia planting fake news such an issue. We all try to influence elections, England, the US, Israel Russia and more. Are you surprised? The collusion thing is a joke compared to the Hillary cash trail and out democratic senate taking money from Iron man Putin

If it turns out that the Trump people conspired with a hostile foreign power to try and affect the result of an American presidential election it'll be the biggest political scandal in history. What is this cash trail you speak of and who is taking money from Putin?