President Trump: The NEW one and only politics thread

Link?

I notice you're not including obstruction of justice in your flimsy argument.

 

So, about that North Carolina gerrymandering ruling...

Lots of hot takes about how terribly gerrymandered the districts are. Look at those squiggly lines!

Who would draw districts like that??

CNN and the New York Times among others included a picture of the insanely drawn districts in their coverage:




One problem...

That map is of the North Carolina's Congressional districts, as drawn by democrats in 1992.

Here's the current map. Notice how there are far fewer squiggly lines:

 

OK. Great. So, what will DACA cost?

 

Who's us?

 

So you agree that gerrymandering exists and it's a blight on democracy! Great. Now I suppose you'll support candidates who vow to set up California-style redistricting commissions, right?

 

Do not have time to delve into this now.

 

Virtually the entire board, except for a couple of your strange allies over on the Island of Broken Men. Everybody knows what you are anymore.

 

Republican State Senators Dan Soucek, left, and Brent Jackson review historic maps during a special legislative session in 2016 to set North Carolina’s 13 congressional districts.

 

Issa outta here.

Rep. Darrell Issa to retire; was considered most vulnerable Republican in Congress

 

A. Of course gerrymandering exists. Has since the founding of our nation. Drawing districts has always been a political endeavor. This was understood. It's one of those, "elections have consequences" things.

2. Prior to 1965, minorities were underrepresented. As a result of the voting rights act of 1965, districts were drawn specifically to create minority majority districts. This in particular resulted in some of the districts with the squiggliest lines.

iii. Eventually, we got districts that were heavily populated with minorities. So, these districts would vote democratic overwhelmingly -- say at a rate of greater than 90%. This concentration of Democratic votes in one district, meant that Republicans could win other districts with 55% of the vote, and come away from a state holding a majority -- sometimes a large majority -- of the states' seats, despite winning only a small majority of the votes, or even losing a majority of the votes. Now, @RickStain thinks this is some evil, republican scheme to rob democrats, and "brown" people of representation. It's actually an unintended consequence of ensuring minorities have a voice in congress. Should we redraw the districts, to avoid these kind on minority majority districts?

 

Delve?

It's an open book test, and I've already provided you with the answer (though it doesn't factor in the costs associated with chain migration, and they are unknown).

Legalizing 2 million illegal immigrant “Dreamers” would cost the government $25.9 billion over the next decade, as those now-legal people would claim more tax, education and other benefits they haven’t been able to get before, the Congressional Budget Office said Friday.

Legalizing ‘Dreamers’ would cost $26 billion: CBO

Do you doubt the CBO?

 

Broken Men.

Now that's funny.

Shall we compare our health, and standing as men? Would you really like to do that?