NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote: 
Isn't putting the individual first against all the tenets of socialism ?  Sorry, couldn't pass that up ...

Yes, we do live in interesting times. 

 kurtster wrote: 
keep gloating Kurtster. I still think Trump is going to fail even using YOUR benchmark of success, but hey, I may be wrong. I hope he does create some economic stimulus and give the economy  a boost. I just hope it is not at huge opportunity cost (environmental damage etc.)

On my benchmarks, he has already failed appallingly: no consistency, no respect for the value of the individual, let alone their rights, no respect for the gains won by the environmental movement, virtually no accountability and he tops off all of this with being a pathological liar.  It would require a huge sea change for me to change that assessment of him. But I still wait patiently - I bet the Republicans are just waiting for him to cock up big time and then they'll install Pence, which will be a mistake because his fanbase will feel robbed and feel his policies didn't have a  chance to be properly tested.

Whatever. We live in interesting times.

 

 meower wrote: 
I still like to think its in our interest.

Howze everyones' 401K's doing ?  Any complaints ? 

A majority of Americans are embarrassed by President Trump

Oh, I forgot - all negative polls are fake news. 

 kurtster wrote:

 
..... or the fact that he is a businessman and it is in his business interest to meet with business leaders

Just saw this graphic on FBN

The number of POTUS meetings with business leaders ...

Bush  6

Obama  18

Trump  11 ... in his first 34 days.

I guess that's what happens when you get a POTUS who knows that right tighty and lefty loosey has nothing to do with politics ...

Say what you want, he ain't sittin around working on his NCAA brackets pics and endlessly playing golf.

Might have something to do with the markets up average 10% since the election.  Naw, couldn't be. 

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
Rather than sending it back to the state to try again the Court should take over the process. I guess we will just have to do it for you, you sleezeballs.

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote: 
ayup.

if Trump sources his news from Breitbart, inforwars and Fox news, then I guess the Onion is absolutely on a par.

 Red_Dragon wrote: 
 

The Lies Don The Con Told in His First Month as President

Mar-A-Lago Member Complains About Loud, Obnoxious Cabinet Meeting At Next Table

 kurtster wrote: 
The thing to remember is that gerrymandering is illegal. Wyoming's house districts were redrawn by court order a few times before the supreme court said "good enough." What they needed to do was levy some sort of penalty on the actual individuals responsible. Proving gerrymandering has been rare, but it happens.

 kurtster wrote: 
just start drawing squares on the northeast coast that have 1/435 of the population and let the chips fall where they may
I'm repeating myself but in Austin TX they have 3 US House members representing them, 2 GOP and 1 DEM, they drew it up so one district has a part of Austin and the Dallas suburbs and another with Austin abd Huston suburb
this cuts down on DEMs in the House
When MI lost a House member they drew it up so that the liberal cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti are in the same district as Detroit on the east side so as not to influence the GOP vote in Jackson County that is on the west side
Just look at the last election, Trump got 45.9% of the vote but the House is 55.4% GOP, the GOP is overly represented and this is what all the fighting is about 

 Skydog wrote: 
This will not address your concerns.  We lost two in Ohio last time and Dennis Kucinich was drawn out of a district to favor another democrat even though the repubs controlled the committee.  It is still up to the states to redistrict as they see fit.  Simply putting in dems as Holder seeks to do will just have the districts drawn to favor themselves.  

A geographic redistricting would require an amendment to prevent any party from getting an advantage.  That is what you want, right ?

 islander wrote: 
the more the merrier

 Skydog wrote: 
This is the way to go. A mathematic/geometric redrawing of the districts to get a more true representation of the general population.  If you did this, I don't think term limits would be needed - an official not representing his district would face serious challenges.  This might also get us some more traction with third parties. 

 kurtster wrote: 
no, redrawing the districts takes place every 10 years after the census is taken and that's why they are gerrymandered up like they are now
after the 2010 census MI lost one or two seats in the US House
Eric Holder is involved with the upcoming redraw of the districts, see here,...  http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/eric-holder-democrats-redistricting-233546

 Skydog wrote: 
I think you'd have to get term limits first and then have a chance at the redistricting plan.  Both would require Constitutional amendments which Congress would be unlikely to initiate.  It would require the states to call a Constitutional Convention (the other way to get an amendment) to get those done.

Things being what they are, maybe the climate is right for getting a state led convention started.