What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

117th Congress: DEMS IN DISARRAY!!!111!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Kepler said:
Ambition isn't itself the DQ. I mean, look at Obama: best president since FDR while being second only to Nixon in relentless pursuit of The Goal.

I think Booker has a fine future in your wing of the party, which may well become the new conservative party once the dust has cleared from the Turd Reich.
Click to expand...

Your bit is running dry...there are much better candidates for your "Centrist" angst. Although I did vote for Bernie and to you he is Center-Right so...

;^)

edit: I am a Jew who has twice voted for Omar...sounds like a Centrist to me :^D
 
Last edited:
Kepler said:
Like I said. Perfect standard bearers for the Handycrats.

The Keplercrats have AOC and... um...
Click to expand...

Pete is way too conservative for me. Stop it. (you would be better using dx as the Centrist Standard Bearer)

I have said I want AOC for Speaker but I would honestly rather her primary one of the NY Senators. Then let Abrams scare the bejesus out of joecct and his ilk for 8 years and bring back sanity.
 
Handyman said:
Pete is way too conservative for me. Stop it. (you would be better using dx as the Centrist Standard Bearer)

I have said I want AOC for Speaker but I would honestly rather her primary one of the NY Senators. Then let Abrams scare the bejesus out of joecct and his ilk for 8 years and bring back sanity.
Click to expand...

Need I remind you that you were a New Liberal party member and I was a member of the Progressive Party?

neener
 
Yeah but wasnt the Progressive Party the least Left of them all? I know none of my answers were the middle ground ;^)
 
Handyman said:
Yeah but wasnt the Progressive Party the least Left of them all? I know none of my answers were the middle ground ;^)
Click to expand...

I dunno. I thought it was lower left.

I was in the far left (10%ish) and bottom quarter. I think I only moved up because I answered I think abortion shouldn't be allowed in literally every case. I feel very strongly about it being legal certainly to viability. The day before the due date? I can't get behind that (yes I understand there probably isn't even a single documented case of this, just showing I fall between those lines) though I feel we should also err or the side of "mind your own fucking business".
 
Last edited:
ScoobyDoo said:
Looks a lot better than most of the maps you see nowadays.
Click to expand...

It would go from 1 solid R - 2 tossup - 1 lean D to 1 extra solid R - 1 tossup - 1 lean D - 1 solid D. And it puts 2 current R incumbents in the same district.

Like I said, no way it passes.
 
unofan said:
It would go from 1 solid R - 2 tossup - 1 lean D to 1 extra solid R - 1 tossup - 1 lean D - 1 solid D. And it puts 2 current R incumbents in the same district.

Like I said, no way it passes.
Click to expand...

Whiny little girly men can't just compete on the merits? This whole idea that districts are locked into a party before voting and campaigning even begins is so fucking Anti-American it's sick. Fuck Republicans and Democrats who do this shit.
 
TMBASQ: Does the constitution prohibit proportional voting for the house? Obviously if it isn't prohibited, it would be by state. And of course there is no chance the GOP states pass it. The blue states are dumb enough.
 
Stupid question on the basis of gerrymandering: Can you make any multi-county (or parish) district abide by county lines? or is that just too much of a hassle when you get into big cities?

You would have generally clear, established lines that are symmetrical or use natural barriers/borders (rivers for example).
 
ScoobyDoo said:
Whiny little girly men can't just compete on the merits? This whole idea that districts are locked into a party before voting and campaigning even begins is so fucking Anti-American it's sick. Fuck Republicans and Democrats who do this ****.
Click to expand...

The non partisan staffers get 3 chances under Iowa law. In the last 50 years, the 1st maps have been approved twice, the 2nd maps twice, and the 3rd map once.

You can't expect a GOP-dominated legislature to approve maps that would shift power to the Dems when they get two more shots for free. I wouldn't expect Dems to, either.

if they go nuclear and go full gerrymander after rejecting the 3rd map, then it's time to get pissed.
 
unofan said:
The non partisan staffers get 3 chances under Iowa law. In the last 50 years, the 1st maps have been approved twice, the 2nd maps twice, and the 3rd map once.

You can't expect a GOP-dominated legislature to approve maps that would shift power to the Dems when they get two more shots for free. I wouldn't expect Dems to, either.

if they go nuclear and go full gerrymander after rejecting the 3rd map, then it's time to get ****ed.
Click to expand...

So wait, the non-partisans get three chances to satisfy the partisans? Why even have a non-partisan step?
 
dxmnkd316 said:
So wait, the non-partisans get three chances to satisfy the partisans? Why even have a non-partisan step?
Click to expand...

The partisans only get a straight up or down vote, and if they vote down they have to explain why (based on the criteria set forth in law, which explicitly excludes partisan factors) so the non partisan staffers can correct it in the next round.

If the 3rd map is not approved as drafted, the partisans can take over and amend it as desired but it's then subject to immediate review by the state Supreme Court (which, unfortunately has gone the same way as the Feds in the last 10 years).

To put this in gaming terms, the rules allow 2 rerolls. The first roll (from the GOP perspective) was a 4. Why wouldn't they reroll hoping for at least a 10, if not a 20?

Now the caveat in all this is that traditionally they vote more based on state legislative lines than the federal ones, so who knows what they think about those.
 
Last edited:
dxmnkd316 said:
TMBASQ: Does the constitution prohibit proportional voting for the house? Obviously if it isn't prohibited, it would be by state. And of course there is no chance the GOP states pass it. The blue states are dumb enough.
Click to expand...

Not directly, but it requires states to have Republican forms of government and gives Congress the power to regulate state laws with respect to congressional elections. So if congress says no, then it's a no.
 
RaceBoarder said:
Stupid question on the basis of gerrymandering: Can you make any multi-county (or parish) district abide by county lines? or is that just too much of a hassle when you get into big cities?

You would have generally clear, established lines that are symmetrical or use natural barriers/borders (rivers for example).
Click to expand...

Could you (where feasible and the population allows)? Yes.
are you required to? No.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top