(01-13-2016 11:37 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 01:39 AM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 01:32 AM)TheDancinMonarch Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 12:47 AM)john01992 Wrote:  > He has succeeded in transforming the house and senate from democratic strangleholds to a republican majority and super majority.

Have you heard of gerrymandering? I hope you have because it was mentioned in the speech tonight.

Who gerrymandered the Senate?

I'm amazed by the stupidity of this forum in thinking that this was a legitimate response. here was the original quote I was responding to.

"When Obama first arrived, 75% of that room was standing and clapping every 15 seconds. 8 years later, and he was lucky to get a few dozen. And that is the Obama legacy staring him in the face. He has succeeded in transforming the house and senate from democratic strangleholds to a republican majority and super majority."

Even if you want to disregard the fact that the senate elections rotate by state meaning that some election years give dems an advantage, some give the GOP an advantage based purely on how many of their states are at risk, AND that the senate does not give weight to population which again gives the GOP an advantage.

that still doesn't address the fact that 435 out of 535 congressmen are from the house. It is also hilariously pathetic that your defense is "we only gerrymander the districts that are possible to be gerrymandered, we don't gerrymander the districts we are unable to gerrymander"

You guys are idiots, hopeless idiots who are nothing but partisan hacks of the highest levels.

(01-13-2016 04:03 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Has there ever been a SOTU speech worth watching? Usually it's a pledge to increase spending on, well, just about everything while at the same time cutting spending and balancing the budget. I didn't watch this one. And the rebuttal is equally as useless.

Maybe during the World Wars, Vietnam War, and after 9/11. Otherwise, no.

(01-13-2016 05:10 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 11:37 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 01:39 AM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 01:32 AM)TheDancinMonarch Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 12:47 AM)john01992 Wrote:  > He has succeeded in transforming the house and senate from democratic strangleholds to a republican majority and super majority.

Have you heard of gerrymandering? I hope you have because it was mentioned in the speech tonight.

Who gerrymandered the Senate?

I'm amazed by the stupidity of this forum in thinking that this was a legitimate response. here was the original quote I was responding to.

"When Obama first arrived, 75% of that room was standing and clapping every 15 seconds. 8 years later, and he was lucky to get a few dozen. And that is the Obama legacy staring him in the face. He has succeeded in transforming the house and senate from democratic strangleholds to a republican majority and super majority."

Even if you want to disregard the fact that the senate elections rotate by state meaning that some election years give dems an advantage, some give the GOP an advantage based purely on how many of their states are at risk, AND that the senate does not give weight to population which again gives the GOP an advantage.

that still doesn't address the fact that 435 out of 535 congressmen are from the house. It is also hilariously pathetic that your defense is "we only gerrymander the districts that are possible to be gerrymandered, we don't gerrymander the districts we are unable to gerrymander"

You guys are idiots, hopeless idiots who are nothing but partisan hacks of the highest levels.

(01-13-2016 05:10 PM)john01992 Wrote:  Even if you want to disregard the fact that the senate elections rotate by state meaning that some election years give dems an advantage, some give the GOP an advantage based purely on how many of their states are at risk, AND that the senate does not give weight to population which again gives the GOP an advantage.

The very reason that the Senate is the way it is was put in there to prevent the more populous states from running herd over the less populous. God help us if New York, Illinois, and California are calling all the shots because we've seen how well the leftists have done running those individual states.

Quote:that still doesn't address the fact that 435 out of 535 congressmen are from the house.

Actually 535 of 535 Congressmen are from the House.

Quote: It is also hilariously pathetic that your defense is "we only gerrymander the districts that are possible to be gerrymandered, we don't gerrymander the districts we are unable to gerrymander"

Gerrymandering works both ways bucko. If we had no gerrymandering South Carolina wouldn't have the embarrassment known as Jim Clyburn "representing" it in Washington today. You want to see a perfect example of gerymandering look at his district boundaries and compare it with the demographic breakdown of the state.

Quote: You guys are idiots, hopeless idiots who are nothing but partisan hacks of the highest levels.

The only idiot in this thread is you.

"435 out of 535 congressmen are from the house" SMDH @ the idiocy

I want your love and all your lover's revenge, you and me can write a bad romance.

(01-13-2016 05:21 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 05:10 PM)john01992 Wrote:  Even if you want to disregard the fact that the senate elections rotate by state meaning that some election years give dems an advantage, some give the GOP an advantage based purely on how many of their states are at risk, AND that the senate does not give weight to population which again gives the GOP an advantage.

The very reason that the Senate is the way it is was put in there to prevent the more populous states from running herd over the less populous. God help us if New York, Illinois, and California are calling all the shots because we've seen how well the leftists have done running those individual states.

Quote:that still doesn't address the fact that 435 out of 535 congressmen are from the house.

Actually 535 of 535 Congressmen are from the House.

Quote: It is also hilariously pathetic that your defense is "we only gerrymander the districts that are possible to be gerrymandered, we don't gerrymander the districts we are unable to gerrymander"

Gerrymandering works both ways bucko. If we had no gerrymandering South Carolina wouldn't have the embarrassment known as Jim Clyburn "representing" it in Washington today. You want to see a perfect example of gerymandering look at his district boundaries and compare it with the demographic breakdown of the state.

Quote: You guys are idiots, hopeless idiots who are nothing but partisan hacks of the highest levels.

The only idiot in this thread is you.

"435 out of 535 congressmen are from the house" SMDH @ the idiocy

I'm just responding so that I can document and preserve what might just be one of the most epic fails that I have seen. I got a feeling you will edit it, but don't worry I'm already ahead of you. Seriously, this is up there with some of the top ESPN forum fails that I have seen. It's so bad that I am not going to tarnish this great moment with a response.

Ah, I didn't do the math. For the first time in your life you got one over on me by using the term Congressman to refer to both, although by custom members of the Senate are called Senators rather than Congressman.

Enjoy your first ever victory over me JohnnyZero. You'll probably never get the chance again.

Who gerrymanders? Answer:those in power

Who was in power when Obama took office? The democrats, in supermajority numbers

So what John is saying is that under Obama, the supermajority democrats were so stupid, they gerrymandered the voting lines so that their party would take historic losses.

Congrats John.

(01-13-2016 05:55 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Ah, I didn't do the math. For the first time in your life you got one over on me by using the term Congressman to refer to both, although by custom members of the Senate are called Senators rather than Congressman.

Enjoy your first ever victory over me JohnnyZero. You'll probably never get the chance again.

If you were more educated in politics you wouldn't have made that mistake. I'm not being snarky, I'm being genuine.

Anyone who is a history buff or generally knowledgable knows that 435 number. It's very important and goes into the electoral college. same with understanding the difference between a representative, congressman, & senator. and I have no idea who you can possibly justify your "they all belong to the house" comment.

"I'm asking congress" is one of the most frequent comments a POTUS will make. who do you think he is talking to?

(01-13-2016 05:57 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Who gerrymanders? Answer:those in power

Who was in power when Obama took office? The democrats, in supermajority numbers

So what John is saying is that under Obama, the supermajority democrats were so stupid, they gerrymandered the voting lines so that their party would take historic losses.

Congrats John.

it appears you don't understand how gerrymandering works. population density makes it easier for the GOP to gerrymander. winning in 2008 doesn't do s*** if you don't win in 2010. why 2010? because that is a census year. the GOP won big in 2010 and if you look at 2012 it is the textbook example of gerrymandering in action. victories in 2008 and 2012 do absolutely nothing for the dems and trying to gerrymander.

(01-13-2016 06:11 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 05:57 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Who gerrymanders? Answer:those in power

Who was in power when Obama took office? The democrats, in supermajority numbers

So what John is saying is that under Obama, the supermajority democrats were so stupid, they gerrymandered the voting lines so that their party would take historic losses.

Congrats John.

it appears you don't understand how gerrymandering works. population density makes it easier for the GOP to gerrymander. winning in 2008 doesn't do s*** if you don't win in 2010. why 2010? because that is a census year. the GOP won big in 2010 and if you look at 2012 it is the textbook example of gerrymandering in action. victories in 2008 and 2012 do absolutely nothing for the dems and trying to gerrymander.

So now you are changing your story and saying the democrats lost big, but not due to gerrymandering.