Define gerrymanding please.

Gerrymandering is shaping Congressional districts in such a way to enhance the prospects of the incumbent party (state level) to maximize the number of seats that it can capture in the House. Some districts resemble slithering states as parties attempt to create large majorities for themselves. The result is many districts that with extremely conservative constituents and other districts with extremely liberal constituents.

 

Although both parties selectively condemn obviously gerrymandered districts, gerrymandering benefits incumbents by making their seats safer, so both parties use gerrymandering as a tool whenever they can.

Gerrymandering is shaping Congressional districts in such a way to enhance the prospects of the incumbent party (state level) to maximize the number of seats that it can capture in the House. Some districts resemble slithering states as parties attempt to create large majorities for themselves. The result is many districts that with extremely conservative constituents and other districts with extremely liberal constituents.

 

Although both parties selectively condemn obviously gerrymandered districts, gerrymandering benefits incumbents by making their seats safer, so both parties use gerrymandering as a tool whenever they can.

 

Thank you.:thumb:

Thank you.:thumb:

You're welcome. (I meant to say "slithering snakes" - not states.)

Define gerrymanding please.

Redefining district boundaries to gain the biggest advantage for a party. For example, if you have an evenly divided district, change the boundaries to cut out a heavily populated Dem or GOP area. This is especially effective if that same redistrictred area is added to a district where it makes no difference, say a GOP or DNC district.

 

I see I'm a day late and a dollar short again.

A great example of gerrymandering happened a few year ago in Kentucky after Dan Seum switched to Republican after he was elected to the Senate as a Democrat effectively handing control of that houe over to the Republicans. Seum's district was completely re-drawn placing him in a Republican friendly district after most of his old constituants promised to vote against him the next chance they got.

Just for the record, I am a Crystal Light Drinker and not Kool-aid.

:thumb: I feel much better.

 

I was just commenting to my wife last night what a likable liberal Lanny Davis is. To be honest, I just do not find many liberal politicians the least bit likable and I feel the same way about most moderate and conservative politicians. What has happened to the breed of likable politicians of yesteryear like Reagan, Tip O'Neill, and Ed Koch?

 

Davis said last night that he is a proud liberal Democrat and that he does not identify himself as a progressive. Why don't more politicians (and pundits like Davis) proudly put forth their ideas instead of trying to sneak changes in through the back door under misleading labels?

 

I also find Jerry Brown, Ed Koch, and Joe Lieberman very likable and honest liberals. It is much easier to seek common ground with people who are willing to honestly debate issues on their merits in a civil manner.

 

Instead, the parties elect people like Trent Lott, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid as their leaders. Both parties have adopted strategies totally devoid of any real statesmanship and short of another terrorist attack or natural disaster of Biblical proportions, I don't expect that to change any time soon.

 

 

 

 

Leiberman is about as liberal as McCain is conservative.

Leiberman is about as liberal as McCain is conservative.

On issues other than terrorism and the war, Lieberman is very much a social liberal. MoveOn an Media Matters have tried to paint Lieberman as a conservative, but the shoe just does not fit.

 

The Americans for Democratic Action gave Lieberman a 70% rating for his 2007 voting record. For a comparison, Obama scored 75% and McCain pulled a 10% score.

A very good way to relieve the frustration is to go to the Knob Creek Gun Range (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knob_Creek_Gun_Range) and shoot machine guns and pretend the targets are little politicians.

 

I voice my opinions because I believe I am right. I try and do it civilly and politely. My frustration comes when people continually post items I know they do not believe are true, such as the continually recurring 'the fat cats are screwing us on gas prices' mantra.

A very good way to relieve the frustration is to go to the Knob Creek Gun Range (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knob_Creek_Gun_Range) and shoot machine guns and pretend the targets are little politicians.

 

I voice my opinions because I believe I am right. I try and do it civilly and politely. My frustration comes when people continually post items I know they do not believe are true, such as the continually recurring 'the fat cats are screwing us on gas prices' mantra.

 

Wow. I just posted my belief of the bolded words in another thread, so I am sure I irked you, but it was the 1st thread I ever opened in this forum.

 

I know I am always right as well, but accept other opinions freely. Many of my opinions are oxymorons. For example, I don't think we should be at war in Iraq at all, but if we are going to do it, I think we should be using all our arsenal, including nuclear. I don't think you worry about collateral damage in a war. Maybe then we wouldn't go to war so easy. No one is afraid of us anymore, which is why we are always at war with tiny little countries. We have essentially lost (lost means not won) every war since WWII.

 

I also am not oppsoed to war with China if needed, as they have done as much to harm us as Iraq, and to harm their own people, which is why we supposedly invaded Iraq. Although McCain just admitted this week in a slipup it was for the oil. China just recently executed a group of women who crossed the border to find food, which is probably happening on a daily basis, but we don't hear about it. But China is a big country with a big military, and lately that's not the ones we go to war with. Having said all that, my friends call me liberal, but those terms are usually gross sterotypes and are merely meant to slander I believe.

 

And I do think we are being (insert a stronger word for 'molested') on gas prices. I don't mind paying what stuff is worth, but not just for the hell of it. Then why not apply the gas price model to all other goods and services, which would be great for my job.

 

Anyway to sum up: not a koolaid drinker, always think I'm right, but also believe others can be as well. I don't trust those who always conform, or change their mind. Those people are....well, Politicans!

It seems like the same thing has been said by at least 10,000 people already. I understand, I have not been paying enough attention to Aces. I get it. I haven't seen them, but they are there. I trust all 10K of you that have told me in this thread :lol:.

Note that I created the The Straight Talk Express - Truth of (sic) Fiction? 18 of the posts in the thread were mine and none of them were supportive of McCain. Now that I understand what a poor candidate Obama is, I may have no choice but to vote for McCain, but my opinion of McCain has not changed. This is the worst choice of major candidates that this country has offered voters since I became eligible to vote, IMO.

 

It is very unlikely that you will ever see me cheerleading for a candidate, touting all his or her good points, and pretending that he or she has no warts, because it is very unlikely that either major party will nominate a candidate that I can actively support.

 

So, instead of half-heartedly supporting some candidate who I had strongly hoped would not be nominated, I will continue to post in opposition of the candidate who I believe to be the worst available alternative - and in 2008 that candidate is Barack Obama.