Do you want me to answer that?

Sure. Let me have it.

I would wager you'd say the answer depends on which part of the planet Earth was doing the claiming. ;)

I think the US got really lucky last night, and I'll be rooting for Canada men's hockey to advance to the final and beat the "Team Whose Country Must Not Be Named" to a pulp... give them H-E-double hockey sticks. :)

technically the sun doesn't rise in the east - it only appears to do so because of the direction in which the planet is spinning.

jl

And next we can discuss what the definition of 'is' is... :^/

:-)

Technically, the sun doesn't rise at all. Heh.

Ha! Excellent point.

Which causes me to ponder: Do we claim it "rises" due to our point of reference or due to our egotistical perception of our place in the universe? :)

jl

Yup, or the Clintons. If something goes bad for Republicants, the Clintons have to be responsible somehow!

And it's the ANTI-Democrats that talk on and on about the 'sanctity' of the constitution, who would be the first to tear it into tiny little pieces if it gets in their way.

Yes, sir... and blame Obama for it. :)

"@SenToomey was asked about impeachment talk surrounding the PA Supreme Court on their gerrymandering decision. He calls it conversation that has to happen."

Impeach the Democratic judges on the PA Supreme Court for no other reason than they don't like their decision to un-gerrymander the state? Fine. The Democratic governor will then replace them with judges of his choice. How many times does this play out?

THIS JUST IN: Top GOP lawmakers submitted an emergency request to the U.S. Supreme Court asking the justices to block implementation of the new district boundaries.

What part of "no" didn't they understand the first time?

It SHOULD be posturing but these folks seem to be suicidally stupid/undemocratic so who knows? They could try it. The GOP stole a Supreme Court seat; Scott Walker is refusing to re-fill open seats in Wisconsin in order to maintain GOP majority. So I would absolutely not put it past them. They seem to be forever trying to reach bottom, but there's always somewhere lower they can go. And they do.

I know, right!? It's like they got shovels and won't stop digging... oblivious to the fact that they just might be digging a hole they can't climb out of. The pendulum always swings back; it would be a shame if it whacked them in the face. :)

And it's the ANTI-Democrats that talk on and on about the 'sanctity' of the constitution, who would be the first to tear it into tiny little pieces if it gets in their way.

Yep. Well said.

Well Paula, as stupidly simple as it sounds, it seems we now have a Democratic party and an Anti-Democratic party.

And it's the ANTI-Democrats that talk on and on about the 'sanctity' of the constitution, who would be the first to tear it into tiny little pieces if it gets in their way.

This came up a week or two ago then seemed to fade, but today Sen. Pat Toomey started it up again.

"@SenToomey was asked about impeachment talk surrounding the PA Supreme Court on their gerrymandering decision. He calls it conversation that has to happen."

It SHOULD be posturing but these folks seem to be suicidally stupid/undemocratic so who knows? They could try it. The GOP stole a Supreme Court seat; Scott Walker is refusing to re-fill open seats in Wisconsin in order to maintain GOP majority. So I would absolutely not put it past them. They seem to be forever trying to reach bottom, but there's always somewhere lower they can go. And they do.

I was somewhat surprised you didn't bring up the replacement for the Gerrymander the "Top Two" system like we have in CA.

Seems to me that " Top Two"is also just as disenfranchising as partisan gerrymanders.Sure only three states have it now,
but, if the gerrymander is done away with I would expect a big push to go top two from both parties as the new way to game the system.

Pennsylvania Republicans ratcheting up the threat to impeach judges who put out the new electoral map after Repubs refused.

Impeach them for what? They should take this up with the Supreme Court of the United States. Oh, wait! *wink*

Republicans are no longer interested in democracy - they are wanna-be tyrants.

I know, right!? Their argument that the PA Supreme Court (the Democrats, of course) are defying the sovereignty of God pretty much spells it out, wouldn't you say?

There will be a genuine constitutional crisis if they go forward on this which I don't think will end well for them.

Seems like they are posturing. If they're really that stupid; it will not end well for them.

Republicans are no longer interested in democracy - they are wanna-be tyrants. There will be a genuine constitutional crisis if they go forward on this which I don't think will end well for them. I guess we'll see.

Waaaaaaaa Waaaaaaaaaaa

Would you like some cheeze to go with your whine???

I point out that you have no facts and that, in your mind PROVES that you have facts???

On what planet??

Jeeze...

"Did IQs suddenly drop while I was away!?"
-Ripley, ALIENS

Republicans are no longer interested in democracy - they are wanna-be tyrants. There will be a genuine constitutional crisis if they go forward on this which I don't think will end well for them. I guess we'll see.

As usual not a single fact to be found

If by "dominate" you mean post the most spew, you'll not likely find anyone to disagree with that:

Alex Jones and the illusory truth effect, explained
One simple trick for making bullshit seem real: repetition.

https://tinyurl.com/yczzr53c

You have NO FACTS... :D

Thank you for your post at [20] and being the living embodiment of my points in [11], you've proven I do have facts.

I'm serious about giving reality a try, though, versus being the board fabricator; you risk nothing except that people might take you seriously instead of the being the equivalent of Alex Jones. :)

Says you.. But ya'all would alter quotes of President Trump to make your bogus claims of racism..

You lose.. :D

Notwithstanding your standard hairsplitting over "state race" versus "state races," it wasn't deflection because it was relevant to the conversation. You lose the point.

It was a deflection because you changed my words, like you do President Trump's, so you can make an argument based on the bullshit words...

You lose.. AGAIN...

Notwithstanding your deflection... wrong again. As I have stated before, Trump could kill a baby on live TV, and Republicans would not impeach him. You lose the point.

And Odumbo could have done the same thing with the same exact lack of results in HIS administration..

NEITHER of which has nothing to do with ANYTHING I posted..

This is a reality-based forum.

Sweethart, this hasn't been a REALITY based forum since 9 Nov 2016.....

Thank you for proving exactly why I dominate here..

You have NO FACTS... :D

Every claim of racism ya'all have made against President Trump...

Claims of racism are opinions and are not "quotes." You lose the point.

If I had said "state races" are irrelevant, you would have an argument. But I didn't, so you don't...

Notwithstanding your standard hairsplitting over "state race" versus "state races," it wasn't deflection because it was relevant to the conversation. You lose the point.

Yep.. Like you have been waiting for over a year for some impeachment material to come down the pipe.

Notwithstanding your deflection... wrong again. As I have stated before, Trump could kill a baby on live TV, and Republicans would not impeach him. You lose the point.

Thank you for proving our points. Your fake quotes and claims to know what others think and do exist only in your hysterical imagination.

This is a reality-based forum. Why not give it a try versus your utterly nonsensical fantasy? You'd have nothing to lose except your tedious fabricated repetition. :)

And yet, no one here will entertain that "frightening" possibility, eh?? :D

No examples, just a (rather long) lifetime of observation. Me offering examples requires that I do some research, and I can't see any sense in researching the obvious.

Of course not; there's the frightening possibility you might find facts that contradict your preconceptions.

Every claim of racism ya'all have made against President Trump...

Please tell us all how state races are "irrelevant"

If I had said "state races" are irrelevant, you would have an argument. But I didn't, so you don't...

We'll wait. :)

Yep.. Like you have been waiting for over a year for some impeachment material to come down the pipe.

And waiting.. And waiting... And waiting... And waiting... And waiting.... And waiting.... And waiting.... And waiting...

Please tell us all how state races are "irrelevant" when you drone on ad nauseam about the "1,000" and let us know how an original comment regarding a 2018 legislative election in response to an article discussing a way to fix gerrymandering by winning "back control of governors' offices and state legislative chambers in both 2018 and 2020" is a "deflection."

We'll wait. :)

Once again, Victoria makes my argument for me..

Why discuss facts when hysterical NeverTrumpers

1. Make up fake quotes and attribute them to Trump...
2. Deflect to a discussion about mythical Russian Collusion and tax returns....
3. Deflect to a single seat won in an irrelevant State race...
4. All of the above ad nausem...

No sarcasm tag needed because this is EXACTLY how you hysterical NeverTrumpers operate...

A. Make up fake quotes and attribute them to others
B. Claim we know what everyone thinks
C. Deflect to a discussion about Obama or Hillary
D. Deflect to the 2016 election as proof we know everything
E. All of the above ad nauseam

/sarcasm off :)

Exactly my point.. Ya'all refuse to acknowledge reality so any FACTS that prove reality are lost on ya'all..

It's simply NOT worth the hassle of proving to you that the sun really does rise in the east because ya'all REFUSE to acknowledge ANY fact that doesn't fit yer Party slavery...

"Especially when one considers the fact that NO ONE here would even acknowledge the facts that the sun definitely rises in the east...

So, why bother??"

Why should we Michale? Since we can't even get you to agree with the rest of us on a basic premise like the fact that the Earth revolves around the sun before we can even start a discussion on whether the sun rises in the east or in the west. Or even if you do agree and then someone proves you wrong on some point, you change change the discussion to state that what you were really talking about was how fast and in what direction the Earth rotates instead, and not about it revolving around the sun at all.

Especially when one considers the fact that NO ONE here would even acknowledge the facts that the sun definitely rises in the east...

So, why bother??

Historically, whichever party controls the legislature in whatever state automatically Gerrymanders to its own benefit.

Yea, the idea that Democrats don't/won't gerrymander is nothing but Party enslaved bigotry..

MY PARTY IS AS PURE AS THE DRIVEN SNOW AND YOUR PARTY IS MARK PELLEGRINO INCARNATE!!!
-Citizens of the People's Republic Of Weigantia

No examples, just a (rather long) lifetime of observation. Me offering examples requires that I do some research, and I can't see any sense in researching the obvious. Kinda like looking for evidence that the sun always rises in the east.

Historically, whichever party controls the legislature in whatever state automatically Gerrymanders to its own benefit. Perhaps there's hope for that system to reform itself (maybe if Donny-One-Note ever succeeds in his crusade!) Also, maybe if the earth reverses its rotation, the sun will begin to rise in the west, but I do not expect that to happen either.

Only 963 seats to go!!!! :D

hehehehehehehehehehehehehehe

You guys are only upset about Gerrymandering because Reps. control all the state legislators - well maybe not CA.

Well, there's California's recent-ish (2008) redistricting commission created by Proposition:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Citizens_Redistricting_Commission

The Dems had pretty strong control of the legislature at the time. Still, before-and-after 2011 maps of some of the districts are pretty eye-opening.

History would indicate that the chances of that are not encouraging. Gotta stay within the bounds of reality here.

Possibly; did you have some actual examples in mind to support your statement?

Democrat wins Kentucky state house seat in district that Trump won by 49 points, bringing our total to:

FLIPPED SEATS: 37

"Electing Democrats who pledge not to just turn around and Gerrymander things in their own favor . . ."

History would indicate that the chances of that are not encouraging. Gotta stay within the bounds of reality here.