The Trump Presidency

Why? Exclude anyone who can't win a district election in both the House and the Senate, and then rig the districts. This is difficult for you to conceive?

The unusual features here - especially the Partisan limitations on Senate nomination - have never been considered before.
Of course the entire matter will eventually face a Court strongly influenced by Republican politics, including Trump's.

Not US Senate, until now. That is the second or third time you posted irrelevant stuff about State level office elected by district - are you that confused?

Which is a key issue, and the major objection. If you don't know why, the story recommendation is a good one - New Mexico is right next door, with the same racial issues more or less.
(Check out the last names of the Dems and Reps in the Arizona Senate, for example, for a hint of the real issues behind this partisan Republican proposal)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

See, we can even agree that your perpetual pretense of confusion is bullshit.

So, you know, try some good faith. Making it up as you go↑ isn't the strongest logical justification for antisocial behavior, but, rather, part of the problem.

But, really, when you rant as you do and then say, "You'd need to explain how state legislature nominations has anything to do with gerrymandering", the response is somewhere between chortle and guffaw.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So both parties aren't going to try nominating competitive candidates?
How does that differ from current gerrymandering?

Another subject of analysis is whether statutes restricting the authority of governors to appoint temporary replacements are constitutional. Vikram Amar, writing in the Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly, claims that Wyoming's requirement that its governor fill a senatorial vacancy by nominating a person of the same party as the person who vacated that Senate seat violates the Seventeenth Amendment.[56] This is based on the text of the Seventeenth Amendment, which states that "the legislature of any state may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments". The amendment only empowers the legislature to delegate the authority to the governor and, once that authority has been delegated, does not permit the legislature to intervene.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven...erpretation_and_advocacy_for_reform_or_repeal​

This Arizona law would only delegate the authority to the legislature, not tell them who to nominate. Just like the vacated seat appointment by governor does not limit who can be appointed. So there's no "Partisan limitation" either way. Just the natural tendency of each party to nominate their own.
And again, any party represented in the state legislature can also nominate two candidates. People just have to start paying attention to state legislature elections.

You're right. Gerrymandering doesn't effect state-wide US Senate elections.
But you've yet to show how legislature nominations would make gerrymandering effect them.
I guess some convoluted scheme where gerrymandering changes the makeup of the state legislature and that somehow effects the nominations?
But since those nominations would still face the state-wide popular election, they couldn't be tailored for a specific voting district.
So, another conspiracy theory?

Dems would still nominate two candidates, just like the Reps.
If people want Independent Senate candidates, they just have to pay attention to state legislature elections and elect them.
It serves the original Constitutional Article's purpose of making state legislatures more important than pandering to the whims of the people.
Pandering to whims is how we ended up with such a huge partisan divide.

Glad I amuse you. Bring an organ-grinder and I'll do some cute tricks with my little red cap.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

US Senate. US Senate. Not previously open to influence by gerrymandering, now it is, somewhat, if this bill passes the AZ House and Senate.

I've already shown that, above.
In addition, as also posted above, I realized I was wrong - the influence of Republican rigging was not likely the main motive, let alone the only motive: preventing embarrassment via the Republican base's voting preferences is more likely the critical concern. They don't want their monster to wreck the gravy train - and there are a lot of Arpaio and Moores and Bundys and what's-her-names who wasn't a witch out there.

The basic problem is the Republican voting base. It's off its leash.

And since we're all complete morons, we can't see the problems with that.

The authors of the original disliked political Parties very much, and would never have written a role for them into the law.

No, it isn't.
And we don't have a "partisan divide", we have one Party gone fruit loops for fascism vs everybody else.

 

What does that even mean?

Seriously, it reads like a variable-scripted response: "So both parties [_____] [_____]?"

Fill in the blanks. The question here is the "both parties" botchery.

Meanwhile, regardless of where you cram the little red cup, it is kind of too late to pretend you already knew there are also state legislative and senate districts.

And that's the thing; your arguments only make sense if we cancel out the parts of reality you don't seem to know about:

Seriously, you can't figure out the obvious?

You can't figure out what happens if a party can gerrymander the state legislature?

I mean: ¿Really?

(When I was younger, the grumpy old-men of moderately conservative society lamented the lack of civics education and knowledge among the kids of the day; these decades later, the irony is more unfortunate than hilarious that conservative society now relies on civic ignorance in order to maintain its argument.)​

 

One other annoying thing is that "effect" is a noun, not a verb, fer chrissakes.

 

Are you ever going to explain how gerrymandering would "somewhat" influence the US Senate?

Must have missed it. Too vague, I guess.

Wow. You're a mind-reader. That's amazing!

There's a problem with people paying more attention to their own state elections?

So you'd rather the nominations just be by full state legislature vote? Legislatures already gerrymandered to have a permanent majority party?
The Constitution also limits the power of the Federal government over the states. The framers had equal concerns for protecting the state governments, being closer to the people and more immediately concerned with their welfare.

So you don't think you're partisan?

If posts vex you so much that you can't even come up with a cogent question or point (other than just not liking them), maybe you would be better off not stopping by this ape exhibit. We're happy flinging poo without you.

Parties can already gerrymander the state legislature.
Do you really think they'd ever be so successful that only one party is represented?

Take that up with Webster.

effect
verb
Definition of effect
transitive verb
1 : to cause to come into being
2 a : to bring about often by surmounting obstacles : accomplish

• effect a settlement of a dispute

b : to put into operation

• the duty of the legislature to effect the will of the citizens

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/effect
​

But even "affect" means "have an effect on". But people online like to be pedantic. Off-topic, but hope it brings you joy.

 

So what you mean to say in this sentence, is that gerrymandering doesn't bring state-wide elections into being?
Gerrymandering doesn't accomplish Senate elections? What's that supposed to mean?

Note, there is such a thing as an effect, but no such thing as an affect.
An example might be: having fuel in the tank of my car doesn't effect my driving, but it does affect it.

 

Can you follow yourself from one post to the next?

(1) Yes. That parties can gerrymander the legtislature is rather quite apparent.

(2) The question about "one party represented" is so poorly written as to have no meaning: "Do you really think [one party] could ever be so successful that [perfection in defiance of law is achieved]?" Not only is it a straw man, it also happens to make no functional sense. This is something that happens when you don't know what you're talking about.

→ This is an interesting phenomenon: Ostensible Americans ostensibly failing to understand anything about the history they ostensibly argue. There is, actually, a weird resonance with something an evangelical professor once wrote about American Christendom, but it's hard to explain for at least two reasons; the first is your anchorless, polymerized fallacies offer no functional contextual baseline for relation; the other is simply the obscurity of the point. In either case, the prospect of definition according to internalized context, compared to a relationship to the definition "embedded in a self-conscious ecclesiastical tradition" (Noll↱), is part of the problem. You're not operating in an "American" context. I noticed that recently in a series of threads by which some Americans seemed to be borrowing their arguments from abroad, utterly detaching their rhetoric from American history; it was, in fact, kind of creepy. And then one of them changed the way he spelled his words. He's not an international troll; he's just importing his argument and forgetting to check himself. In any case, no, seriously, this bit where we're arguing American history, politics, and living reality according to some Russian, Australian, or, hell, even Canadian context—yeah, I get it, and what my international neighbors have to say isn't unimportant, but still, at some point the reality afoot is the one we must deal with instead of what people would wish instead—just doesn't work.​

(3) Okay, so, even still: Taking your point at face value—

Parties can already gerrymander the state legislature.
Do you really think they'd ever be so successful that only one party is represented?​

—what does posturing from ignorance have to do with—

—what you're ostensibly on about?

No, really, is changing the subject the whole of your faculty, or there something more to this two-bit posturing from ignorance.

Take a look around. There is a reason why people are receiving you with such hostility. You are widely regarded as either (A) unbelievable, or (B) undesirably antisocial. The reason is these things I've been prodding as we go along. That you respond with further politicking only reinforces the point.

This particular troll game, whatever you or anyone else thinks it is worth, is at best a very basic dare: Okay, you want us to believe you are this stupid? Very well, then, we shall believe you.

Who do you think you speak for?

If you had a clue, that would be one thing.

But you don't. You can't even follow yourself from post to post.

Are you proud of yourself, buddy? Givin' yourself a pat on the back? Telling yourself what a super job you're doing?

Learn to follow yourself from post to post.

Or is that too much to ask?

No, seriously: If you require special accommodation, lay it out and tell us what you need. We can't do anything to help if you can't be honest with us.

 

Yep.

Like I said, if you can't follow, give it a miss. Others seem to follow just fine. Maybe ask them.
You don't seem to know what we're talking about.

Just one ape.

Seems you're the only one having trouble following.

Why? Should I be? I didn't know opinions were something to be proud of.

Do you have a mirror handy?

 

In Arizona: already done.

Nope.

Nope.

Not for any Party.

Meanwhile, the problem the Republicans have preventing embarrassments from winning primaries (given the carefully organized and arranged voting base) is being exacerbated by the lack of mature and informed candidates willing to be associated with the modern GOP as represented by Trump and his voters. Imagine having to say in public what a Republican politician has to say, shake hands with McConnell and Ryan and Trump, beg for support from the likes of Republican moneybags.

 

Must have missed it. Or it was too vague for a simple ape.

Again, that's awesome that you can read minds!

 

It's easier when the list of plausible motives is so short, and the character of the motivated so well and publicly established. Like the mind of a fox poking around the door of the chicken coop, some minds lend themselves to reading.

Brother Charles Pierce asks the relevant question: at what point does an accumulation of foxes guarding a henhouse convert it into a foxhouse? Because the Arizona State Government may have brought that consideration into focus, with these kinds of initiatives.

 

Again, awesome mind-reading. You're amazing!

 

Now it's your turn - your task, should you wish to accept it, is even easier: text reading.
Not as scary as it appears to be for you (avoidance is primarily a fear reflex, so by presumption - - ) - you'll get used to it pretty quick, once you begin. First step is the hardest. Try #2397, in this thread.

 

Already replied to that post. If you have something specific worth repeating, please share.

 

But you hadn't read it. Reading, not replying, is your task.

 

Again with the mind-reading.
I would love to laud you again for it, but this time you're wrong.
Too bad. You made it sound like you were on quite a streak.

 

No. Post reading. Your replies show you either haven't been actually reading my posts, or are deliberately pretending to have misread them. I grant the benefit of the doubt, avoid reading dishonesty and bad faith into your mind, and treat your posting as if meant to communicate.
So: going to give it a try, actually reading? #2397 would be a reasonable first attempt.

 

How about you just explain what you think was missed. Unlike you, I'm not a mind reader.
If you can't, why should I care? Just a noisy ego display. Oo, oo!