Meathead

immunity at that level is a super big deal. though partisans will inflate/deflate it regardless, its actual significance has nothing to do with partisanship unless something huge has changed about getting immunity, its going to be a big ass deal if he gets it which makes dons response pushing flynn to get it a little puzzling. unless don really believes there never was anything remotely resembling election discussions with the ruskies. that seems highly risky if not naive, considering all the discussions we are finding out did happen with the russians and his team one way or another. would don want to bet his presidency on there being zero talk of election results by any of these fine upstanding honest ppl he ran a campaign with? yeah good luck with that ten months

i know don is a piece of ѕhit person and a piece of ѕhit individual does piece of ѕhit stuff if they think they can get away with it if you dont like that answer, watch the shocked cat besides, the link is from fox news. it has to be true

Flynn is in discussions with the House and Senate intelligence committees on receiving immunity "General Flynn certainly has a story to tell, and he very much wants to tell it, should the circumstances permit," said Flynn's attorney, Robert Kelner. Flynn's ties to Russia have been scrutinized by the FBI and are under investigation by the House and Senate intelligence committees. Both committees are looking into Russia's meddling in the 2016 presidential election and any ties between Trump associates and the Kremlin. Since July, the FBI has been conducting a counterintelligence investigation into Russia's interference in the election and possible coordination with Trump associates. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/31/flynn-in-2016-when-are-given-immunity-that-probably-means-committed-crime.html DUN DUN DUUUUUUUUUUNNN i said ten months before the republicans turn on don and thats looking like a pretty decent bet

again, i dont see the tea party type contingent 'coming to their senses' and toeing the party line bc thats not what theyre there for. they might get a few but i bet the bulk of they stay 'pure', which is their term. neither will the moderate republicans suddenly decide to let don throw 25m ppl off insurance bc those congressppl will get primaried by their constituents for many reasons the best thing to do would be to fix the ACA. but i have no delusions thats what they will actually do

yeah, we'll see if the tea party backs down this time. they havent seen theyve been around, and it looks like thats for a reason - see the gerrymandering thread their districts are so hotwired that their only fear is from someone even MORE ideologically pure. their constituents will punish them if they DONT stand firm against all but the most rigid far right stances so if don does encourage someone to primary them he quite possibly could end up with someone worse

no way ho-zay ive been doing that forever on message boards its not all that complicated of a meme. its possible we both came up with it coincidentally and here i thought you were talking about the retardered comment

lmao there isnt enough acid in the world to make that happen

1. this is the third time youve said this. its not even true, i recall ppl complaining about it when it was the dems doing it, one of them being me c. leaving something broken just bc its always been broken is retardered

then i apologize. it looked like you were trying to paraphrase what i said in regards to me supplying a better way, thats not my job. all we have to do is look at how the districts are drawn by partisans to see that there is enormous intentional bias to get the result desired by the partisans personally i like the idea of using a computer program to define the boundaries based on the most recent census data Algorithms like this one prioritize compactness -- that is, ensuring that voters are geographically close together. One of the telltale signs of gerrymandering is dramatically non-compact districts that squiggle and squirm out in all different directions -- evidence of lawmakers trying to bring far-flung voters into a single district in order to achieve the partisan mix that best favors their party. Or, as Obama said: districts that let politicians pick their voters, rather than the other way around. Many political scientists are skeptical about the merits of drawing districts based on compactness. Their general argument is that districts are ideally based on communities of interest -- people who share a common demography, culture, class, etc. There's no particular reason, they say, that grouping voters by geographic proximity ensures this coherent community any more than drawing lines according to any other metric. Moreover, algorithms can be biased too. It's a point well-taken. But "community of interest" is an incredibly squishy term. You can define it pretty much however you want. As I wrote in 2014, if you're a politician in search of a figleaf justification for putting voters from disparate corners of the state into the same congressional district, you can always find one. Communities of interest are a great ideal, but in practice they're so fuzzy that they open the door to all manner of redistricting shenanigans, as we've seen. The main obstacles to automated redistricting are legal. For starters, the Voting Rights Act mandates that in some states, race needs to be a factor in redistricting to ensure that minority voters are represented in Congress. Again: a nice idea. But there's a tradeoff: packing all your minority voters into one district diminishes their clout everywhere else. We've seen this in the real world in Florida: the 5th District was originally drawn as a majority-minority district by Democrats. But Republicans saw fit to keep it that way in subsequent years, because it gave black voters less power in the surrounding districts. In the end, the prospect of an open, transparent algorithm drawing districts based on population and compactness may be an improvement upon the status quo, where politicians draw the boundaries that best serve their interests. Of course, the chances of this ever becoming reality are slim: doing so would require state legislators to voluntarily cede their redistricting powers to a computer program. And if there's anything lawmakers dislike, it's giving up power.

i didnt say that and frankly im kinda pissed you tried to make it look like i did homey dont play dat

think about it this way: what benefit does this extreme gerrymandering give us? i dont see how it benefits us as citizens. it has far more potential to be damaging. and i really do think its unamerican it needs to become enough of a problem that WE decide gerrymandering has to go. idk what would make that happen, what exactly would make the voter specifically address this abomination of democracy. maybe these kinds of hostage taking are the events that make it happen i hope its this cycle cuz im tired as ѕhit of seeing it. we should be representing the population properly, not with some ridiculous district maps that look more like rorschach ink blots than properly drawn population sectors

yeah but i recall some serious pushback when the dems were doing it. in fact, there was the most significant court case ive seen that twarted their efforts, iirc. we can probably find it with a quick search but the point is it happens it is legitimately a problem on both sides, but it appears republicans have fine-tuned the process, which creates this next level that is causing a serious breakdown do we want to shrug our shoulders when the election results are being manipulated extremely enough to put entrenched ideologues in positions of disproportionate influence? iow - do we want fringe nutjobs of either side holding hostage on a healthy political process? hell the fk no for me this has been equally distressing when both sides do it. unless perhaps youre a tea party lover, it seems obvious when it gets to this level thats its very harmful its frustrating and something should be done, but it probably wont because weve created a self-rigging system that creates and enforces its own self-serving laws. that blows no matter which party is presently doing it

i recall that, too. and ive been against it the whole way i hope we are finally seeing the rotting fruits of that effort and find the courage to do something about it. i am not confident

thats a good point but its also entirely possible that trying to appease everyone with the republican party will lead to permanent gridlock for exactly the reasons we saw play out in the attempt to 'reform' health care via the AHCA. moderate republicans who wanted to protect their constituents from losing their hc were offset by extreme republicans who wanted to gut everything, and there was no middle ground to compromise to bc they were diametrically opposed positions that do not allow compromise this dilemma has been well explained in the piece that i just posted regarding ultra-extreme district gerrymandering. this has been one of my political pet peeves for a long time and it is now truly paralyzing our efforts to govern as ive said many times, balance in the key to a healthy government. this kind of gerrymandering is the exact opposite of balance and we are now seeing the rotting fruits of that partisan rigging

Trump can’t stop the Freedom Caucus. He has GOP gerrymandering to blame. For years, Republicans have used redistricting to grab power. Now they can't control their own far-right flank. If Republican leaders don’t like Meadows and far-right conservatives like him, they have only their own power grabs to blame. Republican gerrymandering efforts have made Meadows and the rest of his Freedom Caucus electorally invincible. The 40 members of the Freedom Caucus represent such safe Republican districts that the only threat they fear is a primary challenge from a conservative further to their right. Republican redistricting guaranteed the GOP a near-lock on the House after the 2010 Census — but it also created a nearly ungovernable caucus. They gerrymandered themselves into this predicament. These congressmen are perfectly content to say no and lose on principle, because compromise and conciliation — the actual work of politics — are the only things that can cost them their jobs. Meadows, after all, holds his seat because of a Republican gerrymander in 2011. His 11th District in North Carolina includes the liberal college town of Asheville and nearby Republican-leaning mountain towns. It had been a competitive district, most recently represented by a conservative Democrat, Heath Shuler, when Republicans in North Carolina’s state legislature won the power to redraw maps after the 2010 election. Aided by national Republicans, they divided Asheville between two districts to dilute Democratic votes. A seat that had seesawed between the two parties is now rigged to safely and permanently reelect one of the most conservative members of the House. The new lines worked: They guaranteed a Republican victory. Shuler knew he could not win and did not seek reelection. The proprietor of Aunt D’s Place, however, saw a path to victory. The seat shifted from a conservative Democrat willing to work with the other side to Meadows, a true believer unwilling to work with anyone That encouraged the New Yorker to study the districts that sent these politicians to Washington. The results were shocking: All of the Freedom Caucus had seats as safe as Meadows’s, seats that did not look like those in the rest of the country. In 2016, fewer than three dozen of the 435 House seats were considered competitive. Trump’s tweets might move the stock price of Fortune 500 corporations, but they can’t influence politicians that secure. Nothing can. This is how gerrymandering distorts democracy. When district lines are drawn to elect only members of one party, a different kind of politician gets sent to Washington. The result is a deeply divided and dysfunctional system. https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/03/29/trump-cant-stop-the-freedom-caucus-he-has-gop-gerrymandering-to-blame/?utm_term=.ad0390300e5a ive long felt that the gerrymandering of districts was deeply dishonest, undemocratic, unamerican, and should be expressly illegal. and yet it has continued almost unabated for the last decade as much as id love to say the republicans are getting what they deserve for gaming the system so unfairly, the net result is that we have deep dysfunction and entrenched gridlock that is paralyzing our ability to govern i honestly dont know what the solution is bc so far there has been very little successful legal challenge to these ridiculously redrawn districts. republicans have rigged control so much in their favor statewise that only a federal order would force them to redraw the districts fairly, they certainly arent going to do it on their own. and it seems far fetched the the republicans in congress are going to take this issue up now bc it would jeopardize their control of those seats possibly going to democrats so permanent gridlock remains at some point we are going to have to make this gerrymandering illegal so that the electorate is represented properly. i see nothing on the horizon to indicate we have any chance of that happening soon

for the record i was clearly talking about the two political parties and have no problem with libertarians or conservatives with the way the democrats are digging in their heels right now im actually pretty disgusted with them. i hope that changes bc if the republicans coalesce and start passing partisan legislation the country will suffer

this is why democrats are digging in their heels on gorsuch and hc, bc they feel like don has little choice but to seek them out bc he cant get consensus from his own party what im afraid of is that they will fail in that gambit and be left with no influence. if groups like this freedom caucus decide they want to reverse course and be part of the team the net result would be a garbage hc plan similar to the last one balance is and always will be key in healthy politics in america. marginalizing one side always ends up bad in the long run

with the democrats digging in their heels on the SC nomination and now on healthcare, my similar hopes are plummeting why are the dems filibustering gorsuch? i realize the republicans blocking obamas last nominee by running out the clock was disgusting politics, but i still do not support a partisan payback here. gorsuch appears to be a highly qualified candidate, a pretty good choice by don actually, and the dems are absolutely not going to win here. the only thing they are doing is satisfying their base, but thats a poor reason to choose this fight at this time. very disappointing imo and now on hc we have democrat leaders saying don has to 'fully embrace their ideas.' sounds like they are digging in their heels when they should be more conciliatory and ready to negotiate. i expect this may just be early posturing that will recede some if they got going but my confidence is waning right now it feels like the democrats are banking on dons popularity problem getting worse, or perhaps the russian connection gaining credibility, either of which could sink his presidency early. but a pence administration probably wouldnt be much better. even worse for them, if the public decides the dems are blocking progress it all could backfire. seems like a dangerous game to me in any event, it certainly feels like we will have no breakthrough on the crippling gridlock. i had my hopes but they are fading fast

absolutely classic smokescreen

honestly i didnt care about the leggings, i was just annoyed as hell by yet again another example of how we as a culture just jump to conclusions and start bashing without ever considering theres another side united didnt let girls on with leggings? string up the sexist bastards!!! rabble rabble rabble!!! but pretend you own the company and see how your view changes. its not all that hard, just put that image in your mind of how youd want to portray your business. its entirely reasonable and in fact prudent to list and enforce dress code standards for your employees and their free flying guests - FOR BUSINESS REASONS i swear, here we are in the twenty-first century and we seem to have gone BACKWARDS in our ability to be discerning. no skill whatsoever as a collective to weigh multiple viewpoints and avoid jumping to wild ass conclusions that dont help at all. its distressing

thanks for that link. i read a bunch of stuff on his proposals during the election but never saw this article that does a good job laying it out in detail its a tough nut for sure. we gotta fix the ACA if its going to stick around, and i dont trust republicans to do it on their own. so i think all we can hope for is somehow the parties come together and get it done as well as they can, together

ok. then why not just make medicare the default for everybody? seems like its a baseline plan that ppl with means would think isnt enough, and then they could pay for better plans on top of that medicare would basically become the minimal essential benefits provider. then a shrunken insurance industry would offer the plans to augment that why wouldnt that work?

thanks for the explanation magox. im operating at such a disadvantage on this topic bc i simply dont know much outside of my sphere of experience and what ive read. for instance, i dont know what the cost breakdown actually is for having everybody pay a little something for essential services vs using an ala carte approach with various levels of coverage. thats pretty important information that could swing the logical course, but i simply dont know it what i do know is that i dont like eliminating things like mental health services. i dont recall the exact statistics, but something like half of all ppl will experience serious psychological difficulties at some point in their life. if you think about your own experiences over time and others around you, its not hard to see that ppl could easily find themselves in that situation and would benefit from help. ive been there and happily used my insurance to get counselling and medications when i needed them and they absolutely helped get me back on track. ive known lots of ppl that would benefit from that, most didnt do so due to the stigma attached to psychological counseling, and others bc they didnt have any coverage for it. i feel like its in the publics interest to have access to those services and having it in your insurance program would encourage or at least not discourage someone from getting the help they need to get back on track unfortunately i know almost nothing in detail about these risk pools, but it sounds like we would just be putting all the ppl who need care into a situation where they will end up paying large amounts to get that help when they need it. i would think its better to have everyone participate so that those funds are in place on an ongoing basis and available when everyone inevitably will need them. of course thats a very long term perspective, it assumes a system that is a going concern so that ppl how contribute when they are young and healthy have access twenty or thirty years down the road. personally, thats what i would like to set up for all americans, similar to social security. i believe its time, we have the resources, it just a matter of committing to doing it given my limited in-depth knowledge on this topic, i would have to look to someone like you to figure out how that all would work. i just feel like its embarrassing that we have more health care resources by far than any country in history, and yet we still have ppl going broke or dying bc they couldnt get the care they need. we will all get sick eventually, its just a matter of when. i would prefer everyone has the ability to get those issues addressed when the time comes i suppose that makes me a bleeding heart on health care. ok fine, so be it

lmao. boyst you are so freaking mental. its a riot