Morgan

Yes proven by all the people fired by Trump.

Loki Loc: Georgia

Let me guess... Vladimir Putin made him do it. That reminds me; do you know what Putin has in common with the NRA? Both of them wish to God they had one tenth as much influence as the left accuses them of having.

emarine

Not wanting to waste time on birth certs... more on gerrymandering modern times... http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/10/06/supreme-court-gerrymandering-democrats-obsession-215686

Morgan

What exactly am I swallowing here, your site is only confirming what said... at the time of creating Jerry Mandering the party was recognized as Democratic-Republican party which was under three presidencies according to your article, Jefferson, Madison and Monroe. What did I state that was incorrect? She stated it was under a democratic governor, not the whole truth and slanted to disparage the democrats, that's my point, what's yours?

Morgan

Well Loki, let us do a little profile on guilty behavior, blocking at every turn and not working with...you know the old saying if it smells like .... hmmm....a duck....you know the rest. What I don't get from the right, is them not wanting to get rid of him too, the liar nutcase, and put in the VP which would probably be more of a nightmare to the left...??? Explain it to me.

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

Not sure how this fits into who was what and when.. But it is very interesting.. Seeing Jefferson as a conservative, but who was anti war. Is at the least amusing and
startling to me, showing that some of those founding fathers did not fill the rolls I imagined..

So this is a link and a few paragraphs of an interesting article..


https://www.shmoop.com/war-1812/politics.html


POLITICS IN THE WAR OF 1812
BACK NEXT
The Federalist Critique of Jefferson
In January 1815, Harrison Gray Otis arrived in Washington, D.C. A Federalist statesman, he'd come to the nation's capital as a representative of the Hartford Convention.

In December 1814, a group of Federalist politicians had gathered in the Connecticut city to discuss the current war against England and their options as critics of the war. After three years of conflict and over a decade of Republican policies that they believed were damaging to the interests of New England, they had enough. Otis now carried the convention's report to President Madison, surrounded by rumors that it contained a threat of secession from the United States.

New England Federalists had predicted doom since the election of Republican Thomas Jefferson as president in 1801. His agrarian values and his interests as a Southern slave owner seemed to threaten New England's commercial, free-labor economy. And more subtly, Jefferson's celebration of the common man's wisdom challenged their more conservative political ideology, which emphasized the importance of educated and well-bred elite leadership.

Nor did Jefferson fail to fulfill their low expectations. Once inaugurated, he immediately set about dismantling the achievements of his Federalist predecessors. He repealed taxes, reduced the army, paid down the debt, and put ships in dry dock.

Loki Loc: Georgia

"Gerrymandering in 1812, was created by Elbridge Gerry, Governor of Massachusetts, who ran on a Republic-Democratic ticket, not solely Democratic established by Thoma Jefferson. There are some facts you can swallow."

Not to put too fine a point on it, but it was Democratic-Republican, and this party was the direct ancestor of the modern Democrat party. I provided the link to Encyclopedia Britannica already.
You also neglected to mention that in Presidential elections, US Senate and Gubernatorial elections, gerrymandering cannot happen. Republicans do not control the White House, the Senate and 33 governors' mansions because of gerrymandering. The practice is mainly effective in state and local level elections, and to a somewhat lesser extent US House elections. The huge losses Democrats have suffered in every election since 2010 are your own fault. While gerrymandering might be effective in state legislatures, it's impact on national elections is way overblown. The only national elections gerrymandering can have any effect on is perhaps the US House.
Once more, in the past, Democrats have benefited far more than Republicans, particularly prior to 1913, and the passage of the 17th Amendment. Before then, US Senators were chosen by state legislatures rather than popular vote.

emarine

All very interesting & informative info old wise one but still irreverent to the massive gerrymandering in key states stacking the house of Reps in favor of Republicans in 2010 & beyond... Democratic systems don't function well under Monopoly rule ...

Loki Loc: Georgia

I didn't mean to be irreverant. Or sacrilegious for that matter. lol. Perhaps you can clarify how Republicans managed to do any gerrymandering in those [formerly] Democratic controlled states? Republicans gained control of 19 Democrat controlled state legislatures in the past 8 years. However did they manage when the Democrat majority controlled the drawing of the districts?

emarine

I think that this is more of an issue of once in control just how far you go with disproportionate representation or just how greedy can you be...if winning is all about an unfair advantage are we headed toward fascist control over our Republic?... if we allow a small slip in our checks & balances where does it end?... seems there are enough banana Republic's now...

Loki Loc: Georgia

There are 19 fewer than in 2010.

Radiance3

================
Lamb's position is temporary. His position will open next Nov. 2018 election. If the GOP could get a younger, and much better than Lamb, he may take the position. GOP must now find that candidate.

snowbear37 Loc: MA.

emarine

Seems like you just don't like a fair Democratic process... NC always enjoyed fair representation & our elected officials had to work it out ...this BS is even unconstitutional but it still remains until after the next go around... http://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/18/us/politics/supreme-court-north-carolina-gerrymandering.html

Loki Loc: Georgia

While SCOTUS has ruled gerrymandering for political purposes a no-no, bear in mind they have so far neglected to define it. Make sure you tell them Thanks loads.