One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Nancy Pelosi Derails The Stimulus Bill
Page <<first <prev 20 of 31 next> last>>
Mar 28, 2020 13:02:59   #
Cuda2020
 
lindajoy wrote:
Uhm, it was Your people that said they were going to make her a one term seat not I or even the repubs~~
The talk has been going on for some time now ...

As for gerrymandering which both sides do and have done for decades, I personally do not care for it, because the politicians have abused it so much, but I do stand by the ruling in 1964 where the Supreme Court ruled that the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution requires that v****g districts be equal in population. ( reminds you of the need for the e*******l college doesn’t it)

While the US Supreme Court has ruled that redistricting that discriminates on racial or ethnic grounds is unconstitutional, it has been reluctant to issue a similarly-strong ruling for partisan redistricting. The Court has ruled that excessive partisan gerrymandering violates the Constitution.

Section 2 of the V****g Rights Act is a nationwide prohibition against v****g practices and procedures, (including redistricting plans) that discriminate on the basis of race, color or membership in a language minority group...

But it stops right there because of the 1964 decision.. and it stops right there with our elected who Wait for the opportunity in redistricting every ten years..

They (your people) will show soon enough when redistricting is done...assuming they win to begin with of course..

https://thegreggjarrett.com/yikes-ocasio-cortez-giving-money-to-progressives-so-she-is-less-lonely-in-congress/


https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2020/02/23/aocs-war-on-fellow-democrats-likely-to-eliminate-her-house-seat/amp/
Uhm, it was Your people that said they were going ... (show quote)


Nice try on diversion Linda, but I'll stick with my point of what you just said, and rest my case.

It's also has been proven in the Supreme Court who has gone overboard with the Gerrymandering to the point of the offense being unconstitutional. Now the corrupt red states have once again diverted the justice that should be due them. And this is exactly why Trump and the GOP have been putting so much of their energies into their efforts to controlling the judicial system, another clear step to their f*****m agenda.

Reply
Mar 28, 2020 13:11:18   #
Cuda2020
 
straightUp wrote:
I got side-tracked with a religion dispute... Some good points here though...


That probably wouldn't work out so well for the rednecks as they are massively outnumbered, considerably under-funded and basically surrounded.


Personally I almost wish they could stay in control until their intentions are inexplicably crystal clear to all, unfortunately, to travel that course many people will have suffered or died. But one thing would be sure, we'd be reunited as a people.

Or to divorce ourselves and let each side play out. Then we would see what system works best for the people. I am confident the blues side would win, that's pure logic based on historical events, which means in a matter of time the failing red side would be declaring war on the blude in hopes of gaining control once again, and then once again the people would rise up against them. A cycle we just can't seem to escape.

Reply
Mar 28, 2020 14:09:49   #
lindajoy Loc: right here with you....
 
Barracuda2020 wrote:
Nice try on diversion Linda, but I'll stick with my point of what you just said, and rest my case.

It's also has been proven in the Supreme Court who has gone overboard with the Gerrymandering to the point of the offense being unconstitutional. Now the corrupt red states have once again diverted the justice that should be due them. And this is exactly why Trump and the GOP have been putting so much of their energies into their efforts to controlling the judicial system, another clear step to their f*****m agenda.
Nice try on diversion Linda, but I'll stick with m... (show quote)


No diversion at all.. clear and concise, to the point.. What did I divert?? Is the SC ruling of 1964 wrong as explained??Did I not mention the SC ruling on “ going overboard” as you call it on gerrymandering ?You repeated exactly what I said to you...

As for the corrupt red states Diverting the justice that should be due them~ Sorry but I do not know what you mean here...Are you referring to Justice Roberts opinion; gerrymandering. “Chief Justice John Roberts’s opinion holds that federal courts should not have the power to declare particular maps unconstitutional, as doing so would be “unprecedented expansion of judicial power ... into one of the most intensely partisan aspects of American political life.”
Or the SC judicial determination in July saying gerrymandering cases are beyond the reach of Federal Courts?? Please explain..

As to the rest meaning placement of Federal or Supreme court justices by the conservative representatives how many Democrat justices are or were sitting in placement under Democrat control snd placement??

I think that falls under the realism of our Constitutional Republic.. A wonderful system at that, better than any other country and in effect for 243 years now...

“constitutional republic—a country where some decisions (often local) are made by direct democratic processes, while others (often federal) are made by democratically elected representatives....”

We may not like it at times but the balance of v**e for one party or the other works rather well on the whole, yes??
Its not “ their f*****m “ at all and if it is then when the Dems are in majority it is “their f*****m“ too.. Thank You for the constitutional republic that we are...

Reply
 
 
Mar 28, 2020 15:31:11   #
America 1 Loc: South Miami
 
lindajoy wrote:
No diversion at all.. clear and concise, to the point.. What did I divert?? Is the SC ruling of 1964 wrong as explained??Did I not mention the SC ruling on “ going overboard” as you call it on gerrymandering ?You repeated exactly what I said to you...

As for the corrupt red states Diverting the justice that should be due them~ Sorry but I do not know what you mean here...Are you referring to Justice Roberts opinion; gerrymandering. “Chief Justice John Roberts’s opinion holds that federal courts should not have the power to declare particular maps unconstitutional, as doing so would be “unprecedented expansion of judicial power ... into one of the most intensely partisan aspects of American political life.”
Or the SC judicial determination in July saying gerrymandering cases are beyond the reach of Federal Courts?? Please explain..

As to the rest meaning placement of Federal or Supreme court justices by the conservative representatives how many Democrat justices are or were sitting in placement under Democrat control snd placement??

I think that falls under the realism of our Constitutional Republic.. A wonderful system at that, better than any other country and in effect for 243 years now...

“constitutional republic—a country where some decisions (often local) are made by direct democratic processes, while others (often federal) are made by democratically elected representatives....”

We may not like it at times but the balance of v**e for one party or the other works rather well on the whole, yes??
Its not “ their f*****m “ at all and if it is then when the Dems are in majority it is “their f*****m“ too.. Thank You for the constitutional republic that we are...
No diversion at all.. clear and concise, to the po... (show quote)


Once again going around in circles with never get it Cuda.

Reply
Mar 28, 2020 15:53:06   #
JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida
 
Barracuda2020 wrote:
Nice try on diversion Linda, but I'll stick with my point of what you just said, and rest my case.

It's also has been proven in the Supreme Court who has gone overboard with the Gerrymandering to the point of the offense being unconstitutional. Now the corrupt red states have once again diverted the justice that should be due them. And this is exactly why Trump and the GOP have been putting so much of their energies into their efforts to controlling the judicial system, another clear step to their f*****m agenda.
Nice try on diversion Linda, but I'll stick with m... (show quote)


So when Obama was appointing very liberal judges that didn't fall under your definition of f*****m?

Reply
Mar 28, 2020 15:55:15   #
JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida
 
lindajoy wrote:
No diversion at all.. clear and concise, to the point.. What did I divert?? Is the SC ruling of 1964 wrong as explained??Did I not mention the SC ruling on “ going overboard” as you call it on gerrymandering ?You repeated exactly what I said to you...

As for the corrupt red states Diverting the justice that should be due them~ Sorry but I do not know what you mean here...Are you referring to Justice Roberts opinion; gerrymandering. “Chief Justice John Roberts’s opinion holds that federal courts should not have the power to declare particular maps unconstitutional, as doing so would be “unprecedented expansion of judicial power ... into one of the most intensely partisan aspects of American political life.”
Or the SC judicial determination in July saying gerrymandering cases are beyond the reach of Federal Courts?? Please explain..

As to the rest meaning placement of Federal or Supreme court justices by the conservative representatives how many Democrat justices are or were sitting in placement under Democrat control snd placement??

I think that falls under the realism of our Constitutional Republic.. A wonderful system at that, better than any other country and in effect for 243 years now...

“constitutional republic—a country where some decisions (often local) are made by direct democratic processes, while others (often federal) are made by democratically elected representatives....”

We may not like it at times but the balance of v**e for one party or the other works rather well on the whole, yes??
Its not “ their f*****m “ at all and if it is then when the Dems are in majority it is “their f*****m“ too.. Thank You for the constitutional republic that we are...
No diversion at all.. clear and concise, to the po... (show quote)


Hey Lindajoy. Hope you are well. Cuda doesn't take disagreement very well so he goes around in circles then blames you for him being dizzy.

Reply
Mar 28, 2020 16:57:06   #
Cuda2020
 
lindajoy wrote:
No diversion at all.. clear and concise, to the point.. What did I divert?? Is the SC ruling of 1964 wrong as explained??Did I not mention the SC ruling on “ going overboard” as you call it on gerrymandering ?You repeated exactly what I said to you...

As for the corrupt red states Diverting the justice that should be due them~ Sorry but I do not know what you mean here...Are you referring to Justice Roberts opinion; gerrymandering. “Chief Justice John Roberts’s opinion holds that federal courts should not have the power to declare particular maps unconstitutional, as doing so would be “unprecedented expansion of judicial power ... into one of the most intensely partisan aspects of American political life.”
Or the SC judicial determination in July saying gerrymandering cases are beyond the reach of Federal Courts?? Please explain..

As to the rest meaning placement of Federal or Supreme court justices by the conservative representatives how many Democrat justices are or were sitting in placement under Democrat control snd placement??

I think that falls under the realism of our Constitutional Republic.. A wonderful system at that, better than any other country and in effect for 243 years now...

“constitutional republic—a country where some decisions (often local) are made by direct democratic processes, while others (often federal) are made by democratically elected representatives....”

We may not like it at times but the balance of v**e for one party or the other works rather well on the whole, yes??
Its not “ their f*****m “ at all and if it is then when the Dems are in majority it is “their f*****m“ too.. Thank You for the constitutional republic that we are...
No diversion at all.. clear and concise, to the po... (show quote)


You diverted just like Trump... off of himself and talking points about Obama, you guys using the same cue card? This wasn't about party's till you made it so. You are pro manipulations if it benefits your party's outcome, which is to stay in control at all costs, end of story.

Reply
 
 
Mar 28, 2020 17:00:36   #
tbutkovich
 
Barracuda2020 wrote:
You diverted just like Trump... off of himself and talking points about Obama, you guys using the samecue card?


We know where you stand for your cue cards. Stage Left!

Reply
Mar 28, 2020 17:03:23   #
Cuda2020
 
JFlorio wrote:
Hey Lindajoy. Hope you are well. Cuda doesn't take disagreement very well so he goes around in circles then blames you for him being dizzy.


You guys are always going around in circles chasing your own tail, always the manipulations, it's old, very very old.

Reply
Mar 28, 2020 17:04:25   #
JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida
 
Barracuda2020 wrote:
You diverted just like Trump... off of himself and talking points about Obama, you guys using the same cue card? This wasn't about party's till you made it so. You are pro manipulations if it benefits your party's outcome, which is to stay in control at all costs, end of story.


Go ahead and run away loser. Got you butt handed to you again.

Reply
Mar 28, 2020 17:04:39   #
Cuda2020
 
JFlorio wrote:
So when Obama was appointing very liberal judges that didn't fall under your definition of f*****m?


Very Liberal Judges, yeah right, according to the extreme right.

Reply
 
 
Mar 28, 2020 17:05:51   #
Cuda2020
 
JFlorio wrote:
Go ahead and run away loser. Got you butt handed to you again.


Your the biggest loser on here you can't win an argument to save your life.

Reply
Mar 28, 2020 17:05:51   #
JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida
 
Barracuda2020 wrote:
Very Liberal Judges, yeah right, according to the extreme right.


You are so obvious but think you’re clever. Actually you’re a joke. Very sad.

Reply
Mar 28, 2020 17:06:47   #
Cuda2020
 
JFlorio wrote:
You are so obvious but think you’re clever. Actually you’re a joke. Very sad.


Talking to you is a total waste of time. I've never run away from any argument, but as Jefferson said to argue with those who denounce reason, is as useful as administering medication to the dead. Seems to fit when talking to you steadfast righty extremists.

Reply
Mar 28, 2020 17:13:43   #
JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida
 
Barracuda2020 wrote:
Talking to you is a total waste of time.


Take a hike then.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 20 of 31 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.