Media Bias

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Lol...basically just make up any shit you want

No not at all. It is a common practice not to put someone on trial for multiple different things when they all coincide with one another. There is actually a term for it, And a reason why it is done.
Also you do realize how funny it sounds when a Trump supporter says what you just said right?

[Buffalo Bob]

Originally Posted by SunnySide

My bottom line in politics is this and so far I dont think ive been wrong ... whether its a D or an R in control, it never actually effects my day to day life.

I was born a couple weeks after JFK took office. Only the last two had an effect on my life. Drafting for the Vietnam war ended when I was 14 and they haven't had a draft since. Obamacare caused my health insurance rates to almost quadruple.

Trump and his tariffs made sourcing "domestic" steel and aluminum a pain in the rear. Mills and wholesalers used the tariffs as excuses to play all kinds of games with pricing and delivery. Some places raised prices up to 60% overnight. Things seemed to have finally settled down a bit and prices are dropping but nowhere near pre-tariff levels. As I mentioned I buy domestic only.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by punch it in

No not at all. It is a common practice not to put someone on trial for multiple different things when they all coincide with one another. There is actually a term for it, And a reason why it is done.
Also you do realize how funny it sounds when a Trump supporter says what you just said right?

I think you mean lesser included charges. Those charges are still brought against the person, but the components of the charges are included in the statute that is being charged. So if you charge murder you might include manslaughter so that if the jury doesnt find intent they can find him guilty of the lesser charge.

Not sure it is the same with the impeacment, because although the Democrats alleged bribery in documents, the House chose not to vote to include it either as its own article or as a part of 1 of the 2 articles of impeachment. And their rationale stated in questioning was, well the defense would argue against it.

For every flaw in the impeachment case, the house seemed to argue, well we had to do it that way or the president's team would have found a loophole and tried to use it. That is what defense lawyers do! And you can not deny a sitting president due process just because you don't want to have to close those loopholes so you can rush to the end.

Could you imagine in ANY court in the US a defense attorney agreeing to only present witnesses that the prosecution says the defense needs? Or a defense attorney waving attorney client privilege so that the prosecution can have the trial around their schedule??

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[CRedskinsRule]

This is a very good analysis piece on Murkowski's reason for voting against witnesses.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/31/polit...rts/index.html

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

This is a very good analysis piece on Murkowski's reason for voting against witnesses.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/31/polit...rts/index.html

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

So to save John Roberts she sacrificed the constitution and the country, brilliant ........fucking brilliant.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Giantone

So to save John Roberts she sacrificed the constitution and the country, brilliant ........fucking brilliant.

Actually after I read that one I saw this, apparently Roberts had said he would not break a tie in response to a question Schumer posed so even if she had put him in a position to break the tie, Justice Roberts felt it was not his constitutional duty.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/chi...ent-tiebreaker

Schumer began by asking Roberts if he was aware that Chief Justice Samuel Chase cast tie-breaking votes during President Andrew Johnson's impeachment trial in the 1860s.
"I have a parliamentary inquiry," Schumer said. "Is the chief justice aware that in the impeachment trial of President Johnson, Chief Justice Chase, as presiding officer, cast tie-breaking votes on both March 31 and April 2, 1868?"
Roberts said he was aware of Chase's actions but explained that the issues he sought to resolve were minor. He also said he did not believe Chase's votes were enough to establish a firm precedent for him to act on.
“The one [vote] concerned a motion to adjourn. The other [vote] concerned a motion to close deliberations," Roberts replied. "I do not regard those isolated episodes 150 years ago, as sufficient to support a general authority to break ties." ... "If the members of this body, elected by the people and accountable to them, divide equally on a motion -- the normal rule is that the motion fails," he added.
"I think it would be inappropriate for me, an unelected official from a different branch of government, to assert the power to change that result so that the motion would succeed.”

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[Chico23231]

Veteran journalist suggesting gerrymandering the senate...

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Actually after I read that one I saw this, apparently Roberts had said he would not break a tie in response to a question Schumer posed so even if she had put him in a position to break the tie, Justice Roberts felt it was not his constitutional duty.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/chi...ent-tiebreaker



Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

So either she was lying or wasn't paying attention to Roberts.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Veteran journalist suggesting gerrymandering the senate...

LOL, it worked for republicans .



chico , you still don't get it. Everything the republicans have done or are doing is going to come back at them ten fold! Stop the phony outrage .


https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...olina-michigan

https://www.businessinsider.com/part...mocrats-2017-6

The AP scrutinized the outcomes of all 435 U.S. House races and about 4,700 state House and Assembly seats up for election last year using a new statistical method of calculating partisan advantage. It’s designed to detect cases in which one party may have won, widened or retained its grip on power through political gerrymandering.

The analysis found four times as many states with Republican-skewed state House or Assembly districts than Democratic ones. Among the two dozen most populated states that determine the vast majority of Congress, there were nearly three times as many with Republican-tilted U.S. House districts.

Yet the data suggest that even if Democrats had turned out in larger numbers, their chances of substantial legislative gains were limited by gerrymandering.

“The outcome was already cooked in, if you will, because of the way the districts were drawn,” said John McGlennon, a longtime professor of government and public policy at the College of William & Mary in Virginia who ran unsuccessfully for Congress as a Democrat in the 1980s.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by Giantone

LOL, it worked for republicans .



chico , you still don't get it. Everything the republicans have done or are doing is going to come back at them ten fold! Stop the phony outrage .

G1, you can’t gerrymander the senate...the point is this journalist is a moron.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

G1, you can’t gerrymander the senate...the point is this journalist is a moron.

LOL,........sure chico,sure.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Giantone

So either she was lying or wasn't paying attention to Roberts.

Or, since she knew the position he would take, AND his reasons why, she still didnt want to put Roberts in the position of having to take that action and thus risk polarizing the Supreme Court in the media. Him saying his position on the floor, allowed her to make her vote with an eye to the larger good of not dragging the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court into an immensely political decision.

Consider the headline if her vote makes it 50-50 and Roberts allows the vote to fail. Roberts decision would be blared across the headlines positively and negatively on a partisan basis. Instead her vote kept the partisan headlines focused where they ought to be, On the Senators.



Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Giantone

LOL, it worked for republicans .







chico , you still don't get it. Everything the republicans have done or are doing is going to come back at them ten fold! Stop the phony outrage .





https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...olina-michigan



https://www.businessinsider.com/part...mocrats-2017-6



The AP scrutinized the outcomes of all 435 U.S. House races and about 4,700 state House and Assembly seats up for election last year using a new statistical method of calculating partisan advantage. It’s designed to detect cases in which one party may have won, widened or retained its grip on power through political gerrymandering.



The analysis found four times as many states with Republican-skewed state House or Assembly districts than Democratic ones. Among the two dozen most populated states that determine the vast majority of Congress, there were nearly three times as many with Republican-tilted U.S. House districts.



Yet the data suggest that even if Democrats had turned out in larger numbers, their chances of substantial legislative gains were limited by gerrymandering.



“The outcome was already cooked in, if you will, because of the way the districts were drawn,” said John McGlennon, a longtime professor of government and public policy at the College of William & Mary in Virginia who ran unsuccessfully for Congress as a Democrat in the 1980s.

G1 you live in Md, a gerrymandered state for the Dems. Both parties have done that on the House level.

As for Gerrymandering the Senate (a fairly impossible thing) we ought to repeal the direct election of senators and move back to the state legislatures appointing them.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[SunnySide]

MD is gerrymandered but I think rational people can agree that the Republicans have abused the trick much more and more often than Democrats.

The census is coming up and new districts will be drawn based on census numbers. That is why Trump and Republicans wanted the "citizenship" question on there, so that minorities would be less likely to respond, thus under reporting in traditionally democratic areas so those areas will have less House Reps. The census is used to determine how many people live in the US per district and is not designed to measure how many voters per district.

District drawing should be non-partisan, using natural land barriers or other objective ways. To allow a R or D state controlled legislature to draw maps for the specific purpose of watering down the other parties votes seems so unconstitutional to me.
------------
The 2012 election provides a number of examples as to how partisan gerrymandering can adversely affect the descriptive function of states' congressional delegations. In Pennsylvania, for example, Democratic candidates for the House of Representatives received 83,000 more votes than Republican candidates, yet the Republican-controlled redistricting process in 2010 resulted in Democrats losing to their Republican counterparts in 13 out of Pennsylvania's 18 districts.[32]

In the seven states where Republicans had complete control over the redistricting process, Republican House candidates received 16.7 million votes and Democratic House candidates received 16.4 million votes. The redistricting resulted in Republican victories in 73 out of the 107 affected seats; in those 7 states, Republicans received 50.4% of the votes but won in over 68% of the congressional districts.[33] While it is but one example of how gerrymandering can have a significant effect on election outcomes, this kind of disproportional representation of the public will seems to be problematic for the legitimacy of democratic systems, regardless of one's political affiliation.

In Michigan, redistricting was constructed by a Republican Legislature in 2011.[34] Federal congressional districts were so designed that cities such as Battle Creek, Grand Rapids, Jackson, Kalamazoo, Lansing, and East Lansing were separated into districts with large conservative-leaning hinterlands that essentially diluted the Democratic votes in those cities in Congressional elections.[citation needed] Since 2010 not one of those cities is within a district in which a Democratic nominee for the House of Representatives has a reasonable chance of winning, short of Democratic landslide.[citation needed][clarification needed]

-------

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Or, since she knew the position he would take, AND his reasons why, she still didnt want to put Roberts in the position of having to take that action and thus risk polarizing the Supreme Court in the media. Him saying his position on the floor, allowed her to make her vote with an eye to the larger good of not dragging the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court into an immensely political decision.

Consider the headline if her vote makes it 50-50 and Roberts allows the vote to fail. Roberts decision would be blared across the headlines positively and negatively on a partisan basis. Instead her vote kept the partisan headlines focused where they ought to be, On the Senators.



Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

LOL, ...................you're a good story teller.