The north korea problem

[Williamsmith]

True enough. But given trump's obvious lack of concern about the constitution or rule of law generally it wouldn't surprise me if he tried to do it. Especially if someone told him it would make people think he was the Best President Ever by doing so. And it'd certainly be simpler than trying to split the state up, considering that even Fresno, Merced and Stanislaus counties in the heart of the Central Valley, went for Clinton. There's only so much republican electoral chicanery that can be done when almost twice as many people of a given population voted for the democrat.

I believe God must believe in "Chicanery!" Or the Rust Belt.....not sure which.

[LDAHL]

I believe God must believe in "Chicanery!" Or the Rust Belt.....not sure which.

As the beer commercial (and beer commercials never lie) says, we're God's Country. Although I would have hoped that God might have looked more favorably on Marco Rubio. I've been reading that Mrs. Clinton is thinking of becoming a Methodist Minister. Maybe that will help close the gap.

The Democrats wouldn't have to lean so heavily on the chicanery excuse if they hadn't lost a thousand state legislative seats since Obama took office.

[jp1]

Actually the dems don't need chicanery. California has a non-partisan redistricting commission. And yet with no chicanery the democrats have 39 congressional seats compared to 14 republicans here. Yes our coastal liberal elite cities are big, but they aren't THAT big. I can only assume that in many other states the chicanery starts low and works its way up. gerrymander the state legislative districts, then once you get your fraudulent state house majority gerrymander the federal congressional districts. As W. would say: Mission accomplished. At least if the mission is to thwart majority rule.

Both the presidency and the senate popular votes in 2016 strongly favored democrats and house republicans only got 51.4% of the popular vote. All the talk of this being a conservative nation is highly bloviated.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...-too/93598998/

https://politics.stackexchange.com/q...house-election

If the popular vote for house seats had been equally divided around the country dems would have 211 house seats, not 193. That 18 seat difference is largely the result of republican chicanery.

[nswef]

I am in Maryland, a very blue state, but live in the western area which is ultra red. Our state legislators did the very same kind of gerrymandering to create a voting district that was red and turned it blue by making it a spider shape. I am a democrat and found it an unfair thing to do. So I wonder if it is going on in other blue states, too. Really, isn't there some sensible, mathematical way to divide it so votes reflect people's votes?

[Williamsmith]

Actually the dems don't need chicanery. California has a non-partisan redistricting commission. And yet with no chicanery the democrats have 39 congressional seats compared to 14 republicans here. Yes our coastal liberal elite cities are big, but they aren't THAT big. I can only assume that in many other states the chicanery starts low and works its way up. gerrymander the state legislative districts, then once you get your fraudulent state house majority gerrymander the federal congressional districts. As W. would say: Mission accomplished. At least if the mission is to thwart majority rule.

Both the presidency and the senate popular votes in 2016 strongly favored democrats and house republicans only got 51.4% of the popular vote. All the talk of this being a conservative nation is highly bloviated.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...-too/93598998/

https://politics.stackexchange.com/q...house-election

If the popular vote for house seats had been equally divided around the country dems would have 211 house seats, not 193. That 18 seat difference is largely the result of republican chicanery.

So, your arguements is ...there happen to be a few more of you then there are of us.....and that gives you the right to govern ideologically over the rest of us. What ever happened to representative government? Does it offend you that tiny Rhode Island gets the same representation as big and famous California? Talk of this being a liberal nation is high falutin. What with the Orange One presiding. Oh that's right.....Putin.

[LDAHL]

There's a column in the New York Times today that speculates on the possibility of civil war (somebody polled some "experts"). Personally, I think that's ridiculous. There was a much higher level of tension and violence fifty years ago than there is today. Maybe it's the alt-media whipping up the gullible over issues like Confederate bric-a-brac, but we seem to get more excited over our differences than the last few generations. We seemed to have moved from "I think we should do this, and here's why" to "As a (insert identity here) I am offended by your position and feel I must silence you".

I think we're still basically a center-right country. Our liberal party is probably to the right of what Europeans would probably consider left wing. People like to talk about taking their ball and going home, but I think most of that can be put down to histrionics.

[Williamsmith]

There's a column in the New York Times today that speculates on the possibility of civil war (somebody polled some "experts"). Personally, I think that's ridiculous. There was a much higher level of tension and violence fifty years ago than there is today. Maybe it's the alt-media whipping up the gullible over issues like Confederate bric-a-brac, but we seem to get more excited over our differences than the last few generations. We seemed to have moved from "I think we should do this, and here's why" to "As a (insert identity here) I am offended by your position and feel I must silence you".

I think we're still basically a center-right country. Our liberal party is probably to the right of what Europeans would probably consider left wing. People like to talk about taking their ball and going home, but I think most of that can be put down to histrionics.

I agree that the likelihood of civil war is remote. We have a very capable standing army that would restore a semblance of order. I do see a counter arguement though. Although Lincolns inauguration triggered South Carolina to secede...he was articulate and single minded when it came to holding the Union together. Our current Tyrant of Tweet .....not so much. I don't think he could hold a fractious garden club together over disagreements about a watering schedule.

[jp1]

So, your arguements is ...there happen to be a few more of you then there are of us.....and that gives you the right to govern ideologically over the rest of us. What ever happened to representative government? Does it offend you that tiny Rhode Island gets the same representation as big and famous California? Talk of this being a liberal nation is high falutin. What with the Orange One presiding. Oh that's right.....Putin.

I'm all for representative government. Gerrymandering intentionally does just the opposite.

[LDAHL]

One area where Americans seem to be self-segregating is military service. More and more, the people entering (and staying) in the military are the children of military members. You're seeing more articles lately talking about the formation of a "warrior caste" whose values may not necessarily reflect those of America at large. You have to wonder what their attitude might be toward Utopian separatists in California or Aryan puritans in Idaho. It's hard for me to picture today's officer corps shaking hands and riding off to their respective states as they did in 1860. They might have more in common with one another than be divided by whatever is at issue on some sad future day.

[Williamsmith]

One area where Americans seem to be self-segregating is military service. More and more, the people entering (and staying) in the military are the children of military members. You're seeing more articles lately talking about the formation of a "warrior caste" whose values may not necessarily reflect those of America at large. You have to wonder what their attitude might be toward Utopian separatists in California or Aryan puritans in Idaho. It's hard for me to picture today's officer corps shaking hands and riding off to their respective states as they did in 1860. They might have more in common with one another than be divided by whatever is at issue on some sad future day.

True, but the Utopian Separatists in California should be careful about uniting against confederate monument protectionists. A review of the history of California and that of San Fransisco in particular would provide ample justification for Mexicans, legal and illegal, documented and documented, to demand many monuments be removed commemorating the rebellious settlers who took Mexican territory from them. Not to mention the offensive state flag depicting the bear ...which was the flag flown by traitorous rebels.