Political Junkies: Predictions for U.S. Mid-Terms?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by North East Goon

How is Congress/House of Reps distributed across the nation? How many in each state?

One of the problems down here is that congressional boundaries are drawn up by state legislatures. For this reason, Tom Delay was able to orchestrate a resistricting in heavily Republican Texas that effectively added 8 congressional seats to the state. This has two effects: it makes Texas' largely Republican congressional delegation more powerful. It also gives Texas 8 more electoral votes in the next presidential election--because 1 electoral vote is allocated to each congressional representative.

It's possibly the weirdest system ever.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Sowa

Well i am in a lower class minority area and my polling place was working out just fine, but then again I don't think many in my area are actually legally allowed to vote due to citizenship issues. It took me 5 mins. to vote today.

Good to hear. Did your precinct use an electronic voting system, or some version of paper ballots?

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by Looger

he's been challenged on the policy of paying for news, ironically enough by reporters.

did you check indymedia.org yet? must be on there somewhere...

And he said he would continue paying for news. i find that hard to believe, he's not that bright, but he's not THAT stupid. oh btw you or lanny has used indymedia as a source before thats where i got that from, i thought it was you...

Notice how i didn't decide to trash you on manipulating data because I didn't think it was worth it, but if you keep being an ass I am going to.

[Looger]

Originally Posted by Sowa

And he said he would continue paying for news. i find that hard to believe, he's not that bright, but he's not THAT stupid. oh btw you or lanny has used indymedia as a source before thats where i got that from, i thought it was you...

oh, good enough for me. some other poster uses a source, that must mean i do too!

unreal.

Originally Posted by Sowa

Notice how i didn't decide to trash you on manipulating data because I didn't think it was worth it, but if you keep being an ass I am going to.

please don't turn this thread into another junker where posters take shots at me and i defend myself.

please keep it to pm.

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Good to hear. Did your precinct use an electronic voting system, or some version of paper ballots?

electronic...was really easy to use. I don't think anyone had any problems...

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by Looger

oh, good enough for me. some other poster uses a source, that must mean i do too!

unreal.

please don't turn this thread into another junker where posters take shots at me and i defend myself.

please keep it to pm.

Oh I am not taking shots at you I just want to know where you got this from

http://www.democrats.reform.house.go...0444-05660.pdf

Over two and a half years, the Bush Administration spent more than $1.6 billion in taxpayer dollars on 343 contracts with public relations firms, advertising agencies, media organizations, and individual members of the media.

each single act is illegal. each single act is a different criminal offense.

That last line that you wrote is false. It's not a potshot. I want to know how you came up with it. The federal gov't is allowed to pay pr firms, ad agencies, etc... ie the war on drugs commercials. Nowhere in any of what you posted did it say all 343 contracts were illegal. You just said that because you thought it sounded good... I don't understand why you have to lie to pile on Bush, he has done enough wrong that it's not necessary...

[Lurch]

One of the problems down here is that congressional boundaries are drawn up by state legislatures. For this reason, Tom Delay was able to orchestrate a resistricting in heavily Republican Texas that effectively added 8 congressional seats to the state. This has two effects: it makes Texas' largely Republican congressional delegation more powerful. It also gives Texas 8 more electoral votes in the next presidential election--because 1 electoral vote is allocated to each congressional representative.

It's possibly the weirdest system ever.

This must be off a little. How can the state create new seats? I thought seat numbers were based entirely on population for the Congress, and the state legislatures just set the boundaries. If states could add seats independently, wouldn't every state go through this process?

My impression was DeLay simply redrew the borders to make sure pockets of Democratic support in GOP Texas did not have a district but were rather part of a bigger GOP area.

[Looger]

Originally Posted by Sowa

Oh I am not taking shots at you I just want to know where you got this from

That last line that you wrote is false. It's not a potshot. I want to know how you came up with it. The federal gov't is allowed to pay pr firms, ad agencies, etc... ie the war on drugs commercials. Nowhere in any of what you posted did it say all 343 contracts were illegal. You just said that because you thought it sounded good... I don't understand why you have to lie to pile on Bush, he has done enough wrong that it's not necessary...[/left]

like i said, i've done enough of your research.

ask around, typically i back up my statements.

you put words in my mouth and right now, i've done enough, you've sunk below a treshold worth researching for.

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by Looger

like i said, i've done enough of your research.

ask around, typically i back up my statements.

you put words in my mouth and right now, i've done enough, you've sunk below a treshold worth researching for.

Where did I put words in your mouth? Way to get out of answering to your lie... That's all I want you to respond to. I quoted your text word for word. You lied just admit it and move one...

[Agamemnon]

Yep... I'm not sure blatant corruption and misappropriation of public funds is technically illegal. Funny how the lawyer-types will use that to justify it. "Oh, I'll agree that its wrong... its just not technically illegal...", as though that makes all the difference in the world. Its probably all nice and legal, which is why the Administration hasn't been prosecuted for it. That said, its a disgusting use of taxpayer money. But the nitpickers won't care about that, they'll obfuscate and make those pointing out the corruption into axe-grinders or whiners.

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

That's a pretty reasonable prediction. My own feeling is that they take 5 senate seats, leaving a 50/50 split (still GOP controlled because Cheney would get the tiebreaking vote). A lot depends on whether the recent shifts in poll numbers reflect a natural "tightening" of the race in the final days, or if there's really a surge in the GOP's favour. If such a surge has happened, my guess is we'll see more modest gains in both houses--in the neighbourhood of 16 House seats and 3 in the Senate.

If a crew cut no nonsense Democrat can take a strong Republican Senate seat in Montana anything is possible. I dont think that there will be that much of a turnover in the more classic red states, I think the voter turnout there will keep the Rep in power (its funny how in the US the get out the vote is more advantageous to Republicans, and in Canada is more advantageous to Libs/NDP).

I have only recently followed the election in the last week or so, I never new the House needed only a turnover of 15. I have seen polls that say anywhere from 18-52 (Meet the Press). 52 would be insane.

If the Dems end up controllng both the House and the Sentate, look for hearings into the war and more importantly where the money went.

If what they said is true, that Corporals have told their Lieutenants about how the Iraqi army has no disipline and only in it for the money, then the US should high tail it out of Iraq faster than you can say "Operation Iraqi Freedom"

Its unfortunate how Iraq is seen as the US losing the war when in fact they won the war faster than anyone had even expected (15 days or whatever). They should have high tailed it out of there after Sadam was found in the hole. Only the British have evern been good at controlling territory and keeping it under control - the US has never been great at occupational combat.

MYK

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Its unfortunate how Iraq is seen as the US losing the war when in fact they won the war faster than anyone had even expected (15 days or whatever). They should have high tailed it out of there after Sadam was found in the hole. Only the British have evern been good at controlling territory and keeping it under control - the US has never been great at occupational combat.

You might be hard pressed to convince US soldiers in Iraq that the 'war is over' when they're being shot at and killed every day. I guess it all depends on the semantic definitions of 'war'.

[Looger]

Originally Posted by Sowa

Where did I put words in your mouth? Way to get out of answering to your lie... That's all I want you to respond to. I quoted your text word for word. You lied just admit it and move one...

indymedia.org was words in my mouth.

i'm really getting sick of this treatment, what's wrong with so many posters on this board?

i have contrary opinions, so i have to back it up more than most, fine, i do.

but having to prove illegality when it's illegal? look it up yourself!

what a mess.

associated press, march 15, 2005, i'm not paying for the archive ability. it's mirrored elsewhere on the internet.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...wsreleases.htm

Washington (AP) - The White House on Monday defended the administration's use of video news releases that are sent to television stations across the country and frequently used without any acknowledgment of the government's role in their production.

In an opinion last week, the Justice Department concluded that the practice was appropriate as long as the videos presented factual information about government programs. The memo was sent to heads of federal departments and agencies.
"The prohibition does not apply where there is no advocacy of a particular viewpoint, and therefore it does not apply to the legitimate provision of information concerning the programs administered by an agency," according to the Justice Department memo.
The advice conflicts with the opinion of the Government Accountability Office, which is the investigative arm of Congress. The GAO says that video news releases amount to illegal "covert propaganda" when they fail to make plain that the government is behind the releases.

it's a dispute between the justice department and GAO.

but the laws state clearly that it's considered propoganda when the government buys news and doesn't clearly state that to the viewer.

these are old laws and well known.

the way that justice works among governments and parties in the US is that it's open to challenge and interpretation.

torture is illegal, but 'pressure' isn't.

if the demopublican party actually followed up and went after the republicrats, then there would be more noise aboot this.

IT'S ILLEGAL TO PAY FOR PROPOGANDA.

deal.

so... when you state something in a post, and don't research it, is that lying...?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Lurch

This must be off a little. How can the state create new seats? I thought seat numbers were based entirely on population for the Congress, and the state legislatures just set the boundaries. If states could add seats independently, wouldn't every state go through this process?

My impression was DeLay simply redrew the borders to make sure pockets of Democratic support in GOP Texas did not have a district but were rather part of a bigger GOP area.

It does seem weird--but it's nevertheless true. There's no federal oversight--state legislatures are responsible for drawing up congressional boundaries. For that reason you have different ways of doing it in different states--in Iowa it's bipartisan, in Texas it's not, just to give one example.

They do have to base it on the census--and I'm not sure what the rules are there. You couldn't just decide that each person gets to be a congressman, for instance. But the effect of the redistricting in Texas was to add 8 GOP congressional seats and 8 more guaranteed electoral votes for the GOP in presidential elections. Almost Mulroney-esque!

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by Looger

indymedia.org was words in my mouth.

i'm really getting sick of this treatment, what's wrong with so many posters on this board?

i have contrary opinions, so i have to back it up more than most, fine, i do.

but having to prove illegality when it's illegal? look it up yourself!

what a mess.

associated press, march 15, 2005, i'm not paying for the archive ability. it's mirrored elsewhere on the internet.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...wsreleases.htm

Washington (AP) - The White House on Monday defended the administration's use of video news releases that are sent to television stations across the country and frequently used without any acknowledgment of the government's role in their production.

In an opinion last week, the Justice Department concluded that the practice was appropriate as long as the videos presented factual information about government programs. The memo was sent to heads of federal departments and agencies.
"The prohibition does not apply where there is no advocacy of a particular viewpoint, and therefore it does not apply to the legitimate provision of information concerning the programs administered by an agency," according to the Justice Department memo.
The advice conflicts with the opinion of the Government Accountability Office, which is the investigative arm of Congress. The GAO says that video news releases amount to illegal "covert propaganda" when they fail to make plain that the government is behind the releases.

it's a dispute between the justice department and GAO.

but the laws state clearly that it's considered propoganda when the government buys news and doesn't clearly state that to the viewer.

these are old laws and well known.

the way that justice works among governments and parties in the US is that it's open to challenge and interpretation.

torture is illegal, but 'pressure' isn't.

if the demopublican party actually followed up and went after the republicrats, then there would be more noise aboot this.

IT'S ILLEGAL TO PAY FOR PROPOGANDA.

deal.

so... when you state something in a post, and don't research it, is that lying...?

But, not every single contract of the 365 contracts on their are illegal, just some thats what the articles you posted said and you came out and said all of them were. Maybe I misread what you were saying, but thats what it seemed like to me. I have plenty research in the matter, but I haven't made any claims that would need to be backed up by evidence. You said that Bush should be impeached, I said there wasn't evidence out there that would convict him of a crime punishable by impeachment and there isn't. Just because he has done unethical things, doesn't stand for grounds of impeachment. Bill Clinton lied under oath, yes it was about something stupid, but perjury is a felony and can be punished by impeachment.

[Looger]

Originally Posted by Sowa

But, not every single contract of the 365 contracts on their are illegal, just some thats what the articles you posted said and you came out and said all of them were. Maybe I misread what you were saying, but thats what it seemed like to me. I have plenty research in the matter, but I haven't made any claims that would need to be backed up by evidence. You said that Bush should be impeached, I said there wasn't evidence out there that would convict him of a crime punishable by impeachment and there isn't. Just because he has done unethical things, doesn't stand for grounds of impeachment. Bill Clinton lied under oath, yes it was about something stupid, but perjury is a felony and can be punished by impeachment.

well, i disagree.

you're just going to have to deal man.

i'm done discussing this.

can we please move on?

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by Looger

well, i disagree.

you're just going to have to deal man.

i'm done discussing this.

can we please move on?

So you think a contract the DOD makes with an advertising firm to make the JOIN THE ARMY commercials is illegal?

[Looger]

Originally Posted by Sowa

So you think a contract the DOD makes with an advertising firm to make the JOIN THE ARMY commercials is illegal?

no, i don't.

i think that ONE instance of fabricated government produced 'news' being passed off with some cash changing hands through a media outlet is technically illegal, for an opposition party that actually cares to follow up its own investigations.

and once again, once again:

this isn't, to me, some HUGE CRIME. but it's investigated and documented, by the opposition party, pelosi herself deeply involved.

simple as that.

worth impeachment by itself?

no.

worth impeachment when the other less provable crimes are this unbelievable?

yes.

and like i said numerous times, that's my take on it, and if you disagree well that's great, that's discussion.

can we let this drop please? you keep asking me the same questions!

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Sowa

So you think a contract the DOD makes with an advertising firm to make the JOIN THE ARMY commercials is illegal?

I think those commercials say something like 'paid for by the US Army', don't they? Isn't that the problem, that the US govt didn't put their authorship on some commercials?

[Looger]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

I think those commercials say something like 'paid for by the US Army', don't they? Isn't that the problem, that the US govt didn't put their authorship on some commercials?

not commercials, news.