• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Lying Democrat Senate Candidates

Jack Hays said:
The man for whom "gerrymander" was named was a Dem. He was Madison's VP.

[h=3]Elbridge Gerry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/h]en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbridge_GerryWikipedia


Elbridge Thomas Gerry (/ˈɛlbrɪdʒ ˈɡɛri/; July 17, 1744 (O.S. July 6, 1744) – November 23, 1814) was an American statesman and diplomat.‎Early life - ‎Early political career - ‎Congress and Revolution
Click to expand...
That was then, this is now. Try Present Moment Awareness instead of lying revisionist history. Today's GOP House is 2-1 Gerry-mandered in favor of Repubs. How do you explain that Dems had a half million more votes for House members than the GOP without lying ?
 
Jack Hays said:
I need do no such thing. She knows she could/would never cast that vote. She lied.
Click to expand...

She absolutely has the power to cast such a vote. Again, you cannot show otherwise. Making **** up is kinda a poor debate strategy.
 
NIMBY said:
That was then, this is now. Try Present Moment Awareness instead of lying revisionist history. Today's GOP House is 2-1 Gerry-mandered in favor of Repubs. How do you explain that Dems had a half million more votes for House members than the GOP without lying ?
Click to expand...

The same way Dems gerrymandered districts through all the decades of their dominance. Dems are only getting a dose of their own medicine.
 
Jack Hays said:
She lied.
Click to expand...

How many GOP Senators would there be right now without the 17th amendment? Just another great reason for President Theodore Roosevelt's great face to be in a great place called Mount Rushmore .
 
NIMBY said:
How many GOP Senators would there be right now without the 17th amendment? Just another great reason for President Theodore Roosevelt's great face to be in a great place called Mount Rushmore .
Click to expand...

What makes you think I care about the 17th Amendment? That ship has sailed.
 
Jack Hays said:
The same way Dems gerrymandered districts through all the decades of their dominance. Dems are only getting a dose of their own medicine.
Click to expand...

The 17th came in due to GOP Gerry-mandered statehouses. That's a fact Jack. You have now lost the debate on the 17th and Ms. Nunn . :peace
 
Jack Hays said:
What makes you think I care about the 17th Amendment? That ship has sailed.
Click to expand...

Then why do you answer my questions on it started by Ernst ? :lamo
 
Jack Hays said:
That's just incoherent.
Click to expand...

It's settled fact Jack. Calling it incoherent is just another of your many lies as pointed out by other posters in this thread. Pretty scared of Ms. Nunn aren't you ?
 
NIMBY said:
Repealing the 17th would not only enhance lobbying in D.C., it would send lobbyists scurrying like rats to the 50 statehouses to LOBBY for which Senators would be appointed by your GOP Gerry-mandered statehouses, further ingraining GOP Gerry-mandaring that was stopped by the 17th .
Click to expand...

how would it enhance lobbying in d.c. since the senate would be controlled by the states.......no legislation could pass congress unless the states approve...that would devolve power out of Washington ...not increase it.
 
Jack Hays said:
The same way Dems gerrymandered districts through all the decades of their dominance. Dems are only getting a dose of their own medicine.
Click to expand...

You just justified one dishonor by pointing out another, though yer wrong as to who bastardized Gerry-mandering to the point we needed the 17th .
 
NIMBY said:
Then why do you answer my questions on it started by Ernst ? :lamo
Click to expand...

NIMBY said:
It's settled fact Jack. Calling it incoherent is just another of your many lies as pointed out by other posters in this thread. Pretty scared of Ms. Nunn aren't you ?
Click to expand...

Your posts remain incoherent. I answered a question addressed to me. There is no apparent link between gerrymandering and the 17th amendment, and Ms. Nunn is unlikely ever to serve in the Senate.

[h=3]Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution ...[/h]en.wikipedia.org/.../Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_...Wikipedia


The Seventeenth Amendment (Amendment XVII) to the United States Constitution established direct election of United States Senators by popular vote.‎Text - ‎Background - ‎Proposal and ratification - ‎References
 
Jack Hays said:
No. She does not. She lied.
Click to expand...

OK, so you can document where she does not control her own vote? Because for your claim to hold up, you need to do that. Otherwise, she in fact can vote however she chooses.
 
The only way one can brand Nunn a "liar" over this is if that person is a mind-reader.

The author of that hit piece basically says "yeah, right." And that, apparently, means Nunn lied.

What a steaming load of bull**** this thread is.
 
Kobie said:
The only way one can brand Nunn a "liar" over this is if that person is a mind-reader.

The author of that hit piece basically says "yeah, right." And that, apparently, means Nunn lied.

What a steaming load of bull**** this thread is.
Click to expand...

It gets even funnier, since the editorial lists 2 ways in which she could be telling the truth, but Jack ups the ante and denies even that.
 
Your OP was a lie because you say there are candidates plural but only mention Nunn, who you continue to lie about saying she is lying.
Jack Hays said:
Your posts remain incoherent. I answered a question addressed to me. There is no apparent link between gerrymandering and the 17th amendment, and Ms. Nunn is unlikely ever to serve in the Senate.
Click to expand...
the 17th is all about Gerry-mandering of statehouses, which then appointed Senators. This is your second consistent lie in this thread. Now all the people of a state elect a Senator Jack so only the House is Gerry-mandered .
 
Redress said:
OK, so you can document where she does not control her own vote? Because for your claim to hold up, you need to do that. Otherwise, she in fact can vote however she chooses.
Click to expand...

No, she would not control her own vote. She would be a freshman Senator in a closely divided Senate.
 
NIMBY said:
Your OP was a lie because you say there are candidates plural but only mention Nunn, who you continue to lie about saying she is lying.
the 17th is all about Gerry-mandering of statehouses, which then appointed Senators. This is your second consistent lie in this thread. This is all the people of a state elect a Senator now Jack.
Click to expand...

Other Senate candidates are mentioned. Read past the pictures. Please cite a reformer who advocated for the 17th by claiming gerrymandering as a justification for it. And a technical point: statehouses are the residences of governors. I believe you are referring to state legislatures.

[h=3]The Twisted History of Gerrymandering in American Politics ...[/h]www.theatlantic.com/...history-of-gerrymandering.../262369...The Atlantic


Sep 19, 2012 - In the October issue of The Atlantic, Robert Draper offers an in-depth analysis of current instances of gerrymandering in U.S. politics.


[h=3][/h]
 
Jack Hays said:
No, she would not control her own vote. She would be a freshman Senator in a closely divided Senate.
Click to expand...

Where in the rules does it say some one controls her vote? And why would the senate being closely divided have anything to do with a vote that is only among democrats(Hint: learn who votes for the senate majority and minority leaders, you might learn something)?
 
Redress said:
Where in the rules does it say some one controls her vote? And why would the senate being closely divided have anything to do with a vote that is only among democrats(Hint: learn who votes for the senate majority and minority leaders, you might learn something)?
Click to expand...

She would remain a loyal supporter of Reid nonetheless.
 
From the OP:

. . . This type of sinister deceit should not be viewed in isolation. As I have said before, this behavior is indicative of how the entire Democratic campaign machinery operates, and the party should be held accountable for their candidates’ actions.


Democrats are belittling the intelligence of voters, trying to hide the liberal allegiances they have – or would have – when they have to govern. They continue to say one thing back home and govern a different way once they get to Washington. It’s no wonder that Americans have become so cynical about our political system.

And that is the lie.
 
Jack Hays said:
Please see #72. The fundamental structure of her candidacy is a lie, and everything that flows from it is a lie.
Click to expand...

So now it isn't that she is lying about not voting for Reid, it is that she is lying about, well, everything. Way to run away when challenged, moving the goalposts as you go. Don't worry, only every one who red this thread saw you look silly and get shown to be dishonest,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom