FOX News Poll: Disapproval Of GOP Skyrocketing

[TemplarKormac]

Free subsidies, free use of government lands free...

Oh wait....wingnut nation has it's own narrative. One based on reactionary talking points

Look who's talking?

Republicans hate women

Republicans hate poor people

Republicans are racist

Republicans are bigots

Republicans are haters

Republicans want to throw granny off a cliff

Republicans are rednecks

Republicans want to destroy America

Republicans are terrorists

Republicans are anarchists

Republicans are child killers (LOL)

Republicans this, Republicans that.

I've heard them all. All of YOUR talking points.

Nuts but how does this challenge the fact?

You never have proven any one of them. There is your challenge. Prove it.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

“We’re very excited,” said Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.). “It’s exactly what we wanted, and we got it.”
- on government shutdown.

All sane people should have this in their signatures

 

[auditor0007]

The longer this goes on, the more damage it will do to the Republicans. Could it cause Republicans to lose the House next year? I doubt it, but anything is possible. For Dems to take back the House, Dems would have to carry well over 55% of the total congressional votes due to the huge amount of gerrymandered districts that favor Republicans.

 

[Chris]

You've actually managed to unjustly say the Republicans did it, and yet you ignore the fact that it was Obama who not only said he would not budge nor negotiate, and he coerced or was coerced (which is not clear to me) with or by Pelosi and Reid to not meet with Republicans last Sunday to avoid the shutdown based on his refusal to negotiate.

You can't fool all of the people all of the time, Chris. We open our doors to negotiation. Obama slams his shut and nails it down.

For that, Republicans are blameless in Obama's shutting down the government while happy talking the public. The public is getting wise to that kind of behavior.

You have a new ally in Bill O'Reilly. He's now spouting nonsense too.

We Republicans put people in Congress to stop the spending. When they did, Obama figured out a way to project his wrongdoing on Republicans with his cursed happy talk lies while he's the one who wouldn't engage in give and take. He wants to do all the taking and blame the opposition for it all. What he can't take away is the rise in the National Debt on his watch and trying to blame President Bush for everything:

US National Debt Clock $16,963,564,000,000.00

Reagan and the two Bushes created 90% of the National Debt.

Go to ReaganBushDebt.org to see the numbers.

Republicans in both chambers of Congress committed to absolutely refusing to vote for any spending bill that contains funding for ObamaCare. Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) and Congressman Mark Meadows (R-NC) led the charge to get their colleagues to commit to this approach, by putting their signatures to a letter affirming that they will refuse to vote for a CR that contains ObamaCare funding.

And now John Boehner will not let a clean funding bill even be voted on.

Republicans planned to shut down the government when this letter was written.

So um, just where in her comment did she mention Reagan or Bush? Don't deflect.

The National Debt clock link at the end of her post.

Reading is fundamental.

 

[Chris]

The longer this goes on, the more damage it will do to the Republicans. Could it cause Republicans to lose the House next year? I doubt it, but anything is possible. For Dems to take back the House, Dems would have to carry well over 55% of the total congressional votes due to the huge amount of gerrymandered districts that favor Republicans.

Why do Republicans hate America?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The longer this goes on, the more damage it will do to the Republicans. Could it cause Republicans to lose the House next year? I doubt it, but anything is possible. For Dems to take back the House, Dems would have to carry well over 55% of the total congressional votes due to the huge amount of gerrymandered districts that favor Republicans.

Turnout. And look at what Rahm Emanuel accomplished (with an assist by The Good Doktor Dean) in 2006.

 

[RKMBrown]

The longer this goes on, the more damage it will do to the Republicans. Could it cause Republicans to lose the House next year? I doubt it, but anything is possible. For Dems to take back the House, Dems would have to carry well over 55% of the total congressional votes due to the huge amount of gerrymandered districts that favor Republicans.

Huge huh? How many democrat and republican gerrymandered districts are there?

 

[Chris]

The longer this goes on, the more damage it will do to the Republicans. Could it cause Republicans to lose the House next year? I doubt it, but anything is possible. For Dems to take back the House, Dems would have to carry well over 55% of the total congressional votes due to the huge amount of gerrymandered districts that favor Republicans.

Huge huh? How many democrat and republican gerrymandered districts are there?

Republicans gerrymandered the House districts when they won the 2010 election.

Do a little reading on it.

 

[BallsBrunswick]

Watching the few ardent conservatives that are left trying to defend the Republican Party's continued failures and now the out right shutdown of the government is both bizarre and hilarious to me. I find this behavior and lack of critical thinking fascinating.

 

[Nyvin]

The longer this goes on, the more damage it will do to the Republicans. Could it cause Republicans to lose the House next year? I doubt it, but anything is possible. For Dems to take back the House, Dems would have to carry well over 55% of the total congressional votes due to the huge amount of gerrymandered districts that favor Republicans.

Huge huh? How many democrat and republican gerrymandered districts are there?

Republicans gerrymander way more often. California has passed on the redistricting process to the judicial branch. The only two states that are gerrymandered in Dems favor are Illinois and Maryland, both of which are pretty heavy blue anyway.

 

[EriktheRed]

The longer this goes on, the more damage it will do to the Republicans. Could it cause Republicans to lose the House next year? I doubt it, but anything is possible. For Dems to take back the House, Dems would have to carry well over 55% of the total congressional votes due to the huge amount of gerrymandered districts that favor Republicans.

Huge huh? How many democrat and republican gerrymandered districts are there?

Republicans gerrymander way more often. California has passed on the redistricting process to the judicial branch. The only two states that are gerrymandered in Dems favor are Illinois and Maryland, both of which are pretty heavy blue anyway.

Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing gerrymandering banned outright, nationally, even if it meant fewer Dems from my state.

 

[Nyvin]

Huge huh? How many democrat and republican gerrymandered districts are there?

Republicans gerrymander way more often. California has passed on the redistricting process to the judicial branch. The only two states that are gerrymandered in Dems favor are Illinois and Maryland, both of which are pretty heavy blue anyway.

Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing gerrymandering banned outright, nationally, even if it meant fewer Dems from my state.

On the positive side it gives the GOP the delusion that they have a selling image to US population. In reality they havn't since the 2004 elections. So at this rate with demographics in favor of democrats we're looking at potentially an everlasting Democratic President and Senate.

 

[EriktheRed]

Republicans gerrymander way more often. California has passed on the redistricting process to the judicial branch. The only two states that are gerrymandered in Dems favor are Illinois and Maryland, both of which are pretty heavy blue anyway.

Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing gerrymandering banned outright, nationally, even if it meant fewer Dems from my state.

On the positive side it gives the GOP the delusion that they have a selling image to US population. In reality they havn't since the 2004 elections. So at this rate with demographics in favor of democrats we're looking at potentially an everlasting Democratic President and Senate.

Wouldn't bet on that, though. They're still pretty well entrenched in the House. Maybe if they cause a debt default, but if that happened, whos to say it would even matter by November of '14?

 

[RKMBrown]

The longer this goes on, the more damage it will do to the Republicans. Could it cause Republicans to lose the House next year? I doubt it, but anything is possible. For Dems to take back the House, Dems would have to carry well over 55% of the total congressional votes due to the huge amount of gerrymandered districts that favor Republicans.

Huge huh? How many democrat and republican gerrymandered districts are there?

Republicans gerrymandered the House districts when they won the 2010 election.

Do a little reading on it.

You sure they were not just changing the districts back to how they were before the democrats gerrymandered them?

 

[RKMBrown]

The longer this goes on, the more damage it will do to the Republicans. Could it cause Republicans to lose the House next year? I doubt it, but anything is possible. For Dems to take back the House, Dems would have to carry well over 55% of the total congressional votes due to the huge amount of gerrymandered districts that favor Republicans.

Huge huh? How many democrat and republican gerrymandered districts are there?

Republicans gerrymander way more often. California has passed on the redistricting process to the judicial branch. The only two states that are gerrymandered in Dems favor are Illinois and Maryland, both of which are pretty heavy blue anyway.

I see, so heavily democrat California is gerrymandered for republicans. Uh huh...

 

[Nyvin]

Huge huh? How many democrat and republican gerrymandered districts are there?

Republicans gerrymandered the House districts when they won the 2010 election.

Do a little reading on it.

You sure they were not just changing the districts back to how they were before the democrats gerrymandered them?

Yes. If you at the vote numbers it's clear they are gerrymandered in favor of Republicans.

In Michigan for example, 2,327,985 people voted for Democratic Candidates, 2,086,804 voted for GOP candidate...yet Michigan has 9 GOP districts and 5 Democrat districts, a ratio of 64% GOP to 36% Democrat.....This is despite Democrats winning the overall vote 52.7% to 47.3%!!

In Virginia the GOP did a "bit" better...1,806,025 Democrat votes to 1,876,761 GOP votes...GOP winning 51% to 49%. HOWEVER...8 districts went to the GOP and 3 to democrats...that's a ratio of roughly 27% democrat; 73% GOP, which is actually even more skewed then Michigan.

Such a huge margin of victory district wise is only possible through Gerrymandering in both cases. There are other states that follow the same voting trends.

 

[RKMBrown]

Republicans gerrymandered the House districts when they won the 2010 election.

Do a little reading on it.

You sure they were not just changing the districts back to how they were before the democrats gerrymandered them?

Yes. If you at the vote numbers it's clear they are gerrymandered in favor of Republicans.

In Michigan for example, 2,327,985 people voted for Democratic Candidates, 2,086,804 voted for GOP candidate...yet Michigan has 9 GOP districts and 5 Democrat districts, a ratio of 64% GOP to 36% Democrat.....This is despite Democrats winning the overall vote 52.7% to 47.3%!!

In Virginia the GOP did a "bit" better...1,806,025 Democrat votes to 1,876,761 GOP votes...GOP winning 50.2% to 48.3%. HOWEVER...8 districts went to the GOP and 3 to democrats...that's a ratio of roughly 27% democrat; 73% GOP, which is actually even more skewed then Michigan.

Such a huge margin of victory district wise is only possible through Gerrymandering in both cases. There are other states that follow the same voting trends.

So math isn't one of your "stronger" attributes right?

You honestly believe the population of a major democrat city should be split up into the vast reaches of all the republican suburb districts?

 

[Nyvin]

You sure they were not just changing the districts back to how they were before the democrats gerrymandered them?

Yes. If you at the vote numbers it's clear they are gerrymandered in favor of Republicans.

In Michigan for example, 2,327,985 people voted for Democratic Candidates, 2,086,804 voted for GOP candidate...yet Michigan has 9 GOP districts and 5 Democrat districts, a ratio of 64% GOP to 36% Democrat.....This is despite Democrats winning the overall vote 52.7% to 47.3%!!

In Virginia the GOP did a "bit" better...1,806,025 Democrat votes to 1,876,761 GOP votes...GOP winning 50.2% to 48.3%. HOWEVER...8 districts went to the GOP and 3 to democrats...that's a ratio of roughly 27% democrat; 73% GOP, which is actually even more skewed then Michigan.

Such a huge margin of victory district wise is only possible through Gerrymandering in both cases. There are other states that follow the same voting trends.

So math isn't one of your "stronger" attributes right?

You honestly believe the population of a major democrat city should be split up into the vast reaches of all the republican suburb districts?

The Virginia number includes independent candidate votes...I guess I could correct it but...meh, the point is the same.

If urban clustering was the "sole reason" for the GOP house majority we wouldn't have seen Democrat Majorities right before the census in 2007-2010. We did...the majority was there, it's possible with urban clustering. Myth 100% debunk.

 

[Nyvin]

Okay, the Virginia %'s are correct...just an oversight, sorry.

 

[RKMBrown]

Yes. If you at the vote numbers it's clear they are gerrymandered in favor of Republicans.

In Michigan for example, 2,327,985 people voted for Democratic Candidates, 2,086,804 voted for GOP candidate...yet Michigan has 9 GOP districts and 5 Democrat districts, a ratio of 64% GOP to 36% Democrat.....This is despite Democrats winning the overall vote 52.7% to 47.3%!!

In Virginia the GOP did a "bit" better...1,806,025 Democrat votes to 1,876,761 GOP votes...GOP winning 50.2% to 48.3%. HOWEVER...8 districts went to the GOP and 3 to democrats...that's a ratio of roughly 27% democrat; 73% GOP, which is actually even more skewed then Michigan.

Such a huge margin of victory district wise is only possible through Gerrymandering in both cases. There are other states that follow the same voting trends.

So math isn't one of your "stronger" attributes right?

You honestly believe the population of a major democrat city should be split up into the vast reaches of all the republican suburb districts?

The Virginia number includes independent candidate votes...I guess I could correct it but...meh, the point is the same.

If urban clustering was the "sole reason" for the GOP house majority we wouldn't have seen Democrat Majorities right before the census in 2007-2010. We did...the majority was there, it's possible with urban clustering. Myth 100% debunk.

huh? Can someone translate this lib logic?