bahaha, you went through 3 different excuses, from pretending republicans are not in favour of gerrymandering (conveniently ignoring the scotus decision and republican inaction on the issue), to false equivalence (comprehensively debunked by facts), to inadvertently admitting that they do it, but suggesting (based on made up claims without any source) that it's ok because democrats did it earlier (btw, that completely disqualifies you from 'ridiculing democrats over hypocrisy, you dolt) - and now you claim you never condoned it, like your posts on the last couple of pages magically disappeared. holy shit... that is some olympic level mental gymnastics right there...

As a matter of party platform, Republicans are not in favor of gerrymandering. Politicians are, as it helps them win reelection. Not only am I not falsely equivalent, you've debunked nothing. Not inadvertently admitting, positively noting it.

Quote the post condoning it. Should be super simple if it's there.

you're either completely delusional or seriously reading impaired. try again.

you clearly admitted republicans outgerrymander democrats and tried to justify it with made up stories about democrats having done it in the past. before that you suggested it can't be a republican strategy because democrats also do that, and analysis in the link i sent you comprehensively debunked that ( http://election.princeton.edu/2012/12/30/gerrymanders-part-1-busting-the-both-sides-do-it-myth/ ). i don't know who you are performing for now, but nothing will make those posts disappear, so you might as well stop.

republicans in congress and in the supreme court could not make it any clearer without making it an official policy that they are in favour of gerrymandering, and no level of denial will make that FACT disappear. democrats, however, like the overwhelming majority of american voters, oppose it unequivocally. sorry if that doesn't fit your narrative, but again, the facts don't care about your feelings.

I clearly noted that Republicans have had the better opportunities of late, which is a reversal of the historical norm. Your link ONLY covers recent events. Mine showed you the historical record, which heavily favored the Donkeys. So no, your link doesn't debunk a fucking thing I said. Try again.

And quote me supporting gerrymandering. You INSISTED it's there. Chop chop!

reading impaired it is then. i explained in detail how you made three different excuses for it, the last of which inadvertently proving my initial point right. twice actually.

Chop chop!

The popularity of republican views means nothing.

In the 1770s, it was a VERY unpopular opinion to revolt against the King of England. The population of the colonies was around 3 million in the 1770s. According to the data, there were about 600,000 free male colonists of military age during the war. About 25% of them took up arms. 75% didn't. They were STILL able to defeat the world's greatest superpower. They had everything against them. The revolt was unpopular. Few young males joined up. How did they win? They got LOADS of help from France and Germany. Those foreign powers sent military leaders, troops, training, supplies, and reinforcements. Most of the colonists wanted to stay with England. But the combined power of the revolt and 2 foreign nations overruled them.

That's what we're looking at today. Republicans no longer have any faith or trust in the system. The nation is torn in half, and civil unrest seems close. Meanwhile, 2 foreign nations, Russia and China, would assist the republicans in a revolt. And even if its just 25% of the public that wants to revolt, it will win.

So it really doesn't matter how popular republican ideas are if they get pushed into revolting and get foreign assistance, which is very likely.

accidentally chopped your brain it seems. l2r, buddy.

a well argued point, but i already acknowledged that republicans have other means of 'winning' elections, explicitly mentioning foreign 'help' (or meddling), which they openly and repeatedly invited, and do the least amount possible to prevent. my main point here is not arguing how relevant the general unpopularity of their policies is, but rather to prove it to the trump shills who pretend that isn't true.

ineresting perspective though.

You're the one who insisted that something that isn't there is somehow indeed there. So prove it.