placeholder

It is, of course, obligatory for politicians to run for office. But to run from their office? That's a new one.

As I pointed out earlier because progressive courts in NY ruled that the gerrymandering was unconstitutional the map was redrawn more fairly. And Desantis' gerrymandering that is even more extreme than what the Republican state legislature proposed, is now in effect in Florida.

What you failed to note is that it's only thanks to the filibuster that Democrats failed to pass a national law outlawing gerrymandering. Do you think that would be a bad thing? As the article says, Republicans started out with a 2 point advantage due to gerrymandering. In addition, as the article points, out, if the Democrats had had not engaged in counter gerrymandering that would mean surrendering the House. Also, it's not insignificant that the states where independent electoral commissions have been created by legislative fiat, are all Democratic. 2 states, Arizona and Ohio had independent electoral commissions created by referenda. The Republicans in Arizona sued to invalidate the vote. They failed. In Ohio, a referendum clearly stipulated that the representation in voting districts should reflect the average performance of the political parties. The Republicans running the electoral commission utterly ignored that. The Ohio Supreme Court overruled them because of one of the 4 Republican judges sided with the 3 Democrats. In contrast, in strongly Democratic New Jersey, there was a move by Democratic political leaders to gerrymander districts to reduce Republican representation. Progressive Democrats put a stop to that. California, the state with the most Congressional members has an independent commission for redistricting.

Really? Is that what the article says? The article clearly says that the Democrats have responded to Republican gerrymandering, not that both parties are equally responsible. And given that Desantis extreme gerrymandering plan is now in effect in Florida ( not a sure thing at the time the article was written), and that the NY State Courts ruled the NY plan favoring Democrats to be unconstitutional (another factor the article couldn't predict), Republicans go into the 2022 midterms with a big fat thumb on the scales.

Did you read the titles of that article? How Democrats learned to stop worrying and love the gerrymander Republicans tilted the House map. Democrats are clawing their way back Supreme Court Rules Partisan Gerrymandering Is Beyond The Reach Of Federal Courts In a 5-4 decision along traditional conservative-liberal ideological lines, the Supreme Court ruled that partisan redistricting is a political question — not reviewable by federal courts — and that those courts can't judge if extreme gerrymandering violates the Constitution. The ruling puts the onus on the legislative branch, and on individual states, to police redistricting efforts. "We conclude that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts," Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the conservative majority. https://www.npr.org/2019/06/27/731847977/supreme-court-rules-partisan-gerrymandering-is-beyond-the-reach-of-federal-court

Well, to be fair, Kanchanaburiguy didn't invoke the Constitution but rather the Declaration of Independence. A document which has no legal force and the proposition of which that violence is an acceptable way to alter a government under certain circumstances was not adopted into the Constitution. And as for his claims about what we were taught in school about it, I remember in high school we were taught, among other things, that it was intended as a kind of propaganda piece, albeit a brilliant one, to persuade the world of the justice of the cause. It's obvious that it was so since slavery was legal in all 13 colonies when the document was written and signed.

First off, the extreme gerrymandering is the result of the right wingers on the Supreme Court deciding that while voting may be a right, having one's vote count not so much. These same right wingers also voted to overturn election laws limiting how much money can be spent on political campaigns. So corporations and the superwealthy can spend unlimited sums of money to influence elections.

Seriously disruptive to one's life sure. But "more dangerous for Americans and Europeans". More than a bit melodramatic.

Not surprised you can see it. But for those of us not living in an alternative reality, not so much.

Even if that were the case, this is what you call "dangerous"?

And this means I'm in more danger why?

Given that we know that the Russian intervened to promote Brexit, it doesn't seem all that far-fetched that they might try to intervene this way in British politics..

Well, how do we know that loophole hasn't been exploited? That said, if the balloting is done on paper, then you would need lots and lots of separate addresses to send them to. That could be logistically difficult to pull off for a foreign organization.

While I agree with you about Xi's desires, where has Chinese influence in SE Asia made life more dangerous for Americans and Europeans in SE Asia? What evidence is there that they are being targeted?

Please share with us how much money Joe Biden has made in China. And Joe has an interesting way of ingratiating himself with Xi: Biden vows to defend Taiwan with US military if China invades US president warns Beijing during first trip to Asia. 'When asked by a reporter if the U.S. would defend Taiwan if it were attacked by China, Biden responded: “Yes … That’s the commitment we made.' https://www.politico.eu/article/us-would-intervene-militarily-if-china-invaded-taiwan-biden/

Generally, under US law, you have to prove that the statements were false. In this case obviously a no-brainer. In the UK, you have to prove statements are true even for public figures. This can have disastrous consequences. For example, Robert Maxwell, the newspaper mogul, was suspected of stealing from pension plans and such. But Britiish journalists were threatened by Maxwell if they were to publish any reports alleging this. The result was that when he died, workers lost their pensions.

Saying the moon landing is fake is not personal . But if you named an engineer who worked at NASA as being a fraudster, and someone punched them on account of that, then you could be held liable.

No, it doesn't mean he's a moron. It means he spread falsehoods that discredited these people. He said things that he should have known were false. And no, under law, you don't get to evade judgement by claiming you believed something. If that were so, then there would never be a winnable libel or slander case.

What does homicide have to do with slander or libel?

For instance?

Please. Trump watched and did nothing despite the entreaties of the people around him and the judgement of the secret service that the crowd posed a mortal danger.

Yours is just another way of crying fake news Are you seriously denying that Truss did a u-turn on pay cuts? You think the guardian lied about that?

B.S. It's right wingers who typically deny the polls. The left-wing pundits were saying mostly that they thought Brexit would lose but none, not one that I read, were so foolish as ignore the polling.

Where exactly did Trump get Xi to wind his neck in? Did Trump stop China from creating new island military bases in the South China Sea? Did he force China to abandon any of the islands it created? Did China back off on Hong Kong? Didn't China launch military attacks on India during Trump's term in office? Stop making things up.

Really? https://www.politico.eu/europe-poll-of-polls/united-kingdom/