lawtig02
Inconceivable Member
- Messages
- 4,350
What have I not answered. My position was made crystal clear in my posts.
How is a fictional hypothetical situation an easy solution. All you have done is created a basis for an argument since you have no idea how anyone would vote. It's really kind of a juvenile scenario you created. Your "guarantee" is meaningless and just biased speculation.
A gross misrepresentation. If there was universal support to get rid of it, they wouldn't engage in it and would propose legislation that addresses it without it being tied to other legislation that they know full well republicans oppose. Just a shell game.
I get why you can't square this circle, but did you have a personality transplant or something between those two back-to-back posts last night? It's nonsensical to say Dems wouldn't support a stand-alone ban on political gerrymandering, while also saying that's a "hypothetical" and "juvenile" scenario.
The question, again, is whether you think your party would put its money where your mouth is. If a stand-along gerrymandering ban was presented to Congress that would end all political gerrymandering at the state and federal levels, do you think Dems would support it? Do you think Pubs would support it? You know the answer to both of those questions, whether you'll admit it or not. And that's why Pubs own this issue.