🚨BREAKING: PRESIDENT TRUMP'S TERM LIMITS PLAN- Trump's plan limits House members to 6 years and senators to 12 years, which would remove 73% of the 115th Congress, including 318 House reps and 46 senators, to "Drain The Swamp."
— Donald J. Trump (Daily News) (@TrumpRealDaily) June 23, 2025
Do you support this Plan?
A. YES
B. NO pic.twitter.com/ytuneTd5az
Biden screwed corrupt buddies. pic.twitter.com/26rOSItOnQ
— mrredpillz jokaqarmy (@JOKAQARMY1) June 23, 2025
LmaoGulfstream4 said:SmaptyWolf said:If we know where it is why didn't we just bomb it instead of an empty mountain? Wait, why did Trump want to bomb an empty mountain again? Seems like a weird thing to do for a guy insisting he just "obliterated" their nuclear program. I'm sure your Trump Devotion Syndrome helps this all make sense to you.Gulfstream4 said:Civilized said:Gulfstream4 said:Civilized said:Gulfstream4 said:SmaptyWolf said:Poor Gulf... trying to figure out the "America First Regime Change" talking points you've been fed the last couple days must have been a struggle for you.Gulfstream4 said:SmaptyWolf said:Our missile strike only happened because Trump was desperate to not be called "TACO" again. I'm sure Iran is giving him the off ramp he clearly wants.hokiewolf said:
Looks like WW3 has concluded, Tucker Carlson must be sad he was wrong again. But he can wipe his tears with the money he's grifted from isolationist rubesAccording to the New York Times, Iran coordinated the missile attack tonight on Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar with Qatari officials and gave advanced notice that attacks were coming to minimize casualties, according to three Iranian officials familiar with the plans. The officials… pic.twitter.com/PDYTmZ7Qk0
— OSINTdefender (@sentdefender) June 23, 2025
Spoiler alert! Their nuclear program wasn't obliterated. Though we did obliterate any chance they will stop wanting one.
You are deranged and you literally need professional help.
Poor Smapty hoping for world war just to GET TRUMP. Keep hoping, wishing, praying for the worst.
There are cases to be made for and against, and we won't truly know whether this strike was worth the risk until years from now.
And you realize well over half of Republicans were opposed to military action in Iran, right?
By your logic are they out to GET TRUMP too? LOL
I'm betting what was done will be better than doing nothing at all. What say you? Give a yes or no.
Many people are "opposed" to war, myself included. Dropping 6-8 bombs on a third world *hole ain't war my friend. Smapty and his far left loons are all over the place saying we are now in a world war. It's ridiculous. It's just hoping for the worst, every day, so everyone will say he was right, we're sorry for voting for Trump. It's lunacy.
I suspect we'll find out over time that these strikes had a fairly limited impact on Iran's nuclear capability.
It's been broadly reported that much or all of the most-enriched uranium had already been relocated prior to these strikes. The strikes may have damaged or destroyed some enrichment equipment and program records and other appurtenances. Hopefully a lot of the uranium was buried also but the evidence of that is nonexistent at this point.
Whatever the damage, once determined we'll then have to weigh that against impacts to US's reputational,economic, geopolitical, and military interests, and our safety at home and abroad.
The jury will be out on this for months/years.
As to alternatives, doing nothing wasn't the only other option.
Trump could've stayed in the 2015 nuclear treaty that seemed to be providing us with significant transparency about Iran's level of enrichment in exchange for economic benefits to them.
Trump could've increased the economic pressure Iran to engage in more significant diplomacy.
He could've partnered with Israel to engage in more covert attacks on Iran's infrastructure.
He could've engaged with international suppliers of enrichment technology to embargo Iran from successfully being supplied such tech.
You haven't seen me come out strongly for or against this move; it's simply too early to tell how prudent it was. But they were very clearly multiple viable alternatives to bombing Iran that also didn't involve just sitting on our hands.
The possibility of a strike forced Iran to move uranium, which Hillary gave them, and we know exactly where it is. I bet Israel takes that out very soon. Go Trump.
We put the world on notice. Iran is isolated. No China and no Russia. They don't want that smoke. Go Trump.
We'll know very soon, don't need a jury. That's just liberal talking points.
Iran has been a bad actor since 1979. It's about time someone punched them in the face. Go Trump.
That "deal" was BS and only a fool like Smapty thinks it was working. If you also think it was working, send me your banking information and I'll deposit a million bucks in your account. Go Trump.
Here in the real world, all we've done is blown up a little equipment they can easily replace, and make ourselves look like unhinged idiots. There are only two possible ways to end their nuclear ambitions: Regime change (a.k.a. long term occupation) or a "deal". Or I guess we can just do the MAGA thing, pretend the nuclear program was obliterated, and then jerk ourselves to sleep.
Because ending their program requires more than just blowing up the uranium. Do you know how long it took Iran to build those facilities? How much money they spent? Building something like that is not easy. It all needs to be destroyed.
Far as "jerk ourselves to sleep"….I'll leave that to you. Sounds like you know what you're talking about.
Werewolf said:🚨BREAKING: PRESIDENT TRUMP'S TERM LIMITS PLAN- Trump's plan limits House members to 6 years and senators to 12 years, which would remove 73% of the 115th Congress, including 318 House reps and 46 senators, to "Drain The Swamp."
— Donald J. Trump (Daily News) (@TrumpRealDaily) June 23, 2025
Do you support this Plan?
A. YES
B. NO pic.twitter.com/ytuneTd5az
Given that you can't comprehend how hard it is to get around the kind of nuclear inspections we had in place until Trump tore them up 7 years ago (which of course reignited their program), I'm gonna assume you have no idea how stupid it is to think we can obliterate their nuclear program in a weekend... especially if we give them advanced warning to move important stuff.Gulfstream4 said:SmaptyWolf said:If we know where it is why didn't we just bomb it instead of an empty mountain? Wait, why did Trump want to bomb an empty mountain again? Seems like a weird thing to do for a guy insisting he just "obliterated" their nuclear program. I'm sure your Trump Devotion Syndrome helps this all make sense to you.Gulfstream4 said:Civilized said:Gulfstream4 said:Civilized said:Gulfstream4 said:SmaptyWolf said:Poor Gulf... trying to figure out the "America First Regime Change" talking points you've been fed the last couple days must have been a struggle for you.Gulfstream4 said:SmaptyWolf said:Our missile strike only happened because Trump was desperate to not be called "TACO" again. I'm sure Iran is giving him the off ramp he clearly wants.hokiewolf said:
Looks like WW3 has concluded, Tucker Carlson must be sad he was wrong again. But he can wipe his tears with the money he's grifted from isolationist rubesAccording to the New York Times, Iran coordinated the missile attack tonight on Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar with Qatari officials and gave advanced notice that attacks were coming to minimize casualties, according to three Iranian officials familiar with the plans. The officials… pic.twitter.com/PDYTmZ7Qk0
— OSINTdefender (@sentdefender) June 23, 2025
Spoiler alert! Their nuclear program wasn't obliterated. Though we did obliterate any chance they will stop wanting one.
You are deranged and you literally need professional help.
Poor Smapty hoping for world war just to GET TRUMP. Keep hoping, wishing, praying for the worst.
There are cases to be made for and against, and we won't truly know whether this strike was worth the risk until years from now.
And you realize well over half of Republicans were opposed to military action in Iran, right?
By your logic are they out to GET TRUMP too? LOL
I'm betting what was done will be better than doing nothing at all. What say you? Give a yes or no.
Many people are "opposed" to war, myself included. Dropping 6-8 bombs on a third world *hole ain't war my friend. Smapty and his far left loons are all over the place saying we are now in a world war. It's ridiculous. It's just hoping for the worst, every day, so everyone will say he was right, we're sorry for voting for Trump. It's lunacy.
I suspect we'll find out over time that these strikes had a fairly limited impact on Iran's nuclear capability.
It's been broadly reported that much or all of the most-enriched uranium had already been relocated prior to these strikes. The strikes may have damaged or destroyed some enrichment equipment and program records and other appurtenances. Hopefully a lot of the uranium was buried also but the evidence of that is nonexistent at this point.
Whatever the damage, once determined we'll then have to weigh that against impacts to US's reputational,economic, geopolitical, and military interests, and our safety at home and abroad.
The jury will be out on this for months/years.
As to alternatives, doing nothing wasn't the only other option.
Trump could've stayed in the 2015 nuclear treaty that seemed to be providing us with significant transparency about Iran's level of enrichment in exchange for economic benefits to them.
Trump could've increased the economic pressure Iran to engage in more significant diplomacy.
He could've partnered with Israel to engage in more covert attacks on Iran's infrastructure.
He could've engaged with international suppliers of enrichment technology to embargo Iran from successfully being supplied such tech.
You haven't seen me come out strongly for or against this move; it's simply too early to tell how prudent it was. But they were very clearly multiple viable alternatives to bombing Iran that also didn't involve just sitting on our hands.
The possibility of a strike forced Iran to move uranium, which Hillary gave them, and we know exactly where it is. I bet Israel takes that out very soon. Go Trump.
We put the world on notice. Iran is isolated. No China and no Russia. They don't want that smoke. Go Trump.
We'll know very soon, don't need a jury. That's just liberal talking points.
Iran has been a bad actor since 1979. It's about time someone punched them in the face. Go Trump.
That "deal" was BS and only a fool like Smapty thinks it was working. If you also think it was working, send me your banking information and I'll deposit a million bucks in your account. Go Trump.
Here in the real world, all we've done is blown up a little equipment they can easily replace, and make ourselves look like unhinged idiots. There are only two possible ways to end their nuclear ambitions: Regime change (a.k.a. long term occupation) or a "deal". Or I guess we can just do the MAGA thing, pretend the nuclear program was obliterated, and then jerk ourselves to sleep.
Because ending their program requires more than just blowing up the uranium. Do you know how long it took Iran to build those facilities? How much money they spent? Building something like that is not easy. It all needs to be destroyed.
Far as "jerk ourselves to sleep"….I'll leave that to you. Sounds like you know what you're talking about.
Gulfstream4 said:Werewolf said:🚨BREAKING: PRESIDENT TRUMP'S TERM LIMITS PLAN- Trump's plan limits House members to 6 years and senators to 12 years, which would remove 73% of the 115th Congress, including 318 House reps and 46 senators, to "Drain The Swamp."
— Donald J. Trump (Daily News) (@TrumpRealDaily) June 23, 2025
Do you support this Plan?
A. YES
B. NO pic.twitter.com/ytuneTd5az
Yes I do
So the guy who wants to extend his own term is going to "act" to limit congress? Lol, sounds awesome!Civilized said:Gulfstream4 said:Werewolf said:🚨BREAKING: PRESIDENT TRUMP'S TERM LIMITS PLAN- Trump's plan limits House members to 6 years and senators to 12 years, which would remove 73% of the 115th Congress, including 318 House reps and 46 senators, to "Drain The Swamp."
— Donald J. Trump (Daily News) (@TrumpRealDaily) June 23, 2025
Do you support this Plan?
A. YES
B. NO pic.twitter.com/ytuneTd5az
Yes I do
This would be one of the best things to happen to our country in decades. Maybe centuries.
Honestly.
No way it happens but Congressional term limits would be one of the biggest legacy-building acts conceivable for a modern president. Get those jokers out of there after 2 or 3 terms.
Agreed but sadly there are a bunch of folks on both sides who would never go for it.Civilized said:Gulfstream4 said:Werewolf said:🚨BREAKING: PRESIDENT TRUMP'S TERM LIMITS PLAN- Trump's plan limits House members to 6 years and senators to 12 years, which would remove 73% of the 115th Congress, including 318 House reps and 46 senators, to "Drain The Swamp."
— Donald J. Trump (Daily News) (@TrumpRealDaily) June 23, 2025
Do you support this Plan?
A. YES
B. NO pic.twitter.com/ytuneTd5az
Yes I do
This would be one of the best things to happen to our country in decades. Maybe centuries.
Honestly.
No way it happens but Congressional term limits would be one of the biggest legacy-building acts conceivable for a modern president. Get those jokers out of there after 2 or 3 terms.
DACWolf said:
SmaptyWolf said:So the guy who wants to extend his own term is going to "act" to limit congress? Lol, sounds awesome!Civilized said:Gulfstream4 said:Werewolf said:🚨BREAKING: PRESIDENT TRUMP'S TERM LIMITS PLAN- Trump's plan limits House members to 6 years and senators to 12 years, which would remove 73% of the 115th Congress, including 318 House reps and 46 senators, to "Drain The Swamp."
— Donald J. Trump (Daily News) (@TrumpRealDaily) June 23, 2025
Do you support this Plan?
A. YES
B. NO pic.twitter.com/ytuneTd5az
Yes I do
This would be one of the best things to happen to our country in decades. Maybe centuries.
Honestly.
No way it happens but Congressional term limits would be one of the biggest legacy-building acts conceivable for a modern president. Get those jokers out of there after 2 or 3 terms.
Anyway, it makes a great bumper sticker, but all you'd accomplish by limiting representatives to 6 years is to make them even more inept and ineffective... which is of course what Trump wants. It takes a long time to get good at crafting legislation and maneuvering all of the procedures. You think special interests write all of the legislation now? It could definitely be worse.
I'm all for there being a term limits, but if you want a "co-equal branch of government" that is competent they would have to be a fair bit longer.
If you want a sane congress not full of extremist a**holes, then jerrymandering is what needs to be fixed. Congressional districts where it's impossible to lose are the problem.
11 minutes after Donald Trump’s ceasefire was supposed to go into effect Isreal violated it🤧😹
— XenoTheReverend🎴 (@xenotherev) June 24, 2025
Trump Got So Pissed He Dropped The F-Word On Live TV🥶 pic.twitter.com/ZyCnVnCfHH
Agree, I think it would solve a ton of issues within DC.Civilized said:Gulfstream4 said:Werewolf said:🚨BREAKING: PRESIDENT TRUMP'S TERM LIMITS PLAN- Trump's plan limits House members to 6 years and senators to 12 years, which would remove 73% of the 115th Congress, including 318 House reps and 46 senators, to "Drain The Swamp."
— Donald J. Trump (Daily News) (@TrumpRealDaily) June 23, 2025
Do you support this Plan?
A. YES
B. NO pic.twitter.com/ytuneTd5az
Yes I do
This would be one of the best things to happen to our country in decades. Maybe centuries.
Honestly.
No way it happens but Congressional term limits would be one of the biggest legacy-building acts conceivable for a modern president. Get those jokers out of there after 2 or 3 terms.
I think it happens once the election integrity is addressed. I also would like to see us return to state legislatures picking each state's US Senators.FlossyDFlynt said:Agree, I think it would solve a ton of issues within DC.Civilized said:Gulfstream4 said:Werewolf said:🚨BREAKING: PRESIDENT TRUMP'S TERM LIMITS PLAN- Trump's plan limits House members to 6 years and senators to 12 years, which would remove 73% of the 115th Congress, including 318 House reps and 46 senators, to "Drain The Swamp."
— Donald J. Trump (Daily News) (@TrumpRealDaily) June 23, 2025
Do you support this Plan?
A. YES
B. NO pic.twitter.com/ytuneTd5az
Yes I do
This would be one of the best things to happen to our country in decades. Maybe centuries.
Honestly.
No way it happens but Congressional term limits would be one of the biggest legacy-building acts conceivable for a modern president. Get those jokers out of there after 2 or 3 terms.
Dont know how he would plan on getting it through Congress. I dont see it as a realistic outcome, but would LOVE to be wrong
Werewolf said:I think it happens once the election integrity is addressed. I also would like to see us return to state legislatures picking each state's US Senators.FlossyDFlynt said:Agree, I think it would solve a ton of issues within DC.Civilized said:Gulfstream4 said:Werewolf said:🚨BREAKING: PRESIDENT TRUMP'S TERM LIMITS PLAN- Trump's plan limits House members to 6 years and senators to 12 years, which would remove 73% of the 115th Congress, including 318 House reps and 46 senators, to "Drain The Swamp."
— Donald J. Trump (Daily News) (@TrumpRealDaily) June 23, 2025
Do you support this Plan?
A. YES
B. NO pic.twitter.com/ytuneTd5az
Yes I do
This would be one of the best things to happen to our country in decades. Maybe centuries.
Honestly.
No way it happens but Congressional term limits would be one of the biggest legacy-building acts conceivable for a modern president. Get those jokers out of there after 2 or 3 terms.
Dont know how he would plan on getting it through Congress. I dont see it as a realistic outcome, but would LOVE to be wrong
Strongly disagree there, let the people vote for their representatives.Werewolf said:I think it happens once the election integrity is addressed. I also would like to see us return to state legislatures picking each state's US Senators.FlossyDFlynt said:Agree, I think it would solve a ton of issues within DC.Civilized said:Gulfstream4 said:Werewolf said:🚨BREAKING: PRESIDENT TRUMP'S TERM LIMITS PLAN- Trump's plan limits House members to 6 years and senators to 12 years, which would remove 73% of the 115th Congress, including 318 House reps and 46 senators, to "Drain The Swamp."
— Donald J. Trump (Daily News) (@TrumpRealDaily) June 23, 2025
Do you support this Plan?
A. YES
B. NO pic.twitter.com/ytuneTd5az
Yes I do
This would be one of the best things to happen to our country in decades. Maybe centuries.
Honestly.
No way it happens but Congressional term limits would be one of the biggest legacy-building acts conceivable for a modern president. Get those jokers out of there after 2 or 3 terms.
Dont know how he would plan on getting it through Congress. I dont see it as a realistic outcome, but would LOVE to be wrong
jkpackfan said:Strongly disagree there, let the people vote for their representatives.Werewolf said:I think it happens once the election integrity is addressed. I also would like to see us return to state legislatures picking each state's US Senators.FlossyDFlynt said:Agree, I think it would solve a ton of issues within DC.Civilized said:Gulfstream4 said:Werewolf said:🚨BREAKING: PRESIDENT TRUMP'S TERM LIMITS PLAN- Trump's plan limits House members to 6 years and senators to 12 years, which would remove 73% of the 115th Congress, including 318 House reps and 46 senators, to "Drain The Swamp."
— Donald J. Trump (Daily News) (@TrumpRealDaily) June 23, 2025
Do you support this Plan?
A. YES
B. NO pic.twitter.com/ytuneTd5az
Yes I do
This would be one of the best things to happen to our country in decades. Maybe centuries.
Honestly.
No way it happens but Congressional term limits would be one of the biggest legacy-building acts conceivable for a modern president. Get those jokers out of there after 2 or 3 terms.
Dont know how he would plan on getting it through Congress. I dont see it as a realistic outcome, but would LOVE to be wrong
I have to assume Were knows his answer is bull**it. It costs way less to run for state legislature, so corrupting them (or threatening to bankroll their opponent) is much cheaper.Werewolf said:
i'll answer you and #Sieve both.
regarding state legislatures, I realize that there is intense lobbying at every level and politics at every level however, I believe, putting it with the state legislature removes potentially not all, of course, but of the political influence from outside parties. it would be harder to influence individual state legislators with huge sums of money, lobbyist money. on the other hand, I also view stage legislators has been more informed than a typical voter in likely or more capable of looking past all the bull**** that voters aren't adequate informed about and fall prey to
regarding election integrity question, I believe that we have more than 3/4 of our Congress seated, which might not be seated if we had fair elections.
on the fly, on the iPhone, and don't see well enough to be checking for spellingjkpackfan said:Strongly disagree there, let the people vote for their representatives.Werewolf said:I think it happens once the election integrity is addressed. I also would like to see us return to state legislatures picking each state's US Senators.FlossyDFlynt said:Agree, I think it would solve a ton of issues within DC.Civilized said:Gulfstream4 said:Werewolf said:🚨BREAKING: PRESIDENT TRUMP'S TERM LIMITS PLAN- Trump's plan limits House members to 6 years and senators to 12 years, which would remove 73% of the 115th Congress, including 318 House reps and 46 senators, to "Drain The Swamp."
— Donald J. Trump (Daily News) (@TrumpRealDaily) June 23, 2025
Do you support this Plan?
A. YES
B. NO pic.twitter.com/ytuneTd5az
Yes I do
This would be one of the best things to happen to our country in decades. Maybe centuries.
Honestly.
No way it happens but Congressional term limits would be one of the biggest legacy-building acts conceivable for a modern president. Get those jokers out of there after 2 or 3 terms.
Dont know how he would plan on getting it through Congress. I dont see it as a realistic outcome, but would LOVE to be wrong
God Bless Trump! pic.twitter.com/80FO1gNseQ
— Fletch17 (@RealFletch17) June 24, 2025
They hear you but they aren’t listening ! pic.twitter.com/2VG6BbIRWF
— GABRIEL™ 🪽 (@TheGabriel72) June 24, 2025
agree with you The issue seems to be primary participation and gerrymandering from BOTH parties.jkpackfan said:Strongly disagree there, let the people vote for their representatives.Werewolf said:I think it happens once the election integrity is addressed. I also would like to see us return to state legislatures picking each state's US Senators.FlossyDFlynt said:Agree, I think it would solve a ton of issues within DC.Civilized said:Gulfstream4 said:Werewolf said:🚨BREAKING: PRESIDENT TRUMP'S TERM LIMITS PLAN- Trump's plan limits House members to 6 years and senators to 12 years, which would remove 73% of the 115th Congress, including 318 House reps and 46 senators, to "Drain The Swamp."
— Donald J. Trump (Daily News) (@TrumpRealDaily) June 23, 2025
Do you support this Plan?
A. YES
B. NO pic.twitter.com/ytuneTd5az
Yes I do
This would be one of the best things to happen to our country in decades. Maybe centuries.
Honestly.
No way it happens but Congressional term limits would be one of the biggest legacy-building acts conceivable for a modern president. Get those jokers out of there after 2 or 3 terms.
Dont know how he would plan on getting it through Congress. I dont see it as a realistic outcome, but would LOVE to be wrong
Exactlyhokiewolf said:agree with you The issue seems to be primary participation and gerrymandering from BOTH parties.jkpackfan said:Strongly disagree there, let the people vote for their representatives.Werewolf said:I think it happens once the election integrity is addressed. I also would like to see us return to state legislatures picking each state's US Senators.FlossyDFlynt said:Agree, I think it would solve a ton of issues within DC.Civilized said:Gulfstream4 said:Werewolf said:🚨BREAKING: PRESIDENT TRUMP'S TERM LIMITS PLAN- Trump's plan limits House members to 6 years and senators to 12 years, which would remove 73% of the 115th Congress, including 318 House reps and 46 senators, to "Drain The Swamp."
— Donald J. Trump (Daily News) (@TrumpRealDaily) June 23, 2025
Do you support this Plan?
A. YES
B. NO pic.twitter.com/ytuneTd5az
Yes I do
This would be one of the best things to happen to our country in decades. Maybe centuries.
Honestly.
No way it happens but Congressional term limits would be one of the biggest legacy-building acts conceivable for a modern president. Get those jokers out of there after 2 or 3 terms.
Dont know how he would plan on getting it through Congress. I dont see it as a realistic outcome, but would LOVE to be wrong
jkpackfan said:Exactlyhokiewolf said:agree with you The issue seems to be primary participation and gerrymandering from BOTH parties.jkpackfan said:Strongly disagree there, let the people vote for their representatives.Werewolf said:I think it happens once the election integrity is addressed. I also would like to see us return to state legislatures picking each state's US Senators.FlossyDFlynt said:Agree, I think it would solve a ton of issues within DC.Civilized said:Gulfstream4 said:Werewolf said:🚨BREAKING: PRESIDENT TRUMP'S TERM LIMITS PLAN- Trump's plan limits House members to 6 years and senators to 12 years, which would remove 73% of the 115th Congress, including 318 House reps and 46 senators, to "Drain The Swamp."
— Donald J. Trump (Daily News) (@TrumpRealDaily) June 23, 2025
Do you support this Plan?
A. YES
B. NO pic.twitter.com/ytuneTd5az
Yes I do
This would be one of the best things to happen to our country in decades. Maybe centuries.
Honestly.
No way it happens but Congressional term limits would be one of the biggest legacy-building acts conceivable for a modern president. Get those jokers out of there after 2 or 3 terms.
Dont know how he would plan on getting it through Congress. I dont see it as a realistic outcome, but would LOVE to be wrong
Quote:
Research suggests that Republicans have benefited more from gerrymandering in recent election cycles, particularly in the context of U.S. House elections
Key findings:Important to note:
- Disproportionate control: Republicans controlled the redistricting process for significantly more districts than Democrats, drawing 191 districts compared to 75 for Democrats in the 2024 election cycle.
- Court decisions: State courts in Republican-controlled states were less likely to address partisan gerrymandering claims, while Democratic-favoring gerrymanders were more often corrected through legal challenges.
- National impact: This has resulted in a significant advantage for Republicans in the U.S. House, estimated to be around 16 seats in the 2024 election compared to a scenario with fair maps.
- State legislative level: Studies indicate that roughly twice as many state legislatures are gerrymandered to favor Republicans compared to those favoring Democrats.
It is important to remember that gerrymandering is a complex issue with various perspectives and consequences. The impact of gerrymandering can vary depending on the specific state and election cycle.
- Both parties engage in gerrymandering: While Republicans have seen a greater advantage in recent years, both parties have engaged in gerrymandering when given the opportunity.
- Impact on elections: Gerrymandering can lead to reduced representation, increased partisan polarization, decreased voter participation, and less competitive elections.
How to partisan, Hokie edition:Civilized said:jkpackfan said:Exactlyhokiewolf said:agree with you The issue seems to be primary participation and gerrymandering from BOTH parties.jkpackfan said:Strongly disagree there, let the people vote for their representatives.Werewolf said:I think it happens once the election integrity is addressed. I also would like to see us return to state legislatures picking each state's US Senators.FlossyDFlynt said:Agree, I think it would solve a ton of issues within DC.Civilized said:Gulfstream4 said:Werewolf said:🚨BREAKING: PRESIDENT TRUMP'S TERM LIMITS PLAN- Trump's plan limits House members to 6 years and senators to 12 years, which would remove 73% of the 115th Congress, including 318 House reps and 46 senators, to "Drain The Swamp."
— Donald J. Trump (Daily News) (@TrumpRealDaily) June 23, 2025
Do you support this Plan?
A. YES
B. NO pic.twitter.com/ytuneTd5az
Yes I do
This would be one of the best things to happen to our country in decades. Maybe centuries.
Honestly.
No way it happens but Congressional term limits would be one of the biggest legacy-building acts conceivable for a modern president. Get those jokers out of there after 2 or 3 terms.
Dont know how he would plan on getting it through Congress. I dont see it as a realistic outcome, but would LOVE to be wrong
Yeah, technically "both" but let's be clear about "both" not doing too much work here.Quote:
Research suggests that Republicans have benefited more from gerrymandering in recent election cycles, particularly in the context of U.S. House elections
Key findings:Important to note:
- Disproportionate control: Republicans controlled the redistricting process for significantly more districts than Democrats, drawing 191 districts compared to 75 for Democrats in the 2024 election cycle.
- Court decisions: State courts in Republican-controlled states were less likely to address partisan gerrymandering claims, while Democratic-favoring gerrymanders were more often corrected through legal challenges.
- National impact: This has resulted in a significant advantage for Republicans in the U.S. House, estimated to be around 16 seats in the 2024 election compared to a scenario with fair maps.
- State legislative level: Studies indicate that roughly twice as many state legislatures are gerrymandered to favor Republicans compared to those favoring Democrats.
It is important to remember that gerrymandering is a complex issue with various perspectives and consequences. The impact of gerrymandering can vary depending on the specific state and election cycle.
- Both parties engage in gerrymandering: While Republicans have seen a greater advantage in recent years, both parties have engaged in gerrymandering when given the opportunity.
- Impact on elections: Gerrymandering can lead to reduced representation, increased partisan polarization, decreased voter participation, and less competitive elections.
SmaptyWolf said:How to partisan, Hokie edition:Civilized said:jkpackfan said:Exactlyhokiewolf said:agree with you The issue seems to be primary participation and gerrymandering from BOTH parties.jkpackfan said:Strongly disagree there, let the people vote for their representatives.Werewolf said:I think it happens once the election integrity is addressed. I also would like to see us return to state legislatures picking each state's US Senators.FlossyDFlynt said:Agree, I think it would solve a ton of issues within DC.Civilized said:Gulfstream4 said:Werewolf said:🚨BREAKING: PRESIDENT TRUMP'S TERM LIMITS PLAN- Trump's plan limits House members to 6 years and senators to 12 years, which would remove 73% of the 115th Congress, including 318 House reps and 46 senators, to "Drain The Swamp."
— Donald J. Trump (Daily News) (@TrumpRealDaily) June 23, 2025
Do you support this Plan?
A. YES
B. NO pic.twitter.com/ytuneTd5az
Yes I do
This would be one of the best things to happen to our country in decades. Maybe centuries.
Honestly.
No way it happens but Congressional term limits would be one of the biggest legacy-building acts conceivable for a modern president. Get those jokers out of there after 2 or 3 terms.
Dont know how he would plan on getting it through Congress. I dont see it as a realistic outcome, but would LOVE to be wrong
Yeah, technically "both" but let's be clear about "both" not doing too much work here.Quote:
Research suggests that Republicans have benefited more from gerrymandering in recent election cycles, particularly in the context of U.S. House elections
Key findings:Important to note:
- Disproportionate control: Republicans controlled the redistricting process for significantly more districts than Democrats, drawing 191 districts compared to 75 for Democrats in the 2024 election cycle.
- Court decisions: State courts in Republican-controlled states were less likely to address partisan gerrymandering claims, while Democratic-favoring gerrymanders were more often corrected through legal challenges.
- National impact: This has resulted in a significant advantage for Republicans in the U.S. House, estimated to be around 16 seats in the 2024 election compared to a scenario with fair maps.
- State legislative level: Studies indicate that roughly twice as many state legislatures are gerrymandered to favor Republicans compared to those favoring Democrats.
It is important to remember that gerrymandering is a complex issue with various perspectives and consequences. The impact of gerrymandering can vary depending on the specific state and election cycle.
- Both parties engage in gerrymandering: While Republicans have seen a greater advantage in recent years, both parties have engaged in gerrymandering when given the opportunity.
- Impact on elections: Gerrymandering can lead to reduced representation, increased partisan polarization, decreased voter participation, and less competitive elections.
If Dems do something bad, then Dems suck.
If Trump does something bad, then Trump sucks.
If Republicans do something bad, then BOTH parties suck, nothing to see here.
Don't get me wrong, I definitely appreciate that Hokie is here debating actual thoughts. I guess I just give him sh** sometimes because I hold him to a higher standard than the MAGA drones linking talking points and yelling "TDS" every post.Civilized said:SmaptyWolf said:How to partisan, Hokie edition:Civilized said:jkpackfan said:Exactlyhokiewolf said:agree with you The issue seems to be primary participation and gerrymandering from BOTH parties.jkpackfan said:Strongly disagree there, let the people vote for their representatives.Werewolf said:I think it happens once the election integrity is addressed. I also would like to see us return to state legislatures picking each state's US Senators.FlossyDFlynt said:Agree, I think it would solve a ton of issues within DC.Civilized said:Gulfstream4 said:Werewolf said:🚨BREAKING: PRESIDENT TRUMP'S TERM LIMITS PLAN- Trump's plan limits House members to 6 years and senators to 12 years, which would remove 73% of the 115th Congress, including 318 House reps and 46 senators, to "Drain The Swamp."
— Donald J. Trump (Daily News) (@TrumpRealDaily) June 23, 2025
Do you support this Plan?
A. YES
B. NO pic.twitter.com/ytuneTd5az
Yes I do
This would be one of the best things to happen to our country in decades. Maybe centuries.
Honestly.
No way it happens but Congressional term limits would be one of the biggest legacy-building acts conceivable for a modern president. Get those jokers out of there after 2 or 3 terms.
Dont know how he would plan on getting it through Congress. I dont see it as a realistic outcome, but would LOVE to be wrong
Yeah, technically "both" but let's be clear about "both" not doing too much work here.Quote:
Research suggests that Republicans have benefited more from gerrymandering in recent election cycles, particularly in the context of U.S. House elections
Key findings:Important to note:
- Disproportionate control: Republicans controlled the redistricting process for significantly more districts than Democrats, drawing 191 districts compared to 75 for Democrats in the 2024 election cycle.
- Court decisions: State courts in Republican-controlled states were less likely to address partisan gerrymandering claims, while Democratic-favoring gerrymanders were more often corrected through legal challenges.
- National impact: This has resulted in a significant advantage for Republicans in the U.S. House, estimated to be around 16 seats in the 2024 election compared to a scenario with fair maps.
- State legislative level: Studies indicate that roughly twice as many state legislatures are gerrymandered to favor Republicans compared to those favoring Democrats.
It is important to remember that gerrymandering is a complex issue with various perspectives and consequences. The impact of gerrymandering can vary depending on the specific state and election cycle.
- Both parties engage in gerrymandering: While Republicans have seen a greater advantage in recent years, both parties have engaged in gerrymandering when given the opportunity.
- Impact on elections: Gerrymandering can lead to reduced representation, increased partisan polarization, decreased voter participation, and less competitive elections.
If Dems do something bad, then Dems suck.
If Trump does something bad, then Trump sucks.
If Republicans do something bad, then BOTH parties suck, nothing to see here.
Comes off that way sometimes, but pleased to extend some grace to hokie here - by all accounts a good and thoughtful dude, and he's likely tired of being accused by the group-thinkers on here of not simply being what he says he is - a right-leaning libertarian that cares much more about issues than party.
Even if he goes a little overboard with "both-sides-ing" on here from time to time.
SmaptyWolf said:Don't get me wrong, I definitely appreciate that Hokie is here debating actual thoughts. I guess I just give him sh** sometimes because I hold him to a higher standard than the MAGA drones linking talking points and yelling "TDS" every post.Civilized said:SmaptyWolf said:How to partisan, Hokie edition:Civilized said:jkpackfan said:Exactlyhokiewolf said:agree with you The issue seems to be primary participation and gerrymandering from BOTH parties.jkpackfan said:Strongly disagree there, let the people vote for their representatives.Werewolf said:I think it happens once the election integrity is addressed. I also would like to see us return to state legislatures picking each state's US Senators.FlossyDFlynt said:Agree, I think it would solve a ton of issues within DC.Civilized said:Gulfstream4 said:Werewolf said:🚨BREAKING: PRESIDENT TRUMP'S TERM LIMITS PLAN- Trump's plan limits House members to 6 years and senators to 12 years, which would remove 73% of the 115th Congress, including 318 House reps and 46 senators, to "Drain The Swamp."
— Donald J. Trump (Daily News) (@TrumpRealDaily) June 23, 2025
Do you support this Plan?
A. YES
B. NO pic.twitter.com/ytuneTd5az
Yes I do
This would be one of the best things to happen to our country in decades. Maybe centuries.
Honestly.
No way it happens but Congressional term limits would be one of the biggest legacy-building acts conceivable for a modern president. Get those jokers out of there after 2 or 3 terms.
Dont know how he would plan on getting it through Congress. I dont see it as a realistic outcome, but would LOVE to be wrong
Yeah, technically "both" but let's be clear about "both" not doing too much work here.Quote:
Research suggests that Republicans have benefited more from gerrymandering in recent election cycles, particularly in the context of U.S. House elections
Key findings:Important to note:
- Disproportionate control: Republicans controlled the redistricting process for significantly more districts than Democrats, drawing 191 districts compared to 75 for Democrats in the 2024 election cycle.
- Court decisions: State courts in Republican-controlled states were less likely to address partisan gerrymandering claims, while Democratic-favoring gerrymanders were more often corrected through legal challenges.
- National impact: This has resulted in a significant advantage for Republicans in the U.S. House, estimated to be around 16 seats in the 2024 election compared to a scenario with fair maps.
- State legislative level: Studies indicate that roughly twice as many state legislatures are gerrymandered to favor Republicans compared to those favoring Democrats.
It is important to remember that gerrymandering is a complex issue with various perspectives and consequences. The impact of gerrymandering can vary depending on the specific state and election cycle.
- Both parties engage in gerrymandering: While Republicans have seen a greater advantage in recent years, both parties have engaged in gerrymandering when given the opportunity.
- Impact on elections: Gerrymandering can lead to reduced representation, increased partisan polarization, decreased voter participation, and less competitive elections.
If Dems do something bad, then Dems suck.
If Trump does something bad, then Trump sucks.
If Republicans do something bad, then BOTH parties suck, nothing to see here.
Comes off that way sometimes, but pleased to extend some grace to hokie here - by all accounts a good and thoughtful dude, and he's likely tired of being accused by the group-thinkers on here of not simply being what he says he is - a right-leaning libertarian that cares much more about issues than party.
Even if he goes a little overboard with "both-sides-ing" on here from time to time.
While the world yells “war,” Trump just removed the last excuse for it.
— CanPatriot1 (@CanPatriot2022) June 23, 2025
The silence is the message.
And if you heard it—
You’re already ahead.
Trump shared an old video of Jeffrey Sachs. No mainstream filter. No campaign spin. Just raw truth. pic.twitter.com/CQBPTfy9r3
You accusing someone of being partisan is absolutely hilarious, there's not a more partisan person on this board than you and it's not close. It's always republicans bad no matter what we're talking about and I'm not even talking about Trump.SmaptyWolf said:How to partisan, Hokie edition:Civilized said:jkpackfan said:Exactlyhokiewolf said:agree with you The issue seems to be primary participation and gerrymandering from BOTH parties.jkpackfan said:Strongly disagree there, let the people vote for their representatives.Werewolf said:I think it happens once the election integrity is addressed. I also would like to see us return to state legislatures picking each state's US Senators.FlossyDFlynt said:Agree, I think it would solve a ton of issues within DC.Civilized said:Gulfstream4 said:Werewolf said:🚨BREAKING: PRESIDENT TRUMP'S TERM LIMITS PLAN- Trump's plan limits House members to 6 years and senators to 12 years, which would remove 73% of the 115th Congress, including 318 House reps and 46 senators, to "Drain The Swamp."
— Donald J. Trump (Daily News) (@TrumpRealDaily) June 23, 2025
Do you support this Plan?
A. YES
B. NO pic.twitter.com/ytuneTd5az
Yes I do
This would be one of the best things to happen to our country in decades. Maybe centuries.
Honestly.
No way it happens but Congressional term limits would be one of the biggest legacy-building acts conceivable for a modern president. Get those jokers out of there after 2 or 3 terms.
Dont know how he would plan on getting it through Congress. I dont see it as a realistic outcome, but would LOVE to be wrong
Yeah, technically "both" but let's be clear about "both" not doing too much work here.Quote:
Research suggests that Republicans have benefited more from gerrymandering in recent election cycles, particularly in the context of U.S. House elections
Key findings:Important to note:
- Disproportionate control: Republicans controlled the redistricting process for significantly more districts than Democrats, drawing 191 districts compared to 75 for Democrats in the 2024 election cycle.
- Court decisions: State courts in Republican-controlled states were less likely to address partisan gerrymandering claims, while Democratic-favoring gerrymanders were more often corrected through legal challenges.
- National impact: This has resulted in a significant advantage for Republicans in the U.S. House, estimated to be around 16 seats in the 2024 election compared to a scenario with fair maps.
- State legislative level: Studies indicate that roughly twice as many state legislatures are gerrymandered to favor Republicans compared to those favoring Democrats.
It is important to remember that gerrymandering is a complex issue with various perspectives and consequences. The impact of gerrymandering can vary depending on the specific state and election cycle.
- Both parties engage in gerrymandering: While Republicans have seen a greater advantage in recent years, both parties have engaged in gerrymandering when given the opportunity.
- Impact on elections: Gerrymandering can lead to reduced representation, increased partisan polarization, decreased voter participation, and less competitive elections.
If Dems do something bad, then Dems suck.
If Trump does something bad, then Trump sucks.
If Republicans do something bad, then BOTH parties suck, nothing to see here.
I agree on #daGobbler, he might need to work on the high beam a bit more. He might give Mary Lou a good run.jkpackfan said:You accusing someone of being partisan is absolutely hilarious, there's not a more partisan person on this board than you and it's not close. It's always republicans bad no matter what we're talking about and I'm not even talking about Trump.SmaptyWolf said:How to partisan, Hokie edition:Civilized said:jkpackfan said:Exactlyhokiewolf said:agree with you The issue seems to be primary participation and gerrymandering from BOTH parties.jkpackfan said:Strongly disagree there, let the people vote for their representatives.Werewolf said:I think it happens once the election integrity is addressed. I also would like to see us return to state legislatures picking each state's US Senators.FlossyDFlynt said:Agree, I think it would solve a ton of issues within DC.Civilized said:Gulfstream4 said:Werewolf said:🚨BREAKING: PRESIDENT TRUMP'S TERM LIMITS PLAN- Trump's plan limits House members to 6 years and senators to 12 years, which would remove 73% of the 115th Congress, including 318 House reps and 46 senators, to "Drain The Swamp."
— Donald J. Trump (Daily News) (@TrumpRealDaily) June 23, 2025
Do you support this Plan?
A. YES
B. NO pic.twitter.com/ytuneTd5az
Yes I do
This would be one of the best things to happen to our country in decades. Maybe centuries.
Honestly.
No way it happens but Congressional term limits would be one of the biggest legacy-building acts conceivable for a modern president. Get those jokers out of there after 2 or 3 terms.
Dont know how he would plan on getting it through Congress. I dont see it as a realistic outcome, but would LOVE to be wrong
Yeah, technically "both" but let's be clear about "both" not doing too much work here.Quote:
Research suggests that Republicans have benefited more from gerrymandering in recent election cycles, particularly in the context of U.S. House elections
Key findings:Important to note:
- Disproportionate control: Republicans controlled the redistricting process for significantly more districts than Democrats, drawing 191 districts compared to 75 for Democrats in the 2024 election cycle.
- Court decisions: State courts in Republican-controlled states were less likely to address partisan gerrymandering claims, while Democratic-favoring gerrymanders were more often corrected through legal challenges.
- National impact: This has resulted in a significant advantage for Republicans in the U.S. House, estimated to be around 16 seats in the 2024 election compared to a scenario with fair maps.
- State legislative level: Studies indicate that roughly twice as many state legislatures are gerrymandered to favor Republicans compared to those favoring Democrats.
It is important to remember that gerrymandering is a complex issue with various perspectives and consequences. The impact of gerrymandering can vary depending on the specific state and election cycle.
- Both parties engage in gerrymandering: While Republicans have seen a greater advantage in recent years, both parties have engaged in gerrymandering when given the opportunity.
- Impact on elections: Gerrymandering can lead to reduced representation, increased partisan polarization, decreased voter participation, and less competitive elections.
If Dems do something bad, then Dems suck.
If Trump does something bad, then Trump sucks.
If Republicans do something bad, then BOTH parties suck, nothing to see here.
Hokie has had plenty to say about republicans so not sure where you're getting that. He's the furthest thing from a partisan there is on this board.
BREAKING: 🚨 Tom Homan warns American citizens that SLEEPER CELLS FROM IRAN, that are inside the United States may now carry out t-rrorist attacks.
— E X X ➠A L E R T S (@ExxAlerts) June 22, 2025
Tom Homan warns the Biden administration has created “the biggest national security vulnerability this country has ever seen” pic.twitter.com/Hzvem22Imy
— Sean Hannity 🇺🇸 (@seanhannity) June 3, 2025
WTH is the US giving almost $1T to NATO yearly? pic.twitter.com/tMs0TpfAhE
— Paul A. Szypula 🇺🇸 (@Bubblebathgirl) June 24, 2025
