Shouldn’t liberals/socialists that guaranteed the Mueller report would bring down the President apologize?

😂 @FrogManSometimesLooksBothWays

@jackjjackson Instead of apologizing, Democrats should commit to start working with the President. That would be more significant.

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 AS IF 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😉 @FrogManSometimesLooksBothWays

@FrogManSometimesLooksBothWays Or, the president could commit to working with the Democrats. At least the Democratic House was elected by a majority.

Wasn’t the Senate elected by a majority as well? @Lila15

@jackjjackson Actually, Democratic Senators got 12 million more votes than Republicans. But that's not how the Senate is elected. It's on a state-by-state basis, so it only matters who wins in a particular state, not overall. What happened is Democratic Senate candidates in blue states won by huge margins, while Republican winners barely squeaked by to victory.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/11/06/us/elections/results-senate-elections.html

The House popular vote corresponds more to the outcome, although because of partisan gerrymandering, the Democrats had to win far more decisively to gain the majority. Without gerrymandering, the Democrats would have had an even larger majority.

https://www.vox.com/2018/11/7/18041006/midterm-election-results-democrat-win-house-gerrymander

In 2012, the Democrats didn't gain the majority, despite winning in the popular vote, for the same reason.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/feb/19/steny-hoyer/steny-hoyer-house-democrats-won-majority-2012-popu/

The fact is that the GOP is a minority party, but they've been extremely successful at using the system to their advantage to maintain control. That's going to change somewhat since more Democrats are in power at the state level, so the Republicans won't be able to gerrymander as effectively after the 2020 census, leveling the playing field somewhat for the next decade when district lines are redrawn. And hopefully the Supreme Court will strike down partisan gerrymandering and require independent commissions to draw district boundaries, although Gorsuch's reasoning on the Maryland case (which affects Democratic gerrymandering - they do it too, just not as much) suggests that he's OK with it.

Personally, I'm against all gerrymandering, even if it benefits my party. I'm also against voter suppression. We need free and fair elections with as many people participating as possible. If that means Democrats lose, I can live with that. But I don't like it when Democrats lose because Republicans are better at cheating.

In India EVERYONE who is a citizen gets a free voter ID card and the turnout is over 90% I’d like to see that here. How about you?

Regarding the rest, I’m anti gerrymandering as well. Your “analysis” is severely flawed because the strategy is winning seats not a nationwide total. Check the Constitution. If the rules were different the results would be different. Oh and stats are for losers. @Lila15

@jackjjackson Absolutely, I'd support a national voter ID card and making voting easier, like election day being a national holiday, Sunday voting, vote by mail, whatever it takes. And a national voter ID would make it impossible for illegal aliens to vote, not that they actually do, but it would placate the people who think they do.

The problem is that anti-government types would oppose a national ID card, and Republicans would oppose anything that makes it easier to vote, because higher voter turnout usually favors the Democrats. The reason for this is that more older people are Republican, and old people tend to vote in very high numbers. People my age are more likely to vote Democratic, but we're also more apathetic.

I'm glad you're also opposed to gerrymandering. I oppose anything that skews the results away from the popular will. Right now, the Supreme Court is hearing a case against gerrymandering, with the examples of a Republican gerrymander in North Carolina and a Democratic one in Maryland. Both sides do it, the Republicans do it more, but it has to stop even if my side loses as a result. I can live with losing as long as the contest is fair, because I put the integrity of the system over my own partisan concerns. Who knows, maybe in 50 years I'll be a conservative.

Nice exchanging thoughts with you Lila! @Lila15

@jackjjackson But if Trump is in fact guilty of treason or financial crimes, that would be a problem, right? You wouldn’t give him a pass just because you approve of his policies? Because no one should be above the law. Which is why I want to see the full report and his tax returns, and want the other investigations to continue. To either exonerate him or hold him accountable.

Report yes. Tax returns no. The question is whether the Dems believe there is enough to impeach him. If so they will start proceedings. If not then no. It’s not up to you or me. The Constitution controls. @Lila15

@jackjjackson The Constitution is vague. "High crimes and misdemeanors" are whatever Congress says they are.

We may not see the tax returns until 2020 or later. Some states are requiring candidates to release their tax returns if they want to be on the ballot, so if that happens, he'll have no choice.

Why wouldn't you want to see his tax returns if they contain evidence of wrongdoing? Why should he get a pass on that?

Mueller didn’t subpoena tax returns. A subpoena certainly could be issued by appropriate authorities under appropriate circumstances. Any such laws enacted by blue states will be overturned.

Either the House does something or it doesn’t. That’s the law. Why should anyone cave to CNN and MSNBC whiners? @Lila15