"I think I was trying to suggest something about the duality of man, sir ... the Jungian thing, sir."
Private Joker, Full Metal Jacket
Somehow I doubt you'll get very many, Rick.
To quote someone near and dear to you, Professor, no one cares about your snark. So perhaps you should follow your own advice.From what I read, it was a group of Democrats that dropped their claim of political gerrymandering. But other Democrats who intervened have not dropped their arguments, and the court will still decide whether the maps were improperly drawn. So I do not think that the matter is over on this particular case.The article failed to speculate as to why this group chose not to pursue the matter.
I'll admit, after seeing Kleefisch vote three times, that Republicans were right about rampant voter fraud.
Those other groups are not pursuing claims of a partisan gerrymander. Their claims are different.
Most — perhaps all — apologies would be "anonymous." Even at that, they find it hard to 'fess up.
I had intended to edit out the reference to "lawyer-like PR babble."
Yet again, the haters are proven wrong, and Rick is right. Hail Rick!
Apparently the shame from being exposed as a hack who would testify in support of something before even seeing it wears off more quickly than one might imagine.
Is it more shameful to begin a legal challenge against a map you haven't even seen yet?
---I'll admit, after seeing Kleefisch vote three times, that Republicans were right about rampant voter fraud.Wasn't it Peter Barca that admitted that voting for other members is a common practice in the legislature and the democrats also do it?Did you notice that there was zero, none, nada problems with voters presenting their id in the election last week?
Well gee... it was partisan gerrymander. Too bad that it's legal. Do ya think the R's will vote to change this crappy proceedure any quicker than the D's did?
Post a Comment