I'm leaving Ron Paul land

[Tiberius]

That ignores the fact that house elections happen every 2 years. If the GOP only have 204 safe seats, they are still short of a majority.

So if the Democrats make good progress this election, and in 2018, and heck even 2020, what's stopping them gaining control of the house back?

I asked you for the evidence of gerrymandered districts which would prevent a Democrat majority in the House. You didn't provide that. "Safe", "Likely", "Lean", and "Toss-up" are not necessarily measures of how much gerrymandering goes on...some places are more Republican than others, just as some places are more Democrat than others.

So, what actual evidence is there that districts are so badly gerrymandered that a Democratic house is impossible?

[Minimalist]

I suppose that the angry white voter crowd which has steadfastly worked to disenfranchise democratic constituencies since 2009 might change their minds and vote for an old Jewish socialist and throw all the republicunts out. I regard this as about as likely as Jesus showing up and you know what I think of the odds of that.

Tomorrow I'll post a couple of analyzes that I spotted for you. Can't do it on this tablet.

But when they call a district Likely they mean it would take a miracle to lose it.

[Minimalist]

[Minimalist]

[CapnAwesome]

Because this is 'Murrica and as long as the republicunts hold the house of representatives Sanders is not getting anything through.

As an example, Obama put forward a budget proposal that calls for

President Barack Obama sent his final budget request to Congress, a $4.1 trillion proposal for fiscal 2017 that represents his aspirations for curbing climate change, bolstering education and technology while also setting a marker in the political campaign to succeed him. Bloomberg's Erik Wasson reports on "Bloomberg Markets." (Source: Bloomberg)

The republicunts declared it dead on arrival.

You do realize it actually works the other way around right. The president doesn't craft laws, congress does and the president is the one to veto them. When people talk about congress being obstructionist, it's a total absurdism. They are the ones who make the laws, not the president. His power is in the veto, so it's his job to be obstructionist anyway. I mean it's not the president's job to craft a budget, it's congress's job to.

[CapnAwesome]

As to Ron Paul, when he ran in 2008, I was in College and a die hard. I donated to his campaign and attended a private rally and met him. I had about a 30 second conversation about the Draft, he seemed disappointed that I had registered for the draft and was encouraging people not to.

Anyway, as I got older I started to focus my skeptical lens on my own beliefs and a lot of that hard core libertarian stuff fell away. The gold standard, abolishing the federal reserve, privatization of everything, no regulation, etc etc. It just doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Libertarians try to squeeze every idea into their libertarian mold, but some things just don't fit and don't make sense. I see a lot of people today do this with Bernie Sanders too. It's fine to support him, but use your skepticism to examine your own ideas as well. If you don't, what's the point of being skeptical?

[Minimalist]

[Minimalist]

[Aegon]

^ I hope that goes through. I'd love a definitive legal definition of "natural born citizen"