Parties can already gerrymander the state legislature.
Do you really think they'd ever be so successful that only one party is represented?
Can you follow yourself from one post to the next?
(1) Yes. That parties can gerrymander the legtislature is rather quite apparent.
(2) The question about "one party represented" is so poorly written as to have no meaning: "Do you really think [one party] could ever be so successful that [perfection in defiance of law is achieved]?" Not only is it a straw man, it also happens to make no functional sense. This is something that happens when you don't know what you're talking about.
→ This is an interesting phenomenon: Ostensible Americans ostensibly failing to understand anything about the history they ostensibly argue. There is, actually, a weird resonance with something an evangelical professor once wrote about American Christendom, but it's hard to explain for at least two reasons; the first is your anchorless, polymerized fallacies offer no functional contextual baseline for relation; the other is simply the obscurity of the point. In either case, the prospect of definition according to internalized context, compared to a relationship to the definition "embedded in a self-conscious ecclesiastical tradition"
(Noll↱), is part of the problem. You're not operating in an "American" context. I noticed that recently in a series of threads by which some Americans seemed to be borrowing their arguments from abroad, utterly detaching their rhetoric from American history; it was, in fact, kind of creepy. And then one of them changed the way he spelled his words. He's not an international troll; he's just importing his argument and forgetting to check himself. In any case, no, seriously, this bit where we're arguing American history, politics, and living reality according to some Russian, Australian, or, hell, even Canadian context—yeah, I get it, and what my international neighbors have to say isn't unimportant, but still, at some point the reality afoot is the one we must deal with instead of what people would wish instead—just doesn't work.
(3) Okay, so, even still: Taking your point at face value—
Parties can already gerrymander the state legislature.
Do you really think they'd ever be so successful that only one party is represented?
—what does posturing from ignorance have to do with—
You'd need to explain how state legislature nominations has anything to do with gerrymandering.
‡
But you've yet to show how legislature nominations would make gerrymandering effect them.
—what you're ostensibly on about?
No, really, is changing the subject the whole of your faculty, or there something more to this two-bit posturing from ignorance.
If posts vex you so much that you can't even come up with a cogent question or point (other than just not liking them), maybe you would be better off not stopping by this ape exhibit. We're happy flinging poo without you.
Take a look around. There is a reason why people are receiving you with such hostility. You are widely regarded as either (A) unbelievable, or (B) undesirably antisocial. The reason is these things I've been prodding as we go along. That you respond with further politicking only reinforces the point.
This particular troll game, whatever you or anyone else thinks it is worth, is at best a very basic dare:
Okay, you want us to believe you are this stupid? Very well, then, we shall believe you.
Who do you think you speak for?
If you had a clue, that would be one thing.
But you don't. You can't even follow
yourself from post to post.
Are you proud of yourself, buddy? Givin' yourself a pat on the back? Telling yourself what a
super job you're doing?
Learn to follow yourself from post to post.
Or is that too much to ask?
No, seriously: If you require special accommodation, lay it out and tell us what you need. We can't do anything to help if you can't be honest with us.
