Law Supreme Court ruling on voter rights could destroy Democrats

[LangfordBarrow]

I have never been so pumped to vote Nov 4th!

Where was all this enthusiasm when you were in the 5th grade?

 

[LangfordBarrow]

White Whale is a Russian bot troll. He never replies to anything, he just spams divisive posts. I've never seen him reply even once to someone.

You are wasting your time trying to get his attention.

He has replied to me but if you search his threads it's obvious he's heavily partisan.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

I honestly dont care if he replies to me or not. When I post I try to keep gues readers in mind more than who I'm talking to if In arguing.

That's why I reply to @Seano 's posts even though he blocked me. You have to counter this partisan propaganda for the sake of those that will fall for the bullshit if it's all they're exposed to.

 

[avenue94]

Presumably those 2/3 would be the ones from Hawaii or metropoles. The other 1/3 are the Banchan variety so probably would have appreciated any perceived racism of the GOP.

Hawaii isn't even among the largest Asian American communities. Most are in California. Saying they don't count because they're in metros is nonsense given 1, that's where they naturally immigrate to, and 2, they already have liberal sympathies before arriving. They aren't voting left because they're in Austin or LA.

No, dude. “Bad” is subjective. You can’t support it with “literal math”, and I did explain what I meant.

...You realize there are several objective, albeit imperfect, ways to measure gerrymandering right? District competitiveness, district compactness, whether or not districts are drawn around naturally coherent populations, etc.

Again, the GOP benefits significantly more from gerrymandering, it's not even in the same order of magnitude. Not to mention, most of the population of states with independent redistricting are liberal leaning, which implicitly benefits the GOP.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

Right I understand what the voter reform act is for. It prevents the Republicans from Gerrymandering due to the requirement of concentrating black voters in certain districts.

And I understand that once the Supreme Court strikes the VRA down (which they will) that the Republicans will be able to gerrymander more districts.

But the point is: If the republicans strike down the VRA and maximally gerrymander, the Democrats can counter and gerrymander away even more districts in Democrat states. The republicans only win if the Democrats don't gerrymander in retaliation, which I'm sure they will.

It's simply math: Democrat gerrymandering potential > Republican.

That's potential though. What are your thoughts on Trump, and his complete disregard not only for norms but for laws, who acts and then waits to appeal to the SCOTUS before he finally relents? Do you think that Biden while he was in office was pushing the boundaries this way? This talk of lawfare where there was enough evidence for an open and shut case, compared to actual lawfare where people needed to be fired before indictments would be brought forward against Trump foes, and then it's used as "If Trump was guilty Biden would have released all that information...". Yeah well Trump is making an extraordinary effort to keep the Epstein files sealed. I wonder why?

 

[sickc0d3r]

...You realize there are several objective, albeit imperfect, ways to measure gerrymandering right? District competitiveness, district compactness, whether or not districts are drawn around naturally coherent populations, etc.

Again, the GOP benefits significantly more from gerrymandering, it's not even in the same order of magnitude. Not to mention, most of the population of states with independent redistricting are liberal leaning, which implicitly benefits the GOP.

Let’s say, hypothetically, two guys are taking a test. One ain’t too smart, the other is, like, MAGA stupid. They both cheat just enough to pass. Why am I supposed to care which guy needed more cheating? They’re both cheating, fuck that shit, imo. If you’re more ok with one than the other, that’s fine. I don’t hate you for it, that’s why I said it’s subjective.

 

[avenue94]

Let’s say, hypothetically, two guys are taking a test. One ain’t too smart, the other is, like, MAGA stupid. They both cheat just enough to pass. Why am I supposed to care which guy needed more cheating? They’re both cheating, fuck that shit, imo.If you’re more ok with one than the other, that’s fine. I don’t hate you for it, that’s why I said it’s subjective.

Because any sensible approach to tackling a problem should probably focus on the root causes and most problematic situations first.

You're trying to paint this shitty false dichotomy of the situation here.

1. I never said one party gerrymandering is better than the other doing so. All I said was your claim that both parties gerrymander at simimilar levels is as ungrounded as claiming the earth as flat.
2. Balancing short term and long term solutions is very important here.

Let's make this practical: Tackling gerrymandering requires federal power, whether in legislation or appointing judges to rule against it. Would California threatening gerrymandering because that might improve the chances of passing more democratic and anti-gerrymandering legislation be a worthwhile trade in your book? Because that's the actual situation here, not your lazy "both sides gerrymander so fuck em" approach.

 

[IDGETKTFO]

Where was all this enthusiasm when you were in the 5th grade?

Rent Free.

 

[sickc0d3r]

Because any sensible approach to tackling a problem should probably focus on the root causes and most problematic situations first.

You're trying to paint this shitty false dichotomy of the situation here.

1. I never said one party gerrymandering is better than the other doing so. All I said was your claim that both parties gerrymander at simimilar levels is as ungrounded as claiming the earth as flat.
2. Balancing short term and long term solutions is very important here.

Let's make this practical: Tackling gerrymandering requires federal power, whether in legislation or appointing judges to rule against it. Would California threatening gerrymandering because that might improve the chances of passing more democratic and anti-gerrymandering legislation be a worthwhile trade in your book? Because that's the actual situation here, not your lazy "both sides gerrymander so fuck em" approach.

I never said both sides gerrymander at similar levels, I said dems are just as bad. I’ve defined what I think is “bad” on the subject multiple times for you.
And I don’t know why you think I’m trying to paint any false dry-cooch-ery or whatever, stop using big words. I have an opinion about being ok with cheating our democratic process while pretending it’s only the people we disagree with who’re doing it. If you think you’re better, then go ahead and be better. Citizens will respond and reap the rewards of true leadership. That’s my position.

As far as California and other states being examples of the ends justifying the means, I’ll say I am rooting for anyone to take out MAGA, but I won’t approve of bypassing democracy to do it. We’ll succeed or fail together. If Americans ultimately decide they want to be Russians I’ll just leave, and feel good about sticking to my values.