Supreme Court Guts Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by rooster

Just the fact that you used that source sez it all.... He's just feeding you MAGA lies...

Originally Posted by rooster

Your source is a lying, plagiarizing, spinning piece of SHIT who has zero credibility... I ain't playing in this sandbox fulla cat shit.

Awww, roo! Stop attacking the source all the time! That's just lazy!

Besides... I thought you loved Benny Hill?




At least nobody quoted your favorite publication - the Wall Street Journal!

Next time we play in the sandbox, bring some kitty litter, k?

[rooster]

Originally Posted by lustylad

....
At least nobody quoted your favorite publication - the Wall Street Journal!....

Yes, I see you upped your game and use Benny now also.

Really? You expect us to believe that you didn't know the House Dems own New England? C'mon....

The implication by the poster of the graphic that this is due to gerrymandering is horseshit. It is much more driven by things like the hatred of GOP policies on things like abortion and the widespread hatred of Trump and MAGA in the more populous and progressive areas.
.

[Stockinglover]

Voting Rights Act is stupid anyway

[1blackman1]

Originally Posted by Salty Again

... That mostly sees rather reasonable, mate.
And I appreciate yer responce... However:

... So, America should have separate black districts?
And how 'bout American Indian natives? ... Hispanics??
Muslims?? ... Mormons?? ... Agnostics?? ... Nudists??
Each with separate districts also? ...

I'd surely like to see more Australian voting districts,
but reckon we can onley do so much...

Though the Supreme Court seemed to decide to nip this
all before it starts - and said "Nope"...

... I'm just musing as-to the reason for their decision.

##### Salty

It’s less complicated than all that. It’s about diluting black votes to make them essentially non-votes. Take Tennessee. Memphis and area around it constituted a minority majority district. In order to prevent blacks from voting in any meaningful way Memphis now has to be broken up into 3 separate districts. Hence diluting those black votes. Why would that be allowable. And how is that any better than creating a district that snakes around to include more minorities. If snaking a district should is disallowed breaking up a compact district just to dilute blacks votes should be as well. I’d have no issue with keeping an Australian community of voters together if they were compact. In fact it makes sense to do so.

Similarly in Louisiana, Republicans are going to try and break up Orleans and the surrounding area and Baton Rouge and it’s surrounding area in order to to dilute the black votes. This is also what was done in Texas. Rather than keeping the compact districts which were predominantly black they severed those districts and joined them with nonblack voters. Is that being race blind or race neutral?

[fd-guy]

Originally Posted by Stockinglover

Voting Rights Act is stupid anyway

Spoken with deep conviction by someone that clearly doesn't know shit about the VRA.

[txdot-guy]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Similarly in Louisiana, Republicans are going to try and break up Orleans and the surrounding area and Baton Rouge and it’s surrounding area in order to to dilute the black votes. This is also what was done in Texas. Rather than keeping the compact districts which were predominantly black they severed those districts and joined them with nonblack voters. Is that being race blind or race neutral?

No it is not. The point that the Supreme court ruled on is that the discrimination is politically motivated rather than racially motivated.

The question that the court is avoiding is whether unintended racism is different than intentional racism. They seem to think that it is which seems quite problematic to me.

If one’s motive is to politically discriminate against minorities, how is that different from racially discriminatory behavior against minorities?

Minorities are still being discriminated against regardless of the motive of the discriminator.

Ipso Facto

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by rooster

Yes, I see you upped your game and use Benny now also.

Benny Hill? Never thought I would use him in a political discussion, but here we are. Did you laugh?


Really? You expect us to believe that you didn't know the House Dems own New England? C'mon....

I had no idea their "ownership" was 100%! I might have guessed 75%-80%. The fact that there are ZERO Republican seats in all 6 states is a shocker. Makes any objective observer scratch his head and ask "hmm... what's wrong with this picture?"


The implication by the poster of the graphic that this is due to gerrymandering is horseshit. It is much more driven by things like the hatred of GOP policies on things like abortion and the widespread hatred of Trump and MAGA in the more populous and progressive areas.

It is driven by BOTH.

While New England is mostly blue, Republicans still account for over 40% of registered voters in 4 out of 6 states. Surely you agree that drawing normal districts would still leave such a sizeable voting bloc with at least a handful of seats. It requires aggressive Dem gerrymandering to shut out the GOP completely.

[txdot-guy]

Originally Posted by lustylad

It is driven by BOTH.

While New England is mostly blue, Republicans still account for over 40% of registered voters in 4 out of 6 states. Surely you agree that drawing normal districts would still leave such a sizeable voting bloc with at least a handful of seats. It requires aggressive Dem gerrymandering to shut out the GOP completely.

Texas doesn’t require a party affiliation so getting republican vs democrat totals must be gotten by other means. I extrapolated from the 2024 presidential results.

Texas new congressional map, R - 30 | D - 8
2024 presidential total: R - 56.14% | D - 42.46%

Not exactly representative now is it?

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

Texas doesn’t require a party affiliation so getting republican vs democrat totals must be gotten by other means. I extrapolated from the 2024 presidential results.

Texas new congressional map, R - 30 | D - 8
2024 presidential total: R - 56.14% | D - 42.46%

Not exactly representative now is it?

Current Texas congressional map is 25 Republicans, 13 Dems. So Dems have over 34% of the seats. That's not bad. It tells me Republicans in Texas aren't very adept at gerrymandering. They're nowhere near as skilled as the Dems in New England. That may be partly because, as you noted, the party affiliation data is blurry.

Of course you had to go with the "new" map, not the current one. You do realize it's just a projection and not a guaranteed outcome?

[txdot-guy]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Current Texas congressional map is 25 Republicans, 13 Dems. So Dems have over 34% of the seats. That's not bad. It tells me Republicans in Texas aren't very adept at gerrymandering. They're nowhere near as skilled as the Dems in New England. That may be partly because, as you noted, the party affiliation data is blurry.

Of course you had to go with the "new" map, not the current one. You do realize it's just a projection and not a guaranteed outcome?

Of course I went with the new map. That’s the point of redistricting mid decade.

Trump and the republicans started this mid decade redistricting war.

Trump and the Republicans can see the democratic wave coming from miles away. Their solution isn’t to make voters want to vote Republican but rather to gerrymander away the losses they expect.

The supreme court ruling simply gives them the power to put their gerrymandering into overdrive.

[Stockinglover]

Originally Posted by fd-guy

Spoken with deep conviction by someone that clearly doesn't know shit about the VRA.

Why? All the homos and dykes can still vote along with black and brown pieces of shit

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by Stockinglover

Why? All the homos and dykes can still vote along with black and brown pieces of shit

And white supremacists...

[Yssup Rider]

You know, it probably doesn't matter what Trump does, MAGA will lose the House and most likely the Senate in November.

There are quite a few Republicans with a soul, they just didn't vote last time around because, well, you know...

They'll stand up for America against the fascist horde.

[biomed1]

Of Guidelines 1, 2, 3 & 4 . . .

#1 - Avoid cases of unprovoked rudeness to others. No place for it here. Yes, with the dynamic nature of the threads and topics, tempers will flare and things will become heated from time to time. You may often encounter individuals who become passionate or emotional when expressing one's opinion or point of view. That's all understood and perfectly acceptable within reason…….but, start slamming or bashing another member and be met with consequences.
#2 - Derogatory racial remarks are simply unacceptable, period. Disrespect another's ethnic background and you will most certainly regret it.
#3 - Disrespect to others, IN GENERAL, will be considered an item of low tolerance, especially when posting in our coed forums. Follow the Golden Rule and treat others as you wish to be treated yourself. This applies to fellow members as well as staff. We do not require that you have respect for us, but we do require that you treat us respectfully in the public forums. If you feel the need to vent, gripe, or blow off some steam regarding a staff member's action or decision, we ask that you keep it private. Email, RTM, or the PM system would be the appropriate avenue to take in such cases. In cases where you would like to request additional clarity about a staff decision, you are free to pursue an answer in either a public forum or private means of communication. If handled publicly, post your inquiry in a respectful manner.
#4 - Blatant insults or hostility toward another member will be met with staff intervention. This applies to using our coed forums for name calling, personal attacks, or vulgar slang terms to describe fellow members. If you have legitimate concerns about another member here, share them tactfully in the appropriate private forums or with staff.