So-called Anti-Woke, Anti-DEI policy catch-all

[superrific]

The reason there's diversity in Congress is because a) non-white people are running for office and b) people are voting for non-white candidates.

There's nothing requiring non-white candidates to run and there's nothing forcing people to vote for non-white candidates.

Right. But the law creates opportunities for those non-white candidates because it mandates the creation of majority-minority districts. So it makes it easier for minority candidates to win. That was an explicit goal of the legislation when it was passed. It was explicitly noted in Thornburg v. Gingles, which laid out the framework for the operation of law.

What you just described is a change that was brought about by decades of affirmative action. Like, if you wanted to argue that affirmative action is unhelpful, you couldn't possibly have chosen a worse example.

LOLOLOLOLOLOILOL

 

[ZenMode]

Right. But the law creates opportunities for those non-white candidates because it mandates the creation of majority-minority districts. So it makes it easier for minority candidates to win. That was an explicit goal of the legislation when it was passed. It was explicitly noted in Thornburg v. Gingles, which laid out the framework for the operation of law.

What you just described is a change that was brought about by decades of affirmative action. Like, if you wanted to argue that affirmative action is unhelpful, you couldn't possibly have chosen a worse example.

LOLOLOLOLOLOILOL

What you're describing sounds like what is normally referred to as 'packing', which I thought was disallowed.

Either way, yes, there is a Democratic obsession with race and, as I mentioned before, tinkering and "fixing" racial issues that often don't exist.

 

[superrific]

What you're describing sounds like what is normally referred to as 'packing', which I thought was disallowed.

You thought wrong. Just give up, dude. You are so far out of your league here that it's comical. This is even more hilarious than your claim about non-justiciability. You literally undermined your own case because you don't know basic facts. And again, there's nothing wrong with you for not knowing voting rights laws. Just appreciate your limitations.

The Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965, with bipartisan support. The case Thornburg v. Gingles was decided in 1986, by the conservative Rehnquist court. Two years ago, the Supreme Court affirmed the concept of majority-minority districts and required Alabama and Louisiana to redraw districts.

So yeah, it's Democrats. LOL. And of course, the reason that we have a voting rights act is that white people were obsessed with race. It's always been white people obsessed with race. The reason race is important in America is white people, and in particular conservative white people.

 

[4thgenheel]

there is a Democratic obsession with race and, as I mentioned before, tinkering and "fixing" racial issues that often don't exist.

 

[gtyellowjacket]

What you're describing sounds like what is normally referred to as 'packing', which I thought was disallowed.

Either way, yes, there is a Democratic obsession with race and, as I mentioned before, tinkering and "fixing" racial issues that often don't exist.

When it's well meaning liberals that do it, it's ensuring that minorities have adequate representation. When it's devious conservatives that do it, it's a nefarious plan to gerrymander themselves into power. It ends up being the same thing.

That is how we got North Carolina's twelfth Congressional district by the way. Mel Watt, who was Harvey Gantt's campaign manager and very political connected, wanted a safe and secure district. He got it, Republicans were more than happy to help him do it.

 

[superrific]

When it's well meaning liberals that do it, it's ensuring that minorities have adequate representation. When it's devious conservatives that do it, it's a nefarious plan to gerrymander themselves into power. It ends up being the same thing.

It's not remotely the same thing. One of them is the result of a landmark civil rights law passed pursuant to Congress' power under the 14th Amendment clause 5, (The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article), to rectify historical injustice and ongoing discrimination.

Naked political gerrymandering is required by no law and has no salutary purpose. It isn't created by federal statute; it has basically no defenders (just people who say that legislatures can do it, which isn't the same as saying it's good); and it's done with an eye to gaining majority control when no majority exists. Next time black people hold 80% of a state's seats while comprising 40% of the population, then we can talk.

Not sure why you are so against the rule of law or the constitution, but whatever. If the Pubs want to get rid of majority-minority districts, they can do so through legislation.

 

[ZenMode]

 

[TarSpiel]

"I'm open to immigration, I just think it should be legal. I also think we need a strong border and significant immigration reform."

Does anyone on this message board actually *disagree* with this?

Part of the problem here is that we believe that going after the businesses who hire illegal workers and profit off of them are *part of the problem* that needs to be addressed for any significant change to happen.

Another part of the problem here is that the right just makes shit up that it *wants* those of us who are woke to believe, but which we really don't believe. But soldier on, Don Quixote.

 

[Bobfripp]

Indeed, there are ultra-liberals like the one Nick Fajitas is talking about here. They get morally outraged at the drop of a hat. And they are tiresome people.

 

[akillesheel]

When it's well meaning liberals that do it, it's ensuring that minorities have adequate representation. When it's devious conservatives that do it, it's a nefarious plan to gerrymander themselves into power. It ends up being the same thing.

That is how we got North Carolina's twelfth Congressional district by the way. Mel Watt, who was Harvey Gantt's campaign manager and very political connected, wanted a safe and secure district. He got it, Republicans were more than happy to help him do it.

not all redistricting is gerrymandering. do you know where the word comes from?

 

[gtyellowjacket]

not all redistricting is gerrymandering. do you know where the word comes from?

I agree and yes.

 

[ZenMode]

"I'm open to immigration, I just think it should be legal. I also think we need a strong border and significant immigration reform."

Does anyone on this message board actually *disagree* with this?

Part of the problem here is that we believe that going after the businesses who hire illegal workers and profit off of them are *part of the problem* that needs to be addressed for any significant change to happen.

Another part of the problem here is that the right just makes shit up that it *wants* those of us who are woke to believe, but which we really don't believe. But soldier on, Don Quixote.

"Does anyone on this message board actually *disagree* with this?"

The question of whether or not someone disagrees with it is separate from whether or not the person suggesting it is racist, xenophobic etc.

Those who have expressed support for a secure border, as I have, have very much been labeled xenophobic and racist during those conversations.

 

[farce©]

 

[TarSpiel]

"Does anyone on this message board actually *disagree* with this?"

The question of whether or not someone disagrees with it is separate from whether or not the person suggesting it is racist, xenophobic etc.

Those who have expressed support for a secure border, as I have, have very much been labeled xenophobic and racist during those conversations.

That's not *because* you want a strong border, Einstein.

 

[ZenMode]

That's not *because* you want a strong border, Einstein.

Sure it is. I've never expressed any issue with Mexicans, South or Central Americans due to the color of their skin or nationality. I mock the attention that Democrats put on the amount of melanin in people's skin.

 

[mpaer]

Part of the problem here is that we believe that going after the businesses who hire illegal workers and profit off of them are *part of the problem* that needs to be addressed for any significant change to happen.

And we need to address all the drug addicts in this country There would be no supply issue if there was not such a demand

 

[ZenMode]

And we need to address all the drug addicts in this country There would be no supply issue if there was not such a demand

The demand for drugs will always exist. Always.

 

[finesse]

"Does anyone on this message board actually *disagree* with this?"

The question of whether or not someone disagrees with it is separate from whether or not the person suggesting it is racist, xenophobic etc.

Those who have expressed support for a secure border, as I have, have very much been labeled xenophobic and racist during those conversations.

Your favored enforcement methods are dead giveaways.

 

[finesse]

And we need to address all the drug addicts in this country There would be no supply issue if there was not such a demand

We need to address the country's drug policy and much of the addiction problems would take care of themselves. It is also NOT part of the immigration problem.

 

[ZenMode]

Your favored enforcement methods are dead giveaways.

I have no doubt that you believe that.