Texas VS. California Redistricting

  • Thread starter Thread starter Callatoroy
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 172
  • Views: 4K
  • Politics 
BlooVooDoo said:
I acknowledge the issues with Gavin Newsom, and they are not trivial, but I love the way he is playing offense.
Click to expand...
You know the tweets he's been putting out the last few days have gotten under Dear Leader's skin. His social media person has been killing it.
 
Peppers49 said:
I don’t necessarily disagree with the premise, but it’s funny how this narrative usually only gets trotted out when Dems finally fight fire with fire. Pubs pull shady bullshit through legislative loopholes all the time, but as soon as the Dems start playing the game you get whiney bitches like Calatroy coming out of the woodwork acting like it’s some sort of political gotcha.
Click to expand...
Is creating a false narrative, paying for a fake report, getting the cooperative media, fbi, and nsa to play along so you can win an election a shady bullshit legislative loophole? Just checking to see where you draw a line and if you have anything other than hypocrisy running through your body. I mean you have to defend it despite the fact you know it makes you nothing more than a hypocritical vagina. Tough spot to be in for anyone who has any self respect. Not for you though.
 
lawtig02 said:
Since this thread was really intended to be about bipartisan opposition to gerrymandering and not the other provisions in the For the People Act, I'll pose this question to Ramrouser, since the OP seems unwilling to answer it --

Easy solution. How about Johnson puts up a standalone bill that makes political gerrymandering illegal? Nothing else. Does it get out of committee? Does it get TO a committee? No doubt Dems would prefer more voting rights protection than just that, but I can say with confidence 95%+ of Dems would vote for that bill. Can you say the same about Pubs?
Click to expand...
What have I not answered. My position was made crystal clear in my posts.

How is a fictional hypothetical situation an easy solution. All you have done is created a basis for an argument since you have no idea how anyone would vote. It's really kind of a juvenile scenario you created. Your "guarantee" is meaningless and just biased speculation.
 
lawtig02 said:
Yep, that's the point. Calla has made it clear he's strongly opposed to partisan gerrymandering. Ram says he generally supports banning it, as long as it's done fairly. But both of them keep voting for the party that consistently, universally resists any efforts to get rid of it, while the other party is almost universally in favor of doing exactly that.

I get that people vote for candidates and parties for a lot of reasons. But the anti-gerrymandering Pubs need to just keep their mouths shut on this issue. They keep voting for what even they realize is the problem, and against the solution.
Click to expand...
A gross misrepresentation. If there was universal support to get rid of it, they wouldn't engage in it and would propose legislation that addresses it without it being tied to other legislation that they know full well republicans oppose. Just a shell game.
 
roostra said:
Why do you think that North Carolina, one of the most evenly split States in the nation per political party, has 10 Republican house reps and 4 Democratic house reps? (Spoiler - the answer may involve Art Pope).

I hate Gerrymandering - hate it with a white hot passion. It should be burned at the stake - it should be unconstitutional. And seeing the Texas redistricting movement that is barefaced "We are doing this to gain more political power", I feel like I have no choice to support Blue States doing the same in retaliation (California, etc) Maybe the 2021 bill wasn't great - has the Republican Party ever even proposed limits on Gerrymandering?

Let's looks at how Red States and Blue States deal with redistricting - between the two, which "team" has more States with independent redistricting vs. partisan redistricting?
Click to expand...
So you want to argue who is the tallest midget in the room? No thanks. The texas dims flocked to some of the most gerrymandered states in the country and you want to engage in a conversation about who gerrymanders worse? Doesn't sound like a good use of time nor a constructive political discussion.
 
Callatoroy said:
What have I not answered. My position was made crystal clear in my posts.

How is a fictional hypothetical situation an easy solution. All you have done is created a basis for an argument since you have no idea how anyone would vote. It's really kind of a juvenile scenario you created. Your "guarantee" is meaningless and just biased speculation.
Click to expand...

Callatoroy said:
A gross misrepresentation. If there was universal support to get rid of it, they wouldn't engage in it and would propose legislation that addresses it without it being tied to other legislation that they know full well republicans oppose. Just a shell game.
Click to expand...

I get why you can't square this circle, but did you have a personality transplant or something between those two back-to-back posts last night? It's nonsensical to say Dems wouldn't support a stand-alone ban on political gerrymandering, while also saying that's a "hypothetical" and "juvenile" scenario.

The question, again, is whether you think your party would put its money where your mouth is. If a stand-along gerrymandering ban was presented to Congress that would end all political gerrymandering at the state and federal levels, do you think Dems would support it? Do you think Pubs would support it? You know the answer to both of those questions, whether you'll admit it or not. And that's why Pubs own this issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top