Random Thoughts.
If Trump had used civilized rhetoric like Biden, Obama, and Bush, two of the three attempts on his life would not have had happened.
"Trump’s hypocritical crusade on violent rhetoric — and the country’s emerging split reality"
The one that almost killed him had nothing to do with violent rhetoric from either side, at least directly. The one guy that actually got a shot off did so because he simply wanted to kill somebody who was high profile. Trump just happened to be available.
From (now I guess I have to highlight this) one of the most trusted news networks -https://www.cnn.com/2026/04/27/politics/trump-violent-rhetoric-analysisThe Trumpers want to blame anti-Trump rhetoric for the violence at the Press dinner, but Trump in his “rhetoric” has attacked Democrats and the left far more vehemently. I can’t stand the political right as their outrage is obviously selective in nature. So Trump can engage in it, but no one else may apply his modus operandi against the “King” himself?
"Trump calls on ABC to fire Kimmel after he joked Melania was an ‘expectant widow’"
Now Trump doesn't like being called OLD (which is what Kimmel was referring to). Melania is what, 56? And Trump is close to 80, and in poor physical and mental health.
I guess "widow" is now a banned word for anybody but MAGA to use in their fight for Political Correctness."And Trump is close to 80, and in poor physical and mental health." ECO
More misinformation. The official information that has been released, his physicians’ reports, has consistently described him as being in good health for his age.
TDS is a very sad condition, in my view, incurable.
Where did the idea from Republicans to put the military and paramilitary at our voting booths come from? Why from history of course, it is not a novel idea on how to intimidate voters. Here is a paragraph from my book on Conservatism in America
"On the ground, the counterrevolution refined itself from riots into ritual. In Mississippi, the Plan of 1875 perfected a choreography of intimidation—economic pressure, targeted beatings, and election-day menace—precise enough to flip a state without announcing a coup. South Carolina followed with the Hamburg Massacre in 1876 and then with something even more instructive: Red Shirt parades, rifles on shoulders, escorting voters to the polls. It was violence made visible and, therefore, often unnecessary; the point was not chaos but control.[3]"" Where did the idea from Republicans to put the military and paramilitary at our voting booths come from?" ECO
Misinformation needs to be identified and stopped before it becomes accepted as truth by some.
Misinformation, and pure rhetoric --- There is no mainstream Republican platform or official policy calling for “the military” to be stationed at voting booths. That would raise serious legal issues:
The U.S. military is generally prohibited from domestic law enforcement roles under laws like the Posse Comitatus Act. Elections are run by state and local authorities, not the federal military.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/ … hatgpt.com
https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R4 … hatgpt.com
"On the ground, the counterrevolution refined itself from riots into ritual. In Mississippi, the Plan of 1875 perfected a choreography of intimidation—economic pressure, targeted beatings, and election-day menace—precise enough to flip a state without announcing a coup. South Carolina followed with the Hamburg Massacre in 1876 and then with something even more instructive: Red Shirt parades, rifles on shoulders, escorting voters to the polls. It was violence made visible and, therefore, often unnecessary; the point was not chaos but control.[3]" ECO
That claim is not just inaccurate, it’s detached from how U.S. law actually works. The Posse Comitatus Act explicitly restricts the use of the military in civilian law enforcement, making the idea of troops at voting booths both legally and practically implausible. Presenting it as a serious or imminent threat isn’t grounded in reality; it reads as deliberate fear-based messaging meant to inflame and mislead rather than inform. Hate is a terrible thing, and this kind of comment foments hate.Oh, give me a break, I am using Republican the same way you always use Democrats. Once you understand that, the rest of your comment falls apart.
"“Armed group can monitor Arizona ballot drop boxes, federal judge rules” — AP/PBS. This was the 2022 Arizona case where right-wing associated people showed up near Maricopa County drop boxes armed and in ballistic vests; voters said they felt intimidated."
"Law enforcement preps for potential election-related unrest” — AP. This describes concerns in 2020 about armed groups from the right at polling places and “vigilante groups” trying to “protect the election.”
Are you suggesting you don't remember those? I can get many more if you like." Where did the idea from Republicans to put the military and paramilitary at our voting booths come from?" ECO
You shifted away from the subject of your post. When read in its full context, the statement clearly presents itself as a factual claim. Your inability to apply proper context is a problem. Many people today struggle with this, which is why misinformation is often presented and repeated as fact. That in itself is dangerous.
Where did the idea from Republicans to put the military and paramilitary at our voting booths come from?
There is no evidence of an official Republican policy or directive to place the military at voting booths.You are deflecting again. Only you shifted the context to "official" Republican policy - that is simply a red herring.
Since I wrote it, you might be surprised to know that I understand the context; it is you who are trying to change it.
Also, you apparently ignored my factual claim that I am using "Republican" the same you use "Democrat".
It is ONLY the right wing (i.e., Republican) who have threatened to or actually did put armed men and maybe women at voting places around the country.
Twist the facts all you want, you can't get away from that truth.
What is dangerous is ignoring the violent acts of the right-wing." Where did the idea from Republicans to put the military and paramilitary at our voting booths come from?" ECO
Let me refer to the way this statement is written and address its context. As it is phrased, the placement of the word “Republicans” followed by “put the military and paramilitary at our voting booths” can be read as implying that some form of official directive or congressional order was given. However, that is not actually stated, and the wording creates confusion about what is being claimed versus what is being questioned.
"Also, you apparently ignored my factual claim that I am using "Republican" the same you use "Democrat"" ECO
Gosh, again you offer misinformation. You would need a source and a quote to prove such a statement. When you use the word "claim," it indicates that you feel that you are sharing a fact... But you need to prove your thought with a fully completed quote to prove such a statement.
Again --- Where did the idea from Republicans to put the military and paramilitary at our voting booths come from?
There is no evidence of an official Republican policy or directive to place the military at voting booths.
I am not an English teacher, but you sure as hell need one.Sharlee, your “English teacher” crack is backwards.
In NORMAL, modern English, people routinely use party labels like Republicans and Democrats as broad collective nouns to refer not just to an official national platform, but to the party’s politicians, activists, voters, and aligned movement. That is normal usage and you are guilty of that all the time. Nobody hears “Democrats want X” (again something you often do) and assumes the speaker is claiming there was a formal DNC resolution. Regular people understand it politically, not bureaucratically.
So your reading is not a lesson in grammar; it is a contrived narrowing of ordinary English so you can dodge the point. I did not say “the RNC officially ordered troops to voting booths.” I said Republicans were the source of the idea, and in normal English that plainly includes Republican politicians, Republican activists, and the broader right-wing movement.
In other words, the problem here is not my grammar. It is your refusal to read an ordinary political statement the way ordinary English speakers (including yourself) actually use political language.“We have really everything in common with America nowadays except, of course, language.” King Charles
I so agree
I must add that he shared a wonderful speech.
"Supreme Court limits reach of the Voting Rights Act"
The conservative Supreme Court has done it again and effectively disenfranchised the Black voter under guise of race-neutrality.
Long before the modern Republican Party, the American conservatives and their predecessors built politics around exclusion, caste order, and rule by the “right” (meaning White) people. Before the founding, political power was restricted to a narrow class. After the founding, democracy was widened mostly for white men while Black people and others were excluded or shoved aside.
For one brief, shining moment during Reconstruction, America actually tried to build something like a multiracial democracy that reflected the values in our Declaration of Independence. That lasted a few short years before conservative reaction moved to crush it.
After Reconstruction, the conservative Supreme Court helped destroy Black voting rights and opened the door to race-neutral Jim Crow, which was discrimination by another means. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was supposed to break that pattern - and it succeeded, for a while.
Instead, today’s conservative majority has spent years gutting it and has now gone further still, weakening one of the last meaningful tools Black voters had to challenge vote dilution. The method is always the same: wrap domination by Whites in the language of neutrality, call exclusion constitutional, and leave Black citizenship dependent on the good faith of white-controlled institutions.
That is not democracy. It is the old American order in updated legal prose.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/04/29/politics … ted-statusWOO HOO!!!! Senator Tom Tillis, R-NC, is sticking it to Trump AGAIN!
After successfully defeating Trump in his revenge against Fed Chief Powell, he set his sights on Bondi's replacement as AG. Apparently, it will not be Blanche as he is known to downplay what happened on Jan 6.
Tillis has vowed to stop the nomination of anybody who comes before him that denies what Jan 6 actually was - an insurrection.
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/04/3 … s-00899577WOW!!! DOIJ prove there incompetence on the world stage yet another time.
Fist they indict the former director of the FBI because he posted a photo of some seashells.
Now they argued with a judge to let them tell her why they want Cole Allen detained - AFTER he already conceded to being detained!!!!
Despite Allen conceding his pretrial detention, prosecutors still fought to present their argument to the judge as to why Allen should remain locked up.
“The defendant has agreed to be detained. He’s essentially conceding to your motion,” the magistrate judge assigned to the hearing,” Judge Moxila A. Upadhyaya told prosecutors in denying their efforts.
“I’m denying the government’s request. It’s truly unprecedented,” the judge added."CNN video analysis: Gunman raised shotgun as he stormed security at press dinner"
This report seems to be more about Trump trying to tank the case against his alleged assassin - typical Trump.
The gist is that his prosecutors, apparently in order to save their jobs, are releasing too many "facts", several of them false, to the public. The magistrate in the case has already scolded them once.
"“I don’t know what’s going on here. I know that you want to present your case, I guess, to some audience other than the Court,” Magistrate Judge Moxila Upadhyaya told three prosecutors in the courtroom on Thursday out of earshot of the public and press. “I don’t want this to turn into a circus.”"
Pirro says Allen shot twice, once at an agent. Other law enforcement say he shot once. The video evidence doesn't yet support definitively that Allen pulled the trigger at all (not that it makes any difference relative to Trump).
From one of the most TRUSTED news outlets in America - https://www.cnn.com/2026/05/01/politics … ner-gunmanPerhaps a diner there simply elbowed that agent and we concluded it was a shotgun blast, right? No evidence of anyone shooting a shotgun, after all!
When did you change your standards of proof? So far there is no conclusive evidence that I have seen that Allen pulled a trigger. I thought conclusive evidence only brought at trial was your standard.
Will Democrats IMPEACH Hegseth for perjury to Congress when they take over the House and probably the Senate and finally bring justice back to our government?
"After saying he rejects the notion that Trump would issue unlawful orders, Hegseth said moments later in the exchange: “I will note that in 2024, troops were depl… – that was Joe Biden by the way, Joe Biden – were deployed to polling locations in 15 states.” He repeated, “2024 – Joe Biden – troops deployed to polling locations in 15 states. Explain that one to me.”
There’s an easy explanation. Hegseth’s claim is not true."DEMOCRATS ON A ROLL
"Democrat Chedrick Greene’s win in Michigan state Senate election gives the party another over-performance"
https://www.cnn.com/2026/05/06/politics … n-electionI have to ask - Why does the MAGA here and in general approve of Trump killing hundreds of thousands of people? Is it because those people aren't Americans and aren't worth saving? Maybe some other reason.
"The Trump administration is trying to divert $2 billion in global health funding to pay for USAID shutdown"
"The Trump administration plans to redirect $2 billion in funding intended for global health programs to cover the cost of closing the US Agency for International Development (USAID), according to a copy of the notification obtained by CNN.
The funds would be pulled from money that Congress appropriated for health programs tackling malaria, tuberculosis, maternal and child health, nutrition, global health security, HIV/AIDS and more, two federal health policy experts told CNN. Roughly $1.2 billion originally intended for foreign development assistance would also be redirected."
https://www.cnn.com/2026/05/07/world/tr … nding-intlCheer me up, ESO, with the bad news coming from Virginia the stench of Republicans and reactionary politics seem to be universal. The people were defeated in Virginia over technicalities, while the red state legislatures get to rule by fiat and that’s ok…
I am putting my pedal to medal to make certain that my every sinew and nerve is devoted to defeating the Republicans where ever they may be found. Can we still expect to obtain at least one chamber of Congress?Here's an angle for you ....
In one news cycle, the President has mentioned a glow coming from Iran and, with a political 'shrug', released a bunch of UFO videos.
There are dots to connect. I bet MyEsoteric can help with that. ;-)
GAYep this rubbish laced article from Fox News tells the story. Trump is stalling and trying to create a diversion. The only unidentified flying objects is in fact quite identified, rising gas prices and inflationary effects on the cost of living, that is an IFO and its gets my attention. Most people could not make heads or tails out of any of those photos, so Trumps claim to be candid with the release of this information is anything but.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump- … trial-life
I think that it is all a hoax, what advanced species capable of interstellar space travel would be the least interested in a barbaric planet with hopelessly primitive inhabitants, called Earth?
Carlin quoted: it’s all (BS) and its bad for you…..Nope, can't help you out there, no dots to connect.
How about this. If history is any guide, the Dems will still take the House. If the current reporting holds for another 6-months, they will win in a BIG way.
For example, Texas drew its maps thinking they had the Latino vote locked in. But then when I asked Geo to analyze that for me, it came up with this:
But 2025–2026 polling suggests that support has weakened. A UnidosUS Texas poll found Democrats leading the generic 2026 House vote among Texas Hispanic voters 53% to 28%, while also finding that 66% of Texas Latino voters believed Trump/Republicans were not focused enough on the economy. Texas Tribune also reported that Democratic turnout doubled in four Rio Grande Valley counties that Trump had carried in 2024, which could signal a backlash or at least renewed Democratic engagement.
The same dynamic has shown up in most of the special elections that have been taking place.
Fortunately, all the Ds need in the House is a majority and that seems likely. They can stop a lot of Trump's agenda. But, to get anything done, they need a supermajority in the Senate as well and THAT does not seem likely at all.
There is still hope, thought. Trump has another five months to piss everybody off more than he already has.Another piece of great news - Trump is tanking with Asian voters six months out.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/05/08/politics … day-digvidI don’t sympathize with Hispanics who actually believe that Trump and MAGA would allow them to assimilate into their racist and xenophobic brand. The “Ricky Ricardo” syndrome does not work in reality. Maybe, after ICE, a dragging economy and such, now they will appreciate the straits that they now find themselves in and come home…..
Just like there are few Black MAGA, there are even more Latino MAGA, at least those of the machismo bent. But my take is that most of the Hispanics who voted for Trump believed 1) the propaganda against Biden and his role in inflation and 2) were conned by Trump in his false promises he would lower prices.
Now that they know the truth, they are going back to those who really care about them.
Democrats are appealing the 4-3 Virginia Supreme Court ruling striking down the will of the voters to redistrict. Their 4-3 ruling is being appealed to SCOTUS.
In Virginia, the legislature choses the judges. Three in the majority were Republicans and one was from a split legislature. Two of the dissenters were also from a split legislature and one Democratic legislature.
The four in the majority had to change the meaning of "election day" to arrive at their conclusion. In doing so, they departed from the logic of cases like Foster v. Love (1997), where SCOTUS emphasized that federal elections are to be decided on the federally prescribed Election Day itself, not over an extended period. Instead, they broadened it to mean from when early voting starts through election day.
For SCOTUS to find against the Democrats, they would have to reverse their opinion. But given how this conservative SCOTUS is willing to reinstitute Jim Crow and stack the deck in favor of Republicans, it would surprise me that reverse yet another precedent.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/05/08/politics … istrictingThanks, i spell relief, E-S-O
The Rightwing tribunal passing for non partisan, impartial jurists would have to reveal pure partisanship to uphold the Virginia Supreme Court ruling, while permitting only “gerrymandering” that benefits Republicans. Alas, the court is a right wing tribunal and would discard their role as arbiters of the Constitution in exchange for voting in favor of Trump toadyism and reactionary politics. I don’t trust SCOTUS to rule rationally, anymore.With such a strong opinion, you certainly read the Court's decision, so what part did they get wrong?
Is Election Day the only day of an election, or is it the end of an election? The Court's decision provides a detailed explanation of its reasoning. Do you think they got that part wrong?
How about context and accepted interpretations (what 'everybody' knows 'is' is): did you follow their reasoning from way back in the 1800s and as recent as the 1971 amendment? Did you disagree with that?
What about your 'Virginia court ruling permitting only Republicans to gerrymander'? Where did that come from? The Court didn't rule on the "who," they ruled on the "how."
GARemember, this was a 4-3 decision and the dissenters' opinions were just as detailed in why the majority was wrong, as does federal law.
I saw the majority's addressing of the dissenting opinions' points in the final decision. My opinion didn't need to go any deeper than that. The decision was logically and rationally sound to me.
GA
Ruling View (Majority Opinion)Procedural Violation: Writing for the majority, Justice D. Arthur Kelsey stated that the legislature failed to follow the Virginia Constitution's requirement for approving an amendment, specifically because the first vote occurred after early voting had already begun in an intervening election."
Incurably Tainted": The court ruled that the "legislative process employed to advance this proposal violated" the state constitution, which "incurably taints the resulting referendum vote and nullifies its legal efficacy".
Invalidating the Election: The court rejected the argument that procedural errors should be overlooked, affirming that the legislature must follow established constitutional rules to amend the constitution.
———
Dissenting ViewMisinterpretation of "Election": Chief Justice Cleo Powell, in a dissent joined by two other justices, argued that the majority improperly stretched the definition of "election" to include weeks of early voting.
Ignoring the Will of Voters: The dissent contended that the court should not have overturned the vote of the people, arguing that the legislative process was legally sufficient.
Procedural Disagreement: The dissent argued that the General Assembly's actions did not violate the constitution and that the amendment was lawfully advanced
————————
Your point is well taken.
Yes, the majority ruled regarding procedural errors which made the plebiscite null and void. But, the argument from the dissent was compelling as well. It comes down to the same thing, Democrats are expected to abide by the rules, while republicans are free to break them.
The question remains as it is that here in Florida, DeSantis is attempting the redistricting. Will “technicalities” such as that the redistricting he proposes is in explicit violation of the State Constitution, be accommodated? Explicitly prohibited, is more than just a “technicality. So, if your timely adage of “two wrongs don’t make a right” applies than you cannot excuse DeSantis’ actions in Florida, right? Will the Florida Supreme Court where this will probably end up, rule based on how and not who?
Well, GA, a cauldron is being stirred, and the the slogan “no justice, no peace, will take on so much more greater significance in these times.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/bla … 07880.htmlHere is what SCOTUS said about it in Foster v Love
"When federal law speaks of “the election,” it refers to the combined actions that make the final selection of the officeholder, and Congress required those actions to occur on “the day” it established."
Further "Congress chose a single national day for federal elections, and states cannot legally complete the actual selection of federal officeholders before that day."
Further still "“The Tuesday next after the first Monday in November … is established as the day for the election...”
The Courts rational fell in three main areas:
1. Uniformity
Congress wanted one national federal election day so states could not influence each other by voting earlier.
2. Preventing premature finality (This case was about Louisiana's ability to call an election final before election day.)
A state cannot legally conclude a federal election before the congressionally designated day.
3. Congress controls timing - not the State
Under the Elections Clause, Congress can override state timing rules for federal elections.
Finally, "the legally operative act that finally selects the winner cannot be completed before the federally designated election day."
That is why the modern mail-ballot fights exist: everyone agrees states can have early voting and absentee voting; the dispute is whether ballots arriving after Election Day mean the election is still legally ongoing.
One question the majority will have to answer is "if “general election” automatically expands whenever voting procedures expand, (which is what the majority claimed) then federal constitutional timing language can effectively be altered by ordinary State statutory changes rather than constitutional amendment."I don't support either party's gerrymandering.
The point on this issue was the procedure used. Similar Republican efforts should also be shot down.
What is your re example showing that the Republicans didn't have to follow the rules?
GAHow about the third Jim Crow ruling from SCOTUS letting AL gerrymander a majority-minority district put in place by a conservative federal judge into a White majority district yesterday.
SCOTUS is clearly going out of its way to dilute the Black vote such that it looks like it was pre-1965.A brief look-about offered a different view of the Alabama case. It looks like the fight is against minority districts purposely formed using race-based discrimination to 'correct' past race-based discrimination injustices
The district(s) undersiege were purposely formed by a 'special master' using race to create them as minority districts, right?
Race-based discrimination is wrong, isn't it?
GAWhy not make the US one big voting district?
Sounds to me the most simple and honest solution.Yeah, one big color blind homogenious district, that's the ticket.
If your point was serious, it misses the 'representative' purpose of having districts. The idea of having districts seems right and fair to me. Every free society does it.
I bet the one you're living in has its form too. So maybe the thought was sarcasm?
My interpretation is that gerrymandering is a necessary evil, a cost of having parties and districts, and choices. We (American states) generally have good legal and constitutional protections that constrain partisan efforts, as the recent Virginia redistricting controversy has shown, but being legal doesn't mean it doesn't stink. Virginia's 'lobster claw" district was an example of that.
GATo be honest it wasn't sarcasm. In the Netherlands, although there are districts, it is not a First-past-the-post system.
When we vote in a national election all the votes of The Netherlands are counted together and resulting into seats directly. Not by districts. So if the total votes in the Netherlands is a 1000 for party blue and 500 for party Green, Party blue gets twice as much seats as party green. No matter in which city you've voted. Simple and fair.
(In reality we have about 15 parties. So enough to choose from and the calculation with percentages is slightly more complicated but not any different than the example I gave with the two parties)
I can also vote for the third person on the list. And if the party only gets 2 seats but the third person on the list gets more votes than the 2nd, the 3rd person gets the seat.You took a wrong turn. This issue is about state-level politics and voters' ability to choose their representatives.
The House of Representatives is intended to be the voice of the people. It has the most representatives and the most power to approve things. So the logic is that it is the chamber that most represents the voice of the people. Ipso facto — it is the chamber that should have the most varied input—via representative-group district-level representation.
Winner-takes-all voting is a different conversation. I think I like the idea of proportional voting.
GAI agree, the voice of the people. But in all those Republican states I mentioned earlier, it will only be the voice of the White people.
The good news was that on one of the news commentary programs, a woman made a comparison of GOP gerrymandering redistricting with a home owner putting up sand bags to protect the house from an imminent flood. The only problem is that the flood waters will be so great that the bags and the house itself will be washed away, regardless. In disgust with current GOP policies and outcomes, while the Rightwingers can’t be expected to see the correct progressive path, they may well stay at home.
https://www.salon.com/2026/05/12/gerrym … r-problem/
Ah, sorry, my mistake. I thought you were talking about the votes for the presidency.
I guess in general the way a country is governed is linked to its history. Like China is ruled by one party, not much different than ruled by an emperor or Russia with it's pyramid power structure not much different than ruling under a tsar.
So has each country it's history. And although the West has tried to force their own way of governing on other countries, it seldom works.
I guess the US has to find a way to modernize its voting system. As I understood it, the ground principles were negotiated by two different philosophies, that of the North and the South.
(Same can be said for the UK and Spain..)
That sounds a little bit of ranked-choice voting used by a couple of States, which I favor.
Now that SCOTUS decided to reinstitute Jim Crow (separate but equal discrimination) the Democrats will need to use their Article 1 authority and tell the states how to draw their maps since the states are not competent to do it fairly themselves.
The way I think it should be done is overlay each state map with a 3-mile by 3-mile grid. Then starting where the states western boundary meets the grids left most line count the number of people (not citizens) in each cell and add them to the population in the next cell below. Repeat until you reach the south border of the state and then jump up to north border and add in that cell. Keep going down and to the right until you have the required number of people for a district - roughly 761,000, I think. That becomes district 1. Then start all over again and repeat.
That way nobody can scream foul.
I find it antithetical to my historical reading of what the creators of our Constitution intended. One of their stated goals was to protect the minority from the majority. As we have seen throughout history, the only purpose of gerrymandering is to disenfranchise one minority or another.
I would debate that "We (American states) generally have good legal and constitutional protections that constrain partisan efforts," Just looking at recent history in Texas, California, Missouri, Florida, Tennessee, Ohio, North Carolina, and now Louisiana and Alabama shows those "protections" do not exist. In all but the California case, the sole purpose was to disenfranchise the Black voter - in which they have been very successful.
The whole purpose of the 1965 Voting Rights Act was to undo what the conservative Democrats of the 1870s - 1960s did to suppress the Black vote, and that conservative Republicans and SCOTUS are doing today.
The only reason that California did what it did and Virginia tried to do was to counter what Trump started in trying to rig the outcome of the elections.That's a lot to argue, and much of it is opinion. But the initial gerrymandering point is a good starting point.
And on that point, you're wrong. The purpose of gerrymandering is not to disenfranchise a minority; the purpose is to consolidate power. The disenfranchisement — if it exists, is the result, not the purpose.
I'm not trying to be picky, just trying to be clear in my direction. And purposely aiming at the practice before the details complicate things.
Another uncomplicated caveat is that both parties are guilty, so any defense or criticism is just arguing about who is the worst offender. In this case, you're right, Trump did start it, but maybe the Virginia debacle (plucked from a CNN panelist discussion - shrug) will be the finish of it. Fingers crossed.
And speaking of California ... kinda dissed the credibility of 'independent commissions,' doesn't it?
GA
Ok, so you don’t support gerrymandering in principle anyway…
But we on the progressive left did not start the fire, it was your red buddies that opened Pandora’s box from the beginning in 2019.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rucho_v._Common_Cause
It was the source of all the problems that came after and would be shown to have been an irresponsible interpretation of the law. The successful argument in that case was from the conservatives on the court, am I to be surprised? Gerrymandering undermines the idea of one man one vote, struggled over during the 1960’s, principles that I thought even the most laggard of conservatives could have learned to appreciate by now. But, as you always say, conservatives are naturally slow to acknowledge and adapt to the reality before their very faces.
So, what’s next?
Your red buddies on the Supreme court have been carving up the carcass of the VRA like so much roast beef. The “new South” is more the “the old south with a smile”. At the blink of eye, all of the Southern states are jumping for the opportunity to redistrict and in effect disenfranchise blacks residing in those states at significant numbers. What going on now is not much better than the injustice splayed out during the post Reconstruction period. Take a look at Tennessee, there is one democratic district in the area of Memphis and the corrupt Republican dominated legislature is determined to wipe it out. The racial gerrymandering verses partisan gerrymandering is just more right wing rubbish. The lines between black democrats and white republicans are so stark that for all practical purposes, partisan gerrymandering IS racial gerrymandering. This is something that should have never been allowed in the first place.
Finally, you can spare me the “tit for tat” stuff. I hold Republicans and the Right 100 percent responsible for what is going on now. Trump started it all by breaking established rules and as I told you before, sometimes two wrongs make a right. I will be damned if I can’t vote out Trump and his scurvy crew because they decide to cheat. There can be no game if one side cheats while the other follows the rules of the game, i will topple the entire table and game board in such a circumstance. The Democrats reaction was merely defensive, at its very worst. I say to the rabid Right, “two can play at this game”.
So, I don’t mince words, yes the GOP, Trumpers, Conservative, Rightwings, Reactionaries are all 100 percent to blame for this current crisis..A good start would be a review of your history.
Here's a quote to give you a starting point: " The Democratic-Republican Party is recognized as the forerunner of the modern Democratic Party."
By the time you reach our times, you will find that both parties have been doing it forever. Republicans did start this latest 'battle,' but there aren't any innocents here bud. Your party is as guilty as the Republicans who make you sick. Your defense of them puts you in the same category you condemn.
GAIf you dig deeper and you will find that 1) you are correct - organizationally but very misleading ideology. History shows that when you move backward in time, prior to 1980, party labels lose all meaning.
I think you will find that lineage works something like this:
Democratic-Republicans had a liberal wing and a conservative wing.
It spit into the Jacksonian Democrats (similar in ideology to today's Republicans) and the National Republicans (similar to today's Democrats).
The very conservative Jacksonian Democrats kept their conservative ideology until the 1940s when the more liberal wing began gaining in power. In the 1990s the main switch happened when the racist southern Democrats switched parties to join the ever more conservative Republican Party.
On the other hand, the liberalish National Republicans became the Whigs and then the very liberal Republican Party around 1862, They were responsible for the very liberal 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments and Reconstruction.
Like the Democratic Party, the minority wing, conservatives in this case, began gaining power in the Republican where the switch happened in the 1940s. They slowly became more radical through the 1980s and took the great leap forward when the racists southern Democrats joined them in the 1990s. It has, from my perspective, gone downhill since then until you end up with the MAGA party of today.
Further, when you look back in history, it was the conservatives (regardless of party label) which used gerrymandering the most (by a lot), almost always - like today - with the intent to suppress the Black vote.Yes, I am right. But so are you. My only point was that Governor Gerry is who gerrymandering was named after and he was a Democrat-Republican, who's lineage is most directly associated with the current day Democrat party. The point being that Democrats were the originators of the practice of gerrymandering. The confusing history of the party's changes is why I offered a quote and not a statement a fact.
GaBut isn't that lineage pointless and misleading when the ideologies reverse over time? Why not label it properly and call it the Conservative Democratic-Republican party. That removes the confusion.
The bottom line is conservatives have abused gerrymandering an order of magnitude more than liberals.You might find this interesting from my book on Conservatism. It speaks to today very well, I think.
"White conservative elites quickly understood that to maintain political power in the post-Reconstruction South, they would need to suppress the Black vote without explicitly invoking race. The Fifteenth Amendment had outlawed racial discrimination in voting, but southern states found workarounds in language that seemed neutral on its face but was devastating in effect. In 1890, Mississippi pioneered a new state constitution that required voters to pass literacy and “understanding” tests—administered entirely at the discretion of white registrars. The intent was clear: keep the poor and Black from voting while claiming procedural legitimacy. Louisiana followed in 1898 with a “grandfather clause” that exempted those whose ancestors could vote before the Civil War. That effectively excused all illiterate whites while ensnaring nearly every Black voter. Alabama’s 1901 constitution added poll taxes and voter registration requirements so onerous they could exclude even educated professionals. North Carolina and Virginia refined their own versions soon after.
Each of these states produced Black test cases challenging the laws in federal court. But a right-leaning Supreme Court refused to intervene. In Williams v. Mississippi (1898), the Court accepted Mississippi’s laws as race-neutral, ignoring how they functioned in practice. In Giles v. Harris (1903), the Court effectively threw up its hands, arguing that federal judges were powerless to reconstruct an entire state political system—even when its purpose was plainly to disenfranchise Black citizens. As a result, Black voter rolls collapsed. In Louisiana alone, the number of registered Black voters fell from over 130,000 in 1896 to fewer than 1,400 by 1904. And yet not a single statute ever said, “Black men cannot vote.” That was the brilliance—and the cruelty—of the conservative legal campaign: to write race out of the law while ensuring that race defined its results."
“What is your re example showing that the Republicans didn't have to follow the rules?”
Well, GA
I answered this question through many points. How does dredging out an 18th century circumstance relevant to what we are discussing in 21st century American politics?
You said in another post that gerrymandering is a consolidation of power, a consolidation of power against whom?
Yes, both parties have been doing it, yet it was conservatives who, in their typical lack of vision, did not foresee the danger of how it could be abused and stop it cold. You said you disagree with any form of gerrymandering, yet excuse the entire conservative clan for making it possible, when they had the opportunity to eliminate it.
It is funny how you guys would literally go to the grave to support the Electoral College that allow fly over tumbleweed states to have disproportionate political power in selecting the president. But, i can see that is also a typical example of conservative expediency over principle, why they are happy to wipe out so much as a whimper from contrary voices at the state level.
Rather than address my points, it appears that you just strike back in frustration. Compared to the role of the GOP starting it, the Democrats are innocent in comparison. And yes, i will stop at nothing to be able to see the GOP chased back under the floor boards.You know that I don't " excuse" Republican gerrymandering so why would you say that I do?
It's probably safe to say that every post I have made concerning gerrymandering has blamed Republicans as much as the Democrats.
I haven't seen you answer my question with "many points." All you offer is generic slanders. When you're pinned to a specific point, you can't support your claims with anything more than generic conservative slanders.
The 18th century versus 21st century point was to illustrate the fact that the original instance of gerrymandering was done by the Democrat party's forerunners in the 18th century. You claimed the Republicans started it that's why I pointed to history.
Your trivialization of flyover states put you out of touch with the rest of America bud.
Why is your vote more important than theirs, because you're black or because you're a Democrat voter.
GAWhere did Credence say or even imply that his Black vote is more important then your White vote?
What he has consistently said is just the opposite: that the conservative southern Whites have/are consistently making White votes more important than Blacks.
What they are doing today, and the VRA once prohibited, is not any different in outcome than the poll tax, education tests, and other means used by conservatives to suppress Black votes once the liberals were able to secure it with the 13th Amendment.
This is the way ChatGPT frames it, which I edited slightly:
No one is arguing that a Black person’s vote is “more important” than anyone else’s. The issue is whether a legislature should intentionally draw districts so that a minority group’s votes become consistently less effective.
Imagine a state where Black voters make up 30% of the population and that they live relatively close together geographically. (This is the important part) In a neutral map, they might reasonably influence or elect candidates in 2 or 3 districts out of 10.
But if the lines are drawn to either:
split those voters across many districts (“cracking”), or
pack them overwhelmingly into one district (“packing”),
then their voting power is artificially reduced even though every individual still technically gets one vote.
That is what courts mean by “vote dilution.” The complaint is not that Black votes should count more. The complaint is that district lines should not be manipulated specifically to make a racial minority’s votes count less effectively than they otherwise would in a fair geographic map.
And this issue is not limited to Black voters or Democrats. The same logic would apply if Republicans, rural voters, Hispanics, or any other identifiable group were intentionally fragmented to reduce their electoral influence such as what California did to offset what Trump/Texas did..
BTW, Texas may have screwed up. They presumed that after the 2024 election, they had Hispanics in their pocket. Consequently, that influenced how they drew their lines. It is becoming clearer ever day that the Hispanic vote increase for Republicans may be a one-time-good-deal.Thank you for helping me make my points get through just that much more clearly, ESO.
Where did I say, or even imply, that Cred said his Black vote was more important than my White vote?
GA"Why is your vote more important than theirs, because you're black or because you're a Democrat voter. "
That didn't answer the question. Which vote did "theirs" refer to in your quote?
It wasn't "my white vote."
GANo, no, no, bud. That's not "sharpshooting" at all. You jumped into the discussion with an unintroduced derogatory-laden label: "my white vote," that presumed the original criticism was racial. It wasn't.
Letting you continue to defend your obvious error wasn't "sharpshooting"; it was handing you a longer-handled shovel.
GASo, are you telling me "theirs" is the White fly-over states? Maybe I am wrong and you meant Latinos, lol.
You're right, "theirs" was a reference to the fly-over states' vote, but it was not to the color of that vote: that's your perception. My reference was to the directly-linked Electoral College crack. Did you see that in his original response?
Your "Latinos" attempt at sarcasm was so misapplied that it shows you to be as bad at it as I am. Stop digging.
GA
GA, I have tried to be a fair broker in considering your points and would admit to an error when I clearly identify it as such. Regardless, i hold a bias against reactionaries and reactionary politics, that should be no surprise.
Do i “know” that you don’t excuse Republican gerrymandering? I don’t find too many instances of you blaming Republicans for anything.
Be specific with your question, and I will give you my specific answer or opinion.
You have made the point that gerrymandering has been around for some time, so has slavery. So should those things be excused today? What i am saying is that in this “current crisis”, the Republicans, conservatives are much more responsible for this outcome. That is my opinion for reasons that i have provided earlier.
I don’t like the idea of 1 persons vote having more weight than 5 from the other side. The ‘rest” of America are profoundly located on either seaboard.
Where did you get the idea that i consider black votes/Democratic votes more important than the right to vote for the reactionary?
I can refer to instances far more recent than the early 19th century to see how black votes were stymied and met with violence by conservatives, be they Democrat or Republican depending upon the era one would address. Our struggle has always been for parity, it is only conservatives that twist that into some desire for special rights and privileges.Questioning whether you can "really" know I also condemn Republican gerrymandering is a pretty cheesy move bud. It's right there in black and white text. Surely you don't intend to imply I'm lying?
That's happened before, and it pisses me off. Another liberal-leaning participant implied the same thing when we reached a brick wall: 'I couldn't possibly hold one position unless I was "deceitful" on another one.'
You get the benefit of the doubt on this one. I know how hard the 'struggle' can be. ;-)
But ... bringing slavery into the conversation ... com'n, that's as cheesy as the "know" thing.
It's all about politics and legality. Virginia screwed-up both with the failed unconstitutional end-run at enactment and the political 'lobster-claw' district that got national attention for its absurdity. 0 and two on that one. You guys are definitely more wrong on this tit-for-tat comparison.
To the "Black" vote thing - that came from your choice of denigratingly dismissive descriptors for Middle America: "tumbleweed fly-over states," and my recalled perception of other similar historical statements from you. It was a cheesy move too. So, we're even. ;-)
GALet’s not have a cow here, GA. My point is i may not have seen enough evidence for me to Know that you condemn Republicans gerrymandering with the same fervency. We all KNOW that the political parties and their ideological affiliations and alignments have changed markedly over 2 centuries, right?
Brick wall? On the contrary, i am open book that will challenge anything your side can bring up.
I appreciate the “benefit of the doubt”
Yes, Virginia took a gamble and lost. I still say that interpretation matters and the outcome could have easily been either way.
If we can get past some sort of Democrat-republican party inventing the concept over 200 years ago, we can now see which side is taking it to insidious levels.
Slavery was just an example and was to signify nothing more in this context. I lived in Colorado, is that considered “middle America”? But, I guess I could not be described as “middle American”
“Why is your vote more important than theirs, because you’re black or because you’re a Democrat voter?”
Do you know what you know when you forget that you said this?I suspect the outcome would have been different had one of those Republican judges been actually neutral.
Nah, I didn't forget. Did you miss my tagging that statement as 'my bad' ("... as cheesey"?) " It was a cheesy move too. So, we're even. ;-)
The "brick wall" reference was to the other incident.
GA
I honestly think people oversimplify gerrymandering as if every district should just be a perfect square and somehow that would magically create fairness. At this point in the United States, with how massive, divided, and geographically uneven the country has become, I actually think some intentional district design is important and, in many ways, necessary.
People are not spread out evenly. Urban populations are packed tightly together, while rural communities are spread across huge regions with completely different concerns and ways of life. Minority communities, agricultural areas, industrial towns, and border regions all have unique interests that deserve representation too. If districts were drawn with zero flexibility, many of those voices could easily get swallowed up by population centers.
I also think people forget that “neutral” maps are not automatically fair maps. Geography itself creates political advantages and disadvantages. So in some cases, strategic districting can actually help preserve balance and representation rather than destroy it.
The United States was also never designed to be a pure direct democracy where only raw population totals matter. The system was built around balancing regional interests alongside majority rule. To me, districting is part of that reality.
Of course there can absolutely be abuse, and I understand why people are concerned about politicians protecting power. But I think there’s a difference between abuse and recognizing that modern America is incredibly complex, and that representation sometimes requires thoughtful district design to keep vastly different communities from losing their voice entirely.First, I need to know what you mean by a "perfectly square" district. If the state isn't perfectly square, then neither are all the districts be perfectly square.
"So in some cases, strategic districting can actually help preserve balance and representation rather than destroy it." - UNDER VRA, that was largely true. The conservative SCOTUS tossed that idea out on its head.
The point is - for each vote to have an equal impact, partisan humans need to recuse themselves from the map making.
In fact, this would be a great use of AI as it stands today. Just give it the ultimate imperatives that:
1. Equal population: each district must be as close as legally possible to state population ÷ number of representatives.
2. Equal vote impact within districts: avoid packing/cracking and avoid districts where voters are artificially made less effective.
3. Regular shape: districts should be compact, contiguous, and as close to regular/simple shapes as geography allows.
4. Use neutral geography: follow county/city boundaries where possible, but not at the expense of equal population.When I mentioned “perfectly square,” I wasn’t trying to suggest literal geometry as much as I was pointing to the idea that overly rigid or purely abstract fairness standards don’t always reflect how people actually live and cluster across the country. The geography of the United States is uneven by nature, so any map, no matter who draws it, has to make tradeoffs.
I also understand your point about equal vote impact and removing partisan influence from mapmaking. In theory, that sounds ideal. My concern is that in practice, completely removing “human judgment” doesn’t really happen; it just shifts who has influence, whether it’s commissions, courts, or legislatures interpreting complex rules like the Voting Rights Act differently over time.
And on the VRA point, I agree it played a major role in shaping fair representation, especially for minority communities. Where I think the debate gets complicated now is that the legal and political standards around race, partisanship, and geography often overlap in ways that are hard to separate cleanly.
So I guess where I land is this: I understand the goal of neutral mapmaking, but I’m not fully convinced neutrality is as clean or as achievable as it sounds in a country as geographically and politically uneven as the U.S. is today.While there is always the human element in designing districts, wiping out representation by one party against another can have no nuance as to its intention. Yes, race, partisanship and geography overlap. But, What has being going on here rises far beyond mere “overlap”
But wouldn't you agree a neutral commission like what California had, and hopefully will have again, is a much better approach than letting the legislature get involved?
Pursuing a discussion about independent and neutral commissions would be better than just arguing partisan party efforts — if California hadn't shown the concept to be simply verbal camouflage. California's "independent and neutral" commission was a lie. The Democrats never gave up the power to do their own redistricting.
I was pro-independent commissions ... until California showed the 'lie' of their power (the commissions').
Why would you hope they get back to them? Aren't they shown to be a charade?
GAI have to question your reasoning in this matter, GA.
You bash California, but never a disparaging word about Texas and what was done by their corrupt legislature under the direction of Trump. So, i have to question your commitment to an anti-gerrrymandering stance in principle.
Your idea of parity is a bowling ball on one side of the scale and a feather on the other?
California was forced to react to what was going on prior in the damnable red states. I am all for what California did and the reason for it. And as i have told you numerous times, if you cheat all the traditional rules of the game become null and void. I am not giving Trump and the Republicans an inch, and i have said to my preferred Democrats, we fight fire with fire.
At least they put their proposed changes to the people for a vote instead of allowing a partisan rabid red legislature to make the changes by fiat.
I love California and if the GOP stops its illegal power grab, maybe California Will see its way back to its “independent commissions”.Wait, wait, in this instance, you are misreading my California-bashing. My effort was for a serious discussion about the ruse of California's 'independent' commission.
Hold on a bit more. Also, in this instance, "California" isn't intended as a pejorative label. It isn't the name of the villain (again, in this instance), it's simply a name, a noun.
The criticism was to the state's claim (now shown to be any state's claim) that their districts are fairly drawn by independent commissions.
Few states use this method; California is/was the 'poster child' for the idea. Before this, and Virginia's debacle, I hadn't looked past the headlines. Independent bipartisan commissions seemed like a good idea; it wasn't/isn't a Red/Blue issue for me.
And then we are shown they aren't independent at all. The party in power simply changes the rules.
So what are the possible guardrails? Legal legislative protections were subverted by 'Referendum/Proposition moves, and constitutional restrictions were tested in the top Court of the nation.
So who should draw districts? That was the discussion point, not a jab at California and the Democrats.
GAYour "party in power" point applies to Texas, not California. The party in power in California (and Virginia) turned it over to the voters (which Texas did not) to decide. HUGE DIFFERENCE.
If not for a questionable technicality, Virginia would have been able to help level the playing field after all these Southern state legislatures, without a vote, decided to disenfranchise Black voters.This is not looking hopeful. Your Virginia stance looks like a done deal, but we'll give it a shot. Stranger things have happened.
But, California first ...
Several sources describe this California proposition as being created and promoted to the voters (placed on the ballot) by Gov. Newsom and Democratic politicians as a direct response to Republican gerrymandering efforts. The voters didn't create, they approved. Is that summation wrong?
If not, then your claim of voter empowerment falls under the descriptive umbrella of 'being able to indict a ham sandwich.' It's pure politics, not voters' will.
We should let that one go. It's a no-win.
But Virginia ...
Solely from reading the Virginia Supreme Court decision, I left with this perception. The explanation made sense and seemed logically supported by the presented context.
The constitutionally mandated amending procedure (as described by the Court's decision) required a sequence of events and periods that must be followed in order for the process to be constitutional.
Primarily, it boils down to two different legislatures (different legislative elections) with a 'change-your-mind' period in between. One Virginia legislature can promote/ask for a referendum, but there must be an election for the voters to approve it.
Then, a second, post-election legislature (a new mix of electees and incumbents) can enact the approved referendum. The reason for that constitutional requirement was for there to be a period of time for voters to change their mind (amending the constitution was not intended to be easy), and letting their legislators know of their change of mind via their vote.
My re-description might be poorly done, but the Court's decision description was clear, and it made sense to me.
Just to the point of this description, do you have a different interpretation of the constitutional requirements textually mandated in Virginia's constitution, as described by the majority?
If I have that first part wrong, then surely the rest is too.
GA ;-)I think you’re mixing several things together in a way that doesn’t really hold up to the actual history or the current facts.
California and Virginia are not the same situation. California’s system is a voter-created independent redistricting commission that takes map-drawing power away from the legislature. Virginia’s process is a constitutional amendment that created a bipartisan commission with tied voting rules and, importantly, still leaves final authority with the legislature unless there is agreement. Those are very different structures in practice, not just philosophy.
So, the idea that “Southern state legislatures without a vote disenfranchised Black voters” is not accurate in the modern context. Today’s redistricting occurs under federal constitutional rules, the Voting Rights Act, and court review. States do not have free rein to disenfranchise voters through maps. Claims of racial gerrymandering are litigated extensively and often struck down or modified by courts when violations are found.
The suggestion that only one side is responsible for gerrymandering doesn’t align with reality either. Both parties have used map-drawing advantage when they’ve had control, which is exactly why some states moved toward commissions in the first place.
So the real debate isn’t “one side good, one side bad.” It’s whether commissions meaningfully reduce partisan map manipulation compared to legislative control, and even there, the results are mixed depending on the state.
This is a second bite - hopefully you've seen the tone of the first "bite." You misread the 'bashing' target, so that whole first thought was unnecessary. If a Red state had done the same thing, then its name would have been the noun used. ;-)
I understand you rationalizing that they were "forced" to do it. I'm not arguing the point. Both sides make the claim, and neither is entirely right. They are only politically right. Your defense is only an opinion. Morally and ethically, they both stink.
GA“If a Red state had done the same thing, then its name would have been the noun used.”
OK, if you say so, GA.
How does both sides prove guilty in this? Texas knew of the policy of redistricting only after a census, every 10 years. How was Texas “forced” to change the rules, first and foremost, what was their justification? One side is more “correct” than the other. If politically right means keeping one party from taking unfair advantage of the other, then politically right is Right.Geez, you're a tough audience. You're even challenging me for agreeing with you.
Pay attention.
You said, 'Texas and the Republicans forced California and Virginia to do their redistricting things.'
I replied, 'That I could understand why you would rationalize it that way.' I was agreeing with you. Texas did make you do it. But that doesn't make it right.
So now, now you want me to rationalize that only Texas is wrong because you only did it because they did it first. So, yes, their wrong forced yours, right?
Nope. Texas isn't important. It was a political decision. I didn't like it. And it's not pertinent to the direction of my comments.
We could have our hands full with Virginia; it could be a fun exchange. There are determinate 'facts' (like the textual construction used in the Virginia constitution (aka the core of the majority's decision) that are easily definable — without partisan sniping and battling.
Consider my response to MyEsoteric; do you have a different impression of what the Court's Majority opinion said regarding the State's constitutionally-mandated requirements?
GAIt’s right because Texas by breaking the rules that apply to redistricting left California and other blue states with no alternative.
So how about a straight answer to my question, you don’t get to weasel out of it. What was the urgency that required Texas to redistricting in consistent with census based procedure? It is important, since the Texas’ decision was political can I not say the same for Virginia and California?
——
The state defended the propriety of the process, arguing that because the November 4, 2025, Election Day came four days after the first legislative approval, the constitutional requirement that there be a “general election of members of the House of Delegates” between the two legislative votes had been satisfied. The term “general election,” the state maintained, referred only to Election Day, not to the entire voting period.
In a 4–3 decision, the court disagreed, stating that “general election” referred to the whole election — September 19 through November 4. Election Day, the court said, was just the final day of the general election. Citing more than a century of history of general elections held over multiple days, the majority reasoned that a proper reading of “general election” required consideration of the historical context and the public’s understanding of the phrase. According to the majority, the public would define “general election” to include the large period of early voting during which over a million Virginians voted. The majority emphasized this interpretation would also preserve Virginians’ “constitutionally protected opportunity to vote for or against delegates who favor or disfavor amending the Constitution.” Under the majority’s interpretation, therefore, the legislature had failed to vote on the constitutional amendment prior to the intervening election of the House of Delegates, as the state constitution required.
—-
It still is a matter of interpretation whether the date of election could include early voting rather than the specific date itself. I can see the reasoning behind the ruling, but that does not necessarily make it right.
Are you suggesting that California's independent commission engineered the referendum? That would be news to me.
First, give me some slack here. My intended entrance was for discussion, not argument.
I'm saying the commission's claim of independence is irrelevant when the legislature still holds the power to redistrict. This instance is about California (and coming to Virginia), but the thought applies to all states.
The commission didn't see the need (???), or didn't have the power (???) to do a mid-census redistricting (???), so the controlling powers (Democrat politicians) simply bypassed them via public referendum.
I'm not working from some deep-dive analysis. Is there something wrong or unfair in that summation? Are the 'facts' wrong?
GAThese are emergency times of exigency and I don’t expect my favored Democrats to conduct business as usual.
Regardless, the “commission” still handed the mid census redistricting option to the people of California to decide and that is ultimately where it belongs. Allowing the majority of the voters the ability to decide is not bypassing.
I actually do agree that a neutral commission is generally a better approach than legislators drawing maps for themselves. My point is more that even “neutral” systems still involve subjective judgment, tradeoffs, and competing legal standards, so I’m cautious about presenting any model as perfectly objective or free from political influence.
That said, I would still rather see a transparent commission process with checks, public input, and clear standards than a system where elected officials can effectively choose their own voters. To me, the real issue is minimizing manipulation as much as realistically possible, while also recognizing that geography, communities, and legal obligations make complete neutrality difficult to achieve in practice.
And that’s kind of my point. Even California’s “independent” process still ended up involving lawsuits and Supreme Court review. So while commissions may reduce direct legislative self-interest, they clearly don’t eliminate politics, interpretation disputes, or accusations of partisan advantage.
At best, these systems seem to minimize some forms of gerrymandering, not remove human bias or political conflict altogether.
Understood, but the GOP has gone beyond fair and equitable districts to now swallowing up its opposition in total. I am looking at the Southern States and witness how quickly partisan/ which I consider racial gerrymandering, is being applied. The idea of any form of gerrymandering beyond reasonable attempt to provide parity is a form of voter suppression.
“The United States was also never designed to be a pure direct democracy where only raw population totals matter. The system was built around balancing regional interests alongside majority rule. To me, districting is part of that reality.”
But, population should matter over giving inordinate representation toward regional interests. I consider that concept to be designated as “quaint”. What is the GOP doing to destroy the voices from the states’ minority communities? Much of this inordinate representation is going too far. This situation is “abuse” and not some sort of explanation of complexity.
It's Deja vu all over again ... First it was the definition of "is", now it's the definition of "election."
The Court's decision read as reasonable to me. Watching CNN and BBC, since this ruling, seems to show the majority of Democrat spokesfolks — experts and talking heads — agree with the Court in this matter, and criticize their party's efforts.
Looks like you're the fringe on this one.
GAI will agree there is room for debate. But since 1) "early voting" did not exist in Virginia at the time the law was written, 2) SCOTUS has ruled previously that the definition of "election" is the day it is officially counted and 3) several federal laws say that the election is the Tuesday after the first Monday in November on even numbered years including 2 U.S.C. § 7 and 3 U.S.C. § 1.
It seems to me the Virginia majority is on very shaky grounds.
As to your claim that the "majority of Democrats ..." agree with the majority, you will need to provide proof of that. As you are aware, I am big consumer of things like CNN, Politico, The Hill, etc and I don't recall seeing even one Democrat siding with the majority on the court. That isn't to say a couple have, I am just saying I haven't see it yet.
My take is that we are smack dab in the vast majority view.I have only read the decision. And it was your comment that prompted that. So my only authority is what I've listened to or 'clicked on' since election night.
Asking for 'proof" of what I claimed to have heard is silly. I was only relating the perception I had from my news diet since then. Which was nearly identical to your list.
The lament I heard, and intended to imply, was about the Democrats' premonition/foreknowledge/worry that their procedure would fail a court challenge, but they plowed ahead anyway.
Their Court's decision seemed right to me.
GA
A quote from Salon editor, Jason Howard.
Interesting article
https://www.salon.com/2026/05/07/the-da … -makeover/
When I was an undergraduate student at The George Washington University in the early 2000s, I used to take a couple of textbooks and trek down 23rd Street — past the Watergate and the Kennedy Center in the distance on my right, and the State Department complex on my left — to the Lincoln Memorial. I had a study spot I considered my own that offered a respite from university life, as well as a reminder of the weight of history surrounding me in the city I was learning to call home. Reaching the memorial’s terrace after climbing the small mountain of steps, I would bypass the temple housing Daniel Chester French’s famous statue of the 16th president and walk along the colonnade until I reached the quiet rear, where most Washington tourists never think to venture. There, I’d sling my backpack to the ground and, reclining into one of the large grooves in the monument’s columns, I’d read and study for hours, with the Potomac River and Memorial Bridge as my personal vista. In the distance, across the river in Virginia, was Arlington National Cemetery, and when the gloaming fell, I could see the flicker of the eternal flame marking the graves of John and Jacqueline Kennedy, with Arlington House illuminated by floodlights on the slope above.
Now, each time I read about or see plans for the president’s proposed triumphal arch, which would stand in a traffic circle that marks the end of the bridge and the beginning of the cemetery’s formal entrance, I think of that view and how it could soon be no more. Plans for the arch were preliminarily approved in mid-April by Trump devotees who sit on the Commission of Fine Arts. The graves of America’s fallen soldiers will be obstructed, the eternal flame blocked — and from the cemetery, the majestic view of the Lincoln Memorial obscured — by a 250-feet monument. To Donald Trump.
Last year, when he was asked whom the arch would honor, the president was, perhaps admirably, honest: “Me,” he replied. According to reporting from the Atlantic’s Ashley Parker and Michael Scherer, Trump “has privately started talking about himself as being on par with great, norm-defying, historical figures [like] Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar and Napoleon Bonaparte.” By including himself in such company, he believes he should be memorialized in stone. And so, in his second term, he has turned his attention to leaving his mark on the nation’s capital.
—————-
This is total madness, how long are supposedly decent intelligent people supposed to sit by with their thumbs up their arses and ignore what is clearly right before them? Trump is determined to leave his stain on our nations capitol in perpetuity. It should also be noted that only TYRANTS create national monuments of and for themselves.
I implore Democrats if they take the House, to give Trump ABSOLUTELY nothing!!!"ME"
That is Trump, the felon and sexual predator, in a nutshell.
Hey, Credence, when do you think conservatives and SCOTUS will try to drive us backwards to this:
Plessy opened the floodgates. States passed laws mandating segregation in schools, hospitals, restaurants, cemeteries, theaters, and parks. Entire public lives were divided, down to separate Bibles in courtrooms and separate windows at ticket booths. The system became known as “Jim Crow,” named after a minstrel caricature, but its effect was no joke: it was legal caste enforced through humiliation, inconvenience, and the constant reminder that Black Americans were second-class citizens.
Ever since the conservatives in SCOTUS overturned Roe v Wade, every ruling passed to stop the above is subject to reversal.Yes, Jim Crow redux. I will never understand why whites were so viciously adamant about bringing the house and every sense of fairness and decency down after Plessy. I have read that only one juror on that court made the proper analysis, that the idea of segregated facilities was contrary to the principle of equal treatment under the law for all.
I don’t know where that utter vile and hatred emanated, i have always been vexed to understand its reasoning and purpose. Much like a virus that has always been there in a latent sense that is now flaring up, with all of its accompanying lesions. I am of the impression that fundamentally, the “improvement” in race relations has a large cosmetic component to it.
Under Trump, the very worse of the American past is being brought up front and center with the disappointing part being that too many on the conservative right are embracing and accommodating this, and do not see this for what it is and don’t care. I have to believe that these themes explain why so shallow, vapid and so unethical a man manages to attract so many.
I have had enough and am prepared to fight fire with fire.One tiny correction "Conservative Whites", not all whites.
That said, so long as conservative white Americans (now called MAGA) exist as a political force, then I think you are right, the improvement in race relations and bringing minorities out of the second class citizenship role they are being forced back into is largely cosmetic.
One would have hoped that the 60 years since the CRA and VRA would have have brought some permanency to a more just society. But, with the resurgence of Jim Crow and Southern Redemption we are quickly understanding how fragile this "just" society really is.You are right it is conservative whites. But ESO, people that seem moderate and reasonable have found comfort and accommodation with Trump, otherwise such a vile character would have been laughed off of the stage as a presidential contender years ago. It is as if Trump opens the Pandora’s box and a swarm of locusts emanates. I had no idea that so much underlying insecurity and fear by extent and in numbers was out there by conservatives/reactionaries. There are still too many people who claim that they are not MAGA that are more than willing to accommodate MAGA agenda. How else does Trump win?
So the struggles of decades can be simply reversed by turning the page in a book?"How else does Trump win?"
He wins by promoting concepts and goals that benefit America and Americans. Things like more equitable taxes rather than "Tax the rich some more! It's only fair!". Things like making American self sufficient in all we can rather than depending on other countries for what we need. Things like putting America first rather than some other country.
Liberals lose by promoting concepts and goals that benefit the party and foreign citizens. Concepts that rely on Marxism rather than personal responsibility and hard work. Concepts that depend on taking what others have built and earned to spread to those that have not. Concepts like putting American at the bottom of the pecking order internationally, from politics to finances.
So...to answer the question rather simply, Trump wins by providing the country and its people what they want and need. Liberals lose by demonizing those that make American what it is and taking what they have built for themselves.Yes, a lot of Republicans were advocating these things, but they select so abrasive and felonious character like Trump to represent them?
Yeah, we are self sufficient, fomenting war and raising the deficits beyond reason.
I should have known that your economic reasoning is that of 100 years ago and longer, the Horatio Alger fantasy.
Trump wins by providing YOUR people the soothing salve that you all seem to need. Trump has been and continues to be interested in lining his own pockets. And YOUR people are not MY people, so your generic use of the term is incorrect.
Let him keep on doing what he doing and we will nail him and his agenda to the wall next fall, and it’s coming quick.And feeding into THEIR Fears.
The short-term pain of his continuing down his path will bring long-term gain with the resounding defeat of MAGA.
Are you referring to Trump's concept of destroying democracy and promoting China and Russian interests over that of America?
I don't disagree.
As I have have mentioned before, and it bears repeating:
Those who accommodate Trump fall into three categories:
1. They see themselves in Trump
2. They have been brainwashed by Trump
3. They are transactional and believed his lies without considering the consequences. I put many of the Hispanics who thought he would lower prices in that group.
"The cost of living in the US weighs on Latino voters as economic discontent grows"
Will this be enough to turn Texas Blue finally. Since Texas' gerrymander relied on Latinos sticking with the Republican Party, they may be in a worse position now than they were before they gerrymandered.
One can only hope and Thank You Donald "the felon" Trump.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/05/17/us/cost- … us-latinosTexas is a stubbornly recalcitrant Red preserve, turning it blue would be a wish beyond all dreams of avarice.
The Hispanics have themselves to blame, and should have recognized that Trump meant them no good from the beginning. I was never confused, why would they be?
They are finally coming around and can help give Trump and the Republicans the drubbing they deserve come this November.
FUN FACT that ought to make conservatives proud of their heritage.
"Racial separation was not the only tool for restoring the antebellum social order. Southern states also reengineered forced labor under the guise of criminal justice. In the decades after the Civil War, states began arresting Black men in massive numbers for vague offenses—loitering, vagrancy, disorderly conduct, or failure to carry proof of employment. Once convicted, they were leased out to private companies through “convict leasing” programs that generated revenue for state and county budgets.
These were not minor infractions. Convicted men were sent to coal mines, brick kilns, railroad camps, and turpentine farms—often with mortality rates rivaling those of wartime battlefields. In Alabama alone, more than 3,000 Black prisoners died in convict leasing camps between 1871 and 1910. Companies like U.S. Steel’s Tennessee Coal and Iron Division paid for bodies, not for outcomes. They had no incentive to keep workers alive. State officials—judges, sheriffs, and prison administrators—often profited personally through kickbacks and per-prisoner payments. The Thirteenth Amendment prohibited slavery “except as punishment for a crime.” Southern conservatives seized on that exception and built an entire carceral economy around it." - "Conservatism in America; The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" - N. Scott BefordWhat you posted describes a horrific period in American history, and convict leasing absolutely happened. But trying to frame it as some uniquely “conservative heritage” argument is historically selective and politically dishonest.
The Southern Democrats who controlled those states after the Civil War were the ones running those governments, writing those laws, enforcing segregation, and overseeing convict leasing systems. That is simply historical fact. Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, and the rest of the Deep South were one-party Democratic strongholds for generations during Jim Crow.
You also conveniently ignore that many conservatives today believe in equal protection under the law, oppose racial discrimination, and had nothing to do with 19th-century Southern political machines. Attaching every historical evil committed in America to modern conservatives while ignoring the actual political structures of the time is more about scoring partisan points than honest history.
And in my view, one of the saddest things today is that after decades of real progress in race relations, modern politics often seems determined to reopen division instead of heal it. I believe many Democrats and media figures continually push narratives that encourage people to see themselves primarily through race, grievance, and victimhood rather than individual capability and opportunity.
When a group of people is repeatedly framed as needing special help or being inherently disadvantaged, it raises a serious question: does that messaging actually build confidence and empowerment, or does it risk reinforcing the very idea of inferiority it claims to fight? When people are continually told they are unable to succeed without intervention, it is reasonable to ask whether that can lead some to internalize doubt or inferiority rather than confidence and self-determination.
That is why I think the direction of modern political messaging on race deserves serious scrutiny, not automatic acceptance.
Related Discussions
- 85
Random Thoughts and Words of Wisdom
by P1 SpareNone 16 years ago
Ever had a simple question pop in your head that defies common sense? Do you have random words of wisdom that you wish to share with others? Or have you heard someone else say/express something similar to this? I have these sorts of things happen all the time, and I would like to...
- 11
Random Thoughts about HubPages
by Phyllis Doyle Burns 12 years ago
There has been a lot of complaining about changes, unfeatured hubs, ads, etc. I, too, have made some complaints -- yet, I do intend to stick it out and hang in here, for I have faith that HubPages is a good place to be, for me, anyway. I think HubPages will only grow better over time.I do,...
- 50
random thoughts please
by ByChanceTV 15 years ago
Please post your 'Random' Thought here please..."Sometimes I taste like Polkadots"
- 358
Trump's Big Beautiful Bold Agenda to Reclaim America
by Sharlee 7 months ago
President Trump is back in the White House as our 47th President, and let me just say: he’s not wasting a single second. From the moment he took the oath again, he’s been fighting to restore American strength, pride, and sanity. This second term isn’t about revenge; it’s about results. And we’re...
- 46
Random Facts of the Day!!!
by pinkylee 16 years ago
I have these moments throughout my day that totally random things po into my head. as my boyfriend would call it "randon fact of the day" so I thought I would start sharing them with you all and see what other randon facts of the day people have. This could prove to be funny. so my...
- 6
NBA Playoffs 2013 Random Thoughts!
by Julio E Olmo Sr 13 years ago
The first round of the playoffs this season is not looking good for any of the road teams at alll. Injuries have played a huge part on the no-drama!