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.I would argue you need to review your history, recent or otherwise, and make sure you include all of the context.
1. California HAD a voter-created independent redistricting commission, emphasis on HAD. The legislature passed a law asking the voters to temporarily UNDO their independent commission vote and accept a new map instead. A whopping 65% approved that measure.
2. Virginia followed a different set of laws to come to the same outcome.. Their legislature followed their Constitution and FEDERAL law to put a referendum in front of their voters to accomplish the same thing California did. It passed by a much smaller margin of 1 or 2%.
in overturning the voter's will, the three of the four conservatives, on the Virginia supreme court changed the federal and SCOTUS definition of an election so that the voters lost. SCOTUS decided the FEDERAL and their previous rulings have no merit and refused to review the appeal.
3. ONLY California and Virginia put it to the voters. NONE of the conservative Southern states dared take the chance and forced it down the people's throat instead.
4. I push back on your claim that we suggested ONLY one side is responsible for gerrymandering. That misstates the facts entirely. What WAS claimed is that Trump started this round of gerrymandering and I think even GA agrees with that. Why you chose to say differently, I don't know.
5. When you say :"So, the idea that “Southern state legislatures without a vote disenfranchised Black voters” is not accurate in the modern context." that is empirically FALSE. I was very accurate.
6. You keep saying "both parties" when talking about history. That has absolutely no meaning what so ever. I can't think of any case where partisan gerrymander is good, it is always bad. It is an historical fact that Conservatives have abused the practice order of magnitudes more often than Liberals.California “undoing” its independent commission
California did not pass a law to “temporarily undo” its independent redistricting commission. The commission was created by voter initiatives (Prop 11 in 2008 and Prop 20 in 2010) and it still exists today. What did happen in 2020–2021 is that the commission drew maps after the census, and those maps were accepted through the normal legal process. There was no voter referendum that replaced commission maps with legislature-drawn maps, and no statewide vote “reversing” the commission system as described.
So the claim that the legislature asked voters to undo the commission and that 65% approved it doesn’t match California’s redistricting process or outcomes.
Virginia and “court changes to elections”
Virginia’s redistricting commission was created by a 2020 constitutional amendment approved by voters. After it passed, the commission deadlocked, which is exactly one of the weaknesses critics warned about. As a result, the Virginia Supreme Court appointed special masters to draw maps after litigation. That is very different from saying the court “changed the federal definition of an election” or that voters “lost” their will in some sweeping constitutional sense.
Also, SCOTUS did not issue a ruling redefining elections in Virginia or rejecting such an appeal in the way described. The process was largely state constitutional and procedural, not a federal overturning of election law.
“Only California and Virginia put it to voters”
This is incomplete. Several states have used voter referendums or ballot measures to establish or modify redistricting processes over time (for example Arizona and Michigan have also used voter-created commissions). It’s not accurate to frame California and Virginia as unique in that respect.
“Trump started this round of gerrymandering”
That statement is not a settled historical fact. Gerrymandering in the U.S. predates modern politics by centuries, and both parties have engaged in it whenever they controlled state legislatures during redistricting cycles. You can argue about intensity or modern escalation, but attributing a “round” of gerrymandering to a single political figure is more of a political interpretation than an established factual baseline.
Voting Rights Act / disenfranchisement claim
Saying Southern legislatures historically disenfranchised Black voters is historically accurate in a broad sense (Jim Crow era and beyond). But the original point being made was about modern redistricting, where federal courts and the Voting Rights Act significantly constrain racial gerrymandering. Today, maps that dilute minority voting strength are frequently litigated and often struck down. So it’s not correct to imply that modern legislatures have unchecked ability to disenfranchise voters through maps.
“One party does it orders of magnitude more”
That is a normative conclusion, not an empirical certainty. There are studies showing partisan advantage in different states and cycles shifting depending on which party controls map drawing. It’s more accurate to say both parties have used gerrymandering strategically when they can, even if the geographic distribution of voters makes outcomes uneven across states.* Again, facts matter - You are correct, California did not pass a law to “temporarily undo” its independent redistricting commission. - THE VOTERS DID. I hope you are aware you are trying to rewrite history. Here is the truth -
California did not abolish its independent redistricting commission. But in 2025, voters approved Proposition 50, a temporary constitutional change that replaced the commission’s congressional map with a Legislature-backed map for the rest of the decade. The commission still exists, but for congressional elections through 2030, its map was overridden.
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.Something wrong will never be right because someone else did it first. You know that. You're the one 'weaselling.'
I offered this 'straight answer' a couple of times now: No, I didn't like Texas' political redistricting. No, I don't think it's right, and no, I don't know if it was illegal or not. It's not important enough to me to search to find out.
Of course you can call Texas's actions political, I do. What about constitutional legality? Did you check? Was the Texas redistricting illegal or unconstitutional? Or was it simply a slimy political move?
I'm not sure where you landed on the State's Supreme Court description of the Constitution's requirements.
GATwo wrongs may not make a right, but in this case the second wrong reduced the damage done by the first wrong leading to a net positive outcome.
So, you're saying that compared to a 3rd-trimester quads-to-be mom, she's only a little bit pregnant?
Like Cred said, that second wrong wasn't really wrong because it was only necessary as a mitigation of the damage done by the first wrong, which really was a wrong because we didn't do it to them first before they did it to us that time before this time.
Or, more simply said, '... because my cause is more just.' Right?
GAYou still don't get it do you, why are you screwing up the message i passed on to you?
The first wrong created a condition of disadvantage and harm forcing a response to protect the one attacked. If you hit me with a billy club, how would you imagine that i would not use my billy club to hit you? Otherwise i give you or the Republicans license to throw away any commonly accepted rules of decorum, henceforth. And that i am unwilling to do. And, your presumption that the victim is only innocent because they did not assault first does not hold water. The Republicans assaulted first, not the Democrats and to assume that they would have given the opportunity is mere conjecture on your part. That assault must come with a penalty to discourage them away from this behavior in the future.Damn, I thought I got it. I tried restating to be sure I wasn't misunderstanding.
You're saying it's all the Republicans' fault. They cheated, but you can't get the courts to prove it. And it's not wrong for you to do the same 'cheating' you are accusing them of doing because you're only doing it to protect yourself from the harm caused to you by them doing it first.
I thought that's what you said, and I thought that's what I said that was what you said. Remember, you said it wasn't wrong for you because you were defending yourself from the same harm. Your cause was more just, so it wasn't wrong. But it was wrong for the Republicans; they were cheating, right?
GA“Supreme Court Findings: The Supreme Court concluded that the state's motivation for redistricting was driven by political advantage ("partisan advantage") rather than an illegal racial gerrymander, a practice the court has previously ruled is permissible”
So, i guess that if it is ok for Texas, it is ok for California and all the other blue states to follow suit, right? To the extent that we can, you can bet that that is what I am pushing for…. No reason for my side to volunteer to find itself in a disadvantaged position.
Whenever there is rottenness a foot, a Republican is not far. The Supreme court gave the conservatives the tools to allow this twisted gerrymandering for political and RACIAL control of state and federal representatives. They use it to disenfranchise much of the black vote in the south, so they finish the job by gutting the VRA.
So, yes, GA, Republicans are not my favorite people. I regret living in Florida where there simply too damn many of them.It looks like you ended right where I predicted. You charge cheating, but can't support it with proof. All you have are partisan rantings.
It seems there is common agreement among folk and the Courts that the Republican redistricting moves are sleazy political ones. Even you and I agree on that point.
It seems an equally common agreement that both parties do it. You and I also agree on that point.
What isn't a common agreement is that the Republicans cheated to do their deeds, and that the Democrats are simply innocents defending themselves.
Non-Democrat folks and the Courts agree that the Democrats did try to cheat in Virginia.
GA“It looks like you ended right where I predicted.”
So, aren’t you the “bright one”
Yes, the GOP moves are sleezy political ones, aren’t they always? But, we are not going to sit idly by to let them get away with it. Fight Fire With Fire!!!
Redistricting outside of the prescribed 10 year post census period just to give Trump a political advantage he does not deserve is SLEEZY. The Democrats have not done this and this is why this current crisis exists. It is silly to insist that this is all just “tit for tat”.
I am not going to consider giving YOUR people any advantage, let alone one obtained by cheating.
Virginia may well be a mistake, but this war is far from over……"So, aren’t you the “bright one”
Well, aren't you the snarky one ... And intentionally snide too!
Back up bud. That was unnecessary, undeserved, and rude. Telling you to kiss my ass would be equally rude, even if not equally snide, but telling you to 'Bite my butt' is okay.
So, Bite my butt. ♫Bite it, bite it big, Bite, bite, bite, Bite my BUUTTT ♫
Now. Moving on. All that before stuff was to find some common starting point to get to the question of who should make redistricting choices.
Obviously it didn't work, but is there any chance you have a thought on that, other than 'whatever it takes?
GATo so easily believe that you can anticipate my thoughts and inclinations is offensive in of itself. Didn’t mean to offend…..
Redistricting choices should be made by the states, with federal oversight Prohibiting any form of partisan gerrymandering by either party. An independent commission that is non-partisan is required to insure that. All must be based on reasonable geographic and population based assessments.Nope, I didn't anticipate your thoughts; I just anticipated the path it would take for you to run out of partisan narratives, like the 'They cheated!' one.
To the 'who should choose' question ... and shooting from the hip here, I think the answer has to involve some type of mathematical determinants. Proportional ranking? That sounds fair to me. *shrug*
GAIn my view, our history shows that gerrymandering is often tied to what many consider “reasonable geographic and population assessments” after a census is completed. Every 10 years, maps are reopened and districts are adjusted due to population shifts. That process naturally creates opportunities for political influence.
Historically, when the opportunity arises, both parties tend to take advantage of it if they control the redistricting process. That is why I have difficulty accepting the idea that modern gerrymandering is uniquely tied to one individual or one party alone. The practice itself is deeply rooted in American political history. In 2010, Republicans gerrymandered; in 2020, Democrats gerrymandered. Seems odd that now some are freaking out at this point in our long history of taking advantage of gerrymandering when the iron is hot.
I am also not sure how Trump can be blamed for simply pointing out that some states are politically and demographically “ripe” for redrawing maps. Recognizing where population shifts create redistricting opportunities is not the same thing as being responsible for how every state chooses to draw its lines.
It isn’t illegal, but the question is whether it is fair. There are strong arguments that, in many cases, it leads to unfair outcomes in how representation is shaped. However, there is currently no comprehensive federal law banning partisan gerrymandering, and reform efforts have largely taken place at the state level or through the courts rather than through Congress.
There is agreement that it can be unfair, but no agreement on a clear, enforceable legal standard that doesn’t create bigger problems or shift too much power to judges or commissions.Gerrymandering, by definition, is the manipulation of electoral district boundaries to give one political party or group an unfair advantage.
What is supposed to have at the end of each census is the redrawing of districts that is necessitated by the change in population of the state. Rarely does a state pick up or shed a representative. Beyond that, there should be no redistricting.
That said, and to your point, after each census many states redraw district lines in ways that protect those already in power. In modern America, conservative-controlled states have been especially aggressive in using racial and partisan gerrymandering to entrench conservative power, even where the electorate is much more closely divided.
Non-conservative states, however, are not automatically innocent, and gerrymandering can happen wherever politicians are allowed to choose their voters. But some states, often, but not always, liberal-controlled ones, have moved in the other direction by creating independent or nonpartisan redistricting commissions to reduce direct political control over the map-drawing process.
That is the real contrast: one side of the debate is trying to make districts more representative, while the other keeps defending maps that let politicians lock in power even when voters are closely divided.I think we’re actually closer on the basic definition of gerrymandering than it might seem. Yes, it is generally understood as drawing districts to gain a political advantage. But where it gets more complicated in practice is that after each census, states are required to redraw districts to reflect population shifts, and that process almost always includes political decision-making unless it is fully handed to an independent commission.
So the disagreement isn’t really over whether gerrymandering exists; it clearly does, but over how to fairly describe its scope and who is uniquely responsible for it.
It’s also worth separating three things that often get blended together:
Legal redistricting (required after the census)
Partisan line-drawing within legal bounds (common in most states historically, under both parties)
Extreme gerrymandering cases that courts have struck down (which have happened in states controlled by both Republicans and Democrats)
Both parties have used the process when they control state legislatures. There are well-documented examples of heavily Republican-drawn maps and heavily Democratic-drawn maps being challenged in court over the years.
Where I think your reply goes a bit beyond the evidence is in assigning a single directional pattern (“one side is doing X while the other is reforming it”). The reality is more mixed: some Republican-controlled states have drawn aggressive maps, but so have some Democratic-controlled states, and both sides also have states that moved toward independent commissions for different reasons.
And on Trump specifically, pointing out that states are “ripe” for redistricting isn’t itself gerrymandering. That’s just acknowledging the political opportunity created by population shifts and state control of the process. The actual maps are drawn by state legislatures or commissions, not the president.
So I think the strongest, most accurate framing is:
Gerrymandering is a long-standing feature of U.S. politics used by both parties when they control the process.
The severity and fairness vary widely by state.
Reform efforts (like independent commissions) exist, but they are not uniformly adopted.
Blaming one side exclusively oversimplifies a process that is structurally incentivized in multiple states regardless of party.
That’s where I see the real disagreement, not in whether the practice exists, but in how selectively it’s being described.It seems to me this is still there are "some good people on both sides deflection."
It is a simple, provable (as I have previously done) fact, that conservatives have abused the gerrymandering process overwhelmingly (ChatGPT prefers that term, I like order of magnitude) more than liberals have throughout American history.
Saying "both sides do it" is just deflection and denial that this is a favorite tool of conservatives - especially in trying to deny Blacks the right to vote.
Also, you seem to be saying things that simply aren't true in trying to prove your point. For example, your second to last paragraph says "Blaming one side exclusively" That is just false, especially when I and the others have gone to great pains to say it is not exclusive. But that apparently doesn't stop either you or Wilderness from framing it the opposite of what was really said.It has been true for a few decades now that Reps have used gerrymandering more than Dems. But there is a reason for this anomaly.
Both parties have used gerrymandering whenever they’ve had the power to draw maps; there’s nothing that uniquely “stopped” Dems from doing it. The difference in recent decades comes down to a mix of structure, geography, and state control, not one side refusing to use the tool.
After the 2010 census, Reps gained control of a large number of state legislatures at once, which allowed them to draw more congressional maps nationwide during that cycle. That timing mattered. At the same time, Dems are heavily concentrated in urban areas, which naturally leads to more “packed” Democratic districts even without aggressive manipulation. The opportunity did not favor Dems, where it did Reps.
In addition, several Democratic-leaning states moved toward independent redistricting commissions or court-drawn maps, which reduced partisan control over the process in those states. So in some cases, Democrats literally had less ability to redraw maps even when politically dominant at the state level. They gerrymander when they can see the opportunity is ripe.
The key point is this: gerrymandering is a bipartisan practice tied to who controls state governments during each redistricting cycle. Studies generally show both parties do it, but the effects vary based on geography, timing, and state rules, not because one party refrains from using the tool while the other does.
Note -- "So I think the strongest, most accurate framing is:" I was sharing what I think --- a view.And I am trying to present the facts, not my view. Again, if you are talking about more than a few decades into history, using party labels becomes meaningless. That is why I talk political ideology, Conservative vs non-Conservative/Liberal broadly speaking.
In that vein, I had ChatGPT go into deep research mode and do an analysis for me. I used Lester Maddox and John C. Calhoun to define what I mean by Conservative and Gavin Newsom and Abraham Lincoln as what I mean by non-Conservative.
It found nine major studies to help its analysis.. The conclusion was that from 1861 - 2026:
1. For all gerrymandering reasons, the Conservative share was between 75% - 90% and the non-Conservative was 10% - 25%
2. If you limit the question to racial gerrymandering, then the percentages change to Conservative - 90% - 98% and non-Conservative 2% -10%
For Full Discloser, the study did find a period where, with low confidence, it found your "both sides did it" view to be true, and that was from 1800 - 1860.
So, I will restate again that factually, Conservatives are responsible for vast majority of partisan/racial gerrymandering and virtually all of the racial gerrymandering that is going on today.
If you world like the report, just ask. (Credence, do you want a copy?)Yes, it is good to have this information documented from reliable sources as conservative are apt to befuddle things rather than own up to it. We have our own portals….
Having your own portals sounds like having your own facts.
Declaring ChatGPT summary results—derived from user-defined judgment parameters —as "facts" sounds like creating your own portal of 'alternate facts' to me. It's no wonder you think having one of your own is a good thing.
GAGA, I have nothing to hide, you dissed ESO’s work in a comment not long ago. I am reading much of it with great interest. We don’t want to bore you conservative types with information not directly associated with the topic. i have a few European portals where “off topic” subjects are discussed and mulled through.
But, I say to ESO, if he asked for it, let him have it.You mean I misunderstood your "portal" reference? Your mention of European portals and "off-topic" subject matter makes it look that way.
What did you mean? Perspective presentation, like BlueSky vs X? (that is the same as my first response, aka "alternate facts")
As for "dissing" Myesoteric's "work," disagreeing is a better word. His "work" is usually obvious.
GAWhen i speak of portals, it is much more simple, e-mail correspondence.
Got it. Email. You're simply talking about different sources. Does that make the 'assumption' of my original reply wrong?
Even so, your inference is still for different interpretations (i.e. the battle between the two ChatGPT offerings, European interpretations of a set of 'facts', et al.)
Your 'portal's' interpretation of facts vs. a 'conservative's' source sounds like an "alternate facts" description.
GAHaving your own portals sounds like having your own facts.
Declaring ChatGPT summary results—derived from user-defined judgment parameters —as "facts" sounds like creating your own portal of 'alternate facts' to me. It's no wonder you think having one of your own is a good thing.
There is no crime, GA, from seeking opinions regarding current events from a variety of sources. So called “facts” turn out to be more “opinion” than otherwise. Europeans have interesting perspectives as to what is actually happening here. I enjoy the interchange as we agree much more often than we disagree.In my experience with AI, which is becoming a lot, it is the word interpretation that deserves the quotes.
I have found that at least ChatGPT and Grok don't "interpret" anything - they just present the facts they found based on the question and how deep you ask it to research.
For example, when I was asking about liberal vs conservative gerrymandering it kept wanting to give me the answer in terms of party labels while noting the underlying ideologies change over time. I found I had to define what I meant by each term first to get to what I want since it refused to "interpret" for me beyond defining conservative as someone who wants to conserve the social hierarchy.
Since AI is basically a fact-finding and pattern-matching machine I told it to consider people like Gavin Newsome and Abraham Lincoln as examples of liberalism and Lester Maddox and John C. Calhoun as examples of conservativism. Only then did I get the factual answer to my question of who gerrymandered more, liberals or conservatives.The "interpretation" point is a fair one. I should have been clearer that the interpretation mentioned was about the prompts, not the presentation of their results.
In your example, subjective descriptions were used as defined parameters. The prompt was edited to produce the results you were looking for. That's not a bad thing—as you described the reason for the refinements, but it does shut the door on your claim of "factual."
Your results could be described as data-supported, or data-driven, but they are not factual when a simple prompt tweak could change the results. Look at the possible 'what-ifs': what if ideology and party were defined differently (as Sharlee did), or what if you gave different names as calibrators for "liberal" and "conservative," etc., etc., etc.
My impression of Grok is similar to yours, but I don't like ChatGPT and use Co-Pilot instead.
GAWhat are the results you think I was looking for and how did my definition drive it to a certain answer?
That's a trick question. Are you assuming I didn't believe you when you described what you were looking for?
GAIt is a fair question. You made a claim, I am asking you to back it up.
My argument was with your claim that your subjectively-defined ChatGPT query results equate to factual certainty.
GA
Credence, we can't help it if GA doesn't understand how AI works. I presume if he has problems with using an unemotional, unbiased tool like ChatGPT, then he also has issues with encyclopedias, Google searches, dictionary's and the like.
You do a lot of presuming. Wrongly so most of the time. For instance, I love looking at the pictures in encyclopedias. And I use Google search all the time to tell me what some of your fancy words mean.
GA ;-)LOL "Unbiased"?!?! ChatGPT is about as "unbiased" as you are!
Then you probably need to study up on it so you can learn the truth.
The AI allows is aid and not a replacement for independent thought. I can never remember every bit of pertinent information to support or refute an argument during a debate.
When i make my inquiries, i have not been presented with biased comments or replies when I use the AI.
From your Bible --- ChatGpt The simple, direct question. " I need stats, which party, Democrat or Republican, has used gerrymandering more?"
Reply - "If you are asking which party has historically gained the largest measurable advantage from gerrymandering across U.S. history, the evidence points to this:
Democrats benefited more for much of the 20th century, especially when they dominated Southern state legislatures from roughly the 1930s through the early 1990s.
Republicans have benefited more since the mid-1990s, and especially after 2010.
The difficulty is that there is no official lifetime “scoreboard” counting every gerrymander since 1812. Historians and political scientists instead study different eras.
One of the best long-term academic studies, by political scientist Bernard Tamas, examined House elections from 1900–2016 and found:
earlier periods often showed a pro-Democratic bias, sometimes severe,
while the modern era shows a strong pro-Republican bias.
Another study of the late 1800s found that whichever party controlled redistricting used it aggressively, with no moral distinction between parties.
For the modern era, nearly every major analysis agrees Republicans built the more effective national gerrymandering operation after the 2010 census through the REDMAP strategy. Studies estimate Republicans gained a substantial structural House advantage from those maps.
So if you want the most historically accurate concise answer:
Before the 1990s: Democrats likely benefited more overall because they controlled far more state legislatures for decades.
From roughly 1994 to today: Republicans have generally used gerrymandering more effectively and gained the larger national advantage." ChatGPT
Yes. Historically, both major parties have used gerrymandering when they had the political power and legal ability to do so. The strongest predictor has usually not been ideology, but control of:
state legislatures,
governorships,
and the redistricting process after the census.
So, very easy to understand and fact-check—anytime either party saw clear sailing to use gerrymandering, they set sail...And you started out with a very biased position - Democrat vs Republican. Apparently, you don't want to understand, even though it has been patiently explained, that those are meaningless terms once your timeline goes beyond 40 years.
Consequently, whatever ChatGPT comes up with is not relevant because you gave it the wrong baseline to start with.I have no bias at all. In every comment I’ve made about gerrymandering, I’ve stated that both Republicans and Democrats have taken advantage of it whenever the opportunity arose, and I explained that in detail.
My question was very simple, and simplicity will yield the best results when asking a question about AI. No fluff, just straight up simple.
You are introducing your bias to create an illogical narrative. I mean, now you are questioning AI... Oh well, AI is your friend when it suits your thoughts.
"Yes. Historically, both major parties have used gerrymandering when they had the political power and legal ability to do so. The strongest predictor has usually not been ideology, but control of:
state legislatures,
governorships,
and the redistricting process after the census.
"
I think you just said that the people who gerrymander are the people who have the power to gerrymander and they are not ideological.
In any case, it seems to me your framing seems to avoid the actual issue.
Of course gerrymandering is done by whoever controls the legislature, governorship, and redistricting process. That is, however, not really an explanation; it is the mechanism. The question is what ideological forces controlled those institutions and how they used that power.That comment was all ChatGPT
I will let you take your argument to ChatGPT. You really loved it for a while, until it no longer seemed to suit your narrative.You are trying to turn a power issue into an ideology issue, and that is exactly the point I was making.
Gerrymandering has historically been less about some unique moral philosophy and more about whichever party had the ability to protect and expand its power. Democrats did it for decades when they dominated state governments across the South, and Republicans refined it nationally after 2010 when they gained widespread state control.
Of course ideology influences how parties justify what they do, but the historical pattern is pretty clear: when either party controls legislatures, governorships, and map drawing, they tend to use every legal advantage available.
That is not “avoiding the issue.” That is the issue.
Now, if you ask a more time independent question - " I need stats, which party, Liberal or Conservative, has used gerrymandering more?" you get this answer:
All gerrymandering / district manipulation from roughly Reconstruction forward:
Conservative: about 70–85%
Liberal/non-conservative: about 15–30%
Racial or hierarchy-preserving gerrymandering specifically:
Conservative: about 85–95%+
Liberal/non-conservative: about 5–15%
Why? Because party labels changed. The Solid South was Democratic by party label, but its ideology was conservative, segregationist, white-supremacist, states-rights, and anti-Reconstruction.
Southern Democrats used (AND STILL DO) disfranchisement and related electoral structures to suppress Black political power and maintain one-party rule for much of the 20th century.
That is why Sharlee’s “Democrat or Republican” framing is misleading. If she counts old Southern segregationist Democrats as “liberal” just because they were Democrats, she is not measuring ideology. She is measuring party labels while ignoring the ideological realignment. The Southern strategy later helped move many white conservative Southern voters into the Republican coalition, which is exactly why modern party labels do not map cleanly onto the older history.
For the modern period, the answer by party and ideology mostly converge: Republicans/conservatives have generally gained more. Brennan Center research on the 2010s found a 16–17 seat Republican advantage from extreme maps, and recent simulation work finds a remaining pro-Republican structural bias, though 2020-cycle Democratic gerrymanders offset some Republican advantages nationally.Oh my God! Your logic is so very skewed.
"Now, if you ask a more time independent question - " I need stats, which party, Liberal or Conservative, has used gerrymandering more?" you get this answer" ESO This statement makes no sense.
Your question does not really make sense as written because “liberals” and “conservatives” are ideological categories, not political parties.
Gerrymandering is done by parties that control state legislatures and the redistricting process. Historically, both Democrats and Republicans have used it when they had the power to do so.
If you are asking which ideology benefited more at different times in history, that changes by era. Earlier in the 20th century, Democratic political machines benefited heavily. In the modern era, Republicans have generally built the more effective national gerrymandering operation.So you are trying to claim that political parties do not represent and try to push an ideology??
That is like saying churches have no theology because the building, pulpit, and microphone are just institutional tools.
"All gerrymandering / district manipulation from roughly Reconstruction forward:
Conservative: about 70–85%
Liberal/non-conservative: about 15–30%
Racial or hierarchy-preserving gerrymandering specifically:
Conservative: about 85–95%+
Liberal/non-conservative: about 5–15%" ESO
These stats are not sourced. I asked ChatGPT ---- Here is a quote -- is it factual? If so, where can I find a source from which they originated?
" All gerrymandering / district manipulation from roughly Reconstruction forward:
Conservative: about 70–85%
Liberal/non-conservative: about 15–30%
Racial or hierarchy-preserving gerrymandering specifically:
Conservative: about 85–95%+
Liberal/non-conservative: about 5–15% " End of quote
No, that quote is not factual in the sense of being a recognized statistical finding from political science or historical scholarship.
I can say fairly confidently that those percentages are not standard academic numbers, and they almost certainly did not originate from a reputable study in the form presented.
Here is why:
There is no known national database that measures:
“all gerrymandering since Reconstruction,”
sorted into “conservative” versus “liberal,”
and then converted into percentage ownership of the practice.
That methodology would be extraordinarily difficult because:
party ideologies shifted dramatically over 150+ years,
Southern Democrats during Jim Crow were often socially conservative,
party coalitions realigned multiple times,
and “conservative” is not a stable historical category across eras.
The second claim is even more problematic:
“Racial or hierarchy-preserving gerrymandering specifically: Conservative 85–95%+”
That sounds ideological rather than statistical. Scholars absolutely discuss racial gerrymandering, vote dilution, and white-majority power preservation, but they do not normally quantify it this way.
A legitimate academic statement would sound more like:
“Most racial gerrymandering cases during the Jim Crow era occurred in Southern states controlled by segregationist Democrats,”
or
“Modern racial vote dilution lawsuits have disproportionately involved Republican-controlled legislatures.”
But assigning:
“85–95% conservative”
without a cited dataset is a major red flag.
Most likely origins of the quote:
AI-generated synthesis or extrapolation,
activist commentary,
unsourced social media rhetoric,
or someone informally estimating based on historical interpretation.
You can usually tell because:
the ranges are vague,
the categories are undefined,
no dates or methodology are attached,
and no scholar or institution is cited.
If the person presenting this quote cannot provide:
an author,
a study,
a journal,
or a methodology,
then it should not be treated as a factual statistical claim.
A reasonable response would be:
“Those percentages do not appear to come from any recognized historical or political science dataset. They read more like ideological estimates than documented statistics. If they are factual, there should be a traceable study, methodology, and source attached to them.” ChatGPT
So, where did you come by these stats?I suggested you ask to get the references ChatGPT used.
Now you have:
Core historical / long-run sources
Erik J. Engstrom, Partisan Gerrymandering and the Construction of American Democracy
Useful for the long nineteenth-century history of partisan gerrymandering and how map manipulation affected House control.
Travis Crum, “The Riddle of Race-Based Redistricting”
Important for Reconstruction-era racial redistricting. The key point we used: Republican Southern states during Reconstruction often empowered Black voters, while Democratic Southern states often packed and cracked them — but under your ideological definitions, those white-supremacist Southern Democrats count as conservative.
Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339 (1960)
The classic racial-boundary case: Alabama redrew Tuskegee’s city boundaries in a way that disenfranchised Black voters, and the Supreme Court held that violated the Fifteenth Amendment.
Reynolds v. Sims / Baker v. Carr / Wesberry v. Sanders line of cases
These were used for the “malapportionment / rural overrepresentation” part of the analysis, where conservative rural power was protected by unequal representation before the one-person-one-vote revolution.
Modern quantitative / empirical sources
Brennan Center, Extreme Maps
Used for the post-2010 Republican advantage estimate. Brennan’s analysis found a large Republican structural advantage from the 2010s maps, roughly in the 16–17 seat range.
Brennan Center, How Gerrymandering Tilts the 2024 Race for the House
Used for the more recent estimate that skewed maps still gave Republicans a significant national advantage.
Christopher Kenny, Cory McCartan, Tyler Simko, Shiro Kuriwaki, and Kosuke Imai, “Widespread Partisan Gerrymandering Mostly Cancels Nationally, but Reduces Electoral Competition”
This study is important because it complicates the story: it finds widespread gerrymandering by both parties in the 2020 cycle, with much of the bias canceling nationally, but still reducing competition and responsiveness.
Jasny, Kenny, McCartan, Simko, Wu, Zhao, Arora, Ebowe, O’Sullivan, Samarth, and Imai, “Gerrymandering and geographic polarization have reduced electoral competition”
This newer work separates geography from gerrymandering and finds that the pro-Republican bias declined from about 16 seats to about 10 seats, while competition declined sharply.
Chen & Cottrell, “Evaluating partisan gains from Congressional gerrymandering”
Used as a counterweight because it found a much smaller net national gerrymandering effect under its simulation baseline, which is why I gave ranges rather than a single precise number.
Buzas & Warrington, “Gerrymandering and the net number of US House seats won due to vote-distribution asymmetries”
Useful for the broad party-label point: it found significant pro-Democratic bias before the mid-1990s and significant pro-Republican bias after that, including large Republican advantages in 2012, 2014, and 2016.
Legal / modern case sources
Rucho v. Common Cause
Important because the Court held federal courts could not adjudicate partisan-gerrymandering claims, which changed the legal landscape.
Cooper v. Harris
Used as a modern racial-gerrymandering example involving North Carolina.
Allen v. Milligan
Used as a modern Voting Rights Act / Black vote dilution example involving Alabama.
Harkenrider v. Hochul
Used as a clear modern liberal/Democratic example: New York’s court struck down the Democratic congressional map as an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.
General synthesis sources
Brookings, “The Gerrymander Myth”
Useful as a counterpoint because it argues the national House map in some recent cycles looked more balanced than the most alarmed anti-gerrymandering narratives suggest.
Brennan Center, “Who Controlled Redistricting in Every State” / “Who Draws the Maps?”
Used for institutional-control context: which party or commission controlled mapmaking in each state.
The sources most central to my actual percentage estimates were Engstrom, Crum, Gomillion/one-person-one-vote cases, Brennan Center’s modern seat-bias work, Imai/Kenny/McCartan simulation work, Chen & Cottrell, and Buzas & Warrington.
So, what are your sources that say political parties aren't ideologically driven?
This, Sharlee, is what makes what the Republicans are currently doing unprecedented
The latest round of Republican gerrymandering is historically unusual because it aggressively utilized mid-decade redistricting. Traditionally, district lines are redrawn only once every ten years following the census.
However, this cycle featured a coordinated national blitz to rewrite maps outside the normal cycle specifically to shift the balance of power.This latest push deviated from standard redistricting practices through several key strategic maneuvers:
Breaking the Ten-Year Cycle: Orchestrated by President Trump, Republican-controlled states like Texas actively reopened and redrawn their maps mid-decade. The specific goal was to artificially pad congressional majorities and protect incumbents outside the standard post-census timeline.
——-
Perhaps, if the GOP actually followed the rules of decorum in this process, we wouldn’t be in this crisis. We Dems and libs say “we did not start the fire”, but entire system may well burn down because of it.This, Sharlee, is what makes what the Republicans are currently doing unprecedented" Cred
Mid-decade redistricting and aggressive gerrymandering did not begin with current Republicans, nor has either party consistently opposed it when politically beneficial.
There were multiple examples before the current cycle where Democrats supported or benefited from reopening maps, redrawing districts after legal or political shifts, or pushing highly partisan maps outside the spirit of a neutral once-per-decade process.
Examples include:
• 1991–1994: States such as California and New Jersey saw map disputes, revisions, and court-driven redraw efforts tied to partisan control battles involving Democrats.
• 2001–2002 Georgia: Democrats controlled the legislature and drew highly partisan congressional maps specifically designed to slow growing Republican gains in the state.
• 2011 Maryland: Democrats redrew congressional districts in a way widely criticized as one of the most aggressive partisan gerrymanders in the country.
• Post-2020 New York: Democrats attempted to implement an aggressively pro-Democrat congressional map that courts later rejected.
• Post-2020 Illinois: Democrats drew congressional maps so heavily tilted that Republicans won a substantial share of the statewide vote while securing only a very small percentage of congressional seats.
So the argument should not be that only Republicans are abusing the process today. The reality is that both parties have repeatedly pushed the boundaries of redistricting whenever they controlled the power to do it. Republicans are not operating in some historical vacuum here, and Democrats were not defenders of “decorum” when partisan advantages benefited them.
My point, and I feel it is a fair and unbiased one, is that both parties have used gerrymandering whenever the opportunity presented itself. I’m not sure why Democrats are suddenly acting as though this is something new. Gerrymandering has existed for decades, and regardless of how anyone feels about it, both Republicans and Democrats have utilized it when they had the power to do so.
I think it is more intelligent to look at the full history and facts rather than ignore them or point the finger exclusively at one party. That comes across as hypocritical. I’m not even arguing for or against gerrymandering itself , I’m simply pointing out that both parties repeatedly engage in it whenever the political opportunity is there.
You are finally understanding, it seems. Yes, the "cause" to mitigate rigging elections is definitely more just. than the rigging.
BTW, why did you have to add this non-sequitur - "because we didn't do it to them first before they did it to us that time before this time.". Where did THAT come from besides left field?"Where did THAT come from besides left field?"
It came from Cred and the discussion about the origins of Gerrymandering. Cred answered that no matter who history says did it first (Gov. Gerry), it was the Republicans who always did it first, forcing the innocent Democrats to respond defensively. It's the only way he can claim the high road: 'our cheating isn't cheating because they cheated first.
Backtrack us on that point and you'll see the "Left field" that "non-sequitur" came from.
It's the same logic you just used in affirming that 'I finally got it:' Your cheating isn't cheating because your cause (to stop the rigging) is more just, Right?
[EDIT ADDED]
*Your "non sequitur" jab caused me to pause. I try to stay on point, so ... I considered it and had to return.
Nope, it was not 'one of them things.' Using the convoluted text trail that you responded to as an illustration of Cred's rationalizations that the acts he condemns are righteous when he does them is certainly related to the discussion.
That 'convolution' was the point. Does non sequitur mean something different to you? (you just really wanted to stump me with a fancy word, right?) ;-)
GAI really, and I bet Credence doesn't either, don't care who gerrymandered first in American history. What is relevant is that this whole series of events originated with Trump and his desire to rig the election.
The other thing that I care about is who abuses the gerrymander more - and empirically, that is, by an order of magnitude, conservatives in their drive to suppress black votes. That was true in the 1870s, that was true in the 1920s, and it is true in 2026.You and Cred don't care about the truth?
It's surprising to see you leave such an open door. But here's the deal: you know where that statement comes from and that it's a legit derivative of what you did say ... but I ain't sayin' it.
With that door closed, I say you're right. You guys don't care who started the practice, and neither do I. You guys say Trump started the whole thing this time, and I agree.
But, it's all politics and it all stinks. My points have all been about the hypocrisy of defending the Dems efforts in both states.
In this tangent, the Virginia example, there are definable facts that can be judged. They were. The Dems did try to cheat. The 'why' doesn't vindicate them. That's reality. You don't get a 'But they made me do it ...' defense.
The question to Cred was: with the controversies in CA and VA in mind, should the party always have control (aka Cred's 'whatever it takes' mantra) over redistricting to maximize party control?
Is the concept of an independent commission possible?
GA“But, it's all politics and it all stinks. My points have all been about the hypocrisy of defending the Dems efforts in both states.”
And what were the Dems supposed to do to defend against GOP rigging the game in their favor? I would have done what these states have done. The fact that you don’t see that still escapes me. The Dems were defensive in their action, the Republicans are responsible and were the offending party, throwing the first punch. And, YES, the “why” vindicates them.
The idea of independent commission has to be more than possible, it is necessary to prevent the very idea of casting a vote becoming of no value.
But, it goes without saying that Conservatives would the first to resist this as fairness is going to deprive them of an unmerited advantage.
“No more water, fire next time”
James BaldwinBut, but, but ... The Force is strong in you ...
Geez buddy, "what were the Dems supposed to do?
Really, how about following the law, like the Republicans did? How about doing that? They didn't connive to cheat; you guys did.
And your reasoning, your logic, is that your actions weren't cheating because you said so—it was the only way you could win.
More pure gold ... which party was it that sidelined their "independent" commissions? Which party used an attempted constitutional amendment to replace a map?
GA
But someone deliberately cheating needs to expect and receive reprisal from the side that has been offended. And if you did not want any trouble, you should have not done it first. Now, fire has to be fought with fire, no water this time. While you think that it is unimportant, i believe that it is critical to this entire gerrymandering mess across the nation. “My tribe”, is not going to sit by idly while they are being disenfranchised across the South.
“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 correct answer was that Trump and the Republicans wanted to obtain an unfair advantage in the upcoming midterms and the deplorable state of Texas was more than happy to cheat using its corrupt Republican legislature to ram through these changes across the state without popular consent. Republicans are fearful and desperate animals who devoid of all principle will do anything to win. Texas’s “urgency” had the foundation of cheating and dishonesty. Texas’s actions may well be considered legal because of the right wing Supreme court’s shortsightedness allowing partisan gerrymandering in the first place. Because of the temerity of the Texas outlaws, everyone’s fair representation at the point of the ballot box and beyond is now in question.Damn right they do. And you can prove they cheated, right? You got more than just partisan whimpering, don't you? Show the nation.
Nope, you don't. But the Virginia Supreme Court did. You affirmed and quoted part of it yourself.
GA
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.No, it strongly appears (as in all sources checked) that the politicians formulated, promoted, and proposed the ballot Proposition. The people simply approved the Proposition. The proposition stripped the commission of any powers it had. The commission didn't allow, or disallow, anything. It was a bystander to a political process.
So yes, the commission was bypassed. The actual text of the proposition says so with words like; not withstanding, and overriding, and temporary ... Take a look. It's easy to find and will help you know what you're talking about.
Regarding Virginia, you're still talking politics when their issue was textually clearly a constitutional issue.
GASo? The people could have also chosen to disapprove the Proposition. What is your point. The people decided and those politician ultimately work for me, and are not powers unto themselves….
'Yeah, so, what's your point!'
A mortal wound. How can I possibly retort to a master stroke like that? 'Yeah, I know you are, but what am I? Yeah, I know you are, but what am I? I'm rubber and you're glue, bounces off me and sticks to you ... ROFLMAO ;-)
Sure, technically, the voters could have rejected the Proposition. Does that change the truth of the claim that the Proposition was the politicians' baby, from conception to birth?
The 'citizen' voter only determined if that birth happened. Let this one go, it's not worth the effort.
GA
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.I fail to understand why conservatives consistently equivocate about these sort of issues? Yes, in the 19th century and early 20th the Democrats were the “conservative” party, denying civil rights. But, over the last 70 years those roles have changed, now the Republicans are the ogres and have earned the title.
Talking about historical political structures is more mumbo-jumbo, Sharlee. When the Democratic Party embraced civil rights on the national level, how many southern representatives turned Republicans, in reaction? Rest assured, my eyes have wide open and is well aware of the transition, much of it under Nixon’s corrupt bargain. LBJ even said that the Democrats were pushing conservative whites into the GOP column, based on its national civil rights planks. I did not fall from a turnip truck, Sharlee, I am well aware of these things. I consider that to be documented and honest history, regardless of the conservatives attempt to falsely reinterpret things.
Where we disagree is that racism is at the root of much of America’s problems and it has nothing to do with any attempt to divert from that being otherwise. As far as this society is concerned, there has always been a lot to atone for, and happy talk is not good enough.
that is what I believe.
Special help has nothing to do with why southern states are attempting to disenfranchise blacks and silence them politically. You insist on taking their boots away from their boot straps? It is the same trick “the man” has always pulled, he just now has political cover to get away with what has always done when the law allowed for it.
I am 180 degrees opposed to your assessment, i can say that directly as member of a significant minority group.I hear what you’re saying, and I don’t think anyone is disputing that racism has existed in America or that it caused real harm, especially in the Jim Crow South. Where I think we’re still talking past each other is in how we interpret responsibility across time and political identity.
My point isn’t that the Democratic Party today is the same as it was in the 1800s or early 1900s. It clearly isn’t. My point is that when we analyze historical systems like convict leasing or Jim Crow laws, it’s important to be accurate about who controlled those state governments at the time and how those political structures actually functioned. That isn’t “mumbo-jumbo,” it’s context.
I also don’t agree that recognizing that shift is an attempt to “divert” from racism. It’s actually the opposite, I think accuracy matters if we’re going to have serious conversations about how we got here and how things changed over time, including the realignment that happened in the mid-20th century.
Where I part ways with your framing is the idea that current political disagreement can be reduced so heavily to one side inherently perpetuating oppression while the other is inherently corrective. I think that flattens a much more complex reality, and it risks turning every policy disagreement into a moral absolute rather than a debate about outcomes and effectiveness.
And I also don’t see disagreement with certain modern policy approaches as denying history. For me, it’s about whether today’s messaging and policy direction actually build long-term strength and confidence across communities, or whether it unintentionally reinforces division by keeping people locked into historical grievance as their primary identity.
We may not agree, but I do think honest discussion requires separating historical fact, modern party identity, and present-day policy debates rather than blending them into one continuous moral category.
Conservatism in America; The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly"
For most of the history of “conservatism” the bad and the ugly applies more often than not.
What kind of civilization would submit people to the kind of treatment that you mention here? I find such people and their species almost incorrigible even when they say otherwise.
Another FUN FACT -
To the great embarrassment of the nation, conservatives were successful in preventing an anti-lynching law until 2022, when Congress passed and President Biden signed the Emmett Till Antilynching Act (Public Law 117-107), which makes lynching a federal hate crime by amending the federal hate-crime statute.
So far as I know, conservatives have not YET tried to repeal that law.It is accurate that the Emmett Till Antilynching Act was signed into law by President Joe Biden in 2022. It was passed by the United States Congress and for the first time made lynching a federal hate crime by explicitly classifying it under federal hate-crime law.
However, the framing that “conservatives were successful in preventing an anti-lynching law until 2022” is not really a precise or fair historical explanation.
The reality is more complicated: Anti-lynching legislation was introduced repeatedly for decades and failed for many reasons across different eras of U.S. politics. Early failures (20th century) are largely tied to Southern Democrats at the time, not modern conservative parties as they exist today.
In the modern period, there was broad bipartisan support for the 2022 law.
The Emmett Till Antilynching Act ultimately passed very easily with broad bipartisan support. Earlier versions of anti-lynching legislation had failed over many decades for a variety of reasons, but the 2022 version was revised to address concerns, including how the crime was defined and punished. After those changes, the Senate passed it by unanimous consent, meaning no senator objected at the final stage, and the House passed it with an overwhelming bipartisan vote, with only a small number of opposing votes. President Biden signed it into law in March 2022.
So the takeaway is that once the bill reached its final negotiated form, it did not face meaningful partisan resistance and moved through Congress very smoothly. The difficulty was not at the final stage in 2022, but rather in the many decades of earlier failed attempts and disagreements over wording and scope.After those changes, the Senate passed it by unanimous consent, meaning no senator objected at the final stage, and the House passed it with an overwhelming bipartisan vote, with only a small number of opposing votes. President Biden signed it into law in March 2022.
I have to wonder who could oppose such a bill? The small number was a small number too many. I would have thought it was unanimous. I would have to ask why and what was their reasoning?Historically, anti-lynching laws were blocked for generations by Southern Democrats during the Jim Crow era through filibusters and opposition to federal civil rights protections.
More recently, Senator Rand Paul only temporarily held up an earlier version of the bill in 2020. His stated concern was that the language was too broad and could classify lesser assaults as “lynching,” which he argued would weaken the seriousness of the term. After revisions were made requiring serious bodily injury or death, the bill passed the Senate unanimously.
In the House, Representatives Andrew Clyde, Thomas Massie, and Chip Roy voted against the final bill. Their objections generally centered on concerns that murder and hate crimes were already illegal under existing federal law, that the legislation was largely symbolic, and that expanding federal hate-crime laws could lead to federal overreach or civil-liberty concerns.
To share my view, I disagree with their arguments.
I guess that we have made progress, as I like to think that lynching has been codified as criminal. Not so?
I liked this explanation for conservatism as defined in a recent Atlantic article.
“A return to the petty apartheid of Jim Crow segregation is unlikely—modern conservatism seeks the illusion of meritocracy in a rigged system, and de jure segregation would ruin the illusion. What we are unquestionably seeing, however, is an evolution of Jim Crow–era disenfranchisement, the purpose of which is to shape the electorate into one where inequalities of wealth, race, and gender can be maintained with a veneer of democratic consent.”
Our communities retribution for the ill advised Southern Redistricting and Disenfranchisement scheme is well on the way. I don’t follow sporting activities much, but I offer every support than i can.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/naa … 56173.html
If Ebola gets here, with Trump in charge God help us. He is already responsible for hundreds of thousands of extra COVID deaths (according to those who worked for him and peer-reviewed studies). Now he will get a second bite at the apple with Ebola.
"Global scramble to contain new Ebola outbreak as US looks to relocate ‘small number’ of citizens affected."
https://www.cnn.com/2026/05/18/africa/e … s-intl-hnkOnce again, a CNN article with a headline meant to mislead and grab the attention of those who don't move beyond a headline.
There’s a lot of confusion in how this Ebola story is being framed. What’s actually happening is that there is an Ebola outbreak in parts of Central Africa, mainly the DRC and Uganda, and global health agencies like the WHO and CDC are working to contain it. That part is real and serious, but it’s not new for Ebola outbreaks to be handled regionally with international support.
The line about the U.S. “relocating a small number of citizens affected” is being misunderstood. It refers to a very small group of Americans, mostly aid workers or people already in the outbreak region, who may have been exposed and are being monitored or medically evacuated under strict CDC protocols. It does not mean Ebola is spreading in the United States or entering through migration.
Ebola doesn’t spread through general travel or immigration. It requires direct contact with bodily fluids from someone who is already symptomatic, which makes undetected spread across borders extremely unlikely. That’s why the CDC still considers the risk to the U.S. public to be low.
A lot of the political framing being attached to this story is more interpretation than fact. The situation is about outbreak containment abroad and careful medical monitoring of a few individuals—not a domestic crisis or a mass importation of disease.
Some headlines can also be easy to misread, because they combine the outbreak overseas with U.S. evacuation procedures for a very small number of exposed Americans. The actual public health risk inside the U.S. is still considered low by the CDC.
By far and away Trump is the most corrupt man in America
"Trump administration creates $1.776 billion fund for allies of the president after he drops lawsuit against IRS"
https://www.cnn.com/2026/05/18/politics … for-alliesYikes! What corruption?
I read the article you’re referring to (CNN’s coverage of Trump dropping the IRS lawsuit and the creation of a ~$1.7–$1.776B “Anti-Weaponization Fund”), and I can push back on the framing in a few important ways without assuming the worst version of events.
The strongest implied claim in much of the coverage is that this is a kind of “political payoff mechanism” or “slush fund.” That’s a loaded interpretation. What the underlying reporting actually shows (across CNN, AP, Reuters, etc.) is more limited: the Justice Department announced a compensation fund for people who claim they were wrongly targeted by prior federal investigations, as part of resolving a separate IRS lawsuit over a tax-return leak.
That matters because the key legal structure being described is not a private transfer of money to Trump or his organization. Even critics in the reporting acknowledge:
Trump himself is not receiving compensation
The fund is framed as claims-based (people apply, cases are reviewed)
It is administered through DOJ mechanisms rather than a direct payout to political figures
So one pushback is that some commentary collapses a process-based restitution program into a personal enrichment scheme, even though the mechanism described is broader and, at least on paper, not restricted to Trump allies alone.
The idea that this is automatically “unprecedented corruption” depends heavily on comparison framing. The U.S. government has long used compensation schemes for alleged government wrongdoing, examples include:
wrongful conviction compensation programs
FBI/DOJ settlement funds in civil rights cases
vaccine injury compensation systems
Those are structurally similar in the sense that the executive branch sets up eligibility rules and pays claims from federal funds, often without individualized court judgments.
That doesn’t mean this particular fund is good policy—but it does weaken the claim that the existence of a claims fund itself is inherently novel or illegitimate.
The most serious critique in the CNN framing is not “Trump gets money,” but separation-of-powers concern: the executive branch is both (1) a litigant in a case and (2) the entity shaping the resolution mechanism and funding pathway. That is a real governance concern, but it’s more precise than the emotional framing of “paying allies.”
The legal validity of the arrangement is not settled in the reporting.
It may ultimately be reviewed by courts, Congress, or later oversight.
Calling it definitively unlawful or corrupt at the reporting stage is opinion, not established fact.
There’s an important logical gap in the way some narratives are presented:
“People could apply for compensation” becomes “Trump is creating a fund to pay his allies” which becomes “taxpayer money is being used to enrich supporters”
Those are three different claims with very different evidentiary standards. The first is factual; the last is an interpretation that still depends on proving biased distribution or misuse.
GREAT NEWS FOR DEMOCRATS
"Trump endorses Paxton, upending Senate GOP plans in Texas race"
I didn't realize it, but Talarico has been leading Paxton and Cornyn in the polls since late March!!! Sometimes by almost double digits.
That has never happened before since Texas Republicans took over the Senate. Even Beto O'Rourke didn't lead in the polls but a couple of times and if he did, it was by a very small margin.
One group that is moved to Talarico's camp are Hispanics by abandoning Trump.Trump normalized white supremist and Nazi's do it again (Trump endorses and promotes the ideology)
San Diego mosque attackers shared video of shooting, writings citing racist ideology
You have to go back all the way to the 1970s and the Weather Underground to find analogs to this kind of right-wing hate and violence. Even the left-leaning eco-terrorists didn't go murdering people like the right-wing extremists do. Even those opposed to fascism, otherwise known as Antifa don't go there - only right-wing extremists.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/05/19/us/san-d … ology-invs"Tulsi Gabbard is resigning as director of national intelligence"
America is SO MUCH better off.Trump is responsible for even more people dying around the world. What a guy!!!!
"US funding cuts have hampered response to the deadly Ebola crisis, aid workers say"
"As a deadly Ebola outbreak tears through northeast Democratic Republic of the Congo, many first responders are turning a critical eye on events that preceded the crisis: layoffs of health workers funded by the United States, shortages of critical medical supplies and a steep reduction in American support for global aid programs.
There are several reasons for this delay, WHO says: the unusual strain of the virus, weak health infrastructure in the rural area where it originated and ethnic conflict in the region that hampered testing. But the tardy response has also shed an uncomfortable light on the real-world costs of the Trump administration’s cuts to foreign aid and its withdrawal from WHO, the global health body tasked with managing outbreaks of this kind.
While the Trump administration is keen to point blame elsewhere, aid workers and experts said US funding cutbacks and layoffs in multiple areas have hampered the world’s ability to respond to Ebola.
The Trump administration’s cuts are four-pronged: It withdrew funding from WHO, dissolved the US Agency for International Development (USAID), made cutbacks at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and is in the process of reducing the total health aid it gives to DRC and Uganda, the countries at the center of the epidemic. All of those moves have weakened global health systems that are vital for effective responses to outbreaks like this one, experts told CNN.
“When you add up all of those elements, it’s hard to see how there could not have been an effect on the surveillance and response capacities in these countries,” said Josh Michaud, associate director for global and public health policy at KFF, a nonprofit health policy research and polling organization.
In one specific example, the International Rescue Committee, which has humanitarian responders on the ground in the DRC, said US funding cuts contributed to delayed detection of the virus.
“Weakened disease surveillance systems following severe health funding cuts in eastern DRC are contributing to the rapid escalation of the latest Ebola outbreak,” the IRC said in a statement. Heather Reoch Kerr, the group’s country director for DRC, added: “Years of underinvestment and recent funding cuts have left many health facilities without adequate protective equipment, surveillance capacity, or frontline support needed to respond quickly and safely.”
https://www.cnn.com/2026/05/22/africa/e … ganda-intlPOP QUIZ: How many of these Trump statements from last week are actually TRUE?
1. “When we inherited, when we started, we had the highest inflation in the history of our country.”{/i]
2. [i]“We had inflation, but we’ve got that down.”
3. “We got the prices down and we got them down to numbers that in some cases people have not seen before.”
4. “inflation was at 1.6% for the last three months just prior to the war.”
5. As of Feb 24, 2026 “I was down to, in many cases, less than $2 a barrel – a gallon.”
6. "And even beef, which was very high, is starting to come down significantly."
7. “We have $18 trillion being invested in our country,”
8. “Factory construction is up.”
9. “no tax on Social Security for our great seniors.”
10. Speaking of Democrats: “The only way they can win is to cheat.”
11. Speaking about Democrats and SCOTUS: “They want to go to 21 Supreme Court judges. That’s their perfect number. They talk about 13, but they want to go to 21.”
12. VP Harris “never went to the border” even though she “was the border czar.”
13. “President Obama and Biden spent hundreds of millions of dollars trying to fix it.” - IT being the Reflecting Lake [sic] in front of the Lincoln memorial.
14. Continuing “Do you know what they got out of it? A closed lake. It never opened and, when it did, it was shut right away.”
15. “ended Joe Biden’s insane electric vehicle mandate,” then added moments later, “I ended that whole nonsense. By 2030, you were gonna all have electric cars? I don’t think so.”
16. “We have more corrupt elections than third world countries have;”
17. “you know we’re a three-term president” because “we won three times.”
18. “mail-in ballot is, by just the nature of it, it’s going to be corrupt.”
19. “We’re the only country in the world that’s doing mail-in ballots.”
20. “If we had Jesus Christ come down and count the votes, I would have won California.”['i]
21. In California [i]“They send out 38 million votes. Nobody knows where they’re going.”
22. “In Maryland, as you probably saw, they had 500 – 500,000 mail-in votes that were corrupt. They were corrupt.”
23. “We have total control of the Strait of Hormuz, as you know, with our blockade.”
24. “All of their material that they use for warfare is gone” - speaking about Iran
25. “And we’re the only country in the world that has it.” - Birthright citizenship
26. “You know how many people over four years in the last term? Twenty-five million people.”
27. “in 11 months, not one illegal alien was able to get into our country.”
28. “We had 11,888 murderers, 50% of whom killed more than one person, and they allowed them into our country.”
Those were in the last five days.WH security guards shot and killed a man outside a security checkpoint after he opened fire on them.
Was Trump his target? Who knows, but they do have something in common - Trump and the dead man both thought/think they are Jesus Christ and are mentally ill.
"Man killed in shooting outside White House had previously tried to get inside, had mental health concerns"
https://www.cnn.com/2026/05/23/us/white … -best-invsCan you provide links to where Trump claimed to be Jesus Christ?
Or is this just another of your imaginative ramblings? Perhaps YOU think you are Jesus, able to read the minds of others?First - Your Deflection - Where did I say Trump SAID he was Jesus Christ??? I said he THINKS he is Jesus Christ.
Since you apparently don't watch real news:
President Trump proclaims "I am the chosen one" to reporters at the White House. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_ … hatgpt.com
They love him like he is the second coming of God." Later, President Donald Trump thanked Root on Twitter for "the very nice words" and shared what was said about him without correction. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_All … hatgpt.com
How about his AI image of himself as Jesus Christ?? - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 … hatgpt.com
At a White House Easter/Palm Sunday event, Trump reportedly said: “On Palm Sunday, Jesus entered Jerusalem as crowds welcomed him with praise honoring him as king. They call me king now. Can you believe it?” - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_202 … hatgpt.com (And hence the No Kings protest started.)Good selection of "proof" that Trump thinks he is JC himself.
It is all circumstantial, all requires twisting and changing of the words and quite an imagination to swing over to a God rather than a King.
But hey, if it makes you feel better to make those machinations, producing a conclusion of what Trump thinks based on your own efforts to change it all, have at it. It is much like an "insurrection" that never happened, much like the "encouragement" to riot at the capitol that also never happened, but if it gives you pleasure, have at it.
(But I do question, and do not understand, why you list these things when your statement was all about what Trump THINKS. You must read minds to know that!)
Sharlee, GA - please explain what is wrong with the very sick man you call a president.
"Exclusive: Trump admin shutting key US researchers out of global virus response talks, documents and sources reveal"
"Key officials responsible for leading US research on infectious disease threats have been barred from speaking directly with the World Health Organization — effectively shutting some of them out of the global discussions on virus outbreaks, according to documents and multiple sources who spoke to CNN.
The Trump administration issued the directive stopping individuals at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases from communicating with the WHO.
The federal health subagency was led for decades by Dr. Anthony Fauci and oversaw developing treatments for public health emergencies including HIV/AIDs and Covid-19.
The prohibition has been in place during an outbreak of hantavirus that some Americans have been exposed to. The communication limits were relaxed slightly in the past week as another virus outbreak — an unfolding Ebola epidemic centered in the Democratic Republic of Congo — intensified.
Now, some NIAID officials can attend virtual WHO meetings, but only in small groups and only in a “listening capacity,” according to a May 18 email from a senior NIAID official to staff obtained by CNN. Any follow-up to those meetings would be handled by the Department of Health and Human Services, NIAID’s parent agency.
“We’ll be operating in the same manner for Ebola as we have been doing for Hantavirus, assembling a small groups of experts — no more than three — to participate,” the email said. “Should we have legitimate research questions or countermeasure testing ideas, we can bring those up through the proper chain of command.”
The restrictions hobble quick cooperation with global counterparts, multiple current and former health officials said. One staffer characterized it as unheard of during a US response to emerging public health emergencies.
A health leadership vacuum
When American passengers from a hantavirus-stricken cruise ship landed in Nebraska, it was Assistant Secretary for Health Brian Christine who was dispatched to the Omaha hospital where patients were being monitored.
Christine, a penile implant expert with a history of far-right comments, is not in charge of the government’s hantavirus response. But he was sent as the administration’s public face because a more senior health official was not available, according to a source familiar with the decision-making."
And please don't give me any 'unnamed sources" deflection.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/05/25/politics … nistrationYou're presuming again. I can't explain something I know nothing about. (note that I didn't toss a poke with "... unlike some ...")
GA ;-)You divert-- from gerrymandering to a silly, childish rant...Trump bad man--
And you have the nerve to end with --- "And please don't give me any 'unnamed sources" deflection." ESOWhat is the Title of this Forum?? Isn't it Random Thoughts? It isn't Gerrymandering is it.
And you do have it right - Trump is a very, very bad man. And that report just adds to the evidence.
Experts (2024 Presidential Greatness Project ranking,) have decided that Trump (first term) ranks 45th out of 45; Biden ranked 14th.
Trump second term, at this point, the public ranks him lower than all other presidents for which polling has been done except Harry Truman (corruption and Korean War), Richard Nixon (corruption and Watergate), Bush 1 (1992 Recession, broken tax promise), Bush 2 (Iraq war, financial crisis), Jimmy Carter (inflation, oil crisis, hostage crisis).
He is tied with Biden after his terrible debate performance. No doubt in my mind that he will be below Biden by the midterms.Also, you deflected.
As a nurse, what is your opinion of what Trump ordered?I have no intention of sharing my views on this issue because I have not gathered enough solid facts to form a responsible opinion. As a nurse, with additional education in science beyond nursing, I also tend to avoid discussing medical issues in depth with laymen, especially when so much misinformation circulates online.
Thought so - yet with no medical evidence whatsoever you declare Biden senile and demented, lol. Interesting contrast.
As Trump continues to embarrass the United States with his version of celebrating our 250th Anniversary
"Artists are bailing on a Trump-backed concert for America’s 250th"
his character-defining penchant for pathological lying continues - through his surrogates.
"What if there was a concert celebrating America’s 250th anniversary and none of the artists showed up?
That’s one of the possibilities that Freedom 250, a public-private partnership created by the Trump administration, is facing after the majority of the artists it booked to perform at a marquee concert series dropped out this week. The Commodores, Martina McBride, Morris Day & the Time, Poison frontman Bret Michaels, and rapper Young MC have all publicly distanced themselves from the string of performances scheduled to take place on the National Mall in Washington, DC, from June 25 through July 10 as part of the Great American State Fair.
“I was presented with an opportunity to perform at a nonpartisan event but that turned out to be misleading,” McBride, the country star, wrote in an Instagram post on Thursday announcing her decision not to perform.
Freedom 250 is a White House organization launched by executive order to create Trump-driven alternatives to the events planned by the nonpartisan United States Semiquincentennial Commission, America250.
All of the artists who have pulled out suggested they were misled about the event’s political associations. “The artists were never told about any political involvement with the event,” Young MC said in a statement on Instagram. The rapper told Rolling Stone that the concert was a “bait-and-switch.”
Bret Michaels, who won “The Celebrity Apprentice” in 2010 and who has been complimentary of President Donald Trump in the past, cited a similar issue. “Unfortunately, what was presented to us as a celebration of our country has evolved into something much more divisive than what I agreed to be a part of,” he wrote in a statement on Instagram on Friday. He also said that he and his crew have received threats due to his potential participation in the event."
As the report continues, star after star complain about the same discerption - typical Trump Con.
"https://www.cnn.com/2026/05/29/entertainment/trump-250th-concert-artists-drop-out-cec'The post says Freedom 250 is a "White House organization." That is not quite how most reporting describes it. AP, Reuters, and others describe Freedom 250 as a nonprofit organization tied to or launched by Trump administration efforts, not as a formal White House agency.
So, the artist cancellations are real and well documented, and the artists' statements about feeling misled are real. But the conclusions that this proves Trump was lying, that it was a deliberate con, or that it is embarrassing the nation are political opinions rather than verified facts.That was a quote from the article which you probably couldn't read since I screwed up copying the link.
It is - https://www.cnn.com/2026/05/29/entertai … p-out-cec'
Also, I didn't say Trump lied to them, I said his surrogates did.
As to it not being a White House "organization". I suppose that could possibly be not true in a semantic sense. but in all other senses, it is.
Task Force 250 is clearly a White House-created entity. Trump created the White House Task Force on Celebrating America’s 250th Birthday by executive order on January 29, 2025. The order says the President chairs it, the Vice President is vice chair, and it includes Cabinet officials and executive-branch agency heads. It also says the task force is to coordinate federal agencies’ planning for the 250th celebration.
Freedom 250, however, is the branding/funding arm connected to that White House task force, but not necessarily a formal office inside the White House. Reporting and summaries describe Freedom 250 as the task force’s primary branding/funding arm, and as technically an LLC created by and housed inside the National Park Foundation.
Now Trump is saying these professional performers are having the "yips" and he might headline the show himself, lol.
Being a Con is a so-called "verified fact". Lying to someone to get them to do something they otherwise would not do is the very definition of a CON.
Having the majority of well known professional artists bail on a concert that they THOUGHT was celebrating America's 250th anniversary and turned out to be political theater is the definition of embarrassing America.He's throwing a tantrum. He's worse than a child. LOL
What a pathetic loser.
Welcome back IslandBites, we missed you.
Have you noticed that 70% of the world (those who disagree with him) are stupid and not loyal to him?
That tantrum of his you posted is one of the signs of psychopathy and paranoia thousands of uneducated and highly biased (sarcasm) professional mental health experts have warned us he exhibits.Yup. He's mentally gone. But I'm more worried about his morons and crazy followers. One thing is to vote for him for whatever stupid reason but the ones that defend anything and everything he says and does are worse than him.
Maybe they should take his cognitive test.
Btw, hi! Thanks!
The wording of that comment is making an accusation rather than presenting evidence.
The key phrase is "his character-defining penchant for pathological lying continues – through his surrogates." By saying this immediately after mentioning a Trump-backed America 250 concert, the writer is not merely criticizing the event. They are asserting that Trump has a long-standing habit of lying and that people speaking on his behalf are continuing that behavior. The phrase "through his surrogates" implies that representatives, supporters, spokespersons, or allies are allegedly spreading falsehoods that reflect Trump's own conduct.
Context is important."The key phrase is "his character-defining penchant for pathological lying continues – through his surrogates." " - Are you having trouble with that FACT?
Any reasonable person can apply the definition of "pathological lying" to the unique volume of lies he puts out on a daily basis.
"Pathological lying is chronic, compulsive, or habitual lying, often continuing even when the lie serves little clear purpose or creates obvious risk for the liar."
"The phrase "through his surrogates" implies that representatives, supporters, spokespersons, or allies are allegedly spreading falsehoods that reflect Trump's own conduct." - In this case it is "representatives". Isn't that exactly what the artists who bailed said happened to them?
."America’s next economic powerhouse may be rising in red-state territory
CBRE report found 725 companies relocated headquarters between 2018 and 2025, with Dallas-Fort Worth leading all cities
DALLAS — Texas has emerged as the biggest winner in corporate America’s flight from high-tax blue states, attracting a wave of headquarters relocations as companies increasingly abandon costly coastal hubs for lower-tax Republican strongholds.
The relocation wave is reshaping the balance of economic power in America, boosting red-state economies while raising fresh questions about whether high taxes and regulation are driving companies out of blue-state strongholds.
Dallas-Fort Worth led the nation with 111 headquarters relocations between 2018 and 2025, according to a CBRE report, while Austin added 88 and Houston gained 31. Together, the three Texas hubs have became one of the nation’s biggest magnets for corporate relocations.
CBRE found 725 companies relocated headquarters during that seven-year period, with many citing growth opportunities, lower operating costs and lighter regulation as key reasons for moving.
Florida, particularly Miami, also emerged as a major beneficiary. Over the past year alone, six companies moved operations to Miami from costly hubs like Los Angeles, the Bay Area and Boston, drawn by Florida’s lower taxes, growing tech sector and access to East Coast markets.
Companies told CBRE that Miami’s expanding startup scene and growing pool of finance and tech talent are making the city increasingly attractive. International firms are also flocking to South Florida for its strong tourism, travel and beauty industries.
Meanwhile, California suffered the nation’s steepest corporate losses."
Read more https://www.foxnews.com/politics/americ … -territory"What we know about the UFC fight at the White House"
We know it is just another way for Trump to insult and embarrass America. What a message to send to the world - America - the Gutter Fighters
https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/01/politics … hite-houseWhat strikes me is that you seem incapable of discussing almost anything without filtering it through your dislike of Trump.He lives in your head.
A sporting event becomes an attack on America. Professional athletes become "gutter fighters." Millions of fans become an embarrassment. That's quite a leap.
The irony is that while accusing Trump of insulting America, you're the one disparaging American athletes, American sports fans, and a sport enjoyed around the world. At some point, it becomes fair to ask whether the issue is the event itself or whether your contempt for Trump has become so consuming that everything associated with him must automatically be viewed as shameful.
Not every headline is a national crisis, and not every event needs to be turned into a morality play about Trump.
A random thought ...
'... even as a child I knew wrestling was trashy...'
As I stumbled past that paraphrase, I just muttered to myself about the arrogance of the thought. And the conceit of the holder.
I have fond childhood memories of watching Thursday Night Wrestling with my grandparents. Mostly with mom-mom, she was the big wrestling fan. Pop usually fell asleep in his chair before they started. I didn't care about the wrestling either, I stayed to watch what happened when Pop's tobacco juice would dribble down his throat...
That was such a memory that, as MyEsoteric would say, 'it's in my book': A complete short story in a published collection. But to the enlightened, it's trashy?
And then I come across MyEsoteric's 'Gutter fighters.'
The hubris in their statements is ugly as hell.
GAAnd if Trump was putting on a professional wrestling even on the White House lawn, I would feel the same way, but drop the gutter fighting (there is a reason it is called cage fighting) reference since that doesn't apply.
I say that even though I wrestled in high school tournaments But even then, I wouldn't want that as what people see America being..It’s interesting that you frame it as “gutter fighting,” because that says more about your perception than the sport itself. Who in the hell do you think you are?
Millions of people watch and participate in MMA and wrestling, and the athletes are some of the most disciplined, highly trained competitors in sports. Calling it inherently degrading while also acknowledging you wrestled yourself comes off a bit contradictory.
Also, America isn’t defined by whether someone personally approves of a sport or not. It’s defined by the freedom to host, watch, and participate in things you may not personally prefer.
Disliking it is fine. Presenting that dislike as a moral judgment on the country is where the argument loses credibility.You have your views of that ugly "sport" and I have mine. Deal with it. The fact that you like to see blood spattering all across the ring as two men try to kill each other (20 times so far) says a lot about you, doesn't it. Then there is the eye-gouging, chocking, lots of broken bones, all in the name of a blood "sport" so people can have fun watching it.
In my view, MMA is just a step up from the gladiators in the Colosseum. The main difference is in MMA the goal isn't to kill the opponent.
The fact that you want others to think that is what America is says even more.You're free to dislike MMA, but saying fighters are "trying to kill each other" simply isn't true. MMA is a regulated sport with rules, referees, medical staff, weight classes, and immediate stoppages when a fighter can no longer intelligently defend themselves. The goal is to win a contest of skill, not to seriously injure or kill an opponent.
Comparing MMA to gladiatorial combat may sound dramatic, but it ignores the fact that modern combat sports are built around athlete safety. Millions of fans watch because they appreciate the athleticism, discipline, conditioning, and technical aspects of martial arts—not because they enjoy seeing people hurt.
What I find interesting is that you seem deeply concerned about athlete safety in MMA, yet you support allowing biological males to compete in women's sports. If preventing injuries is the primary concern, it would seem reasonable to apply that concern consistently across all sports. MMA fighters voluntarily compete against similarly sized, trained opponents under strict supervision. In women's sports, many people have raised concerns about competitive fairness and potential injury risks when athletes who have gone through male puberty compete against female athletes.
You may disagree with those concerns, but that's exactly my point: people can have different views on sports without those views reflecting some moral failing. Just as you don't want your views on women's sports used to define your character, I don't think enjoying a regulated combat sport says anything negative about mine.
As for what America is, I don't think a country should be defined by whether some citizens enjoy MMA any more than it should be defined by boxing, football, hockey, rugby, or any other contact sport. People can disagree about sports without assuming the worst about each other.You know as well as I do that "trying to kill each other" is a metaphorical description of the mayhem they visit upon each other.
And your deflection to "athletic safety" is to dodge away from the main point, you apparently approving of Trump (or at least defending him) in sullying America's image by glorifying regulated mayhem.
I didn't go to war protecting this country just to have a psychopath like Trump bring us down to the gutter with so-called "combat sports" on the WH lawn."sullying America's image. " When I see this, I laugh-- I think hiding the fact that for 4 years we had a cognitive person as president, well, took that prize.
Not sure if any one issue could have done more damage.
Not only ugly, but ignorant, and nasty. What stands out to me is his confidence in his views; it's apparent he has contempt for people who don't share them. ESO seems perfectly comfortable insulting individuals and entire groups, assigning motives to them, and reducing complex people to caricatures. The article was trash, written for people like ESO--- whose mind is a sponge, always ready to clean up the muck.
Here is another “random thought”. I never saw actual wrestling matches and have nothing against it as a sport. But, i am talking about the stuff on tee-vee, you remember? Most of that stuff was fake, it was right up there with the “Roller Derby” programs of that era, or the Chinese martial arts dramas a bit later. Our fond memories was of laughing how fake all of it was.
We are two parallel lines that are unlikely to intersect.
Having a wrestling arena on the White House lawn is beneath the office. But, again Trump is beneath a lot of things. He is right up there with Nero or Caligula, that is not the sort of image that the leader of the free world should be presenting.How about a Gentleman's boxing match? Didn't you mention that as a dignified comparison to wrestling?
Or maybe a Polo match, you didn't laugh at them, did you?
GAEven a "Gentleman's" boxing match should not be held on the WH lawn to show how violent America is. Even that kind of boxing is two men trying to beat the crap out of each other.
“Gentlemen” and “boxing match” are a contradiction in terms. I am not for pugilism, the first one to throw a fist is the one who has run out of ideas. I did mention that boxing in the public arena is not as undesirable
I am not familiar with Polo, besides horses and sticks. In an ideal sense, violence is something that should not be a reigning standard. A colosseum type Milieu should be contrary to what we, as a nation, represent.You said it better than I did.
Before Trump I was proud of what America stood for. I suspect after Trump I will again become proud (I hope). But during Trump (with too short an interlude with Biden to catch our breath and repair a little of the damage), I am frankly embarrassed to be an American. a nation I served proudly for 20 years.When i speak to my European penpals, who ask me what could have possibly possessed us to make “that man” President? I become embarrassed groping for explanations.
I know what you mean. Groping for answers and embarrassed by what you find. What could have caused an America that elected a sophisticated Black president in Obama to elect an unsophisticated man like Trump—twice?
After 4 years of condemnation and impeachment in office, what could have happened in 4 short years to cause America to re-elect him?
I feel ya bud, them 4 years must have been really bad. The answers are embarrassing.
GA
I see we have more political prosecutions to worry about.
"Florida sues OpenAI, alleging it’s unsafe for children"
I am curious as to why this conservative prosecutor chose to sue just ChatGPT as opposed to all AI platforms such as Musk's Grok or Encyclopedia of Britannica's website AI feature?
https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/01/business … sam-altmanA random thought that brought a chuckle ...
I like the Court's recent Kennedy Center ruling/decision. But wondered if there was time to host a WWE event before the official reversion?
GA ;-)WOO HOO!!! The Godfather of the United States, once upon a time known as the President of the United States may have really screwed himself this time.
Here are the Facts:
* Trump files a partially frivolous lawsuit against the IRS for letting his tax returns get leaked. The real part is the IRS is responsible for safe keeping his tax records and they didn't. The frivolous part is the $10 billion he wanted. (another party who sued simply accepted an apology, but not Trump)
* Trump is the final boss over the IRS, therefore Trump sued himself - that is very questionable.
* Trump then "settles" the lawsuit with DOIJ and creates a slush fund with which to pay fellow felons who were brought to justice, among other people.
* Trump is the final boss of the DOIJ, therefore Trump settled with himself.
* While Trump "claims" he won't see any of the money, it is nevertheless his by law.
* He chose to give his money away to people he wants to have the money through handpicked "commissioner" who won't have to say who got the money or how much.
* There are probable tax consequences to Trump and the recipients.
* Instead of getting money, Trump told HIMSELF that HIS IRS and DOIJ will drop any adverse actions against him.
* The judge has reopened the case based on a filing by 35 former federal judges alleging fraud on the part of DOIJ and Trump.
* If Trump didn't tell the court about all these side deals with himself, the might find he and DOIJ committed fraud upon the court.I share no view personally, but offer ChatGPTs view---
ChatGPT ---
"Here is a comment I would like you to address with factual debate. What is simply truth verses non- factual.
Here is the full comment ---- WOO HOO!!! The Godfather of the United States, once upon a time known as the President of the United States may have really screwed himself this time.
"Here are the Facts:
* Trump files a partially frivolous lawsuit against the IRS for letting his tax returns get leaked. The real part is the IRS is responsible for safe keeping his tax records and they didn't. The frivolous part is the $10 billion he wanted. (another party who sued simply accepted an apology, but not Trump)
* Trump is the final boss over the IRS, therefore Trump sued himself - that is very questionable.
* Trump then "settles" the lawsuit with DOIJ and creates a slush fund with which to pay fellow felons who were brought to justice, among other people.
* Trump is the final boss of the DOIJ, therefore Trump settled with himself.
* While Trump "claims" he won't see any of the money, it is nevertheless his by law.
* He chose to give his money away to people he wants to have the money through handpicked "commissioner" who won't have to say who got the money or how much.
* There are probable tax consequences to Trump and the recipients.
* Instead of getting money, Trump told HIMSELF that HIS IRS and DOIJ will drop any adverse actions against him.
* The judge has reopened the case based on a filing by 35 former federal judges alleging fraud on the part of DOIJ and Trump.
* If Trump didn't tell the court about all these side deals with himself, the might find he and DOIJ committed fraud upon the court.
If the goal is to separate verifiable facts from claims, opinions, and speculation, here's how I would evaluate each point.
1. "Trump files a partially frivolous lawsuit against the IRS for letting his tax returns get leaked."
Partly factual, partly opinion.
It is factual that Trump and related plaintiffs sued the IRS over the leak of tax return information and sought up to $10 billion in damages.
It is also factual that the IRS had responsibility for safeguarding taxpayer information and that a contractor was convicted for leaking tax information.
Calling part of the lawsuit "frivolous" is an opinion unless a court actually ruled it frivolous. I am not aware of a court making that finding.
Verdict: Facts mixed with opinion.
2. "Trump is the final boss over the IRS, therefore Trump sued himself."
Misleading oversimplification.
As President, Trump oversees the executive branch, including the Treasury Department and IRS.
However, lawsuits against federal agencies are common and are legally treated as lawsuits against the government, not literally against oneself.
The unusual aspect noted by the judge and critics is that Trump became both the plaintiff and the head of the executive branch that controls the defendant agencies. Judge Kathleen Williams specifically questioned whether the parties were sufficiently adverse.
Verdict: There is a real conflict-of-interest concern, but "Trump sued himself" is rhetoric rather than a precise legal description.
3. "Trump then settles the lawsuit with DOJ and creates a slush fund."
Partly factual, partly opinion.
A settlement arrangement was announced that included creation of a roughly $1.776 billion "Anti-Weaponization Fund."
Critics, including former judges and members of Congress, have called it a "slush fund."
Whether it legally qualifies as a "slush fund" is a matter of opinion and ongoing dispute.
Verdict: Fund exists. "Slush fund" is a characterization, not an established fact.
4. "Trump is the final boss of DOJ, therefore Trump settled with himself."
Partly true but simplified.
Trump heads the executive branch, and DOJ is part of it.
The settlement was negotiated by DOJ officials.
Critics argue this creates an unprecedented conflict because the plaintiff was also President. Former judges have cited this concern.
Verdict: The conflict concern is real; the phrase "settled with himself" is rhetorical shorthand.
5. "While Trump claims he won't see any of the money, it is nevertheless his by law."
Not established as fact.
Reports indicate Trump and the other plaintiffs were barred from receiving direct payments from the fund.
I have not seen evidence establishing that the money legally belongs to Trump.
Verdict: Largely unsupported assertion.
6. "He chose to give his money away through a handpicked commissioner who won't have to say who got the money."
Partly factual, partly unproven.
Critics have raised concerns about transparency and oversight of the proposed fund.
Whether Trump personally controls the money or whether recipients would remain undisclosed is not an established fact from the reporting I found.
Verdict: Transparency concerns are factual; the broader claim goes beyond what has been proven publicly.
7. "There are probable tax consequences to Trump and the recipients."
Speculative.
Tax consequences depend on the legal structure of any payments and individual circumstances.
No court or IRS determination appears to have established specific tax consequences.
Verdict: Speculation.
8. "Instead of getting money, Trump told himself that HIS IRS and DOJ will drop any adverse actions against him."
Contains a factual core but overstates it.
The settlement reportedly included provisions limiting IRS actions regarding certain pre-existing tax matters involving Trump, his family, and businesses.
Critics argue this amounts to an improper benefit.
However, saying Trump simply "told himself" is a rhetorical framing rather than a legal finding.
Verdict: Based on a real provision, but presented in a highly partisan manner.
9. "The judge has reopened the case based on a filing by 35 former federal judges alleging fraud."
Mostly factual.
Thirty-five former federal judges did file a motion alleging what they described as a possible "fraud on the court."
Judge Kathleen Williams ordered responses and reopened scrutiny of the settlement arrangement.
Verdict: Substantially factual.
10. "The court might find Trump and DOJ committed fraud upon the court."
Possible, but currently only an allegation.
The former judges have alleged that possibility.
The judge has not found fraud occurred.
The case is under review, and Trump has been ordered to respond.
Verdict: Accurate as a possibility under investigation, inaccurate if presented as already proven.
Bottom line
The strongest factual portions of the comment are:
Trump sued the IRS over the tax-return leak.
A settlement arrangement included creation of the approximately $1.8 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund.
Thirty-five former federal judges challenged the arrangement and alleged potential fraud on the court.
A federal judge has reopened scrutiny and ordered responses.
The weakest portions are:
Claims that the money legally belongs to Trump.
Assertions about definite tax consequences.
Statements implying fraud has already been proven.
Repeated use of "Trump sued himself" and "Trump settled with himself" as if they were legal conclusions rather than political rhetoric.
A fair summary would be: There is a genuine and unusual legal controversy involving a settlement negotiated by an administration headed by the same person who was the plaintiff. Former judges have raised serious allegations, and a federal judge is examining those allegations. However, many of the comment's strongest accusations remain allegations and have not been established as facts by a court." ChatGPT
Wow, I guess Trump can't find anymore bootlickers to work for him.
"Trump names controversial top housing official to be acting director of national intelligence"
Talk about jumping out of the frying pan into the fire, lol
https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/02/politics … ctor-trump
Related Discussions
- 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!
- 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...
- 50
random thoughts please
by ByChanceTV 15 years ago
Please post your 'Random' Thought here please..."Sometimes I taste like Polkadots"
- 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,...
- 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...
- 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...