The inability to see what is right in front of us
This has been a very interesting journey... these political forum threads.
The heated debates we had on here about the Ukraine war... with some people believing the delusions our Main Stream Media peddled that it would be over in 6 months... that Russia would go bankrupt before it made the 2 year mark, etc. etc.
The arguments made during the Biden Administration that the economy was doing better than ever, even as going to the grocery store cost more than ever, and cost of insurance and cars and homes continued to climb higher...
Now the latest bit of denial is accepting the cultural-religious shift ongoing in parts of Europe.
IE - Massive march in London to mark 77th anniversary of Nakba - 17MAY2025
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/lrckQRKgqzc
IE - Protest in Paris against Islamophobia surge - 2025
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Lxyy748UA9M
IE - Why can't Sweden get gang violence under control? | Focus on Europe - 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwWMjxLrmVE
I think the issue is when a person holds a political position or ideology and everything has to conform to those beliefs... they cannot view facts or incidents from a neutral or honest point... their bias... their beliefs... must twist everything they are presented.
Now, we all have biases, but for those of us not heavily invested into a particular ideology, we can often see what is going on... we don't force it through a particular prism of belief or bias.
So... in this instance we can look at hundreds of thousands marching through a city street in support of a Islamic 'holy day' and say to ourselves 'wow, we would have never seen that in London' twenty years ago.'
While others have to see that through their prism and call such a statement racist or right-wing... dismissing the very truth of the fact that, indeed, you would not have seen that 20 years ago in London.
Another example would be how Sweden 20 years ago was one of the safest nations on planet earth with almost no crime... and today, well, violence like you could find on the city streets of Mogadishu is becoming common place.
Some of us see that for what it is... others refuse to.
The inability for many to see what is right in front of them.
Why is that? And where is that leading nations like France, the UK, and even America?Maybe someone should ask the question "Why is the Christian faith in decline in the West?"
I think that has been the progression of 'the enlightenment' going back not just to America's founding and the 'separation of church and state' but also the French Revolution which spurred and shaped the development of liberalism as a political ideology.
That is one part.
Another is that the birth rate of people of 'Western' beliefs and ideology is at .7 to 1.6 depending on where you look... Japan, America, Sweden. Whereas the birth rate of people practicing Islam is 5+.
So as the numbers of those being brought up in a Islamic belief system explode, the numbers of those who believe in Western ideals not only shrink in number... but a percentage also convert to Islam in search of something our Liberal Christian society no longer provides.
But this is just one issue that has currently caught my interest...
There was a few years back the lead up to the Ukraine war... it astounded me that people could actually believe we would be able to defeat Russia in a few months time, a year or two at the worst... we wasted over 20 years in Afghanistan and accomplished nothing... but we are going to topple Russia? The one nation that has more nukes, as well as super sonic missiles to deliver them with?
The denial of reality... of what is obvious... I just can't grasp it, are that many people suffering from a collective insanity? A deliberate denial of reality? Or is this the effect on some people of being bombarded with lies daily from their news shows and politicians?"There was a few years back the lead up to the Ukraine war... it astounded me that people could actually believe we would be able to defeat Russia in a few months time, a year or two at the worst..." - Defeat how? Militarily or by making their economy collapse? Do you have names?
"I think the issue is when a person holds a political position or ideology and everything has to conform to those beliefs... they cannot view facts or incidents from a neutral or honest point... their bias... their beliefs... must twist everything they are presented."
Truer words have never been written on this site.After a pause, some thoughts, arrives . . .
Okay, okay . . . doing some wandering for a bit and a byte. First, a characterization has been presented of the ‘culture’ within the forums based on polarization, elitism, and individualism as I see it. Then comes along an arrow, which is the main theme, aimed at Muslims with their Islamic ‘faith’ within the traditional European nations each with their own culture. One point is the Islamic faith is growing faster than other faiths in Europe. Why?
A distinct contrast is inferred of the differences of the culture of the migrants and each European nation such as the UK, Sweden, and also as a European collective. Apparently that is not only a threat, but today is an intrusion upon the conventional/traditional. Then, tossed into the mix is that seen in America as well?
********************
“Some of us see that for what it is... others refuse to.
The inability for many to see what is right in front of them.
Why is that? And where is that leading nations like France, the UK, and even America?”
********************
But, first . . .
“Now, we all have biases, but for those of us not heavily invested into a particular ideology, we can often see what is going on... we don't force it through a particular prism of belief or bias.”
That is a profound statement holding various truths, as far as truths go in the sense that truth is an abstract noun.
*******************
The bottom line is today in Europe 5% is Muslim, yet Islam is the fastest growing faith in Europe. There are reasons for that. Yet, we can perhaps ask, “How does such a small percentage of the population make such a large impact within the European society?”
Is it;
The influence of the media?
Is it the drama resulting from the clash of cultures?
Is it the demand by Muslims to be accepted in the stead of assimilation?
Is it where the majority of Muslims lie within the social-economic structure?
Is it a result of humanitarian efforts to offer relief during a stark time of oppression upon the innocent? In other words, the European nations offered opportunity to gain entrance, though there were caps.
And, then I ask is it the absurdity of today’s world with all its dimensions?
********************
Both the Islamic and Christian faith offer prophecy of clash between those two while also offers their alliance upon a common enemy. Biblically, Daniel 11 shares there will be a conflict between the King of the North and the King of the South.
Scholars suggest that is the Christian and Islamic faiths respectively. Yet, can be asked is the common enemy liberalism/humanism/secularism since both Christianity and Islam are traditional and conservative? Here one might ask is that conflict of warrng not military battle, but cultural and social?
Perhaps, even that very thought process places demands upon . . .
“Now, we all have biases, but for those of us not heavily invested into a particular ideology, we can often see what is going on... we don't force it through a particular prism of belief or bias.”
. . . seeking understanding?
********************
An alternative thought process with a little more wandering . . .
An arrow flies, not forged of war,
but worded fear in metaphor.
Five percent, a shadow cast —
yet echoes swell the silent past.
Does impact bloom in foreign soil,
or rupture roots beneath the toil?
Media flickers, culture bends,
a clash, a call — or means to mend?
Faith foretells the kings will rise,
one from North, the South replies.
Yet what if foes are not belief —
but secular threads that strip the grief?
So pause the bias, loose the reign,
and let unknowing light the strain.
Perhaps what’s seen is not the fight —
but blindness posing as insight.That was a great read, will chew on it some and come back to reread it when I have the freedom from other things to contemplate my response.
Thank you.I do owe you a thought out reply.
But when stumbling across this video just now... Boy does it give a fair reply until I do:
https://youtu.be/XiWNqjKRvOI?si=JJONLPD2OGjWUXEj
Better to skip to the 3:30 mark.An interesting video driving home 'your' perspective. I can appreciate that. It causes one to give heed to current trends.
Read what I shared and then . . .
The Rise of the ‘King of the North’ is HAPPENING: Trump, Vatican & Europe’s New Order presented by Scriptures Illustrator (YouTube 48:06 min)
Image is live YouTube video link
I'm curious... What is your take on that video?
Was the Bible's prophesizing directed at the fall of Rome?
The fall of Byzantine - Rome part 2?
The fall of the Holy Roman Empire which came after?
Did it note the conquest of the New World?
One of the problems I have with people who see the Apocalypse just around the corner is that people have been predicting it for centuries.
I am sure during WWII and the dropping of the bombs on Japan many felt it was coming any day... Yet here we are decades later.
The other aspect noted repeatedly in that video was the Rise of the Right Wing ... Only one thing stopped the continued advance of Islam into Christian nations centuries ago... And only one thing will turn the tide of it now... I don't see any real commitment to address this in the UK or France, as examples... So I expect the government supported conversions in those nations to continue.
There has been no rise of the 'Right Wing' in the UK or France... those governments crushed any such movements, they have made free speech in those countries a criminal offense.
In this video the speaker explains why the 'Right Wing' is ineffectual and impotent in most of the EU:
https://youtu.be/gsMVYEgh00c?si=K77ECZ4kWbut0anD
I did promise a thought out reply to this, as I enjoyed it so much...
So I did some fact checking, relatively speaking, meaning I am choosing to trust Google with some of these 'facts', which itself is likely in question:
In France, Muslims are estimated to comprise 10% of the population, making it the largest Muslim minority population in Europe.
In London, Muslims account for 15% of the population, making Islam the second largest religion in the city after Christianity, according to the 2021 census. (considering that was 2021... lets bump that to 20% for 2025+)
In Sweden, Muslims represent approximately 10% of the population. While there are no official statistics on religious identification, estimates suggest that around 1,000,000 people have a Muslim background, according to Wikipedia and Pew Research Center.
Now... take that last paragraph and consider some other facts about Sweden:
Immigrants (General): Macrotrends reports that immigration to Sweden was 1,125,790 in 2005 and 1,639,771 in 2015.
Foreign-born residents: In 2022, foreign-born individuals made up just over 20% of Sweden's population of 10.61 million. Including those born in Sweden with two foreign-born parents, the number rises to 26%.
We are told that over 20% of the Swedish population has recently migrated there... Asylum seekers that were mainly from Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Iran, Iraq, and Turkish Kurdistan, as well as Somalia and the Horn/West Africa.
I would suspect the Islamic population to be slightly higher than the 10% quoted earlier... and I would suspect there are converts to Islam from such a population as was native to Sweden, which for the most part, had become very 'un-religious' in its Western values/society.
I like to talk about things like this... but I don't have a bias... I don't care... I don't care that some idiots want to call me racist or right-wing for talking about it... and I don't care that Sweden has created a problem which most likely will be far more destructive to their society than they ever imagined.
I don't live in Sweden and I don't plan to... so it makes no difference to me... but I do like being real and not burying my head in the sand.
Anyways... Instead of inability to see... perhaps I should have labeled the topic the inability to talk about issues... without it being diverted to Trump.
Oh well, gave it a go...
"I think the issue is when a person holds a political position or ideology and everything has to conform to those beliefs... they cannot view facts or incidents from a neutral or honest point... their bias... their beliefs... must twist everything they are presented." - WHICH if you are honest and introspective, that describes you, doesn't it?
Insightful thread... Don't see much of that anymore here.
Ken, you make a compelling observation. What you’ve described isn’t just political blindness, a widespread inability to confront reality without first filtering it through a favored ideology. It’s become more important for some people to defend a narrative than to recognize a change, even when that change is unfolding right in front of them.
We’re living in a time when acknowledging plain facts about culture, economics, or safety is seen as offensive or partisan. But denial doesn’t change outcomes. It only delays the consequences. Whether it's the shifting identity of European cities or the erosion of public safety in countries once considered models of order, the signs are everywhere. And yet, many prefer to explain them away rather than face what they might actually mean.
I think the deeper issue is this: when people become emotionally or socially invested in an ideology, any challenge to that worldview feels like a personal threat. So, instead of engaging with uncomfortable truths, they dismiss or redefine them. That’s how entire societies lose their ability to course-correct.
We don’t have to agree on every policy to recognize when something is no longer working. But the first step to fixing anything is being willing to see it clearly — and too many people have lost even that.
When ideology becomes identity, truth becomes malleable. People stop asking what is true? and instead ask, does this serve my side? That’s how honest discourse dies, when facts are no longer evaluated on their own merit but filtered through a political lens. It’s a kind of intellectual servitude, where the mind bends not to reason or evidence, but to allegiance. And the tragedy is, those most captured by this mindset often believe they are the most enlightened. Real courage isn't parroting what your group thinks; it’s standing alone, if necessary, in pursuit of the truth. Until we can prize truth above tribalism, we're not thinking, we're obeying.All true... thank you for the thought out response.
Is it denial of reality... is it being programmed with lies...
How do LGBTQ+ groups support Hamas?
Is this due to a complete lack of comprehension of what Hamas is... is this being programmed with lies to believe they represent something they do not?
How does anyone (sane) support men competing against women in sports... merely because they want to identify as a woman?
What causes a complete denial of obvious fact, throughout a society, like in Sweden where so many in a society refuse to speak to truth... that allowing in hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Somalia people imported those cultural differences, and those differences can be extreme, violent and very anti-western in nature.
Projecting out where this leads... when millions are no required to assimilate to Western cultural norms, laws, beliefs and when they are allowed to practice their own culture... and convert others to their culture... and produce 5 children to every 1 that Western/Natives do... well the math is simple. The truth should be obvious.
Even though it seems like we have broken through this morass of 'Wokism'... where an individual's feelings/wants are prioritized over another's, based on where they place on the victim - oppressor dynamics
I don't think we really have... I think while many have become aware of how disconnected from sanity and facts this ideology (or collection thereof) is... the effort to thwart it is weak, at best.
Are the people who cling so tightly to any such ideology really so different from a Jihadist that clings to the most extreme concepts of the Koran?
Ken, we’re clearly coming from the same mindset here, and it’s refreshing to read someone who lays it out without flinching. You’re right: this isn’t just disagreement anymore; it’s a total divorce from reality, and that’s what makes it so unsettling. Whether it’s people defending Hamas under the banner of LGBTQ+ rights, despite Hamas's openly brutal stance on that very group, or claiming that a man identifying as a woman should be allowed to knock out biological women in a ring, it makes you stop and ask: how did we get here?
It seems like a dangerous cocktail of ideological programming, willful blindness, and social cowardice. Take Sweden, your example is dead-on. The cultural clashes that came from mass, unvetted immigration are being lived out daily on the streets, but to even mention it is seen as hateful. Another example? Just look at how people still treat the U.S. southern border crisis as if it’s some myth, despite cities like New York literally begging for help after being overwhelmed. Facts don’t matter to people who’ve been taught that “truth” is relative and offense is the ultimate crime.
You nailed it with the comparison to ideological zealotry. Whether it's radical Islam or radical leftism, when someone builds their identity around a belief that cannot be questioned, you’re not dealing with someone who wants dialogue; you’re dealing with someone who’s been trained to suppress it. And while more people are waking up, I agree, it’s not nearly enough. Wokeness isn't dead. It’s gone underground, mutating, waiting for the next cultural weakness to exploit. The only way to stop it is by confronting lies with plain truth, relentlessly and without apology.
The time for overanalyzing and endlessly asking why has only made things worse. At this point, we need to look these issues straight in the eye and finally admit, we’ve got a serious problem on our hands, and it’s only growing.Excellent point... and perhaps the answer to my question and why calling it indoctrination is more apt for many higher learning institutions these days than education.
Higher education was meant to help improve one's ability to learn and reason, but perhaps that has been twisted in our current times.Ken, Thank you, I’m glad that resonated. And you’re absolutely right to point out how the term indoctrination is sadly becoming more appropriate in many cases. When institutions treat certain viewpoints as untouchable or frame dissent as moral failure, they’re not fostering critical thinking; they’re conditioning conformity. Higher education should be about challenging ideas, not insulating them. We’re seeing the cost of that inversion play out in our culture now.
"Whether it’s people defending Hamas under the banner of LGBTQ+ rights, despite Hamas's openly brutal stance on that very group, or claiming that a man identifying as a woman should be allowed to knock out biological women in a ring, it makes you stop and ask: how did we get here?"
That is probably a great example of what Ken is talking about in coming from an ideological mindset that doesn't comport with reality.
UNLESS you are one who believes ALL Palestinians are Hamas terrorists, they the statement is patently false and misleading.
What the LGBTQ+ and others have asked for is to treat innocent Palestinians as humans and not terrorists as Netanyahu is doing. Said another way, what the LGBTQ+ are advocating for is a criticism of Netanyahu's (not even Israeli) policies while advocating for Palestinian civilians, not militant governance.
The framing in the argument above collapses support for human rights in conflict zones into support for violent extremism, which, in my opinion, is intellectually dishonest and inflammatory. This is why it makes such a good example of Ken's point.
The inability to see what's right in front of us?
Well BS Barbie is a continual contradiction...
Leavitt pivots from claiming that Trump doesn't support elected officials "ripping off their constituents" by profiting from their public service to fielding a question about Trump's plan to host the G20 at Trump Doral...
This bunch is insufferable.
https://x.com/atrupar/status/1950976904837673045What else is right in front of us?...this
Texas Republicans revealed their new, extreme gerrymandered congressional map.
Before TX redistricting:
25 GOP seats
13 Dem seats
After TX redistricting:
30 GOP-leaning seats
8 Dem-leaning seats
When Republicans can’t win, they cheat...NEW polling just dropped from
MorningConsult...
:
+80% of Americans are concerned about groceries
50% are worried about affording their rent or mortgage
66% worry about their ability to pay an unexpected medical expense
Americans want lower prices. Instead we are getting chaos, uncertainty, and rising costs....A majority feel behind financially, while Trump is telling everyone he’s defeated inflation...As what are seeing in Texas right now, confirms my problem with the Democrats as continuing to bring a pea shooter to a gun fight. Republicans are, by their very nature, without honor. Our side stands around like sheep expecting political parity from wolves. The GOP is not about Democracy but instead grasps for power whether ethical or not. There can be no negotiation with them. They simply have to be defeated and our pusillanimous weaknesses are not going to get us a satisfactory mutual solution. So do we remain victims to the ruthless and unethical? We need to promote the kinds of democrats that will fight fire with fire rather than continue to assimilate and accommodate the absurd. As for the current GOP and their Trump faction, I have nothing for them short of my profound distrust and utter contempt.
The world you perceive... The boogeymen you fight against ...are a fabrication of your mind they no longer exist.
There are racists ...but there is no systemic racism. There are Christian extremists but they pale in comparison to the extremists being sheltered by 'the left' nestled in the protective wings of your Democratic party.
Here watch this, I hope you can pick something up from it: https://youtu.be/gieJgqTFoeM?si=-v64p6DVQN2N1SUDThen there are the people that distract us by saying that our real enemies are just figments our imaginations. The world is as I experience it, not just as I perceive.
America is defined by systemic racism, it simply is not as stark as it once was, or better yet has taken different directions and approaches from the past.
Why pay attention to the clearly right wing Prometheus groups and all the controversy regarding the threat of nations abroad, while Trump and the right wing attempts to disenfranchise me and mine here at home?
I watched, but I don’t trust Trump and his manner of governance. He will have to be superlative in his achievement for me to acknowledge anything positive in his behalf.
Thanks…Thanks for watching... I thought it was informative... But as they say ...
The proof will be in the pudding...
And as Gus would correct... In the taste of the pudding.
A couple years from now...the pudding will be ready ...until then it's just a bunch of semi coherent noise from a whole lot of directions.
"There are racists ...but there is no systemic racism. " - and isn't that the crux of the problem, Ken? Your bias and mindset won't let you see what is right in front of you regarding institutional racism.
It has ALWAYS been part of America from Day One. It remained very alive and well and ubiquitous until the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Unfortunately, while that Act helped, it has never gone away.
Conservatives have consistently tried to bring it back by chipping away at civil rights.
While I will provide statistical proof tomorrow, I will leave you with this:
To the question of "Whether being Black hurts their advancement at least a little": according to a Pew Poll
* 68% of Blacks see it that way
* 62% of Asians see it that way
* 52% of Hispanics see it that way
* 52% of White Americans see it that way
* 54% of White Democrats see it that way
* and not surprisingly only 36% of White Republicans agree.I was optimistic about progress in this area until Trump ascended to the throne, now we go full speed backwards.
It's so absurd ... Just old minds stuck in a bygone era ...
Do you bother to project out ten or twenty years? Consider the demographic trends?
Let me help you ...
Whites are reproducing at 1.1 to 1.6 per couple...
Non-whites at 4.4 to 5.2 depending on where you get the latest stats.
This is just 'Western' nations. The difference is the background they come from:
In America the majority is Latino.
In Western EU nations it's Middle East and African.
Throw in some other goodies. Like 1 out of 8 boys being diagnosed with some form of Autism and the decline of younger 'Westerner' generations to even want to be in a relationship, let alone have kids ...
You're delusional if you think we are ever going back to a 'whites only' society... More likely what we got a taste of during the Biden Administration... Homes being occupied by foreign squatters... homes being robbed by foreign criminal gangs will be common place in our borderless future.It sounds like you would find Gilead from The Handmaids Tale a wonderful place to live.
What is your solution - make white women have more babies? That has actually been tried before.It is not so bygone from the perspective of someone in a position to know.
I question your stats on the birth rates of these different groups.
Once we dispense with the “sensationalism of your comment, here is a more accurate assessment, not exactly the “house on fire” that you portray in regard to Western Europe. Where did you get your “facts” from?
Based on the provided information, here's an overview of fertility rates and population changes in Europe:
Fertility rates of immigrant women are higher than native-born women in many European countries. For instance, in France, the total fertility rate (TFR) of immigrant women is higher than that of native-born women (2.6 children versus 1.8 in 2017),.
However, the impact on national fertility rates varies depending on the size of the immigrant population. In some countries, like most former communist countries of Central or Eastern Europe, the immigrant population is too small to significantly affect national rates, while in others, like France, it increases the overall rate.
Ethnic minorities, including descendants of immigrants, often have higher birth rates compared to the majority populations in several European countries, though the differences tend to converge over time. This phenomenon is especially pronounced for the first child, and in some countries, for the third child as well.
Europe is experiencing below-replacement fertility levels overall. The average total fertility rate in the EU was 1.38 live births per woman in 2023, which is below the replacement level of 2.1.
Immigration plays a significant role in offsetting declining birth rates and contributing to population growth in many Western European countries, according to Wikipedia.
The median age of foreign-born individuals in the EU is lower than that of native-born individuals, suggesting a younger age structure among immigrant populations.
============
With the prevalence of patriarchy and misogyny, the changing economic realities where the “Lucy Ricardo” assumptions simply do not work anymore, why would anyone embrace marital bliss? Unfortunately for our tribe, black women tend to remain single in higher numbers than women from other groups. People, male or female, are not willing to just settle anymore, Ken. Life is too short. That is the big picture that the right wing oriented male seems to consistently miss.
Also, no one is preventing white females from increasing their birth rates.
The other point I need to make is that just because there are a larger percentage of non=whites projected here in the near future, the real issue is the wealth and power relative to the numbers. You can rest easy, Ken, that ultimate adjustment toward real parity and equality from that aspect will take considerably longer.
Hopefully, California and New York can level the playing field.
What is in front of us at this moment?
Trump says he’s firing the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics—because he doesn’t like the latest jobs report and revisions showing his cratering economy. The numbers were bad, so naturally, he’s blaming someone else and demanding loyalty over accuracy.
Absolutely unbelievable...And even worse - he accused her of 'rigging' the numbers to make him look bad. She needs to sue him for defamation.
JD Vance voted to confirm Erika McEntarfer, the Commissioner at Bureau of Labor Statistics who Trump just announced he's firing because of the bad jobs numbers this morning. ...
CONFIRMED SHE HAS BEEN FIRED.
With that I say RIP to objective and nonpartisan Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Welcome to the era of rigging jobs data, because facts don’t fit Trump’s fantasy...
I can't overstate how damaging this is to US credibility. All economists know...sometimes the data comes in good, sometimes bad. Shooting the messenger does nothing.
It's a fascist move.Honestly, from what I’ve read, Trump can legally fire the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics without cause. The law clearly gives the president that authority, it says the commissioner serves a four-year term "unless sooner removed by the President.” So yeah, it’s within his legal rights. But let’s be real, just because it’s legal doesn’t mean it’s right. In my view, this is unfair. He’s presented no actual evidence that Erika McEntarfer hasn’t done her job properly. Revisions to job reports are normal, and they follow a long-standing methodology that hasn’t changed under Republican or Democrat leadership.
What’s troubling is that he already seems to have someone in mind to replace her, which gives me an unsteady feeling. If this is really about “manipulated numbers,” then he had better show some sort of evidence of wrongdoing, because firing a Senate-confirmed official over bad news alone is a big deal. Otherwise, I think this needs looking into by Congress. At the very least, we deserve transparency if the White House is going to start purging agencies that deliver numbers it doesn’t like.He's made some pretty strong, slanderous accusations with... Wait for it... ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF.
Seems to be an example of "make an accusation and try to find something to fit the narrative afterward"...
Trump is dangerous. He is undermining Americans faith in institutions.
They had no problem, just a short time ago, confirming this woman in the Senate...
Things are getting exponentially worse every day.
You're right! Throw in a few nuclear submarines for good measure...
And at the perfect time now with the info about the Epstein video and all.
The grocery bill hasn't gotten noticably worse.
No one I know has lost their job... But I admit I'm in a State doing well economically not a taxhole like NY.
I haven't seen things getting exponentially worse ...but maybe you are referring to the insanity Biden was normalizing, you know Trans competing against women... 20% inflation overnight ...that type of stuff most of us are happy to do without.Grocery prices are not down since trump took office.
According to the CPI data from June 2025:
•Grocery prices are up 0.6% from January 2025
•Grocery prices are up 2.4% from June 2024.
Homeowners and car insurance are both up.
Electricity prices are up....My wife tells me prices at the grocery store are up a lot over the last 3 months.
For things that are bought a lot such as meat, poultry, coffee, and beverages the increase as been in the range of 4 - 5%.
It is not all bad, however. Year over year, these items have fallen in price: fresh vegetables, Milk, Cheese and related dairy, breakfast cereals, and oranges. All of these have seen price decreases of between 0.5% and 2.8%
(I don't include eggs because of externally driven price fluctuations )
Trump's explanation for firing the BLS head makes no sense: his numbers, and his narrative, are wrong. The initial job numbers for July, September, and October of 2024 were understated, not overstated - a weird thing to do if the BLS was trying to rig the election for Harris....
How stupid does this man think we are???Could not agree more.
The lies this president told during his first term - documented - number in the thousands -source any 5 minute google search
34 felony convictions
Convicted sexual offender
Misuse of US laws against the principles of the Constitution are documented in worldwide media outlets weekly if not daily - again a 5 minute google search will verify.
The reality? 77 million voters put a man guilty of this and more in the White House when every single person who worked with him in his first term (achieved only through manipulation of the electoral college) warned again and again that he had proven to be unfit for office.
A total divorce from reality? Damned straight.From a historical perspective, the same percentage of Germans (roughly) adored Hitler as MAGA adores Trump. It is exactly the same type of cult mentality.
A more modern comparison shows that Vladimir Putin is adored by an even larger percentage of Russians - they think his authoritarianism is wonderful.
So, don't think we can't lose our freedom to someone like those two because we can - it is already happening.It's like a cancer or disease ...no matter what the topic...what the facts being noted...it's always back to Trump.
Infecting every thread with nonsense...
It's a wonder anyone replies back at all...
Well get it out of your system... The forums will be gone along with the rest of HP.I agree—the forum has turned into a toxic mess. It’s not worth the time or energy to engage. From now on, I’ll only check in occasionally and be very selective about when I choose to comment. That said, I always enjoy our back-and-forths. I did not realize HP was about to fold.
For 411 and Ken's OP title is apropos: The inability to see what is right in front of us
Springboard a once in awhile poster in this forum posted an OP in the conventional forum. It is the most recent on the demise of HP, is somewhat short so far, and there are responses from renown veterans like Paulgoodman67, theraggededge, and bravewarrior.
What's Going on with HubPages?
https://hubpages.com/community/forum/36 … ost4378724
Yes, I agree, Trump is like a very bad cancer on America. That is why he gets talked about so much.
If a large asteroid was about to hit Earth (call it Matilda) in a month. Don't you think that is all that would be talked about? Well think of Trump as Matilda.
It is sad to realize that THIS is what MAUGA sees when they read your comment above.
"Could not agree more.
A total divorce from reality? Damned straight."
Something to think about...
The preliminary July jobs estimate of 73,000 is also probably far to high, and the reality might even be that we =lost= close to 100,000 jobs.
If we aren't already in massive recession, we almost certainly will be soon.
Next report?
The reality of what is in front of us this morning?
Jeanine Pirro was benched by Fox News for being too batshit even for them. So naturally, Senate Republicans just made her the TOP FEDERAL PROSECUTOR in D.C.
Fascism doesn’t sneak in the back door... it kicks it in wearing smeared lipstick and screeching about Hunter Biden. My God, there's no defense of this woman.
Welcome to The liquor cabinet Jeanine..
More food for thought as to how different things are in other parts of the world:
China's no tolerance Policy, a lot of Americans couldn't survive under their rule:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/mSAZM6e92MYAnd then there's this fool, with his perpetual shit eating grin, sent out to defend the indefensible this morning...
https://x.com/atrupar/status/1952015848920522960
Translation: Trump wants fake numbers so he appears to be successful.Why is always the conservatives that always seem to want no discussion of Trump?
Whether you approve of him or not, his influence on both the domestic and foreign stages are unprecedented and not routine. Of course, I don’t approve of him and my assessment of him is entirely negative.
Regardless, I have a mission and I have decided to accept it, to undermine this awful man and his regime at every opportunity and if I am not able to do it here, I will in earnest seek another forum.You have a mission... Or TDS as it is called ...
You will find the majority are sick and tired of hearing about it ...from the media...or from people like you and Eso...
Yes Sharlee and Mike seem to enjoy engaging in this still... But the election is over, ranting against him or rah rahing for him is irrelevant.
He still has over three years left... No amount of complaining or praising is going to matter at all.
It will change nothing. Take a break from it.
You made a good counter about the issue of migration and fertility rates...see, you can engage in a topic and not bring up Trump to make your points.Yes, Ken YOUR majority are tired of hearing about it, as a mere cover or diversion. It is like I said before, Trump is very crux of our problems both domestically and internationally and is the “elephant in the room” that conservatives want everyone else to ignore. Until this man is dead, in prison, or foreswears politics in its entirety, he remains on my “list”. So, the conversation will continue but you and others are free to jump ship if you wish.
He may well be president in 3 years, but the focus on changing the congress during the midterms could make him and his administration, in effect, inert.
This time progressives are not going treat Republicans as honorable partners in government, but will be as ruthless as they have been in pursuit of their goals and objectives.
Ideally, Trump will become a new lame duck that Congress would not so much as “pass gas” for on his behalf. His legislative and political agenda will be finished at that point. That is a possibility in a little more than a year and I work Feverishly toward that goal.
You can consider this comment to be a “good counter” as well."the focus on changing the congress during the midterms could make him and his administration, in effect, inert."
Do you have any idea how bad things look for the democrats and the mid-terms right now? Dems in vulnerable states are retiring, no new dems are attracting any type of a following.
You really should look into this.
Even democrats know they are in bad shape.Oh yes so bad that Trump asked for five gerrymandered seats in Texas LOL....
Mike...like Credence and Eso... There is a big part of the Dems that have just doubled down ...they are looking and acting more insane by the day.
They think it is helping garner them support... I think it is driving more people away then ever before...
I guess we will see...Nah, we haven't begun to approach Trump's level of dangerous insanity.
Ken,
I wonder how many polls illustrating the unpopularity of the democrat party, how many democrats and even liberals screaming that the democrat party is leaderless and rudderless can be out there before democrats start to pay attention.
I've never seen anything like this before.
You're right. They are doubling down on things that lost them the presidential election and has brought them to have the lowest popularity rating of democrats in decades.
The are supporting the 20% on all the major 80-20 issues.
This complete and total detachment from political reality is astounding.
I've not ever seen denial at this level.
Do democrats realize they have NO leader with a national following that could attract any segment of the right?
Do they realize this has to happen before they can have a chance at regaining political power?
I'm going to say no.Deleted
From Nate Silver's the Silver Bulletin arrives . . .
"The latest on Trump’s approval rating
Updated August 4, 2025
We saw some interesting movement in Donald Trump’s approval rating last week. It hit a new second term low of -10.3 on the 22nd. But by the 25th, it had rebounded slightly to -8.0. This week has been comparatively quiet on the Trump approval front. As of today, 44.2 percent of Americans approve of the job Trump is doing and 53.0 percent disapprove. So his net approval rating has fallen again (to -8.8), but it’s still much higher than it was at this point during his first term (-19.2).
On the issues, Trump is approaching one month of being underwater when it comes to his handling of immigration. But it’s not all bad news: his net approval on that issue has improved over the last two weeks (-7.4 —> -4.3).
The bigger story this week is tariffs. Trump’s August 1st deadline for imposing additional tariffs will hit tomorrow. And although he’s had some success striking new trade deals — with Japan and the European Union, for example — other countries are proving more difficult. Trump’s approval on tariffs and international trade also isn’t great: 38.1 percent approval vs. 54.4 percent disapproval. That’s a net approval rating of -16.3. Is that number better than his post-Liberation Day tariff approval low of -20.2? Yes. But when tariffs are in the spotlight for long enough, Trump’s approval rating tends to suffer. -EMD, 7/31/25"
Get the scoop seeing polling averages as well as individual polls updated through Aug 4th. Gander at the polling for the economy, immigration, trade, and inflation.
How popular is Donald Trump?
https://www.natesilver.net/p/trump-appr … r-bulletinThis is sort of the reverse of what I just described about the Democrats. Objectively and based on his issue poll numbers, Trump is doing terrible. But overall, apparently people love a chaotic bully.
I got this thing about Trump... can't stand him, not my type of President.
But damned... when the alternative is Biden... or Harris... you bet that type of insanity coming from Trump is still better than the other options we were presented.
Lets remember its looney tunes Biden (his Admin and him) that got us into a war with Russia.... him and the idiots running the UK... could have ended that war right after it started, Russia got cold feet... and now?
Now we are F'd... Russia survived the worst part, their initial failure and the fear that they would fail economically.
Now China, North Korea, and plenty of others are secretly (or openly) backing Russia's efforts... now BRICS is a serious other option to the dollar... all this was brought about by the arrogance shown so brightly by the Biden Administration... an arrogance only topped by their indifference toward American citizens or the Nation's future.
Trump isn't popular so much as 'normal' people are now scared to death to let the loons of the Democrat Party gain control again...
Open Borders... Child Sex Changes... Transgenders... and Wars...
Not to mention what we see going on in the UK... Canada... etc. where Free Speech is now a crime but grooming by foreign gangs is OK...
Nope... they are going to have to wait for everyone over 40 to die off before their insanity is going to sell in America.So you prefer an incompetent fool who is dangerously mentally ill and in the process of destroying the world economy to a man showing his age but with arguably one of the best legislative records in American history or a woman who showed she is ready for the White House.
How interesting.
* Open Borders - so you admit Trump's policies, which Biden largely followed, didn't work.
* Child Sex Changes - pure hyperbolic disinformation
* Wars - Trump has Ukraine in spite of his braggadocio (lies) about ending it before he took office. He has made it worse. Biden left Trump a cease fire in Gaza, now Netanyahu is going to take total control and get the rest of the hostages killed. I don't recall Biden dropping bombs on Iraq in a failed attempt to stop their nuclear program. I DO RECALL Trump 1.0 killing the agreement that was doing just that.
You have a real winner there, Ken.
BTW, MAGA isn't "normal people", they are a dangerous cult.All 80 million of them right?
Nothing wrong with your party...those are just domestic terrorists right?
Well you just keep goose stepping along to the beat of that drum.If you cut the 02, he would be talking to himself pretty much. It might be fun to watch....
Shar,
When I see democrats and the left, I see the Dunning–Kruger effect.
Do you agree?I agree, the Democrats "are those who know the most but often doubt themselves.". The Ds often doubt themselves.
I agree. Democrats ARE the ones who know the most but often doubt themselves while Trump is the opposite.
Yes, I do agree. When I look at how confidently many on the left speak on topics they barely seem to understand, whether it's economics, law, or even basic issues. I can’t help but see the Dunning–Kruger effect in action. It’s like they’re always the loudest when they should be asking questions.
This behavior is especially obvious when they refuse to consider other viewpoints or label disagreement as "misinformation," or project their views as facts. It’s the loud, unshakable confidence that goes with it that makes the effect so dangerous.
The Dunning–Kruger effect itself isn’t classified as a mental illness. As I sometimes think it should be... LOL
It’s more of a cognitive bias, a kind of skewed thinking error that affects how people assess their own knowledge and abilities. I see it more so in those who lean left than right.You do know you are speaking of Trump when you say "When I look at how confidently many on the left speak on topics they barely seem to understand, whether it's economics, law, or even basic issues. "
Consider:
1. Economics: Misstatements and Misunderstandings
Trade Deficits
Trump repeatedly claimed that trade deficits mean "we’re losing money to other countries" — which is economically false.
Fact: A trade deficit is not a loss of money but reflects capital inflows, consumption levels, and investment patterns. Economists across the spectrum have called this view wrongheaded.
Brookings: “Trump fundamentally misunderstands the meaning of trade deficits.”
Tariffs
Trump claimed that foreign countries pay tariffs, but tariffs are paid by U.S. importers — often passed on to U.S. consumers and businesses.
The nonpartisan CBO, Tax Foundation, and Federal Reserve all confirmed this.
NYT Fact Check: “Trump falsely claims China pays the tariffs.”
2. Law: Repeated Legal Confusion or Defiance
Presidential Immunity
Trump claimed the president has “total authority” under the Constitution during the pandemic — a statement scholars across the political spectrum rejected.
Even conservative legal scholars called this “deeply unconstitutional.”
NPR
DOJ Independence
Trump pressured the Justice Department to pursue political prosecutions, showing little understanding or respect for legal norms.
He suggested prosecuting political enemies like Hillary Clinton and publicly called for intervention in individual trials (Roger Stone, Michael Flynn).
ABC News
3. Basic Issues & Science
COVID-19 & Health Policy
Suggested injecting disinfectant as a possible COVID cure during a press briefing.
Downplayed virus severity repeatedly despite his own health officials warning otherwise.
Washington Post Fact Check
Climate Change
Claimed wind turbines cause cancer.
Pulled the U.S. out of the Paris Agreement based on inaccurate economic projections.
FactCheck.org
Psychological Framing: The “Dunning-Kruger” Effect
Trump’s confident pronouncements on subjects he misrepresents are frequently cited as examples of the Dunning-Kruger effect — where people with low expertise overestimate their understanding.
Many political scientists and psychologists argue Trump’s style rewards certainty over accuracy, which resonates with his base.
How many more examples, there are thousands, do you need before you will believe what is right in front of your face?
The Atlantic
Bottom Line
While it's common to accuse "the left" of talking past their expertise, Trump is a textbook case of speaking confidently on topics he either misunderstands or deliberately distorts — from tariffs and deficits, to constitutional authority, to science and public health.There are also some prime examples of Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) on the left.
This SHOULD be classified as a mental illness.That's your best rebuttal to a fact filled, well thought-out post??
When the Right runs out of rational things to say, which is pretty quickly, they always fall back on this TDS nonsense. ROFL.
The truth speaks for itself as it does in those examples. Denying the truth says a lot about the person who can't see what is in front of their own eyes.
It is your side doing the goose stepping, haven't you seen ICE lately?
Also, your count is WAY off.
First, Trump received a non-mandate creating plurality of the vote with 77 million.
Of those an estimated 40 - 48 million are MAGA cult members. The remainder believed Trump's lies about lowering their grocery bill.
Here is a reasonable explanation of why the Ds are in the dumps despite Biden and their party doing an Objectively great job.
Economic Psychology: Inflation > Achievements
* Most people experience the economy through prices, especially food, rent, and gas.
* Even though job growth was record-breaking, and wage growth was strong in nominal terms, inflation diluted perceived gains.
* People don’t feel better off—even when the macroeconomy says they are.
Messaging Weakness
* Democrats often struggle to frame their accomplishments in clear, emotional terms.
* They pass large, complex legislation (e.g., IRA, CHIPS Act) that is hard to explain and lacks immediate visible effects.
* Republicans, by contrast, often boil things down to slogans (“America First,” “Open Borders”) and stick to repetition, regardless of nuance.
Internal Division and High Expectations
* Unlike the Republican unitary brand, the Democratic coalition is ideologically broad: progressives often feel betrayed, moderates feel ignored, and everyone’s a bit dissatisfied.
* This breeds a culture where Democrats are more likely to critique their own party than praise it.
* Disillusionment is baked into the base, especially among young, left-leaning voters.
Media Environment
* The media tends to focus on conflict, crisis, and drama.
* Biden’s achievements were methodical and policy-heavy, which doesn’t create headlines the way chaos or scandal does.
* Many voters hear more about Hunter Biden or immigration screw-ups than about clean energy investments or revived manufacturing.
Narrative Loss to Populism
* Republicans and the populist right have framed the debate around culture, identity, and grievance.
* Democrats won the legislative war but lost the narrative battle: working-class voters often feel alienated or left behind, even though they materially benefited.
The Result
* Biden’s approval ratings dropped to the high 30s, even as GDP grew and unemployment remained near record lows.
* The Democratic Party’s favorability rating is −30, the lowest in modern polling history—even worse than the GOP's.
* Voters 'felt" the economy is “bad” despite low unemployment and a manufacturing revival, because costs feel high and benefits feel abstract.
Objectively, the Democratic Party should have great numbers. Subjectively, it is clear they don't.
"objectively great job"
I get some of the best laughs sometimes... really not sure why I am surprised to see such statements from you, but damned if they aren't soothing to the soul.You keep telling yourself these things.
Denial is a powerful urge.
Let me put it to you in simple terms, the democrat party has lost touch with mainstream Americans.
It's just that simple.Back at you.
At least Democrats care what the people think. Republicans don't give a damn - evidence: The One Big Ugly Bill that helps a few billionaires and hurts millions of regular Americans."Objectively, the Democratic Party should have great numbers. Subjectively, it is clear they don't."
You need to read this a few times. You are blaming the lack of popularity of the democrat party on the American people. Do you realize this is insane?
democrats have NO leadership on a national level. That is a sad reality. They have NO national leader. There is nothing in their platform that is attracting people.
This refusal to accept this reality and change is overwhelming.
democrat denial is the biggest thing hurting the party at this moment in time.It seems to me you just made something up. I am not blaming anything, just stating facts.
And I do agree with you, one of the problems the Ds have right now is that their is no leadership at the national level. That said, it is probably better than having a dangerously mentally ill autocrat as yours.Also. "there is nothing in their platform that is attracting people" is demonstrably wrong.
Policy Area Dem Support Ind Support Notes
Universal background checks (guns) ~90%+ ~80%+ Also majority Republican support
Pre-existing condition protections ~95% ~75–85% ACA components widely supported
Renewable energy investment ~85–90% ~70–75% Even some Republicans support
Tuition-free community college ~80% ~65–70% Less popular with GOP
Abortion rights access ~85–90% ~65–70% Strong split within GOP
Higher taxes on the wealthy ~80% ~60–65% Broad populist appeal
Childcare subsidies / paid leave ~80–85% ~65–70% Strong bipartisan interest
Now, tell me again that those Democratic polices aren't attractive to voters.
Do make the mistake of underestimating a fickle electorate, Mike. The only constant in this equation is that the party in control invariably looses seats during the midterm season. Republicans barely have the majority and that can change quite easily. It will be almost guaranteed if Trump screws up the economy which I am certain that he will.
Trump is running scared for a reason, otherwise he would need to have Texas engage in a cheating gerrymander. I can only hope that his fears are realized.
It's not ... You miss the point, I am happy to debate an issue... I am not going to debate people who suffer TDS and bring everything back to him.
Especially when the very people on here suffering from it ran cover for Biden. The worst president for America in our history... Those who defended that turd have no right to complain now.
You have Trump part 2 very much because of Biden and that whole insane crew.You don’t have a historian authority to say that Biden is the worse President, but again that is the conservative idea of intuition that never has a basis in reality.
Trump part II may well be pre-empted with Mid-Terms, the pilot….That is BDS talking, don't you think? They have it very bad.
That is an easy escape isn't it, falsely label somebody with TDS even though they speak the truth just so you don't have to answer their questions.
Trump's Authoritarianism is Staring you Right in the Face.
"When authoritarianism encroaches, apologists often present a strongman’s power grabs as rational — even imperative for the national good.
Top Trump administration aides followed that playbook on Sunday, justifying the president’s abrupt firing of the government’s top labor official in charge of employment statistics over jobs numbers that dented his proclamation of a new “golden age.”
But the ouster of Bureau of Labor Statistics Commissioner Erika McEntarfer, taken alongside President Donald Trump’s concurrent bid to destroy the independence of the Federal Reserve, threatens the US economy’s reputation as a bulwark of stability and integrity that has undergirded generations of prosperity.
Such political interference might bolster Trump’s ever-growing power. But it could backfire by eroding the trust of investors,"
https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/04/politics … e-analysisTrump's move to cook the jobs numbers, by firing the Bureau of Labor Statistics head, is one more step toward authoritarianism. Truth being replaced by propaganda. This is what the Soviets did.... LOL and they want us to stop talking about Trump??
Maga... Take all of your previous Pearl clutching posts and apply them below... You're outraged, right?!?!
The scale of Trump's pay-for-access scheme is mindblowing. Crypto contributions resulting in business deals with the Trump family crypto businesses, oil companies buying influence and later reaping benefits from friendly policies, and a $1 million pardon.
Donor List Suggests Scale of Trump’s Pay-for-Access Operation
A new disclosure shows how corporations and individuals, including many in the crypto business, wrote big checks while seeking favor from the president.
BUT BUT BUT HUNTER?... BUT HER EMAILS???? LOL
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/02/us/p … ation.htmlNot sure what to think of this but a rat jumping ship? Chameleon changing its colors?
Marjorie Taylor Greene says she’s starting to think the GOP is anti-women and anti-worker....LOL REALLY MARGE?
“There’s women in our party that are really sick and tired of the way men treat Republican women... [The GOP] has turned its back on the workers and just regular Americans.”I have long shared my own negative view of Marjorie Taylor Greene, so I’m pleased that other women now seem to feel the same. She has had a decline in support among women voters is no surprise given the current political climate and her own approach. Her outspoken and often confrontational style, while energizing to her base, tends to alienate moderate and independent women who prefer leaders focused on practical solutions rather than culture war theatrics. Many women prioritize issues like healthcare, education, economic security, and reproductive rights, areas where Greene’s focus on election fraud claims, gun giveaways, and conspiracy theories simply doesn’t resonate.
Some women find her aggressive political posture off-putting, which further erodes her appeal beyond her core supporters. Greene has voiced frustration with the male-dominated political consultant culture, but ironically, some women see her as part of a political environment that fails to truly prioritize women’s perspectives and needs.
On top of that, broader national trends show women increasingly leaning Democratic, especially in suburban areas, which naturally affects Republican candidates like Greene. She could just be seen as a slimy politician because many women are sick of what they view as her deadheaded representation, a perception she now fears could cause serious problems for her in the upcoming election. Altogether, these factors explain why her popularity with women has dipped, though she remains a strong figure within her district’s GOP base.I think its interesting. She said a lot more. There is a fracture in the MAGA base, she's not the only one.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) is questioning her place in the Republican Party after finding herself at odds with others in the GOP — including President Trump — over several issues.
The remarks — made during an interview with the Daily Mail — comes after Greene said Israel is conducting a “genocide” in Gaza; vocally pushed for the release of the documents related to Jeffrey Epstein, despite Trump pressing to move on from the story; and criticized the U.S. strike on nuclear facilities in Iran, among other positions.
Her contrast with many in the GOP is prompting her to question her perch in the party.
“I don’t know if the Republican Party is leaving me, or if I’m kind of not relating to Republican Party as much anymore,” Greene said. “I don’t know which one it is.”
“I think the Republican Party has turned its back on America First and the workers and just regular Americans,” she added.
Greene said she believes the Republican Party is drifting back to its “neocon” ways, with the people at the top of the group, the “good ole boys,” pushing against the MAGA agenda.
During her conversation with the Daily Mail, Greene advocated for stopping foreign aid, continuing using the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to slash the federal government, ceasing increasing the national debt and being aware of rising inflation.
“Like, what happened all those issues? You know that I don’t know what the hell happened with the Republican Party. I really don’t,” she said.
“But I’ll tell you one thing, the course that it’s on, I don’t want to have anything to do with it, and I, I just don’t care anymore,” she added.
Perhaps one of the most striking breaks between Greene and Trump was over the release of the Epstein files, a debate that has inundated the party for weeks. When the president was trying to turn the page on the Epstein saga, Greene kept beating the drum, at one point warning that keeping the files under wraps would risk his support among the base.
The pair was also at odds over the U.S.’s strike on Iran, which the president touted as a success and Greene reacted to by saying there was: “a complete bait and switch to please the neocons, warmongers, military industrial complex contracts, and neocon tv personalities that MAGA hates and who were NEVER TRUMPERS!”
On foreign policy, Greene said “genocide,” a “humanitarian crisis” and “starvation” were occurring in Gaza — Trump also said starvation was happening — and she was one of two House Republicans to vote to cut off some aid to Israel.
Greene told the Daily Mail she believed there are “other women in our party that are really sick and tired of the way men treat Republican women,” naming Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.), whom Trump nominated to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations before he withdrew her name amid fears about the GOP’s slim House majority.
“I think there’s other women, Republican women — and I’m just giving my opinion here — who are really sick and tired of them,” she said. “And the one that really got shafted was Elise Stefanik.”
The lies are right in front of us...
WRONG. BLATANT LIE
Question.... Does he really think the American public is that stupid?This is as good a place as any:
"How much does it cost for fascism?’: Tensions erupt at Nebraska GOP congressman’s town hall"
I do give the representative props for attempting a town hall. I also condemn the crowd for acting like the Tea Party use to.
Republicans, Democrats, Independents, and Veterans all condemn what Trump has done.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/04/politics … town-halls"How much does it cost for a fascist country?"
The town halls are exploding again
https://x.com/JoshEakle/status/1952524495488680403
RFK Jr. is another blight Trump has visited upon America.
The very sad thing is, the death toll from Jr.'s stint in the HHS won't be known until after he is gone, even though it will be substantial. But it will be a small blip on the total number Trump's policies are causing and will cause.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/05/health/k … ealth-newsHere is another thing that is right in front of you that the Right total ignores - TRUMP"S ASSAULT on your health.
How many people he kill as a result of this policy?
"HHS slashes funding for mRNA vaccine development"
The odds that your grandkids will live to a ripe old age just got smaller. You need to send Trump a thank you note.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/05/health/h … evelopmentWhat you say is correct. The world is changing, but it is for the best or maybe for the worse. The bottom line is that the West is being erased, and the United States is losing its global eminence. This is the March of history and time. Can you imagine that the world was carved up between the various colonial powers and the United States just 80 years back? The West must thank Hitler for it. A similar configuration is now taking place, and the power is going to the east. Nobody can stop it, and you will see this in your lifetime.
You may very well be correct given the way Trump is mismanaging things.
That said, when Russian invaded Ukraine, Biden pulled together not only Europe and NATO, but a good portion of the world to battle Putin's aggression. Unfortunately, the Republicans and then Trump are unwinding all that good work.
I take it by East, you mean the Russia - China axis. America and the world has historically played nice with China trying to encourage them to join the world in fair world commerce - they have clearly and expectedly played them (us). The world has yet to join forces to battle China - Russia. At some point, I think they (we) will.While I agree with the assessment of the direction of the West... I disagree with your conclusion as to the cause.
The West killed the West... Progressivism, Social Justice, Marxist Feminism... The coalition of American hating (patriarchy hating, Christian hating) groups that dwell under the banner of today's Left Wing.
Hence getting back to the first couple of posts I made on this thread.
Women have the power and freedom to choose and are programmed by society to have a career while society shames and belittles the wife/ mom role.
Hence Western women, especially whites, are having roughly 1.5 kids per couple and that number continues to go down.
While non-western / Islamic in particular are reproducing at 5 per couple.
Won't take but twenty years or so of that trend to continue... Along with the massive influx of immigration we have seen... to bring about a cultural collapse ...that along with economic hardships not seen in our lifetimes... Will make for a rebirth of the West into something else... An end to 250+ years of this 'enlightened' experiment.
Remember when Trump's traitor-adjacent actions were right in front of us but Trump cult members chose to ignore the OBVIOUS - Trump gave aid and comfort to America's enemy who was at war with us - Putin.
"Fooled by Putin again? Trump’s rhetoric suggests he could be"
Putin fooled Trump into saying he believed Russia over America's own intelligence agency. I don't care which way you cut it other than technically, that is treason by any definition,
Well, Trump is TACOing his way into doing it again, maybe.
What is to follow is a clear sign that Trump is succumbing to dementia and irrationality.
In the run-up to todays meeting, Trump has variously and often contradictorily said:
* Push for an Immediate Ceasefire
* Will Not Resume Business or Economic Ties with Russia Until the War Is Resolved
*Optimistic that Putin Is Ready to Make a Deal (75% Chance)
* Exploring Alternative Security Guarantees for Ukraine (Outside NATO)
* Coordination with Europe and Zelenskyy on “Red Lines”
* A ceasefire must come before further talks
* Negotiations should respect current front lines
* Ukraine must participate in talks
* Western support must follow any agreement
* He also warned of “very severe consequences” if Putin refuses a ceasefire.
*Ceasefire as Main Objective, While Rejecting Territorial Concessions Without Ukrainian Input
* Reinforcing that a ceasefire is his central goal, Trump asserted he would not negotiate Ukraine’s territorial integrity and only supports follow-up trilateral talks involving Ukraine.
* Framing the Summit (on American soil) Itself as a Diplomatic Victory
Then there is this:
What Contradictory Statements Has Trump Made?
1. Previously Optimistic → Now Admits Failure
Before: Trump had repeatedly claimed he could end the Ukraine war within 24 hours, framing it as a quick win.
Now: He has acknowledged that those efforts have not succeeded, conceding that his supposed close relationship with Putin has not produced peace.
2. Calling for Ceasefire → Acknowledging Frustration and Escalation
Before: Trump sought an immediate ceasefire and criticized Russia aggressively.
Now: While still calling for peace, he has admitted that Putin has “gone absolutely crazy” and accused him of deceit, reflecting growing frustration rather than confidence.
3. Characterizing the Summit as a Milestone → Critics See It as Risky—and Possibly Yielding Concessions
Before: Trump portrayed the summit itself as a diplomatic victory and step toward peace.
Now: Analysts warn the meeting may sideline Ukraine and legitimize Putin—especially if it leads to territorial concessions made behind Ukraine's back.
4. Tough on Russia → Mixed Signals, Potential Concessions
Before: Trump emphasized no business ties with Russia until the war ends.
Now: He is open to “territorial compromises,” a notion Ukraine strongly rejects.
t
5. Strong U.S. Alignment → Criticized for Being Submissive
Before: Trump claimed he would not be outmaneuvered by Putin and could negotiate from strength.
Now: Prominent commentators argue his “alpha male act” fails around Putin—suggesting Trump appears vulnerable or submissive in Putin’s presence.Why MAGAs can't see what is right in front of them?
Trump has given all of us permission to be the worst version of ourselves, and some love him for it. Others of us cringe. It's hard not to be angry over this direction our once admirable country is moving in today. But we shouldn't return evil for evil.
Knowing that is easy. Doing it is the hard part.I completely get where you're coming from but there has been a paradigm shift. Maybe it's only temporary but to use an analogy, if you go to a fight you don't want to see your guy just stand there and get pummeled...you want him to fight.
I think Voters are telling Democrats that when the other side goes low, they should be willing to go to the depths of hell to fight back.... This is where we are in America, at least until we can oust Trump.It IS interesting that Trump is considered "the worst version of ourselves".
As he cleans up the crime in DC we see the worst of ourselves. As he follows the law with getting illegal aliens out of our country instead of encouraging them to violate the law, we see the worst of ourselves. As he protects women's sports we see the worst of ourselves. As he lowers taxes for everyone we see the worst of ourselves. As he refuses to join wars between other countries, and refuses to police the world, we see the worst of ourselves. As he protects our police forces with national guard we see the worst of ourselves. As he performs his job of protecting and sealing our Southern border we see the worst of ourselves. As he fills his cabinet with top women instead of evil men trying to destroy our country we see the worst of ourselves.
We could go on and on, but there is no reason to repeat the obvious. But one wonders - if these things are the worst of ourselves, what is the best? Nuking Israel for being the aggressor in Gaza? Destroying Title 9? Should he cancel out women's suffrage? Demand more money from workers in order to give it to those that don't want to work? Would that be the best of us - to forcibly take what others earn and build to give away to someone that won't?He isn't "cleaning up crime in dc".. his administration took away money that the mayor had earmarked to hire 500 more police officers... His crime narrative is BS. This is nothing but revenge, retribution... Trump is a petty, small ugly man.
His pettiness and small-minded vengefulness takes the place of actual policy making.* 1. “Cleaning up crime in DC”
Reality: Homicides in DC dropped sharply in 2024, reaching a 30-year low, but the reduction is largely credited to local reforms and policing, not a federal takeover.
Problem: Placing the National Guard or federal officials over DC police is legally questionable, and a judge has already forced DOJ to rewrite such orders. This isn’t “protecting” — it’s undermining local self-government.
* 2. “Following the law with illegal aliens”
Reality: Immigration law is federal and complex. Courts have repeatedly blocked parts of Trump’s enforcement orders for overreach.
Problem: Deportations without due process violate the law; many migrants are asylum seekers whose cases must be heard under U.S. and international law. The claim flips legality on its head.
* 3. “Protects women’s sports”
Reality: Title IX already guarantees protections for women’s sports.
Problem: The administration’s approach is culture-war driven, often ignoring science, fairness processes, and the impact on transgender youth. It is less about protecting women’s rights than about targeting a vulnerable minority.
* 4. “Lowers taxes for everyone”
Reality: Analyses of Trump’s tax cuts (2017 and renewed versions) show that the wealthiest households and corporations received the largest benefits, while deficits ballooned. Also, when you look past JUST the tax tables, you will find the costs transferred from the upper to the lower classes made both the middle and lower classes WORSE off.
Problem: Middle- and working-class households saw far smaller benefits, while long-term costs shift back onto them through debt and service cuts.
* 5. “Refuses to join wars / police the world”
Reality: The U.S. has maintained troop deployments in dozens of countries during Trump’s terms, and Trump himself has escalated conflicts at times (e.g., assassinating Iranian Gen. Soleimani in 2020).
Problem: The picture of Trump as a non-interventionist “peacemaker” doesn’t hold up historically.
* 6. “Protects police with National Guard”
Reality: The Guard is not supposed to be a standing police force.
Problem: Federalizing or deploying the Guard against Americans raises civil liberties concerns and is exactly the kind of authoritarian step the Founders feared.
* 7. “Protects and seals the border”
Reality: The border has never been “sealed” under any president. Trump had to break several laws and suspend morality to do what he has done so far.
Problem: Rhetoric about a “sealed border” is fantasy; real border security requires resources, legal reform, and cooperation with Mexico/Central America.
* 8. “Cabinet with top women”
Reality: Women in Trump’s cabinet exist, but the claim of “filled with top women” is exaggerated. Many appointees are longtime loyalists or ideologues, not necessarily the most qualified.
Problem: Tokenizing women doesn’t erase the broader pattern of undermining women’s rights in policy (e.g., reproductive health).
* 9. Straw Man “What is the best of us?”
The “nuking Israel / canceling women’s suffrage / forcing people to give away earnings” part is classic straw-man rhetoric: attributing absurd positions to critics that nobody actually holds. It’s designed to mock, not debate.
There is a time and place to "to go to the depths of hell to fight back" and sadly, Trump and MAUGA has forced the real America to that point.
America has had several cycles of this mass insanity we are seeing today from MAUGA and each time we have gotten through it when saner minds took hold. But, I fear, this time is different - never before has America's survival been at stake.
I find it hilarious that people think Trump is serious about "cleaning up crime in DC" - hell, he is personally responsible for a lot of the white collar crime there.
In any case, I am sorry but I can't take those who think Trump is doing something good in DC when he ignores the real crime going on in crime-ridden cesspools like - Louisiana, Tennessee, and Arkansas.
When you focus your attention to real problems, I will take it seriously.Expert flips script on Dems pushing 'cherry-picked' crime stats to resist Trump's DC crackdown
Just Facts President Jim Agresti says that Democrats are 'abdicating their responsibility' by downplaying D.C. crime
Democrats across the country have been pushing back on President Trump’s D.C. crime crackdown, citing statistics purportedly showing that crime in the nation’s capital is down or even at historic lows, but an expert who spoke to Fox News Digital is pushing back on that narrative.
"These Democrats are citing statistics from the FBI, from its uniform crime report. And the problem with that is that they're portraying it as if it's a record of violent crime," Jim Agresti, president of the nonprofit research institute Just Facts, told Fox News Digital shortly after Trump announced he was sending federal resources to the nation’s capital to confront crime in the city.
"But really what it is is a record of crimes that are reported to the police and then those of those crimes that get reported to the FBI. It's not a full record of all violent crimes, and this is a problem. And the FBI is very explicit about this when they present the data in their formal report every year, where they say, ‘Do not directly compare the data from year to year because there are differences in how frequently people report crimes and how frequently the FBI gets that data from the local police agencies.’"
While many prominent Democrats, including Mayor Muriel Bowser, have insisted violent crime is at a 30-year low in the city, Agresti told Fox News Digital the "best way to understand the state of violent crime" in any jurisdiction is to look at the number of murders because it is a violent crime that is difficult to "sweep under the rug" because it "produces a dead body."
"When we look at the murder data for DC, we see that it is not a situation that is lower now than it's been in the last 30 years. Quite the opposite," Agresti explained. "It is currently 83% higher than it was at its low point a dozen years ago. So, there is a serious problem with serious crime, violent crime in D.C., and the city now, the nation's capital, has a murder rate that is five times the U.S. average."
The chances of a person facing a violent crime in Washington, D.C., have dropped in recent years, but the possibility of dying during such a crime has skyrocketed, data shows, Fox News Digital reported on Wednesday.
Lethality in D.C. jumped by a whopping 341% when compared to 2012 data, the study found, reporting that there were 13 homicides per 1,000 serious violent crimes in 2012 and 57 homicides per 1,000 serious violent crimes in 2024.
Agresti explained that while many people operate with the belief that crime spiked across the country during and because of COVID, the issue actually began getting worse specifically when the Black Lives Matter rioting erupted.
"That makes a lot of sense," Agresti said. "Police were vilified. They pulled back out of fear of being hurt. People were talking about defunding the police, and there was overall mayhem in this country. So, that rise, by the way, that people blame on COVID actually didn't start with COVID, and it didn't appear in other countries. It happened here where we had these BLM riots."
Agresti told Fox News Digital there is a "clear connection" between crime in the United States and the "Defund the Police" movement and that most people don’t grasp the "full extent" of the crime problem in this country.
"We had roughly 17,000 murders last year," Agresti explained. "Imagine if all of them made national news. At the current rate of murders in this county, roughly one in every 230 people in the United States will have their lives cut short by being murdered. That statistic is so unbelievable."
In addition to the "staggering" facts about murder, Agresti said data compiled by Just Facts shows one in 10 women in the United States are raped in the course of their lives.
"Think about the horror of that, and beyond all this pain, suffering, death, there's also a financial cost to crime," Agresti said. "It's been quantified in a 2021 academic paper, and, bottom line, crime in all of its forms, pain, death, suffering, financial loss, activities we take to prevent crime, they amount to a cost on our US economy of roughly $40,000 per U.S. household."
Agresti said anyone can "cherry-pick" crime statistics to promote a specific agenda but that it is important to also realize that many crimes also go unreported due to various factors, including animosity toward police or the belief that calling the police won’t yield results.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/expert … -crackdownThank you for taking the time to set the record straight. I truly appreciate your efforts. The people of D.C. tell the story best; they’ve been outspoken about what they’re forced to deal with every day. I’m confident that many in D.C. are grateful for Trump’s persistence in tackling crime
Lol... How did he "set the record straight exactly"???
And yes, DC residents making their voices heard
https://x.com/TommasinaResist/status/19 … 1643224368
Trump sent 450+ federal officers from nearly 20 agencies onto D.C. streets in a ‘crime crackdown.’
Arrests? Well from what I can dig up.. A dirt biker,, a suspended-license driver — and a guy who threw a sandwich...while violent crime is down 26% from last year... Our tax dollars doing NOTHING....
If Republicans actually gave a shit about crime in DC they wouldn't have taken away funding...
https://youtu.be/A2Hhx91SvU0?si=ZxrYGhtOqKX_eMfV
IT PASSEDHere is the problem. He didn't set the record straight did he.
There is a certain political wing that wants to deny the truth right in front of our faces. Especially in cities like NY and DC. Throw in San Fran and LA and plenty of others.
This denial of reality has been helped by the distortion "facts" and numbers... how they are reported... IF they are reported at all... what Police are instructed to NOT report that used to be regulation to report.
That is of course, if the Police respond to a crime at all... something that is becoming more infrequent as Police are painted as the villains and defunded.
This has been a long ongoing process... one many of us used to question when it began 30 years ago. When we were told that violent criminals were not... that they were actually the victims and that had they been given the same opportunities as ____ [fill in the blank] they would not be violent criminals, they would be well adjusted productive members of society.
Well all that BS has now gotten us to the point where we are supposed to feel bad for the thug beating up on the 70 year old woman trying to keep her purse from being stolen... after all, he is a victim of a society that has discriminated against him and forced him to be the animal he is.
When we get back to administering the maximum punishment for such crimes, on the spot, without worrying about what victim status he or she fell under... then we will have a return to safe streets, safe homes, and safe communities... but not until then... until then the 'Law of the jungle' will increasingly rule supreme... until you can't tell the difference between parts of DC and parts of Mogadishu Somalia.
This is a Nation that cares about its citizens and borders:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/XIkE3pVsByo
This is a Nation that does not:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfTnj3phISYYou make some really sharp points here, and I agree with much of what you’re saying. What stands out to me is how the redefining of crime and responsibility over the last few decades has led us to a place where accountability often feels optional. When data is selectively reported, or not reported at all, it’s not just numbers being hidden, it’s the reality people are living in every day. That creates a kind of “manufactured perception” that things are better than they actually are, which makes it harder for communities to demand real solutions.
I also think the way criminals are often portrayed as the “true victims” has created a dangerous cultural shift. Of course, poverty and circumstances matter, but when those factors are used to excuse violent behavior, it erodes the very idea of justice. Like you said, the result is people being asked to sympathize with the aggressor while the actual victim is almost forgotten.
Bringing back real accountability, swiftly and consistently applied, would go a long way toward restoring order and confidence in the system. Without that, it feels like we’re left with the law of the jungle, where ordinary citizens are increasingly forced to fend for themselves.It's as simple as looking at what occurs in Florida vs what occurs in CA...or NY... or DC.
Florida it is known that when you commit a crime the cops will stop you ...dead in your tracks if you give them cause... and if you break in a house the occupant has the right and responsibility to 'stand their ground' and the police are usually thankful for it.
And that is why Florida, despite Biden flying in hundreds of thousands of migrants to it during his time, isn't a disaster like CA.
Florida doesn't coddle criminals or condone those who stop them.
"There is a certain political wing that wants to deny the truth right in front of our faces." - That is so true and the real truth is that they are all on your side.
The statistics most Democrats are citing — such as D.C.’s 30-year low in overall violent crime — come from official D.C. Metropolitan Police Department data, not just the FBI's Uniform Crime Report (UCR).
The FBI’s UCR data is based directly on MPD’s reports, and it includes violent crimes reported and categorized under standardized definitions.
When critics say “you can’t trust these stats,” they’re not offering an alternative dataset — just casting doubt to shift focus away from actual trendlines.
All crime data has limitations, but consistent methods allow year-to-year comparisons with known caveats.
Bottom line: The data shows violent crime fell significantly in 2024 — even if murders rose in 2023, they later declined.
2. On Murders as the “Only Trustworthy Metric”
Claim: Murders are the best indicator of violent crime because they “produce a body” and can’t be hidden.
Not So Fast:
Murders are reliable, but they don’t tell the full story. For instance:
A city can have a high murder rate but declining rates of other violent crimes, or vice versa.
Murder rates are highly localized — driven by gang activity, drug hotspots, or even personal disputes, not necessarily broader crime trends.
D.C.’s murder rate in 2024 dropped after a spike in 2023 — and those facts were acknowledged by D.C. officials before Trump’s crackdown.
Key stat: D.C. homicides declined nearly 30% in the first half of 2025 compared to the same period in 2024 — a trend started before Trump’s intervention.
3. On “Lethality” and Misused Math
Claim: Lethality of crime in D.C. jumped 341% since 2012 — from 13 to 57 homicides per 1,000 violent crimes.
FALSE;
This is a misleading statistical ratio:
If total violent crime decreases and murders remain level (or rise slightly), the “lethality rate” jumps — even if the city becomes safer overall.
It’s a mathematical artifact, not proof of spiraling danger.
It conflates lower crime with higher fatality ratios, which can be influenced by changes in healthcare, gang violence, or even improved police targeting of high-risk zones.
4. On Blaming BLM and Defund Movements
Claim: Crime spiked not because of COVID, but because of Black Lives Matter and the “defund” movement.
FALSE:
The claim ignores global trends. Violent crime rose in many countries during COVID — including those with no BLM protests.
Major U.S. cities that didn’t defund police (like Miami and Fort Worth) saw similar upticks in 2020–2022.
Police budgets rebounded quickly in most places — and many cities increased spending on law enforcement in 2022–2024.
Fact: There is no proven causal link between BLM protests and long-term spikes in violent crime. Even conservative-leaning criminologists agree that attributing murder spikes to BLM is simplistic and politically motivated.
Was D.C. Police Funding Cut?
Partial Budget Cuts Around 2020
In 2020, the D.C. Council approved a $15 million cut from the Metropolitan Police Department’s budget, achieved by eliminating vacant positions and scrapping a cadet program expansion. This redirected funds toward alternative violence-reduction programs.
In 2021, the Council enacted further reductions—about 7%, or $43.4 million—by shifting a security contract away from MPD to DC Public Schools for support services.
But… Funding Later Rebounds
A 2024 study found no evidence of widespread or sustained “defunding” across major U.S. cities—including Washington, D.C. Most ended up restoring or even increasing police funding within a few years.
The FY 2025 approved local budget shows the MPD received substantial funding—around $561 million in local funds, plus federal and other sources—indicating continued investment in law enforcement.
For FY 2026, budget proposals included one-time increases such as $15 million for overtime pay and over $6 million for equipment (e.g., CCTV cameras, license plate readers), demonstrating net growth in resources.
IT SEEMS like your source is doing the Cherry-picking now doesn't it?
Also, wasn't it Trump and Republicans who withheld DC funding so that the mayor couldn't hire more police?? You didn't mention that.
On the Cost of Crime
Claim: Crime costs $40,000 per U.S. household.
FALSE:
That estimate assumes an economic cost model that folds in things like fear, insurance premiums, and prevention spending — most of which are not driven by current crime rates, but by broader structural issues.
A better question is what drives crime: poverty, inequality, lack of opportunity, weak gun laws — not just policing alone.
6. On Unreported Crime
Claim: Most crime goes unreported, so official stats understate the problem.
That’s true in every city, county, state, and country, every year. But unless there is evidence that reporting has declined significantly in recent years in D.C., it doesn’t negate the trendlines, which show improvement.
If anything, trust in police and government often increases when administrations support public safety without scapegoating entire communities.
[b]Conclusion
Agresti’s core argument — that Democrats are cherry-picking crime data to resist Trump’s “crackdown” — rests on:
* Misrepresenting how violent crime stats are compiled and used.
]Focusing solely on murder while ignoring declines in robbery, assault, and other violent crimes.[/u]
* Politicizing the origins of crime trends (e.g., blaming BLM).
* Ignoring local efforts that predate Trump’s intervention, which are likely more responsible for D.C.’s recent crime drop. (In fact Trump's authoritarian response hasn't done squat to reduce the crime rate)
A fair conclusion: Crime in D.C. was already declining before Trump’s federal actions. His intervention may or may not help, but pretending Democrats are denying a problem is false — many have acknowledged past spikes and supported reform.
What has Trump's theater accomplished so far?
Trump’s “crime crackdown” in D.C. has produced very little that the city’s own police wasn't already doing. The MPD already makes homicide, drug, and gun arrests and can surge officers when needed. What’s new — and solely because of Trump’s federal takeover — is the militarization of city streets with the National Guard, mass deployment of federal agents, forced cooperation with ICE by overturning D.C.’s sanctuary policy, and the creation of federal “National Defense Areas.” Those moves aren’t about fighting everyday crime; they’re about overriding local control and putting the military into civilian policing.
HERE is a fact for you; Since the SURGE, there have been an average of 14 - 17 arrests per day. The "normal" average for the DC Metro Police is 56 arrests per day. SO
* Either federal agents are less effective than local MPD at day-to-day enforcement,
* Or the surge is more about optics and federal power projection than actually boosting arrests.
It's easy to see why Republicans are winning.
I hope the left continues down the path they are currently going.
The inability to comprehend the reality of the current political situation is incredible.
Keep being you democrats, it will keep Republicans in power for a long time.
Things are not looking good for the democrats for the midterms.If that were true then why are Republicans trying so hard to rig the elections?
Trump has called for gerrymandering in several states....
Are you kidding me?
The democrats have gerrymandered states for years. How do you think California, Oregon, Washington State, Colorado all became blue?
Massachusetts has over 30% of its population that votes Republican and yet...there are NO Republican congressmen from that state.
democrats talk about others gerrymandering? Puh...leeese!Massachusetts has over 30% of its population that votes Republican and yet...there are NO Republican congressmen from that state.
Tell us which party signed those maps into existence??? Please...
Trump demanded five seats be given to him, he said he is entitled to them, in Texas and you don't think Democrats will respond in kind elsewhere??The point is that the Trump apologists simply make things up out of whole cloth and attempts to fool people with it.
He knows the MA example is totally bogus.Legislative Votes on Congressional Redistricting
House of Representatives: The Massachusetts House approved the new congressional district map (H. 4256) on November 17, 2021, with a vote of 151 in favor and 8 opposed. The breakdown was 127 Democrats, 23 Republicans, and 1 unenrolled voting in favor, and 6 Republicans and 2 Democrats voting against.
Ballotpedia
Senate: The Massachusetts Senate passed the same map on November 17, 2021, with a vote of 26 in favor and 13 opposed. The breakdown was 24 Democrats and 2 Republicans voting in favor, and 12 Democrats and 1 Republican voting against.
I assume you may be referring to the Republican Governor Baker, who signed the maps into law.
This is why Governor Charlie Baker, a Republican, signed the 2021 congressional map. The governor can veto redistricting maps, whether for state legislative or congressional districts. However, if the legislature has a two-thirds majority, it can override the veto. So while a Republican governor like Charlie Baker had formal veto power, a Democrat-controlled legislature could have easily overridden it, which limits the practical effect of the veto.Do you understand the reason why the maps are the way they are in Massachusetts??
Trump is demanding seats. He is ordering them up as if a Big Mac... This is a purely autocratic move.I was addressing your comment
"Massachusetts has over 30% of its population that votes Republican and yet...there are NO Republican congressmen from that state.
Tell us which party signed those maps into existence??? Please..." Willow
I offered you why the maps were made law, who signed them into law, and why that particular Governor signed them into law.
It seems clear, and in my opinion, that Trump is taking advantage of the opportunity to shape districts in favor of his party, just as Democrats have done frequently. As I illustrated in my earlier example, Democrats controlled the legislature, passed the maps, and signed them into law. The game is being played under the same circumstances now. Why wouldn’t Trump make the most of the same strategy? I would be disappointed if my party did not take good advantage of gerrymandering. I understand it doesn’t fit your narrative when a Republican responds in kind, but the principle is the same: both parties play the game when they have the chance.
I am a republican, I would be thrilled to see some gerrymandering.
Gerrymandering can help my Republican Party by redrawing district lines to maximize our chances of winning more seats. Even if our voters are a minority in a state, smart map-drawing can concentrate Democratic voters in a few districts and spread Republican voters across others, giving us more influence in Congress and stronger representation for our supporters. It’s simply playing the same strategic game Democrats have used for years.And now the Ds need to do what Trump is doing rather than, by and large, being ethical about it.
Sigh - Massachusetts Redistricting Process
In Massachusetts, congressional and state legislative redistricting plans are passed as regular legislation.
Like all other bills, they go through the House and Senate and then to the Governor.
The Governor does have normal veto power over them, just like with any other bill.
If the Governor vetoes the map, the Legislature can override the veto with a two-thirds vote in each chamber (which Democrats have easily had for decades).They keep trying to use Massachusetts as an example even though they have been corrected over and over and over....
Don't say it, prove it, otherwise we know you are making it up
Your MA example has been debunked multiple times.
Became Blue - because sensible people live there.So agree ---- Blue states have mastered the use of gerrymandering and voter distribution to lock in their advantage, and that’s why they hold so many Electoral College votes. It’s not just about congressional seats; it’s about shaping political power nationally.
Take your example, Massachusetts: Republicans consistently win 30–40% of the statewide vote, but the state hasn’t sent a single Republican to Congress since 1994. The same story plays out in California, Illinois, and New York, where millions of Republican voters exist but never translate into meaningful representation.
This isn’t unique to Massachusetts. Systems like single-member districts inherently fail to reflect sizable minority party support, especially when those voters are scattered instead of concentrated. Even in states with “independent” redistricting, Democrats benefit from geography and districting lines that ensure their dominance. These structural imbalances create uncompetitive elections and lock in partisan advantage. That is why blue states remain solidly blue, and why Democrats hold an enduring grip on Electoral College power, regardless of how many Republican voters are actually present within those states. And they did it with gerrymandering.
DC police accused of changing crime stats just weeks before Trump federalized city
Claims of changing crime data within the department are currently under investigation
Just weeks before President Donald Trump federalized the Washington, D.C., police force over crime woes, the Metropolitan Police Department was hit with accusations of allegedly juking crime stats for more favorable results.
"When our members respond to the scene of a felony offense where there is a victim reporting that a felony occurred, inevitably there will be a lieutenant or a captain that will show up on that scene and direct those members to take a report for a lesser offense," D.C. Police Union chairman Gregg Pemberton told NBC Washington in July of an alleged trend to manipulate crime stats.
"So, instead of taking a report for a shooting or a stabbing or a carjacking, they will order that officer to take a report for a theft or an injured person to the hospital or a felony assault, which is not the same type of classification."
The accusations from the union chief followed the police department suspending Washington, D.C., police commander Michael Pulliam in mid-May for allegedly changing crime statistics in his district, local media reported in July.
The police commander was accused of falsifying crime data to make crime trends look more favorable for the city, but has denied the allegations. A week before his suspension, Pulliam filed an equal employment opportunity complaint against a higher-up, local outlet NBC Washington reported.
Pulliam is currently under investigation over allegedly changing stats. The Metropolitan Police Department told Fox News Digital Thursday, when asked for additional comment and updates on the case, that it "does not comment on internal investigations or personnel matters."
The accusations over changing crime stats were soon followed by Trump federalizing the police department on Monday in response to a spate of high-profile killings and attacks, as well as a crime wave in the District that has persisted since the 2020 era. The president federalized the local police department under section 740 of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, which allows the president to assume emergency control of the capital's police force for 30 days.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dc-pol … lized-cityDid the homicides go up or down? making bodies and death certificates disappear isn't something that is hidden...
Why do you keep ignoring the fact that trump cut DC's FEMA security funding by 44% in FY2025, affecting policing via reduced support for officer hiring, training, and comms.???
the March 2025 GOP spending bill cut DC's police budget by $67 million, forcing layoffs of officers and cuts to public safety services... He creates problems doesn't he? To look like he is "solving" something
He cut $1B from the DC budget which could've paid for more police. This has nothing to do with crime and has everything to do with a thuggish power grab....Trump doesn't give a shit about crime in DC or anywhere else for that matter. Republicans cut DC's budget... So much for backing the blue LOL
Since Trump let (even encouraged) his followers to beat up the police without calling in the National Guard like he just did in D.C., nobody should EVER believe his cynical claims about supporting the police.
As to the mountain being made out of a molehill hysteria about Trump-style data manipulation, it is just ridiculous.
FIRST - since nobody has been tried and convicted, then any suggestion that data may have been manipulated is categorically false. (At least from the Right's perspective)
SECOND - if you take a leftist more realistic view that maybe some data his being manipulated in the FEW instances being investigated, the discrepancies are so small as to not move the needle at all.
So, as far as I am concerned the apologists for Trump's Authoritarian take-over of D.C. are completely bogus.Trump has never supported “defunding” D.C. police, in fact, he’s consistently positioned himself as backing the blue. The cuts people point to were part of larger federal budget fights, not Trump saying, “Let’s slash police.” When backlash came, he supported a bill to restore D.C.’s budget. That bill did not pass.
Compare that to Democrats, who openly pushed the “Defund the Police” agenda in 2020 and actually cut police budgets in cities like Minneapolis, New York, Los Angeles, Seattle, and even D.C. itself. That wasn’t indirect; that was Democrats proudly championing it until crime spiked and they tried to walk it back.
So while cuts occurred in federal appropriations or due to Republican-backed bills, Trump did not advocate for reducing D.C. police funding as a policy goal.
So when saying --"Trump doesn't give a shit about crime in DC or anywhere else for that matter. Republicans cut DC's budget... So much for backing the blue LOL" Willow
You might want o do some fact-checking.
Yes, in March 2025, House Republicans passed a continuing resolution (CR) that inadvertently forced Washington, D.C., to revert to its 2024 spending levels, resulting in a $1.1 billion cut to the city's fiscal year 2025 budget. This provision treated D.C. as a federal agency, halting its locally approved budget midway through the fiscal year. The move was part of a broader effort to avoid a federal government shutdown. This is what Republicans do -- try to cut government spending. This is not new, it's what the party represents --- smaller government, cut spending.Democrats know they are screwed. No state has been GMed more than CA. IL and MA are not far behind... They will lose this fight.
Again, another post clearly not comprehending the situation in Massachusetts LOL.
And what is the fight? The ability for a president to order up seats??Not sure you understand, this isn’t explicitly about Massachusetts anymore. It’s about a president urging his party to get on board with his agenda, and, more importantly, to strategize and strengthen the party’s political power. Yes, you could put it in a president ordering up seats.
- yes... how?
Some of the most 'intelligent' people I've come across are amazingly 'stupid'.
No common sense, no ability to see beyond their ideology, to adapt...
I remember a psychology professor explaining how the majority of people lack that ability to adapt and 'reinvent' themselves to the changes occurring around them... those that can thrive, those that do not...
the greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.
Why Critical Thinking Is Disappearing – The Rise of Collective Stupidity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIO4IDMnBDU
Hi Ken, they’re completely exposed and have made fools of themselves at every turn. Their communist policies are on full display, and I can’t help but enjoy watching their collapse.
I can only hope we see many other states start gerrymandering. I think we could see Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia get on board. I mean, the stars are all in alignment to have very smooth sailing.
Redistricting Report Card | Gerrymandering Project https://share.google/0yeqR2FQDViwGJ0caI didn't realize Oregon was poor. Ditto with New Mexico where I thought they were like MA, Republicans thinly spread out. But of course what is telling is the 10 Republican gerrymandered states compared to 3 Blue states. That said, neither Oregon or New Mexico are gerrymandered as badly as Texas and Illinois are.
Republicans are the ones making a power-grab ... again. Texas is already heavily gerrymandered.
Gloves are off. Every state can gerrymander for partisan interests now. This is what Trump asked for when he called on Texas to do it 5 years early...and deliver him 5 seats.Sadly, NY laws make it hard and they can't go to the people like California can and Texas is afraid to.
AGAIN....
Even though Republicans receive a portion of votes statewide (around 40% in recent elections), their voters are not geographically concentrated enough to form a compact district where they would be the clear majority.....that's it.It has become clear you know only a bit about gerrymandering. To simplify the concept. If Republicans start gerrymandering aggressively in states where they already have control, you’d see a mirror image of what happens in deep blue states like Massachusetts. Take Texas as an example, Democrats can pull around 40% of the statewide vote, but through gerrymandering Republicans can split that vote so Democrats only get a fraction of the seats. If the GOP expanded that same strategy in places like Florida, North Carolina, or Ohio, you’d end up with Democrats receiving MILLIONS of votes, but holding only a handful of congressional seats.
That’s the real-world proof that gerrymandering, not just “geography,” decides who gets represented. The Massachusetts situation is just the blue-state version of the same story.Who doesn't understand? You've missed the point completely about Massachusetts even though it has been posted over and over and over and over and over..... Republicans are sprinkled throughout that state in such a manner that gerrymandering, cracking or packing, just cannot take place...
Studies have shown that while both Republicans and Democrats engage in gerrymandering, Republicans have historically benefited more from the practice in terms of controlling more state legislatures and drawing a greater number of districts that favor their party.
Here's a breakdown.
Republican Advantage:
Republicans have disproportionately controlled the redistricting process, particularly after the 2010 census, leading to a strong gerrymander that benefited their party.
They controlled the drawing of 191 (44%) districts compared to Democrats' 75 districts before the 2024 election cycle, according to the Brennan Center for Justice.
This led to a net advantage for Republicans of an estimated 23 extra seats in states with Republican-favoring maps, compared to 7 extra Democratic or Democratic-leaning seats in states with Democratic-favoring maps.
So yes, looks like the Dems have some catching up to do.
Gerrymandering Explained | Brennan Center for Justice https://share.google/4bWDxBGZfhFMtwUIV"Studies have shown that while both Republicans and Democrats engage in gerrymandering, Republicans have historically benefited more from the practice in terms of controlling more state legislatures and drawing a greater number of districts that favor their party." willow
This is very true, but some facts have been left out. Republicans really gained the upper hand in gerrymandering after the 2010 midterms, when they flipped many state legislatures. That gave them redistricting power in 2011, and for the entire decade until the 2020 Census, those GOP-drawn maps shaped elections. So, one might ask why Republicans did not gerrymander much before 2010.
Before 2000, Republicans gerrymandered in a few states where they held power (like Texas in the mid-1990s), but their opportunities were limited because Democrats controlled far more state legislatures and governorships. For most of the 20th century, Democrats dominated state politics, especially across the South, so they were the ones who drew the lion’s share of maps. That meant Democrats were the main beneficiaries of gerrymandering in the pre-2000 era.
Before 2010, Democrats held far more state legislatures and governorships, which meant they had the upper hand in the redistricting process that followed the 2000 Census. For much of the 20th century, Democrats dominated state-level politics, especially in the South, so they were the ones drawing the maps in most places. That’s why Republicans didn’t “out-gerrymander” them earlier; they simply didn’t have the power in enough states.
The ground is actually very fertile right now for Republicans to catch up on gerrymandering. After 2010, Democrats screamed foul when the GOP used redistricting power, but they forget that Democrats gerrymandered for decades when they ran most legislatures. Today, with Republicans controlling more statehouses than ever, there’s little moral high ground left for Democrats to stand on, meaning the GOP can redraw aggressively with very little pushback.
It is very simple; if they want to move forward, the time is right. Trump has reminded them that the time is right. That they need to use gerrymandering due to there would be little way of stopping them in some states.
Here is something else for Trump and his apologists to deny is real.
"Russia is quietly churning out fake content posing as US news"
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/08/1 … n-00512173Have arrests gone up or down since the DC police takeover? What the data says
The News4 I-Team took a look at the data and found that the total number of arrests by MPD and federal officers went down after the takeover, compared to the same time period the week before......WOMP WOMP"The News4 I-Team took a look at the data and found that the total number of arrests by MPD and federal officers went down after the takeover, compared to the same time period the week before......WOMP WOMP" Willow
What? Is this not the reason Trump stepped in to stop crime? I would think common sense would indicate he wanted to decrease crime, hence decrease arrests. Did you read your posts?
Millions in taxpayer dollars per day for this BS... The areas around The monuments have historically seen the LOWEST levels of crime in DC...
https://x.com/jamiedupree/status/1957170258680205512
SICKENINGSo let's get this straight. Maga is clearly stating that it is perfectly okay for a president to order up the number of seats he would like to gain in an election.... I mean especially when they know they're going to lose, right?
If the policies were that popular, everyone would be on board now wouldn't they?I see five states where Republicans could significantly benefit from gerrymandering, and all of them need to get on with it. In Texas, with Republican control of both the state legislature and the governor’s office, the rapidly growing population presents a chance to maximize seats in Congress and the state legislature, protect incumbents, and reduce competitive races. Florida, also under Republican control, offers similar opportunities to turn a modest majority of votes into a disproportionate number of seats, locking in long-term influence over state policy. In Ohio, where Republicans hold both chambers of the legislature and the governor’s office, gerrymandered maps could allow them to win more seats than their statewide vote share would suggest, securing an advantage for the next decade. North Carolina has a history of favorable Republican maps, and with continued legislative control, they could again create districts that protect incumbents, reduce competition, and solidify party power. Even in Georgia, where the political landscape is more competitive, Republicans still hold enough legislative influence to shape district boundaries in ways that create safer districts and maximize representation. All in all, these states need to act now; gerrymandering could turn modest Republican support into a lasting structural advantage, shaping state and national policy for years to come.
Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia all have the legislative power to redraw districts, and they need to get on with gerrymandering. Done strategically, it could turn modest Republican support into a lasting advantage, protecting incumbents, reducing competition, and shaping policy for years to come.So we are at the point in our history that a president orders the number of seats he would like to gain an election and the state legislatures hop to it... Politicians picking their voters instead of voters picking their politicians. Got it.
Gone are the days of redistricting every 10 years on the basis of census.. now it is based upon the command of dear leader... We have definitely entered into our authoritarian era.Lol you've made quite an argument in favor of autocracy.
Does this not suit your narrative, due to it is another political party using gerrymandering to their benefit? Gerrymandering is legal for Democrats and Republicans. The situation has become promising for my party to gerrymander. I am hopeful they will do so.
What doesn't suit my narrative is the fact that we have a president who is ordering an election... He's obviously afraid of a massive blue wave at the midterm. If he and his policies were so popular, he wouldn't need to order seats ... And there are certain circumstances that gerrymandering maps is absolutely not legal...
Trump absolutely has the right to speak about gerrymandering or any political strategy; that is fully protected under the First Amendment. Expressing support for a legal action or encouraging his party to pursue it is not “ordering” anything; it’s simply exercising free speech. Gerrymandering itself is legal and handled entirely by state legislatures, so his commentary or suggestions don’t break any laws and don’t give him direct control over outcomes.
I have no idea what he might be thinking about the midterms. He could very well feel gerrymandering could offer the Republicans a leg up. I think the midterms will speak volumes to what citizens are feeling.Just like Trump DOES NOT have the right to tell a state Secretary of State to find enough votes to win an election, Trump does not have the at least moral and ethical right to tell (not even ask) a governor to create five new electoral seats for him.
Legal yes, but unethical. This is why Republicans do it a lot and Democrats rarely.
Do you notice all all the apologists' answers always skip past the moral and ethical aspects. It is almost as if they simply don't matter to them.Yep, morality and ethics need to be checked at the door in order to follow Trump. And I do think that Texas absolutely has a racially based gerrymander going.
Fantasy reigns among the Trump apologists regarding gerrymandering - they have no clue what they are talking about beyond the myths they have been fed.
Tomorrow, I will have a breakdown of severely gerrymandered states by Red, Blue, and Purple from 1905 forward in 10 year increments.My, but you have a lot of time on your hands.
Propagating harmful perception and bias, yes he is good at that, and those lacking in critical thinking or those wanting to reinforce their own bias will buy into it.
You mentioned in another comment how some lack empathy... apologies for not tracking that specific comment down for better context.
However I offer this in reply:
https://youtu.be/qsLIP1ScHUg?si=LP6I9V7FEtMK_P4r
Why Good Intentions Don't Solve ProblemsThat is a beautiful example of transference, don't you think Kathleen?
Depends on how you define the word "good" and what exactly it is that you do.
Have you read all the words written on these discussion boards? The writers' use a lot of words. But then, it takes a lot of words to try to explain what should be obvious right in front of us.
And many of us do have too much time on our hands at this point in our lives.Mike, I’ll do him a solid, LOL. Who exactly apologized for Trump’s remarks on gerrymandering? I mean, I’ve been clear: I fully support Trump’s comment, and I support Republicans going all out with gerrymandering right now. So what is he even talking about? Did you apologize?
AI Democrats Using Gerrymandering took all of 5 seconds....
Democrats Using Gerrymandering
1812 (Massachusetts): Governor Elbridge Gerry (Democratic-Republican) approves a district map so twisted it coined the term gerrymander.
Mid-20th Century (Southern States): Democratic legislatures systematically drew districts to weaken Black voting power and maintain segregation-era control.
1990s (Maryland & California): Democratic lawmakers designed maps that maximized their seats, even when vote totals were more balanced.
2011 (Maryland): Democrats redrew districts so aggressively that the state’s delegation shifted to 7 Democrats vs. 1 Republican.
2022 (New York): Democrats attempted an extreme gerrymander to lock in a large congressional majority, but it was struck down by the state courts.
Republicans Using Gerrymandering
1990s (Texas): Republicans redrew districts to flip longtime Democratic seats as the state shifted red.
2003 (Texas): Led by Tom DeLay, Republicans executed a mid-decade redistricting, flipping the U.S. House delegation to a GOP majority.
2011 (Wisconsin): Republicans drew maps that let them retain large legislative majorities even when Democrats won more overall votes.
2011 (North Carolina): Republican maps created some of the most skewed districts in the country; later struck down in state court.
2011 (Pennsylvania): Republicans drew maps that secured 13 GOP congressional seats to just 5 Democrats, despite statewide voting being roughly even.
I have to shake my head at this one, because I haven’t seen a single Trump supporter here apologizing for Trump calling for gerrymandering to move forward. As you know, I’m a Trump supporter, and my position has been consistent, his statement was both legal and fully protected under his right to free speech. And in no respect am I being apologetic about that. In fact, I hope this post makes my stance crystal clear: I support Trump’s request, and I support Republican legislatures using every legal means available, including gerrymandering, whenever they have the opportunity to redraw maps in their favor. That’s not backing down, that’s strategy.
I mean, who exactly apologized? It seems to me that ECO is just flipping the subject. No one here has denied that both sides gerrymander; that’s a fact, not even up for debate. There’s nothing to prove on that point, and certainly no real argument there.
AI --- Democrats Using Gerrymandering
1812 (Massachusetts): Governor Elbridge Gerry (Democratic-Republican) approves a district map so twisted it coined the term gerrymander.
Mid-20th Century (Southern States): Democratic legislatures systematically drew districts to weaken Black voting power and maintain segregation-era control.--- n the mid-20th century, Southern Democrats employed gerrymandering to maintain political dominance and suppress Black voting power. A notable example occurred in 1957 when the Alabama legislature enacted Local Law 140, which redrew the boundaries of Tuskegee, effectively excluding nearly all Black voters from the city. This move was challenged in the landmark Supreme Court case Gomillion v. Lightfoot (1960), where the Court ruled that electoral district boundaries drawn solely to disenfranchise Black voters violated the Fifteenth Amendment .
Additionally, the Byrd Organization in Virginia, led by Senator Harry F. Byrd, dominated state politics through a network of local officials and resisted federal desegregation efforts, epitomizing the entrenched political control of Southern Democrats during this era .
These historical instances underscore the use of gerrymandering by Southern Democrats to dilute Black political influence and maintain a one-party system in the South.
1990s (Maryland & California): Democratic lawmakers designed maps that maximized their seats, even when vote totals were more balanced.
2011 (Maryland): Democrats redrew districts so aggressively that the state’s delegation shifted to 7 Democrats vs. 1 Republican.
2022 (New York): Democrats attempted an extreme gerrymander to lock in a large congressional majority, but it was struck down by the state courts.
Republicans Using Gerrymandering
1990s (Texas): Republicans redrew districts to flip longtime Democratic seats as the state shifted red.
2003 (Texas): Led by Tom DeLay, Republicans executed a mid-decade redistricting, flipping the U.S. House delegation to a GOP majority.
2011 (Wisconsin): Republicans drew maps that let them retain large legislative majorities even when Democrats won more overall votes.
2011 (North Carolina): Republican maps created some of the most skewed districts in the country; later struck down in state court.
2011 (Pennsylvania): Republicans drew maps that secured 13 GOP congressional seats to just 5 Democrats, despite statewide voting being roughly even.Sidestepping the issue that we have a man in office who is directly, openly asking for seats to be given to him because his policies are so unpopular that he can't win them in the democratic arena.
Hey when the little league team doesn't have the skills to win the game, they can just hire the umpire!What! I just clearly addressed my view on just that --- fourth time in two days.
"As you know, I’m a Trump supporter, and my position has been consistent. His statement was both legal and fully protected under his right to free speech. And in no respect am I being apologetic about that. In fact, I hope this post makes my stance crystal clear: I support Trump’s request, and I support Republican legislatures using every legal means available, including gerrymandering, whenever they have the opportunity to redraw maps in their favor. That’s not backing down, that’s strategy.
At any rate, I am done with the back and forths on the subject. Made my point clear; not at all interested in repeating it or reading a repeat of the comment you left me.
What do you not understand? I am appreciative of his comment. I applaud him for using freedom of speech. I am hopeful any state that can easily gerrymander at this point will do so, and quickly.
Regarding he can't win in a Democratic arena --- he won the election. I would think one could safely say that a presidential election is the mother of all arenas... Regarding calling for gerrymandering. History shows the benefits that gerrymandering can offer.
Gerrymandering benefits a political party by shaping electoral districts to maximize its advantage. By concentrating opposing voters into a few districts, known as “packing,” and spreading the party’s own supporters across multiple districts, called “cracking,” a party can win more seats than its overall vote share might suggest. This practice helps protect incumbents by creating safe districts, reduces competition, and allows the party to more effectively advance its legislative agenda at both the state and federal levels. Because redistricting gerrymandered maps can lock in a party’s advantage for an extended period, even if voter preferences change. Additionally, gerrymandering dilutes the opposition’s influence by limiting their ability to gain representation proportional to their numbers, consolidating power for the party in control of the redistricting process.
This is precisely why both parties gerrymander. I suggest you look past your issue with Trump openly asking for seats to be given to him, or the underlying reasons. Because yes, he is openly fighting in an arena, and openly asking for Republicans to fight fire with fire, gerrymander to offer more power to the party, while congressional maps can be changed to somewhat offer benefits.
What is odd, you don't seem to understand some, like me, are on board with his message, and hope to hell any state where we can gerrymander with little problem gets a move on. I so appreciate Trump's boldness. I hope this comment makes my thoughts very clear.How about Republicans try to win their midterms based upon their policies and their popularity? Instead of a president demanding a gerrymander to pull them through? Voters should choose their politicians... Rather than politicians choosing their voters when their policies are too weak to win election.
LOL More power to them! Are you kidding? I made it clear, I want my party to fight fire with fire. Got it... Gerrymander until the sun goes down. I am a republican. I hope to use gerrymandering to increase my party's power.
Throughout my life, I have watched both parties benefit from gerrymandering. Why in the world would you think I would not be pleased to see my party using this legal method to gain more power? This is politics."How about Republicans try to win their midterms based upon their policies and their popularity?" Willow
You do realize that in the midterms, only the votes will determine the winners. Your comment doesn’t make much sense to me in the context you wrote it.
"Instead of a president demanding a gerrymander to pull them through? " willow
Gerrymandering only affects how district lines are drawn before an election, it does not change how citizens vote. By the time of the midterms, the maps are already set, and outcomes depend on voter turnout and choices in each district. Trump cannot “depend” on gerrymandering in real time to win; he and Republicans can only benefit from gerrymandered districts that were drawn in advance by state legislatures they control. Ultimately, the midterms are decided by the votes of the people, not by speculation about past district lines.
You seem to think that the Democrats have the midterms in the bag. Not sure why? You may want to consider that no one really knows the outcome of elections until the votes are tallied.You seem to think that the Democrats have the midterms in the bag. Not sure why? You may want to consider that no one really knows the outcome of elections until the votes are tallied.
Perhaps, but if we play the game the way the GOP has decided it wants to play and get more districts in blue leading states, the Democrats will still have the advantage, because with rare exception, the controlling party ALWAYS loses seats..
Trump and the Republicans have to be exemplary to retain control, isn’t that a bit of a stretch?I just think we’ve been down the path of predicting midterms before. Remember all the talk here about the “red wave”? We both know how that turned out. So it really struck a chord when Willow seemed to suggest that Republicans might need to cheat to win the midterms. As I mentioned in my comment, in the end, it’s the voters who have the final say; they determine the winners.
I’ll be honest, I haven’t really looked into the field for the upcoming midterms yet. I plan to, but it’s too early to make any judgments. And you can be sure I won’t be predicting winners, I learned that lesson years ago.A president doesn't need to ask for seats if he and his policies are popular... Nor does he need to attempt to limit voting methods. He's obviously quite scared and he should be. He is in the tank on all polls.
The other day, Tim shared a thread analyzing Trump’s polls. He noted that during Trump’s first term, his numbers at this point were actually lower than they are now. Tim put a lot of research into it, so it’s worth checking out his thread. I mean, Trump has never enjoyed high polls, yet won twice with in-the-tank polls. So, it makes one think.
I never predict midterms. Through my years, I have just witnessed too many surprises.Tim's research I trust.
The polls research I do not.
They are all paid by someone who wants the polls to show something... Even the ones that are supposed to be unbiased.
Then there is the small percentage of people often polled... sometimes in the low thousands...then there is the vague uncertainty of where they were polled from.I’ve grown pretty skeptical of polls. I pointed out to Willow that Trump is actually polling stronger this time around than he did in his first term. Tim’s thread was interesting, but it was met with silence. It seems like anything that might cast Trump in a more positive light tends to get overlooked here.
I find Nate Silver’s site useful for checking polls. I’m not a fan of the way he calculates his mean statistic, but he does at least list all the polls he draws from. The key is understanding that just a few low results can drag down a lot of higher ones in the calculation.
Another difference with the way Democrats are doing it today as opposed to Republicans (and this gets back to morals and ethics): Republicans are FORCING it down their voter's throats while Democrats (at least Newsom anyway) is ASKING the voters for permission.
Which one is like a dictatorship and which one is like a democracy?Another difference with the way Democrats are doing it today as opposed to Republicans (and this gets back to morals and ethics): Republicans are FORCING it down their voter's throats while Democrats (at least Newsom anyway) is ASKING the voters for permission.
THAT is a very good and key point, ESO. It makes crystal clear the difference between Democrats and Republicans.
You carefully did not identify which were conservative gerrymanders and which were not when talking about history.
As we all have tried to point out before, party labels mean nothing when talking before 1994. To be valid, one must use ideologies.
Bummer - I spent hours going down the wrong rabbit hole until I remembered what the question was - is Willowarbor right when she wrote:
Studies have shown that while both Republicans and Democrats engage in gerrymandering, Republicans have historically benefited more from the practice in terms of controlling more state legislatures and drawing a greater number of districts that favor their party.
Then she was piled on by the apologists with a lot of half-truths, misdirection, and outright lies. Well, Willowarbor - you have been vindicated.
First, let's set the lens on which to view this from so as to get away from party labels, they are meaningless when talking prior to 1994. Blue states are those who believe and generally act such that all citizens have the right to vote unimpeded and do what they can to help that process along. They consistently elect people to further that goal. California is an example.
Red states do not believe that and do what they can to impede certain classes of voters from having their vote properly counted - if they are allowed to vote at all. They consistently elect people to further that goal. Texas is an example.
Purple states have experienced both views and inconsistently elect people who support one side or the other - Arizona might be an example of that.
* In 1971 - 1973, Texas (RED) racially gerrymandered the state to dilute Black and Latino votes.. - Ultimately Reversed
* In 1981, Blue California (BLUE) seriously gerrymandered the state to favor Democrats - Ultimately Reversed
* In 1982, the conservative, southern Democrats in North Carolina (RED) attempted to dilute the Black vote by gerrymandering - Ultimately Reversed
* 1991 - 1992, the conservative, southern Democrats in Georgia (RED) racially gerrymandered their state - Ultimately Reversed.
* 1991, southern, conservative Democrats in Texas (RED) racially gerrymandered their state - Ultimately three districts were struck down.
* 1991 - 1992, southern, conservative Democrats in North Carolina (RED) racially gerrymandered their state - Ultimately, some parts were struck down and others limited.
* 1992, southern, conservative Democrats in Louisiana (RED) racially gerrymandered their state - Ultimately, struck down.
* 2001 – Georgia (conservative, southern Dem-controlled) (RED) — One-person-one-vote abuse (systematic population deviations to entrench party) in state house/senate. Ultimately Struck / remedied.
* 2002 – Maryland (Dem-controlled) (BLUE) — Partisan gerrymander (congressional). Implemented. This is where the Supreme Court said it was OK to partisan gerrymander. No longer in force as it was replaced by later maps
* 2003 (mid-decade) – Texas (GOP-controlled) (RED) — Partisan gerrymander redo of congressional map. Largely upheld; CD-23 struck.
* 2004 – Pennsylvania (GOP-controlled) (PURPLE)— Partisan gerrymander (congressional). Map stood (no federal standard).
* 2011 – Wisconsin (GOP-controlled) (PURPLE) — Partisan gerrymander (state legislative). Map remained until 2024 remedy.
* 2011 – North Carolina (GOP-controlled) (RED) — Partisan gerrymander (congressional & state legislative). Common Cause v. Rucho (federal, no relief after Rucho 2019); Common Cause v. Lewis (NC 2019). State court struck/modified; enduring advantage.
* 2011 – Ohio (GOP-controlled) (RED) — Partisan gerrymander (congressional & state legislative). Repeatedly struck by Ohio Supreme Court (2019–22); interim maps used.
* 2011 – Pennsylvania (GOP-controlled) (PURPLE) — Partisan gerrymander (congressional). League of Women Voters v. PA (2018). Struck; new map imposed.
* 2011 – Florida (GOP-controlled) (PURPLE then) — Partisan gerrymander violating Fair Districts (congressional). League of Women Voters v. Detzner (2015). Struck; remedied.
* 2011 – Maryland (Dem-controlled) (BLUE) — Partisan gerrymander (congressional). Benisek v. Lamone (procedural); 2011 map stood, but 2022 state case led to a fairer map.
* 2011 – Illinois (Dem-controlled) (BLUE)— Partisan gerrymander (congressional & state legislative). Implemented (durable advantage).
* 2021 – Alabama (GOP-controlled) (RED) — Racial vote dilution (congressional). Allen v. Milligan (2023). Struck; second opportunity district required.
* 2021 – Ohio (GOP-controlled) (RED) — Partisan gerrymander (congressional & state legislative). Repeatedly struck; interim maps used.
* 2021 – Wisconsin (GOP-controlled) (PURPLE) — Partisan gerrymander (“least-change” maps) in state legislature. Initially adopted; remedied in 2024 after court shift.
* 2021 – New York (Dem-controlled) (BLUE) — Partisan gerrymander (congressional). Harkenrider v. Hochul (2022). Struck; special-master map used.
* 2021 – Maryland (Dem-controlled) (BLUE) — Partisan gerrymander (congressional). Szeliga v. Lamone (2022, state). Struck; settlement map adopted.
* 2022 – Florida (GOP-controlled) (RED) — Partisan gerrymander with minority vote impact (governor-driven congressional map). Upheld by Republican appointed Florida Supreme Court (2025).
* 2022 – Tennessee (GOP-controlled) RED) — Partisan gerrymander (congressional; Nashville split). In force (as of 2024–25).
* 2023–24 – Georgia (GOP-controlled) (RED) — Section 2 remedies ordered (more Black-opportunity districts) but overall partisan tilt preserved. Remedial maps in force.
* 2023–25 – North Carolina (GOP-controlled) (RED)— Partisan gerrymander (new 2024 maps after court composition change). In force (as of 2025).
* 2025 - Texas (RED) trying to do another mid-decade redraw to pick up 5 more seats. Voters have NO say.
* 2025 - California (BLUE) retaliates with a mid-decade redraw to pick up 5 more seats. Voters HAVE a say.
LET'S COUNT - RED and Red Controlled PURPLE: 22; BLUE: 7..
WINNER - WILLOWARBOR!Interesting how you don't cite your sources and provide quite a bit of opinion.
You can do better.I mean, who does this? LOL
No one, I mean no one, disputed that Republicans throughout our history have used gerrymandering more frequently. I mean, I think I posted a run a simple rundown on Republicans versus Democrats at least 4 times.
I think it is obvious he used AI as a source, but his accusation is really off the wall. I have been staying away from his comments; I find it easier to ignore them than debate his thoughts. But this comment was just uncalled, and I, like you, have asked for a source for his accusation.I think the overarching idea is that when Republicans cannot run on the strength of their ideas and policy, they resort to tactics like gerrymandering or trying to limit folks ability to vote... It's their well worn playbook. This is what is happening currently.
Reps are being booed off stage...Elise Stefanik is the latest.
https://x.com/addisondick0/status/1957515133418369414
And this guy....
https://x.com/Suzierizzo1/status/1957134476363899362
BRUTALI’ve already shared my views on gerrymandering in detail with you and others here, and I don’t plan to repeat myself. It’s clear from my earlier comments that we see this issue differently. To put it simply, and politely, we don’t agree. At this point, my view is that gerrymandering can serve as a tool to give the party I support a stronger and ultimately louder voice in Washington. This is how it’s been used in the past by both parties, and yes, I repeat, when looking at history, Republicans have made greater use of it. And it is my hope they get on the ball and gerrymander now, before the midterms. The ground is fertile in several states.
Why can't your group win based on the policies though? If all of the policies that this bunch is pushing were so popular Trump wouldn't need to order up seats... They'd already have them.
You can look them up if you disagree rather than take useless potshots and deflecting.
Here's a source with an impeccable reputation and a surprising conclusion:
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the- … nder-myth/
"Studies have shown that while both Republicans and Democrats engage in gerrymandering, Republicans have historically benefited more from the practice in terms of controlling more state legislatures and drawing a greater number of districts that favor their party." Willow
Now, after this lengthy comment --- who denied Willows' view? Could you offer a permalink and a quote to where anyone claimed her comment was not factual? I think that a permalink is necessary to prove anyone disputed her post. I posted what state, the dates, and which party gerrymandered, and it was very clear that republicans more often gerrymandered. I certainly did not go into the detail you have--- WHY would I? I admittedly AGREED with her statement.
Here are my comments on the subject--- I think when you make accusations, it is necessary to have quotes. I clearly shared my views that Republicans have used gerrymandering more than Democrats.
This is my direct post to the comment you quoted.
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/369 … ost4379822
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/369 … ost4379907
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/369 … ost4379908
I in no means have denied her comment contained facts.
Not sure why you would have even gone to such trouble. I early on posted much of the same to show proof republicans have used gerrymandering more than Democrats. As my permalink will prove. Your comment makes no sense in light of the many previous comments that have been posted here. So ----
"Studies have shown that while both Republicans and Democrats engage in gerrymandering, Republicans have historically benefited more from the practice in terms of controlling more state legislatures and drawing a greater number of districts that favor their party."willow
No one argued this was not factual; in fact, just the opposite...You did. You argued that Democrats started it, which they didn't, and that it was the Republicans that need to catch up, which clearly they don't.
"You did. You argued that Democrats started it, which they didn't, and that it was the Republicans that need to catch up, which clearly they don't." ECO
It should be very simple if you believe I said this to share a permalink to where you feel you read this. I have no interest in a back-and-forth with you. I would appreciate the link to this latest accusation. As well as the first accusation you posted this morning.
It seems you shifted the argument Willowarbor was making (and she can correct me if I am wrong). It isn't ""Studies have shown that while both Republicans and Democrats engage in gerrymandering" - Yes, of course you said that was factual. (Actually, at one point you said it wasn't, but I'll address that in a bit)
What she was clearly driving at was the next phrase, "Republicans have historically benefited more from the practice in terms of controlling more state legislatures and drawing a greater number of districts that favor their party" which is where your pushback is directed.
Here are some examples:
“You just made the point that both parties use gerrymandering... The only problem is you want to make one party's gerrymandering worse than the other's.” - That implies that it isn't. Well, 24 R vs 7 B, tells me the conservatives are much worse.
“You seem to want to push a narrative that fits your views. Not sure why? There is ample proof both parties have used gerrymandering to their advantage.” - She is pushing the narrative as it exists, which I imagine is HOW she formed her views. It also denies that conservatives use it much more extensively that liberals.
“You offer such unbalanced views — the GOP does this, the GOP does that... And the Dems are pure and wonderful?” - besides being somewhat insulting, you put false words in her mouth - again pushing back on her fact-based view that conservatives benefit much more than liberals.
Here is where you challenged her facts - "“I would think the logic in regard to this entire conversation needs to be based on facts... I don’t think you are open to any other opinion.”" - again, somewhat insulting and says she didn't use facts.
"“If Republicans start gerrymandering aggressively… you’d see a mirror image of what happens in deep blue states like Massachusetts.”[/] - You push back by denying conservatives haven't been gerrymandering for decades. Further, your example is not fact-based as was explained multiple times.
Obviously, somebody pushed back other than yourself. From Mike [i]"The democrats have done this many times in many states and Republicans have not abandoned any state legislature. Maybe the democrats should follow the example the Republican have set forth many times before." His claim there, which opposes Willowarbor's view, is patently, provably false.
Gerrymandering has been used by both political parties whenever they controlled state legislatures and could push maps through. For example, in 1812, Democratic-Republican Governor Elbridge Gerry in Massachusetts drew districts to favor his party, coining the term “gerrymander.” In the mid-20th century, Southern Democrats manipulated district lines to weaken Black voting power and maintain dominance. More recently, Democrats in Maryland (2011) and California (2011) redrew districts to consolidate their majorities. On the Republican side, Texas Republicans executed a mid-decade redistricting in 2003 to flip congressional seats to GOP control, and after the 2010 census, Republicans in Wisconsin, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania drew maps that gave them disproportionate representation even when vote totals were close.
Given this history, it’s clear that gerrymandering is a tool both parties have used to secure political advantage when possible. I believe Republicans should use this tool now to protect our party’s influence, especially in states where we have strong legislative control. By drawing districts that reflect Republican support, we can ensure fair representation for our voters and maintain stability in Congress and state governments, just as Democrats have done when they controlled the process.When has a Democratic president directly asked, mid decade, for a state to deliver more partisan seats?
Republicans know their policies are SO unpopular that if they want to hang on to power they must gerrymandering...
The Texas map is racist, it’s illegal, and it’s part of a long, ugly tradition of trying to keep black and brown Texans from having a voice....it's a majority minority state and that fact is not reflected in the proposed map. The fate of the gerrymandered map will ultimately be decided in the courts.
You mean like the Dems did in 1812 (Massachusetts): Governor Elbridge Gerry (Democratic) approves a district map so twisted it coined the term gerrymander.
Mid-20th Century (Southern States): Democratic legislatures systematically drew districts to weaken Black voting power and maintain segregation-era control.--- In the mid-20th century, Southern Democrats employed gerrymandering to maintain political dominance and suppress Black voting power. A notable example occurred in 1957 when the Alabama legislature enacted Local Law 140, which redrew the boundaries of Tuskegee, effectively excluding nearly all Black voters from the city. This move was challenged in the landmark Supreme Court case Gomillion v. Lightfoot (1960), where the Court ruled that electoral district boundaries drawn solely to disenfranchise Black voters violated the Fifteenth Amendment .You call Gerry a Democrat. Why didn't you say he was also a Republican? You did know he belonged to the Democratic - Republican Party didn't you?
You know, I can’t blame Trump for pulling every dirty trick out of the bag to prevent a disastrous GOP showing for the midterms next year. If I were him, I would be running scared knowing that when and if the dems take Congress, he is through. While his bombast may well continue, he will be neutralized considerably in a political sense.
Our Dems need to realize that the GOP is desperate and we should not expect nor give them any quarter in this struggle.I’m pleased to hear you say that. What Democrats need to realize is that Republicans are simply in a position to use gerrymandering in states where they currently control the process, just as Democrats have done in the past. It’s legal, and typically a state will not attempt gerrymandering unless all the pieces are in place to push a new map through. So why wouldn’t the Republican Party use it? After all, it’s about leveraging power to maintain influence. In the end, though, the midterms will ultimately come down to citizens voting, and the electorate’s choices will determine the winners.
Ok, Sharlee, if it is legal then the Dems should find no resistance from the other side if they choose to maximize their advantages as well, since there is no referee, it will have to be a slug fest.
It’s legal, and generally, a state won’t attempt gerrymandering unless all the pieces are in place to push a new map through. I agree with you because your perspective aligns with my own thinking on gerrymandering; if legal, do it. Politics and the fight for power have always been a slugfest, haven’t they? I’ll admit I haven’t looked into where Democrats could safely gerrymander at this moment. As I said, everything must be in place to implement new maps, and I do feel Texas currently has the perfect storm for it. I think there are a few other states that Republicans could also gerrymander before the midterms.
Cred, when I get home, I will give you the data that shows the Dems only RARELY used gerrymandering to benefit them. It has ALWAYS been the conservatives since at least 1905 which is where I started counting.
It will make clear the apologists live in a world of their own creation.And they should. An analysis by ChatGPT discovered the Democrats would win big if we all did it just like the Republicans are. I think the final analysis was the the Ds would pick up 5 to 7 seats over all.
"if they choose to maximize their advantages"
The democrats have done this many times in many states and Republicans have not abandoned any state legislature. Maybe the democrats should follow the example the Republican have set forth many times before.That’s a very important point, and I was going to mention it. However, the Democrats in Texas did not stand and fight; they ran for the hills. It doesn’t surprise me, nor does it shock me, that the party seems unconcerned about the representatives who abandoned their responsibilities.
In the end, the tactic only delays the inevitable. From my perspective, this created a lose-lose scenario for the Democrats. They didn’t stay and fight; they left, and as a result, they appeared weak.
I would be prouder of a Representative who stayed and fought, no matter the outcome.
I so appreciate your voice here. It is clear this forum, in my view, has become a disarray with few facts being posted.Sharlee, what was there to stay and fight over? The GOP is the infestation of the entire Texas legislature. The only real weapon the Democrats in Texas had was to leave.
It may have been a futile effort for changing the GOP plans to Redistrict. However, it has galvanized Democrats nationwide to be prepared to do likewise in the states that they control and be prepared to fight fire with fire.I can recognize the merits on both sides; what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. So it really comes down to the question: can two wrongs ever make a right? It seems like a stalemate, with both parties likely to keep using gerrymandering to their advantage.
Since we all know that is false, why do you keep repeating it?
Well, Mike, it is obvious that the way the republicans are behaving now, we are going to have to double down….
It is an idea that sucks all the same. Independent non-partisan commissions should be the law and I will bet you that Republicans prove more resistant to the idea. It is a form of blatant disenfranchisement when applied from either side.
The Republicans in Texas may not be so much as racist as they are partisan, but it comes across as racist as most minorities tend to vote Democratic. I wonder why that is? When you look at the electorate in states like Alabama and Mississippi with a substantial black population, you can almost say with 90 percent certainty that every GOP vote is White and every Democratic vote is black. It is a pretty stark and obvious divide which plays out across the nation even if it is to a lesser extent. So much for “common ground”.
But beyond mere politics, Texas sucks and I would never consider livingI get where you’re coming from, and honestly, I agree with a lot of what you said. Gerrymandering, at its core, is not something I would have ever supported when it first came about. It feels wrong to manipulate district lines for political gain instead of letting votes stand on their own. But the reality is, look where we are now. The country is so divided that one side almost feels forced to use the same ploys the other side uses just to stay competitive. It becomes less about doing what’s right and more about survival in the political system as it exists. That doesn’t make it ideal; it makes it sad, honestly, but it explains why it persists.
I also agree with you that independent, non-partisan commissions would be the fairest way forward. In theory, that should take the gamesmanship out of the process and let elections reflect actual communities instead of artificially drawn lines. I don’t think either party has been fully innocent here, though. You’re right that Republicans may resist reforms now, but Democrats have benefited plenty from favorable maps in the past. Both sides seem to talk reform when they’re out of power, but defend the status quo when they’re in charge.
As for the racial divide you mentioned, I think that’s one of the clearest indicators of how deeply our politics are fractured. When voting patterns are that predictable based on race, it only amplifies how gerrymandering gets interpreted; what may start as a partisan strategy ends up looking racial because of the demographic realities. That doesn’t mean every Republican intent is racist, but the optics and outcomes often suggest otherwise, and that’s where the tension comes from.
So yeah, I can agree with you that the whole idea “sucks.” It never should have become normal politics. But given where we are, it sometimes feels almost necessary just to keep power balanced. Maybe the real common ground is that both sides should be willing to give it up together; otherwise, the cycle just continues.
Notice how the apologists tried to move the goal posts by lying about who started this?
Both Parties have used gerrymandering throughout history. As a rule, they used this legal means to redraw districts. The use of gerrymandering when the time was right, when one power had a clear majority to do so without problem.
I asked AI to provide an unbiased list showing instances when Republicans and Democrats employed the legal practice of gerrymandering.
1812 (Massachusetts): Governor Elbridge Gerry (NOTE Democratic-Republican) approves a district map so twisted it coined the term gerrymander.
Mid-20th Century (Southern States): Democratic legislatures systematically drew districts to weaken Black voting power and maintain segregation-era control.--- n the mid-20th century, Southern Democrats employed gerrymandering to maintain political dominance and suppress Black voting power. A notable example occurred in 1957 when the Alabama legislature enacted Local Law 140, which redrew the boundaries of Tuskegee, effectively excluding nearly all Black voters from the city. This move was challenged in the landmark Supreme Court case Gomillion v. Lightfoot (1960), where the Court ruled that electoral district boundaries drawn solely to disenfranchise Black voters violated the Fifteenth Amendment .
Additionally, the Byrd Organization in Virginia, led by Senator Harry F. Byrd, dominated state politics through a network of local officials and resisted federal desegregation efforts, epitomizing the entrenched political control of Southern Democrats during this era .
These historical instances underscore the use of gerrymandering by Southern Democrats to dilute Black political influence and maintain a one-party system in the South.
1990s (Maryland & California): Democratic lawmakers designed maps that maximized their seats, even when vote totals were more balanced.
2011 (Maryland): Democrats redrew districts so aggressively that the state’s delegation shifted to 7 Democrats vs. 1 Republican.
2022 (New York): Democrats attempted an extreme gerrymander to lock in a large congressional majority, but it was struck down by the state courts.
Republicans Using Gerrymandering
1990s (Texas): Republicans redrew districts to flip longtime Democratic seats as the state shifted red.
2003 (Texas): Led by Tom DeLay, Republicans executed a mid-decade redistricting, flipping the U.S. House delegation to a GOP majority.
2011 (Wisconsin): Republicans drew maps that let them retain large legislative majorities even when Democrats won more overall votes.
2011 (North Carolina): Republican maps created some of the most skewed districts in the country; later struck down in state court.
2011 (Pennsylvania): Republicans drew maps that secured 13 GOP congressional seats to just 5 Democrats, despite statewide voting being roughly even.Mid-20th Century (Southern States): Democratic legislatures systematically drew districts to weaken Black voting power and maintain segregation-era control.--- n the mid-20th century, Southern Democrats employed gerrymandering to maintain political dominance and suppress Black voting power. A notable example occurred in 1957 when the Alabama legislature enacted Local Law 140, which redrew the boundaries of Tuskegee, effectively excluding nearly all Black voters from the city. This move was challenged in the landmark Supreme Court case Gomillion v. Lightfoot (1960), where the Court ruled that electoral district boundaries drawn solely to disenfranchise Black voters violated the Fifteenth Amendment .
——-
Yes, Democrats did this 60-70 years ago, but Republicans are doing it today, In stealth and surreptiously, but they are doing basically the same thing.
Both Parties have used gerrymandering throughout history. As a rule, they used this legal means to redraw districts. The use of gerrymandering when the time was right, when one power had a clear majority to do so without problem.
I asked AI to provide an unbiased list showing instances when Republicans and Democrats employed the legal practice of gerrymandering.
1812 (Massachusetts): Governor Elbridge Gerry (NOTE Democratic-Republican) approves a district map so twisted it coined the term gerrymander.
Mid-20th Century (Southern States): Democratic legislatures systematically drew districts to weaken Black voting power and maintain segregation-era control.--- n the mid-20th century, Southern Democrats employed gerrymandering to maintain political dominance and suppress Black voting power. A notable example occurred in 1957 when the Alabama legislature enacted Local Law 140, which redrew the boundaries of Tuskegee, effectively excluding nearly all Black voters from the city. This move was challenged in the landmark Supreme Court case Gomillion v. Lightfoot (1960), where the Court ruled that electoral district boundaries drawn solely to disenfranchise Black voters violated the Fifteenth Amendment .
Additionally, the Byrd Organization in Virginia, led by Senator Harry F. Byrd, dominated state politics through a network of local officials and resisted federal desegregation efforts, epitomizing the entrenched political control of Southern Democrats during this era .
These historical instances underscore the use of gerrymandering by Southern Democrats to dilute Black political influence and maintain a one-party system in the South.
1990s (Maryland & California): Democratic lawmakers designed maps that maximized their seats, even when vote totals were more balanced.
2011 (Maryland): Democrats redrew districts so aggressively that the state’s delegation shifted to 7 Democrats vs. 1 Republican.
2022 (New York): Democrats attempted an extreme gerrymander to lock in a large congressional majority, but it was struck down by the state courts.
Republicans Using Gerrymandering
1990s (Texas): Republicans redrew districts to flip longtime Democratic seats as the state shifted red.
2003 (Texas): Led by Tom DeLay, Republicans executed a mid-decade redistricting, flipping the U.S. House delegation to a GOP majority.
2011 (Wisconsin): Republicans drew maps that let them retain large legislative majorities even when Democrats won more overall votes.
2011 (North Carolina): Republican maps created some of the most skewed districts in the country; later struck down in state court.
2011 (Pennsylvania): Republicans drew maps that secured 13 GOP congressional seats to just 5 Democrats, despite statewide voting being roughly even.At this point, there are states where both parties could potentially have a strong opportunity to gerrymander. Republicans, in particular, currently have the majority needed in some states to push through new district maps
For Republicans, the situation is similar but mirrored: states where they control both the legislature and the governor’s office give them the clearest opportunity to gerrymander in their favor. Currently, some key examples include:
Texas – Republicans control the legislature and the governorship, giving them strong influence over redistricting.
Florida – GOP dominance in both legislative chambers and the governor’s office allows them to shape districts favorably.
Ohio – Republican control of redistricting has historically allowed them to draw maps that strengthen their advantage.
North Carolina – Although courts have occasionally intervened, Republicans have significant control over the redistricting process.
Georgia – Republican control of the legislature gives them influence, though courts have also imposed limits.
NOTE: Essentially, any state where Republicans have unified control of both the legislative and executive branches is a prime opportunity for them to gerrymander.
Democrats
Yes, a few states currently give Democrats a relatively favorable environment for gerrymandering, mostly where they control both the state legislature and the governorship. The key factor is having enough political control to redraw district lines after the census. Some examples include:
California – Although it has an independent redistricting commission now, Democrats dominate statewide elections, so their influence is strong.
New York – Democrats hold majorities in both legislative houses and the governor’s office, giving them significant leverage over redistricting.
Maryland – Historically, Democrats have controlled the state legislature and governorship, allowing them to shape districts advantageously.
NOTE: It’s important to note that some states have independent or bipartisan commissions that limit direct gerrymandering, even if one party dominates. But in states without such commissions, parties with legislative and executive control can draw maps favoring their candidates.If your policies are good and well received by the public you don’t gerrymander in the middle of the decade. Y'all cant win normally so you have to cheat because, your policies are horrendous and are dangerous to the average person...
You might want to let the NY governor know that.
In recent decades, the only times that mid-decade redistricting has occurred are (a) when a court or the law requires it (PA, NY, MD, NC, OH…), or (b) when it’s Texas – they did it in 2003...
NY did this only two years ago. You can always claim that they were forced by some Democrat judge, but that is not correct.
On Thursday, July 13, an appellate state court ordered New York’s Independent Redistricting Commission (IRC) to redraw the state’s congressional map. This decision stems from a lawsuit brought in June 2022 by New York voters, alleging that the IRC failed to complete its mandatory redistricting duties. This decision requires the IRC to reconvene and draw a new congressional map, but Republicans have already stated they will appeal. Now, New York’s highest court will likely have the final say on the Empire State’s congressional map.
New York Court Orders Redraw of Congressional Map. How Did We Get Here? - Democracy Docket https://share.google/7Q819J77czcuX5NAW
Pick your source, everyone reported it.They gerrymandered in 2022. Which is what I said, but only your side is claiming that only Texas is doing this.
"This decision stems from a lawsuit brought in June 2022 by New York voters,"
No one has claimed that only Texas is doing it...Again wrong! We are not saying it is ONLY Texas. It is FL, AL, MS, LA, NC, GA, etc
You claim to do a lot of reading on this subject but I guess you did not read your ally´s comment on this subject on this thread:
"In recent decades, the only times that mid-decade redistricting has occurred are (a) when a court or the law requires it (PA, NY, MD, NC, OH…), or (b) when it’s Texas – they did it in 2003..."
Are you making a personal attack here and calling her a liar?
FYI - It was Democratic judges who shot that attempt down.
I think you have shared that view many times in the past few days. Noted
Illinois (mid-20th century): Illinois Democrats tried a mid-decade redraw in the 1950s when they gained control of the legislature. It was challenged, but it showed they were willing to alter maps before the next Census.
California (1980s): Under Democratic control, California lawmakers engaged in multiple adjustments to congressional and legislative maps in between Census cycles to preserve their advantage.
Maryland (2010s): While not a full mid-decade statewide redistricting like Republicans did in Texas (2003), Maryland Democrats made revisions in the 2010s cycle that were widely seen as aggressive partisan redraws, though courts mostly let them stand.If your policies are popular and voters support them, they will come out for you. The president does not need to order up / demand seats to gain an advantage due to the inability to actually win over voters.
Honestly, I’m not focused on the emotional or philosophical side of gerrymandering. I am dealing with the facts that politics are politics, and both parties gerrymander. I am all for my side using gerrymandering every time conditions align.
There's nothing emotional or philosophical about having unpopular policies that the majority of Americans in poll after poll show clearly that they do not support... Americans don't support anything this Administration is doing.... That's a fact.
Easy to say things. More difficult to prove them.
Lol you haven't seen the polls? Dear leader is underwater in every category
Oh, give me a break. Just read the polls Sharlee likes to put out once in a while. There isn't a SINGLE THING Trump is doing that has over 50% support among the American population. Most of them are in the low 40s and high 30s. There is even on at 29% the last time I looked.
Yet you said this--- which certainly is sharing a view. I have no problem there.
Willowarbor wrote:
"If your policies are popular and voters support them, they will come out for you. The president does not need to order up / demand seats to gain an advantage due to the inability to actually win over voters."
In my view, you showed emotions by venting. Just by expressing frustration that anyone would try to bypass winning over voters the normal way.
Philosophically, you were appealing to the democratic principle that political power must come from persuasion and popular support, not manipulation.
Note — I wasn’t trying to impugn your view. I only meant that I saw it as coming from both an emotional and a philosophical place. Neither of those are bad things. But when it comes to politics, and especially gerrymandering, I’m wired differently. I don’t approach it from either an emotional or philosophical angle.
I simply shared my thoughts regarding the discussion and where I was coming from ---
"I just shared my view of your comment --- Honestly, I’m not focused on the emotional or philosophical side of gerrymandering. I am dealing with the facts that politics are politics, and both parties gerrymander. I am all for my side using gerrymandering every time conditions align." SharI wondered the same thing, how are policies "emotional" or "philosophical"? By saying she is "dealing with facts" is insulting you from my vantage point.
Shar,
I think it's important to point out that midterm elections are not national. They are local with national ramifications. These are not decided on national policy issues but rather a combination of national and local issues. The local issues will often have more of an impact.
I think it is funny how the democrats are angry at Republicans for doing what democrats have done form many years.
It falls under the category of democrat hypocrisy/double standards.
Their behavior would be funny if it wasn't so sad and misdirected."I think it's important to point out that midterm elections are not national.
HUH?!
2026 midterm elections... all 435 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives will be up for re-election. Additionally, 35 seats in the U.S. Senate will be up.for grabs.
this will change the balance of power. Hence Trump asking for seats to be given to him...How can anyone confidently predict a shift in the balance of power? We’re well past Trump asking for seats, been there, done that, and I don’t think anyone disputes that request.
Right now, the national mood is far from a typical midterm environment. Many Americans are noticing a president who is actively pushing policies and taking visible action, which changes the usual dynamics. Midterms traditionally punish the party in the White House, but when a president is seen as effective, or at least decisive, voter calculations can shift. Trump is highly visible daily, offering a shake-up that many may notice and appreciate: a new, different, and forward-moving style of leadership. Problems are being identified, addressed, and solved, rather than ignored.
The temperament of the nation also matters. Political awareness is high, and opinions on issues like the economy, immigration, and crime are strong. This energizes both bases, but it can also give the incumbent party an edge if voters credit the president with progress or tangible results.
So, while all 435 House seats and 35 Senate seats are up for grabs, the usual midterm “anti-president” effect may be muted if enough voters perceive real accomplishments, especially in key swing districts or states where local issues align with national policies.
I generally avoid making predictions, but I suspect midterm turnout will be low. I’ve come to see that many voters are apathetic and exhausted by the constant barrage of nonsense they face every day.Ho, hum
A national election is for the presidency as the entire nation determines the outcome.
Midterm elections are local as the winners of the election are determined by the local population. It's not national. People voting in a congressional district in Iowa do not influence the election in a district in Wyoming. Hence, it is a local election.
I suppose President Donald Trump is using the blueprint set forth by the democrats when it comes to getting seats from local elections to support him. I'm sure they did this because democrat policies are usually wildly unpopular.Trump's reign of idiocy will be over at the midterms.... Looks like you folks are going to lose control of both houses. Why? Because your policies are wildly unpopular.
In my view, I find it odd that anyone would stick their neck out predicting the medical terms. It has become more than clear that the Democrats in blue states may have a hard time in some cases keeping their seats. Just due to pushing too far left, and just could be that citizens have become very disillusioned with the party itself. Rgese midterms would be very hatf to call, if you ask me.
He is asking for seats to be given to him because he cannot win on the strength of his policy.
Speaking of Balance of Power. While it isn't a huge advantage, the Generic Ballot has Dems up by 3.9 points, the highest level in a long while. It is interesting to note the the Rs haven't had a positive poll since May, and the last Tie was in Jun. Since then the Ds advantage have ranged from +1 to +8. If it gets to +5, historically that means it is all over for the Republicans in the House.
I completely agree with you, great point,—midterms are very much local contests with national consequences, and the double standard from Democrats is hard to miss. What I find interesting is that while they’re busy criticizing Republicans for using a tool they’ve employed for years, they might be underestimating the transparency Trump has shown. By openly stating his reasoning and strategy, he’s giving the public, and perhaps even Democrats themselves, a rare look at exactly what he’s thinking.
In some ways, Democrats might be better off paying attention to what he’s actually saying rather than simply criticizing the fact that he’s speaking. They may also want to worry about holding onto their seats, given the lingering problems from the last administration that disproportionately affected blue states. Constituents in those areas could be looking for new leadership to send to D.C. It’s worth pausing to consider that citizens in these blue states have borne the brunt of many controversial policies. Yes, midterms are very much local contests with huge national consequences,
Would you ask the same when Democrats gerrymander? You really need to perhaps look at some of the fodder that surrounded gerrymandering when Democrats decided to use the tool. Why are you not willing to intertain both parties' gerrymander, both have created the same media blitz when they gerrymandered? One example I remember that caused a meia storm.
After the 1980 Census, Democrats—led by Rep. Phillip Burton and Assembly Speaker Willie Brown- engineered one of the most aggressive gerrymanders in U.S. history. Burton famously called one of his bizarrely drawn districts his “contribution to modern art.” Voters actually rejected the plan in a 1982 referendum, but the California Supreme Court ordered it used anyway for that year’s elections. Democrats went on to win 60% of congressional seats with less than 50% of the statewide vote. Then, in an extraordinary session just before Republican Governor George Deukmejian took office, outgoing Democratic Governor Jerry Brown signed the map into law.
This episode triggered a national media storm at the time, very similar actually bigger, to the scrutiny Texas faces today.
It seems you may not realize that gerrymandering is a tool, right or wrong, that both parties use whenever the opportunity arises. Yes, Trump expressed his view, saying, “I got the highest vote in the history of Texas, as you probably know, and we are entitled to five more seats.” Like all of us, he has the right to free speech. He is outspoken in a way no other president has been, sharing his thoughts openly without a filter. I fully believe he meant exactly what he said. I personally prefer this kind of transparency; it spares me from guessing what a president is thinking or saying behind closed doors.If your policies are popular, you do not need to gerrymander. You do not need to order seats in your favor.
Here we go again with those unsourced claims! Just kidding. When I see a claim that doesn't make sense or I am not sure about, I take the time to look it up.
Illinois
Page 2
https://www.ilga.gov/commission/lru/Gre … hatgpt.com
California
https://law.justia.com/cases/california … hatgpt.com
https://law.justia.com/cases/california … hatgpt.com
https://www.usccr.gov/files/historical/ … hatgpt.com
Maryland
https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va … hatgpt.com
https://www.businessinsider.com/marylan … hatgpt.comI wasn't asking for your links. The comments seemed reasonable so I didn't check either.
Have you noticed that your WHOLE defense of conservatives gerrymandering on social/racial/political grounds are three Blue states? Two, really since CA did it only once. I will admit, Illinois and Maryland have made more than one attempt.
Compare that to Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Tennessee, Florida, and North Carolina among others. Why don't you just concede it is the conservatives who are the bad guys (and when you consider most of the reasons are racial, bad guys is appropriate) on this issue rather than trying to draw false equivalencies?
Gerrymandering has been used by both major U.S. political parties, Republicans and Democrats, whenever they’ve had control of a state legislature during redistricting. The real answer to “who has gerrymandered the most” depends on time period and geography rather than one party always doing it more.
Historically: In the 19th and early 20th centuries, Democrats controlled more states (especially in the South), so they were the ones accused most often of gerrymandering.
Late 20th century to today: Republicans, after their wave victories in state legislatures (especially after the 2010 midterms), have been able to gerrymander far more aggressively in many states. For example, Republican-drawn maps in Wisconsin, North Carolina, Ohio, and Texas are often cited as some of the most extreme.
Democrats: When they control state governments, they also gerrymander heavily—examples include Maryland, Illinois, and Massachusetts.
So, if one asks about the current era (2010s–2020s), most experts agree Republicans have gerrymandered more because they’ve controlled MORE state legislatures during redistricting. But if you zoom out to U.S. history as a whole, both parties have used it whenever they could. And did not pass up a chance to gerrymander when all was aligned.
It strikes me as odd that when one side ends up on the losing end of gerrymandering, they suddenly treat the other party as “evil” for taking advantage of it. Do I personally like the concept of gerrymandering? No. But at this stage, when it has become such an entrenched part of politics, would I want my own party to use it if given the chance? Yes. The reality is that both sides gerrymander, and Democrats will do it whenever the timing and opportunity are right. That’s why it feels somewhat hypocritical to point fingers simply because, at the moment, your party doesn’t have the same chance to shape the maps in its favor. The hair on fire just does not seem to fit this issue.Unless you are looking at 10 year increments, then this statement isn't true "The real answer to “who has gerrymandered the most” depends on time period and geography rather than one party always doing it more."
It has ALWAYS been conservatives (be they Democrats or Republicans) initiating the vast majority of gerrymander initiatives. It is the ideology that matters, not artificial party labels.
The reality is that the conservatives do almost all of the gerrymandering in order to rig the elections on social/racial (mostly)/political grounds. That is just a fact.
No one has fallen farther than Little Marco.... His old clips are just the gift that keeps giving.
How does this man live with himself
https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/19 … 6071668799Very sad isn't. I actually used to like Rubio until he started, well to put it politely in mixed company, kowtowing to Dear Leader. Now we know why he did it.
Related Discussions
- 7
How restrained are you when someone cuts in line right in front of you. Do you
by garyyoungberg 14 years ago
How restrained are you when someone cuts in line right in front of you. Do you take any action?
- 8
A Party Unraveled: How the Modern Left Has Imploded
by Sharlee 6 weeks ago
Today's Democratic Party appears to be a shell of what it once was, a party that claimed to champion the working class, support American families, and value freedom of thought. Today, it's becoming increasingly difficult to recognize those foundational principles in its platform. What we’re seeing...
- 303
Is it right for Christians to convert tribal natives?
by klarawieck 14 years ago
For some time now, Christians have been traveling to the farthest, most remote places on earth with the intention of helping tribal people live a more civilized lifestyle. While committed to a charitable cause, they don't only change their way of life but take the initiative to convert them to...
- 59
Are Immigration Issues Driving The Global Move to Nationalism
by ga anderson 6 years ago
It is just a thought, yet to be developed, but what the hell is happening to the world.The USA has Pres, Trump.The Uk has it's Brexit crisis.Germany has disavowed the world-acclaimed Merkel government.Many immigrant-friendly countries like France and Sweden are rethinking their policies amid...
- 10
Have you ever seen an apparition right in front of you?
by Gary Rowell 14 years ago
Have you ever seen an apparition right in front of you?I like the thrill of getting freaked by ghosts, like in good documentaries, but I believe the mind sees what it wants to.
- 166
If Christianity really is the truth, shouldn't scrutiny demonstrate its truth?
by Elizabeth 10 years ago
If Christianity really is the truth, shouldn't scrutiny demonstrate its truth?All over the place in America, we see believers responding with outrage and defiance when Christian beliefs are challenged or questioned. If the beliefs of Christianity are, in fact, the truth - the only truth, then...