If Texas turns blue in 2020 should the Democrats gerrymander?

[Sam]

I made no such claim.

It just doesn't seem appropriate to call someone totally ignorant for believing that Republicans are the big problem when it comes to voter suppression when that's more true than not. Democrats have, for the most part, sought to expand voter freedom and representation in recent history, while Republicans have, for the most part, sought to restrict it.

Cynicism isn't warranted, since a number of anti-suppression laws, initiatives, and rulings have occurred in the past few years. But hand-in-hand with that is the acknowledgement that standing against voter suppression and gerrymandering means standing against the explicit efforts and arguments of the Republican party in most states (including Texas). So anti-suppression Republicans and Republican-affiliated voters need to make clear to their representatives that they will not vote for anyone who supports partisan gerrymanders or other forms of voter suppression.

--Sam

[Cow Poke]

It just doesn't seem appropriate to call someone totally ignorant for believing that Republicans are the big problem when it comes to voter suppression when that's more true than not.

I'm really getting a little tired of your perversions of my positions or what I said. First of all, It would be better if you would respond to an actual quote from me, rather than your twisted version of what I said.

Af for the "totally ignorant" comment - here's what I said.

Jim, you really need to come to the reality that it's not only Republicans who are power hungry and want their own party to keep or gain control. It's just totally ignorant to hold that position.

WE weren't talking about voter suppression. It was in reference to gerrymandering.

Democrats have, for the most part, sought to expand voter freedom and representation in recent history, while Republicans have, for the most part, sought to restrict it.

Yeah, including wanting to allow illegals to vote, in some cases. I suppose you're naive enough to believe Democrats "want all people to vote" because they love "all people", and it has nothing whatsoever to do with keeping their own butts in power?

Cynicism isn't warranted, since a number of anti-suppression laws, initiatives, and rulings have occurred in the past few years. But hand-in-hand with that is the acknowledgement that standing against voter suppression and gerrymandering means standing against the explicit efforts and arguments of the Republican party in most states (including Texas). So anti-suppression Republicans and Republican-affiliated voters need to make clear to their representatives that they will not vote for anyone who supports partisan gerrymanders or other forms of voter suppression.

--Sam

The discussion was Gerrymandering, Sam - that's what I was responding to, and is the subject of this thread.

[Sam]

I'm really getting a little tired of your perversions of my positions or what I said. First of all, It would be better if you would respond to an actual quote from me, rather than your twisted version of what I said.

Af for the "totally ignorant" comment - here's what I said.

WE weren't talking about voter suppression. It was in reference to gerrymandering.



Yeah, including wanting to allow illegals to vote, in some cases. I suppose you're naive enough to believe Democrats "want all people to vote" because they love "all people", and it has nothing whatsoever to do with keeping their own butts in power?



The discussion was Gerrymandering, Sam - that's what I was responding to, and is the subject of this thread.

My response dealt directly with the large Republican advantage when it comes to gerrymandering. You chose to not respond to that. And here you choose to equivocate between explicit and documented Republican efforts to suppress votes with what continues to be an unevidenced and demonstrably false allegation of "illegals" committing voter fraud in any significant number.

Like you said -- you're a cynic. But you don't have to be one.

--Sam

[DivineOb]

Yeah, including wanting to allow illegals to vote, in some cases.

Do you honestly think Democrats want non-citizens to vote in state and national elections (Politifact says no)? Do you believe me when I say I strongly oppose non-citizens voting in those elections?

I suppose you're naive enough to believe Democrats "want all people to vote" because they love "all people", and it has nothing whatsoever to do with keeping their own butts in power?

This is actually a condemnation of the Republican party! The fact that the Republican party is the party of White Christians is the only reason that ensuring all citizens can vote benefits the Democrats disproportionally. That's not the Democrats fault.

[Cow Poke]

Do you honestly think Democrats want non-citizens to vote in state and national elections (Politifact says no)?

I believe it's the slippery slope approach --- normalize the non-citizens voting in local elections, then....

Do you believe me when I say I strongly oppose non-citizens voting in those elections?

I have absolutely no reason to believe you would lie about it, so, sure, until proven otherwise, I take you at your word.

This is actually a condemnation of the Republican party!

Heck, let's go for the top --- it's all Trump's fault!

The fact that the Republican party is the party of White Christians

Wait, WHAT?

is the only reason that ensuring all citizens can vote benefits the Democrats disproportionally. That's not the Democrats fault.

I believe all citizens should have the right to vote once per each election.

[Cow Poke]

Do you honestly think Democrats want non-citizens to vote in state and national elections....

To whom do you think Pelosi was referring when she talked about "newcomers"?

[Sam]

To whom do you think Pelosi was referring when she talked about "newcomers"?

One would imagine immigrants who come to America and become citizens, a fairly common practice in the history of the nation.

--Sam

[Cow Poke]

One would imagine immigrants who come to America and become citizens, a fairly common practice in the history of the nation.

--Sam

No, one would HOPE she would be referring to legal immigrants, rather than illegal immigrants which is ALSO a fairly common practice of late. The fact that she left that wide open in the current battle over immigration is rather telling.

She couldn't even call them "immigrants" -- she referred to them as "newcomers".

[Sam]

No, one would HOPE she would be referring to legal immigrants, rather than illegal immigrants which is ALSO a fairly common practice of late. The fact that she left that wide open in the current battle over immigration is rather telling.

She couldn't even call them "immigrants" -- she referred to them as "newcomers".

No, it's not a "fairly common practice of late" and, given that Pelosi has never advocated for non-citizen residents to vote in US elections, you're merely expressing a biased and fanciful projection of what she likely meant.

I myself prefer the term "newcomers" to "illegals" when discussing immigrants and would go so far as to call the pejorative remarkably unChristlike.

--Sam

[Cow Poke]

No, it's not a "fairly common practice of late" and, given that Pelosi has never advocated for non-citizen residents to vote in US elections, you're merely expressing a biased and fanciful projection of what she likely meant.

I myself prefer the term "newcomers" to "illegals" when discussing immigrants and would go so far as to call the pejorative remarkably unChristlike.

--Sam

Ya know what, Sam? Since you're always right, I'll just let you blog on.

[DivineOb]

I believe it's the slippery slope approach --- normalize the non-citizens voting in local elections, then....

If you say so. I doubt you can find anyone of note on record support non-citizen voting in national elections. And it will take a whole lot going on record before that had any chance of passing.

Heck, let's go for the top --- it's all Trump's fault!

Wait, WHAT?

This isn't exactly what I said but I think it's a fair proxy for the who supports Republicans.

Whatever the reason, Hurd's departure was just the most vivid recent illustration of the fact that the Republican Party, already extraordinarily white and male, is getting even more so. There are only 13 women among the 197 Republicans in the House of Representatives, making their caucus an incredible 93 percent male. Two of those women have already announced that they won't be running for re-election in 2020 either. And as it stands now,

So I'm not sure what part of what I said you don't agree with me about.

Incidentally it is kind of Trump's fault but not in a TDS way. Trump was able to energize whites to such a degree that the 2012 postmortem which emphasized reaching out to PoC could be ignored for one more election cycle.

When you said this

I suppose you're naive enough to believe Democrats "want all people to vote" because they love "all people", and it has nothing whatsoever to do with keeping their own butts in power?

You seem to be implying that Democrats only favor ensuring that all people have a fair chance to vote because it helps them electorally. I'm pointing out that it only helps them electorally because the Republican party has failed to appeal to people of color in recent years. If people of color supported both parties equally then it would be a wash for the Democrats electorally whether PoC had a fair chance to vote or not.

[Cow Poke]

If you say so. I doubt you can find anyone of note on record support non-citizen voting in national elections.

That's what a slippery slope is all about. Incrementalism.

And it will take a whole lot going on record before that had any chance of passing.

Agreed.

This isn't exactly what I said but I think it's a fair proxy for the who supports Republicans.

Whatever the reason, Hurd's departure was just the most vivid recent illustration of the fact that the Republican Party, already extraordinarily white and male, is getting even more so. There are only 13 women among the 197 Republicans in the House of Representatives, making their caucus an incredible 93 percent male. Two of those women have already announced that they won't be running for re-election in 2020 either. And as it stands now,

So I'm not sure what part of what I said you don't agree with me about.

I didn't say I didn't agree. I simply expressed surprise.

Incidentally it is kind of Trump's fault but not in a TDS way. Trump was able to energize whites to such a degree that the 2012 postmortem which emphasized reaching out to PoC could be ignored for one more election cycle.

When you said this

You seem to be implying that Democrats only favor ensuring that all people have a fair chance to vote because it helps them electorally.

So, let me clear that up. I don't think it's ONLY, but I think it's definitely a factor.

I'm pointing out that it only helps them electorally because the Republican party has failed to appeal to people of color in recent years.

That may be changing, as blacks, in particular, are not thrilled about the embracing of same sex lifestyle, and, to some extent, feel they've been taken advantage of by the Democrats. As the Democrats move further left, they may leave a significant number of blacks behind.

If people of color supported both parties equally then it would be a wash for the Democrats electorally whether PoC had a fair chance to vote or not.

I think it's been pretty well documented that the Democratic party hasn't been able to win a national election without a large portion of the black vote.

[JimL]

Elbridge Gerry, who I assume is the one you are referring to, wasn't a Democrat; he died 14 years before the party was even founded.

Fun fact: While "gerrymandering" (named after him) is pronounced with a soft G, Gerry's name was pronounced with a hard G.

Interesting, I'm originally from Massachusetts and had heard it said he was a Democrat. Turns out that he, I looked it up, was actually a member of the Democratic-Republican party whatever that was. But it really doesn't matter who first used the scheme to choose his own voters, it undermines the democratic process, and really needs to end.

[JimL]

Sure. Kinda like the Republicans listening to the Democrats say "put on a fair and honest Senate trial", when the Democrats have made a total partisan sham of the process.

I believe that's just you falling for the spin, CP. The republicans, including the President and his lawyers, refused to participate in the impeachment process, obstructed the process, and then claimed it was an unfair process. That was a tactic, not a fact. And now of course their argument is that, Hey, the House proceeedings, the investigation, wasn't fair, so why should the Senate process be fair. It's ridiculous of course, but that's the scheme they've come up with to to protect their guilty leader.

Sadly, I don't see either side bending or bowing or showing grace, Leon.

You're not looking hard enough, democrats have been pushing for neutral non partisan redistricting commissions. I think there should be federal guidelines that apply to all states.

[Cow Poke]

I believe that's just you falling for the spin, CP.

Nope, I watched the hearings myself.

The republicans, including the President and his lawyers, refused to participate in the impeachment process, obstructed the process, and then claimed it was an unfair process. That was a tactic, not a fact. And now of course their argument is that, Hey, the House proceeedings, the investigation, wasn't fair, so why should the Senate process be fair. It's ridiculous of course, but that's the scheme they've come up with to to protect their guilty leader.

That, sir, is "spin".

You're not looking hard enough, democrats have been pushing for neutral non partisan redistricting commissions.

They'll push for whatever they think will put or keep them in power, Jim.

I think there should be federal guidelines that apply to all states.

Yeah, well, the problem with that is that it is the United STATES of America, and "states' rights" and all that.... I'm still thinking on that one. It does seem there should be some consistency in NATIONAL elections.