(06-19-2017 03:25 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 03:24 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Our Senate rep was Blanche Lincoln until the Republicans redrew the lines to make Mark Pryor our Senate rep until he lost to Tom Cotton. Little Rock, Fayetteville, Fort Smith and Pine Bluff are all Democrat heavy voters. There are a lot of voters that vote Democrats who are different races. Sometimes we feel that the Republican buffoons in the house and Senate really do not work for all of us who did not vote for them.

So you know how a bunch of us felt the past 8 years with the buffoon y'all put in the White House.

Just another case of Republicans gerrymandering statewide elections!

I don't know how you do this without abolishing minority majority districts.

(06-19-2017 04:16 PM)fsquid Wrote:  I don't know how you do this without abolishing minority majority districts.

Didn't we have a poster on here claiming that homosexuals were being disenfranchised because they didn't have their own districts?

(06-19-2017 03:58 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 03:25 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 03:24 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Our Senate rep was Blanche Lincoln until the Republicans redrew the lines to make Mark Pryor our Senate rep until he lost to Tom Cotton. Little Rock, Fayetteville, Fort Smith and Pine Bluff are all Democrat heavy voters. There are a lot of voters that vote Democrats who are different races. Sometimes we feel that the Republican buffoons in the house and Senate really do not work for all of us who did not vote for them.

So you know how a bunch of us felt the past 8 years with the buffoon y'all put in the White House.

We were put in this position for the past 8 years because of the Republicans of Arkansas did to us. The same thing for the past 30 years in Georgia and other states that are Republican held. Both sides have done this to their people for a very long time. The problem is we should vote on the person with Merit and not with the letter in front of their name like D, R or I.

No, the problem is that while republicans have no problem voting someone out of office, even someone as high up as Eric Cantor, the democrats wont.

And thats why the democratic primary can be rigged. Because the party of cucks wont do anything about it.

When republicans were told by a party official that the party, not the people, selected the nominee, the republicans revolted and nominated Trump.

When the DNC rigged the primary for Hillary, Bernie got his lakehouse, and many of his cuck supporters decided they would be with "her".

It wont change until the people on the inside force change. Right now, your party tells you how to vote, knows you will vote for them, and then you follow through and do it. THAT is where the problem is.

(06-19-2017 04:17 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 04:16 PM)fsquid Wrote:  I don't know how you do this without abolishing minority majority districts.

Didn't we have a poster on here claiming that homosexuals were being disenfranchised because they didn't have their own districts?

probably, we do have a diverse group

(06-19-2017 04:17 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 04:16 PM)fsquid Wrote:  I don't know how you do this without abolishing minority majority districts.

Didn't we have a poster on here claiming that homosexuals were being disenfranchised because they didn't have their own districts?

Could you imagine the gerrymandering that would have to occur to give the LGBTQLMNOP crowd their own district?

That sumbeach would have to cross multiple state lines.

Can't the gay just be satisfied with having Lindsey Graham in the Senate?

(06-19-2017 04:20 PM)fsquid Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 04:17 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 04:16 PM)fsquid Wrote:  I don't know how you do this without abolishing minority majority districts.

Didn't we have a poster on here claiming that homosexuals were being disenfranchised because they didn't have their own districts?

probably, we do have a diverse group

Well, I guess that is the ultimate goal of some taking part in this issue.

They'll have us creating districts so that each random group can have their own representative without actually having to win a war of ideas.

01- Whites
02- Black
03- Gay
04- Disabled Gay Black Women
05- Illegals with a Criminal Background
06- So forth and so on

(06-19-2017 04:24 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 04:20 PM)fsquid Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 04:17 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 04:16 PM)fsquid Wrote:  I don't know how you do this without abolishing minority majority districts.

Didn't we have a poster on here claiming that homosexuals were being disenfranchised because they didn't have their own districts?

probably, we do have a diverse group

Well, I guess that is the ultimate goal of some taking part in this issue.

They'll have us creating districts so that each random group can have their own representative without actually having to win a war of ideas.

01- Whites
02- Black
03- Gay
04- Disabled Gay Black Women
05- Illegals with a Criminal Background
06- So forth and so on

Which is the post-modern belief that people are determined by their group identity and there are no individuals. "We are BORG. Resistance is futile."

(06-19-2017 03:21 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 03:11 PM)Godzilla Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 02:23 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 02:19 PM)Godzilla Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 02:14 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  With legislators you can throw them out when you dislike their gerrymandering.

With Judges that is impossible.

The problem is they draw the districts so that you can't vote them out but ok what is your suggestion to fix the problem?

My lack of an answer doesn't serve to validate your suggestion.

Federal courts drawing state lines is a bad idea no matter how you cut it.

I never said it did, I just know there is a problem and threw out a couple of ideas off the top of my head. If you don't have any ideas on how to fix the problem that's fine. Could you explain why you think US district courts drawing the lines is worse than congressional members drawing their own lines?

Not trying to be confrontational I'm genuinely curious. I don't claim to have a perfect solution so I'm open to other ideas.

Presidents pick the Judges who pick the lines.

Presidents pick district judges without any other input.

It just serves to politicize the judiciary to an even more extreme point which is bad for everybody.

Judges are picked by the president your right but they have to be confirmed by the Senate so there is other input. Just like their other decisions they can be checked by the supreme court who are, at least in theory, beholden to nobody.

It might not be perfect but I feel its better than representatives picking their own electorate. Are you of the opinion we should keep it the way it is? Or if we can't make a perfect system why bother to try at all?

(06-19-2017 04:55 PM)Godzilla Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 03:21 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 03:11 PM)Godzilla Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 02:23 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 02:19 PM)Godzilla Wrote:  The problem is they draw the districts so that you can't vote them out but ok what is your suggestion to fix the problem?

My lack of an answer doesn't serve to validate your suggestion.

Federal courts drawing state lines is a bad idea no matter how you cut it.

I never said it did, I just know there is a problem and threw out a couple of ideas off the top of my head. If you don't have any ideas on how to fix the problem that's fine. Could you explain why you think US district courts drawing the lines is worse than congressional members drawing their own lines?

Not trying to be confrontational I'm genuinely curious. I don't claim to have a perfect solution so I'm open to other ideas.

Presidents pick the Judges who pick the lines.

Presidents pick district judges without any other input.

It just serves to politicize the judiciary to an even more extreme point which is bad for everybody.

Judges are picked by the president your right but they have to be confirmed by the Senate so there is other input. Just like their other decisions they can be checked by the supreme court who are, at least in theory, beholden to nobody.

It might not be perfect but I feel its better than representatives picking their own electorate. Are you of the opinion we should keep it the way it is? Or if we can't make a perfect system why bother to try at all?

Fair... so now not only is the judiciary made dramatically more partisan but every appointment will shut the senate down for weeks.

I don't really have a problem with it like it is. I just know that your suggestion is the worst of all worlds and will do nothing to make things more equitable but will cause mass chaos.

I'm not sure what the answer to this is, but having districts on both sides gerrymandered to the point where the the other party can never win under any circumstances is not a positive thing. It's lead to both sides moving too far towards the fringes and away from the middle, where the vast majority of the country resides. The only thing that gets you thrown out of office in one of these crazy gerrymandered districts is when the loonies of either side decide the person in office isn't far enough to the left or right and they primary them for a whack job.

(06-19-2017 06:04 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  I'm not sure what the answer to this is, but having districts on both sides gerrymandered to the point where the the other party can never win under any circumstances is not a positive thing. It's lead to both sides moving too far towards the fringes and away from the middle, where the vast majority of the country resides. The only thing that gets you thrown out of office in one of these crazy gerrymandered districts is when the loonies of either side decide the person in office isn't far enough to the left or right and they primary them for a whack job.

The computerized data has made them able to tailor things. But at least it is done by elected representatives.

Now maybe they would want it done by a panel, but its hard to get a non-partisan panel.

It's going to be partisan no matter who does it or what procedures they follow. That being the case, I think the most important protection is to make the people who do it accountable to voters. Legislators are, judges often aren't, bureaucrats never are.

(06-19-2017 06:16 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 06:04 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  I'm not sure what the answer to this is, but having districts on both sides gerrymandered to the point where the the other party can never win under any circumstances is not a positive thing. It's lead to both sides moving too far towards the fringes and away from the middle, where the vast majority of the country resides. The only thing that gets you thrown out of office in one of these crazy gerrymandered districts is when the loonies of either side decide the person in office isn't far enough to the left or right and they primary them for a whack job.

The computerized data has made them able to tailor things. But at least it is done by elected representatives.

Now maybe they would want it done by a panel, but its hard to get a non-partisan panel.

Well I think the start to solving this issue is something Trump has advocated and I couldn't agree with him more on, term limits. While not directly related to the issue of gerrymandering if you eliminated the ability for these guys to remaining in office for 20-30 years at least you'd consistently get fresh blood and new ideas.

(06-19-2017 04:16 PM)fsquid Wrote:  I don't know how you do this without abolishing minority majority districts.

Which is why it's so stupid when leftists ***** about gerrymandering.

(06-19-2017 12:05 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  It'll be a meaningless ruling unless the address the mandated "minority-majority" districts because they are the most gerrymandered districts of them all. Jim Clyburn's district narrows down at one point in Columbia to where it's only 1.4 miles wide to avoid predominantly white neighborhoods.

Take a look at Alma Adams district. Her claim to fame, she's got a lot of hats but at least she's black. That southern "pie slice" area in south Charlotte... that's where a lot of white folks live.

(06-19-2017 06:28 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 06:16 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 06:04 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  I'm not sure what the answer to this is, but having districts on both sides gerrymandered to the point where the the other party can never win under any circumstances is not a positive thing. It's lead to both sides moving too far towards the fringes and away from the middle, where the vast majority of the country resides. The only thing that gets you thrown out of office in one of these crazy gerrymandered districts is when the loonies of either side decide the person in office isn't far enough to the left or right and they primary them for a whack job.

The computerized data has made them able to tailor things. But at least it is done by elected representatives.

Now maybe they would want it done by a panel, but its hard to get a non-partisan panel.

Well I think the start to solving this issue is something Trump has advocated and I couldn't agree with him more on, term limits. While not directly related to the issue of gerrymandering if you eliminated the ability for these guys to remaining in office for 20-30 years at least you'd consistently get fresh blood and new ideas.

I'm disturbed that now that the Republicans have the House and Senate, they have kind of gone quiet on term limits.

(06-19-2017 06:45 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 06:28 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 06:16 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 06:04 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  I'm not sure what the answer to this is, but having districts on both sides gerrymandered to the point where the the other party can never win under any circumstances is not a positive thing. It's lead to both sides moving too far towards the fringes and away from the middle, where the vast majority of the country resides. The only thing that gets you thrown out of office in one of these crazy gerrymandered districts is when the loonies of either side decide the person in office isn't far enough to the left or right and they primary them for a whack job.

The computerized data has made them able to tailor things. But at least it is done by elected representatives.

Now maybe they would want it done by a panel, but its hard to get a non-partisan panel.

Well I think the start to solving this issue is something Trump has advocated and I couldn't agree with him more on, term limits. While not directly related to the issue of gerrymandering if you eliminated the ability for these guys to remaining in office for 20-30 years at least you'd consistently get fresh blood and new ideas.

I'm disturbed that now that the Republicans have the House and Senate, they have kind of gone quiet on term limits.

I mean come on you can't actually be shocked by it. No group in power will ever vote themselves out of power, which imposing term limits essentially would do. You are asking these people to vote themselves out of an extremely cushy job with insanely good benefits where you don't really have to do any actual work. Just human nature they aren't going to vote against their own self interests even if it is in the best interest of the country as a whole.

(06-19-2017 06:44 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 12:05 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  It'll be a meaningless ruling unless the address the mandated "minority-majority" districts because they are the most gerrymandered districts of them all. Jim Clyburn's district narrows down at one point in Columbia to where it's only 1.4 miles wide to avoid predominantly white neighborhoods.

Take a look at Alma Adams district. Her claim to fame, she's got a lot of hats but at least she's black. That southern "pie slice" area in south Charlotte... that's where a lot of white folks live.

Yeah, similar to SC6. Home of James "Let's build a bridge to nowhere" Clyburn.


Borders drawn to avoid the Naval Weapons Station, Shaw AFB, Ft Jackson, Parris Island, MCAS Beaufort, and Hilton Head. In Columbia it narrows to 1.4 miles to avoid predominantly white neighborhoods, then expands out to take in the ghettos on North Main St, Denny Terrace, and out Broad River Rd. but it stops just before it reaches the white Harbison neighborhood.

(06-19-2017 07:08 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 06:44 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 12:05 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  It'll be a meaningless ruling unless the address the mandated "minority-majority" districts because they are the most gerrymandered districts of them all. Jim Clyburn's district narrows down at one point in Columbia to where it's only 1.4 miles wide to avoid predominantly white neighborhoods.

Take a look at Alma Adams district. Her claim to fame, she's got a lot of hats but at least she's black. That southern "pie slice" area in south Charlotte... that's where a lot of white folks live.

Yeah, similar to SC6. Home of James "Let's build a bridge to nowhere" Clyburn.


Borders drawn to avoid the Naval Weapons Station, Shaw AFB, Ft Jackson, Parris Island, MCAS Beaufort, and Hilton Head. In Columbia it narrows to 1.4 miles to avoid predominantly white neighborhoods, then expands out to take in the ghettos on North Main St, Denny Terrace, and out Broad River Rd. but it stops just before it reaches the white Harbison neighborhood.

Gee, I wonder why it avoids the beaches.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app