Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Serious question

https://www.google.com/search?q=mich...3rEcm-M:&vet=1 this is a map of the congressional districts around Detroit. Texas looks worse. I would say it would have been nice for the Supremes to stand up (not agreeing or disagreeing with the legal logic, just saying I had hoped for a different result), but honestly do you think it can get much worse?

Yes, much worse.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Yes, much worse.

Not sure I agree with what I'm about to say, but I'm going to try it and see if it fits.

The country badly needs some kind of legal/procedural curb on partisan gerrymandering, now moreso because information technology has made the problem worse, but there are no legal limits on partisan gerrymandering (setting civil rights issues aside) in the Constitution and it's not the courts' place to create a constitutional/legislative solution. There is no law or standard for the court's to apply here.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Not sure I agree with what I'm about to say, but I'm going to try it and see if it fits.

The country badly needs some kind of legal/procedural curb on partisan gerrymandering, now more so because information technology has made the problem worse, but there are no legal limits on partisan gerrymandering (setting civil rights issues aside) in the Constitution and it's not the courts' place to create a constitutional/legislative solution. There is no law or standard for the court's to apply here.

You should add at the least "and the Executive is going to block such a standard, and Congress is unable to legislate on it, so we aren't going to get such a standard in the absence of courts stepping in."

As to the constitutional standard, I think some of it depends on whether you read any sort of "implied covenant of good faith" into the apportionment clause or the 14th amendment, and I'd argue the implications of such an obligation are particularly clear in the 14th amendment.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

You should add at the least "and the Executive is going to block such a standard, and Congress is unable to legislate on it, so we aren't going to get such a standard in the absence of courts stepping in."

Maybe not this year or next. Change is hard.

As to the constitutional standard, I think some of it depends on whether you read any sort of "implied covenant of good faith" into the apportionment clause or the 14th amendment, and I'd argue the implications of such an obligation are particularly clear in the 14th amendment.

If the jurisprudential game is, let's find a fig leaf for the policy we want, you can find a fig leaf, but I think it's more correct to say that this is a structural problem with the design of our government that the framers did not deal with, and so it falls to his if we want things to work better.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

It's past time. Impeach everyone. Gerrymander everything. Obstruct all. Lie, cheat, steal. Refuse all appointments whenever possible. This is how this country operates now. Fuck the rules. Like Sebby says, all that matters is power. So once you have it, crust the other side and destroy everything to keep it.

TM

Why haven't the other dems figured this out? Win, then set the agenda rather than the other way around because if we set a progressive agenda first, WE WILL LOSE.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

Why haven't the other dems figured this out? Win, then set the agenda rather than the other way around because if we set a progressive agenda first, WE WILL LOSE.

There’s little appetite for waiting or half measures. Progressives feel insecure and burned by centrists.

Harris did well, I heard. Maybe she can put the progressives and centrists under one umbrella and create a safe message that will appeal broadly.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Jesus Christ. We are talking about different things.

I am not interested in PA. First, because the PA decision has already been made.

Second, here's what is going to happen. Every very red state is going to gerrymander the fuck out of every possible election. And they'll do it with the most sophisticated software, ensuring maximum Republican results, which will mean waaaay more lunatic Freedom Caucus types at every possible level of government.

Then, states like Texas (that are trending blue-ward) will do the same. With their newly gerrymandered state senates, they will change the laws. They will appoint more lunatic judges who will uphold those laws. If a state has a constitutional issue with any of it, Republicans will amend it out of existence or their appointed judges will strike the provision.

But if you think any state where Republicans can now gerrymander themselves into a permanent position of power is going to self-regulate itself to fairness after this decision, you are absolutely crazy.

You combine this decision with the destruction of the Voting Rights Act and Republican goals have been met beyond their wildest dreams. The fact that the Electoral College and the existence of the Senate already gives them outsized political power wasn't enough. Your head is going to fucking spin with the levels of political gerrymandering we're about to go through.

This decision is a fucking joke.

(Also, I don't care what your friends think.)

TM

This is a quote that gives me some comfort:

AUSTIN — Texas could have tried to beat Alabama to become the first state in the nation to ban all abortions this year, taking a shot at overturning the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. But the Republican leadership in Austin hit the brakes.

It was staunch pro-life Rep. Jeff Leach, R-Plano, who put a stop to the Texas version of the bill, which would have authorized criminal charges against any woman who has an abortion.

“I think it’s the exact wrong policy to be criminalizing women who are in that extremely difficult, almost impossible situation,” said Leach, a chairman who refused to let the bill out of his committee. “We don’t need to be going after these women.”

That sentiment voiced in April was just one example of a new message that Texas Republicans tried to send in the 2019 legislative session after a wake-up call in the November midterm elections. Hundreds of thousands of educated, suburban Republican women had crossed party lines to vote for Democrats, who picked up 12 seats in the Texas House and came within three percentage points of winning their first statewide election since 1994.

House Speaker Dennis Bonnen explained the Texas GOP’s predicament in a speech to young Republicans in February, just as the legislative session got underway.

“The clearest indication of the November election — and this is horrifying — is intelligent women said we’re not interested in voting for Republicans,” Bonnen said. “We have to remember that women matter in this state … The reality is that if we are not making women feel comfortable and welcome to telling their friend or neighbor that they voted for Republican candidate X, Y or Z, we will lose. And we should lose, truthfully.”

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

There’s little appetite for waiting or half measures. Progressives feel insecure and burned by centrists.

Harris did well, I heard. Maybe she can put the progressives and centrists under one umbrella and create a safe message that will appeal broadly.

...and lose

[Pretty Little Flower]

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

She is teh awesome, but I also loved how Ali Krieger came to her defense.

[Icky Thump]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/28/o...gtype=Homepage

If you don't get it, you deserve 4 more years.

ETA read the comments. About half are people saying "I'm a democrat but I'm voting for Trump." If that isn't a failure by the Democratic party, I don't know what is.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/28/o...gtype=Homepage

If you don't get it, you deserve 4 more years.

ETA read the comments. About half are people saying "I'm a democrat but I'm voting for Trump." If that isn't a failure by the Democratic party, I don't know what is.

Here's the thing. I'm betting Bret Stephens has never milked a cow or harvested a crop or even repaired a tractor anytime in his life. He's giving you a New Yorker's image of hickdom, and it's full of absolutely horrid us-and-them platitudes. Now far be it from me to defend the hicks I grew up with, but they're actually a smarter and more diverse crowd (and they even include people who don't fit his category of "ordinary voter", like women, and minorities, and people who spoke another language growing up).

Yes, dems have to talk soybeans as well as immigration, but you know, a lot of middle American soy farmers have gotten pretty comfortable hanging out with Chinese folks who buy crops, just like a lot of fruit growers have gotten pretty comfortable having immigrants around to pick the fruits. So soy and immigration have some stuff in common.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Here's the thing. I'm betting Bret Stephens has never milked a cow or harvested a crop or even repaired a tractor anytime in his life. He's giving you a New Yorker's image of hickdom, and it's full of absolutely horrid us-and-them platitudes. Now far be it from me to defend the hicks I grew up with, but they're actually a smarter and more diverse crowd (and they even include people who don't fit his category of "ordinary voter", like women, and minorities, and people who spoke another language growing up).

Yes, dems have to talk soybeans as well as immigration, but you know, a lot of middle American soy farmers have gotten pretty comfortable hanging out with Chinese folks who buy crops, just like a lot of fruit growers have gotten pretty comfortable having immigrants around to pick the fruits. So soy and immigration have some stuff in common.

I think the people not swayed by the "free everything" message are everywhere.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

I think the people not swayed by the "free everything" message are everywhere.

I think the people who worry about health problems that bankrupt them before killing them are everywhere. And, remember, Dems balance budgets. Rs don't, they just cut taxes for the wealthy and borrow money for our kids to pay off.

But we can do without the "I'm American and you're not" tone of that bastard. That's unAmerican. As to ordinary voters, I think the only person on here he may be describing is Sebby - I mean, he's your basic half-wit American male in a swing state. Let's hope to God we can do better than that, I mean, Hank's a swing voter, and he actually swings.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I think the people who worry about health problems that bankrupt them before killing them are everywhere.

But we can do without the "I'm American and you're not" tone of that bastard. That's unAmerican.

National health would be a smart program but you can't promise that along with a tax only on the rich and be taken seriously. Advertise truly. "To establish a national health program, we are establishing a $5 a gallon gas tax, a 10% VAT tax and a 20% income tax increase."

Also look at all the countries higher than us on the quality of life scale. How many of them can you just emigrate to?