Moore v Harper

[i'vegotwinners]

as i've said before, i'm not convinced those who fund the DNC, thus control the DNC, who btw are the same entities that fund the RNC, and the Dem corporate media, really want Dems winning with the same relentlessness and fervor Pub funders and media want conservatives controlling things.

that said, if Dem local leaders would at least try to curb black crime, it would make a huge difference in Dems winning elections.

beyond huge. that insanity is just killing Dems at the polling places.

Dems voters and residents want safe neighborhoods every bit as much as Pubs do, blacks every bit as much as whites, but the Dem and black leadership not so much, which makes me question just how they became the leadership, and if who put them there was really behind Dems winning elections.

backing economic policies that benefit the working class are always positioned by Dem leaders and media as policies to help blacks or gays or trans or immigrants, rather than just policies to help the working class, which just pisses off working class whites to no end and pushes them to the Pubs.

as i've said before, i'm as bleeding heart liberal as you can get, and even i am sick to the point of yelling at the tv everyday of the Dem leaders and media making literally everything about black, or gay, or trans, and excluding working class whites from the same discussion, as if the Dem leadership and media were openly trying to divide the working class vote and push half of it to the Pubs.

Dems used to define themselves as the party of the working class and seniors.

now they go out of their way to define themselves the party of blacks and immigrants and trans, even though blacks and immigrants and trans are working class.

again, almost like they are deliberately going for a much smaller tent, and deliberately pushing many who should be backing them the most to the other party.

again, i have to question if the DNC and Dem media really want Dems winning, or if they are as much a false flag operation as anything,

who is funding them, who comprises their CORPORATE media, doesn't ease that skepticism, nor should it.

the story is always that Dems are just bad at messaging and strategy.

maybe they aren't that insanely bad, as much as they are being sabotaged from within.

 

[NPT]

Are you suggesting the Constitution should be interpreted to protect the ruling political party?

That's a good question. Right now both parties do it but how do you make it right? There are more than 2 parties in some races so how do you make sure each party is represented equally?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Are you suggesting the Constitution should be interpreted to protect the ruling political party?

I see what you did here. The presumption of constitutionality and burden of proof requires you to answer my question. I don’t need to answer yours

That said, the issue is legislative and up to the voters. Vote dilution because of being a member of a party is not constitutionally protected.

 

[TMFT]

I see what you did here. The presumption of constitutionality and burden of proof requires you to answer my question. I don’t need to answer yours

That said, the issue is legislative and up to the voters. Vote dilution because of being a member of a party is not constitutionally protected.

You’re very clearly on record about it being allowed because of the Constitutional precedent. That doesn’t make it right or good government.

For 70 years, Jim Crow was constitutional. It was also just wrong. The two aren’t mutually exclusive.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

You’re very clearly on record about it being allowed because of the Constitutional precedent. That doesn’t make it right or good government.

For 70 years, Jim Crow was constitutional. It was also just wrong. The two aren’t mutually exclusive.

For starters . . .

State your argument that gerrymandering is unconstitutional. Then I will respond.

 

[TMFT]

For starters . . .

State your argument that gerrymandering is unconstitutional. Then I will respond.

I am not saying it’s unconstitutional. I’m saying it’s wrong.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I am not saying it’s unconstitutional. I’m saying it’s wrong.

I agree. But IMO gerrymandering is. legal.

We have scores of examples of bad government that’s legal. In many ways we have legalized corruption.

 

[TMFT]

I agree. But IMO gerrymandering is. legal.

We have scores of examples of bad government that’s legal. In many ways we have legalized corruption.

and it’ll stay legal, IMO, until the gerrymandering isn’t enough to keep one side in power, then it’ll get all kinds of ugly.

Then the folks who have been the victims of it will be the perpetrators and vice versa. It needs to go away so our government can actually represent the people. That includes D gerrymanders in places like Illinois and R gerrymanders in places like NC.

 

[hoosboot]

Hickory is on my hyper-partisan list. I have people on both sides on the list, but basically it consists of those that our incapable of ever criticizing their own party and their posts can be boiled down to "my party good, other party bad" on every single issue.

Come clean on the list, Aloha! Would be illuminating to see who you thing belongs on it. 🤓

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Come clean on the list, Aloha! Would be illuminating to see who you thing belongs on it. 🤓

You guess and I’ll let you know if they’re on my list or not. It’s tougher on the R side now because we once had some hyper-partisan Republicans, but now we have hyper-partisan Trumpsters who turn other Republicans who dare to say a cross word about Trump.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I agree. But IMO gerrymandering is. legal.

We have scores of examples of bad government that’s legal. In many ways we have legalized corruption.

So we can count on your vote to make it illegal! Great. I am looking forward to seeing you support efforts to make gerrymandering illegal. Because until now it seems you like gerrymandering and want it yo continue.

As an example on your other point, there should be a law that regulators cannot go to work for an industry they regulated for 5 years . In addition, campaigns should be publicly funded. No more lobbyists hiring people who regulates them and no more lobbyists buying politicians with donations.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

So we can count on your vote to make it illegal! Great. I am looking forward to seeing you support efforts to make gerrymandering illegal. Because until now it seems you like gerrymandering and want it yo continue.

As an example on your other point, there should be a law that regulators cannot go to work for an industry they regulated for 5 years . In addition, campaigns should be publicly funded. No more lobbyists hiring people who regulates them and no more lobbyists buying politicians with donations.

i'd take it way farther than that, as i have gone in detail about here before.

i agree with with what you're going for, but you'll have to be far more restrictive to get there.

on the gerrymandering thing, reality is, drawing any lines at all other than state lines is gerrymandering to some degree, and disenfranchises all voters who are heavily outnumbered within those boundaries, Pub or Dem or all other parties..

the whole idea of geographic districts, other than for local office, is antiquated, anti democratic, and incredibly easily manipulated.

proportional representation cannot be manipulated, and is the only way that everyone's vote counts.

the fairest way, and only way that makes everyone's vote count, is proportional representation proportional to the state wide popular vote.

everyone's vote counts that way, and counts equally, and is the only way the will of the voters is best implemented.

that said, someone for whom minority rule is their goal, will hate that idea.

 

[TMFT]

i'd take it way farther than that, as i have gone in detail about here before.

i agree with with what you're going for, but you'll have to be far more restrictive to get there.

on the gerrymandering thing, reality is, drawing any lines at all other than state lines is gerrymandering to some degree, and disenfranchises all voters who are heavily outnumbered within those boundaries, Pub or Dem or all other parties..

the whole idea of geographic districts, other than for local office, is antiquated, anti democratic, and incredibly easily manipulated.

proportional representation cannot be manipulated, and is the only way that everyone's vote counts.

the fairest way, and only way that makes everyone's vote count, is proportional representation proportional to the state wide popular vote.

everyone's vote counts that way, and counts equally, and is the only way the will of the voters is best implemented.

that said, someone for whom minority rule is their goal, will hate that idea.

I’m all in on PR for legislative seats and for allocation of a state’s EC votes as well. It’s truly the only way to end the political duopoly.

I recognize it has a serious drawback for some folks regionally because they have no real control on who the party slates as their potential representatives and they’re not guaranteed to get someone familiar with their part of the state (example would be if the Republicans picked a slate dominated by Hamilton Co folks and no one from down state). The counter for that would be that the affected area could run its own slate, get a threshold percentage and still get their reps.

Regardless, totally worth it to get some honest to goodness third parties a seat at the table and maybe some real coalition governing.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

I’m all in on PR for legislative seats and for allocation of a state’s EC votes as well. It’s truly the only way to end the political duopoly.

I recognize it has a serious drawback for some folks regionally because they have no real control on who the party slates as their potential representatives and they’re not guaranteed to get someone familiar with their part of the state (example would be if the Republicans picked a slate dominated by Hamilton Co folks and no one from down state). The counter for that would be that the affected area could run its own slate, get a threshold percentage and still get their reps.

Regardless, totally worth it to get some honest to goodness third parties a seat at the table and maybe some real coalition governing.

you make valid points.

will put on thinking cap and get back to you on that.

 

[TMFT]

you make valid points.

will put on thinking cap and get back to you on that.

The solutions, such as they are, are that nothing stops the creation of regional parties and nothing decides how the parties slate candidates. For example, Indiana could have the "Rural Conservatives" as a party to represent agrarian interests. Or the Republicans would have pressure on themselves to slate a certain number of candidates that represent those interests to keep the rural voters in the fold.

I think the most attractive thing of PR is that it should tamp down the hyperbole. Like, presumably there would be actual socialists running and it would be harder to paint the entire Democratic party as socialist. Conversely, you could have a honest to God GQP with a conspiracy theorist platform and lefties couldn't paint Republicans as entirely devoted to Q just because of the few whack-a-doodles that make it through the primaries now.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

So we can count on your vote to make it illegal! Great. I am looking forward to seeing you support efforts to make gerrymandering illegal. Because until now it seems you like gerrymandering and want it yo continue.

As an example on your other point, there should be a law that regulators cannot go to work for an industry they regulated for 5 years . In addition, campaigns should be publicly funded. No more lobbyists hiring people who regulates them and no more lobbyists buying politicians with donations.

First, ya gotta define gerrymandering to ban it. Second, since drawing political boundaries is a legislative act, how would a legislature limit the subject it has responsibilty to legislate? I think the solution is higher quality people, but in the age of “equity” even that doesn’t matter.

I agree with your second point.