No double standard, but Abbot is not the topic of the thread so the 'whataboutism" is nothing but an excuse
Your objection was that Newsom was indulging in gerrymandering, I was addressing that point. And Texas was cited in the OP, so it isn't off topic.
It's more the content of the ads making it seem like the maps were about fairness in voting, when they were specifically drawn up for the purpose of gerrymandering.
So your complaint isn't about the "outlandish sums" spent, rather the content of the ad itself. So, what was the lie? Was Newsom not clear on his intent?
That's a rather thin defense, because they're not really consenting when they lack the required information. They're just being manipulated and drowning out those who take the time to sort through issues.
Hey, I'm all for increasing information, and I fully agree that voters should educate themselves on any relevant issues they vote on. But the fact remains, voters who lack the required information are still affected by elections, so they still have the right to vote on it. That isn't a defense, it's an accurate assessment of how things are.
Sure, and the first step to working to change it is speaking out.
Agreed. Go for it. In my younger days, I was involved in some local political issues, and I was able to see real changes affected. It can be quite satisfying. It can also be disheartening when it doesn't quite live up to your expectations, but that's life for ya.
It's not representative democracy per se that I am opposed to, just the idea that somehow ignorant people voting for the sake of voting is a good thing.
Ah. So you favor an oligarchy, then? Only the most informed or most educated should be allowed to have a say in government?
To an extent, but there's no such thing as subjective morality any more than there is subjective truth.
All morality is subjective, it's dependent on the individual's views regarding what is or isn't moral. Those vary from individual to individual. Laws, on the other hand, are codified and apply to everyone in their jurisdiction, regardless of any individual opinion. That's what makes them objective. Morality doesn't do that, there is no codified system of morals that is applicable across the board.
He gave the impression that the districts were currently unfair and that the new districts would be more fair. He wasn't honest about trying to help the democratic party through gerrymandering.
So what was the lie, exactly? What did he say that was specifically untrue? Did Newsom say anything that was explicitly dishonest, or, perhaps, is it simply that you disagree with his plan?
Perhaps, but again Abbot is not the topic of the thread. 2 wrongs don't make a right, so defending Newsom because "well, Abbot did it in a worse way" doesn't really fly with me. It just makes me question your integrity, truth be told.
There is no "wrong" here, SCOTUS ruled that gerrymandering wasn't illegal or unconstitutional. My comparison wasn't about the act of gerrymandering, but the way each respective governor went about it. Newsom asked the voters first, Abbott did not. Newsom acted in a democratic way, Abbott ruled by fiat, and obeyed the orders of an authoritarian leader.
And just to be clear, my own personal integrity isn't at issue here. I'm not governor of my state, nor have I gerrymandered anything.
Whatever your intent, it comes across like you're trying to defend gerrymandering by engaging in whataboutism.
I'm curious, how many times do I have to specifically state that I don't agree with the (entirely legal) practice of gerrymandering before you accept that? Just so I know, in case I need to keep a running tally.
-- A2SG, I've given my specific objections as clearly and as precisely as I know how. I honestly don't know how to simplify my point any further....
