TRUMP "MISSED THE DEADLINE" TO CALL OFF TX GERRYMANDERING; CALIFORNIA WILL NOW DRAW NEW, MORE “BEAUTIFUL MAPS”

A2SG · Friday at 11:02 PM

probinson said:
Right.

Democrats are opposed to gerrymandering, so I've heard. But not really.

FTR, this kind of rank hypocrisy plays horribly with independents. It confirms what we already knew; both parties will do whatever it takes to stay in power.

I would have thought that was obvious for the GOP at least following the 2021 election, what with fake electors, a call to "find votes" in Georgia, and the culmination of an attempted insurrection on January 6 at the Capitol.

Can't really think of a comparable example on the Democratic side, though. Sure, they complained a bit back in 2016, but they didn't do much more than that, so I'm not entirely sure the "both parties" brush should be so broadly applied.

probinson said:
The illusion that anyone cares about fair and honest elections has been completely shattered.

As Ah-nold put it, it's a race to the bottom.

Well, we know the GOP doesn't want fair and honest elections, that was evident in 2020. As to the Democrats, they do seem to want them, but they are a bit feckless in their approach. Maybe Newsom's actions in California will spur them on to be more proactive. One can only hope.

-- A2SG, gee, ya think Newsom might be considering trying for a new job in a couple years?

A2SG · Friday at 11:04 PM

Always in His Presence said:
Um - the Governor thinks the Marquis of Queensbury is an LGBTQ night club.

The Guardian - that made me laugh

This made me laugh out loud -

“BIG PRESS CONFERENCE THIS WEEK WITH POWERFUL DEMS AND GAVIN NEWSOM — YOUR FAVORITE GOVERNOR — THAT WILL BE DEVASTATING FOR ‘MAGA.’ THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER!

and this:

“DONALD TRUMP, IF YOU DO NOT STAND DOWN, WE WILL BE FORCED TO LEAD AN EFFORT TO REDRAW THE MAPS IN CA TO OFFSET THE RIGGING OF MAPS IN RED STATES. BUT IF THE OTHER STATES CALL OFF THEIR REDISTRICTING EFFORTS, WE WILL DO THE SAME. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER!”

The Democrats do not like the Republicans redistricting a state - so to show how wrong the Republicans are - they are going to redistrict a state.

The Democrats do not like the President name calling - so to show how wrong the Republicans are - they name call.

The Democrats do not like a state that their party is under represented in the house- but ignore five States where there is little or no Republican seats. New Mexico - 44% Republican - 0 seats. But that's ok.

Do you feel redistricting, name calling, or underrepresentation are wrong? Have you objected when the GOP does stuff like that, or only when the Democrats do?

-- A2SG, just wondering....it's entirely possible I missed a post or two of yours along the way....

Always in His Presence · Friday at 11:11 PM

A2SG said:
Do you feel redistricting, name calling, or underrepresentation are wrong? Have you objected when the GOP does stuff like that, or only when the Democrats do?

-- A2SG, just wondering....it's entirely possible I missed a post or two of yours along the way....

What does that have to do with the topic of the thread.

I assure you I am not mentioned in the OP, nor do I work for the government.

A2SG · Friday at 11:19 PM

Always in His Presence said:
What does that have to do with the topic of the thread.

Redistricting, aka gerrymandering, is the topic. The other things were brought up as tangential to that issue.

Always in His Presence said:
I assure you I am not mentioned in the OP, nor do I work for the government.

I understand that. But you offered your opinion on the matter, so I'm asking about that. It's a discussion board, I'm discussing.

-- A2SG, but I suppose I could that that response as an answer, of sorts, to my question....

Always in His Presence · Friday at 11:24 PM

A2SG said:
Redistricting, aka gerrymandering, is the topic. The other things were brought up as tangential to that issue.

You can, you can do a whole lot of things. Doesn’t mean I or anyone else will follow.

A2SG said:
I understand that. But you offered your opinion on the matter, so I'm asking about that. It's a discussion board, I'm discussing.

Dont care. It’s my opinion. You offered your opinion, I offered mine. We’re all good.

A2SG said:
-- A2SG, but I suppose I could that that response as an answer, of sorts, to my question....

True, have you run into many people who do don’t fall for the ‘gotcha’ style off topic questions or am I an anomaly?

A2SG · Friday at 11:34 PM

Always in His Presence said:
You can, you can do a whole lot of things. Doesn’t mean I or anyone else will follow.

Sure. But you seemed to object to issues such as redistricting, name calling, and underrepresentation, so I was trying to discuss them and see what your specific objections were.

Always in His Presence said:
Dont care. It’s my opinion. You offered your opinion, I offered mine. We’re all good.

So, no interest in discussion, then? Okay, fine.

Always in His Presence said:
True, have you run into many people who do don’t fall for the ‘gotcha’ style off topic questions or am I an anomaly?

What "gotcha"? I asked a question, you chose not to answer. Well, not directly, anyway. What conclusions I might draw from that are my own.

-- A2SG, as are yours....

Pommer · Saturday at 1:26 AM

Gerrymandering schmerrymandering.

Let’s update the Reapportionment Act of 1929 that reaffirmed the set-number of House seats at 435.
Let’s go back to a set number per seat, let’s see Mike Johnson (or Hakeem Jeffries) herd 1000 representatives on their side of the aisle! Maybe the original 200,000/seat is too low?

wing2000 · Saturday at 9:14 AM

Hentenza said:
And if it was a democratic governor pushing for the redistricting would your statement remain the same?

Certainly. Can you name any governor (of any party) that has called for redistricting mid decade after the POTUS calls for 5 more seats prior to the mid-terms?

Hentenza · Saturday at 11:06 AM

wing2000 said:
Certainly. Can you name any governor (of any party) that has called for redistricting mid decade after the POTUS calls for 5 more seats prior to the mid-terms?

Have not done that research. My question related more to the history of gerrymandering by both parties throughout history. It’s ugly no matter which side it comes from.

JSRG · Saturday at 12:07 PM

Pommer said:
Gerrymandering schmerrymandering.

Let’s update the Reapportionment Act of 1929 that reaffirmed the set-number of House seats at 435.
Let’s go back to a set number per seat, let’s see Mike Johnson (or Hakeem Jeffries) herd 1000 representatives on their side of the aisle! Maybe the original 200,000/seat is too low?

Expand the House, You Cowards

Some Constitutional Amendments #4

decivitate.jamesjheaney.com

probinson · 2025-08-18T08:19:10-0500

Nithavela said:
When only one side plays by the rules, there are no rules, only self-imposed handicaps.

The idea that the Democrats have "play[ed] by the rules" concerning gerrymandering is laughable nonsense.

durangodawood · 2025-08-18T08:37:14-0500

probinson said:
The idea that the Democrats have "play[ed] by the rules" concerning gerrymandering is laughable nonsense.

Everyone here is playing by the actual rules. That not even in dispute.

Problem is the rules, as affirmed by the R dominated supreme court, allow for this travesty from all sides.

If the Rs violate certain norms to gain an advantage, of course the other side should cancel that out, just in the interest of having viewpoints fairly represented in congress as much as possible.

NxNW · 2025-08-18T09:16:09-0500

probinson said:
The illusion that anyone cares about fair and honest elections has been completely shattered.

How bout we abolish the electoral college and let the popular vote decide?

TRUMP "MISSED THE DEADLINE" TO CALL OFF TX GERRYMANDERING; CALIFORNIA WILL NOW DRAW NEW, MORE “BEAUTIFUL MAPS”

Gumby

Gumby

Jesus is the only Way

Gumby

Jesus is the only Way

Gumby

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic

E pluribus unum

I will fear no evil for You are with me

Well-Known Member

Legend

re Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads