Not really "addressing" the point by engaging in whataboutism...it's just defending "your" guy by pointing to something someone else did.
Could you please point out to me exactly what I said that "defended" the practice of gerrymandering? Quotes would be preferable.
Oh, and just so you're clear, Newsom isn't "my guy." As I've told you before, I do not live in California. Though, it is a nice place to visit.
The money is a part of it, with millions of dollars spent.
Why is that a problem? Who paid for those ads?
The ccontent is another, where the ballot summary did mention the intent the ads that were run did not.
And that was a lie, somehow? Please point out the falsehood for me. I don't live in California, so I did not see the ads or the ballot summary.
I disagree that they have the right to vote if they don't do their due diligence, because all they are doing is silencing people who actually understand what is going on. Children are also affected by elections, but they have no right to vote because they lack the understanding.
You seem to be confusing rights that actually exist with rights you believe should (or should not) exist. The fact is, every adult US citizen, informed on any particular issue or not, has the legal right to vote. Your position seems to be that you don't believe they should have that right. You are, of course, entitled to hold that opinion, but the facts remain: in the US, the right to vote does not depend on how informed you are, nor is it limited by a lack of knowledge.
Yeah, I tend to stick to local politics and mostly ignore national politics as much as I can since at that level it all just seems like petty gamesmanship with both sides being either inept or corrupt.
That often happens at every level, but when the stakes are higher, the petty gamesmanship increases. But it can only change if people who refuse to accept it get involved and work to change things, both on the local and national levels.0
I suppose you could put it that way, though it seems that our current system is far more favorable to oligarchy since it is all money anyway.
But that seems to be the system you favor over our current one, is that not correct?
Nope, morality that is subjective isn't morality. It's just opinions.
Sorry, but there isn't any other kind of morality. Just as an example, try and name even one single moral principle that is applicable to every person, including those who disagree with that moral principle.
He gave the impression that the current maps were somehow unfair and needed correction.
Impressions can often be misinterpreted. Exactly what did he say, and was that actual statement false?
Outside of the ballot summary he made almost no mention of his intent to gerrymander the districts as a response to TX republicans. It was lying by omission.
I seem to recall hearing him say that was his intent quite a bit, and I don't live in California. Are you sure you didn't just miss the times he mentioned it?
Depends on how they went about it, as we will soon see whether demographic proxy fits the Supreme Courts ruling.
We already know the SCOTUS has ruled that gerrymandering isn't illegal or unconstitutional. If there is a legal challenge to Newsom's ballot initiative, I guess we'll have to see how that turns out, but as it stands, without a reversal of the current SCOTUS ruling, gerrymandering isn't illegal or unconstitutional.
And to call what Newsome did 'acting in a democratic way" is absolutely laughable, especially when what he did was blatant gerrymandering.
I never said his plan wasn't to gerrymander. What I said was the way he went about it, asking the voters to decide if he should have the ability to do it within a specific time period, was more democratic than simply deciding to do it by fiat, under orders from an authoritarian president.
Keep in mind, per SCOTUS, gerrymandering isn't undemocratic. It's allowable under the law.
'HEy, let's take away the minorities rights. As long as we vote on it, it's fine."
Does Newsom's proposed redistricting plan take away anyone's right to vote, whether they're in a minority group or not? Or any other rights, for that matter? If you're going to make accusations, please be specific.
You are defending gerrymandering, which you claim to be against.
I have never done that. Not even one single time. And to prove that, I challenge you to find a single quote by me that defends the practice in any way, shape or form.
Keep in mind, just in case you're unclear on the idea, that simply acknowledging that something is legal is not a defense of that act.
You may not be acting in a way that challenges your integrity because you lack the power, but a lack of power doesn't change the fact that you seem to be defending somehting you claim to be against in principle.
And there's the problem. You say I
"seem to be" defending gerrymandering. Your perception is incorrect. And the fact that you actually seem to acknowledge my continued claims to disagree with it while ignoring them to continue your mischaracterization of me is very telling. Please knock it off.
Perhaps if you stopped defending it, then I would accept it?
I'd have to start first, and I'm not going to.
-- A2SG, but feel free to try and quote me defending the act of gerrymandering....it'll be fun to see what you come up with....
