DescentBB

Salon.com...isn't that just another liberal gotcha rag?

I'm slightly confused about what all of the controversy is about. Isn't there a long tradition of the different parties fighting hard to build districts in such a way that votes going against them are diluted? It seems to me that the terms "hispanic" and "democratic" are being used synonymous - might may be a bit of a PC fop-ah but I fail to see how it's really racial discrimination - they're just using race as a convenient way to identify likely political affiliation.

can't do it using race or ethnicity as a guidepost, which, if emails are deemed accurate, was what happened here. That triggers sect 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which could actually land Texas back with Federal Court oversight again.

gerrymandering should be outlawed. districts should be drawn up via algorithm using population density, geography and factor in likely future development.
its time we take our country back from the pols....they work here at our discretion...its about time we put the boot on their neck or up their ass...

Will Robinson wrote:gerrymandering should be outlawed. districts should be drawn up via algorithm using population density, geography and factor in likely future development.
its time we take our country back from the pols....they work here at our discretion...its about time we put the boot on their neck or up their ass...

I agree(and for whichever party does it). In this day and age, making redistricting into a simple exercise via computer mapping and population density stats should be a breeze. You should have seen the district I lived in back in PA---literally hopping across 3 counties, in a sort of 'C' shaped mess, planned in that case so that the GOP could avoid having all of downtown Reading, or all of the more liberal Chester County burbs voting together.

by the way, what is critical about this case(the article touches on it) is that it could actually revive the Voting Rights Act oversight. Most assumed that when the SCOTUS struck down mandatory provisions of that Act, it was kaput. However, as the article and others note, the court upheld Section 2, which states that judicial oversight can be set up if a state shows overt action by its elected leadership to restrict voting rights OR dilute voting based upon race or ethnicity.

I don’t see how this e-mail could possibly be permitted in court, you can bet it was obtained illegally.

But hey, its trial by media, so who cares.

Race is always talked about behind the scenes in these kinds of things, you just can’t submit the “official” request to redistricting using racial definitions.

Man Republicans better wise up in this no privacy world.

Spidey wrote:I don’t see how this e-mail could possibly be permitted in court, you can bet it was obtained illegally.

I thought it was some court request. Also, you rant on as though Dems haven't been subject to email requests and releases to the public. Once again, recall the former Congressman Weiner.

"Rant" ★■◆● you, learn to have a civilized debate.

ok, sorry for the choice of words. Also, I just went back to double-check, the emails are both legitimately gained, and admitted into court records as evidence, apparently obtained as a result of extensive testimony from a cooperating witness.

callmeslick wrote:can't do it using race or ethnicity as a guidepost, which, if emails are deemed accurate, was what happened here. That triggers sect 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which could actually land Texas back with Federal Court oversight again.

Yeah... my point is that it was stupid to say "Hispanic" rather than "Democratic" but I don't think it's really about race at all - it's about political affiliation. Democratic politicians are conveniently using that fact that minorities tend to vote for them to get the gerrymandering upper hand. I tend to agree that gerrymandering in general should be done away with - but while it's still around, lets not call this anything more than it really is, which is about trying to win elections.

actually, part of the email exchange was around getting as many 'Hispanic' surnames into districts without affecting the balance, so race was the metric.

I'm pretty sure when Dems get to forming strategy to gerrymander they talk about how to manage black people to get optimal results. This isn't anything extra-sinister it is simply standard operating procedure for a generically sinister tactic employed by both parties.

If the email exposes one of them on the technicality of not finding a safe name for Hispanics in case the email gets publicized then so be it. They should use an instant message system like the Dems in the IRS do...
But don't think you have discovered any moral high ground for your party in this. That is just a pile of your own party's poo you spotted on the horizon.

Will Robinson wrote:I'm pretty sure when Dems get to forming strategy to gerrymander they talk about how to manage black people to get optimal results. This isn't anything extra-sinister it is simply standard operating procedure for a generically sinister tactic employed by both parties.

no, this is a pretty obvious case that invokes the Voting Rights Act.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:I'm pretty sure when Dems get to forming strategy to gerrymander they talk about how to manage black people to get optimal results. This isn't anything extra-sinister it is simply standard operating procedure for a generically sinister tactic employed by both parties.

no, this is a pretty obvious case that invokes the Voting Rights Act.

That doesn't contradict the points I made that you are trying to avoid.

not dodging, but your points are just obvious factoids(other parties have tried to gerrymander) coupled with the disingenuous idea that since the Dems MIGHT do it, we should just ignore this case. I tried to point out where this case is singular, and NOT a standard gerrymandering case, especially in light of a long history in the south of racial discrimination and voter supression.

Quit trying to parse words like Clinton. Both parties know their constituencies and certainly in the privacy of their internal conversations that require discussing the districts and getting the most out of their gerrymandering they will identify the sub groups within the constituency by race or class or any other relevant identifier they choose to in the course of their conversation.

You are just being obtuse in a weak attempt to claim this particular incident is evidence of a 'worse' behavior when in fact it is the same behavior required by any party if they want to construct an effective gerrymandering. Since blacks vote 9 to 1 in favor of Dems and hispanics 2 to 1, those groups will be discussed by both parties in those discussions.

This isn't evidence of one side being worse. It is evidence of one side being caught.
And I didn't suggest we ignore it. I suggested you have no moral high ground. You can claim you haven't been caught yet...that isn't much of a pedestal to perch on.

callmeslick wrote:actually, part of the email exchange was around getting as many 'Hispanic' surnames into districts without affecting the balance, so race was the metric.

Yes, but I'm saying that I don't believe this was really about racism - it was about party affiliation and the Republicans were stupid enough to publicize the fact they they were trying to use the strong correlation between race and party affiliation to predict the party affiliation that particular households were going to have. In other words, I don't believe that the true end goal was to dilute hispanic votes, I think the true end goal was to dilute democratic votes. It's very convenient (apparently for both parties) to associate the two with each other - but I don't think the law was really intended to protect democrats against their votes being diluted, it was meant to protect races against their votes being diluted.

snoopy wrote:

callmeslick wrote:actually, part of the email exchange was around getting as many 'Hispanic' surnames into districts without affecting the balance, so race was the metric.

Yes, but I'm saying that I don't believe this was really about racism - it was about party affiliation and the Republicans were stupid enough to publicize the fact they they were trying to use the strong correlation between race and party affiliation to predict the party affiliation that particular households were going to have. In other words, I don't believe that the true end goal was to dilute hispanic votes, I think the true end goal was to dilute democratic votes. It's very convenient (apparently for both parties) to associate the two with each other - but I don't think the law was really intended to protect democrats against their votes being diluted, it was meant to protect races against their votes being diluted.

you are, at least to some extent, correct. However, the law was designed to prevent selective disenfranchisement by race. Thus, it fits.

Quite conveniently, Slick.

Isn't this what is happening if we allow an insurgence of illegal immigrants and then give them amnesty? Would they not be predisposed to voting for the party that showed sympathy towards their plight? A kind of "mass redistricting?"

EDIT: I ask this because at this point I see Amnesty as inevitable. I have even advocated for it myself so that the argument could end without destroying lives contingent on a strong border and controlled influx thereafter. This on the other hand has me rethinking my benevolence.

Maybe Slick should read a real article:

http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/ ... medium=RSS

ThunderBunny wrote:Maybe Slick should read a real article:

http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/ ... medium=RSS

Article is obviously racist as the author doesn't say anything nice about Obama.

ThunderBunny wrote:Maybe Slick should read a real article:

http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/ ... medium=RSS

slick gave up reading the Washington Times after the late Mr Moon purchased it. Find me a real newspaper, not a written version of Breitbart-meets-the National Enquirer.

callmeslick wrote:
Find me a real newspaper, not a written version of Breitbart-meets-the National Enquirer.

Like Salon.com or the Daily KOS no doubt. You'll note kiddies, that slick is doing another Alynski...don't debate the material, attack the source instead.

That would be presuming that the Washington Times represents an actual "source."

flip wrote:Isn't this what is happening if we allow an insurgence of illegal immigrants and then give them amnesty? Would they not be predisposed to voting for the party that showed sympathy towards their plight? A kind of "mass redistricting?"

EDIT: I ask this because at this point I see Amnesty as inevitable. I have even advocated for it myself so that the argument could end without destroying lives contingent on a strong border and controlled influx thereafter. This on the other hand has me rethinking my benevolence.

first, it would depend on the concentration of new citizens, as well as how many carry forward legal alien status into full citizenship.

Top Gun wrote:That would be presuming that the Washington Times represents an actual "source."

So just what part of the article TB linked is it you don't agree with?

well, I read it, and it just seems to be the old empty negativity that I talked about with CUDA on another post the other day. A lot of gloom and doom, with no real context of how we got to this point, or that everything has it's ebbs and flows. Not shocking for an opinion piece from that 'source'.

And that would depend on the terms under which Amnesty is granted.

flip wrote:And that would depend on the terms under which Amnesty is granted.

I guess you're right, but I don't see exactly how that affects electoral outcomes on a district by district level......

flip wrote:And that would depend on the terms under which Amnesty is granted.

(Caveat: I haven't paid much attention to what's being tossed around for ideas.)

What about granting resident alien status? I.E. you can say here, work here, and get the general benefits of being in America, but you can't vote because you came here in an act of violation of our law.

Depends on where they move Slick. Millions of them come in, they are bound to start building their own communities within these districts and by proxy change the demographics.

I could also agree with that Snoopy as a solution. The more and more time we delay a solution, the longer the borders stay in contention. I also think it would be the safest way to integrate them without shifting things too suddenly but then I would also have to add another contingency. Strong border and voter ID's.

EDIT: I'm definitely not against immigration. It's a very strong tool to regulate the population so that you have more people working and paying into the system than those that are retiring and pulling from it. With the rise and fall of birth rates, you can always keep a balance, so it's a good thing. It's this outright assault on the border and the unaccounted for influx that is throwing things out of balance.

callmeslick wrote:well, I read it, and it just seems to be the old empty negativity that I talked about with CUDA on another post the other day. A lot of gloom and doom, with no real context of how we got to this point, or that everything has it's ebbs and flows. Not shocking for an opinion piece from that 'source'.

The gloom and doom is real. The context? The Obama administration from start to finish.

flip wrote:Depends on where they move Slick. Millions of them come in, they are bound to start building their own communities within these districts and by proxy change the demographics.

I could also agree with that Snoopy as a solution. The more and more time we delay a solution, the longer the borders stay in contention. I also think it would be the safest way to integrate them without shifting things too suddenly but then I would also have to add another contingency. Strong border and voter ID's.

EDIT: I'm definitely not against immigration. It's a very strong tool to regulate the population so that you have more people working and paying into the system than those that are retiring and pulling from it. With the rise and fall of birth rates, you can always keep a balance, so it's a good thing. It's this outright assault on the border and the unaccounted for influx that is throwing things out of balance.

interesting, if one reads the un-voted-upon Senate compromise bill before the House, that is sort of what is proposed. Yes, they COULD become voting citizens, but the wait time is very long. Even to get 'legal alien resident' status would require both money and some work and time.

callmeslick wrote:...

interesting, if one reads the un-voted-upon Senate compromise bill before the House, that is sort of what is proposed. Yes, they COULD become voting citizens, but the wait time is very long. Even to get 'legal alien resident' status would require both money and some work and time.

But asking someone to provide ID to vote is racist...so will you be there to stop them if they try? Or will you be there to stop those that try to stop them?

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:...

interesting, if one reads the un-voted-upon Senate compromise bill before the House, that is sort of what is proposed. Yes, they COULD become voting citizens, but the wait time is very long. Even to get 'legal alien resident' status would require both money and some work and time.

But asking someone to provide ID to vote is racist...so will you be there to stop them if they try? Or will you be there to stop those that try to stop them?

checking their name on the registration rolls isn't, Will. And you have to be a citizen to register legally. There has NEVER been evidence of any systematic issue with that system. EVER. Once again, you deflect with strawmen.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:...

interesting, if one reads the un-voted-upon Senate compromise bill before the House, that is sort of what is proposed. Yes, they COULD become voting citizens, but the wait time is very long. Even to get 'legal alien resident' status would require both money and some work and time.

But asking someone to provide ID to vote is racist...so will you be there to stop them if they try? Or will you be there to stop those that try to stop them?

checking their name on the registration rolls isn't, Will. And you have to be a citizen to register legally. There has NEVER been evidence of any systematic issue with that system. EVER. Once again, you deflect with strawmen.

No evidence? Well yea, I guess not, if you arent even allowed to ask for an ID how the hell can you identify the non citizen voting? They let you use a frikken utility bill at the polls for crying out loud.

So anyway, you need to straighten this out, it is racist and oppressive to ask for ID to vote...but not to ask for it to register to vote?
I'd love to watch the distinction between those two seemingly very similar processes come twisting out of you! Lol.

By the way, once they are all here, how long do you think it will be before the argument that it is unfair to let them work and pay taxes and not have a say in the election? Oh, thats right, they are already making that argument!
So really there wont be much need to worry, you guys have it all sewed up don't you?

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:...

interesting, if one reads the un-voted-upon Senate compromise bill before the House, that is sort of what is proposed. Yes, they COULD become voting citizens, but the wait time is very long. Even to get 'legal alien resident' status would require both money and some work and time.

But asking someone to provide ID to vote is racist...so will you be there to stop them if they try? Or will you be there to stop those that try to stop them?

checking their name on the registration rolls isn't, Will. And you have to be a citizen to register legally. There has NEVER been evidence of any systematic issue with that system. EVER. Once again, you deflect with strawmen.

No evidence? Well yea, I guess not, if you arent even allowed to ask for an ID how the hell can you identify the non citizen voting? They let you use a frikken utility bill at the polls for crying out loud.

not around here, you need proof positive(generally drivers license or official mail at an addy or some other non-government ID. In other words, no mere utility bill, without another bill in same name along with social security number. The SS part is tough to fake for long.

So anyway, you need to straighten this out, it is racist and oppressive to ask for ID to vote...but not to ask for it to register to vote?

don't need photo ID to register, either. Never been a problem, really, either. I note you tossed out YET ANOTHER Strawman(what if......?). How many times are you planning on trying that tactic before you get that it is transparent?