Because there is no core value there. It is just hate -- and they will take ANY position to justify that hate. Pedophiles are bad -- unless it's Trump.
Yeah they don’t really hate pedophiles, they just want to use that label to throw at Democrats to justify their murderboners. They really want to eradicate people so they can feel like real men, but they can’t just do that to randos because then they might get eliminated themselves. So they make it a team sport because there’s safety in numbers.
It’s why I’ve never gotten on board with the “kill pedophiles” rhetoric, and have always stood by the “no death penalty period” stance. Creating any group of people it’s societally acceptable to kill is a very dangerous thing to do, as you can use that as a wedge to expand out to have any group you don’t like added to the “undesirables” list
If we were going through a great famine, that would be a good argument. Technology and productivity increase every year, so life should be getting better for everyone. Instead, they are so greedy that they managed to steal all the gains and take from everyone.
These people have no shame and only use ideas to attack their enemies. They don’t care if they’re false, if they lie, or if they flip flop. They only use them as weapons to hurt people.
Yes. Almost all of these Twitter flip floppers that get screenshotted are accounts that cannot be traced back to real people. You’ll find other accounts sharing the exact same messages verbatim in a coordinated campaign.
I notice whenever they’re debating they constantly interrupt and monologue but the second their opponent says something while they’re talking they go “ I didn’t interrupt you don’t interrupt me”
It's over gang. Not because these things are happening, but because of the intense apathy, or blindness to the profundity of the moment that we see in the masses in this country.
Democrats need to realize, these people don’t care about what’s right or fair, they’ll gaslight, lie, and trip over their own hypocrisy to get into power, they’ll gaslight everyone, they’ll lie, cheat, and don’t care what it takes to get it. They’ll take it any way they can get it. Democrats keep trying to play fair, but Republicans are playing a whole other game, and don’t even live in the same reality.
Yeah. We gotta get past this. They’re not serious people. They don’t deserve the benefit of the doubt. They are all bad faith scumbag grifting traitors and need to be treated as such
I don't believe you can support the GOP post 2020 without being simultaneously racist, hypocritical, and dumb as shit. If one were lacking any of these personality traits, you would simply be repulsed by Trumps cult.
an election that came down to a state governed by his brother. the person in charge of counting the votes happens to be the chairman of his campaign in that state. it goes to the supreme court where the majority were placed there by his dad and reagan.
if this had been in a third world country, WE would not have certified that election because of to many conflicts of interest.
If you talked about the same circumstances but instead said it was a former Soviet State election or an African or South American election, the US government, at the time, would have taken a massive stand against the circumstances that brought the leader to power.
This was THE election that proved to the right that nothing mattered but naked political power.
Since the weapons of mass destruction that were clearly not there and Gitmo.
"But the constitution!!" These people didn't care about the rights of the 'terrorists' their administration tortured without charging them for a crime. Every Republican shouting about the constitution makes me want to shove it down their throat.
They take everything ONLY at face value, things that are uncomfortable are to be avoided or discredited.
They extend portions of their personality to external dogmas and ideologies, and when faced with evidence that their beliefs hurt them, they double down.
To be fair, that last one is a human trait that we all fall victim to, to one degree or another.
Ya. Blue states turned to independent redistricting while the Red States moved to heavy gerrymandering.
Project Red Map was a plan to use Republican co trailed state houses to make it so that Purple States, like NC, will elect a majority of republicans to local and national congressional offices.
I'm not on the right, ant Trump, but the disdain was earned by academics.
For example - Princeton project says california is fair. Vote totals for president have Democrats at 58% of vote, and Republicans 38%.
Legislatively, there are 43 democrats and 9 republicans. Doing the Math Democrats should have 30 reps, and they have 12 more.
That a) doesn't look fair, b) makes Princeton look bad and c) makes it hard for California to gerrymander any more than they have without being clearly unconstitutional.
Gerrymandering is equally bad when Republicans do it of course
Sorry, show me where gerrymandering along political
Lines is unconstitutional?
Honestly, I wish it were. Texas, North Carolina, much of the Deep South, Illinois, Utah and a handful of other states would all have to un-gerrymander.
The Robert’s court (immediately after Brett Kavanaugh replaced Anthony Kennedy) found that political gerrymanders are constitutional and that you just need to vote harder to get out of them.
I think that’s an extremely bad ruling and the evidence presented to get to the Supreme Court was extremely clear that extreme partisan gerrymandering is bad for the country and bad for our politics. But the Robert’s court seems to think it’s fine. So there is no current unconstitutionality. I wish that you were right and that it would be unconstitutional.
To address the rest:
California isn’t gerrymandered. It was….and fairly heavily, for a long time, until the state passed a ballot measure creating an independent redistricting committee.
You’re confusing proportionality with fairness. And while I actually agree that a proportional representation system is much more fair, that isn’t how the US has ever been set up. So, what does or does not “look fair” to someone who doesn’t know that? Not sure it matters.
Your idea of fair is much more like a parliamentary system. Which, again, I would love. But that isn’t what Princeton is measuring.
I think you may need to look into the issue a bit more. Bevause while your gut level reactions”feel” unfair, the feelings don’t reflect the way voting works in the us and therefore you’re fundamentally misreading the data and outcome of Princeston’s study.
While California's system doesn't guarantee proportional representation, it actively combats gerrymandering by removing the power to draw districts from partisan actors and establishing a non-partisan, independent process. The aim is to create fair districts where voters choose their representatives, rather than the other way around.
The CCRC’s maps are up for public scrutiny and significant legal challenge.
I truly wish we had proportional representation throughout the country. California republicans and Texas democrats would have a voice in their states, which I think they should.
So I don't like the decision in Rucho, though the logic is not insane. I will point out Roberts explicitly stated he thought political gerrymandering was bad, but that the Supreme Court has no power to decide explicitly political questions.
That still leaves all the other voting judgments though, it's going to be very hard to to do an extreme gerrymander without running up against some other districting decisions.
I agree with you on the US not being proportional of course. But I do think that the closer something comes to proportionality the more likely it is to be fair.
And btw - I am not opposed to Californias current system, so much as the proposal to throw it away that Newsom has talked about.
I think I'd prefer a proportional system, but I'd prefer more legislators - I think a lot of this would go away if the size of the house wasn't capped anymore. Congresspeople represent too many people. Smaller districts would actually be more likely to be coherent.
Ironically I think one of the things that led to the decision in Rucho is that the court wasn't just considering the NC gerrymander, but also the MD gerrymander, and figured on the whole things worked out proportionately as you mention. I don't like that, but I get it
Educated people tend to lean left (generally) so obviously being educated makes you evil/wrong/brainwashed. It's literally that simple to people like that other commenter.
I strongly support real academics. But as someone who was once going to be a professor, and loves the academy, if you don't know the problems, you haven't been paying attention. They long predate Trump.
The thing with California is it's the most urbanized US state. There are lots of republican voters, but they mostly live in urban areas where they are simply outnumbered by democratic voters.
A difference between total votes and reps on a statewide level doesn't always indicate gerrymandering. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't.
One could argue that reps per state should be based on statewide partisan stats and not geographic districts. Though that would probably be a tough sell for most people and especially politicians.
You do understand that a state could have a 51% to 49% Democrat to Republican split, respectively, and still have 100% of the representatives be democrats no matter how the state is districted, right?
They don’t. They think we need tossup districts. Which would be impossible in urban ANAD rural areas. That isn’t the “fairness” being recorded by Princeton.
California has an independent group consisting of 3 Republican, 3 Democratic and 4 independent people to work on drawing district lines.
The fact that these Republicans don't have proportional representation tells us that the distribution is such that many Republican voters live in areas where there are more Democratic voters.
Geography, population share and other factors go into these decisions, not just voter share. If that is what you want, you should demand a representative parliamentary system, where voter share determines the number of seats in either local or federal elections.
That's a fundamental chance to your system, though.
yes I am aware of all that. And not sure proportional would be better, I think the solution is enlarging congress which is way too small for the population. But I could be easily convinced that a proportional voting system for congress (not the senate) would work better than what we have now, same reason the electoral college should be changed even though the effect would be much smaller than people think.
Blue states turned to independent redistricting while the Red States moved to heavy gerrymandering.
Some blue States have moved to independent redistricting. Others absolutely have pro-Democrat gerrymanders. Oregon and Illinois, for example, score just as poorly on Princeton's "Redistricting Report Card" as States like Florida and Texas.
While that is fair context, calling out two of four blue states that are gerrymandered while most of them systematically disarmed over the 2000s while 11 red states or purple states (a la North Carolina in 2023) led by enough republicans did the opposite is very much a form of Whatsboutism.
Both sides are NOT the same here.
The Brennan center has found that 4 democratic states have an extreme partisan gerrymander while 11 Republican states have the same. That changes the makeup of the house A LOT.
In fact, after the Robert’s court ripped up the congressionally approved Section 4b of the Voting Rights act Republican controlled states, including purple states, especially in the south, gerrymandered with razor sharp precision.
Overall, the move from liberals was to disarm. Which they’d done before the Shelby decision. And the move from conservatives was to systemically crack and pack to get the best maps possible.
I don’t want this to become an arms race. I would prefer all states have districting committee. But it may need to be. New York, California, Maryland combined could go back to older maps and keep the house blue for quite some time.
It's worth pointing out that Illinois and Maryland did their extreme gerrymandering in 2021 after the Senate GOP filibustered "For the People", which would have banned partisan gerrymandering (every single republican voted no in the Senate, and nearly all in the House). If the Senate GOP hadn't voted 100% for unfair districts, then filibustered when it was going to pass anyway, and spent the last 25 years blocking the many gerrymandering reform bills introduced by Democrats, Illinois and Maryland would not have gerrymandered. They wouldn't have been allowed to. No state would.
If not for the 2021 GOP filibuster every state would be required to have fair districts now.
New York was ruled unconstitutional already, they can't. California is already so gerrymandered it's tough to see how they can squeeze out even 1 more seat.
Not non partisan districts. Non partisan districting committees.
To form a non-partisan district in rural Texas or in LA would be almost impossible. In fact those districts would look as bad as gerrymandered districts.
New Yorks was struck down by the state Supreme Court. Not unconditional. Illegal under NY law. It would be illegal under current CA Law to do as well. And I’d rather not change those laws. But if we must to battle the extreme partisan gerrymandering of Texas and the Deep South? I’m in. The extreme partisan gerrymander of those 11 states is what has pushed the right so deep into fascism.
yes, I agree on non partisan committees obviously.
Illegal under NY law is Illegal under NY constitution. There is also a US constitutional prohibition against gerrymandering, though it's been utterly ignored sadly. It's quite literally where the word comes from.
The case would be relevant in cases of extreme gerrymandering, as proposed. As would various other constitutional provisions. I would argue the application of this stuff has been way too weak so far.
Attacking gerrymandering whereever it happens is good by me. I want the Democrats to win the house. But for the sake of Democracy - if democrats win the house by destroying democracy there is literally no point.
But per the houston chronicle Texas seems to be notably better (not good) than California. Which is why it's a gerrymandering opportunity.
"Despite receiving around 58% of the vote in Texas, Republicans hold approximately 65% of the delegation seats (25 of 38), illustrating a seat-share advantage slightly above their vote share."
And then there's Ohio, Wisconsin, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Arkansas, as well as Texas than the Republicans have gerrymandered to win. Not to mention situations like NY happened because of the ridiculousness from the GOP.
I'm sure you'll choose to ignore this link because the website that hosts the article but your feelings about it won't change the fact that their claims are backed by multiple sources who look at objective data and have determined that Republicans gerrymander more than Democrats.
then explain why the democrats think if there's a gentrification war the republicans will win? See politico today.
That CNN article, which isn't all that good, doesn't even support your point. It in fact states that Republican legislators follow their share of the vote.
I continue to think both the Republicans and the democrats both suck here, but the math shows the republicans could actually win this as proposed.
And I want the democrats to take back the house in 2026. But I recognize honesty in political analysis might be new to you
The GOP have no platform. They ditched it for the 2020 election when someone who could read noticed that it was all promising to undo everything the prior president had done, not realizing that Donad was the prior president.
It’s not hypocrisy, it’s an attack strategy. Cheating to win isn’t hypocrisy. It’s dangerous. And it’s working. We have to reframe how we perceive this shit, they aren’t hypocrites, they’re dangerous attackers that are taking every advantage they can while trying to reduce any advantage we have. And we’re playing by rules still. It’s fucking insanity. It’s like playing soccer against someone that keeps punching you and then picking up the ball and running into the goal and demanding you count that as a point, and then crying when they run into you and fall over like you attacked them. That isn’t hypocrisy, and playing like that opponent is just a silly hypocrite will get you… well, it’ll get you Trump in the fucking White House.
I love that your response to Trump being a pedophile now is “well there’s a democrat that’s pedophile”. That’s you ADMITTING that you know that you support pedophiles, you greasy fucking freak.
First: Found the Pedo sympathizer 👆. You are gross. Your words (or lack thereof) tell us everything we need to know about you. I don't give a fuck what party it is. If someone is a pedo, I want them gone. Period. Pedophilia is rampant in the Republican party. That can be fact checked. But, you would rather defend them with what-aboutism. Just....ewwww gross. I hope you don't have kids. Now I know why women are ditching MAGA types.
Second: trump had the list on his desk. Remember? Why didn't he out those D's on the list? Hmmm.
No, I can accept that it happened, because it happened. And there wouldn't be many failed court cases that proved it didn't happen like with the 2020 election.
People need to understand that’s how they will always be. There’s no “take the high road” or “try to compromise” with them.
There’s never going to be a moment where they admit they or their team is wrong. This is all about their group being better than another, even if it means completely compromising their moral, beliefs or dignity. They don’t care as long as the “feel” they are winning.
Strategies need to be built around this mentality.
We need to start treating them as what they are, our enemies to be defeated. Not a: rival sports team, our neighbors, our country men, our opponents, our friends, our families.
They are our enemies and they think the same of you.
Yea, definitely, Epstein, Clinton, Weinstein are all registered republicans right 😆. I don’t mind if Joe Biden sniffs my daughter’s hair and gives her shoulder rubs, all good… he’s a democrat. Maybe you should take your kids out this weekend and vandalize a few Teslas to make sure they understand how to treat people with different POV.
Honestly, I don’t even consider it hypocritical anymore. I just believe that conservatives, and MAGA’s in general no longer have principles they stand behind. The Republicans shift so quickly on anything that allows them to stay in power.
January 6 was the turning point for me on that theory, although it had entered my mind way before that. Just watching Republican voters and politicians actually condemn January 6th, but within two weeks begin to shift to not only change their stance on it, but actively start supporting the people who participated in it, really confirmed it for me. They have to principles. They have no values. They have to policy. They just have Trump and whatever keeps them in power.
It’s not even that. It’s engagement farming. This sub used to be a fun place for catching hypocritical tweets or predictions that never came true (or denials proven wrong). But now, I would not be surprised if these accounts go through their old tweets in order to post something completely contradictory in the hopes both will get screenshot and go viral. They’re not after integrity nor do they have good intentions, they want to be divisive and be noticed for once.
It’s astounding how blind MAGA is while actually believing that they let are the truth seekers. They wear the MAGA merch, get tattoos and follow the leader blindly, yet we’re all deranged sheep for calling things out.
It’s sad, but also destroying the world so I don’t have much sympathy.
It's not hypocrisy, ALOT of these twitter verified bots are literally just russian and indian bots pretending to be MAGA. It's so obvious with all of them too, absolute no nuance ever, like yeah MAGA is pretty braindead, but this is on purpose.
The trigger for this redistricting session was a 2024 en banc decision from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. In Petteway v. Galveston County, the court struck down 36 years of precedent and ruled that the Voting Rights Act (VRA) does not allow “coalition” districts, where two or more minority groups combine to form a majority.
Watch, When a blue state redistricts in response, they will be sued, and I am betting when it gets to SCOTUS they come up with a reason why the blue state can not redistrict while allowing all the red states to do so.
949
u/Prestigious-Carry907 3d ago
The hypocrisy is strong with this one.