@AverageJoe1 saidThe Virginia courts ruled no such thing; they ruled that the redistricting plan approved by the voters wasn't valid because of technical reasons having to do with the timing of the last election.
The news is all about VA having 2 courts ruled that racial gerrymandering is NOT constitutional. It is institutionalized racism. Dems say the system is broken because 'we do not like the outcome"?
Secondly, if you fellers get the House, your president (you will agree that the USA needs someone to make decisions on running the USA , so that we can play chess and wat ...[text shortened]... ng children in a playground. Get him Sonhouse!!!!! Then, what willl be your satisfaction????????
Racial gerrymandering is what right wing States are doing now to dilute Black voting strength.
@Sleepyguy said"Ideally race would be a non-factor in everything."
I don't think there's a legitimate argument for using race in ANY legal or political context, except for identification purposes on birth certificates and driver's licenses. Ideally race would be a non-factor in everything.
Ideally, yes. In reality: no.
It all comes down to *why* race is considered in the first place. Is it to put down a race? Is it to make your own superior over others? Or is it to unfairly disenfranchise one?
Think about *why* the Voting Rights Act was enacted. In a climate where black protesters were being assaulted by white mobs just for marching peacefully for equal rights, where racial segregation was legal and Klan members were being elected to political office, the Voting Rights Act was created.
Fast forward: look at the current climate: the VRA was removed while a president endorsed by the KKK is in office. A president who was thanked on live TV for giving "victory to white life":
https://www.npr.org/2022/06/26/1107710215/roe-overturned-mary-miller-historic-victory-for-white-life
"President Trump, on behalf of all the MAGA patriots in America, I want to thank you for the historic victory for white life in the Supreme Court yesterday," said Rep. Mary Miller, R-Ill., as she raised her hands to lead the crowd in Mendon, Ill., in applause.
These are the people and conditions the Voting Rights Act is being removed under.
Remember: the VRA is not arbitrarily picking one race over another. It was enacted to correct one of the many wrongs blacks have faced under white supremacists.
1 edit
@no1marauder saidhow are 'right wing" states
The Virginia courts ruled no such thing; they ruled that the redistricting plan approved by the voters wasn't valid because of technical reasons having to do with the timing of the last election.
Racial gerrymandering is what right wing States are doing now to dilute Black voting strength.
gerrymandering?
@Mott-The-Hoople saidJust stop lying.
ummm...you havent had the first black president yet...and...the people did not put up a black woman (harris isnt black either)...the democrat party did that without the voters input.
Or admit you're stupid AF.
@Mott-The-Hoople saidThe official word is redistricting; how they do that is called gerrymandering.
how are 'right wing" states
gerrymandering?
Look at what Texas did to get 5 more Republican seats. They moved the lines.
Educate yourself. It's not my job.
@Mott-The-Hoople saidYou're seriously denying they are?
how are 'right wing" states
gerrymandering?
They're redrawing districts to give Republicans better chances to win more seats. That's the definition of gerrymandering.
1 edit
@Sleepyguy saidOf course you would. She's Republican, and has vetoed numerous Virginia bills that would benefit blacks and women.
How about Winsome Earle-Sears? I'd vote for her.
The question was put up to democrats here as basically 'who you gonna run? who's your pick?' (It was actually originally asked of kmax87, who is far from Republican.) Granted, this was not clear as he wrote it.
1 edit
@vivify saidAbsolutely. One only has to realize that the VRA was passed right after King and Lewis and others walked over the bridge in Selma, AL.
"Ideally race would be a non-factor in everything."
Ideally, yes. In reality: no.
It all comes down to *why* race is considered in the first place. Is it to put down a race? Is it to make your own superior over others? Or is it to unfairly disenfranchise one?
Think about *why* the Voting Rights Act was enacted. In a climate where black protesters were being a ...[text shortened]... nother. It was enacted to correct one of the many wrongs blacks have faced under white supremacists.
Check this out:
https://www.live5news.com/video/2026/05/18/all-roads-lead-south-day-action-begins-selma/
https://www.thehandbasket.co/p/alabama-selma-montgomery-marches-voting-rights-solomon-crenshaw-jr
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2026/05/16/voting-rights-activists-supreme-court-redistricting-protests/90033266007/
https://alabamareflector.com/2026/05/16/thousands-attend-protests-in-selma-and-montgomery-for-voting-rights/
https://joycevance.substack.com/p/selma-rejects-jim-crow-20
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/civil-rights-veterans-see-history-repeating-after-high-court-guts-voting-rights-2026-05-18/
@Sleepyguy saidIn the US, Blacks vote about 90% Democratic and this is reflected in the number of Blacks in elected offices. So this reality will be reflected in gerrymandering.
How about Winsome Earle-Sears? I'd vote for her.
Take Memphis, Tennessee. Right now it's essentially one Congressional district with a large Black majority. So the likelihood is that district will elect a Democrat and probably a Black Democrat since most Democrats there are Black.
Now the Tennessee Republican plan is to break into two districts combine those with areas fairly distant from Memphis with overwhelmingly White right wingers. The math will give the latter a significant majority in the two new districts making the election of two White right wingers highly likely.
Thus, Black voter preference for Democrats is diluted as well as Black Congressional representation.
Are claims that race played no part in the Tennessee Republican redistricting plan really credible? Be honest, Mott surely won't (not his style).
@Mott-The-Hoople saidExactly, but what a waste that you make this point, yet liberals, finding it inconvenient, will not respond. I will complain to RHP for hosting so many empty conversations!!! I am BUSY, mainly lining up Trusts with my broker so that Mamdani cannot seize the money in those trusts.
ummm...you havent had the first black president yet...and...the people did not put up a black woman (harris isnt black either)...the democrat party did that without the voters input.
My cousin Bill had his family at the dinner table last night, said he was keeping their budget together, but some of it is out of hand, he is overdrawn and in debt. He asked my advice. I took a page from Mamdani philosophy, and told him to go to his neighbor, who OWNS THE BANK, and get the money from him.
Does anyone here think that that would be a good realitic solution? Why, or why not????
Suzianne, you do well with analogies, what do you think?
@no1marauder said8 references to black in this post. What about policies, little guy? Your sidekick Suzianne writes as well , when asked who would be her choice to be president of the United States of America, only about the color of her choice(s) and about the sex of her choice(s).
In the US, Blacks vote about 90% Democratic and this is reflected in the number of Blacks in elected offices. So this reality will be reflected in gerrymandering.
Take Memphis, Tennessee. Right now it's essentially one Congressional district with a large Black majority. So the likelihood is that district will elect a Democrat and probably a Black Democrat since most De ...[text shortened]... nessee Republican redistricting plan really credible? Be honest, Mott surely won't (not his style).
Color and Sex, color and sex.
NOT about policy. No even about how to get the stuff of other people, which at least would be a policy, moreso than color and sex. And race, I guess, left that out.
@Suzianne saidhaha. Everyone, I asked for her strongest choice for president, and the first thing she brings up was not policy, leadership, record, or likability. It was race, and another black president as a way to spite Republicans Jesus talk about someone who cannot get her feet on the ground.
Hakeem Jeffries, although we know he wouldn't leave his post at the House (who else would/could be Speaker?).
Plus, another black president would be a worthy "neener, neener" in your faces.
Of course, you lost your minds in 2024 because we put up a black woman.
I'm not saying women or blacks can't be great leaders. I'm saying it's noticeable that Democrats often emphasize identity first.
You need to mature. your posts. (is mature a verb?)
1 edit
@AverageJoe1 saidSTFU. Maybe you don't want to discuss the topic of the thread that YOU started but others might be. Show some courtesy for a change you classless idiot.
8 references to black in this post. What about policies, little guy? Your sidekick Suzianne writes as well , when asked who would be her choice to be president of the United States of America, only about the color of her choice(s) and about the sex of her choice(s).
Color and Sex, color and sex.
NOT about policy. No even about how to get the stuff of other peo ...[text shortened]... le, which at least would be a policy, moreso than color and sex. And race, I guess, left that out.
1 edit
@vivify saidI think she clarified she meant "right to life". You probably still think Trump's "very fine people on both sides" included the KKK. Whatever.
"Ideally race would be a non-factor in everything."
Ideally, yes. In reality: no.
It all comes down to *why* race is considered in the first place. Is it to put down a race? Is it to make your own superior over others? Or is it to unfairly disenfranchise one?
Think about *why* the Voting Rights Act was enacted. In a climate where black protesters were being a ...[text shortened]... nother. It was enacted to correct one of the many wrongs blacks have faced under white supremacists.
And thanks but I don't really need the instruction about why the VRA was enacted. It's time to move forward. The evil of slavery was ended 161 years ago. 400,000 Union soldiers died for that. All the Jim Crow crap was dismantled in the 50's and 60's, we had the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act, the Fair Housing Act. We've gone all the way from the evil of slavery to mandatory HR struggle sessions for whites to "do the work" to find themselves guilty of something that someone else did before they were ever born. If we want a race-blind society we have to stop discriminating on race.