@Sleepyguy saidI don't really understand how the amount of time that has passed between events is a justification for not needing specific laws anymore.
I think she clarified she meant "right to life". You probably still think Trump's "very fine people on both sides" included the KKK. Whatever.
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 in 161 years ago. 400,000 Union soldiers died for that. All the Jim Crow crap was dismantle ...[text shortened]... before they were ever born. If we want a race-blind society we have to stop discriminating on race.
A strong argument in favor of keeping VRA provisions in place is playing out right now. Republicans suspending elections and redrawing maps mid-decade, just because the Supreme Court decided that laws passed by Congress aren't needed anymore. The evidence suggests we still haven't grown up.
@no1marauder saidYou have a minimal point as you reach to the sky, as some Virginia disputes were about whether commissions follow proper procedures, or whether maps met state constitutional requirements. We all know that.
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.
But it is also true that federal courts has struck down some district in Virginia and elsewhere for relying too heavily on race. RACE, Marauder. You cannot kid a kidder. So yes, both of these things can be true simultaneously. But you seem to discount this part... not very ingenuous.
You know full well that courts have ruled that race cannot be the dominant factor in districting. and at the same time they've also ruled that minorityvoting rights sometimes actually require to be considered... so again, you are wrong above....
May I say that it is very complex about reducing it all to racial redistricting being unconstitutional, or saying that everyone opposed to it is racist. There are other reason to be opposed....mainly constitutional.
And it is laughable that you can write all this stuff and act like race has nothing to do with it. Yes, it is complex about what is or isn't, but you are quite disingenuous to say race has nothing to do with this, when all of the liberals have gone, absolutely nuts about it. Hakeem is one of oyur principal racists, ........do you think that he does not consider race throughout his day.?
PS: He never speaks policies. Weird.
2 edits
@Sleepyguy saidShe also received backlash for quoting Hitler and saying he was "right" on controlling youth.
I think she clarified she meant "right to life".
But take your pick, there's a slew of racists in Trump's camp, like Stephen Miller, who has hundreds of emails discovered where he promoted white supremacist figures and literature; Trump's pardon of Joe Arpaio, who targeted Hispanics without due process and put them in chain gangs; so on and so on.
If we want a race-blind society we have to stop discriminating on race.
Reminder: Republicans are weakening black votes so they can win more elections. That's discriminating based on race, right?
@AverageJoe1 saidNo Federal Court considered the Virginia redistricting plan on its merits so you are misinformed.
You have a minimal point as you reach to the sky, as some Virginia disputes were about whether commissions follow proper procedures, or whether maps met state constitutional requirements. We all know that.
But it is also true that federal courts has struck down some district in Virginia and elsewhere for relying too heavily on race. RACE, Marauder. You cannot kid a ...[text shortened]... think that he does not consider race throughout his day.?
PS: He never speaks policies. Weird.
1 edit
@vivify saidYou mean by redrawing districts that were specifically created to weaken white votes? The old district maps were discriminating based on race, right?
Reminder: Republicans are weakening black votes so they can win more elections. That's discriminating based on race, right?
Votes are not white or black. Whether people with a certain skin color tend to vote Democrat or Republican should not be relevant. We need to start living that way.
3 edits
@Sleepyguy saidEarlier, you said:
You mean by redrawing districts that were specifically created to weaken white votes? The old district maps were discriminating based on race, right?
"thanks but I don't really need the instruction about why the VRA was enacted."
Are you now saying the VRA was created to "weaken white votes"? If so, you have no idea why it was enacted.
Votes are not white or black. Whether people with a certain skin color tend to vote Democrat or Republican should not be relevant.
Yet that's exactly why Republicans went after the VRA. If Blacks voted Republican, do you think they would've taken this to the Supreme Court?
@vivify saidOh this is pointless and hopeless. You're all addicted to race based politics, and that's why we'll never get over racial division in this country.
Earlier, you said:
"thanks but I don't really need the instruction about why the VRA was enacted."
Are you now saying the VRA was created to "weaken white votes"? If so, you have no idea why it was enacted.Votes are not white or black. Whether people with a certain skin color tend to vote Democrat or Republican should not be relevant.
Yet th ...[text shortened]... er the VRA. If Blacks voted Republican, do you think they would've taken this to the Supreme Court?
@Sleepyguy saidIf you actually criticized Republicans once in a while for their "race based politics", your words would carry more weight.
Oh this is pointless and hopeless. You're all addicted to race based politics, and that's why we'll never get over racial division in this country.
@Sleepyguy said"Weaken white votes"? How exactly in your color blind FantasyLand?
You mean by redrawing districts that were specifically created to weaken white votes? The old district maps were discriminating based on race, right?
Votes are not white or black. Whether people with a certain skin color tend to vote Democrat or Republican should not be relevant. We need to start living that way.
Are Tennessee Republicans being color blind when they plan to split Memphis in 2 and combine the parts with predominantly white areas? Or is that OK so "white votes" aren't "weakened"?
@vivify saidYou want me to criticize efforts to un-gerrymander districts like the "200 mile long snake" in Louisiana that were gerrymandered in the first place with skin color as the only factor? Or the ninth district in TN which was created intentionally to create a "black stronghold?" How would that gel with my desire to get race out of politics?
If you actually criticized Republicans once in a while for their "race based politics", your words would carry more weight.
@Sleepyguy saidYou mean by putting the city of Memphis in one district?
You want me to criticize efforts to un-gerrymander districts like the "200 mile long snake" in Louisiana that were gerrymandered in the first place with skin color as the only factor? Or the ninth district in TN which was created intentionally to create a "black stronghold?" How would that gel with my desire to get race out of politics?
@no1marauder saidTwo sides of the same coin. As I've said, votes should just be votes, not black or white. We shouldn't even be keeping track. But if you want districts to be drawn to "strengthen black votes", then the opposite is also true.
"Weaken white votes"? How exactly in your color blind FantasyLand?
Are Tennessee Republicans being color blind when they plan to split Memphis in 2 and combine the parts with predominantly white areas? Or is that OK so "white votes" aren't "weakened"?
1 edit
@Sleepyguy saidBut "votes should be votes" isn't what's happening at all right now. After the SCOTUS decision, Republicans in the south cancelled elections and immediately chopped up majority black districts to limit their voting power.
Two sides of the same coin. As I've said, votes should just be votes, not black or white. We shouldn't even be keeping track. But if you want districts to be drawn to "strengthen black votes", then the opposite is also true.
A race-blind redistricting simulation, as shown in the article below, would result in approximately the same number of Democrat-safe districts as they have now. I could get behind that. Instead, the likely end result of partisan gerrymandering in the South will eliminate almost all Democrat-majority districts in the south, and one third of our black congressmen will be voted out. And it actually goes well beyond that, because redistricting impacts state races and calcify the incumbents who draw the maps. Bad news all around.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/17/upshot/redistricting-race-court-gerrymanders-elections.html
@Sleepyguy saidMany pre-VRA lines were drawn specifically to dilute Black voting strength and lessen their representation. Most of the present Republican gerrymandering schemes are meant to do the same thing.
Two sides of the same coin. As I've said, votes should just be votes, not black or white. We shouldn't even be keeping track. But if you want districts to be drawn to "strengthen black votes", then the opposite is also true.
It is impossible to propose remedial maps that don't do the opposite. While I don't think absurd, unnatural boundaries should be created to do so, I still think preserving minority voting strength so it has some reasonable chance to be reflected in legislative bodies is a worthy goal.
@no1marauder saidI mean by drawing the boundaries of the 9th district, or ANY district, for the express purpose of increasing the voting power of any particular racial group. Yes it makes sense the city of Memphis should be in one district, and yes the GOP breaking it up is an exercise raw partisan politics, just as what Dems in VA were doing. Make the argument that it should be be kept as one district for any other reason than a bunch of black people live there.
You mean by putting the city of Memphis in one district?