Go back
Is there an argument for drawing lines on basis of race?

Is there an argument for drawing lines on basis of race?

Debates


@no1marauder said
"No principled arguments at all"!!!!!

LMFAO! I guess you didn't bother to read this:

"By gutting it even in the face of clear legislative intent by finding a principle of "color blindness" in Reconstruction era amendments meant to protect Blacks and if necessary provide remedies for discrimination, right wing judges have made a mockery of any idea of "original inten ...[text shortened]... than your "stop hurting our feelings by saying we support racial discrimination just because we do".
You misread it. I was saying the left does not accept any of the arguments presented by the right as principled, but rather are only attributed to racism, as you have done repeatedly in this thread. It's the good old "Come on, YOU know what's REALLY going here, racist." get out of jail free card.


@Sleepyguy said
You misread it. I was saying the left does not accept any of the arguments presented by the right as principled, but rather are only attributed to racism, as you have done repeatedly in this thread. It's the good old "Come on, YOU know what's REALLY going here, racist." get out of jail free card.
And yet how many times have we heard from the right about how white men are THE most discriminated against demographic on the planet.

That is just BULL. No data supports that. When we hear this kind of BS from the right, is it any wonder we immediately think "racist". When one hears lies over and over and over, forgive us for thinking they're all liars.


@Mott-The-Hoople said
discriminating based on race is what the vra was put in place to stop...it morphed into discriminating based on race to get a preferred outcome for a particular party
It didn't "morph" into anything.

That is your narrative out of the lying mouth of Donald Trump. It's not truth.

1 edit

@Mott-The-Hoople said
undoing voting districts to give a single race more power over the other races is not funny...it is democracy
It is dysfunctional democracy.

The Supreme Court screwed the pooch on this one.


@Suzianne said
forgive us for thinking they're all liars.
Proved my point, thanks.


@Sleepyguy said
Proved my point, thanks.
You cannot deny that it is one of the leading narratives from your party. Lie, lie, lie all the time. Everyone may not do it, but those who do not engage in Trump-style lying are now few and far between.


@Sleepyguy said
"Right wing judges have had it in for the VRA for decades because it hampered racial discrimination that Southern States wanted to engage in. ."

That's all it can ever be, right? Just racism. Just right wing racist judges yearning to enable some good old racism. Nothing about Equal Protection or colorblindness in the law. Nothing about the VRA's unconstitutional r ...[text shortened]... the left can play so they just keep banging away on it forever. It's annoying, pathetic, and a lie.
You find a Republican that doesn't lie, and you run him, then.


@Sleepyguy said
Yep there it is. A real gotcha:

"nothing in this section establishes a right to have members of a protected class elected in numbers equal to their proportion in the population.”

Except that in practice the "totality of circumstances" Gingles gamut results in exactly that. Some Democrat wants to force the creation of a majority-minority district, and so must present a ...[text shortened]... presto you have a district created with race as the sole factor and to hell with the 14th amendment.
Nowhere on your voter registration form does it ask about your race OR "skin color".

At least this is how it is in Arizona.


@Mott-The-Hoople said
But it’s the truth isn’t it?

Its not about blacks, democrats couldn’t care less, its about democrat votes
Said the racist.


@Suzianne said
Nowhere on your voter registration form does it ask about your race OR "skin color".

At least this is how it is in Arizona.
They use census data.


@Sleepyguy said
Nah, that's the gist of it. As long your premise is "blacks vote this way or that, therefore ..." then that is all your argument amounts to.
And whose premise is that? You saw what Mott just said.

The VRA was not about democrat/republican, and it is not now.

It IS about a suppressed population not getting equal representation because they were black. That is what it is about now as well, and thus WHY the republicans have gone all in towards gerrymandering this year.

I couldn't care less if a black is democrat or republican. The fact is that blacks have historically been denied equal voting opportunities, and the Republican Party is trying to bring that back right now.

It must be because they think "blacks vote democrat".


@Suzianne said
And whose premise is that? You saw what Mott just said.

The VRA was not about democrat/republican, and it is not now.

It IS about a suppressed population not getting equal representation because they were black. That is what it is about now as well, and thus WHY the republicans have gone all in towards gerrymandering this year.

I couldn't care less if a bla ...[text shortened]... to bring that back right now.

It must be because they think "blacks vote democrat".
Both parties are going all in on gerrymandering this year.

As long as there is a high correlation between race and political affiliation (blacks vote 90% for Dems), it will always be possible for Democrats to characterize permissible partisan gerrymandering as racist. Now they'll have to show that such redistricting intentionally suppresses minority voting power based on race and in the present, and not just assume racism by pointing at historical conditions that no longer exist.


@Sleepyguy said
Both parties are going all in on gerrymandering this year.
What you fail to mention is that Republicans did this in clear violation of the VRA, while Democrats countered with a way to fix it, according to the intention of the VRA.


@Sleepyguy said
How do they do that? Why, they just sort voters by skin color and present the map. Then a judge forces the state to use the map to comply with the VRA, and presto you have a district created with race as the sole factor and to hell with the 14th amendment.
"... and to hell with the 14th amendment."

How dare you stand up for the 14th Amendment after the Supreme Court shredded it. Twice.

1 edit

@Sleepyguy said
Yep there it is. A real gotcha:

"nothing in this section establishes a right to have members of a protected class elected in numbers equal to their proportion in the population.”

Except that in practice the "totality of circumstances" Gingles gamut results in exactly that. Some Democrat wants to force the creation of a majority-minority district, and so must present a ...[text shortened]... presto you have a district created with race as the sole factor and to hell with the 14th amendment.
But the VRA specifically mentions "race or color" and that clearly means Blacks in the South. So your bitch is really with the VRA itself and that language was adopted by Congress overwhelmingly in 1982 in part to override a prior SCOTUS decision allowing remedial measures under VRA Section 2 only upon proof of racial animus rather than discriminatory effect.

The idea the 14th and 15th Amendment require "color blindness" even in remedial measures is so historically absurd that it is difficult to take anyone who makes it at face value esp. SCOTUS judges.