7 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

So you think dividing people by an immutable characteristic (race) is the same as dividing them by political ideology?

Yes dude, they're different 🤣

Do you actually think Black Rights are not a political ideology by definition? A political ideology is not just Democratic and Republican. You not agreeing with that as an ideology or wanting to not over represent it is a different argument, but there’s no question that in 1965 and now, it’s a legitimate political sect.

Just like white rights/supremacists.

Edited 4 hours ago4 hr by Negat0ry

And just to be clear, I believe that all gerrymandering is bad, but cherry picking what we call bad and ignoring it where it is beneficial is literally just more gerrymandering.

Either get rid of district maps being drawn by election commissions and just split the US into amorphous blobs fairly distributed mathematically. Or just go by popular vote. If New England is 40% republican, give them 40% of the seats. Give Texas 40% dem seats. Give California 40% republican seats. Sounds good to me and much more fair than what happens now. On top of that, give third parties a chance to gain representation.

Edited 4 hours ago4 hr by Negat0ry

2 hours ago, Negat0ry said:

Do you actually think Black Rights are not a political ideology by definition? A political ideology is not just Democratic and Republican. You not agreeing with that as an ideology or wanting to not over represent it is a different argument, but there’s no question that in 1965 and now, it’s a legitimate political sect.

Just like white rights/supremacists.

They weren't being divided by ideology, which you would know if you actually read the opinion. That would have included white people and Asians, and excluded some black people who aren't "Black Rights Activists." They were specifically drawing the maps based on skin color. Zero effort was spent filtering for ideology.

The fact you are trying to equate skin color with an ideology is wild.

3 hours ago, Negat0ry said:

Is your argument really that “racial gerrymandering is bad, but the partisan gerrymandering is different”? Because that’s what loudly complaining about democratic gerrymandering without expressing the whole picture is. Also wtf is “partisan” gerrymandering? Turns out both disenfranchise voters.

Gerrymandering is bad—period. Neither side should be doing it. But let’s not pretend this is some new revelation. The reality is the cat’s out of the bag, and now it’s a full-on fight because no one wants to unilaterally disarm.

Packing the court? Also bad. Undermines the credibility of the judiciary and turns it into just another political tool. Yet we’re watching one side openly push for it when they don’t like the current makeup.

Killing the filibuster? Same story. It exists to force consensus and protect against raw majority rule. But again, one side is eager to toss it aside the moment it becomes inconvenient.

And making Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico states—not based on some sudden principle, but because it shifts the balance of power in the Senate? That’s not about representation, that’s about leverage.

Call it what you want, but changing the rules of the game to lock in power is a dangerous path. History is full of examples of how that ends, and none of them are good.