Why is it that the Dems think the only way to elect black and brown Congress members is to create a special district for them? There are 212 democrats in the house, I suppose the electorate that elected them are too racist to elect a black representative? Be better, democrats.
Racist Democrats and the voting rights act.
4,413 Views |
58 Replies |
Last: 14 hrs ago by Squadron7
Can't keep them on a plantation that doesn't have defined parameters.
30 plurality white districts have a black representative.
How many plurality black districts have a white representative?
I'm Gipper
How many plurality black districts have a white representative?
I'm Gipper
I know you know this, but the Democrats know that one of the only way to elect Democrats is majority minority district.
Just likely literally everything they pretend to care about, the race angle is only utilize to give themselves more power.
Just likely literally everything they pretend to care about, the race angle is only utilize to give themselves more power.
Barack Obama himself spoke against the ruling, apparently forgetting that he won most of his electoral votes from White-majority states.
Silent For Too Long said:
I know you know this, but the Democrats know that one of the only way to elect Democrats is majority minority district.
Just likely literally everything they pretend to care about, the race angle is only utilize to give themselves more power.
Exactly! Race is the excuse. Partisanship is the reason.
If the Black vote were split 50/50, neither party would make race an issue at all. If it were 60/40 or maybe even 70/30, then VRA Section 2 still might not be a big deal. But in reality, they're consistently 90/10. Which makes every Black DEI district a safe seat for Democrats.
Until now, that's prevented Southern red states from completely gerrymandering our states like Northern blue states have long been able to do. The ruling levels the playing field that way.
Obama remains a mystery. How does a man who came out of a white vagina identify as black? Hell, watch him play basketball and you know he ain't black.
Ronnie '88
Im Gipper said:
30 plurality white districts have a black representative.
How many plurality black districts have a white representative?
Of course. Watching them cry because they don't have a court that hands them a legal advantage in gerrymandering has been glorious, and even moreso because they have no good defense of their outrage that doesn't make them look like the hypocritical racists that they are.
Yes, the dems want super representation based on race.
Im Gipper said:
30 plurality white districts have a black representative.
How many plurality black districts have a white representative?
Truth.
The CBC has about 60 members. That is waaaaay overrepresented as a percentage of the population.
They've been given special privalege for over 60 years. And they haven't done a damn thing with it.
They've been given special privalege for over 60 years. And they haven't done a damn thing with it.
Just Dem crocodile tears because they no longer get an illegal advantage of guaranteed safe Dem districts in red states.
They've trained black and brown people to believe if you don't vote for someone of your race (who is a dem) then they're to be ostracized and ridiculed. If you want to just go along with the other black folk, just vote for the black dem candidate. Easy peasy.
Logos Stick said:
The CBC has about 60 members. That is waaaaay overrepresented as a percentage of the population.
They've been given special privalege for over 60 years. And they haven't done a damn thing with it.
I beg to differ.
A number of them have used the position to grift a bunch of money...
You can turn off signatures, btw
Ag with kids said:Logos Stick said:
The CBC has about 60 members. That is waaaaay overrepresented as a percentage of the population.
They've been given special privalege for over 60 years. And they haven't done a damn thing with it.
I beg to differ.
A number of them have used the position to grift a bunch of money...
Why not just draw districts equally with no regard for race or politics and let representative democracy do its thing?
Aggie Dad Sip said:Ag with kids said:Logos Stick said:
The CBC has about 60 members. That is waaaaay overrepresented as a percentage of the population.
They've been given special privalege for over 60 years. And they haven't done a damn thing with it.
I beg to differ.
A number of them have used the position to grift a bunch of money...
Why not just draw districts equally with no regard for race or politics and let representative democracy do its thing?
Your side first.
Aggie Dad Sip said:Ag with kids said:Logos Stick said:
The CBC has about 60 members. That is waaaaay overrepresented as a percentage of the population.
They've been given special privalege for over 60 years. And they haven't done a damn thing with it.
I beg to differ.
A number of them have used the position to grift a bunch of money...
Why not just draw districts equally with no regard for race or politics and let representative democracy do its thing?
What Rapier said in the post below yours...
It's always great to tell the other side to be "fair" after your side has stacked the deck....
You can turn off signatures, btw
fredfredunderscorefred
Joined:
Sep 14, 2003
Posts:
3,805
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Aggie Dad Sip said:Ag with kids said:Logos Stick said:
The CBC has about 60 members. That is waaaaay overrepresented as a percentage of the population.
They've been given special privalege for over 60 years. And they haven't done a damn thing with it.
I beg to differ.
A number of them have used the position to grift a bunch of money...
Why not just draw districts equally with no regard for race or politics and let representative democracy do its thing?
because dems claim that is (or was) a violation of the VRA; you realize that dems consider "giving no regard to race" racism right*? *your side considers everything racism...
so...do you want to draw districts with no regards to race or do you want to allow special privileges for one racial group?
fredfredunderscorefred said:Aggie Dad Sip said:Ag with kids said:Logos Stick said:
The CBC has about 60 members. That is waaaaay overrepresented as a percentage of the population.
They've been given special privalege for over 60 years. And they haven't done a damn thing with it.
I beg to differ.
A number of them have used the position to grift a bunch of money...
Why not just draw districts equally with no regard for race or politics and let representative democracy do its thing?
because dems claim that is (or was) a violation of the VRA; you realize that dems consider "giving no regard to race" racism right*? *your side considers everything racism...
so...do you want to draw districts with no regards to race or do you want to allow special privileges for one racial group?
I thought my post was pretty self explanatory, but maybe not so let me try to word it a little more clearly.
Shouldn't we draw all districts equally without regard for race or politics and let representative democracy do its thing?
Aggie Dad Sip said:fredfredunderscorefred said:Aggie Dad Sip said:Ag with kids said:Logos Stick said:
The CBC has about 60 members. That is waaaaay overrepresented as a percentage of the population.
They've been given special privalege for over 60 years. And they haven't done a damn thing with it.
I beg to differ.
A number of them have used the position to grift a bunch of money...
Why not just draw districts equally with no regard for race or politics and let representative democracy do its thing?
because dems claim that is (or was) a violation of the VRA; you realize that dems consider "giving no regard to race" racism right*? *your side considers everything racism...
so...do you want to draw districts with no regards to race or do you want to allow special privileges for one racial group?
I thought my post was pretty self explanatory, but maybe not so let me try to word it a little more clearly.
Shouldn't we draw all districts equally without regard for race or politics and let representative democracy do its thing?
Sure, but no way in hell Democrats would do that because they likely lose out in this scenario.
fredfredunderscorefred
Joined:
Sep 14, 2003
Posts:
3,805
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Aggie Dad Sip said:fredfredunderscorefred said:Aggie Dad Sip said:Ag with kids said:Logos Stick said:
The CBC has about 60 members. That is waaaaay overrepresented as a percentage of the population.
They've been given special privalege for over 60 years. And they haven't done a damn thing with it.
I beg to differ.
A number of them have used the position to grift a bunch of money...
Why not just draw districts equally with no regard for race or politics and let representative democracy do its thing?
because dems claim that is (or was) a violation of the VRA; you realize that dems consider "giving no regard to race" racism right*? *your side considers everything racism...
so...do you want to draw districts with no regards to race or do you want to allow special privileges for one racial group?
I thought my post was pretty self explanatory, but maybe not so let me try to word it a little more clearly.
Shouldn't we draw all districts equally without regard for race or politics and let representative democracy do its thing?
We should not use race/judge people based on race in any scenario. Which is why the recent Callais decision is a step in the right direction. (Agree?). You do realize that Dems hate this concept right? If anything socioeconomic is should be used.
And the continued partisanship (making districts safe "R" or "D") is not sustainable. *I generally strongly dislike the idea of the two party (or any "party") system.
fredfredunderscorefred said:Aggie Dad Sip said:fredfredunderscorefred said:Aggie Dad Sip said:Ag with kids said:Logos Stick said:
The CBC has about 60 members. That is waaaaay overrepresented as a percentage of the population.
They've been given special privalege for over 60 years. And they haven't done a damn thing with it.
I beg to differ.
A number of them have used the position to grift a bunch of money...
Why not just draw districts equally with no regard for race or politics and let representative democracy do its thing?
because dems claim that is (or was) a violation of the VRA; you realize that dems consider "giving no regard to race" racism right*? *your side considers everything racism...
so...do you want to draw districts with no regards to race or do you want to allow special privileges for one racial group?
I thought my post was pretty self explanatory, but maybe not so let me try to word it a little more clearly.
Shouldn't we draw all districts equally without regard for race or politics and let representative democracy do its thing?
We should not use race/judge people based on race in any scenario. Which is why the recent Callais decision is a step in the right direction. (Agree?). You do realize that Dems hate this concept right? If anything socioeconomic is should be used.
And the continued partisanship (making districts safe "R" or "D") is not sustainable. *I generally strongly dislike the idea of the two party (or any "party") system.
I've been trying to tell y'all for years I'm not a democrat. I'm a centrist independent that likes to play devil's advocate on opinion forums. As radically leftist as y'all think I am is exactly how MAGA righty the folks at Inside Texas think I am. I'm a contrarian at heart.
fredfredunderscorefred
Joined:
Sep 14, 2003
Posts:
3,805
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Aggie Dad Sip said:fredfredunderscorefred said:Aggie Dad Sip said:fredfredunderscorefred said:Aggie Dad Sip said:Ag with kids said:Logos Stick said:
The CBC has about 60 members. That is waaaaay overrepresented as a percentage of the population.
They've been given special privalege for over 60 years. And they haven't done a damn thing with it.
I beg to differ.
A number of them have used the position to grift a bunch of money...
Why not just draw districts equally with no regard for race or politics and let representative democracy do its thing?
because dems claim that is (or was) a violation of the VRA; you realize that dems consider "giving no regard to race" racism right*? *your side considers everything racism...
so...do you want to draw districts with no regards to race or do you want to allow special privileges for one racial group?
I thought my post was pretty self explanatory, but maybe not so let me try to word it a little more clearly.
Shouldn't we draw all districts equally without regard for race or politics and let representative democracy do its thing?
We should not use race/judge people based on race in any scenario. Which is why the recent Callais decision is a step in the right direction. (Agree?). You do realize that Dems hate this concept right? If anything socioeconomic is should be used.
And the continued partisanship (making districts safe "R" or "D") is not sustainable. *I generally strongly dislike the idea of the two party (or any "party") system.
I've been trying to tell y'all for years I'm not a democrat. I'm a centrist independent that likes to play devil's advocate on opinion forums. As radically leftist as y'all think I am is exactly how MAGA righty the folks at Inside Texas think I am. I'm a contrarian at heart.
well you play dumb democrat great! so kudos on nailing their idiocy
The Bee has been having a field day over this.
Op-Ed: If We Stop Discriminating Based On The Color Of People's Skin, The Racists Will Have Won https://t.co/PAISH5jIIU pic.twitter.com/jyzjX37oKi
— The Babylon Bee (@TheBabylonBee) May 1, 2026
The left cannot kill the Spirit of Charlie Kirk.
fredfredunderscorefred said:Aggie Dad Sip said:fredfredunderscorefred said:Aggie Dad Sip said:fredfredunderscorefred said:Aggie Dad Sip said:Ag with kids said:Logos Stick said:
The CBC has about 60 members. That is waaaaay overrepresented as a percentage of the population.
They've been given special privalege for over 60 years. And they haven't done a damn thing with it.
I beg to differ.
A number of them have used the position to grift a bunch of money...
Why not just draw districts equally with no regard for race or politics and let representative democracy do its thing?
because dems claim that is (or was) a violation of the VRA; you realize that dems consider "giving no regard to race" racism right*? *your side considers everything racism...
so...do you want to draw districts with no regards to race or do you want to allow special privileges for one racial group?
I thought my post was pretty self explanatory, but maybe not so let me try to word it a little more clearly.
Shouldn't we draw all districts equally without regard for race or politics and let representative democracy do its thing?
We should not use race/judge people based on race in any scenario. Which is why the recent Callais decision is a step in the right direction. (Agree?). You do realize that Dems hate this concept right? If anything socioeconomic is should be used.
And the continued partisanship (making districts safe "R" or "D") is not sustainable. *I generally strongly dislike the idea of the two party (or any "party") system.
I've been trying to tell y'all for years I'm not a democrat. I'm a centrist independent that likes to play devil's advocate on opinion forums. As radically leftist as y'all think I am is exactly how MAGA righty the folks at Inside Texas think I am. I'm a contrarian at heart.
well you play dumb democrat great! so kudos on nailing their idiocy
Thanks man! What I'm really trying to do is call out hypocrisy where I see it. And unfortunately, all I see is a ton of "When my team does it it's great, but when the other team does it it's horrible."
Until we get to the point where honesty, integrity, character and statesmanship are valued again, we're gonna be on the brink of civil war or a national divorce. The crazy thing is, I've never had a single proponent of that particular situation be able to explain exactly how it would work.
Aggie Dad Sip said:fredfredunderscorefred said:Aggie Dad Sip said:fredfredunderscorefred said:Aggie Dad Sip said:Ag with kids said:Logos Stick said:
The CBC has about 60 members. That is waaaaay overrepresented as a percentage of the population.
They've been given special privalege for over 60 years. And they haven't done a damn thing with it.
I beg to differ.
A number of them have used the position to grift a bunch of money...
Why not just draw districts equally with no regard for race or politics and let representative democracy do its thing?
because dems claim that is (or was) a violation of the VRA; you realize that dems consider "giving no regard to race" racism right*? *your side considers everything racism...
so...do you want to draw districts with no regards to race or do you want to allow special privileges for one racial group?
I thought my post was pretty self explanatory, but maybe not so let me try to word it a little more clearly.
Shouldn't we draw all districts equally without regard for race or politics and let representative democracy do its thing?
We should not use race/judge people based on race in any scenario. Which is why the recent Callais decision is a step in the right direction. (Agree?). You do realize that Dems hate this concept right? If anything socioeconomic is should be used.
And the continued partisanship (making districts safe "R" or "D") is not sustainable. *I generally strongly dislike the idea of the two party (or any "party") system.
I've been trying to tell y'all for years I'm not a democrat. I'm a centrist independent that likes to play devil's advocate on opinion forums. As radically leftist as y'all think I am is exactly how MAGA righty the folks at Inside Texas think I am. I'm a contrarian at heart.
Define MAGA, the term is dumb and means nothing.
So if you vote straight R are you maga? How about you like some of the things Trump does but not all, but you are voting R anyway because it better than the left?
Aggie Dad Sip said:fredfredunderscorefred said:Aggie Dad Sip said:fredfredunderscorefred said:Aggie Dad Sip said:fredfredunderscorefred said:Aggie Dad Sip said:Ag with kids said:Logos Stick said:
The CBC has about 60 members. That is waaaaay overrepresented as a percentage of the population.
They've been given special privalege for over 60 years. And they haven't done a damn thing with it.
I beg to differ.
A number of them have used the position to grift a bunch of money...
Why not just draw districts equally with no regard for race or politics and let representative democracy do its thing?
because dems claim that is (or was) a violation of the VRA; you realize that dems consider "giving no regard to race" racism right*? *your side considers everything racism...
so...do you want to draw districts with no regards to race or do you want to allow special privileges for one racial group?
I thought my post was pretty self explanatory, but maybe not so let me try to word it a little more clearly.
Shouldn't we draw all districts equally without regard for race or politics and let representative democracy do its thing?
We should not use race/judge people based on race in any scenario. Which is why the recent Callais decision is a step in the right direction. (Agree?). You do realize that Dems hate this concept right? If anything socioeconomic is should be used.
And the continued partisanship (making districts safe "R" or "D") is not sustainable. *I generally strongly dislike the idea of the two party (or any "party") system.
I've been trying to tell y'all for years I'm not a democrat. I'm a centrist independent that likes to play devil's advocate on opinion forums. As radically leftist as y'all think I am is exactly how MAGA righty the folks at Inside Texas think I am. I'm a contrarian at heart.
well you play dumb democrat great! so kudos on nailing their idiocy
Thanks man! What I'm really trying to do is call out hypocrisy where I see it. And unfortunately, all I see is a ton of "When my team does it it's great, but when the other team does it it's horrible."
Until we get to the point where honesty, integrity, character and statesmanship are valued again, we're gonna be on the brink of civil war or a national divorce. The crazy thing is, I've never had a single proponent of that particular situation be able to explain exactly how it would work.
The team that started it was the Dmeocrats. Ignore it and taking the high road is a losing strat. All that should matter is grinding the democrats to dust.
You are operating in how you want it to be instead of how it actually is.
samurai_science said:Aggie Dad Sip said:fredfredunderscorefred said:Aggie Dad Sip said:fredfredunderscorefred said:Aggie Dad Sip said:fredfredunderscorefred said:Aggie Dad Sip said:Ag with kids said:Logos Stick said:
The CBC has about 60 members. That is waaaaay overrepresented as a percentage of the population.
They've been given special privalege for over 60 years. And they haven't done a damn thing with it.
I beg to differ.
A number of them have used the position to grift a bunch of money...
Why not just draw districts equally with no regard for race or politics and let representative democracy do its thing?
because dems claim that is (or was) a violation of the VRA; you realize that dems consider "giving no regard to race" racism right*? *your side considers everything racism...
so...do you want to draw districts with no regards to race or do you want to allow special privileges for one racial group?
I thought my post was pretty self explanatory, but maybe not so let me try to word it a little more clearly.
Shouldn't we draw all districts equally without regard for race or politics and let representative democracy do its thing?
We should not use race/judge people based on race in any scenario. Which is why the recent Callais decision is a step in the right direction. (Agree?). You do realize that Dems hate this concept right? If anything socioeconomic is should be used.
And the continued partisanship (making districts safe "R" or "D") is not sustainable. *I generally strongly dislike the idea of the two party (or any "party") system.
I've been trying to tell y'all for years I'm not a democrat. I'm a centrist independent that likes to play devil's advocate on opinion forums. As radically leftist as y'all think I am is exactly how MAGA righty the folks at Inside Texas think I am. I'm a contrarian at heart.
well you play dumb democrat great! so kudos on nailing their idiocy
Thanks man! What I'm really trying to do is call out hypocrisy where I see it. And unfortunately, all I see is a ton of "When my team does it it's great, but when the other team does it it's horrible."
Until we get to the point where honesty, integrity, character and statesmanship are valued again, we're gonna be on the brink of civil war or a national divorce. The crazy thing is, I've never had a single proponent of that particular situation be able to explain exactly how it would work.
The team that started it was the Dmeocrats. Ignore it and taking the high road is a losing strat. All that should matter is grinding the democrats to dust.
You are operating in how you want it to be instead of how it actually is.
Cool. We're getting closer. So as it stands now, the electorate in this country is about 51-49 one way or the other depending on who shows up to vote. How exactly do you "grind the (other team) to dust" when the other team is roughly half the electorate?
OB is a marxist whose goal is "transform America" and he is out to protect his commie democrats.
Marvin J. Schiller
You answered your own question in the first two works of your thread titles:
Racist Democrats.
That's it. That's the answer. They are racist, repugnant, and sick.
A vile bunch that become more degenerate in their critical thinking abilities and their actions every breath they take.
Racist Democrats.
That's it. That's the answer. They are racist, repugnant, and sick.
A vile bunch that become more degenerate in their critical thinking abilities and their actions every breath they take.
I despise Marxists... the most repugnant people alive.
Aggie Dad Sip said:fredfredunderscorefred said:Aggie Dad Sip said:Ag with kids said:Logos Stick said:
The CBC has about 60 members. That is waaaaay overrepresented as a percentage of the population.
They've been given special privalege for over 60 years. And they haven't done a damn thing with it.
I beg to differ.
A number of them have used the position to grift a bunch of money...
Why not just draw districts equally with no regard for race or politics and let representative democracy do its thing?
because dems claim that is (or was) a violation of the VRA; you realize that dems consider "giving no regard to race" racism right*? *your side considers everything racism...
so...do you want to draw districts with no regards to race or do you want to allow special privileges for one racial group?
I thought my post was pretty self explanatory, but maybe not so let me try to word it a little more clearly.
Shouldn't we draw all districts equally without regard for race or politics and let representative democracy do its thing?
Sure...
The Democrats can go first.
You can turn off signatures, btw
Aggie Dad Sip said:fredfredunderscorefred said:Aggie Dad Sip said:fredfredunderscorefred said:Aggie Dad Sip said:Ag with kids said:Logos Stick said:
The CBC has about 60 members. That is waaaaay overrepresented as a percentage of the population.
They've been given special privalege for over 60 years. And they haven't done a damn thing with it.
I beg to differ.
A number of them have used the position to grift a bunch of money...
Why not just draw districts equally with no regard for race or politics and let representative democracy do its thing?
because dems claim that is (or was) a violation of the VRA; you realize that dems consider "giving no regard to race" racism right*? *your side considers everything racism...
so...do you want to draw districts with no regards to race or do you want to allow special privileges for one racial group?
I thought my post was pretty self explanatory, but maybe not so let me try to word it a little more clearly.
Shouldn't we draw all districts equally without regard for race or politics and let representative democracy do its thing?
We should not use race/judge people based on race in any scenario. Which is why the recent Callais decision is a step in the right direction. (Agree?). You do realize that Dems hate this concept right? If anything socioeconomic is should be used.
And the continued partisanship (making districts safe "R" or "D") is not sustainable. *I generally strongly dislike the idea of the two party (or any "party") system.
I've been trying to tell y'all for years I'm not a democrat. I'm a centrist independent that likes to play devil's advocate on opinion forums. As radically leftist as y'all think I am is exactly how MAGA righty the folks at Inside Texas think I am. I'm a contrarian at heart.
If you want us to believe that you're a "centrist independent", you could actually start by criticizing the LEFT in addition to the right...
Don't see that phenomenon happening any time soon, though...
You can turn off signatures, btw
Ag with kids said:Aggie Dad Sip said:fredfredunderscorefred said:Aggie Dad Sip said:Ag with kids said:Logos Stick said:
The CBC has about 60 members. That is waaaaay overrepresented as a percentage of the population.
They've been given special privalege for over 60 years. And they haven't done a damn thing with it.
I beg to differ.
A number of them have used the position to grift a bunch of money...
Why not just draw districts equally with no regard for race or politics and let representative democracy do its thing?
because dems claim that is (or was) a violation of the VRA; you realize that dems consider "giving no regard to race" racism right*? *your side considers everything racism...
so...do you want to draw districts with no regards to race or do you want to allow special privileges for one racial group?
I thought my post was pretty self explanatory, but maybe not so let me try to word it a little more clearly.
Shouldn't we draw all districts equally without regard for race or politics and let representative democracy do its thing?
Sure...
The Democrats can go first.
It's obviously the right thing to do. Pretty sad that we have to urge one side or the other to go first.
Ag with kids said:Aggie Dad Sip said:fredfredunderscorefred said:Aggie Dad Sip said:fredfredunderscorefred said:Aggie Dad Sip said:Ag with kids said:Logos Stick said:
The CBC has about 60 members. That is waaaaay overrepresented as a percentage of the population.
They've been given special privalege for over 60 years. And they haven't done a damn thing with it.
I beg to differ.
A number of them have used the position to grift a bunch of money...
Why not just draw districts equally with no regard for race or politics and let representative democracy do its thing?
because dems claim that is (or was) a violation of the VRA; you realize that dems consider "giving no regard to race" racism right*? *your side considers everything racism...
so...do you want to draw districts with no regards to race or do you want to allow special privileges for one racial group?
I thought my post was pretty self explanatory, but maybe not so let me try to word it a little more clearly.
Shouldn't we draw all districts equally without regard for race or politics and let representative democracy do its thing?
We should not use race/judge people based on race in any scenario. Which is why the recent Callais decision is a step in the right direction. (Agree?). You do realize that Dems hate this concept right? If anything socioeconomic is should be used.
And the continued partisanship (making districts safe "R" or "D") is not sustainable. *I generally strongly dislike the idea of the two party (or any "party") system.
I've been trying to tell y'all for years I'm not a democrat. I'm a centrist independent that likes to play devil's advocate on opinion forums. As radically leftist as y'all think I am is exactly how MAGA righty the folks at Inside Texas think I am. I'm a contrarian at heart.
If you want us to believe that you're a "centrist independent", you could actually start by criticizing the LEFT in addition to the right...
Don't see that phenomenon happening any time soon, though...
Oh man. The democrats drive me nuts! Stop telling me who I can or can't worship. Stop telling me what I can or can't do in the privacy of my own home. Stop telling me what I can or can't say. Stop telling me what I can or can't eat or drink. Stop telling me what I can or can't watch or hear. The nanny state absolutely kills me.
Aggie Dad Sip said:Ag with kids said:Aggie Dad Sip said:fredfredunderscorefred said:Aggie Dad Sip said:Ag with kids said:Logos Stick said:
The CBC has about 60 members. That is waaaaay overrepresented as a percentage of the population.
They've been given special privalege for over 60 years. And they haven't done a damn thing with it.
I beg to differ.
A number of them have used the position to grift a bunch of money...
Why not just draw districts equally with no regard for race or politics and let representative democracy do its thing?
because dems claim that is (or was) a violation of the VRA; you realize that dems consider "giving no regard to race" racism right*? *your side considers everything racism...
so...do you want to draw districts with no regards to race or do you want to allow special privileges for one racial group?
I thought my post was pretty self explanatory, but maybe not so let me try to word it a little more clearly.
Shouldn't we draw all districts equally without regard for race or politics and let representative democracy do its thing?
Sure...
The Democrats can go first.
It's obviously the right thing to do. Pretty sad that we have to urge one side or the other to go first.
The world has never worked that way in its entire history and it never will.
Featured Stories
See All
37:57
9m ago
480
17:41
1h ago
1.6k
REGISTER NOW: Preseason Kickoff 2026 with Coach Mike Elko
by Brandon Jones
11:09
1h ago
673
1/2 Man 1/2 Amazing
Earley on Kellner during TexAgs Live this morning
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
32