samurai_science said:

---

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.

---

Yeah. And we wonder why we've got a $39,000,000,000,000 debt…

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.

---

As long as you realize the Democrats started it and have continued to push all other boundaries of ethics, morals, and decency via actions and policy. Rest of us mostly just want to be left alone, but they won't let things be.

So, here we are.

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.

---

Well, the Democrats have been doing it for years. It's funny that NOW, when REPUBLICANS want to duplicate what the left has done, that it's finally a problem that needs to be fixed.

Give us some good faith effort - Make CA and IL look like their electorate (that would give the GOP about 15 extra seats). THEN maybe the Republicans should think about it...

BTW, this ruling in LA effectively means that you HAVE TO draw districts without regards to race...

Ag with kids said:

---

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.

---

Well, the Democrats have been doing it for years. It's funny that NOW, when REPUBLICANS want to duplicate what the left has done, that it's finally a problem that needs to be fixed.

Give us some good faith effort - Make CA and IL look like their electorate (that would give the GOP about 15 extra seats). THEN maybe the Republicans should think about it...

BTW, this ruling in LA effectively means that you HAVE TO draw districts without regards to race...

---

Not really. Democrat-controlled states can still create "coincidentally" Black-majority districts and claim (largely truthfully) that they did it for partisan advantage instead of race.

What changes is that Southern red states don't have to create gerrymandered Democrat-majority districts in the name of "civil rights".

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

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.

---

Well, the Democrats have been doing it for years. It's funny that NOW, when REPUBLICANS want to duplicate what the left has done, that it's finally a problem that needs to be fixed.

Give us some good faith effort - Make CA and IL look like their electorate (that would give the GOP about 15 extra seats). THEN maybe the Republicans should think about it...

BTW, this ruling in LA effectively means that you HAVE TO draw districts without regards to race...

---

Not really. Democrat-controlled states can still create "coincidentally" Black-majority districts and claim (largely truthfully) that they did it for partisan advantage instead of race.

What changes is that Southern red states don't have to create gerrymandered Democrat-majority districts in the name of "civil rights".

---

Democrat controlled states already have Republicans gerrymandered out. Look at New England. Not a single Republican district.

This is a huge game changer for the South, any way you slice it.

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

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.

---

Well, the Democrats have been doing it for years. It's funny that NOW, when REPUBLICANS want to duplicate what the left has done, that it's finally a problem that needs to be fixed.

Give us some good faith effort - Make CA and IL look like their electorate (that would give the GOP about 15 extra seats). THEN maybe the Republicans should think about it...

BTW, this ruling in LA effectively means that you HAVE TO draw districts without regards to race...

---

Not really. Democrat-controlled states can still create "coincidentally" Black-majority districts and claim (largely truthfully) that they did it for partisan advantage instead of race.

What changes is that Southern red states don't have to create gerrymandered Democrat-majority districts in the name of "civil rights".

---

I thought that's what I said..

"Dems are racist [and that's why the majority of nonwhites vote against Republicans]." Lol

Republicans are literally about to carve up Black cities… carving them up to split apart their bloc of Black voters into thirds and put each third into a district where their votes are not enough to elect a Black person or Democrat anymore. Lmao

And yet we literally have republicans on this forum claiming Democrats are racist for being against allowing Republicans to eliminate the Black/Dem representatives by dividing up the Black voters into multiple districts so their votes are diluted. LOL I can't believe yall went to A&M. I get most of you were the Yell Leader sycophants but still. Just wild that I walked the same campus as yall. What a circus of crazies.

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

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.

---

Well, the Democrats have been doing it for years. It's funny that NOW, when REPUBLICANS want to duplicate what the left has done, that it's finally a problem that needs to be fixed.

Give us some good faith effort - Make CA and IL look like their electorate (that would give the GOP about 15 extra seats). THEN maybe the Republicans should think about it...

BTW, this ruling in LA effectively means that you HAVE TO draw districts without regards to race...

---

Not really. Democrat-controlled states can still create "coincidentally" Black-majority districts and claim (largely truthfully) that they did it for partisan advantage instead of race.

What changes is that Southern red states don't have to create gerrymandered Democrat-majority districts in the name of "civil rights".

---

Yeah, republicans can now gerrymander entirely and remove Blacks from having any representation that isn't Republican.

Not what the decision means. You really are pretty ignorant of what was decided.

Ag1188 said:

---

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

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.

---

Well, the Democrats have been doing it for years. It's funny that NOW, when REPUBLICANS want to duplicate what the left has done, that it's finally a problem that needs to be fixed.

Give us some good faith effort - Make CA and IL look like their electorate (that would give the GOP about 15 extra seats). THEN maybe the Republicans should think about it...

BTW, this ruling in LA effectively means that you HAVE TO draw districts without regards to race...

---

Not really. Democrat-controlled states can still create "coincidentally" Black-majority districts and claim (largely truthfully) that they did it for partisan advantage instead of race.

What changes is that Southern red states don't have to create gerrymandered Democrat-majority districts in the name of "civil rights".

---

Yeah, republicans can now gerrymander entirely and remove Blacks from having any representation that isn't Republican.

---

Stop capitalizing the world black. Learn English. And stop posting gaslighting idiocy.

As RR said, his problem is he just knows so much that isn't so.

Ag1188 said:

---

"Dems are racist [and that's why the majority of nonwhites vote against Republicans]." Lol

Republicans are literally about to carve up Black cities… carving them up to split apart their bloc of Black voters into thirds and put each third into a district where their votes are not enough to elect a Black person or Democrat anymore. Lmao

And yet we literally have republicans on this forum claiming Democrats are racist for being against allowing Republicans to eliminate the Black/Dem representatives by dividing up the Black voters into multiple districts so their votes are diluted. LOL I can't believe yall went to A&M. I get most of you were the Yell Leader sycophants but still. Just wild that I walked the same campus as yall. What a circus of crazies.

---

To fight racism, we have to use racist districts?

Thank God you're not on the SCOTUS.

Aggie Dad Sip said:

---

samurai_science said:

---

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.

---

Yeah. And we wonder why we've got a $39,000,000,000,000 debt…

---

Is it because the rich aren't paying their fair share? What is your opinion here?

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

---

A centrist in 2026 was an absolute lefty loon 20+ years ago

techno-ag said:

---

Ag1188 said:

---

"Dems are racist [and that's why the majority of nonwhites vote against Republicans]." Lol

Republicans are literally about to carve up Black cities… carving them up to split apart their bloc of Black voters into thirds and put each third into a district where their votes are not enough to elect a Black person or Democrat anymore. Lmao

And yet we literally have republicans on this forum claiming Democrats are racist for being against allowing Republicans to eliminate the Black/Dem representatives by dividing up the Black voters into multiple districts so their votes are diluted. LOL I can't believe yall went to A&M. I get most of you were the Yell Leader sycophants but still. Just wild that I walked the same campus as yall. What a circus of crazies.

---

To fight racism, we have to use racist districts?

Thank God you're not on the SCOTUS.

---

In a way, he/she is.

Squadron7 said:

---

Aggie Dad Sip said:

---

samurai_science said:

---

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.

---

Yeah. And we wonder why we've got a $39,000,000,000,000 debt…

---

Is it because the rich aren't paying their fair share? What is your opinion here?

---

My opinion? We as a nation are collectively dumber than a bag of hammers and are getting dumber every day. $39,000,000,000,000 in debt and we spend our time worrying about which color pom pom is the prettiest. Obviously neither party gives a wet sack of dog turds about any of us as long as they keep their jobs and their lifetime benefits. Yet we take sides like it's a football game. We're all mouth breathing troglodytes. That's my opinion.

Yep and we have allowed people to vote money from the public coffers. The politicians then bail out horrible decisions and that ensures votes.

backintexas2013 said:

---

Yep and we have allowed people to vote money from the public coffers. The politicians then bail out horrible decisions and that ensures votes.

---

Yeah, letting non-taxpayers vote was one of the worst ideas ever.

Ag1188 said:

---

"Dems are racist [and that's why the majority of nonwhites vote against Republicans]." Lol

Republicans are literally about to carve up Black cities… carving them up to split apart their bloc of Black voters into thirds and put each third into a district where their votes are not enough to elect a Black person or Democrat anymore. Lmao

And yet we literally have republicans on this forum claiming Democrats are racist for being against allowing Republicans to eliminate the Black/Dem representatives by dividing up the Black voters into multiple districts so their votes are diluted. LOL I can't believe yall went to A&M. I get most of you were the Yell Leader sycophants but still. Just wild that I walked the same campus as yall. What a circus of crazies.

---

It is crazy to believe that you would rather people be judged by the color of their skin rather than the content of their character. You are the one claiming that the color of a person's skin is more important than anything else. Talk about a sycophant...

TexasAggiesWin said:

---

Ag1188 said:

---

"Dems are racist [and that's why the majority of nonwhites vote against Republicans]." Lol

Republicans are literally about to carve up Black cities… carving them up to split apart their bloc of Black voters into thirds and put each third into a district where their votes are not enough to elect a Black person or Democrat anymore. Lmao

And yet we literally have republicans on this forum claiming Democrats are racist for being against allowing Republicans to eliminate the Black/Dem representatives by dividing up the Black voters into multiple districts so their votes are diluted. LOL I can't believe yall went to A&M. I get most of you were the Yell Leader sycophants but still. Just wild that I walked the same campus as yall. What a circus of crazies.

---

It is crazy to believe that you would rather people be judged by the color of their skin rather than the content of their character. You are the one claiming that the color of a person's skin is more important than anything else. Talk about a sycophant...

---

So why is there any reason for gerrymandering at all?

It's about partisanship. Black people vote Democrat in near North Korean lockstep, so of course the Dems want them to have DEI districts.

Aggie Dad Sip said:

---

TexasAggiesWin said:

---

Ag1188 said:

---

"Dems are racist [and that's why the majority of nonwhites vote against Republicans]." Lol

Republicans are literally about to carve up Black cities… carving them up to split apart their bloc of Black voters into thirds and put each third into a district where their votes are not enough to elect a Black person or Democrat anymore. Lmao

And yet we literally have republicans on this forum claiming Democrats are racist for being against allowing Republicans to eliminate the Black/Dem representatives by dividing up the Black voters into multiple districts so their votes are diluted. LOL I can't believe yall went to A&M. I get most of you were the Yell Leader sycophants but still. Just wild that I walked the same campus as yall. What a circus of crazies.

---

It is crazy to believe that you would rather people be judged by the color of their skin rather than the content of their character. You are the one claiming that the color of a person's skin is more important than anything else. Talk about a sycophant...

---

So why is there any reason for gerrymandering at all?

---

Because Americans have a terminal case of "Not Invented Here" system and most don't know what "proportional representation" is. So we cling to the feudal single-member district system inherited from the British Parliament. And since there's nothing preventing drawing single-member districts for partisan advantage, you might as well do so as much as possible.

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

Aggie Dad Sip said:

---

TexasAggiesWin said:

---

Ag1188 said:

---

"Dems are racist [and that's why the majority of nonwhites vote against Republicans]." Lol

Republicans are literally about to carve up Black cities… carving them up to split apart their bloc of Black voters into thirds and put each third into a district where their votes are not enough to elect a Black person or Democrat anymore. Lmao

And yet we literally have republicans on this forum claiming Democrats are racist for being against allowing Republicans to eliminate the Black/Dem representatives by dividing up the Black voters into multiple districts so their votes are diluted. LOL I can't believe yall went to A&M. I get most of you were the Yell Leader sycophants but still. Just wild that I walked the same campus as yall. What a circus of crazies.

---

It is crazy to believe that you would rather people be judged by the color of their skin rather than the content of their character. You are the one claiming that the color of a person's skin is more important than anything else. Talk about a sycophant...

---

So why is there any reason for gerrymandering at all?

---

Because Americans have a terminal case of "Not Invented Here" system and most don't know what "proportional representation" is. So we cling to the feudal single-member district system inherited from the British Parliament. And since there's nothing preventing drawing single-member districts for partisan advantage, you might as well do so as much as possible.

---

Well that blows the whole content of our character thing all to pieces.

Aggie Dad Sip said:

---

Squadron7 said:

---

Aggie Dad Sip said:

---

samurai_science said:

---

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.

---

Yeah. And we wonder why we've got a $39,000,000,000,000 debt…

---

Is it because the rich aren't paying their fair share? What is your opinion here?

---

My opinion? We as a nation are collectively dumber than a bag of hammers and are getting dumber every day. $39,000,000,000,000 in debt and we spend our time worrying about which color pom pom is the prettiest. Obviously neither party gives a wet sack of dog turds about any of us as long as they keep their jobs and their lifetime benefits. Yet we take sides like it's a football game. We're all mouth breathing troglodytes. That's my opinion.

---

Looks like a solid and detailed policy prescription you've got there.