SCOTUS about to kill Voting Rights Act

[Dark_Ansem]

I do care that they get to be fairly represented by government

Absolutely 100% LIES as highlighted by your own previous messages.

 

[SeltzerMist]

People who lead similar lives will be more similar in the way they vote

You have yet to prove this

Absolutely 100% LIES as highlighted by your own previous messages.

Right, this ignores how in 2000 and 2016 specifically a majority of tax payers were underrepresented.

 

[Foxi4]

You have yet to prove this

I could show you any randomly selected election map, but then you’re just going to tell me that “land doesn’t vote” because you won’t like what it indicates. I could also show you a chart of political leaning based on income, or sorted by profession, or by population density, but you won’t like any of those. I could also ignore this point completely because it’s a well-known variable rather than getting bogged down in the morass of a completely off-topic discussion over voting preferences. I think I will choose the last option and rely on you using the computer that’s in front of you to Google whether “someone’s way of life” affects their belief system, which in turn affects how they vote. Trying to prove that the Earth is round would be an equally pointless endeavour, I assure you that it is and everyone in-the-know already knows that.

 

[SeltzerMist]

No, do it if it will actually and genuinely support your claim on these vast differences of city voters and rural voters.

I think I will choose the last option and rely on you using the computer that’s in front of you to Google

Ah, you chose the flat earther's cop out of "do your own research to prove me right"

That tracks.

 

[Dark_Ansem]

Ah, you chose the flat earther's cop out of "do your own research to prove me right"

One funny thing about flat earthers, they don't doubt that Mars or the moon are round, they just have this stupid belief of theirs about earth

 

[SeltzerMist]

One funny thing about flat earthers, they don't doubt that Mars or the moon are round, they just have this stupid belief of theirs about earth

I'm pretty sure this actually causes division in this community since some think they're simply sources of light.

 

[Foxi4]

No, do it if it will actually and genuinely support your claim on these vast differences of city voters and rural voters.

Okay. Here’s *precisely* what you’re asking about.

Urban voters lean Democrat - this makes sense because they live in a densely populated area where they’re very much reliant on many public services, such as transport. There are also large income disparities, so while you have some residents with lots of taxable income, others are very much reliant on government assistance, necessitating the existence of programs that cater to those needs.

Suburban voters tend to strike a balance in terms of political leaning - those voters live in private communities wherein many of those services are either provided privately *or* achieved through mutual co-operation. They’re generally in-the-money, so they don’t require much government assistance, but they do care about matters such as privacy. They generally prefer a slice of peace and quiet over the hustle and bustle of a big city. Nobody takes a bus unless they’re going to school, there’s a car in every driveway, and ample room to accommodate them.

Rural voters lean Republican. Many are engaged in agriculture and have to deal with the associated regulations, which I’m sure they’re not fans of. The main form of assistance they’re interested in is farm subsidies, most other things take a back seat. Their idea of a “neighbour next door” is not quite the same as in the suburbs, in the sense that to see them on the daily they usually need a set of binoculars. They’re more territorial because, in many cases, they live off their land.

All of these things, and more, are reflected in how they vote. I don’t know why you’d expect it to have no impact. They’re not “monoliths” either, but their way of life *obviously* informs their vote, they’re directly affected by different things.

 

[SeltzerMist]

Right, key word being lean here. Cities are not liberal monoliths nor are rural areas conservative monoliths.

That said, the system as is (which you previously claim trying to change is a "problem") still gives states with lower populations who contribute less federally disproportionate power in the name of "fair representation". The Senate is almost perpetually conservative on account of this despite tax payers often leaning the other way. Example, Wyoming and California being equal here despite California having significantly more tax payers on a federal level.

And based on your fairness logic, it was fair for the supreme court to overturn Roe VS Wade, which affects all tax payers because the system as is created the government to let that situation play out. Simplifying here but the small population of Wyoming essentially got to decide reproductive rights for everyone in California even though California subsidizes them.

This is the actual problem we're trying to fix, and the LA map is a step towards this.

But we aren't gonna hear about unfairness here over the reproductive rights example.

 

[Foxi4]

Right, key word being lean here. Cities are not liberal monoliths nor are rural areas conservative monoliths.

That said, the system as is (which you previously claim trying to change is a "problem") still gives states with lower populations who contribute less federally disproportionate power in the name of "fair representation". The Senate is almost perpetually conservative on account of this despite tax payers often leaning the other way.

And based on your fairness logic, it was fair for the supreme court to overturn Roe VS Wade, which affects all tax payers because the system as is created the government to let that situation play out.

But we aren't gonna hear about unfairness here.

All I said, and continue to say, is that people who live similar lives tend to vote in a similar way. Not “the same”, similar. You will note that rural voters were fairly balanced in the 90’s and 00’s, until they weren’t anymore and started tilting Republican, which they continue to do to this day. These similarities create a noticeable “lean”. You wanted evidence that voters who are on different walks of life vote differently and it was provided to you. That *does not* preclude political candidates from campaigning on their behalf and winning their vote. The opposite is true - their representatives should become closer to what matters to them the most, rather than campaigning in “the nearest big city in the district” to gain maximum kudos per buck.

 

[SeltzerMist]

All I said, and continue to say, is that people who live similar lives tend to vote in a similar way. Not “the same”, similar. You will note that rural voters were fairly balanced in the 90’s and 00’s, until they weren’t anymore and started tilting Republican, which they continue to do to this day. These similarities create a noticeable “lean”. You wanted evidence that voters who are on different walks of life vote differently and it was provided to you. That *does not* preclude political candidates from campaigning on their behalf and winning their vote. The opposite is true - their representatives should become closer to what matters to them the most, rather than campaigning in “the nearest big city in the district” to gain maximum kudos per buck.

So you support gerrymandering, because this is the mentality that has the cities subsiding the rural areas who in turn get to dictate their tax contributions.

 

[Foxi4]

So you support gerrymandering.

I’m tapping the sign again.



Unfair advantage. Not any advantage, an unfair one, and voting pattern variability over time proves my point conclusively. If your party has nothing to offer to a specific kind of voter, that is *your* shortcoming, not the voter’s. It is *your* job as a politician to gain their support by catering to their needs, *you* are the public servant here, and trying to tilt the scales by sneakily moving a couple of lines to include areas where your policies get more support is inherently unfair and harmful to the voter. If you’re going to lump voters into districts, you should lump them based on what makes them similar, not what makes you more likely to win. You should earn your victory by working for it in service of the electorate, that’s the job description.

 

[SeltzerMist]

I’m tapping the sign again.

View attachment 570791

Unfair advantage. Not any advantage, an unfair one, and voting pattern variability over time proves my point conclusively. If your party has nothing to offer to a specific kind of voter, that is *your* shortcoming, not the voter’s. It is *your* job as a politician to gain their support by catering to their needs, *you* are the public servant here, and trying to tilt the scales by sneakily moving a couple of lines to include areas where your policies get more support is inherently unfair and harmful to the voter. If you’re going to lump voters into districts, you should lump them based on what makes them similar, not what makes you more likely to win. You should earn your victory by working for it in service of the electorate, that’s the job description.

Unfair advantage is the current situation, genius.

 

[Foxi4]

Unfair advantage is the current situation, genius.

Lumping black people into a district because they’re black is inherently racist, *especially* when the resulting district forms a line across the state connecting people who live vastly different lives into one unit. It does not serve their interests and it was dismantled, rightfully so. Back to the drawing board.

 

[SeltzerMist]

Lumping black people into a district because they’re black is inherently racist, *especially* when the resulting district forms a line across the state connecting people who live vastly different lives into one unit. It does not serve their interests and it was dismantled, rightfully so. Back to the drawing board.

*Eye roll*

Also pedophile loving Trump supporters really have no business claiming racism, just saying.

 

[chrisrlink]

as i put in my fb "in 1980's we had as the world turns in 2026 we live the soap opera "as the world burns" but still with trumps track record only a die hard maga or a moronic republican would vote red or those who want communism/dictatorship in the USA and i hope those are in the minority considering how shit the economy is going

 

[Sir Tortoise]

Lumping black people into a district because they’re black is inherently racist, *especially* when the resulting district forms a line across the state connecting people who live vastly different lives into one unit. It does not serve their interests and it was dismantled, rightfully so. Back to the drawing board.

I have to ask...is that what you think this SCOTUS decision is about?

I feel there must be a misunderstanding here, because the recent SCOTUS decision is about the *response* to the obvious gerrymandering you mention. As in, the attempt to fix it, to undo the weird line you're complaining about. Thats where they've stepped in and said actually racial gerrymandering is fine unless you can prove it was intentional - I mean, we both know it was, but good luck proving it.

 

[Reualed]

View attachment 570758

Wow, very creative. Just side stepping the entire point.
Here let me make it clear.
White voters prior and up and included to the civil rights era, discriminated against black voters, and by extentsion, other people of color.

The old map, was heavily gerrymandered. It was proveably an unfair to black americans, by decreasing their vote.

A group of black Americans, challenged it under section 2.
Got a new district.

Some white people, decided, to sue.

The supreme Court sided with those white people.

who is being discriminated against foxi4

Racial Discrimination requires a a perpetrator/beneficiary, and a victim. Someone is getting an unfair advantage, and some is getting a disadvantage.

Post automatically merged: May 1, 2026

Also I can play the image game too

 

[BlazeHeatnix]

Racism and discrimination are social concepts. Defining them squarely on a legal, textbook basis (written by white people, I might add) is something only a racist would do.

You might as well defend pedophilia by saying "actually it's ephebophilia!"

 

[Moe87]

I don’t “support gerrymandering” in general, I already stated that I believe districts should be charted based on what different communities have in common, such as their way of life, their socio-economic situation, their geographical location, all of those things are far more important and relevant than their race or stated political affiliation. I brought up the example of a pot hole and I will happily do it again - a pot hole will damage your car whether you voted Harris or Trump, it makes no distinction. What matters is who the pot hole affects in terms of location, whether it affects commerce in the state in general and whether there’s any real urgency in addressing it, among other things. For some reason this common sense approach is controversial, as if the pot hole cared about the race of the driver, or who they voted for. Districts will look weird until people collectively divorce themselves from that kind of thinking and focus on issues that affect their daily lives, both in the immediate present and the coming future.

Interesting, I learned that after civil war and reconstruction era, southern states heavily rely on racial gerrymandering to protect the white voters until mid 20th century.

Before court ruling in 1986, congressional districts in Alabama were drawn based on community like 6th district cover all of Jefferson County that where moderate democrat won the election. That changed after 1992 when they made 7th district as majority minority due to court order and it make 6th district extremely conservative.

Democrats in Alabama could win as much as 2 congressional districts after political realignment completed after 2010, so 5 other congressional districts are permanent republican control unless there is miracle like Hungary or another realignment.

It is kinda sucks that safe seats grow fast and competing seats get much less nowadays.

I started to skip the primary election because it is no useful for me since no democrats opt to compete (outside of state governor and US senator) and democrats in Alabama is dead outside of black belt and Birmingham.

 

[titan_tim]

Ok, you're of course going to dismiss every single fucking comment I say, but I'll humor you. Let's go through every one of your stupidass videos.

1st vid: No actual source, just regurgitating what some right-wing Twitter user posted (with no actual source of their own). No link in the description either. So already this is bullshit and I don't even know what he's talking about.

2nd vid: A mayor wants to defund the police. Ok, and? Ignoring the fact that he's entirely right, that the solution to solving crime is not pumping more money into cops (because that's totally fucking worked considering we've been doing it for decades), what the fuck does this have to do with your point about illegal immigrants?

3rd vid: Yes, I'm sure Ted fucking Cruz has never lied about anything. I'm sure he actually gets his data and facts from reliable sources.

4th vid: It's amazing that you think a video showing how an accomplished, educated, respected school official should be condemned, hunted down, and deported because he was undocumented and owned an unlawful firearm. Oh god. What a monster. Clearly, he would've eaten those childrens' pets if given the chance.

5th vid: Sensationalist tabloid bullshit.

6th vid: Sensationalist tabloid bullshit.

7th vid: More conservative speeches in place of actual facts and data. You'll swallow anything the government feeds you, won't you?

8th vid: Her complaint is that schools are encouraging students to write against and protest the Advance Ohio Higher Education Act, because it prevents DEI-based enrollment and hiring, which she claims is "indoctrination" (lmao, fucking what?) and also bans faculty from going on strike. Apart from her being generally a complete fucking moron, this still has nothing to do with illegal immigrants.

9th vid: Once again, no cited source, no link in the description, no explanation of where he got this info. I had to look it up myself. The Biden Administration asked (not forced, asked) Youtube to crack down on the epidemic of vaccine misinformation (which is questionably legal, btw, not quite protected free speech) in the middle of the pandemic, Youtube agreed, and they worked together to try and combat it. The House then pressured Youtube back and pushed an anti-Democrat narrative that they were "censoring free speech". Still has nothing to do with illegal immigrants.

10th vid: Warped narrative. Educate yourself.

11th vid: More bullshit using Kirk's murder as an excuse to label everyone on the left including Antifa as terrorists. Still has nothing to do with illegal immigrants.

12th vid: Nice cherries you're picking there. Framing two Twitch gamers and one C-list comedian as embodying the left, as if the mountain of pro-Hitler texts and office paraphernalia by actual public officials does not represent the right. Still has nothing to do with illegal immigrants.

Thank you SO MUCH for going through that absolute shit-show of tripe. It's as if they thought that throwing a bunch of sensationalist lies at people will cause people to ignore it outright. Then because nobody has refuted the lies, they think they made a good point.