Approval of measure could determine if Republicans keep full control of government in next year’s midterm elections
It was a decisive victory for Democrats in deep-blue California, who had raced to counter a gerrymander in Texas, engineered at the US president’s behest, to carve out new safe Republican districts. The Associated Press declared Proposition 50 had passed almost instantly when polls closed statewide.
In approving the measure, voters chose to toss out the work of California’s independent redistricting commission and temporarily adopt maps drawn by the state legislature to help Democrats pick up five additional seats in the US House of Representatives.
Newsom and Democrats framed the measure as a way to safeguard US democracy from Trump’s “wrecking ball” presidency. By contrast, opponents offered a mixed message, with Republicans alternatively attacking Newsom and praising the work of the independent mapmaking panel.
Just an observation: It’s incredible that both sides of the political spectrum say tge exact same thing about gerrymandering for and against their party.
This isn’t the same. A political party operating in its own self interests versus the opposing political party putting it to a vote to offset the damage.
Cancer kills cells. Chemotherapy kills cells. Wow, the same thing.
I know that, where did I indicate that I am equating them?
You drew no distinction between the two sides you spoke of. So, yes, you did equate them by implication.
I mean all I said is that left and right are talking about this pretty similarly. I am equating the talk. I do not equate the action. I haven’t even said a thing about what I think about this situation politically in that comment. I have said so in another. I’m a leftist, you can probably think the rest up.
If implication means to you that you get to make shit up about my political opinions from a neutral statement about an observation, then you fall right into the group of common internet users. Nothing particularly bad about that of course. I’m sure you’re much better in real life, just like the rest of us.
Yeah. The right uses the same language as the left even when it’s inappropriate because it muddies the water and makes the rhetoric less powerful. The Sartre quote about anti-semites applies.
And I’m not judging you, I’m telling you why people were downvoting you.
Ah, so you saying that I am equating the two politically was not your opinion but what you think I am being downvoted for? Yes, I believed so too. I stand my ground though, because it ain’t me problem if someone interprets something I did not say. Only in court I guess.
I have the same gripes with the factually false language of populist politics.
This is something I struggle with too, but people tend to assume that others make observations when they want to say something deeper. So, making a surface level observation will lead to people assuming you have some ulterior motive behind doing so.
In this case, your comment smacks very similar to a rhetorical device here in the states where people claim that both political parties are equally bad. It’s a bad faith argument because Democrats tend to be the milquetoast status quo party, whereas the Republicans actively try to rip the government apart and take away people’s rights every time they’re the majority.
This post: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/comment/22416821
That’s not an equation of their action, it’s an equation of people talking about it. Why do I have to repeat myself so often on this?
Because I don’t think that Republicans say it cancels out anything. Unless you’re saying that they say it cancels out California when it happened afterward, which is obviously false.
Personally, your lack of specificity is your problem, so… Eh, sucks to suck.
No, they say their gerrymandering cancels out the democrats. That does not make it right, but they’ve been saying it every single time gerrymandering was brought up.
“Democrats started it.”
So my specificity is on point, actually, it’s you just blatantly overlooking that, because all you hear is what they say. I’m on your side dipshit.
Eh, sucks to suck.
Thing is, the Republicans are lying. So when you quote their excuse verbatim and put them on the same level of truth and representation, you are spreading a lie / propaganda.
Republicans are not doing gerrymandering to counter Democrats gerrymandering. They are doing it to silence opposition, over-value their voters, steal power, and abuse the law-making and law-enforcing system. And they claim that they are following the law.
No, Democrats removing undue power by placing equal representation back on top is not the same thing. They are saying the same thing on the surface, but one side is obviously lying, and when you say they use the same thing, you ARE acting like the excuse has the same value as the truth. And if you wanted to spin it as “they both makethe same claim / use the same excuse” , now you’re casting doubt on the veracity of the Dem’s argument, which is also inappropriate. The only spin that would make sense is to say that Dems are correct and Reps are lying by making the same claim.
That’s why you get downvoted.
“Thing is, the Republicans are lying.” Yes.
“So when you quote their excuse and put them on the same level of truth and representation, you are spreading propaganda.” Well, it is propaganda, but I did not say that it is the truth, nor did I frame it that way. If Elon Musk said he wants to scan your genitals for world peace and I quote him saying that, does that make me think it is the truth?
“Republicans are not doing gerrymandering to…” Yes.
“…they are saying the same thing on the surface…one side…is lying…” Yes, that is what my comment was about.
“and if you wanted to spin it as “they both make the same claim…””
Well they are, one side is lying. Republicans say they want to cancel out the gerrymandering of the Democrats, which is bullshit.
You see, this is why I speak of nuance.
I say something along the lines of “Republicans and Democrats say the same thing about the other party gerrymandering.”.
From a reasonable person, I would expect a repsonse like “Yes, but one side is lying.”. Instead I get absolutely blasted. Are you aware that talking about issues is the first step to solving them? That talking about someone making up a political act is not the same as justifying a political act? How am I expected to talk about issues when the second I do there is not a single person wanting to talk about said issue and just tell me how wrong I am about an objectively right thing that has hapoened and is documented by both sides? Both said the same thing. That’s it. There is nothing more to it.
Americunt.
… You didn’t listen. Democrats don’t say that. They say that it cancels out what Republicans are doing. Not that it cancels out Republicans.
So, yes, it does suck to suck. You either don’t know what you’re talking about, or you are lying. It’s that simple, buddy.
Ok, so first of all, you american dipshits annoy the crap out of me with your overuse of the word listen. I am reading, you aren’t saying a word to me. Always saying LiStEn like your conversation partner is soem kind of 3 year old. That’s besides the point.
The first sentence of your previous comment said “…I don’t think republicans say it cancels out anything.”. I then told you that is exactly what they were saying when the gerrymandering shit was brought up, if you want to know when I heard it, that was a year ago. Now you’re telling me you meant the democrats don’t say that. You’re inconsistent, possibly in your understanding of what I am saying.
And yes, democrats are canceling out the gerrymandering in Texas with their own in California.
So may I say, you don’t read.
Well, time is linear, so in this case it’s easy to figure out what happened: Texas Republicans did a super shitty thing, and California is balancing it out.
You are correct. Though does it actually fully balance it out?
So, this article says up to 5 seats which this article says that Texas could flip up to 5 seats.
If I did my math right then up to 5 seats minus up to 5 seats equals balance. What numbers actually turn out to be beyond the “up to” will be the deciding vote.
Thank you, I’m european and not well educated on the american system. But apparently you can only help me partially. Why the dislike I don’t understand. I’m sure it wasn’t you.
I didn’t downvote you. I only responded. I appreciate you explaining that you’re European, so it makes a little more sense and I wouldn’t expect you to have inside knowledge. Hell, most Americans don’t even know!
I think why people might be downvoting is because this was easily answered by just a quick search and read.
I hope you have a great rest of your day!
I think it’s more connected to the my original comment, just outright downvoting anything. That’s how the internet modifies our intellect lol. I personally really like asking people. Makes them talk. I enjoy talking to people :).
Have a good day, I will be having a nice evening myself.
Gerrymandering is an issue in the US because the ridiculous laws allow politicians to draw their own districts. The GOP has been particularly aggressive with their efforts in disenfranchising any minorities with aggressive voter purges, voter ID laws and gerrymandering.
I know, that’s not what my comment was about though.
Texas is the one who kicked off the trend of mid-decade redistricting for the express purpose of getting more seats in a midterm election. Have both parties gerrymandered? Sure, there’s a reason we don’t hear much about Illinois jumping in for example. But to expressly say they’re doing it because Trump wanted it for midterms… Yeah. That’s incredible.
I mean, red states have been doing this for at least 15 years, anytime they get a veto-proof majority. Mississippi and Alabama lost high-profile court cases over it prior to 2024 and defied those court orders.
In the middle of the decade, and not from a court forcing them to?
May I see it?
Superintendent Chalmers references aside, feel free to prove me wrong. I’m going to have a hard time proving the negative.
Just a couple examples, no smoking guns:
https://factually.co/fact-checks/politics/court-ordered-redistricting-changes-since-2015-83113b
https://www.justice.gov/crt/status-statewide-redistricting-plans
I guess I’m thinking of the wrangling that goes on after they blatantly and illegally gerrymander Democrats out of power as they’renow openly doing in Texas.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/redistricting-litigation-roundup-0
All I’m seeing there (feel free to tell me what I missed) is either court-ordered, or part of the typical redistricting cycle.
The US census happens every 10 years on the 0’s, and remapping happens soon after especially as states lose and gain districts (some may have a shift in where their populations are and with that the boundaries chance as well). I’m not talking about any gerrymandering there, because that’s (unfortunately) part of the “normal” process.
Sometimes those maps get challenged in court, and the court agrees with those challenges, forcing a new map outside of that usual cycle. I’m not talking about that either, because that’s done involuntarily after a court makes them do it.
Texas started it all by changing their maps about halfway through the typical census cycle, without any court requiring it. THAT is what I’m trying to say is so abnormal and where I want to be proven wrong. It sounds picky, but any other redistricting I’m aware of is common enough and can have good reason to do so, but not this.
I am completely on your side, but I find this little fact interesting.
They say the same thing, it may not be correct, sure but they say the exact same thing. That alone is worth noting. I don’t know why I’m getting downvoted for that.
Here’s why I’ve downvotes you.
Your comment is at best rehotorical, or, more likely, a subtle “both sides are the same”
You can say it’s not what you said, but it kinda is.
You complain about a lack of nuance, but your originall comment also provides none.
The reason this is seen as and faith here, is because a LOT of people will come here, point something like that out, take in 0 additional context, and then run off proud.
I can’t tell if that’s actually your attempt at trolling or if you’ve just haven’t seen that kind of talk round these parts.
I’m not a troll, I’m am quite serious. I am also aware of the rhetorical device used by a lot of republicans and other countries’ hiding fascists.
Seeing how the status quo speaks of something, whether that is left wing or right wing can help to understand where the divide is and help close it. I’m not a holy centrist, I would do things for which I will be put on a list if I say them out loud to have a world without billionaires.
But if republicans say this shit in advance to the exact opposite thing happening, that’s powerful, because they can leverage that. It doesn’t have to be true for that.
I’m making an observation that hopefully some less american-brained people will read exactly the way I wrote it and think about it.
So you guys can demonstrably show the community what a bad guy I am, but the people outside your fascihole of a country will work on this with me. I am also not the first one who has pointed this out either, it’s just not on your land.
So I’m neither trolling, nor am I unaware of the rhetoric you speak of, nor am I one of your enemies. And I will continue speaking these things wether I find acceptance or not.
You don’t have to interpret everything I say. You can also just read it as it stands there. You could also just help me to mark any future posts such as this one so people know it is meant literally. But no, you don’t care about that, do you?
So I’m not American, I’m Canadian.
Your entire comment reads liek that one comic “ahhh but you participate in society I’m so smart”.
No one is arguing what you said to be true or not. If it’s that’s simple, then was it wasn’t really going to spark discussion. Did you really just intend to make a dead end statement?
No one is saying you shouldn’t speak, it’s just none of us want to listen anymore.
Also, to communicate is to interpret. That’s just how language works. An artist doesn’t get to determine how their work is seen. Its to be interpreted. What you say (and don’t) still says alot about you.
Sorry, I just hate americans. I have met a lot of nice people, but never knowingly a nice american. The worst wars I see originate from them. They bring destruction to the world, to my friends. And I know there must be some pretty incredibly people over there, but I am yet to meet one in person. I view them as uneducated and moronic. That’s on me.
I did not intend to make a dead end statement. But I most definitely wasn’t going in the direction where I was justifying gerrymandering on the republicans side for the reasons that they did it. What I did intended to make was an observation. No emotions behind it, no alterior motives, just an observation. I’m aware that them saying it is equal is false, but that’s doesn’t me saying that they say it is false. It brings attention to the issue. Which I would say, despite me getting cyberbullied into oblivion (I’m good), I achieved. If you say you’re sick of hearing it, then perhaps I misjudged the situation in that you are well aware. I’m from overseas, never been to the americas.
You, as in the community, are actively discouraging me as a human being with emotions from talking like this again. Which in this case means for me to show an observation of mine in a politically charged context. You don’t tell someone over and over that they have an ill intend without that affecting them. After some time they might actually believe it themselves.
To communicate is to interpret. Absolutely. Then tell me why after me saying multiple times, that I meant what I said as a way to show that what they say equals, but not what they do, do you still misunderstand me? Are you having trouble interpreting what I mean? You are interpreting something into it that I did not say. That is the difference.
Buddhism disagrees with you. It’s not the truth of course, but it says what I didn’t say says nothing about me. It’s what you make out of it that says a lot. If you can not see the things for what they are, then you are no better than a republican. In my culture we ask first before we decide if a person meant something he said the way we think they do, if that conflicts with us personally. I’ve been called all sorts of names by this community for such “inappropriate” behavior, even autistic.
You keep acting like your comment exists in a vacuum. It just simply doesn’t.
You also need to see how this looks to everyone else.
You come in here, and just spew a right wing “both sides” comment. Knowingly or not, that’s what you did. And you expect to not be pushed back against that?
You keep saying that’s not your intent, when frankly, that doesn’t matter. You don’t get to determine how your comment gets interpreted. Because it’s not your mind that’s doing it. Just like artists, your speech is no longer yours to control once said.
I didn’t downvote you, but I’m going to guess it’s because many people try to “both sides” something that’s very clearly happening on one side. Maybe there’s more finger pointing for the domino effects, but it very clearly started with Texas
Yeah, it’s probably a lack of nuance, which is something I have noticed on this platform. I did not talk about who started gerrymandering. In fact, never did I even talk about Gerrymandering as a practice. I talked about people talking about it.
It’s insane how much interpretation is happening to simple language nowadays. Shows how charged politics is nowadays. I’m not an exception, I’m sure.
Uh, and the comment you replied to? And the topic of the post was a whole?
Drink your morning coffee, friend.
Nah, your comments were completely fine. I don’t drink coffe though and it’s 4 PM.