Media Meltdown and also Media Bias 101

[Motown Bombers]

It’s interesting to finally see Dem leaders call out the media. 

 

[Tigeraholic1]

Temu Obama is his own inside joke. 

[chasfh]

56 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

It’s interesting to finally see Dem leaders call out the media. 

 

I think the best outcome we could hope for is that the Supreme Court strikes down all discretionary off-census redistricting as a basic form of election fraud and we go back to the maps we all had after the census—you know, like during normal times.

But seeing how this court is completely up Trump's ass, I'm not holding my breath waiting for that.

[gehringer_2]

5 minutes ago, chasfh said:

I think the best outcome we could hope for is that the Supreme Court strikes down all discretionary off-census redistricting as a basic form of election fraud and we go back to the maps we all had after the census—you know, like during normal times.

But seeing how this court is completely up Trump's ass, I'm not holding my breath waiting for that.

 When the gerrymandering cases got to the court a few years a ago and they basically punted the issue, the inevitability of the current mess was obvious to anyone with a brain - apparently except JR.

[chasfh]

Just now, gehringer_2 said:

 When the gerrymandering cases got to the court a few years a ago and they basically punted the issue, the inevitability of the current mess was obvious to anyone with a brain - apparently except JR.

I'm not an attorney and I don't even play one on TV, but it seems to me there must be a completely different legal question at hand here regarding the redrawing of district boundaries outside of common redistricting periods with the explicitly stated intent of rigging the election outcome.

[Tigeraholic1]

1 hour ago, chasfh said:

I'm not an attorney and I don't even play one on TV, but it seems to me there must be a completely different legal question at hand here regarding the redrawing of district boundaries outside of common redistricting periods with the explicitly stated intent of rigging the election outcome.

You think California is riggin?

[chasfh]

16 hours ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

You think California is riggin?

If you mean specifically redistricting, not yet. But they are moving into a position to since a lot of red states already have. I would hope the Supreme Court throws them all out and forces all states to go back to the same map as in 2024. But since untethered gerrymandering will keep their own bed feathered, I ain’t holding my breath waiting for it.

[Tigeraholic1]

13 minutes ago, chasfh said:

If you mean specifically redistricting, not yet. But they are moving into a position to since a lot of red states already have. I would hope the Supreme Court throws them all out and forces all states to go back to the same map as in 2024. But since untethered gerrymandering will keep their own bed feathered, I ain’t holding my breath waiting for it.

I guess states have rights for a reason. Not sure SC can dip to much in these situations. 

[CMRivdogs]

46 minutes ago, chasfh said:

If you mean specifically redistricting, not yet. But they are moving into a position to since a lot of red states already have. I would hope the Supreme Court throws them all out and forces all states to go back to the same map as in 2024. But since untethered gerrymandering will keep their own bed feathered, I ain’t holding my breath waiting for it.

Any state that has its political lines drawn by its legislature is guilty of some sort of political bias. The only fair redistricting seems be be multi member districts based on population proportions.

Using Michigan as an example 4 multi member Congressional districts. Detroit Metro, West Michigan, Mid Michigan, and Northern Michigan and the UP. Metro Detroit gets 4 seats based on population size, the rest get three. 
 

Utilize A-I to help with mapping the districts as well as an outside no political organization. 
 

Go to proportional allocation of Electorial votes. 
 

The plan I ran on ChatGPT had the outcome in both districts and EC votes as 7-6 in favor of Republicans. Makes more sense than winner take all. The House seats also came out 7-6, GOP

 

[gehringer_2]

3 hours ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

I guess states have rights for a reason. Not sure SC can dip to much in these situations. 

they absolutely can if they want to. It's a very straightforward argument that gerrymandering is a direct violation of "one-man, one-vote" which is otherwise a core constitutional principle; and constitutional principle, when applied, always trumps any argument for states' rights. The issue is the SCOTUS refuses to acknowledge the obvious reality and therefore does not apply the principle.

In their previous passe at redistricting Robert threw up his hands with a claim that SCOTUS can't do anything because they don't know how to mandate "good" redistricting, but again, that is head in the sand nonsense . Just look around at the states that have instituted unbiased redistricting and there are lots of real world examples of how it can be done. Another classic example of the court being willfully ignorant of the real world because it would conflict with their preferred political outcomes.

 

(and BTW - it would be nice if the RW actually understood the Constitution they purport to love so much?)

 

Edited 2 hours ago by gehringer_2

[chasfh]

4 hours ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

I guess states have rights for a reason. Not sure SC can dip to much in these situations. 

I don't think states should have the right to practically fix elections through discretionary out-of-cycle gerrymandering at the command of the leader of their particular political party.