dermdoc said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

And do you really want big cities deciding everything in the US?

If you can afford it, where are you sending your kids to get an education?

And where do rich libs send their kids to school?

Do not be stupid.

---

Do big cities in Texas decide who the governor is? Or who the senators are?

---

Sure hope not. I am not a totalitarian like you.

---

The point is a genuinely representative government with a popular vote does not cede all power to the cities.

---

Depends on which state you live in.

Look at a red/blue voter county map from California.

It is not really red/blue stares anymore. It is cities vs everybody else.

---

So rural voices should count for more?

Aggrad08 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Gerrymandering in 1,2,3…

You guys are so predictable.

---

I notice the Illinois nor NY gerrymanders were referenced.

---

I'd gladly kill all gerrymandering, would you? I know derm wouldn't, we've discussed that before.

---

You do understand that gerrymandering occurs in democratic states also?

---

Yes I do, we've discussed this before, you didn't do well then, do you have something new? Support for gerrymandering regardless of the party doing it is absurd

---

We've been over this before. Gerrymandering is inevitable. Its grotesque in its current form, but there is no way to 'fairly' carve up a district. People vote with their feet long before they vote at the polls and the creates an uneven geographic political landscape. Both sides of the political duopoly America want to carve up their districts to make more safe districts for themselves.

And gerrymandering is required by federal law as you cannot go after a minority majority district and attempt to dilute it. So if one side gets politically protected districts, why should the other side not play similar games?

I'm all for gerrymandering reform, but its symptom of a bigger problem and can't be fixed directly as political boundaries are a zero sum game.

The VRA needs to be substantially repealed (article 2 especially, but also 5). There should be no mandates for 'majority minority' districts as it is anathema to the constitution/equal protection/treatment. As with Roe, this SCOTUS-endorsed discrimination (by Brennan) should end asap.

It has led to the creation not just of 'plantation' districts (ahem, SJL), but also their opposites; very far right districts which are much more heavily white than they would be otherwise.

In other words, more polarization/gerrymandering, and in effect apartheid at the ballot box/in government. Fortunately, after Shelby County v. Holder, much of the insanity of getting approval from DoJ/Eric Holder etc. for changes in district lines has gone the way of the dodo.

Aggrad08 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Gerrymandering in 1,2,3…

You guys are so predictable.

---

I notice the Illinois nor NY gerrymanders were referenced.

---

I'd gladly kill all gerrymandering, would you? I know derm wouldn't, we've discussed that before.

---

You do understand that gerrymandering occurs in democratic states also?

---

Yes I do, we've discussed this before, you didn't do well then, do you have something new? Support for gerrymandering regardless of the party doing it is absurd

---

You might add "in your judgement" I did not do well. The snarky arrogance is not a good look.

But then it seems to be a very strong character trait of atheist/agnostic liberals. Read through this very thread. I was like that also until I was saved. Thanks be to God!

---

I think we can put in any learned man's judgement, it's a pretty unintelligent and ineffective argument you made.

It also seems that irony is lost on you, or at least any sense of self awareness, given that your opening comment to me here was a snarky arrogant comment asserting I'm ignorant of the fact that gerrymandering exists in some democratic states also.

Hate to break it to you, but you are still "like that".

---

Maybe so. Trying to get better

But because of that I know I need a Savior and am saved.

Aggrad08 said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Gerrymandering in 1,2,3…

You guys are so predictable.

---

I notice the Illinois nor NY gerrymanders were referenced.

---

I'd gladly kill all gerrymandering, would you? I know derm wouldn't, we've discussed that before.

---

You do understand that gerrymandering occurs in democratic states also?

---

Yes I do, we've discussed this before, you didn't do well then, do you have something new? Support for gerrymandering regardless of the party doing it is absurd

---

We've been over this before. Gerrymandering is inevitable. Its grotesque in its current form, but there is no way to 'fairly' carve up a district. People vote with their feet long before they vote at the polls and the creates an uneven geographic political landscape. Both sides of the political duopoly America want to carve up their districts to make more safe districts for themselves.

And gerrymandering is required by federal law as you cannot go after a minority majority district and attempt to dilute it. So if one side gets politically protected districts, why should the other side not play similar games?

I'm all for gerrymandering reform, but its symptom of a bigger problem and can't be fixed directly as political boundaries are a zero sum game.

---

And as You should well know there is a massive difference between an inability to make perfect districts that satisfy all needs and the VRA and deliberate unabashed attempts to carve away the opposition with absurdly shaped districts.

The VRA should be reworked and I'm absolutely in support of making changes to allow it to be easier to make sensible districts, but using an excuse that perfect is impossible to defend patently absurd districts is ridiculous.

---

No, its not about denying improvement because it cant be perfect. There are no easy, 'minor' changes to make that would be 'fair' improvements. Because its a zero sum game you have to revamp the whole voting process to break up the duoply before you can address gerrymandering. Anything short of that is just denying team red ground to team blue so the evening news says its now 'fair.'

Neither side is going to cede ground willingly to the other. Full stop.

What is your criteria for fair?
-set square mileage per district?
-set population size per district?
-geographic closeness?
-even demographic distribution?
-even education distribution?
-even home price distribution?
-even 50/50 red/blue districts? Deny those who declare themselves 'independents?'

You're going to get a convoluted map regardless.
And don't bring up machine learning AI even districts. There are no unbiased arbiters, people or machines.

Aggrad08 said:

---

Maybe next time focus on the trying to get better rather than patting yourself self on the back and blessing your savior that "I'm not like one of you" anymore while tattooing hypocrite to your forehead. It reflects poorly on both you and your claimed savior.

---

Fair enough. I certainly do not want that so I will disappear again.

Will pray for both of us.

And I will take your advice.

Sapper Redux said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

And do you really want big cities deciding everything in the US?

If you can afford it, where are you sending your kids to get an education?

And where do rich libs send their kids to school?

Do not be stupid.

---

Do big cities in Texas decide who the governor is? Or who the senators are?

---

Sure hope not. I am not a totalitarian like you.

---

The point is a genuinely representative government with a popular vote does not cede all power to the cities.

---

Depends on which state you live in.

Look at a red/blue voter county map from California.

It is not really red/blue stares anymore. It is cities vs everybody else.

---

So rural voices should count for more?

---

Of course not. Do not be obtuse (for once).

Rural districts need to have fair representation. As do less populous states. That is why we are a representative republic instead of a democracy. And have an Electoral College.

---

If you don't believe they should have a greater voice, then you shouldn't support the EC or the way we allocate representation.

---

I mistakenly thought you posted vote and not voices.

I apologize.

one MEEN Ag said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Gerrymandering in 1,2,3…

You guys are so predictable.

---

I notice the Illinois nor NY gerrymanders were referenced.

---

I'd gladly kill all gerrymandering, would you? I know derm wouldn't, we've discussed that before.

---

You do understand that gerrymandering occurs in democratic states also?

---

Yes I do, we've discussed this before, you didn't do well then, do you have something new? Support for gerrymandering regardless of the party doing it is absurd

---

We've been over this before. Gerrymandering is inevitable. Its grotesque in its current form, but there is no way to 'fairly' carve up a district. People vote with their feet long before they vote at the polls and the creates an uneven geographic political landscape. Both sides of the political duopoly America want to carve up their districts to make more safe districts for themselves.

And gerrymandering is required by federal law as you cannot go after a minority majority district and attempt to dilute it. So if one side gets politically protected districts, why should the other side not play similar games?

I'm all for gerrymandering reform, but its symptom of a bigger problem and can't be fixed directly as political boundaries are a zero sum game.

---

Gerrymandering is one of "kill or be killed" things. If the other side is doing it and you arent, you're in for an absolute shellacking. So yeah, we need comprehensive gerrymandeirng reform. Correct, there's no perfectly fair way to carve up a district but we can have some parameters that stop absolutely ridiculous districts and districts that are clearly drawn based on race.

Yep. It takes a 'special' historical 'awareness' (trying to put it nicely) to not realize that the Senate/EC were critical compromises that...small states like Delaware demanded. The irony of a (nominal) president being from Delaware today is probably lost on some as well.

nm

I guess it did get deleted. So I'll edit. My position remains unchanged, as I've heard similar stories (albeit not involving suicide), that involve dire situations for the mother left with no options.

AGC said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Yep. It takes a 'special' historical 'awareness' (trying to put it nicely) to not realize that the Senate/EC were critical compromises that...small states like Delaware demanded. The irony of a (nominal) president being from Delaware today is probably lost on some as well.

---

Worked so well we killed 700,000 people after only 80 years as a country. Held together after that by ignoring that half the states disenfranchised a huge percentage of their population and had outsized influence on government. Brilliant compromise.

---

Are we still pretending that slavery was over after the civil war and manumission didn't still exist in the north? Fantasy's always much better than reality. How cool of New Jersey to still count slaves in 1860 for the US census. So noble, so progressive.

---

LOL, 'in order to form a more perfect union…'

I'm not sure why he tries to reference a denial of the 19th century civil war. As some famous Democrats have put it (LOL), Delaware for instance was on the south's side, and would have joined the confederacy if they could have.

Quote:

---

"Biden was on a roll," the reporter said. "Delaware, he noted, was a 'slave state that fought beside the North. That's only because we couldn't figure out how to get to the South. There were a couple of states in the way.'" (emphasis added)

In the same speech, he also made a sympathetic reference to a Columbia Rotary Club member's announcement "that the club would hold its annual Christmas party at the state Department of Archives and History where members could view the original copy of the state's Articles of Secession."

"Where else could I go to a Rotary Club where (for a) Christmas party the highlight is looking at the Articles?" Biden mused.

---

Ancient history? No, the current 'president.'

AGC said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Yep. It takes a 'special' historical 'awareness' (trying to put it nicely) to not realize that the Senate/EC were critical compromises that...small states like Delaware demanded. The irony of a (nominal) president being from Delaware today is probably lost on some as well.

---

Worked so well we killed 700,000 people after only 80 years as a country. Held together after that by ignoring that half the states disenfranchised a huge percentage of their population and had outsized influence on government. Brilliant compromise.

---

Are we still pretending that slavery was over after the civil war and manumission didn't still exist in the north? Fantasy's always much better than reality. How cool of New Jersey to still count slaves in 1860 for the US census. So noble, so progressive.

---

I love it when you guys ignore the point to try and beat your personal dead horse.

Thaddeus73 said:

---

Try as you might, you will never ever find the "right to an abortion" anywhere in the US Constitution. The 1973 SCOTUS made it up, based on a Jane Roe's lie. So the 2022 court did exactly the right thing by overturning a phantom right that was never in the constitution.

Next up - so called "homosexual marriage." Marriage isn't in the US Constitution either.

---

Marriages for nobody!!

It's a state issue, DUH...

Quote:

---

Marriages for nobody!!

---

About time we did something right!

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

Thaddeus73 said:

---

Try as you might, you will never ever find the "right to an abortion" anywhere in the US Constitution. The 1973 SCOTUS made it up, based on a Jane Roe's lie. So the 2022 court did exactly the right thing by overturning a phantom right that was never in the constitution.

Next up - so called "homosexual marriage." Marriage isn't in the US Constitution either.

---

Marriages for nobody!!

---

I wholeheartedly agree. That would be an great ruling. Federal government has no right to track, incentivize or create default contracts based upon marriage.

It will solve all the legal, medical, and inheritance issues that gay rights proponents have rightfully brought up while also still upholding that marriage is a term for the religious to describe a holy sacrament between a man and a woman. Civil unions for everyone.

one MEEN Ag said:

---

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

Thaddeus73 said:

---

Try as you might, you will never ever find the "right to an abortion" anywhere in the US Constitution. The 1973 SCOTUS made it up, based on a Jane Roe's lie. So the 2022 court did exactly the right thing by overturning a phantom right that was never in the constitution.

Next up - so called "homosexual marriage." Marriage isn't in the US Constitution either.

---

Marriages for nobody!!

---

I wholeheartedly agree. That would be an great ruling. Federal government has no right to track, incentivize or create default contracts based upon marriage.

It will solve all the legal, medical, and inheritance issues that gay rights proponents have rightfully brought up while also still upholding that marriage is a term for the religious to describe a holy sacrament between a man and a woman. Civil unions for everyone.

---

The government makes promises to future generations; it has a duty to deliver on those promises. The best and most sensible way to do so is for citizens to have children so why not incentivize it? Marriage leads to better outcomes for children so why not encourage it? Healthy birth parents create optimal outcomes so why not preference it?

Zobel aludes to jenga with regards to morality and it's basis in the other thread and I think it works well here too. You can't play with marriage and support for child bearing and rearing without adverse consequences. It's ok to define a best practice and encourage achievement of it.

AGC said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

Thaddeus73 said:

---

Try as you might, you will never ever find the "right to an abortion" anywhere in the US Constitution. The 1973 SCOTUS made it up, based on a Jane Roe's lie. So the 2022 court did exactly the right thing by overturning a phantom right that was never in the constitution.

Next up - so called "homosexual marriage." Marriage isn't in the US Constitution either.

---

Marriages for nobody!!

---

I wholeheartedly agree. That would be an great ruling. Federal government has no right to track, incentivize or create default contracts based upon marriage.

It will solve all the legal, medical, and inheritance issues that gay rights proponents have rightfully brought up while also still upholding that marriage is a term for the religious to describe a holy sacrament between a man and a woman. Civil unions for everyone.

---

The government makes promises to future generations; it has a duty to deliver on those promises. The best and most sensible way to do so is for citizens to have children so why not incentivize it? Marriage leads to better outcomes for children so why not encourage it? Healthy birth parents create optimal outcomes so why not preference it?

Zobel aludes to jenga with regards to morality and it's basis in the other thread and I think it works well here too. You can't play with marriage and support for child bearing and rearing without adverse consequences. It's ok to define a best practice and encourage achievement of it.

---

I agree with you. But who is getting married because of the government benefits? I know young american soldiers do it to get better housing benefits but it creates such a strong incentive people get married for the wrong reasons.

In a constitutional sense, the government doesn't have an implied right to be in the marriage game. But I do agree setting up incentives helps a society further its gains and reach.

Interestingly enough, countries in europe that have the strongest safety nets that make it 'easiest' to raise a family like healthcare, childcare, and extended leave are among the leaders in not getting married in the first place. You just start living together and raising a family, no 'marriage' at all.

one MEEN Ag said:

---

AGC said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

Thaddeus73 said:

---

Try as you might, you will never ever find the "right to an abortion" anywhere in the US Constitution. The 1973 SCOTUS made it up, based on a Jane Roe's lie. So the 2022 court did exactly the right thing by overturning a phantom right that was never in the constitution.

Next up - so called "homosexual marriage." Marriage isn't in the US Constitution either.

---

Marriages for nobody!!

---

I wholeheartedly agree. That would be an great ruling. Federal government has no right to track, incentivize or create default contracts based upon marriage.

It will solve all the legal, medical, and inheritance issues that gay rights proponents have rightfully brought up while also still upholding that marriage is a term for the religious to describe a holy sacrament between a man and a woman. Civil unions for everyone.

---

The government makes promises to future generations; it has a duty to deliver on those promises. The best and most sensible way to do so is for citizens to have children so why not incentivize it? Marriage leads to better outcomes for children so why not encourage it? Healthy birth parents create optimal outcomes so why not preference it?

Zobel aludes to jenga with regards to morality and it's basis in the other thread and I think it works well here too. You can't play with marriage and support for child bearing and rearing without adverse consequences. It's ok to define a best practice and encourage achievement of it.

---

I agree with you. But who is getting married because of the government benefits? I know young american soldiers do it to get better housing benefits but it creates such a strong incentive people get married for the wrong reasons.

In a constitutional sense, the government doesn't have an implied right to be in the marriage game. But I do agree setting up incentives helps a society further its gains and reach.

Interestingly enough, countries in europe that have the strongest safety nets that make it 'easiest' to raise a family like healthcare, childcare, and extended leave are among the leaders in not getting married in the first place. You just start living together and raising a family, no 'marriage' at all.

---

I'm not saying the system is perfect (id change the incentive system if it was up to me). I'm simply saying that benefits shouldn't be off the table in the name of equal treatment when the literal future of the country is in play.

What you've said about Europe ignores too much about their culture. Labor laws make older workers harder to fire so the younger ones go first. They have lower salaries due to higher taxes. People with college degrees prefer government jobs due to benefits and employment guarantees so they'll forgo job offers since they can always sweep streets. Taxes are higher if you're married. And so on. So you have people living with their parents or roommates into their mid 30s before they can afford to have their own place. By their 40s they can have a child, if they even do that. The irony is they're all dying cultures, so clearly the safety net isn't so safe.