logo
Search
I learned a new word, today.  
   Forum Index -> Politics
Click the image to Enter your Rating
First Page 1 Last Page 
Author Message
 
Post Posted: 5 days ago 
1
 
0
Track Thumbs Up/Down
Reply with quote
Big words turn me on, not big dihks and butts.



Gerrymandering. This is when you manipulate the boundaries of districts to benefit whatever political party you are rooting for.

Texas will go before the Supreme Court for racial gerrymandering.

The simplest way to explain it is changing the district to remove a primarily minority community from a vote. That would mean less votes from blacks and other races and making it more likely for your candidate(who most minorities would not vote for) to win. Or adding a district with majority whites to a district that is mostly minorities to mess with the results. Perhaps someone else can explain it better.

The Supreme Court agreed on Friday to hear arguments on whether federal and state district maps discriminate against people of color, the third legal bout over gerrymandering picked up by the court this term.

The justices opted to take up an appeal by Republican lawmakers in the state, who had sought to overturn two lower-court rulings that would have required them to redraw portions of Texas’ maps in order to address alleged infractions of voting rights. The move will delay immediate action on redistricting in the state, a victory for GOP officials in Texas.

The high court, in a split 5-4 vote along ideological lines in September, had blocked a lower-court ruling that the state’s maps, adopted in 2013, were partially a product of intentional racial discrimination. The lower ruling would have required state officials to redraw the maps or face the prospect of having the Supreme Court settle the matter.

The case becomes the third gerrymandering dispute on the docket, with the justices picking up cases on political redistricting in Wisconsin in October and Maryland in December. The case in Texas is the first to thrust racial discrimination in state maps — and its impact on voters of color — onto the high court’s schedule this term.

The Supreme Court also faces the prospect of making decisions on two additional redistricting cases, in North Carolina and Pennsylvania, where legal battles over state maps are brewing.

Federal judges in Pennsylvania, in a 2-1 vote on Wednesday, upheld a ruling that the state’s congressional district map is constitutional. Attorneys for the plaintiffs, however, have indicated they plan to appeal to the Supreme Court.


Even when we go out in full force to vote, there are obstacles. Smh.



 
Post Posted: 5 days ago 
0
 
0
Track Thumbs Up/Down
Reply with quote
Young man where did you go to school? We learned about gerrymandering freshman year. See, this is why Bush's "no child left behind" doesn't work, we have college students that don't know high school terms. That's why I've proposed "no child moving ahead" until they can pass a basic comprehension test along with an in-depth vocabulary exam. Yes we can!@donald_trump
 
Post Posted: 5 days ago 
0
 
0
Track Thumbs Up/Down
Reply with quote

5 days ago

Young man where did you go to school? We learned about gerrymandering freshman year. See, this is why Bush's "no child left behind" doesn't work, we have college students that don't know high school terms. That's why I've proposed "no child moving ahead" until they can pass a basic comprehension test along with an in-depth vocabulary exam. Yes we can!@donald_trump

Freshman year was World History-Meaning all bout Europe, of course. Sophomore-U.S. Hsitory. Had my first woke teacher and she did her own thing focusing on what was not in the textbook, regarding slavery. The bulk of the class was slavery. We didn't focus on any wars. She focused on how presidents like Jefferson and Lincoln are praised--but were part of the problem. Junior year, Religions from around the world. Senior--she did her own thing as well. We mostly had graded mock debates on hot topics like gay marriage, abortion, etc

The last time I learned about politics in school was middle school and that was just the branches of the government, civil duty, the trial process and civil rights.

I have always found politics boring. I do not only vote in presidential elections, but I still had not come across the word, before.

And you forgot to thumb me down.
 
Post Posted: 5 days ago 
0
 
0
Track Thumbs Up/Down
Reply with quote

5 days ago

Young man where did you go to school? We learned about gerrymandering freshman year. See, this is why Bush's "no child left behind" doesn't work, we have college students that don't know high school terms. That's why I've proposed "no child moving ahead" until they can pass a basic comprehension test along with an in-depth vocabulary exam. Yes we can!@donald_trump

5 days ago

Freshman year was World History-Meaning all bout Europe, of course. Sophomore-U.S. Hsitory. Had my first woke teacher and she did her own thing focusing on what was not in the textbook, regarding slavery. The bulk of the class was slavery. We didn't focus on any wars. She focused on how presidents like Jefferson and Lincoln are praised--but were part of the problem. Junior year, Religions from around the world. Senior--she did her own thing as well. We mostly had graded mock debates on hot topics like gay marriage, abortion, etc

The last time I learned about politics in school was middle school and that was just the branches of the government, civil duty, the trial process and civil rights.

I have always found politics boring. I do not only vote in presidential elections, but I still had not come across the word, before.

And you forgot to thumb me down.

U.S. History**

Civic duty**
 
Post Posted: 5 days ago 
0
 
0
Track Thumbs Up/Down
Reply with quote

5 days ago

Young man where did you go to school? We learned about gerrymandering freshman year. See, this is why Bush's "no child left behind" doesn't work, we have college students that don't know high school terms. That's why I've proposed "no child moving ahead" until they can pass a basic comprehension test along with an in-depth vocabulary exam. Yes we can!@donald_trump

5 days ago

Freshman year was World History-Meaning all bout Europe, of course. Sophomore-U.S. Hsitory. Had my first woke teacher and she did her own thing focusing on what was not in the textbook, regarding slavery. The bulk of the class was slavery. We didn't focus on any wars. She focused on how presidents like Jefferson and Lincoln are praised--but were part of the problem. Junior year, Religions from around the world. Senior--she did her own thing as well. We mostly had graded mock debates on hot topics like gay marriage, abortion, etc

The last time I learned about politics in school was middle school and that was just the branches of the government, civil duty, the trial process and civil rights.

I have always found politics boring. I do not only vote in presidential elections, but I still had not come across the word, before.

And you forgot to thumb me down.

My apologies young man. I wasn't aware that you're a special needs student. That goofy I-still-wear-velcro-shoes smile should have given it away. Carry on.
 
Post Posted: 5 days ago 
0
 
0
Track Thumbs Up/Down
Reply with quote

5 days ago

Young man where did you go to school? We learned about gerrymandering freshman year. See, this is why Bush's "no child left behind" doesn't work, we have college students that don't know high school terms. That's why I've proposed "no child moving ahead" until they can pass a basic comprehension test along with an in-depth vocabulary exam. Yes we can!@donald_trump

5 days ago

Freshman year was World History-Meaning all bout Europe, of course. Sophomore-U.S. Hsitory. Had my first woke teacher and she did her own thing focusing on what was not in the textbook, regarding slavery. The bulk of the class was slavery. We didn't focus on any wars. She focused on how presidents like Jefferson and Lincoln are praised--but were part of the problem. Junior year, Religions from around the world. Senior--she did her own thing as well. We mostly had graded mock debates on hot topics like gay marriage, abortion, etc

The last time I learned about politics in school was middle school and that was just the branches of the government, civil duty, the trial process and civil rights.

I have always found politics boring. I do not only vote in presidential elections, but I still had not come across the word, before.

And you forgot to thumb me down.

5 days ago

My apologies young man. I wasn't aware that you're a special needs student. That goofy I-still-wear-velcro-shoes smile should have given it away. Carry on.

I remember reading in the news that one of those Not-Housewives thought that the Underground Railroad was an actual train.

I also remember when Raven said she was from every continent in Africa.

People went in on both of them. I am sure many of the people bashing them, were previously unaware that it was not a train or even knew that Africa is a continent and not a country.

So you trying to insult my intelligence, is fine. I am quite sure most of the people who click on this thread, will not have known what the word meant, but it is fine. You needed a reason to post in my thread.

I have always done well in history/social studies. So much to the point that I was recommended for History scholarships and to become a Historian. I found the history I was taught in school boring or dreary.

The first time I was excited about history, was when I started college, but sociology and anthropology simply interest me more.



 
Post Posted: 5 days ago 
0
 
0
Track Thumbs Up/Down
Reply with quote

5 days ago

Big words turn me on, not big dihks and butts.



Gerrymandering. This is when you manipulate the boundaries of districts to benefit whatever political party you are rooting for.

Texas will go before the Supreme Court for racial gerrymandering.

The simplest way to explain it is changing the district to remove a primarily minority community from a vote. That would mean less votes from blacks and other races and making it more likely for your candidate(who most minorities would not vote for) to win. Or adding a district with majority whites to a district that is mostly minorities to mess with the results. Perhaps someone else can explain it better.

The Supreme Court agreed on Friday to hear arguments on whether federal and state district maps discriminate against people of color, the third legal bout over gerrymandering picked up by the court this term.

The justices opted to take up an appeal by Republican lawmakers in the state, who had sought to overturn two lower-court rulings that would have required them to redraw portions of Texas’ maps in order to address alleged infractions of voting rights. The move will delay immediate action on redistricting in the state, a victory for GOP officials in Texas.

The high court, in a split 5-4 vote along ideological lines in September, had blocked a lower-court ruling that the state’s maps, adopted in 2013, were partially a product of intentional racial discrimination. The lower ruling would have required state officials to redraw the maps or face the prospect of having the Supreme Court settle the matter.

The case becomes the third gerrymandering dispute on the docket, with the justices picking up cases on political redistricting in Wisconsin in October and Maryland in December. The case in Texas is the first to thrust racial discrimination in state maps — and its impact on voters of color — onto the high court’s schedule this term.

The Supreme Court also faces the prospect of making decisions on two additional redistricting cases, in North Carolina and Pennsylvania, where legal battles over state maps are brewing.

Federal judges in Pennsylvania, in a 2-1 vote on Wednesday, upheld a ruling that the state’s congressional district map is constitutional. Attorneys for the plaintiffs, however, have indicated they plan to appeal to the Supreme Court.


Even when we go out in full force to vote, there are obstacles. Smh.

The issue currently for SCOTUS seems to turn on whether or not the gerrymandering is political (OK) or racial (not OK). So you can imagine, it depends on who is looking at the case (liberals or conservatives) whether they see race or not. It should be a fairly predictable and close call depending on how well the two sides present their case. One side will argue the lines are purely politically drawn (ignoring any racial aspects) and the other side will show how the new lines segment and disfavor ethnic communities.

It is the same old shit, just a different day.

 
Post Posted: 5 days ago 
0
 
0
Track Thumbs Up/Down
Reply with quote

5 days ago

Big words turn me on, not big dihks and butts.



Gerrymandering. This is when you manipulate the boundaries of districts to benefit whatever political party you are rooting for.

Texas will go before the Supreme Court for racial gerrymandering.

The simplest way to explain it is changing the district to remove a primarily minority community from a vote. That would mean less votes from blacks and other races and making it more likely for your candidate(who most minorities would not vote for) to win. Or adding a district with majority whites to a district that is mostly minorities to mess with the results. Perhaps someone else can explain it better.

The Supreme Court agreed on Friday to hear arguments on whether federal and state district maps discriminate against people of color, the third legal bout over gerrymandering picked up by the court this term.

The justices opted to take up an appeal by Republican lawmakers in the state, who had sought to overturn two lower-court rulings that would have required them to redraw portions of Texas’ maps in order to address alleged infractions of voting rights. The move will delay immediate action on redistricting in the state, a victory for GOP officials in Texas.

The high court, in a split 5-4 vote along ideological lines in September, had blocked a lower-court ruling that the state’s maps, adopted in 2013, were partially a product of intentional racial discrimination. The lower ruling would have required state officials to redraw the maps or face the prospect of having the Supreme Court settle the matter.

The case becomes the third gerrymandering dispute on the docket, with the justices picking up cases on political redistricting in Wisconsin in October and Maryland in December. The case in Texas is the first to thrust racial discrimination in state maps — and its impact on voters of color — onto the high court’s schedule this term.

The Supreme Court also faces the prospect of making decisions on two additional redistricting cases, in North Carolina and Pennsylvania, where legal battles over state maps are brewing.

Federal judges in Pennsylvania, in a 2-1 vote on Wednesday, upheld a ruling that the state’s congressional district map is constitutional. Attorneys for the plaintiffs, however, have indicated they plan to appeal to the Supreme Court.


Even when we go out in full force to vote, there are obstacles. Smh.

5 days ago

The issue currently for SCOTUS seems to turn on whether or not the gerrymandering is political (OK) or racial (not OK). So you can imagine, it depends on who is looking at the case (liberals or conservatives) whether they see race or not. It should be a fairly predictable and close call depending on how well the two sides present their case. One side will argue the lines are purely politically drawn (ignoring any racial aspects) and the other side will show how the new lines segment and disfavor ethnic communities.

It is the same old shit, just a different day.

What would happen anyway? Would votes be recounted if the Supreme Court ruled that it was raciall?
 
Post Posted: 5 days ago 
0
 
0
Track Thumbs Up/Down
Reply with quote

5 days ago

Big words turn me on, not big dihks and butts.



Gerrymandering. This is when you manipulate the boundaries of districts to benefit whatever political party you are rooting for.

Texas will go before the Supreme Court for racial gerrymandering.

The simplest way to explain it is changing the district to remove a primarily minority community from a vote. That would mean less votes from blacks and other races and making it more likely for your candidate(who most minorities would not vote for) to win. Or adding a district with majority whites to a district that is mostly minorities to mess with the results. Perhaps someone else can explain it better.

The Supreme Court agreed on Friday to hear arguments on whether federal and state district maps discriminate against people of color, the third legal bout over gerrymandering picked up by the court this term.

The justices opted to take up an appeal by Republican lawmakers in the state, who had sought to overturn two lower-court rulings that would have required them to redraw portions of Texas’ maps in order to address alleged infractions of voting rights. The move will delay immediate action on redistricting in the state, a victory for GOP officials in Texas.

The high court, in a split 5-4 vote along ideological lines in September, had blocked a lower-court ruling that the state’s maps, adopted in 2013, were partially a product of intentional racial discrimination. The lower ruling would have required state officials to redraw the maps or face the prospect of having the Supreme Court settle the matter.

The case becomes the third gerrymandering dispute on the docket, with the justices picking up cases on political redistricting in Wisconsin in October and Maryland in December. The case in Texas is the first to thrust racial discrimination in state maps — and its impact on voters of color — onto the high court’s schedule this term.

The Supreme Court also faces the prospect of making decisions on two additional redistricting cases, in North Carolina and Pennsylvania, where legal battles over state maps are brewing.

Federal judges in Pennsylvania, in a 2-1 vote on Wednesday, upheld a ruling that the state’s congressional district map is constitutional. Attorneys for the plaintiffs, however, have indicated they plan to appeal to the Supreme Court.


Even when we go out in full force to vote, there are obstacles. Smh.

5 days ago

The issue currently for SCOTUS seems to turn on whether or not the gerrymandering is political (OK) or racial (not OK). So you can imagine, it depends on who is looking at the case (liberals or conservatives) whether they see race or not. It should be a fairly predictable and close call depending on how well the two sides present their case. One side will argue the lines are purely politically drawn (ignoring any racial aspects) and the other side will show how the new lines segment and disfavor ethnic communities.

It is the same old shit, just a different day.

What would happen anyway? Would votes be recounted if the Supreme Court ruled that it was racially motivated?
 
Post Posted: 5 days ago 
0
 
0
Track Thumbs Up/Down
Reply with quote
It has been going on in North Carolina since Bush left office
First Page 1 Last Page 



 
   Forum Index -> Politics All times are GMT
 
Page 1 of 1
Stop watching this topic
 
Jump to:   

You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You can edit your posts in this forum
You can delete your posts in this forum
You can vote in polls in this forum

 
Change Online Status: Status Update: