Brive1987 wrote: ↑
My aren’t you an angry little pocket rocket. Your applied ‘tolerance’ is tragically hilarious.
Pausing your own hyperventilation for a moment. It appears your original definition for gerrymandering was indeed inaccurate and self serving. But now you’d like a micro-debate around the word “boundary”. Please? How about “no”.
You like pictures and infographics, so here's a picture for you.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... nt.svg.png
Notice how the "gerrymandered" outcomes are defined in contrast to the proportionate outcomes? Maybe you should meditate on that for a few minutes before you look even dumber.
Brive1987 wrote: ↑
Let’s just agree the Democrats would like to change the rules in a manner which benefits their likelihood of seizing power. On the basis of out of spectrum demographic change. But really because of course, they are concerned with abstract fairness. :lol:
It's got nothing to do with "abstract fairness" and everything to do with what they are owed. The electoral college hasn't been an issue for most of our history because it has only failed to line up with the popular vote a handful of times. But two of those times have been in the last 20 years, and have gotten us two of the worst presidents in our history against the will of the majority of our citizens. You don't see this as a problem, because Trump validates your world view and you like the fact that he was elected. In reality, the Democrats have every right to fight back, and they are. Good for them.
Brive1987 wrote: ↑
It also appears that your “constitution [and] national concept” was until very recently euro-centric. Whatever the hell you have now is a 20-30 year old woke experiment. Your inside the equivalent of a Berkeley sit-in. But let’s not engage with the data.
Its telling that you would disdainfully compare my country to an episode from the civil rights movement.
Here's a counterpoint: we've had waves of immigration since the beginning of our history, and fear of them just as long.
In the 1860s we freed our slaves and people worried about the impact that would have on our society.
Defenders of slavery argued that if all the slaves were freed, there would be widespread unemployment and chaos. This would lead to uprisings, bloodshed, and anarchy. They pointed to the mob's "rule of terror" during the French Revolution and argued for the continuation of the status quo, which was providing for affluence and stability for the slaveholding class and for all free people who enjoyed the bounty of the slave society.
In 1882, Chester A. Arthur signed the Chinese exclusion act to protect California from the coolies. We also had laws against folks who are currently considered "white people".
https://www.nypl.org/blog/2016/03/03/re ... mmigration
There was also growing anti-immigration sentiment that posited the idea that Italians and eastern Europeans were morally unfit to be Americans. Of course, the same argument was made about the Irish. Eventually, this attitude would result in a 1924 federal immigration law that blocked Italians and southern and eastern Europeans from coming to America.
I know you'd probably cheer-lead these responses, but all of these groups have well adjusted and integrated communities currently existing within the USA. I don't see the people who worried about all those heathen papists as vindicated. If there is a serious problem, it is still black vs white race relations, which isn't really a result of (voluntary) immigration.
So no, I'm not going to engage with your figures about how the immigrants now are coming from Mexico instead of Italy. The one figure that would have been relevant to me is this one:
Which shows that the litigants I'm talking about had more reason for concern about the sheer quantity
of immigrants overwhelming US culture than we do today (see the red line, which is the relevant part since it's been normalized to the total population).
Well, it's not like you would compare my country unfavorably to a civil rights demonstration as if that were a bad thing. You are clearly a much more nuanced racist than that.
I bet you don't.