"Democrats opposed partisan redistricting by 81 percent in an August Reuters/Ipsos poll. (Independents were 66 percent against, too.)"
One can oppose violence while maintaining the right to use it to DEFEND themselves against it...Its SUCH a fucking no brainer. The NYT argument is SO transparently leaving out this critical feature it GHAS to be intentional...No one who can put two sentences together could have missed it...We've got another 2.75 years of this fucking administration ANYONE who suggests that we should scuttle ANY chance at being SOME kind of obstacle to it can eat shit and fuck themselves in the neck with a sharp stick
"According to Corasaniti, this isn’t about attempting to balance out the Trump gerrymanders, it’s a matter of personal pique on the part of Democrats:"
Yeah, I can live with the accusation of 'personal pique' just fine...
The NYT is utter garbage. Its just a vanity trophy for the current owner, it's lost too many subscribers to be solvent on its own...its being propped up from other actors. If they needed subscriber money they wouldn't have gone down this dark path in the first place. Rule #1 about money...Don't lose it
The NYT is attempting to influence the vote in Virginia with their Democratic guilt trip bullshit. Hopefully, all those fired federal employees will tilt the scales towards justice.
Just for fun, a scheme to avoid all this gerrymandering and Republican skullduggery. It will never pass, but it should.
Get rid of geographic districts altogether. Open ballot for the whole state, maybe some signature-amassing requirements to get about say, 15 candidates for a state with 5 Congressional slots. You could do ranked voting easily with this I believe.
Parties would organise their candidates more or less like now, do outreach to voters, do politicking and deal-making more or less like now. Just that there would be a list for the whole state. Parties could still do primaries. A party's delegation from a state is already coordinating and championing state issues, so not much would change in DC.
A minority could easily self-organize to concentrate votes on preferred candidates. In our hypothetical state, say the minority is 40% of the electorate, so if they want, they identify 2 preferred candidates and vote as a self-organized bloc for them. It's impossible to dilute their vote with districting shenanigans since there are no districts.
A natural geographic district, like a city or region, often the basis for districting now, can still be represented as a unit if there is interest for that. In our hypothetical state, say there is one large city with 20% of the electorate, they can join together to concentrate their votes on one candidate who is running on a platform of "represent city X".
But 'constituent services', you say. Actually, in a well-functioning democracy, constituents should be served by the federal bureaucracy, not getting representatives to do end-runs around the bureaucracy. But fine, it's not a well-functioning democracy. The solution is easy, the state's whole delegation has a shared constituent office. Fairer. Or a constituent could approach one particular representative.
What about pork? State-level pork only, presumably less corrupt and wasteful.
District-based systems will always risk under-representing minorities, by gerrymandering or naturally occurring 'packing and cracking' effects. Even computer generated spatial/population-weighted division schemes will risk under-representation (minorities are not distributed evenly around a state). Attempting to guarantee proportional minority representation by geographical fiddling with districting is always going to be perceived by many as anti-democratic, and it fails as soon as the minority is not overwhelmingly voting for one party.
And of course Republicans can't resist gerrymandering. Generally, parties with state power will always be tempted.
And I guess DeSantis will drag his feet about setting a special election to replace her? At least I think that's what he's done in the past when it's an open Dem seat.
Listen up, NYT reporters: The GOP types don't like you, won't like you, and gladly wish you harm. No matter how much ridic framing and both-sidesing that will never change.
The Times always wants Democrats to bring a hymn book to a knife fight. Trump orders map-rigging across red states, Republicans sprint to do it, and then when Democrats say “maybe we should not voluntarily lose,” suddenly the paper of record faints onto a chaise lounge about norms. That is not moral clarity. That is elite nostalgia with a byline.
"If the current New York Times headline writers were zapped back in time to December 8 1941, they’d say “FDR Once Advocated Neutrality, Now He's Calling For Declaration Of War.”
It DOES feel like its losing traction bigly though, thank doG...Mostly through moves like this...Dems fighting back IN KIND...We need to kill the expectation (held by many of BOTH parties unfortunately) that we're gonna be held to a higher standard than our enemies. They break the rules? WE break the rules. And that DOESN'T make us the 'same'...We still are and will continue to be BETTER THAN THEY ARE in every metric of value...We WILL defend ourselves using ANY MEANS WE GODDAMN WELL WANT TO
Motherfucking fascists can dish it out but they can't take it...Its SUCH a joy to watch them EAT SHIT and FREAK OUT
Lady Vorpal has a NYT sub for the games and recipies. She says she doesn't read the opinion sections. Lately I've been pointing out the bias in the 'news' stories, she's beginning to rethink her sub, especially now that they're creeping ads into the games.
"Democrats opposed partisan redistricting by 81 percent in an August Reuters/Ipsos poll. (Independents were 66 percent against, too.)"
One can oppose violence while maintaining the right to use it to DEFEND themselves against it...Its SUCH a fucking no brainer. The NYT argument is SO transparently leaving out this critical feature it GHAS to be intentional...No one who can put two sentences together could have missed it...We've got another 2.75 years of this fucking administration ANYONE who suggests that we should scuttle ANY chance at being SOME kind of obstacle to it can eat shit and fuck themselves in the neck with a sharp stick
"According to Corasaniti, this isn’t about attempting to balance out the Trump gerrymanders, it’s a matter of personal pique on the part of Democrats:"
Yeah, I can live with the accusation of 'personal pique' just fine...
The NYT is utter garbage. Its just a vanity trophy for the current owner, it's lost too many subscribers to be solvent on its own...its being propped up from other actors. If they needed subscriber money they wouldn't have gone down this dark path in the first place. Rule #1 about money...Don't lose it
The NYT is attempting to influence the vote in Virginia with their Democratic guilt trip bullshit. Hopefully, all those fired federal employees will tilt the scales towards justice.
I just hate the Times so much now. But as I gave up on WaPo, I feel like I need to keep one newspaper subscription. I just wish it was a better one.
What's Wonkette, chopped liver?
Wonkette is wonderful!!!! But not a daily newspaper.
switch to the guardian
It’s nice to hear him call AOC a ‘luminary’!❤️
If you get rid of districts, you won't have any gerrymandering problem.
Just for fun, a scheme to avoid all this gerrymandering and Republican skullduggery. It will never pass, but it should.
Get rid of geographic districts altogether. Open ballot for the whole state, maybe some signature-amassing requirements to get about say, 15 candidates for a state with 5 Congressional slots. You could do ranked voting easily with this I believe.
Parties would organise their candidates more or less like now, do outreach to voters, do politicking and deal-making more or less like now. Just that there would be a list for the whole state. Parties could still do primaries. A party's delegation from a state is already coordinating and championing state issues, so not much would change in DC.
A minority could easily self-organize to concentrate votes on preferred candidates. In our hypothetical state, say the minority is 40% of the electorate, so if they want, they identify 2 preferred candidates and vote as a self-organized bloc for them. It's impossible to dilute their vote with districting shenanigans since there are no districts.
A natural geographic district, like a city or region, often the basis for districting now, can still be represented as a unit if there is interest for that. In our hypothetical state, say there is one large city with 20% of the electorate, they can join together to concentrate their votes on one candidate who is running on a platform of "represent city X".
But 'constituent services', you say. Actually, in a well-functioning democracy, constituents should be served by the federal bureaucracy, not getting representatives to do end-runs around the bureaucracy. But fine, it's not a well-functioning democracy. The solution is easy, the state's whole delegation has a shared constituent office. Fairer. Or a constituent could approach one particular representative.
What about pork? State-level pork only, presumably less corrupt and wasteful.
District-based systems will always risk under-representing minorities, by gerrymandering or naturally occurring 'packing and cracking' effects. Even computer generated spatial/population-weighted division schemes will risk under-representation (minorities are not distributed evenly around a state). Attempting to guarantee proportional minority representation by geographical fiddling with districting is always going to be perceived by many as anti-democratic, and it fails as soon as the minority is not overwhelmingly voting for one party.
And of course Republicans can't resist gerrymandering. Generally, parties with state power will always be tempted.
Get rid of districts.
And with Cherfilus-McCormick's (D-FL) departure today, we're down another seat.
(edited for spelling)
And I guess DeSantis will drag his feet about setting a special election to replace her? At least I think that's what he's done in the past when it's an open Dem seat.
Yeah, that probably goes without saying.
So glad I dumped the NYT a few years back. Maybe Orange pussygrabber will give Corasaniti a quick call
Listen up, NYT reporters: The GOP types don't like you, won't like you, and gladly wish you harm. No matter how much ridic framing and both-sidesing that will never change.
If anyone ever bombs the NYT building, the SAME NAZIS THEY ARE SUCKING UP TO will lead the cheers
The Times always wants Democrats to bring a hymn book to a knife fight. Trump orders map-rigging across red states, Republicans sprint to do it, and then when Democrats say “maybe we should not voluntarily lose,” suddenly the paper of record faints onto a chaise lounge about norms. That is not moral clarity. That is elite nostalgia with a byline.
OT: In summary, we are about to use up the other half of our missile stockpile.
𝘋𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘥 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱, 𝘪𝘯 𝘢𝘯 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘪𝘦𝘸 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘊𝘕𝘉𝘊: "𝘞𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘩𝘦𝘥 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘧𝘶𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯."
𝘐𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘥𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘱𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵, 𝘊𝘕𝘕 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥 45% 𝘰𝘧 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘗𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘚𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘔𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘭𝘦𝘴, 𝘢𝘵 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘧 𝘰𝘧 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘛𝘏𝘈𝘈𝘋 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘤𝘦𝘱𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘯𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘭𝘺 50% 𝘰𝘧 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘗𝘢𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘰𝘵 𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 7 𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘬𝘴, 𝘪𝘯 𝘸𝘢𝘳 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯.
Don't worry, he wants the car companies to stop making cars and start doing missiles. That should be really an easy thing.
"If the current New York Times headline writers were zapped back in time to December 8 1941, they’d say “FDR Once Advocated Neutrality, Now He's Calling For Declaration Of War.”
Spot fucking on Doc...perfect analogy
Better... "FDR Wants To Punish Japan For Having A Military"
The NYT credibility on most issues these days?
Ppppbbbfftt.
Murc’s law is an ironclad one, it seems.
It DOES feel like its losing traction bigly though, thank doG...Mostly through moves like this...Dems fighting back IN KIND...We need to kill the expectation (held by many of BOTH parties unfortunately) that we're gonna be held to a higher standard than our enemies. They break the rules? WE break the rules. And that DOESN'T make us the 'same'...We still are and will continue to be BETTER THAN THEY ARE in every metric of value...We WILL defend ourselves using ANY MEANS WE GODDAMN WELL WANT TO
Motherfucking fascists can dish it out but they can't take it...Its SUCH a joy to watch them EAT SHIT and FREAK OUT
Bernie with a reminder of what we are really up against, and NYT is just one of their toys.
𝘚𝘦𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘰𝘳 𝘉𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘪𝘦 𝘚𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴: 𝘕𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘣𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘩𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘺 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘴𝘰 𝘧𝘦𝘸 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘴𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘵𝘩 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳, 𝘢𝘴 𝘸𝘦𝘭𝘭 𝘢𝘴 𝘴𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘭 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘢. 1% 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘱𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘸𝘯𝘴 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘰𝘵𝘵𝘰𝘮 93% 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘜𝘚𝘈. 𝘖𝘯𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯 - 𝘌𝘭𝘰𝘯 𝘔𝘶𝘴𝘬 - 𝘰𝘸𝘯𝘴 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘰𝘵𝘵𝘰𝘮 53% 𝘰𝘧 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘥𝘴."
But but but
He worked hard
Topical.
My wife subscribes to the NYT for the games and the recipes.
She sent me a link to an NYT story about a musical. She was a bit surprised when I responded telling her I didn't read the NYT on principle.
This isn't the first time I've told her, I really don't think she gets it.
Nyt has what all plants crave
(:
ELECTROLYTES!
and day old fish
I pay $35/year for the word games. The end.
Lady Vorpal has a NYT sub for the games and recipies. She says she doesn't read the opinion sections. Lately I've been pointing out the bias in the 'news' stories, she's beginning to rethink her sub, especially now that they're creeping ads into the games.