Minority votes intentionally diluted by GOP-led Texas House redistricting, federal court says - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52132385]And I gave you a democrat district that was gerrymandered for black representation. You heard it here first folks! A district gerrymandered to ensure representation of one side apparently doesn't favor that side at all! Seriously, are you guys being purposefully obtuse or something?[/QUOTE] You clearly don't understand how gerrymandering works. Concentrating a voting block into a single district diminishes their overall voting power. Here's some educational material for you. [video=youtube;Mky11UJb9AY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mky11UJb9AY[/video]

[QUOTE=Omesh;52132515]Because I'm responding to someone who went on a tirade about slavery and white only buses when I pointed out they would have done this whether motivated by racism or not? Also, I think you're automatically assuming racism here because of the consequences. Practically it's the same, but then why do we have, for example, different classifications for involuntary and intentional manslaughter. I made a similar point in my previous post.[/QUOTE] Notice that both voluntary and involuntary manslaughter are punished by law. Motivations only provide a gradation to the severity of the crime, the reason it's a crime in the first place is because of actions and consequences. If you make something a crime only if the person committing it has a certain motivation, that's judging people for thought crime. And if all it takes for someone not to be judged is to say "Oh I didn't mean to do that huhu!" then you got yourself a pretty useless law.

[QUOTE=_Axel;52132646]Notice that both voluntary and involuntary manslaughter are punished by law. Motivations only provide a gradation to the severity of the crime, the reason it's a crime in the first place is because of actions and consequences. If you make something a crime only if the person committing it has a certain motivation, that's judging people for thought crime. And if all it takes for someone not to be judged is to say "Oh I didn't mean to do that huhu!" then you got yourself a pretty useless law.[/QUOTE] Certainly didn't argue that they should not be judged, if it's illegal with their laws, or that there's nothing wrong with it because they still suppressed voters. I agree with you about gradation, but if you can't prove their intent then it's projecting a thought crime on them too.

[QUOTE=froztshock;52132350]But I asked for an example of Democrat Gerrymandering based on race and you apparently gave me an example of republican Gerrymandering. Unless you can find a persuasive article which can convince me that I've been propagandized to or something.[/QUOTE] It's less an article and more a relevant video published by the Baltimore Sun, but w/e. [url]http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/politics/91818404-132.html[/url] I did some adding, and found that while the actual results were 7-1 Democrat in 2016, the popular vote was split 3-5. Of course, that's the average across the entire state so it could be 0-8 if they votes were distributed evenly, but if you look at a map of MD's districts, you'll see that minority areas are used to tip the scales of pretty much every district, so theres no competitiveness. My problem isn't with my state better representing minorities, it's with doing so at the cost of others. A congressman is supposed to represent the people of their district. If you snake a district (Like the third, that goes from Annapolis, to DC, then to Baltimore) around so that you get the most diverse group of people, who is being represented? It'll just boil down to party lines.

[QUOTE=_Axel;52132487]Why do you care what their motivations are? You just said we should only judge them for their actions.[/QUOTE] Because one is stopped by courts and the other isn't. If you want to make them treat both equally, then great, but that isn't currently the situation.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52133248]Because one is stopped by courts and the other isn't. If you want to make the treat both equally, then great, but that isn't currently the situation.[/QUOTE] Pretty useless law if you can just claim it was an accident and get away with it.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52132221]That's the point. The judge didn't present anything to show that this specifically targeted minorities as opposed to targeting Democrats. The monolithic black voting block makes these essentially equivalent. His evidence was all correlation and no causation.[/QUOTE] [url=https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3674809-House-ruling-redistricting.html#document/p1]I very strongly doubt you read the ruling. Here's a copy for your convenience[/url]

[QUOTE=sgman91;52133248]Because one is stopped by courts and the other isn't. If you want to make the treat both equally, then great, but that isn't currently the situation.[/QUOTE] Legit find me a case of racial gerrymandering done at the behest of the Democrats.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52132385]And I gave you a democrat district that was gerrymandered for black representation. You heard it here first folks! A district gerrymandered to ensure representation of one side apparently doesn't favor that side at all! Seriously, are you guys being purposefully obtuse or something?[/QUOTE] Louisiana has 6 districts and a 1/3rd black population. By representation, the black vote should have 2 districts. Instead, republican gerrymandering has drawn up the map such that one district covers the majority of the black population. 1/3rd of the population gets 1/6th of the representation.

[QUOTE=Smug Bastard;52133533][url=https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3674809-House-ruling-redistricting.html#document/p1]I very strongly doubt you read the ruling. Here's a copy for your convenience[/url][/QUOTE] I've read through a good chunk and haven't found anything in opposition to what I said. The document even recognizes that politics, and not race, was the end goal.

The distinction between "intended to affect minorities" and "happened to affect minorities because minorities tend to correlate with Democrats" really does matter. It's kind of like the difference between "give black people a leg up because they're more likely to be poor" affirmative actions vs "give poor people a leg up and black people will also be helped because they're more likely to be poor" affirmative action

[QUOTE=Trebgarta;52132310]Because whites were previously disproportionately overpowered. This was fixed after the Civil Rights. [/QUOTE] They fact that this is even a story suggests that it wasn't really fixed at all. [QUOTE=Trebgarta;52134783]Did you even read anything in the thread before replying to the first post you saw?[/QUOTE] yes? am I not allowed to reply to what trebgarta says or something

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52132385]And I gave you a democrat district that was gerrymandered for black representation. You heard it here first folks! A district gerrymandered to ensure representation of one side apparently doesn't favor that side at all! Seriously, are you guys being purposefully obtuse or something?[/QUOTE] Hold on lemme pinch you a couple times, focus Silence, focus! He said name an example of Democrats doing the same thing, you're very purposefully avoiding that point and it's incredibly clear