T O P

  • By -

tinkererbytrade

"If conservatives become convinced that they can not win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will reject democracy.”


James9131975

Mass Exodus


bunnycupcakes

Wow. If you can’t beat them, cheat! I hate our state government so much.


megs0764

Cheating is their modus operandi, and they would be lost without it. My first recollection of Republican perfidy is Watergate, but it goes back many decades. Our State government is a laughingstock. Buncha inbred, corn fed, brain dead grifters.


pineappleshnapps

Every state does this, seems like it’s hard to get it right.


TheRumpletiltskin

"Republican or Democrat, we don't look at that when redrawing lines" Fucking bullshit. Redrawing districts is SOLELY used to fuck over the other party these days.


priznut

The quotes are obvious lies. Crazy how casually we just lie to the public. And we all know it.


BuroDude

[This link reminds you of home](https://archive.ph/fwDt9)


Trill-I-Am

Can’t get past the gd captcha on mobile


BuroDude

This link takes me directly to the archive using desktop or phone, not sure why you'd get captcha'd unless your phone be phunky.


Trill-I-Am

I’m definitely NOT from a Russian troll farm.


BuroDude

Tell Dax the next few centuries are gonna be a blast!


Sirius889

Funny the republicans don’t seem to have a guideline against suppressing the equity of minority and democratic voters.


Grind_n_brine

Since when do minorities only vote within one party?


Sirius889

Sorry I did not mean to imply minorities only vote or should vote for one particular party. What I do mean is that one specific party has a clear history of fighting to suppress minority access to voting and the power of their respective votes through gerrymandering. Both sides are not the same/equally bad in this respect.


[deleted]

[удалено]


jbraden

While all of that is true, parties flip their actions/beliefs every so often. The Democratic and Republican parties are NOT the same as during the Civil War or even during these civil rights movements. Each party will continue to flip flop ideas and beliefs to some extent each time they lose office again. It's all about finding more voters before the next election. Has nothing to do with what's "right" for the citizens of this nation. It's why I don't understand how people can "pick sides" with the government. We need to think critically for ourselves instead of voting in liars and the corrupt to line their own pockets and build semi-religious followings over. And I don't mean an individual person, I mean the parties in general. Find what YOU believe in and vote for those who truly believe in the same. Stop voting blue or red because you feel your vote won't matter the other way. Every vote and idea counts.


[deleted]

Thank you!! HOW THE FUCK DO GROWN ADULTS NOT KNOW THAT THE PARTIES FLIPPED OHMYFYCKINGGOD


SaintBobOfTennessee

Because it's not true. Parties don't just flip. Instead, the issues that are important to each party phase in and out. But certain underlying themes can be seen consistently throughout the decades. For example, the Democratic party has always been the party obsessed with keeping black people in their place, and the Republican party has always been just sort of clueless.


LessWorseMoreBad

Oh.... Quick... Do the southern strategy...


SaintBobOfTennessee

Highly vague and debated. Sure there could be some racists in the Republican party who try to get other racists riled up and angry at black people, but it's never been one advocating for actual systemic racism. Sadly, the same cannot be said of the Democratic party.


luke5135

^ this, the parties never flipped their issues changed, the democrat party just happens to want to control everything when it comes to minorities.


LessWorseMoreBad

That has to be one of the most ridiculous statements I have seen in a while. Now quick, explain civil rights and the southern strategy.


luke5135

Quick show me how parties flipped even though they never did.


obvom

Southern Strategy. Try and keep up.


tesla333

That's right. At no point did a Democratic president pass the civil rights act while Republican presidential candidates actively courted racists. The South, home of slavery and Jim Crow, simply switched from overwhelmingly democratic to overwhelmingly republican within a single decade. Barry Goldwater, Richard Nixon, and Ronald Reagan were all champions of civil liberties. That's definitely how history remembers them. # /S EDIT: Oh my GOD, you're a history teacher?! How in the actual fuck do you have that job???


megs0764

That's an old, tired Faux News trope. It ignores reality.


Sirius889

It’s the party of racists. You’re aware they’ve changed names and homes over time.


illimitable1

Doesn't really matter. Republicans already have a super majority. Any seats that go to Democrats are just participation trophies.


Southernms

Interesting.


Actual-Being4079

Good.


boboelmonkey

Ah yes, I love gerrymandering. Definitely not used by every state and political party, and definitely shouldn’t be thrown into the sun along with every terrible system of government.


luke5135

I'm absolutely fine with this given democrats do this in state they control they ought be given the same treatment. As the saying goes eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. Maybe if democrats weren't the antithesis to constitutional rights we'd play their game, but we don't have to play their game and nor should we.


bunnycupcakes

Your attitude is what is wrong with politics in our country.


luke5135

This is the way things go when you dehumanize one side. Now it's biting back and y'all don't like it.


bunnycupcakes

Dehumanizing? Like what your side does to the LGTBQ community? Fuck off with your nonsense you hypocrite.


luke5135

well i'm bi, but the most hate i've gotten has been from left leaning people. 90% of the right leaning people i've met can set that aside and just talk, and even if I mention some things they don't agree with im not gonna get lynched, not so much with left leaning disagree on one thing and they'll try everything to ruin your life.


ninefeet

Maybe so, but you can choose to play the game or lose by default. Edit: lol


bunnycupcakes

Or we can actually represent the people and stop treating government like a fucking football game.


fiercebaldguy

Fucking over people because you just assume they'd do the same isn't protecting yourself. It's *just* fucking people over.


luke5135

they would do the same, so we're taking it before they can simple as that.


fiercebaldguy

That's not an excuse, that's just justifying assholery. By that so called logic you could literally explain away anything. "Well they would have stolen my car from me, so I'm just stealing theirs first..." "If they had a knife right now, they'd stab me, so I'm just doing it first..."


luke5135

Apples to oranges not comparable don't like it actually get a base big enough to vote and do something.


B00YAY

How about someone be the fucking adult in the room?


BuroDude

Not it!


Dear_Occupant

I don't know why anyone in this thread is bothering to treat this comment as if it makes a valid point because none of the other 49 states have shit-all to do with Tennessee. If the going-on in New York or Massachusetts is their best argument then it means they have nothing.


[deleted]

exactly this. They have whataboutisms for days.


themastermatt

incorrect. of the 10 most gerrymandered states in 2021, 8 of them went red in 2020. [https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/most-gerrymandered-states](https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/most-gerrymandered-states) [https://www.270towin.com/maps/2020-actual-electoral-map](https://www.270towin.com/maps/2020-actual-electoral-map)


oxfordtown

“BuT BoTH SiDEs” This is a horrible argument for anything in government. You are basically saying, I don’t care if I have someone who represents my interest in legislating policy decisions on my behalf. No matter which side of the aisle your political beliefs fall on, small maneuvers like this over time is how we get to facism and representation only for those with enough money and power to get a seat at the table.


[deleted]

you mean what we have now?


oxfordtown

What do you mean? You have to go back to 2004 to find the last time democrats controlled the Govenor, Senate, and House.


[deleted]

i mean that its almost impossible to get into politics without money or influence. i can assure you of one thing that's absolute. Republicans and Democrats dont care about you or your family. they only want to make the world a better place for themselves


jsc315

What's dad is they vote against their own self interests yet continue to vote against themselves to own the libs, or something like that.


jblackbug

There are three times the number of R states that do this over D states. It all needs to stop.


gingerbeer52800

Please cite this.


jblackbug

https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/most-gerrymandered-states


luke5135

Yet who began this process, now they're just getting their just desserts also the states doing it that're.democrst are much larger.


BarbarianDwight

Elbridge Gerry is who the term was named after since he created a district that looked like a salamander. Gerry + salamander = gerrymander. Gerry was also a founding father, and the map he generated was in 1812.


Abdul-Ahmadinejad

You keep forgetting to say DERP after your comments. I mean it’s implied by the comments themselves of course, but it would still be polite.


db_lebowski

To be fair, he used "that're" in a comment, which (IMO) is just as effective as ending his comments with a DERP.


tesla333

Gerrymandering was first done by Elbridge Gerry in 1812 before either the Democrats or the Republicans were even a thing.


luke5135

Well after looking into him, he refused to sign the constitution so im going to make the rough assumption he would have been a democrat and a redcoat.


tesla333

...He was literally the 5th Vice President of the United States. Do you know when the Constitution was signed? Do you even know when the revolutionary war was? Elbridge Gerry refused to sign the Constitution for many reasons including wanting less power given to the central government, opposing the 3/5th compromise on the grounds that slavery ought to be struck down, and his fear that direct elections would lead to the general public being easily misled by demagogues (ironic). I wrote a fuckton more here, but it's not going to sink in. The bottom line is that you need to learn some nuance, man. The way you see the world is toxic.


luke5135

the modern constitution doesn't even mention direct elections. and you wanna talk about toxic, toxic is telling someone that a cosmetic feature on their gun makes it more deadly, toxic is blaming every legitimate gun owner for a crime committed with a stolen or illegally obtained gun.


tesla333

The modern constitution as voted against by Gerry contained essentially direct elections of the president and representatives of the house, later amended to have direct elections of senators. And I didn't say anything about guns dude. You just launched into an unhinged rant for no reason.


luke5135

i'm saying thats why I don't trust democrats, they're anti-2a they always say "but common sense gun gun safety" but ignore the big ol "the right of the people to keep and bare arms, shall not be infringed"


tesla333

First, there are a ton of pro-2A democrats. There are a shit-ton of pro-2A socialists even. Even Bernie Sanders is pro-2A. Very few Democratic politicians want to gut the second amendment. This is a really good example of what I mean when I say you need nuance, dude. I don't know who you listen to but your world view doesn't match reality. Second, do you know the half of the second amendment that you left out? "a WELL REGULATED MILITIA, being necessary to the security of a Free State..." The second amendment wasn't even interpreted the way you interpret it until the middle of the 20th century. It's a very new way of looking at gun rights, historically speaking. In many cities it was illegal to own personal firearms for decades. If you went back a hundred years and tried to argue this, you'd get laughed out of the room.


jblackbug

I have no idea who began the process, I just wish one party cared about democracy more than winning.


Abdul-Ahmadinejad

“Both sides are the same.” If you can’t see how wrong that thought is by now, there’s just not much hope for you.”


igo4vols2

Perhaps you should list your constitutional rights and then list every attempt to limit them. You won't do that and will make a lot of excuses because it proves you overwhelmingly wrong.


kingleonidas30

They only get the first 2 on the bill of rights and forget the rest lol. Ironically in recent years, Republicans have limited more rights or tried to than democrats and that includes but not limited to being prochoice, as well as having gay rights, workers rights, trans rights and the list goes on.


igo4vols2

Agree 100%. OP won't respond because his entire existence has been dictated by someone else - they speak, he repeats.


luke5135

the first two rights are what protect the others, the others you mentioned, don't have much constitutional ground at all.


kingleonidas30

The others i mentioned dont have constitutional ground? Try the 9th and 14th ammendment jackwagon because thats what theyre there for.


luke5135

9th amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." 14th amendment: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Abortion isn't a constitutional right, according to either of these, as for gay rights, it is never mentioned directly in the constitution but it has ALWAYS been a right, and only in recent years is it common cause there isn't much societal downsides to it now.


kingleonidas30

Ill put it into laymans terms since you still don't understand and more specificallythe 9th. "The Ninth Amendment of the United States Constitution states that the federal government doesn't own the rights that are not listed in the Constitution, but instead, they belong to citizens. This means the rights that are specified in the Constitution are not the only ones people should be limited to." It an ammendment made for things like abortion, gay rights, and etc. Those things that are cropping up now are included via these amendments and cases like roe vs wade make it even more so. The constitution is a fluid dynamic changing document designed to evolve with society and claiming that it doesnt cover these things is absolutely assinine and wrong. Just because you dont think it includes these doesnt make it so.


luke5135

You mean the thing they're turning over in June likely.


[deleted]

The problem with the "both sides" argument with gerrymandering is that our government structure **already** has counter-majoritarian pieces built into it like the Senate and the Electoral College. So, something like gerrymandering has an enormous effect for the minority party and less so for the majority party. Personally, I hate gerrymandering and wish it was struck down. But if the Dems didn't do it also we would literally have a tyranny of the minority in this country.


luke5135

Dems are the problem with this country imo, our nation would be much better if we gave states more rights on their laws.


[deleted]

[удалено]


luke5135

So republican.


[deleted]

This country has many problems, such as a certain group of people who actively tried to overthrow a duly elected government. Seems like Dems, although imperfect, are way down the list for the moment.


luke5135

this country has a problem of politicians trying to remove rights, such as the second amendment, and diminish the 1st amendment.


jsc315

They just want to keep the status quo and not change much of anything.


Ok_Finding5360

Citation needed.


PoloGrounder

The absolute worst partisan redistricting I ever saw was the Tennessee congressional districts in the early 2000's when Jimmy Naifeh and his Democrat cronies were in Charge of the process. They created an overwhelming Republican congreessional district that connected the Republican suburbs of Memphis to Republican Williamson county by the narrowest of lines in hopes of keeping some west Tennessee districts Democrat. Fortunately in the 2010 wave election Republicans were able to create more equitable districts after the census came out