Virginia referendum - if you hate MAGA, vote YES (even if your mailing says to vote 'No')

[Anonymous]

In the simple words of Nancy Reagan - just say no.

[Anonymous]

It is very simple. Vote yes to disenfranchise most of Virginia. Done.

[Anonymous]

The Venn diagram of people who strutted around and bleated "elections have consequences" after Trump won and the people who are whining about Democratic overreach in redistricting is a perfect circle. GMAFB.

[Anonymous]

NO, no way, no how. It's wrong. Don't give a f on what side of the street you're on, its wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NO, no way, no how. It's wrong. Don't give a f on what side of the street you're on, its wrong.

What's wrong is Congressional Republicans repeatedly refusing to pass measures introduced by Democrats to end partisan gerrymandering. What's also wrong is continuing to play fair when Republicans have shown they will always play dirty if given the chance. This is a classic example of the Prisoner's Dilemma, and Republicans will always choose to defect, no matter what, so the only optimal way for Democrats to play is to follow suit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Venn diagram of people who strutted around and bleated "elections have consequences" after Trump won and the people who are whining about Democratic overreach in redistricting is a perfect circle. GMAFB.

That was Obama's line!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In the simple words of Nancy Reagan - just say no.

Excellent example of a policy that totally didn’t work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NO, no way, no how. It's wrong. Don't give a f on what side of the street you're on, its wrong.

+100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Venn diagram of people who strutted around and bleated "elections have consequences" after Trump won and the people who are whining about Democratic overreach in redistricting is a perfect circle. GMAFB.

That was Obama's line!

That’s why MAGA loves it so much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Venn diagram of people who strutted around and bleated "elections have consequences" after Trump won and the people who are whining about Democratic overreach in redistricting is a perfect circle. GMAFB.

That was Obama's line!

That’s why MAGA loves it so much.

That makes absolutely no sense. But remember, without Obama's divisiveness (that line is the perfect example), Trump never gets elected and there is no MAGA. Thanks, Obama!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Venn diagram of people who strutted around and bleated "elections have consequences" after Trump won and the people who are whining about Democratic overreach in redistricting is a perfect circle. GMAFB.

That was Obama's line!

That’s why MAGA loves it so much.

That makes absolutely no sense. But remember, without Obama's divisiveness (that line is the perfect example), Trump never gets elected and there is no MAGA. Thanks, Obama!

No, it makes perfect sense. A decade after leaving office and you're still hysterical about having had a black president. I wonder what you have to say about Trump's divisiveness! Wait, never mind, I already know that you love it because "he's telling it like it is," or something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NO, no way, no how. It's wrong. Don't give a f on what side of the street you're on, its wrong.

+1,000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's so funny to see Republicans get so infuriated over the fact that Democrats are finally matching the Republican dirty tricks. Republicans were relying on the fact that Democrats are usually spineless and get outplayed, so the willingness of Democrats to fight back was unexpected.

Just admit it, you really have no idea what you are talking about. Republicans may be trying to catch up, but this has long been a Democrat play.

Mid census redistricting, based on exhortations from the party leader/President to do so for the express purpose of advantaging the party in upcoming elections "has long been a Democrat play?"

No, it hasn't. If you think it has, please provide an example.

The irony of this is, in the redistricting that will occur after the 2030 census, Republicans are on track to pick up a significant number of seats, particularly in Texas and Florida, due to demographic redistribution. But that wouldn't address the current issue - Trump is desperate to avoid a Democratic House, and the oversight that comes with it. SO he pushed GOP state leaders in Texas, Florida and elsewhere to do something unprecedented - redistrict mid-census. And now the GOP is appalled that democrats are responding in kind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Last night at dinner I was with a bunch of VA lawyers, government workers, and other professionals. We all feel exactly the same way about this. We instinctively want to vote no, because gerrymandering to align with a party is wrong. However, the world has changed, and since this is for a single election, we are tired of holding ourselves to the higher standard while the other party hasn’t taken the high road in at least ten years. The country is being run by incompetents, and also we haven’t gotten anything passed in years that wasn’t all the democrats aligning with a handful of republicans. We are in a multi-fronted war where the worst kleptocrat we’ve ever seen is being surrounded by grifters and unqualified losers who think destroying democracy is “manly games”. Since this is a temporary measure for the one election, eff Texas, eff the other over-represented red states, and were voting yes with our fingers on our noses.

I agree with this, but the Supreme Court does not. We have to live in the world that exists, not the one that we'd like. I would be thrilled if all partisan gerrymandering were abolished by federal law. How many Republicans have voted for such a bill?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Last night at dinner I was with a bunch of VA lawyers, government workers, and other professionals. We all feel exactly the same way about this. We instinctively want to vote no, because gerrymandering to align with a party is wrong. However, the world has changed, and since this is for a single election, we are tired of holding ourselves to the higher standard while the other party hasn’t taken the high road in at least ten years. The country is being run by incompetents, and also we haven’t gotten anything passed in years that wasn’t all the democrats aligning with a handful of republicans. We are in a multi-fronted war where the worst kleptocrat we’ve ever seen is being surrounded by grifters and unqualified losers who think destroying democracy is “manly games”. Since this is a temporary measure for the one election, eff Texas, eff the other over-represented red states, and were voting yes with our fingers on our noses.

You can always trust a lawyer to take an ethical stance.

LOL.

I think it is hysterical that pp thinks this will be just temporary. Just one election. Sure. This is a power grab by democrats and there is no way in hell they will willingly give up that power 4 years down the road.

It is also hysterical that pp believes the red states are “over represented.” She no doubt is unaware that blue states were given too many seats following the 2020 census. Nor is she aware of the gerrymandering that has been going on for years in states like Illinois and Massachusetts and New York

Did you have the same objections when Florida took this approach? How about Texas? Of course not. That wasn't a power grab, because . . . reasons.