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

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

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

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Anyone else think the Republican whining is a bit…unseemly? I can’t help but thinking about the little pipsqeak on the playground who bullies the big kid for years, then cries bloody murder when the big kid punches him back once and knocks him flat on his back.

AOC said it best when she said, “Wah wah wah.” I can’t help but see children every time I see Republican white men whining about injustice. [/quote]

This is going to result in Democrats winning 10 of Virginia's 11 House districts. Reminder: Virginia is purple state. That's completely ridiculous. Why don't you just ban Republicans from voting altogether? [/quote]

If 48.5% of Virginians vote repuplican but maps reduce them to just 1 of 11 seats (9.1%), then nearly half the state has been compressed into only 9% representation.

That means they lost about 81% of their political voice when seats are allocated.[/quote]

Maybe if Republicans has conducted themselves differently in the past few years, more than 48.5% would have voted against this measure. [/quote]

+1.  The voters have spoken.  That is how we are supposed to settle things here.[/quote]

Is that a joke? People didn't even understand what they were voting for. It was just "if you hate Trump vote this way." That's what ballot initiatives always do. They do something sleazy and then they sell it to the public by saying "vote yes if you love puppies."

https://www.npr.org/2026/04/20/nx-s1-5790809/virginia-redistricting-election-trump-gerrymandering

https://www.axios.com/local/richmond/2026/04/21/virginia-redistricting-election-voter-confusion

https://wtop.com/virginia/2026/04/why-some-virginia-voters-find-redistricting-ballot-question-confusing/

https://www.wsj.com/politics/elections/virginia-congressional-map-ballot-measure-b12f9b2a[/quote]

Are you saying Republicans were too stupid to understand the language on the initiative? Hilarious self-own. [/quote]

You sound like a bratty teenager. Maybe you should listen to the adults who say this is obviously going to be struck down by the courts because the language used on the ballot was plainly deceptive. If there's one thing you absolutely cannot do with these things, it's use misleading language on the ballot. You have to be extremely clear about what is being proposed. [/quote]

Bub, I'm going to clue you in to something, because clearly nobody else in your life is. It's obvious from your posts that you get your news from Fox News, Drudge, Newsmax, and the Washington Times. You are being hoodwinked. Taken for a fool. Deluded because you lack the sophistication to spot obvious distortions, half-truths, or outright lies.

Those of us living in the real world - consuming news from a wide variety of sources, produced by actual journalists and not partisan hacks pretending to be - know that Republicans are [i]incredibly[/i] unlikely to prevail.[/quote]

Weird because you sound like what politicos euphemistically refer to a "low-information voter." [/quote]

Every Republican accusation is a confession. I hope you escape from your echo chamber someday.[/quote]

You sound very Trump-y, the way you ignore substantive arguments and just call people names and repeat moronic bumper sticker slogans you read somewhere. [/quote]

You have a very interesting idea of what constitutes a “substantive” argument.[/quote]

Ok, well, there's going to be a big court fight about this, and that's the legal argument they're going to use to kill this thing. They're going to say the language used was slanted and deceptive ("Restore fairness"? What does that even mean? And who exactly opposes that?). And then they're going to point to the long history of courts saying you can't use misleading descriptions of proposals. [/quote]

Sure if you stopped reading at “restore fairness” and didn’t finish the sentence “to upcoming elections” then yes I understand why you were confused.  Again, you can do a lot of self-improvement before you need to go back to the polls— I repeat my suggestion to read Toni Morrison but if reading a sentence in full is the problem, maybe something a little easier…[/quote]

You seem a little preoccupied with me. I'm not the issue. I understand all the issues. I'm telling you where this debate is going, and where the big legal vulnerability here is. You can pretend it doesn't exist, but it is real. This is simply not going to fly with the courts. [/quote]

DP. You are uninformed and totally full of shit. As expected.

[/quote]

All the name calling and swearing and partisan chest thumping is curiously Trump-esque, and makes you seem immature and kinda dumb. [/quote]

And yet, I’m still smarter than you.

[/quote]

You and Trump. Super smart. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics