Ten Conservative Principles

[rgraham666]

Showing your total ignorance again. That is exactly the opposite of reality.

How so? Please be specific.

 

[SkyBubble]

I have no trouble believing you think so.

It's not that I believe it. Credentialism is an identified, named logical fallacy. Ask any teacher of logic, if you dare.

It doesn't take a law degree to understand the Constitution. In fact, may people without them understand it better.

Understanding the Constitution is nowhere near as simple as you insist on pretending

Actually, it is.

Politically impossible, perhaps, but that was a problem the South could have fixed and chose not to.

They were making progress. That still doesn't justify massive Federal interference. Pre-clearance was unjustified.

Not if they're geographically centered on an area that is majority-minority. Like, say, Memphis.

If they're contiguous and compact, but people were drawing ridiculous districts just to pack minority voters. One district in North Carolina was literally connected by nothing but a stretch of the Interstate.

And then there's Maryland. In 2011, the GOP co-sponsored a plan that woudlveh creaed 3 of 8 majority-minority districts. Teh Democrat legislature rejected it and adopted one that only had 2 such districts but featured 2 of he 3 most gerrymandered districts in the USA, MD-2 and MD-3.

Creating districts specifically for one particular racial group is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

You're saying what other people claim is wrong, and that is indeed often true.

Because it is.

But you have a long history of accusing your opponents of thinking they know other people's business better than they do

Correct. That is RAMPANT on this board. Look at how many people insist they know what conservatives believe better than conservatives do.

 

[YDB95]

It doesn't take a law degree to understand the Constitution. In fact, may people without them understand it better.

Of all the outrageously stupid things you've said...this takes the cake. That is all.

They were making progress.

No, they really weren't. A century after emancipation, most Blacks still couldn't vote. A decade after Brown v Board of Education, the only efforts at desegregation were at the behest of the federal government and the local politicians fought tooth and nail against it.

That still doesn't justify massive Federal interference. Pre-clearance was unjustified.

According to those who wanted no change, anyway.

If they're contiguous and compact, but people were drawing ridiculous districts just to pack minority voters. One district in North Carolina was literally connected by nothing but a stretch of the Interstate.

Yes, and guess what? The Republicans supported that back in the '80s and '90s because it meant all the other districts in the state were whiter and thus more Republican. For once you are correct - it was ridiculous - but give credit where it's due.

Creating districts specifically for one particular racial group is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

Then we agree what Tennessee just did was unacceptable. Great.

Correct. That is RAMPANT on this board. Look at how many people insist they know what conservatives believe better than conservatives do.

We can talk about that when you stop calling us cultists and constantly putting words in our mouths.

 

[SkyBubble]

Of all the outrageously stupid things you've said...this takes the cake.

It happens to be true. You absolutely don't need some fancy law degree to understand the Constitution. I've studied it for decades. And I know where to get really good courses on it from actual scholars (which you are clearly not.)

No, they really weren't. A century after emancipation, most Blacks still couldn't vote.

I was actually alive and paying attention then. Yes, they put up obstacles, but your statement is simply false. Not that you care.

The Republicans supported that back in the '80s and '90s because it meant all the other districts in the state were whiter and thus more Republican.

That's the price you pay for majority-minority districts. Both parties try to maximize their own position. Democrats in Maryland turned a 4-4 state into a 6-2 state, then a 7-1 state, and now they want to do a new gerrymander to eliminate the last remaining Republican seat.

We can talk about that when you stop calling us cultists and constantly putting words in our mouths.

If the shoe fits, wear it (and it does.) And I'm not putting words in anyone's mouth, unlike you.

 

[YDB95]

It happens to be true. You absolutely don't need some fancy law degree to understand the Constitution. I've studied it for decades. And I know where to get really good courses on it from actual scholars (which you are clearly not.)

Yes, we've seen what fits your idea of "actual scholars". How very convenient that they tell you the interpretation you want to believe, huh?

I was actually alive and paying attention then. Yes, they put up obstacles, but your statement is simply false. Not that you care.

Of course I care. That's why I note that you once again simply declare your opponent is wrong without even trying to back up your claim. Feel free to point to some examples of how the Southern states were making progress on their own. I've been a student of that era for most of my life and I honestly can't think of a single example. By all means prove me wrong, but remember, just saying I'm wrong is not the same thing.

That's the price you pay for majority-minority districts. Both parties try to maximize their own position. Democrats in Maryland turned a 4-4 state into a 6-2 state, then a 7-1 state, and now they want to do a new gerrymander to eliminate the last remaining Republican seat.

7-1 actually is a fairly accurate reflection of Maryland's political landscape. You don't see me whining about not having more Democrats from Oklahoma. (Or any, for that matter.)

If the shoe fits, wear it (and it does.) And I'm not putting words in anyone's mouth, unlike you.

You do it all the time. Somehow it doesn't surprise me that you can't see that, though.