Approval of measure could determine if Republicans keep full control of government in next year’s midterm elections
It was a decisive victory for Democrats in deep-blue California, who had raced to counter a gerrymander in Texas, engineered at the US president’s behest, to carve out new safe Republican districts. The Associated Press declared Proposition 50 had passed almost instantly when polls closed statewide.
In approving the measure, voters chose to toss out the work of California’s independent redistricting commission and temporarily adopt maps drawn by the state legislature to help Democrats pick up five additional seats in the US House of Representatives.
Newsom and Democrats framed the measure as a way to safeguard US democracy from Trump’s “wrecking ball” presidency. By contrast, opponents offered a mixed message, with Republicans alternatively attacking Newsom and praising the work of the independent mapmaking panel.
This isn’t the same. A political party operating in its own self interests versus the opposing political party putting it to a vote to offset the damage.
Cancer kills cells. Chemotherapy kills cells. Wow, the same thing.
I know that, where did I indicate that I am equating them?
You drew no distinction between the two sides you spoke of. So, yes, you did equate them by implication.
I mean all I said is that left and right are talking about this pretty similarly. I am equating the talk. I do not equate the action. I haven’t even said a thing about what I think about this situation politically in that comment. I have said so in another. I’m a leftist, you can probably think the rest up.
If implication means to you that you get to make shit up about my political opinions from a neutral statement about an observation, then you fall right into the group of common internet users. Nothing particularly bad about that of course. I’m sure you’re much better in real life, just like the rest of us.
Yeah. The right uses the same language as the left even when it’s inappropriate because it muddies the water and makes the rhetoric less powerful. The Sartre quote about anti-semites applies.
And I’m not judging you, I’m telling you why people were downvoting you.
Ah, so you saying that I am equating the two politically was not your opinion but what you think I am being downvoted for? Yes, I believed so too. I stand my ground though, because it ain’t me problem if someone interprets something I did not say. Only in court I guess.
I have the same gripes with the factually false language of populist politics.
This is something I struggle with too, but people tend to assume that others make observations when they want to say something deeper. So, making a surface level observation will lead to people assuming you have some ulterior motive behind doing so.
In this case, your comment smacks very similar to a rhetorical device here in the states where people claim that both political parties are equally bad. It’s a bad faith argument because Democrats tend to be the milquetoast status quo party, whereas the Republicans actively try to rip the government apart and take away people’s rights every time they’re the majority.
This post: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/comment/22416821
That’s not an equation of their action, it’s an equation of people talking about it. Why do I have to repeat myself so often on this?
Because I don’t think that Republicans say it cancels out anything. Unless you’re saying that they say it cancels out California when it happened afterward, which is obviously false.
Personally, your lack of specificity is your problem, so… Eh, sucks to suck.
No, they say their gerrymandering cancels out the democrats. That does not make it right, but they’ve been saying it every single time gerrymandering was brought up.
“Democrats started it.”
So my specificity is on point, actually, it’s you just blatantly overlooking that, because all you hear is what they say. I’m on your side dipshit.
Eh, sucks to suck.
… You didn’t listen. Democrats don’t say that. They say that it cancels out what Republicans are doing. Not that it cancels out Republicans.
So, yes, it does suck to suck. You either don’t know what you’re talking about, or you are lying. It’s that simple, buddy.
Ok, so first of all, you american dipshits annoy the crap out of me with your overuse of the word listen. I am reading, you aren’t saying a word to me. Always saying LiStEn like your conversation partner is soem kind of 3 year old. That’s besides the point.
The first sentence of your previous comment said “…I don’t think republicans say it cancels out anything.”. I then told you that is exactly what they were saying when the gerrymandering shit was brought up, if you want to know when I heard it, that was a year ago. Now you’re telling me you meant the democrats don’t say that. You’re inconsistent, possibly in your understanding of what I am saying.
And yes, democrats are canceling out the gerrymandering in Texas with their own in California.
So may I say, you don’t read.
Sorry you don’t like de lingua, buddy. I can adjust that, but your comments weren’t particularly helpful in that regard.
I think you’re taking what I said too literally. Fair, I said it’s not canceling out something, but that refers to an act, as you can imply from the second post, not a group of people, but I do see the confusion.
Personally, I don’t see people and actions as the same, so if you do, then that would be our miscommunication. Does that help, compadre? It’s sorta like a guy stopping fire fighters and another guy stopping that guy and you’re over here going “Wow, can’t believe these two guys are both stopping people.” Does that make sense to someone that acts like a three year old but definitely isn’t?
Thing is, the Republicans are lying. So when you quote their excuse verbatim and put them on the same level of truth and representation, you are spreading a lie / propaganda.
Republicans are not doing gerrymandering to counter Democrats gerrymandering. They are doing it to silence opposition, over-value their voters, steal power, and abuse the law-making and law-enforcing system. And they claim that they are following the law.
No, Democrats removing undue power by placing equal representation back on top is not the same thing. They are saying the same thing on the surface, but one side is obviously lying, and when you say they use the same thing, you ARE acting like the excuse has the same value as the truth. And if you wanted to spin it as “they both makethe same claim / use the same excuse” , now you’re casting doubt on the veracity of the Dem’s argument, which is also inappropriate. The only spin that would make sense is to say that Dems are correct and Reps are lying by making the same claim.
That’s why you get downvoted.
“Thing is, the Republicans are lying.” Yes.
“So when you quote their excuse and put them on the same level of truth and representation, you are spreading propaganda.” Well, it is propaganda, but I did not say that it is the truth, nor did I frame it that way. If Elon Musk said he wants to scan your genitals for world peace and I quote him saying that, does that make me think it is the truth?
“Republicans are not doing gerrymandering to…” Yes.
“…they are saying the same thing on the surface…one side…is lying…” Yes, that is what my comment was about.
“and if you wanted to spin it as “they both make the same claim…””
Well they are, one side is lying. Republicans say they want to cancel out the gerrymandering of the Democrats, which is bullshit.
You see, this is why I speak of nuance.
I say something along the lines of “Republicans and Democrats say the same thing about the other party gerrymandering.”.
From a reasonable person, I would expect a repsonse like “Yes, but one side is lying.”. Instead I get absolutely blasted. Are you aware that talking about issues is the first step to solving them? That talking about someone making up a political act is not the same as justifying a political act? How am I expected to talk about issues when the second I do there is not a single person wanting to talk about said issue and just tell me how wrong I am about an objectively right thing that has hapoened and is documented by both sides? Both said the same thing. That’s it. There is nothing more to it.
Americunt.
No, you don’t. You “observe” that both sides are “saying the same thing.” You remove all nuance. And then you piss around complaining about being misunderstood and misinterpreted. And it turns out everyone sees through you because everyone already knows the “just asking questions” “just observing (very vague surface level vacuities)” stereotype.
I’m not American, dumbass.