Posts Made By: Rod Kaufman

Originally Posted by James Brown

How can you say this with any sense of self reflection when you voted yes on Prop 50?

Lol! Er, ah, the redistricting measure in California was passed by the voters actually voting on it, unlike those in the Republican states who enacted it after a call from Trump, and without any approval from the voters to do so. Virginia's voter-approved redistricting measure was overruled by their state supreme court on a "procedural" technicality by a 4-3 vote. Republican states don't even get the chance to vote on it in the first place! 

You asked if I shed a tear over the California central valley farmers who, in your view, will be disportionately represented by Democrats instead of Republicans. No, I don't shed a tear about 'em for a couple of reasons: First, you apparently have it in your head that these are Ma & Pa farmers in overalls holding a pitchfork and a shovel as they till the land in an old tractor. The reality is these farming areas are being run by the big combines and corporate entities. Second, the voting rights act was enacted so african americans could actually vote and vote for the representation that they felt best represented their interests and that was based upon the reality that they couldn't vote at all and many of them in the red states couldn't do so until the 1970s. So your  argument about so-called rural farmers in central california being supposed victims in all of this is specious at best...

Originally Posted by James Brown

Talk about a “no difference” argument!  So gerrymandering by “vote” to jettison a Bipartisan districting commission is ok (even though the California legislature actually drew the map, as you conveniently forget to mention)?   But gerrymandering by the legislature where the was no bipartisan commission to jettison is reprehensible?   Got it.   You know damn well that the party controlling the legislature draws the new maps in every state that has participated in this across-the-board shameful gerrymander-fest.   Except for the only honorable state in the union, Indiana.

And you conveniently forgot to mention that it was the cons on SCOTUS that enabled the practice in th first place:

 To wit:


Rucho v. Common Cause (2019): In a landmark 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that federal courts have no authority to review claims of partisan gerrymandering. Chief Justice John Roberts argued that while extreme partisan gerrymandering is "incompatible with democratic principles," it presents a "nonjusticiable political question" that federal judges cannot resolve. This ruling greenlit the drawing of electoral districts to intentionally favor one political party.

Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP (2024): The Court made it significantly harder to challenge racially gerrymandered maps by establishing a "presumption" that mapmakers act in good faith. It effectively allowed map drawers to use race as a proxy for partisan advantage, as long as they can claim the redistricting was done for political, not racial, reasons.

Louisiana v. Callais (2026): The Court further gutted Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. By imposing stricter standards that make it incredibly difficult to prove intentional racial discrimination, the decision essentially shielded political maps from court-ordered revisions even when minority representation is diminished.

Brennan center for justice.

Originally Posted by James Brown

BS, as if gerrymandering were new!   Read a wiki article or something.   The Court has confirmed that centuries old practice of partisan gerrymandering is OK, and racial gerrymandering is not.   

You, on the other hand have tried  to draw a nonsensical distinction between the partisan gerrymandering done by California, which you obviously supported and the partisan gerrymandering done by red states.

You can call what the cons did on SCOTUS, or more specifically, what I, and others (including judges) have said about it as "BS" but Roberts is correct in what he said in his statement: "...extreme partisan gerrymandering is "incompatible with democratic principles,...". So, confirming the practice isn't compatible with the principles of a democracy and  is the antithesis of a democracy and not a vindication of it.

While I'd certainly call a redistricting measure, or a defeat of one, by a vote of the people as a principle of a democratic process, you evidently do not as you fail to recognize the difference between that and an overtly partisan one created by political movement in a state with the latter blessed by the cons on SCOTUS...

Originally Posted by Russ Carroll

Rod, what they are doing is the continued removal of affirmative action from the US in my opinion.

I hadn't considered that as their stated rationale doesn't but it adds up to as much.

As another example of your example, the Tn house legislature removed all their black democratic reps from their committee assignments because they had locked arms in protest over the redistricting plan in the state:       https://tennesseelookout.com/2026/05/13/tennessee-house-speaker-suspends-dems-for-decorum-violation/

That'll affirmatively resolve the issue, don't ya think?...

Originally Posted by Russ Carroll

Let me add that I would very much like the House of Representatives to truly represent the population of each state in the broadest sense of the term, which I’m certain is what the founders intended.

We are a million miles from that standard.

The Republicans in congress represent the interests of Donald Trump.

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

The Republicans in congress represent the interests of Donald Trump.

To wit:    "New settlement term bars IRS from investigating Trump, his family for past tax issues"

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/trump-irs-settlement-forever-bars-audits-into-tax-claims-trump-his-family-2026-05-19/

1. $26 billion for Iran
2. Iran keeps Hormuz
3. Iran keeps the nuclear material
The Fart of the Deal.

Originally Posted by James Lacey

Operation Epic Folly


I suspect that things are at the point where Trump and team know they have to reopen the Strait, since our ability to absorb the shock of the closure will diminish rapidly as the world's emergency stockpiles are depleted, and other coping adaptations are strained to their limits. It will still take who knows how many months to untangle all the mess, and let's hope in the meantime a hurricane doesn't hit one of our refineries.

In addition to the epic economic cocka, the idea that we can "trust & verify" what the Iranians say they might do about their uranium production is another epic hallucinatory pipeline .

Watching Al Jazeera on cable is an eye-opener if you can get past the constant anti-Israeli propaganda. If you saw the Iranian underground tunnel systems where their drones and ballistic missile production occurs on a daily basis, you'd understand where all their oil money is going. This is some next-level engineering that've got down there, and nothing like the sewer suites of tunnels under Gaza or those in the movie "The Great Escape". (Think the Disney monorail underground or "The Jetsons)." My guess is that even Brian, our engineer here, would be impressed. 

Trump's constantly changing positions have now morphed from the Iranian's uranium will be removed and transferred to the USA, to, as of last night, being transferred to a third party-nation to be named later,  OR being somehow destroyed in Iran under the supervision of the atomic energy commission. How realistic is any of that?

Originally Posted by James Lacey

When Rich has been absent for weeks, if not months, and then pops in to post one of his ridiculous, biased, closed-minded, and partisan rants laced with taunts and lies, it just makes you realize how desensitized we had all become to his normal posting. I mean, his last post is pretty tame by Rich standards, but still, it certainly makes you realize just how nutso he truly is, since you haven't seen one in a while.

My guess is that you probably won't hear from him for awhile. He's probably moving to Texas so he can vote for Paxton...

Originally Posted by James Brown

Changed my mind

Dude, we were talking about Rich, not you!