SEMI OT... NAACP urges boycott of southern schools

WVUMPA98 said:

I doubt this goes anywhere cause the SEC will offer the most money to these kids and that will overcome any boycott...

That said I do worry some of the bills working thru Congress .. some I personally believe will bring sanity back to the sport will get twisted politically as trying to limit the freedoms and earnings of minorities... which will blow that legislation up... just my view on that ...

NAACP urging athletes, fans to boycott over voting rights

The NAACP on Tuesday launched the "Out of Bounds" campaign to urge Black athletes and fans to boycott some public universities over voting restrictions.

www.espn.com

Click to expand...

~IRWT~ said:

Solid ground here. Objectively, why would a black athlete represent a state that is literally working hard to take away any sense of their political representation? Not any different than (no offense board) MAGA boycotting anything/person they are offended by. Am I right?

Click to expand...

Ironic: Tennessee's New "Racist" 9th District Will Likely Have Black Woman Replace a 76-Year-Old White Democrat | The Gateway Pundit | by Brian Lupo

While Democrat activists occupied the Tennessee state Capitol yesterday after a vote to redraw the congressional maps following the historic Supreme Court decision in Louisanna v.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

Dublineers said:

This is pretty simple. The Supreme Court ruled race can’t be a factor when drawing congressional district maps. That’s the final word unless a constitutional amendment is passed. Those gerrymandered districts for racial purposes are now illegal and have to be redrawn. This isn’t a choice now—it’s the law.

Click to expand...

Dublineers said:

This is pretty simple. The Supreme Court ruled race can’t be a factor when drawing congressional district maps. That’s the final word unless a constitutional amendment is passed. Those gerrymandered districts for racial purposes are now illegal and have to be redrawn. This isn’t a choice now—it’s the law.

Click to expand...

WVUPharm2007 said:

Let's be honest, though, in the end this makes things less of a true representative democracy. The real reason they or you care is because it allows the Republicans to themselves gerrymander to a greater degree. Now instead of giving some representation to a large minority group, they can and already have gerrymandered so that they get no representation. Literally you are happy that one type of gerrymander is banned so that they can install a different type of gerrymander.

It's gotten so blatant that the Democrats feared they'd start losing more elections, so now they are doing the same thing and making their states less democratic.

So over time it's going to get to where the majority of states will be gerrymandered to the point where the representation doesn't really reflect the populace. If a state is 60% Democrat and 40% Republican, House representation should reflect this.

That there are too few seats in the House is the first problem. If a state only has a handful of seats and it's a swing state, the victorious party gets massively outweighed representation.

They need to like triple the seats in the house. They need to create maps based on algorithms so that the representation more accurately represents the actual voters.

It's becoming an antidemocratic **** show.

Really the entire structure of the Supreme Court is another problem. They are literally selected based on how politically biased they are. The Founders definitely didn't anticipate how easily the nomination system would be abused.

I wish there was a system where all justices had to get approved with 75% of the Senate. And if there are fewer than 9 justices, the president and the Senate get locked into a room with only food and water available to them until they select someone. Then we'd get a reasonable, more centrist court that actually represents the people more broadly.

Click to expand...

~IRWT~ said:

Solid ground here. Objectively, why would a black athlete represent a state that is literally working hard to take away any sense of their political representation? Not any different than (no offense board) MAGA boycotting anything/person they are offended by. Am I right?

Click to expand...

WVUPharm2007 said:

Let's be honest, though, in the end this makes things less of a true representative democracy. The real reason they or you care is because it allows the Republicans to themselves gerrymander to a greater degree. Now instead of giving some representation to a large minority group, they can and already have gerrymandered so that they get no representation. Literally you are happy that one type of gerrymander is banned so that they can install a different type of gerrymander.

It's gotten so blatant that the Democrats feared they'd start losing more elections, so now they are doing the same thing and making their states less democratic.

So over time it's going to get to where the majority of states will be gerrymandered to the point where the representation doesn't really reflect the populace. If a state is 60% Democrat and 40% Republican, House representation should reflect this.

That there are too few seats in the House is the first problem. If a state only has a handful of seats and it's a swing state, the victorious party gets massively outweighed representation.

They need to like triple the seats in the house. They need to create maps based on algorithms so that the representation more accurately represents the actual voters.

It's becoming an antidemocratic **** show.

Really the entire structure of the Supreme Court is another problem. They are literally selected based on how politically biased they are. The Founders definitely didn't anticipate how easily the nomination system would be abused.

I wish there was a system where all justices had to get approved with 75% of the Senate. And if there are fewer than 9 justices, the president and the Senate get locked into a room with only food and water available to them until they select someone. Then we'd get a reasonable, more centrist court that actually represents the people more broadly.

Click to expand...

WVUPharm2007 said:

Let's be honest, though, in the end this makes things less of a true representative democracy. The real reason they or you care is because it allows the Republicans to themselves gerrymander to a greater degree. Now instead of giving some representation to a large minority group, they can and already have gerrymandered so that they get no representation. Literally you are happy that one type of gerrymander is banned so that they can install a different type of gerrymander.

It's gotten so blatant that the Democrats feared they'd start losing more elections, so now they are doing the same thing and making their states less democratic.

So over time it's going to get to where the majority of states will be gerrymandered to the point where the representation doesn't really reflect the populace. If a state is 60% Democrat and 40% Republican, House representation should reflect this.

That there are too few seats in the House is the first problem. If a state only has a handful of seats and it's a swing state, the victorious party gets massively outweighed representation.

They need to like triple the seats in the house. They need to create maps based on algorithms so that the representation more accurately represents the actual voters.

It's becoming an antidemocratic **** show.

Really the entire structure of the Supreme Court is another problem. They are literally selected based on how politically biased they are. The Founders definitely didn't anticipate how easily the nomination system would be abused.

I wish there was a system where all justices had to get approved with 75% of the Senate. And if there are fewer than 9 justices, the president and the Senate get locked into a room with only food and water available to them until they select someone. Then we'd get a reasonable, more centrist court that actually represents the people more broadly.

Click to expand...

WVUMPA98 said:

I doubt this goes anywhere cause the SEC will offer the most money to these kids and that will overcome any boycott...

That said I do worry some of the bills working thru Congress .. some I personally believe will bring sanity back to the sport will get twisted politically as trying to limit the freedoms and earnings of minorities... which will blow that legislation up... just my view on that ...

NAACP urging athletes, fans to boycott over voting rights

The NAACP on Tuesday launched the "Out of Bounds" campaign to urge Black athletes and fans to boycott some public universities over voting restrictions.

www.espn.com

Click to expand...

atlkvb said:

No one cared about gerrymandering (political or otherwise) until Dems started losing races. Now all of a sudden the entire system they used to carve out sure fire victories needs to be overhauled? What about in New England, where there are no Republican representatives in many districts where the populations are 50/50?

The point is Dems have been using this tactic for years to keep themselves in power. Now, since many more State legislatures are being won by Republicans, they too are redrawing districts to represent their shifting populations. The only folks who have a problem with these new lines based on voting populations are Democrats who are losing power.

Click to expand...

~IRWT~ said:

Solid ground here. Objectively, why would a black athlete represent a state that is literally working hard to take away any sense of their political representation? Not any different than (no offense board) MAGA boycotting anything/person they are offended by. Am I right?

Click to expand...

Hammer said:

I always thought the Supreme Court was to validate laws etc in according to the constitution of our country, not to the whim of any group or party.

Click to expand...

WVUPharm2007 said:

"The Dems did it" isn't an argument that really registers with me. I'm not a Democrat. I'm registered no party. I don't particularly give a damn which giant cohort of groupthinkers did it first or most recently.

And even if I were, you're using a logical fallacy called whataboutism, anyway.

Either way, my point is that our system of choosing representation is terrible and antidemocratic. I really don't see how anyone can argue that it isn't. Causality isn't really a concern for me. If you want to blame the Democrats and still arrive at the conclusion that there needs to be major reform, I really don't care. You still got there.

I already addressed the question on the New England states. I literally had them in mind when I wrote about states that are 60% Democrat, 40% Republican but the Democrats get the entire state in the previous post.

Though I could have just as easily pictured a state like Wyoming or Montana. In these cases it isn't quite as much as function of gerrymandering as it is that there aren't enough house seats to go around so that it accurately represents the people of the state. Hence, I think increasing the number of representative is essential to establishing a more representative democracy.

Click to expand...

WVUPharm2007 said:

Yes. I couldn't agree more. So then you agree with me that the current mechanism of selecting justices that winds up being based on how politically biased they are is a poorly thought out system?

Click to expand...

WVUPharm2007 said:

Let's be honest, though, in the end this makes things less of a true representative democracy. The real reason they or you care is because it allows the Republicans to themselves gerrymander to a greater degree. Now instead of giving some representation to a large minority group, they can and already have gerrymandered so that they get no representation. Literally you are happy that one type of gerrymander is banned so that they can install a different type of gerrymander.

It's gotten so blatant that the Democrats feared they'd start losing more elections, so now they are doing the same thing and making their states less democratic.

So over time it's going to get to where the majority of states will be gerrymandered to the point where the representation doesn't really reflect the populace. If a state is 60% Democrat and 40% Republican, House representation should reflect this.

That there are too few seats in the House is the first problem. If a state only has a handful of seats and it's a swing state, the victorious party gets massively outweighed representation.

They need to like triple the seats in the house. They need to create maps based on algorithms so that the representation more accurately represents the actual voters.

It's becoming an antidemocratic **** show.

Really the entire structure of the Supreme Court is another problem. They are literally selected based on how politically biased they are. The Founders definitely didn't anticipate how easily the nomination system would be abused.

I wish there was a system where all justices had to get approved with 75% of the Senate. And if there are fewer than 9 justices, the president and the Senate get locked into a room with only food and water available to them until they select someone. Then we'd get a reasonable, more centrist court that actually represents the people more broadly.

Click to expand...

Anon1756575641 said:

You're not some defender of true democracy, youre just pissed your side cant rig the maps harder. Both parties gerrymander like animals whenever they control the levers. Dems do it in blue states and have been forever, you are too stupid to realize that.

A 60 percent dem state doesnt owe you exactly 60 percent of the seats dumbass. Thats not how districts work and your voters cramming into dense blue cities is your problem, not some conspiracy. Tripling the house and trusting magic algorithms wont fix **** it will just turn congress into even more of a circus.

Your supreme court idea is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Locking them in a room until they pick a centrist? Founders gave them lifetime seats on purpose so clowns like you couldnt turn the court into a poll driven circus. Your whole rant is just salty loser whining because the system doesn't hand your team power forever. Go back to reddit and cry harder hypocrite.

Click to expand...

atlkvb said:

You never cared about "gerrymandering" until Dems started losing. They didn't either because it quite frankly worked for them. That's why they did it!

Click to expand...

atlkvb said:

Now that Republicans have started winning, and consequentially have started redrawing new lines based on population shifts... folks on the Left are getting ulcers over the future of our "Democracy".

Click to expand...

atlkvb said:

Newsflash. State Legislatures legally draw voting lines based on their populations primarily (and other political factors) but the Supreme Court says they cannot draw lines based only on the color of someone's skin. Period!

Click to expand...

atlkvb said:

Why anyone on the Left wants to argue against that just shows how infantile their arguments for it are.

Click to expand...

atlkvb said:

Suppose College recruiters started offering NIL deals based only on an athlete's race?

Click to expand...

atlkvb said:

That's why the NAACP's call for black athletes to boycott SEC schools is about as idiotic as Pitt football fans thinking they're going to win the ACC next year.

Click to expand...

Anon1756575641 said:

You're not some defender of true democracy, youre just pissed your side cant rig the maps harder.

Click to expand...

Anon1756575641 said:

Both parties gerrymander like animals whenever they control the levers. Dems do it in blue states and have been forever, you are too stupid to realize that.

Click to expand...

Anon1756575641 said:

A 60 percent dem state doesnt owe you exactly 60 percent of the seats dumbass.

Click to expand...

Anon1756575641 said:

Thats not how districts work

Click to expand...

Anon1756575641 said:

and your voters cramming into dense blue cities is your problem

Click to expand...

Anon1756575641 said:

, not some conspiracy.

Click to expand...

Anon1756575641 said:

Tripling the house and trusting magic algorithms wont fix **** it will just turn congress into even more of a circus.

Click to expand...

Anon1756575641 said:

Your supreme court idea is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Locking them in a room until they pick a centrist?

Click to expand...

Anon1756575641 said:

Founders gave them lifetime seats on purpose so clowns like you couldnt turn the court into a poll driven circus.

Click to expand...

Anon1756575641 said:

Your whole rant is just salty loser whining because the system doesn't hand your team power forever.

Click to expand...

Anon1756575641 said:

Go back to reddit and cry harder hypocrite.

Click to expand...

WVUPharm2007 said:

I've had the opinion that there aren't enough seats in the house and it leads to a poor representation of the population for literally decades. And it's been supercharged over the last decade. Trying to say a state with 3 house seats is gerrymandered is pretty silly. You can only draw 3 lines. In these states, the unfair representation is more of a function of insufficient seats being available. Hence I think they're needs to be more seats. That would solve a lot of the problem. The larger states are where the problem really lies with deliberate gerrymandering. Initially it was the red states drawing wild maps and now the blue states are joining in. This is just a fact. I really don't care about blame. I just think they're should be reform.




Again, I've thought this for decades. I also don't identify as the "left." When a member of the far right sees an actual moderate, they think they are like Che Guevara or something.



I don't have a problem with the ruling in a vacuum, but let's be honest here, the states are drawing the lines to maximize the power of the party drawing the lines. And it's getting more and more egregious. I don't understand how anyone can't see this.



I don't know, ask them.



I don't think anybody is suggesting this.



It's idiotic because it won't work. Nobody is turning down millions of dollars for anything, let's be honest.

Click to expand...

atlkvb said:

Why is the process of nominating Supreme Court Justices suddenly so flawed?

Click to expand...

atlkvb said:

No one said anything about the process of selecting Justices until that Supreme Court had a Conservative majority! Now all of a sudden, we have to change the way Justices are selected?

Click to expand...

atlkvb said:

Maybe we ought to change the way the country is run too?

Click to expand...

atlkvb said:

Like only a select group of high brow Leftists get to decide how things should be run instead of a plurality of the people?

Click to expand...

WVUPharm2007 said:

I've always thought this.



Again, I've always thought this.

And to go further, I think a limit of nine justices needs to also be considered a hard limit. Because the next thing someone is going to do when they have the Senate and Presidency is expand the court. So then we'll have 11 justices. And then when the other party sees this, they'll expand it to 13 when they are in charge.

If I had my way, I would think they should preemptively ban this, dissolve the current court, and institute an overwhelming majority clause as I proposed for admission into the Supreme Court.


Yes! There are several other ways we should change how things are run.


I'll assume you meant to say majority. A plurality could be like 25% of the country if there are enough cohorts fighting for power.

I wouldn't want a small group of anybody deciding things. That's why I want reform. I want power spread out as much as possible.

Click to expand...

atlkvb said:

Your arguments over how district lines are being drawn are a moot point. The fact is State Legislatures traditionally draw those lines, and do so to assure their particular party controls. That's the way it's always been.

Click to expand...

atlkvb said:

The only reason anyone is carping about it now is because in many States, particularly here in the South, Republicans have taken control of those Legislatures and they're redrawing lines to their benefit based on the new populations they now have.

Click to expand...

atlkvb said:

OK, so if Dems don't like that, they should start winning more races! Then they'd get to redraw the lines again to their own advantage.

Click to expand...

atlkvb said:

They're not redrawing lines in States where they're still winning, like in California.

Click to expand...

atlkvb said:

However, if Republicans start winning out there, they'll get to draw more lines in their favor too!

Click to expand...

atlkvb said:

I'm not as worried about this as some folks are. The only thing that's changed is Republicans are winning in a lot more formerly "safe" Democrat States (like here in the South), and since they're in control now, folks on the Left are having a cow over their loss of power.

Click to expand...

atlkvb said:

That's the whole point behind your rants over all of this now, and it is as amuzing to me as it is superfluous.

Click to expand...

atlkvb said:

I'm kinda busy at work right now closing some pretty good deals, so I just don't have time right now to rebutt all of your asinine arguments. Look I get it you're upset over these recent Democrat azz whippings. My sincere advice is just to stop voting for them, then you won't be so butt hurt.

Click to expand...

atlkvb said:

Your "solutions" while laudable, are not political reality.

Click to expand...

atlkvb said:

This country is run by what the people want. We always get what we vote for. Sometimes that's good, and other times it's very bad. However we fix what we screw up through the ballot box and better candidates.

You want better policies? Vote for better candidates. If your candidates lose, deal with it. Gotta run...now Go Mountaineers!

Click to expand...

WVUPharm2007 said:

Let's be honest, though, in the end this makes things less of a true representative democracy. The real reason they or you care is because it allows the Republicans to themselves gerrymander to a greater degree. Now instead of giving some representation to a large minority group, they can and already have gerrymandered so that they get no representation. Literally you are happy that one type of gerrymander is banned so that they can install a different type of gerrymander.

It's gotten so blatant that the Democrats feared they'd start losing more elections, so now they are doing the same thing and making their states less democratic.

So over time it's going to get to where the majority of states will be gerrymandered to the point where the representation doesn't really reflect the populace. If a state is 60% Democrat and 40% Republican, House representation should reflect this.

That there are too few seats in the House is the first problem. If a state only has a handful of seats and it's a swing state, the victorious party gets massively outweighed representation.

They need to like triple the seats in the house. They need to create maps based on algorithms so that the representation more accurately represents the actual voters.

It's becoming an antidemocratic **** show.

Really the entire structure of the Supreme Court is another problem. They are literally selected based on how politically biased they are. The Founders definitely didn't anticipate how easily the nomination system would be abused.

I wish there was a system where all justices had to get approved with 75% of the Senate. And if there are fewer than 9 justices, the president and the Senate get locked into a room with only food and water available to them until they select someone. Then we'd get a reasonable, more centrist court that actually represents the people more broadly.

Click to expand...

WVUPharm2007 said:

Let's be honest, though, in the end this makes things less of a true representative democracy. The real reason they or you care is because it allows the Republicans to themselves gerrymander to a greater degree. Now instead of giving some representation to a large minority group, they can and already have gerrymandered so that they get no representation. Literally you are happy that one type of gerrymander is banned so that they can install a different type of gerrymander.

It's gotten so blatant that the Democrats feared they'd start losing more elections, so now they are doing the same thing and making their states less democratic.

So over time it's going to get to where the majority of states will be gerrymandered to the point where the representation doesn't really reflect the populace. If a state is 60% Democrat and 40% Republican, House representation should reflect this.

That there are too few seats in the House is the first problem. If a state only has a handful of seats and it's a swing state, the victorious party gets massively outweighed representation.

They need to like triple the seats in the house. They need to create maps based on algorithms so that the representation more accurately represents the actual voters.

It's becoming an antidemocratic **** show.

Really the entire structure of the Supreme Court is another problem. They are literally selected based on how politically biased they are. The Founders definitely didn't anticipate how easily the nomination system would be abused.

I wish there was a system where all justices had to get approved with 75% of the Senate. And if there are fewer than 9 justices, the president and the Senate get locked into a room with only food and water available to them until they select someone. Then we'd get a reasonable, more centrist court that actually represents the people more broadly.

Click to expand...

WVUPharm2007 said:

Yes. I couldn't agree more. So then you agree with me that the current mechanism of selecting justices that winds up being based on how politically biased they are is a poorly thought out system?

Click to expand...

WVUPharm2007 said:

"The Dems did it" isn't an argument that really registers with me. I'm not a Democrat. I'm registered no party. I don't particularly give a damn which giant cohort of groupthinkers did it first or most recently.

And even if I were, you're using a logical fallacy called whataboutism, anyway.

Either way, my point is that our system of choosing representation is terrible and antidemocratic. I really don't see how anyone can argue that it isn't. Causality isn't really a concern for me. If you want to blame the Democrats and still arrive at the conclusion that there needs to be major reform, I really don't care. You still got there.

I already addressed the question on the New England states. I literally had them in mind when I wrote about states that are 60% Democrat, 40% Republican but the Democrats get the entire state in the previous post.

Though I could have just as easily pictured a state like Wyoming or Montana. In these cases it isn't quite as much as function of gerrymandering as it is that there aren't enough house seats to go around so that it accurately represents the people of the state. Hence, I think increasing the number of representative is essential to establishing a more representative democracy.

Click to expand...

SoCo said:

It wasn't that long ago that nearly every Justice was overwhelmingly approved by the Senate. Now it is 100% party lines. That isn't on the framers or the Justices. That is on Congress and it is increasingly getting out of hand. For instance, Kavanaugh was qualified by every definition yet a smear campaign hoax was launched purely on party lines just to oppose him for partisan reasons. I'm no fan of the partisan selections, but I really hate the fact we use race and gender as equally important criteria. Our President bragged he would nominate a Justice who was black and female......And he was praised for it. As much as I hate the partisanism nonsense, I'd rather select judge on party rather than what they looked like when they were born.

Also, the Court should not represent the people; rather, it should be independent from the will of the people. Otherwise, we could just put every Supreme Court case to a nationwide vote for a decision.

Click to expand...

SoCo said:

It wasn't that long ago that nearly every Justice was overwhelmingly approved by the Senate. Now it is 100% party lines. That isn't on the framers or the Justices. That is on Congress and it is increasingly getting out of hand. For instance, Kavanaugh was qualified by every definition yet a smear campaign hoax was launched purely on party lines just to oppose him for partisan reasons. I'm no fan of the partisan selections, but I really hate the fact we use race and gender as equally important criteria. Our President (Biden) bragged he would nominate a Justice who was black and female......And he was praised for it. As much as I hate the partisanism nonsense, I'd rather select judge on party rather than what they looked like when they were born.

Also, the Court should not represent the people; rather, it should be independent from the will of the people. Otherwise, we could just put every Supreme Court case to a nationwide vote for a decision.

Click to expand...

atlkvb said:

I didn't have time to refute all the assertions the OP on this topic made about how we should select our Supreme Court Justices, but I'm amused how it's now "suddenly" a problem! In my own perfect world, we'd be selecting Justices strictly on their reviewable record of Judicial decisions that uphold the Constitution...nothing else!

That's what we want them to do...objectively rule on the Laws passed based on fidelity to the Constitution, as it's either explicitly stated or implicitly interpreted. Why would we require Justices or Jurisprudence that adds anything more than that? The Constitution is not "Left" or "Right", so in my mind if something's not in there....then don't allow it! If it's Constitutional, then let's make sure it's applied equally for all...regardless of political party affiliation or ideological philosophy.

I want strict Constitutionalists. Nothing more, & nothing less.

Click to expand...

HammerOfJustice said:

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is not only the quintessential DEI hire and demonstrably dumber than a box of hammers, she's also such a shameless partisan with zero understanding for (let alone respect for) the concept of The Rule of Law that her fellow left-leaning Justices regularly smack down the "logic" (cough, cough) she employs in her rambling and incoherent dissents: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/su...oes-solo-tear-trump-fights-put-her-odds-bench

Click to expand...