I thought that it was interesting that the California Democratic voting population chose to overwhelmingly pass a bill in the midterm elections mandating gerrymandering after accusing Republicans of trying to destroy democracy in America.
The CA gerrymander is explicitly temporary. I believe we (speaking as a Californian) would similarly overwhelmingly support a nationwide effort to fight gerrymandering, for example giving every state an independent commission like the one we'd prefer to have. It's in no way hypocritical to think that some short-term anti-democratic measures are necessary to fight other anti-democratic measures with the long-term aim of strengthening democracy. Nor is it hypocritical for someone who generally opposes war and violence to think that sometimes self-defense is justified.
Although this is hardly the forum for a debate, I suspect that Republicans might consider many of Trump's moves short-term anti-democratic measures that also lead to the strengthening of democracy.
You might be right that this is not the forum for a debate. But you also didn't respond to my suggestion that the CA gerrymander and Texas gerrymander were different. So you're just changing the subject into an epistemic conundrum, and not debating. Overwhelming supermajorities of Texans opposed the gerrymander there. In California, it actually reflected the will of the people, although we recognize that in the broader scope, gerrymandering is wrong, which is why we made it temporary. Which is why some short term measures are different from others. Trump is claiming unprecedented levels of executive power that all future Presidents would also have. Nothing temporary about it.
I do appreciate your well-thought-out comments, nevertheless, I disagree with your conclusion. Were this engagement happening in person I'm sure we would both have great fun dissecting this issue.
the interview has really got me thinking about how this plays out in my life.
I thought that it was interesting that the California Democratic voting population chose to overwhelmingly pass a bill in the midterm elections mandating gerrymandering after accusing Republicans of trying to destroy democracy in America.
The CA gerrymander is explicitly temporary. I believe we (speaking as a Californian) would similarly overwhelmingly support a nationwide effort to fight gerrymandering, for example giving every state an independent commission like the one we'd prefer to have. It's in no way hypocritical to think that some short-term anti-democratic measures are necessary to fight other anti-democratic measures with the long-term aim of strengthening democracy. Nor is it hypocritical for someone who generally opposes war and violence to think that sometimes self-defense is justified.
Although this is hardly the forum for a debate, I suspect that Republicans might consider many of Trump's moves short-term anti-democratic measures that also lead to the strengthening of democracy.
You might be right that this is not the forum for a debate. But you also didn't respond to my suggestion that the CA gerrymander and Texas gerrymander were different. So you're just changing the subject into an epistemic conundrum, and not debating. Overwhelming supermajorities of Texans opposed the gerrymander there. In California, it actually reflected the will of the people, although we recognize that in the broader scope, gerrymandering is wrong, which is why we made it temporary. Which is why some short term measures are different from others. Trump is claiming unprecedented levels of executive power that all future Presidents would also have. Nothing temporary about it.
I do appreciate your well-thought-out comments, nevertheless, I disagree with your conclusion. Were this engagement happening in person I'm sure we would both have great fun dissecting this issue.
this is absurd. No one is competent enough to even be hypocritical . We are a nation of PHONIES. Fat ones .