Gerrymander based on ideology instead of race

[IdeomotorPrisoner]

So I had an idea on reading your post and I wanted to bounce it off of you to see what you thought because I think you may be pro choice didnt really dig into it just read it and Im wondering if this idea would work as a compromise.

What if .... it is your right to have an abortion but its not covered under insurance or social programs like medicaid/medicare and you have to fully pay for it upfront the exception being insane circumstances such as it is killing you or you were assaulted? Does that sound reasonable?

I think the right should be upheld on the federal level.

But i believe in conscientious objection, and understand federal tax dollar covered abortions pisses off many.  

Abortion should be a right. Paid medical services are not a right.. they are a privilege. 

I support OBGYN coverage, but if the dobbs ruling was overturned with a caveat that totally removed coverage for all abortion. Or better yet, LEFT WHETHER OR NOT TO FUND ABORTION, up to state funds when needed. Seems very compromising. 

With my only caveat in states that dont want to fund it being... 

Exeception for rape/incest of an uninsured victim. And that's pretty much it.

[ReturnofBroccoli]

I think the right should be upheld on the federal level.

But i believe in conscientious objection, and understand federal tax dollar covered abortions pisses off many.  

Abortion should be a right. Paid medical services are not a right.. they are a privilege. 

I support OBGYN coverage, but if the dobbs ruling was overturned with a caveat that removed coverage for ONLY abortion. Or better yet, LEFT WHETHER OR NOT TO FUND ABORTION, up to state funds. Seems very compromising. 

With my only caveat in states that dont want to fund it being... 

Exeception for rape/incest of an uninsured victim. And that's pretty much it.

Why should males pay tax dollars for female abortions they can never have federal is everyone.

Do males also get the right to abort these unwanted pregnancies then? If its only a right for females that sounds kind of messed up dont you think, where is my abortion rights?

[IdeomotorPrisoner]

The right is all I care about. That was going with the premise, couldn't help but add my caveats, nor do I feel like trying to defend them... 

So.... if it helps get the fucking right back, go ahead and further ban all federal coverage and force alternate funding.  The Hyde Amendment sorta prevented federal funds outside rape and incest anyway.  Which is why I added that caveat... It was always sorta done that way. I was trying to be sly and make my answer how it was done from 1976 to 2022. 

Just no more prosecuting the girl from Mississippi if she goes to Kansas on self pay... Because that is ALSO fucked up. 

Im sure in the right restored/no federal funds (IN ANY SITUATION) scenario there'd be a crowd-funded non-profit willing to step up..

If Spirit Airlines could get 335 million in online pledges to save it, for some insane reason, then there's enough Melinda Gates out there to give millions to an abortion safety net, considering the procedure isn't terribly expensive. Less than 20% the hospital list price for a CT scan actually. LIke $680 to $1100 at Planned Parenthood. 

Also... 

Federally, abortion services are strictly excluded from government funding. Therefore, any federal dollars Planned Parenthood receives through programs like Medicaid are specifically designated for preventive care, family planning, or general healthcare—not for abortion procedures or insuring surgeons.

 
So nothing needs to change then... Just give back the right to go to Planned Parenthood and use alternative private or non-profit charity methods for the inexpensive procedure and doctor's time.

[quintessentone]

Key point: Ultimately it will be voter issues (#1 for Gen Z (and others, now, I would assume) is affordability) that will determine the outcome not redistricting.

----------

"Recent analysis suggests that Republican gerrymandering efforts may not secure a House majority in the 2026 midterms because they cannot overcome a strong national political headwind favoring Democrats.  While the Supreme Court’s decision in Louisiana v. Callais and subsequent state-level actions (such as in Texas, Florida, and Louisiana) have allowed Republicans to redraw maps and potentially gain six new seats, election analysts estimate these gains will only chip away at an incoming Democratic majority rather than erase it. 
Key factors limiting the GOP's advantage include:

• National Polling Trends: Democrats currently hold a 5.9-point lead in generic congressional ballot polling, a margin sufficient to offset Republican map advantages and secure a House majority.
  
• Vulnerability of "Safe" Seats: Extreme gerrymandering often creates districts with wider margins than necessary; in a 10-point swing toward Democrats, many of these "safe" Republican seats could flip, potentially costing GOP candidates 25-30 seats. 
  
• Geographic Clustering: Even with fair maps, Democratic voters are concentrated in urban areas, meaning Republicans retain a natural efficiency advantage that gerrymandering alone cannot fully neutralize in a high-turnout, anti-incumbent environment. 
  

Ultimately, while the GOP has improved its baseline seat count, gerrymandering is viewed as insufficient to fix underlying voter sentiment problems, with many experts predicting Democrats will still retake the House despite the unfavorable maps. " (LLM)

----

"As of now, anyway, neither party enjoys a significant aggregate advantage in either districting or geographical efficiency of voter distribution. Until this changes, the balance between the parties in the House will be decided more by the national popular vote than by any other factor. And because the parties are closely divided as well as deeply divided, relatively small changes in the distribution of the vote can lead to frequent changes of party control in the House.
Three days after this piece was posted, I was informed that Robert Shapiro had performed the same analysis, reached very similar conclusions, and published them in the Washington Monthly in January of this year. I regret that I was not aware of this as I was drafting my article and want to acknowledge fully Mr. Shapiro’s previously published work on the subject. 

---

[i] For evidence on this point, see Did Redistricting Cost Democrats The House? | FiveThirtyEight. For a different argument that yields similar results, see After Redistricting, Here’s How Each Party Could Win the House | Brennan Center for Justice."

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-g...nder-myth/

[Harte]

Logical Argument vs. Semantic Argument

I did not argue about the meaning of individual words. I pointed out that the logical consequence of the statute you quoted, were contradictory.

I also pointed out that the alleged 'sole legal authority to prosecute' was poorly defined at the time of ratification of those laws, and so the inferred "sole authority" is extra-legal - meaning there is actually no statute that grants them sole legal authority.

The gap between the ratification of the laws, and the assumption of sole legal authority is decades.

The existing statute excluded Judicial Courts from trying immigration cases, but did not define who does have the authority to try or prosecute the cases. That's just lazy.


The United States Immigration and Naturalization Service ceased to exist on March 1, 2003 and is not mentioned as having authority in the statute you quoted. No-one is granted authority in the quoted statute, but the Judicial Courts are excluded except where the immigrants have criminal charges. The law was poorly framed.


But I did read them?


The statute you quoted was very poorly written.

Perhaps it was submitted by someone who just wanted to make a name for themselves, and was signed-off by people who couldn't be bothered to read or consider what it implied, because they didn't think it would be that important, anyway?

This is why Congressional representatives all need to be qualified in law, as their primary roles encompass the initiation and ratification of bills to be passed into law.

Semantic argument:
"ThE Dhs dIdN'T eXiSt ThEn."

I can cover everything else with this question for you.
In what way does the Constitution define "due process?"

Harte

[Harte]

Just spit balling, maybe some sort of active sex tax?

I'm for it.
It wouldn't cost me much. LOL

Harte

[quintessentone]

I'm for it.
It wouldn't cost me much. LOL

Harte

Doesn't that harken back to "My body, my choice."

[Harte]

That seems to be the exception, not the rule:

5% of People Detained By ICE Have Violent Convictions, 73% No Convictions

Just cherry picking by the anti-Trump media.

There are thousands of non-violent crimes - things like arson, child sexual abuse, fraud, robbery, larceny, manufacturing/distributing drugs, forgery, racketeering, cybercrime, property damage, DUI, etc. Those aren't counted in your statistics.

Plus, most of your "73%" have pending charges here or are wanted in their home countries.
Some of the people that were detained are citizens that attacked (or interfered with) ICE, which are both federal felonies. They weren't detained for long. They were handed over to police.
Also, the law authorizes ICE and BP to detain anyone they encounter - based on the legal standard of "reasonable suspicion," not "probable cause" - that can't convince them they are a citizen for as long as it takes to identify their residency status, so there are some detentions for that reason.

Any illegal encountered by ICE will be detained and deported. Tom Homan has very clearly stated this multiple times on a wide variety of news shows and other platforms.
Presently, they are ONLY doing targeted raids - looking for certain known criminals.
If an illegal is encountered during one of those raids, they will be detained and deported along with the criminal illegal they were targeting (if they catch him.)
At the present time, sanctuary policies are causing these other, noncriminal illegals to be picked up by ICE because the sanctuary policy creates the need for those raids.
In the future, they will begin targeting every identifiable illegal in the country, whether or not they have committed any crime other than an immigration violation.
That's how immigration enforcement actually works.

The US admits over 120 million legal immigrants a year, more than Canada and Mexico combined and more than any other country on Earth, so let's not cry for the people that decided to break the law to get here.
A country has the right to determine who to let in and how many.

Harte

[quintessentone]

Just cherry picking by the anti-Trump media.

There are thousands of non-violent crimes - things like arson, child sexual abuse, fraud, robbery, larceny, manufacturing/distributing drugs, forgery, racketeering, cybercrime, property damage, DUI, etc. Those aren't counted in your statistics.

Plus, most of your "73%" have pending charges here or are wanted in their home countries.
Some of the people that were detained are citizens that attacked (or interfered with) ICE, which are both federal felonies. They weren't detained for long. They were handed over to police.
Also, the law authorizes ICE and BP to detain anyone they encounter - based on the legal standard of "reasonable suspicion," not "probable cause" - that can't convince them they are a citizen for as long as it takes to identify their residency status, so there are some detentions for that reason.

Any illegal encountered by ICE will be detained and deported. Tom Homan has very clearly stated this multiple times on a wide variety of news shows and other platforms.
Presently, they are ONLY doing targeted raids - looking for certain known criminals.
If an illegal is encountered during one of those raids, they will be detained and deported along with the criminal illegal they were targeting (if they catch him.)
At the present time, sanctuary policies are causing these other, noncriminal illegals to be picked up by ICE because the sanctuary policy creates the need for those raids.
In the future, they will begin targeting every identifiable illegal in the country, whether or not they have committed any crime other than an immigration violation.
That's how immigration enforcement actually works.

The US admits over 120 million legal immigrants a year, more than Canada and Mexico combined and more than any other country on Earth, so let's not cry for the people that decided to break the law to get here.
A country has the right to determine who to let in and how many.

Harte

Your country changed the laws to be able to deport a wider brush stroke of people to pander to Trump's base.

"Yes, the Trump administration has implemented significant policy changes to expand the pool of deportable immigrants and accelerate removals. By terminating humanitarian parole and Temporary Protected Status (TPS) programs, the administration de-legalized approximately 1.6 million immigrants who had previously been authorized to stay, thereby making them eligible for deportation."

"Key actions taken to increase deportations include:

• Revoking Legal Status: The administration ended the CHNV parole program (affecting ~500,000 people from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela) and terminated TPS for nationals of countries including Venezuela, Afghanistan, and Cameroon, stripping protections from hundreds of thousands of legal residents. 
  
• Expanding Expedited Removal: The fast-track deportation process was expanded to apply to individuals arrested anywhere in the U.S. who cannot prove they have lived in the country for at least two years, bypassing traditional court hearings. 
  
• Removing Enforcement Barriers: The administration revoked policies that previously barred ICE from arresting migrants at "sensitive locations" like schools, hospitals, and courthouses, allowing for broader interior enforcement. 
  
• Utilizing Emergency Powers: The Alien Enemies Act was invoked to swiftly deport Venezuelans accused of gang membership, although the Supreme Court later blocked further use of this law for such cases.
  

These measures have significantly increased the number of people considered "undocumented" and subject to removal, with the administration citing the goal of executing the largest mass deportation in U.S. history." (LLM)


See how that works?

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025...olicy.html

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/tru...rcna213356

[DennisR6]

I'm for it.
It wouldn't cost me much. LOL

Harte

With how much sex is being used as a selling point in pretty much all sectors to some degree I imagine the country could benefit from taxing those sinners for the sins.