# Stupid liberal idea of the day **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 20, 2011, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086 "2011-04-20T15:35:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 365
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2018, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/7281 "2018-12-14T17:34:24Z")
> [@Strassia](#): > > A real one, although this one may be considered smart, if undemocratic, on short and local scale: > > [Democratic majority in New Jersey legislature move to gerrymander a more permanent majority.](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/12/new-jersey-gerrymandering-plan-bad.html) > > This is stupid on several fronts: > > 1. New Jersey is already pretty safely blue > 2. It makes it harder to push for reforms against this as now it becomes a “both sides do it” situation > > This is something that should be stopped no matter which party is doing it. The part I agree with is the conclusion: “This is something that should be stopped no matter which party is doing it.” But here’s the deal: while it’s possible for Congress to regulate _U.S. House of Represeentatives districts_ through legislation (Article I, Section 4), they have no authority to tell the states how to draw their state legislature districts, which is the real issue in NJ, now that the NJ House delegation is almost entirely Dem under the existing districts. There are only two ways to ensure that this practice is stopped with respect to state legislatures, no matter which party is doing it: 1. Constitutional amendment limiting gerrymandering 2. U.S. Supreme Court ruling limiting gerrymandering Given that it’s been nearly 50 years since Congress has passed an amendment that’s subsequently been approved by 3/4 of the states, we can hope for #1, but it’s a faint hope. And given that we’ve got a Supreme Court that is, shall we say, ideologically slanted, I have little hope that they will take gerrymandering seriously as long as it’s largely practiced by Republicans. Maybe if the legislatures of Dem-controlled states say, “we don’t think this should be legal anywhere, but as long as it is, and the GOP is gerrymandering states that _they_ control, then fuck yeah, we’ll do the same here,” maybe then the Supreme Court will respond more favorably to suits to rein in gerrymandering. It’s worth a try, anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2018, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/7282 "2018-12-14T17:36:45Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > So, having made up a claim I didn’t make about a stance I don’t hold, you’ve now made up an apology I didn’t make for that claim and stance. > > But if you want an apology, here you go: I’m sorry you struggle at reading for comprehension. I’m sorry that you hallucinate words that aren’t there. And I’m sorry I even got into this with you, given the previous two apologies. Now you’re just being insincere. ☹ ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2018, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/7283 "2018-12-14T18:05:42Z")
> [@Strassia](#): > > A real one, although this one may be considered smart, if undemocratic, on short and local scale: > > [Democratic majority in New Jersey legislature move to gerrymander a more permanent majority.](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/12/new-jersey-gerrymandering-plan-bad.html) > > This is stupid on several fronts: > > 1. New Jersey is already pretty safely blue > 2. It makes it harder to push for reforms against this as _ **now** _ it becomes a “both sides do it” situation > > This is something that should be stopped no matter which party is doing it. Emphasis mine. This has actually been a “both sides do it” thing for quite a while. Democrats have gerrymandered districts for decades. The big difference is that Republicans are more blatant about it, and they took the reins of redistricting at a time when computer sampling and modeling allowed them to do it much more precisely and scientifically. I agree with your last sentence though. To the extent it’s possible, we need non-partisan commissions to draw district boundaries, preferably for all levels of government. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2018, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/7284 "2018-12-14T20:07:10Z")
I believe each state should be divided into four equal pieces, and each subdivided and those subdivided until there is a reasonable population and area to be defined as a district. But I digress. Why was this Gerrymandering allowed in the first place? I understand why; each party wants to control as many districts as possible. I just don’t understand why the first gerrymander was allowed. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2018, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/7285 "2018-12-14T20:13:03Z")
> [@carnivorousplant](#): > > I understand why; each party wants to control as many districts as possible. I just don’t understand why the first gerrymander was allowed. Because there isn’t an underlying single definition of a fair electoral district that one can compare a gerrymandered district to, with the idea of “not allowing” the gerrymandered district. And except in extreme cases, the judge of whether districts are gerrymandered is the majority of the legislature that is drawing the district in the first place. I’m not defending the practice, but just explaining that the people who draw gerrymandered districts are in the vast majority of cases the judges of whether the districts are fair. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2018, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/7286 "2018-12-14T20:21:21Z")
Thanks, Ravenman. ---
**Author:** ![Rick\_Kitchen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rick_kitchen/32/522_2.png) [@Rick\_Kitchen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick_Kitchen)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2018, 6:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/7287 "2018-12-24T06:05:24Z")
Somebody painted a swastika over a “Happy Hannukah” sign at the University of Massachusetts, so student Nicole Parsons put up a sign in her dorm window that read, “Fuck Nazis. You are not welcome here.” The University told her to take it down because the sign had created “mixed emotions in the community on how to proceed, issues of inclusion, and the ability to be active members of their community.” > **[Massachusetts college student asked to remove anti-Nazi sign over ‘issues of...](https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/422693-massachusetts-college-student-asked-to-remove-anti-nazi-sign/?rnd=1545614731)** > > Administrators at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst asked a student to take down a sign that said “f— Nazis” over “issues of inclusion,” according to a Buz… ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2018, 6:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/7288 "2018-12-24T06:53:36Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Because there isn’t an underlying single definition of a fair electoral district that one can compare a gerrymandered district to, with the idea of “not allowing” the gerrymandered district. And except in extreme cases, the judge of whether districts are gerrymandered is the majority of the legislature that is drawing the district in the first place. > > I’m not defending the practice, but just explaining that the people who draw gerrymandered districts are in the vast majority of cases the judges of whether the districts are fair. You could always abandon the notion of districts being geographically apportioned altogether, and assign people into “districts” based on their SSNs. Hard to gerrymander SSNs. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2018, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/7289 "2018-12-24T16:25:39Z")
> [@Rick\_Kitchen](#): > > Somebody painted a swastika over a “Happy Hannukah” sign at the University of Massachusetts, so student Nicole Parsons put up a sign in her dorm window that read, “Fuck Nazis. You are not welcome here.” > The University told her to take it down because the sign had created “mixed emotions in the community on how to proceed, issues of inclusion, and the ability to be active members of their community.” > > [https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/422693-massachusetts-college-student-asked-to-remove-anti-nazi-sign?rnd=1545614731](https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/422693-massachusetts-college-student-asked-to-remove-anti-nazi-sign?rnd=1545614731) To be fair, the school came back and conceded the wording of the email was terrible, that they only took issue with the profanity and also that they could not and would not force the student to take the sign down, only reminding her that the profanity might offend someone. Which is a lot different than welcoming Nazis for diversity. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2018, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/7290 "2018-12-24T16:32:32Z")
Surprise, surprise. Some PC horror story turned out to be a misunderstanding and not what it seemed. That’s literally never happened before. I actually had wondered when I heard this if the problem was the “Fuck” part not the “Nazi” part. If that’s PC, then it’s right-wing PC, since that’s where the anti-profanity people hang out. ---
**Author:** ![Knowed\_Out](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/knowed_out/32/7380_2.png) [@Knowed\_Out](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knowed_Out)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2018, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/7291 "2018-12-31T17:26:44Z")
[‘Overwhelmingly White’ California Women’s March Canceled Over Representation Concerns](https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/california-womens-march-white_us_5c29b7f1e4b0407e90840aed) I don’t get it. You organize a march for purposes of showing unity and strength for women, then you fragment your cause because you don’t think you have enough minorities? Nobody thought you were advocating empowerment for white women only. Doesn’t this just add more fodder for conservatives who think you’re so self-destructive with bleeding heart guilt you can’t even fight for what you believe in? Now all the oppressive white man majority has to do is wait for you to melt down and go cry somewhere, so they won’t ever take you seriously again. Next time, just say there was a scheduling conflict! ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2018, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/7292 "2018-12-31T17:41:36Z")
> [@Knowed\_Out](#): > > [‘Overwhelmingly White’ California Women’s March Canceled Over Representation Concerns](https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/california-womens-march-white_us_5c29b7f1e4b0407e90840aed) > > I don’t get it. You organize a march for purposes of showing unity and strength for women, then you fragment your cause because you don’t think you have enough minorities? **Nobody thought you were advocating empowerment for white women only.** > > Doesn’t this just add more fodder for conservatives who think you’re so self-destructive with bleeding heart guilt you can’t even fight for what you believe in? Now all the oppressive white man majority has to do is wait for you to melt down and go cry somewhere, so they won’t ever take you seriously again. Next time, just say there was a scheduling conflict! **But all it takes is one photograph of the march to WorldNutDaily (or one of that — crowd) to start the whispering that it actually IS.** Unfortunately, the potential exists for this type of thing to be turned into a “win-win” for the Forces of Evil, and the cancellation (along with the overly candid discussion of its reason) is an ideal illustration of that. The scheduling conflict suggestion is pretty good. ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2018, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/7293 "2018-12-31T21:08:25Z")
> [@Knowed\_Out](#): > > [‘Overwhelmingly White’ California Women’s March Canceled Over Representation Concerns](https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/california-womens-march-white_us_5c29b7f1e4b0407e90840aed) > > I don’t get it. You organize a march for purposes of showing unity and strength for women, then you fragment your cause because you don’t think you have enough minorities? Nobody thought you were advocating empowerment for white women only. > > Doesn’t this just add more fodder for conservatives who think you’re so self-destructive with bleeding heart guilt you can’t even fight for what you believe in? Now all the oppressive white man majority has to do is wait for you to melt down and go cry somewhere, so they won’t ever take you seriously again. Next time, just say there was a scheduling conflict! Although I have no real cite, I suspect that the cancellation may have been due more to politics going on at the upper levels of the organization instead of just the lack of women of color signing up. > [@article cited by Knowed out](#): > > The Women’s March movement leadership faces controversy of its own. Four leaders of the Washington, D.C., gathering were asked to resign in November amid uproar over their ties to Louis Farrakhan, the Nation of Islam head who has expressed anti-Semitic views. Some state chapters of the group have turned against the D.C. organizers, wary of being associated with Farrakhan’s rhetoric. This may have led to some fracturing of leadership along racial lines, and possibly some parties privately threatening a boycott. Rather than fight the whole thing out in public they may have decided that it was best to cancel the event, until they can privately work out their differences. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Stainless\_Steel\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_stainless_steel_rat/32/5727_2.png) [@The\_Stainless\_Steel\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Stainless_Steel_Rat)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2019, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/7294 "2019-01-18T01:11:13Z")
(I really hate to be posting here, but in the interest of fairness…) I guess you could reasonably argue that this isn’t an idea, but much the same stuff goes in the stupid Republican thread so… Now I know he’s was trying to appeal to his constituency, which has a large percentage of Asian-Americans, but… > [@](#): > > Rep. Ed Case (D-Hawaii) told attendees at an event celebrating the Asian-American and Pacific Islander members of Congress on Tuesday that he is an “Asian trapped in a white body.” Not a good look there, Eddie. Managed to P.O. most everyone, including Asian-Americans (See this article and the twitter comments: [MSN](https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/hawaii-congressman-claims-hes-an-asian-trapped-in-a-white-body/ar-BBSkQJs)) Now I need to go find something equally stupid a Republican said. Fortunately that is not a hard job. ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2019, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/7295 "2019-01-18T01:15:07Z")
I’m Asian-American, am I supposed to feel offended by that? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Stainless\_Steel\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_stainless_steel_rat/32/5727_2.png) [@The\_Stainless\_Steel\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Stainless_Steel_Rat)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2019, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/7296 "2019-01-18T03:24:55Z")
> [@scr4](#): > > I’m Asian-American, am I supposed to feel offended by that? I’m not, but going by the articles that I read (and the one I posted), apparently some are. But I see your point, I suspect it’ll blow over in a day or so. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2019, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/7297 "2019-01-18T04:22:46Z")
Why would someone say that? It doesn’t even make any sense. What a moron. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2019, 11:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/7298 "2019-01-18T11:26:18Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > Why would someone say that? It doesn’t even make any sense. What a moron. On the one hand I’m wary of single phrases removed from context. On the other hand, I’m struggling to imagine any non-joking context for that statement that wouldn’t be weird and wrong. And if he was joking, then he’s being grossly misrepresented. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2019, 12:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/7299 "2019-01-18T12:29:29Z")
> [@Strassia](#): > > A real one, although this one may be considered smart, if undemocratic, on short and local scale: > > [Democratic majority in New Jersey legislature move to gerrymander a more permanent majority.](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/12/new-jersey-gerrymandering-plan-bad.html) > > This is stupid on several fronts: > > 1. New Jersey is already pretty safely blue > 2. It makes it harder to push for reforms against this as now it becomes a “both sides do it” situation > > This is something that should be stopped no matter which party is doing it. > [@mhendo](#): > > Emphasis mine. > > This has actually been a “both sides do it” thing for quite a while. Democrats have gerrymandered districts for decades. The big difference is that Republicans are more blatant about it, and they took the reins of redistricting at a time when computer sampling and modeling allowed them to do it much more precisely and scientifically. > > I agree with your last sentence though. To the extent it’s possible, we need non-partisan commissions to draw district boundaries, preferably for all levels of government. Actually,[the proposed NJ law](https://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2018/Bills/SCR/43_R1.HTM) was an **anti** -gerrymandering law. > [@](#): > > ``` > c. The Commission shall only certify a plan to establish legislative districts that ensures fair representation such that each of the two major political parties has an equal number of districts more favorable to that party. A district shall be more favorable to a political party if the percentage of 1[total] the combined two-major-party1 votes received in that district in all Statewide general elections by that party over the preceding decade for the offices of United States President, United States Senator, and Governor exceeds the 1Statewide1 percentage of 1[total] the combined two-major-party1 votes that party received in 1[the average district in the plan, weighting each district equally] those elections1 . 1A major political party’s percentage of the combined two-major-party votes shall be calculated by dividing the number of votes received by that political party by the combined total number of votes received by the two major political parties.1 > > d. The Commission shall only certify a plan to establish legislative districts that 1[ensures] enhances competitiveness by ensuring1 that at least 25 percent of all districts are 1[competitive districts, which shall mean a district that is]1 more favorable to either major political party by no more than five percentage points of the average 1[district in the plan] Statewide percentage of the combined two-major-party votes received in all Statewide general elections by that party over the preceding decade for the offices of United States President, United States Senator, and Governor1 . For each 1[competitive] such1 district 1included in the foregoing1 in which the percentage of 1[total] the combined two-major-party1 votes for a major political party exceeds that party’s percentage of 1[total] the combined two-major-party1 votes in 1[the average district] those Statewide elections1 , there shall be a corresponding district in which that party’s percentage of 1[total] the combined two-major-party1 votes is less than the other major party’s percentage of 1[total] the combined two-major-party1 votes in the 1[average district] Statewide elections1 by approximately the same percentage. 1A major political party’s percentage of the combined two-major-party votes shall be calculated by dividing the number of votes received by that political party by the combined total number of votes received by the two major political parties.1 > > ``` How I read this (and how a number of other election junkies I read on Twitter have read it) is that in a 50-50 election, you’d have (c) an equal number of districts leaning D and leaning R, and (d) also in that hypothetical 50-50 election, you’d have at least 25% of your districts with no more than a 55-45 lean either way, with half of that 25% leaning D, and the other half leaning R. So if NJ elections were actually competitive statewide, control of the state legislature would be up for grabs as well. Now if NJ tilts 60-40 Dem (that’s hypothetical, not actual) in statewide races, half the districts will have a \>60% Dem lean, and half will have less than a 60% lean. And 1/8 of the districts will have between a 55% and a 60% Dem lean, and another 1/8 will have between a 60% and a 65% Dem lean. Yes, this would make it extremely hard for Republicans to win control of the state legislature, _as long as they don’t come close to getting half the vote_. But that’s how it _should_ work. How it shouldn’t work is the way it’s working in WI and MI, where a party can have an overwhelming majority of the state legislature, despite having won less than half the vote. This NJ law would **prevent** outcomes like that: a 50-50 election vote-wise would result in an election where control of the state legislature was totally up for grabs. Which is also how it _should_ work. ETA: JFTR, the Slate piece that **Strassia** linked to, has links in it to the text of the law here; that’s where I got this. Very misleading reporting by Slate, IMHO. ---
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2019, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/7300 "2019-01-24T17:55:17Z")
So in the latest election my Wisconsin ditched the corporate-tax-cutting-public-teacher-union-destroying fuck stick Scott Walker. When he was booted I looked forward to removing the ‘Open for Business’ addition to all our ‘Welcome to Wisconsin’ signs. I live on the border so it was a daily reminder of our States executive branches priorities over it citizens. So Tony Evers won, and replaced that addition to ‘Tony Evers Governor’ Look, I like the guy, I voted for him, I think he’ll do a great job. But don’t add schmuckery on top of schmuckery. It could have said ‘Welcome to Wisconsin, Open to The People’ or something. Or just remove the bullshit silly addition and be done with it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086.md?page=364) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086.md?page=366)