Socialists’ tragic ‘ignorance,’ getting the voting act wrong and other commentary
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
From the right: Socialists’ Tragic ‘Ignorance’
For the last decade, “people have been trying to explain the American left’s socialist turn,” observes The Wall Street Journal’s Matthew Continetti. Here’s one possible explanation: “ignorance.” “You can’t earn a billion dollars,” argued Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, adding that “the American Revolution was against the billionaires of their time.” One problem: “The link between individual effort and reward isn’t always clear. State action is visible; the operations of the market are not.” But neither “billionaire” nor “wealth” appear in the Declaration of Independence, and the Revolution was actually “fought over political power,” not to cut down billionaires. How tragic: “To forget the causes and aims of the Revolution is to lose touch with America itself.”
Legal take: Getting the Voting Act Wrong
“The prevailing interpretation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965” as “requiring states to create congressional districts along racial lines” is plain wrong, explains Frank Miele at RealClearPolitics. Section 2 of the act banned any “qualification or prerequisite to voting” based on race, “to guarantee minorities access to the ballot box as equal participants in the democratic process” — but it didn’t mandate “racial engineering of congressional districts.” Indeed, the 1982 revision to the VRA specifically rules out the “right to have members of a protected class elected in numbers equal to their proportion in the population.” The VRA “never explicitly required states to create majority-minority congressional districts,” and the Supreme Court’s recent decision undoes decades of illegal application of racial consideration to the drawing of congressional districts.
Libertarian: No ‘Tax Holiday’ for Travelers
While President Trump’s proposed “gas tax holiday” is welcome, “the real bite isn’t the federal 18.4 cents per gallon of gasoline and 24.4 cents on each gallon of diesel fuel,” contends Reason’s J.D. Tuccille . Indeed, if you travel and especially if you rent a car, then gas taxes are “the least of the problem.” Fact is, “travelers make for easy marks” for politicians, since they don’t reside in “the places that soak them for revenue.” Per the Tax Foundation, “high local taxes and fees make Chicago the most expensive city, tax-wise, to rent a car.” “Travelers are also considered fair game for lodging taxes,” which are rising, too. Bottom line: With a “limited means to punish tax-hungry officials in places they visit,” travelers are “unlikely to enjoy anything like a tax holiday.”
Antisemitism beat: Jewish Dems’ Dilemma
A recent gathering of “Jewish Democrats offers insight into how Jews are attempting to reconcile their political identity with their party’s explosion of anti-Semitism,” notes Commentary’s Seth Mandel . Notably, “establishment Democrats” are embracing Graham Platner, the Nazi-tattooed Maine Senate nominee, despite his “history of anti-Semitic and misogynist comments.” Jewish Democratic Council of America director Halie Soifer, for instance, says she has a “deep concern about [Platner’s] views and values,” yet, notes Mandel, she’s nonetheless open “to reconciliation.” Jewish Dems’ slow embrace of “the need to fight anti-Semitism” in their party has “enabled the rise of the very candidates Soifer now claims to be concerned about.” They need to understand: “Staying neutral” isn’t an option; “if Jewish Democrats aren’t going to resist having extremist anti-Semites representing their party, then virtually no one will.”
Fraud watch: Minnesota Greenlighted Theft
“State education officials” in Minnesota warned of fraud involving a “federally funded meals program during the pandemic,” but their “supervisors stopped them” from taking “aggressive action,” reports Jeffrey Meitrodt at the Minneapolis Star-Tribune . “Supervisors repeatedly stopped” one state employee “from digging into suspicious reimbursement claims” regarding the notorious Feeding Our Future program, and “discouraged.” Of particular note: The employee was “warned not to do anything that would be considered targeting or discriminating against certain diverse communities.” Another employee ID’d tactics fraudsters used “to overwhelm regulators with paperwork,” making it harder for them to spot fraud” but supervisors nixed any countermeasures.
— Compiled by The Post Editorial Board
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
118 visitors
This past weekend AOC delivered an angry, insane race-baiting speech in Alabama, standing behind a bullet proof glass (as if there was any danger from the right.)
They have done tremendous damage to the country. We need to stop them in November.
that's the democrat's midterm campaign slogan. how many days now since day 1 Ukraine peace, lower gas, and grocery prices?
484
In your perfect world whites and blacks would vote for candidates of the other race in similar if not equal percentages . If this proved true , without carved out districts blacks would have barely any representation in Congress.
I'm sure that would make some people very happy.
I don't know if they need equal percentages, but I do know that white Americans are more willing to ignore race in judging a candidate. Even if that wasn't true, setting up districts based on race is a violation of the Constitution, which ensures equal protections for everyone.
Any supporting evidence for this claim?
If you take a district that is 50% black, and then cut that district into three new districts where blacks will be 17% of each, who do you think will win those new districts ?
Yes. Senator Tim Scott was elected with the white vote, long ago my state elected Edward Brooke with almost total white support. In the House of Representatives, Burgess Owens, Warren Davidson, Byron Donalds were all elected with mainly white support.
On the democrat side, there are 61 African American House Representatives and as copilot notes:
"Many Black Democrats represent majority‑minority districts created under Voting Rights Act protections, but a growing number also serve in majority‑white districts."
democrat african americans serving in the house of representatives - Search
You really didn't know?
The best candidate.
What's the vote breakdown by race? What's the vote breakdown of white election winners by race? While we're at it maybe we should break it down by other demographics, age, gender, education and economics.
LOL
You know what that is. That is why the racist Jasmine Crockett was forced to step aside in a Senate bid that the dirty dems knew she couldn't win once her race-based stronghold had been abolished.
The dems created all this tribalism by race-baiting blacks and holding onto an unconstitutional system designed to give black Americans an outsized voice.
Thank you. It was fairly easy.
I'm not saying you are wrong. I'm asking you to back up your claim with evidence. Either do so, or withdraw the claim as a declarative statement. If it's true then I'm interested in further analysis. If not then I'll go on to something else.
But I did. You want me to get the racial breakdowns from 63 elections, which you know damn right well were strictly about race in many black precincts.
If it's true then I'm interested in further analysis.
If it's true and I have to go to all that work, I want an apology from you. How's that?
If you have congressional districts that are only 17% black by population, what percentage of those districts would you expect blacks to win?
A lot less than 17%, right?
You are assuming that everyone will vote by race. Why do you think that way?
I think most people are fed up with it.
There are probably some congressional districts in the country where 17% black population could elect a black candidate, but not many . IF in a typical congressional district blacks and whites vote for the candidates proportionately according to racial makeup whites win every time wouldnt they?
You'll get a thank you for doing the work you should have done before making the claim. That's all anyone would deserve.
Who do you think is more likely to vote according to race?
Who has a better chance to win, a white in a 60% black area or a black in a 60% white area?
Then I guess you'll have to settle for Copilot.
They know that answer.
I believe I do. And judging by the silence, I think some friends on the left believe it too.
I'm not going to do your work for you. I'll consider this as your capitulation instead.
If it makes you feel better go right ahead. You are entitled to believe that those racially created districts in seven southern states actually produced anything other than partisan democrat black candidates.
In Virginia’s recent election, whites voted for the black candidate and blacks voted for the white one.
Democrats seek partisan advantage in race based politics, that’s the only reason it’s an issue.
All you have to do is read the voting rights act to know there is no requirement for race based districts.
Race based districts are a form of Gerrymandering