19 thoughts on “the late shift – current events with hCR”
Maybe next the Supreme Court can decide that it’s legal to redistrict after an election to make things fair (skinned).
Wat’s funny is that they are counting on only the black districts to vote democrat – when there is a growing number of disenchanted republicans that may be voting differently
That has been addressed. There has been speculation of republican voters voting for the other side. Even more so, there are the independents who have normally voted conservative, may now be switching over. If the polls are accurate for the most part, republican voters show solid support for the circus peanut, which make up about 30% of the electorate. That 30% is being spread thinner by some gerrymandering, leaving the other two thirds to the Democrats and Independents to dominate one side of the ballot.
In the end, is there any republican voter still holding onto to that moniker if they don’t already hold dear the same racist hatred their dear leader has? It seems any of his supporters don’t care about higher prices, loss of services and getting nothing of value from their tax dollars as long as the people they hate are also suffering, so he certainly has a lock on them, as his fondness for the uneducated are his most ardent supporters.
There are the few Libertarians whose ideology is totally anti-federalism who still gravitate toward the GOP candidate, but because many Libertarians lack the fundamental understanding of what their party actually is, may opt for a more liberal candidate because they don’t have any real grasp of what their party stands for.
go back to arguing with Tim. I’m on your side, you dingbat
I wasn’t arguing, I was putting in an addendum to your statement.
Ya know, for the lesser informed… like Tim.
To help Ms. Richardson, CAI, and others with low comprehension skills, someone asked an AI to state the ruling for a 5-year-old and this is the result:
• The big judges said grown-ups can’t color on the map using mostly skin color crayons to make special shapes just for one group of kids to win more games.
• Everyone still gets to vote the same, but the lines on the paper must be drawn fairly by where people live, not by picking favorites by their color.
• It’s like sharing toys equally without saying “these are only for brown kids” — the rules want the same fair play for all kids in America.
Heather only reads the news and summarizes the stories within. her pinned comment has the links
And as left leaning as I am, I agree with the court’s decision, and have read the referenced article in the constitution surrounding it. They naturally conflated Democrat with Minority, and in fairness had wanted proper representation in the house and senate. However there are a lot of white democrats that will gladly vote for a person of color as their candidate – people just have to step up and run.
what’s worrisome is the effort to make it harder for those to vote – it’s our inalienable right for everyone save for those who are rendered ineligible. attempts to disenfranchise voters are aberrant to what the founding fathers had in mind for the citizens. I personally feel that we should do as the Aussies do – make voting mandatory, even if it’s just checking in and not voting at all. make it a holiday, with polling places having food trucks, bounce houses, BBQ, and entertainment.
Your response is a classic example of projection. Several times I have asked you to provide a simple yes or no answer to the question: do you believe Donald J Trump lost the 2020 election? It turns out, in your utter ignorance, possibly caused by an overdose of eating crayons, cannot manage to drag your knuckles across a keyboard to spell out either a yes or no.
To respond to your AI answer, I asked it to describe Ailito’s flaws in his arguments to the gerrymandering case and this is the result:
1. Reliance on Disputed Turnout Data
–The Flaw: He allegedly used data that included all adults—non-citizens, felons, and unregistered people—to calculate turnout, rather than just eligible voters, which distorted the analysis of whether Black voting power was being diluted.
–Impact: This approach has been accused of attempting to undermine the Voting Rights Act (VRA) by making it difficult for minority voters to prove racial discrimination,
2. Misinterpreting Geographical Compactness
– The Flaw: Critics contend that he sets an impossibly high standard for demonstrating “compactness” of minority communities, often ignoring that communities of interest may be spread across rural and urban areas.
– Alternative View: This focus is seen as a way to undermine the first requirement of the Milligan case, which requires showing a minority group is large enough to form a majority in a reasonable district.
3. Redefining Racial Intent vs. Partisan Motive
– The Flaw: By allowing a “race-neutral” justification (i.e., “we did it for political advantage”) to override racial considerations, he makes it difficult to win a Section 2 VRA case, argue critics.
– The Criticism: Opponents argue this “cloaks” racial discrimination behind partisan goals, providing a roadmap for states to create unconstitutional maps that circumvent the Equal Protection Clause.
4. Misuse of Precedent and Expert Testimony
– The Flaw: In recent cases, he has been accused of disregarding “presumption of legislative good faith” when it supports plaintiffs, while simultaneously requiring them to provide nearly impossible levels of proof, notes Dyke ma’s Decision Alert.
– The Dissent: Justice Kagan, in her dissent regarding new Section 2 requirements, noted that the “new Callais requirements will effectively insulate any practice… said by a State to have any race-neutral justification”.
5. Ignoring the Reality of Partisan Gerrymandering
– The Flaw: By dismissing the need to solve partisan gerrymandering, he enables, a “hands-off” approach that ignores the democratic danger of allowing politicians to select their voters.
The above response is for adults with critical thinking skills.
Now I put the question in a form even you should understand: “Here is an explanation of the Supreme Court’s 2026 ruling, written for a 5-year-old, followed by the flaws in Justice Alito’s argument.”
Imagine a group of people playing a game. One team, the “Drawers,” got to draw the lines for the teams. They drew the lines so that another team, the “Blue Team,” had a very hard time winning, even if they had more players.
The Supreme Court, with Justice Alito writing the rules, said it is okay for the Drawers to make the game unfair if they say, “We did it because we like the Red Team, not because we dislike the Blue Team”.
This means, in many places, it is now legal to draw maps that make it hard for certain groups to vote, as long as the people drawing the maps say they were doing it for “politics” rather than “race”.
It might be in your best interest to invest in those brain supplements, although yours need to be in suppository form.
I answered your question but added some context; I am sorry that confused you, but that is on you, not me.
Again, SimpleTim, you cry about comprehension skills in others, but ignore your own.
The question demands either a yes or no, as an answer. Your cowardice to avoid that stipulation says a lot about your lack of ability to think for yourself, instead offering an answer supplied by already extreme right wing culties.
Denying your spinelessness is 100% on you. Trying to blame your inability to respond according to the explicit instructions provided, says you are a basic idiot who hides behind bullshit so that people will not see you as the mindless drone you are.
Again, provide either a yes or no response to the following question: Did Donald J Trump lose the 2020 election?
Let’s see, I said that the Electoral College was verified thus Biden became President in the 2020 election.
These facts are right-wing? So the left-wing doesn’t like facts? interesting.
But since you can’t comprehend, yes.
Again, YOU are not answering the question asked.
Your reading comprehension is lacking.
The question has a simple grammatical structure, to which I will explain in the manner that is taught to grade schoolers in hopes of you better understanding your lack of grasping the English language.
“Do you believe Donald J Trump lost the 2020 election?”
Auxiliary Verb: “Do” (initiates the yes/no question). < key element that you have failed to provide on multiple occassions.
Subject: "you" (the person being asked). < meaning what YOU think, not copying and pasting of another right wingnuts similar response
Main Verb: "believe".
Subordinate (Noun) Clause: "Donald J Trump lost the 2020 election" (acts as the direct object of the verb "believe").
Noun Clause Breakdown:
Subject: "Donald J Trump"
Verb: "lost"
Direct Object: "the 2020 election"
While it took multiple efforts for you to respond in the correct fashion that was required, it's somewhat disconcerting that you still continue to utilize right wing talking points with a tiny modicum of independent thought. Maybe those suppository brain supplements are working for you after all. Maybe one day, you will comprehend the language in which you attempt to speak.
But it’s okay to redistrict according to party.
“We are the victims here. Those black people get everything and are all born with silver spoons in their mouths. But they chose to be poor and live in a ghetto.”
Huh? You should not drink and comment.
Both parties, once in power in a state, gerrymander and have been for years and to their advantage. And if they do it according to state law, it takes affect; but now, it can’t be by race.
Or to say it another way, elections have consequences.
Your lack of grasping sarcasm is amazing, SimpleTim.
Your racism is quite obvious.
What racism? What color is the sky in your world? Is it the same as what is in reality–or are you too far from realty to know?
Might want to read my comment on today’s edition of “The Late Shift with HCR” and you will see yourself in it.
I could, but I won’t waste my time.
Because your racism won’t allow it.
Either that or your ESL lessons aren’t working out for you.
Maybe next the Supreme Court can decide that it’s legal to redistrict after an election to make things fair (skinned).
Wat’s funny is that they are counting on only the black districts to vote democrat – when there is a growing number of disenchanted republicans that may be voting differently
That has been addressed. There has been speculation of republican voters voting for the other side. Even more so, there are the independents who have normally voted conservative, may now be switching over. If the polls are accurate for the most part, republican voters show solid support for the circus peanut, which make up about 30% of the electorate. That 30% is being spread thinner by some gerrymandering, leaving the other two thirds to the Democrats and Independents to dominate one side of the ballot.
In the end, is there any republican voter still holding onto to that moniker if they don’t already hold dear the same racist hatred their dear leader has? It seems any of his supporters don’t care about higher prices, loss of services and getting nothing of value from their tax dollars as long as the people they hate are also suffering, so he certainly has a lock on them, as his fondness for the uneducated are his most ardent supporters.
There are the few Libertarians whose ideology is totally anti-federalism who still gravitate toward the GOP candidate, but because many Libertarians lack the fundamental understanding of what their party actually is, may opt for a more liberal candidate because they don’t have any real grasp of what their party stands for.
go back to arguing with Tim. I’m on your side, you dingbat
I wasn’t arguing, I was putting in an addendum to your statement.
Ya know, for the lesser informed… like Tim.
To help Ms. Richardson, CAI, and others with low comprehension skills, someone asked an AI to state the ruling for a 5-year-old and this is the result:
• The big judges said grown-ups can’t color on the map using mostly skin color crayons to make special shapes just for one group of kids to win more games.
• Everyone still gets to vote the same, but the lines on the paper must be drawn fairly by where people live, not by picking favorites by their color.
• It’s like sharing toys equally without saying “these are only for brown kids” — the rules want the same fair play for all kids in America.
Heather only reads the news and summarizes the stories within. her pinned comment has the links
And as left leaning as I am, I agree with the court’s decision, and have read the referenced article in the constitution surrounding it. They naturally conflated Democrat with Minority, and in fairness had wanted proper representation in the house and senate. However there are a lot of white democrats that will gladly vote for a person of color as their candidate – people just have to step up and run.
what’s worrisome is the effort to make it harder for those to vote – it’s our inalienable right for everyone save for those who are rendered ineligible. attempts to disenfranchise voters are aberrant to what the founding fathers had in mind for the citizens. I personally feel that we should do as the Aussies do – make voting mandatory, even if it’s just checking in and not voting at all. make it a holiday, with polling places having food trucks, bounce houses, BBQ, and entertainment.
Your response is a classic example of projection. Several times I have asked you to provide a simple yes or no answer to the question: do you believe Donald J Trump lost the 2020 election? It turns out, in your utter ignorance, possibly caused by an overdose of eating crayons, cannot manage to drag your knuckles across a keyboard to spell out either a yes or no.
To respond to your AI answer, I asked it to describe Ailito’s flaws in his arguments to the gerrymandering case and this is the result:
1. Reliance on Disputed Turnout Data
–The Flaw: He allegedly used data that included all adults—non-citizens, felons, and unregistered people—to calculate turnout, rather than just eligible voters, which distorted the analysis of whether Black voting power was being diluted.
–Impact: This approach has been accused of attempting to undermine the Voting Rights Act (VRA) by making it difficult for minority voters to prove racial discrimination,
2. Misinterpreting Geographical Compactness
– The Flaw: Critics contend that he sets an impossibly high standard for demonstrating “compactness” of minority communities, often ignoring that communities of interest may be spread across rural and urban areas.
– Alternative View: This focus is seen as a way to undermine the first requirement of the Milligan case, which requires showing a minority group is large enough to form a majority in a reasonable district.
3. Redefining Racial Intent vs. Partisan Motive
– The Flaw: By allowing a “race-neutral” justification (i.e., “we did it for political advantage”) to override racial considerations, he makes it difficult to win a Section 2 VRA case, argue critics.
– The Criticism: Opponents argue this “cloaks” racial discrimination behind partisan goals, providing a roadmap for states to create unconstitutional maps that circumvent the Equal Protection Clause.
4. Misuse of Precedent and Expert Testimony
– The Flaw: In recent cases, he has been accused of disregarding “presumption of legislative good faith” when it supports plaintiffs, while simultaneously requiring them to provide nearly impossible levels of proof, notes Dyke ma’s Decision Alert.
– The Dissent: Justice Kagan, in her dissent regarding new Section 2 requirements, noted that the “new Callais requirements will effectively insulate any practice… said by a State to have any race-neutral justification”.
5. Ignoring the Reality of Partisan Gerrymandering
– The Flaw: By dismissing the need to solve partisan gerrymandering, he enables, a “hands-off” approach that ignores the democratic danger of allowing politicians to select their voters.
The above response is for adults with critical thinking skills.
Now I put the question in a form even you should understand: “Here is an explanation of the Supreme Court’s 2026 ruling, written for a 5-year-old, followed by the flaws in Justice Alito’s argument.”
Imagine a group of people playing a game. One team, the “Drawers,” got to draw the lines for the teams. They drew the lines so that another team, the “Blue Team,” had a very hard time winning, even if they had more players.
The Supreme Court, with Justice Alito writing the rules, said it is okay for the Drawers to make the game unfair if they say, “We did it because we like the Red Team, not because we dislike the Blue Team”.
This means, in many places, it is now legal to draw maps that make it hard for certain groups to vote, as long as the people drawing the maps say they were doing it for “politics” rather than “race”.
It might be in your best interest to invest in those brain supplements, although yours need to be in suppository form.
I answered your question but added some context; I am sorry that confused you, but that is on you, not me.
Again, SimpleTim, you cry about comprehension skills in others, but ignore your own.
The question demands either a yes or no, as an answer. Your cowardice to avoid that stipulation says a lot about your lack of ability to think for yourself, instead offering an answer supplied by already extreme right wing culties.
Denying your spinelessness is 100% on you. Trying to blame your inability to respond according to the explicit instructions provided, says you are a basic idiot who hides behind bullshit so that people will not see you as the mindless drone you are.
Again, provide either a yes or no response to the following question: Did Donald J Trump lose the 2020 election?
Let’s see, I said that the Electoral College was verified thus Biden became President in the 2020 election.
These facts are right-wing? So the left-wing doesn’t like facts? interesting.
But since you can’t comprehend, yes.
Again, YOU are not answering the question asked.
Your reading comprehension is lacking.
The question has a simple grammatical structure, to which I will explain in the manner that is taught to grade schoolers in hopes of you better understanding your lack of grasping the English language.
“Do you believe Donald J Trump lost the 2020 election?”
Auxiliary Verb: “Do” (initiates the yes/no question). < key element that you have failed to provide on multiple occassions.
Subject: "you" (the person being asked). < meaning what YOU think, not copying and pasting of another right wingnuts similar response
Main Verb: "believe".
Subordinate (Noun) Clause: "Donald J Trump lost the 2020 election" (acts as the direct object of the verb "believe").
Noun Clause Breakdown:
Subject: "Donald J Trump"
Verb: "lost"
Direct Object: "the 2020 election"
While it took multiple efforts for you to respond in the correct fashion that was required, it's somewhat disconcerting that you still continue to utilize right wing talking points with a tiny modicum of independent thought. Maybe those suppository brain supplements are working for you after all. Maybe one day, you will comprehend the language in which you attempt to speak.
But it’s okay to redistrict according to party.
“We are the victims here. Those black people get everything and are all born with silver spoons in their mouths. But they chose to be poor and live in a ghetto.”
Huh? You should not drink and comment.
Both parties, once in power in a state, gerrymander and have been for years and to their advantage. And if they do it according to state law, it takes affect; but now, it can’t be by race.
Or to say it another way, elections have consequences.
Your lack of grasping sarcasm is amazing, SimpleTim.
Your racism is quite obvious.
What racism? What color is the sky in your world? Is it the same as what is in reality–or are you too far from realty to know?
Might want to read my comment on today’s edition of “The Late Shift with HCR” and you will see yourself in it.
I could, but I won’t waste my time.
Because your racism won’t allow it.
Either that or your ESL lessons aren’t working out for you.