Supremes favor Gerrymandering

[_Chap]

we can also infer that aussie is "edging a little close" to the attitude of imperialism by being someone who meddles in other people's affairs.

The idea that somebody from a relatively small and uninfluential country like Australia is being 'imperialist' by commenting on US politics suggests that you don't have much idea of the normal usage of the word.

Why don't you question aussie's motives?

Why should I? I think his interest in the politics of the world's (currently) richest, most powerful and most influential country is perfectly appropriate. As is mine.

By the way, the current US President makes quite a habit of commenting on the internal affairs of other countries in a highly critical manner, even in the case of countries with whom the US has supposedly friendly relations. Do you think he is also an 'imperialist'?

[_subgenius]

Why should I? I think his interest in the politics of the world's (currently) richest, most powerful and most influential country is perfectly appropriate. As is mine.

Yes, we already established that you both consider it "appropriate" (duh). The question is "why" you believe it is appropriate...much like if Shades wanted to "comment" on Botswana. What makes you believe that aussie has a right to voice an opinion on domestic US politics ?

By the way, the current US President makes quite a habit of commenting on the internal affairs of other countries in a highly critical manner, even in the case of countries with whom the US has supposedly friendly relations. Do you think he is also an 'imperialist'?

We are Americans, and England's most successful colony (*glances at Australia), so of course our whole nation is Imperialistic (see also your comment on wealth and power).
Nevertheless, the topic is gerrymandering which has nothing to do with our Executive Branch. Nor does it, as OP discovered, relate to Judicial Branch. I would think that any outside observer would make an earnest effort to understand how our government is structured before yelling criticism from the bleachers...but alas, fanatics do as fanatics are.

[_Chap]

I think [aussieguy's] interest in the politics of the world's (currently) richest, most powerful and most influential country is perfectly appropriate. As is mine.

Yes, we already established that you both consider it "appropriate" (duh). The question is "why" you believe it is appropriate...much like if Shades wanted to "comment" on Botswana. What makes you believe that aussie has a right to voice an opinion on domestic US politics ?

Duh right back at you!

Shades can comment on Botswana any time he wants to. Why not? But he probably won't want to, because Botswanan politics has little effect on anything that is important to him. On the other hand, if he has something to say about Botswana, this is an open discussion board, and so long as he obeys the rules that is (according to Shade's rules) just fine.

The US, however, is a country whose politics have a great deal of effect on the rest of the world. Many people not in the US might therefore want to comment on US politics. And since this is an open discussion board, then so long as they obey the rules that is (according to Shade's rules) just fine.

You could, of course, reasonably complain should either myself or aussieguy demand to be allowed a vote in US elections. That, however, we are not doing.

[_Some Schmo]

Yes Shades, we should very seriously consider Botswana politics, given their massive nuclear arsenal, their dollar is the world's currency benchmark, and they have one of the highest GDPs in the world.

I mean, right?

[_canpakes]

Yes Shades, we should very seriously consider Botswana politics, given their massive nuclear arsenal, their dollar is the world's currency benchmark, and they have one of the highest GDPs in the world.

Hey, they do have lots of diamonds. : )

[_Themis]

I don't live in Botswana, so I have no interest whatsoever in the inner political workings of that nation. Therefore, I'm wondering why aussieguy55 has such a keen interest in the politics of what amounts to Botswana from his point of view.

Of course. To most of the rest of the world, the politics of the US have as little impact on their lives as the politics of Botswana.

Actually politics in the US has a lot more influence on non-American lives then by a country like Botswana, so it should be a concern. No country is independent of the rest of the world, which isolationists fail to understand. The US is also the biggest democracy and losing that democracy can have very negative long term affects on the other democratic countries like Australia.

I will note that people like subby are complaining about a non-American who has little to no politic influence, and then ignore people like Putin who have had a lot of influence on US politics in a very negative way. There is reasonable concern over US democracy.

[_ajax18]

The US is also the biggest democracy and losing that democracy can have very negative long term affects on the other democratic countries like Australia.

Does democracy in your opinion mean rule by US citizens or rule by citizens of the world? Do US voters have a right to establish and enforce immigration law or does this decision belong to the UN? Or does it only matter if the immigrant agrees with immigration law or not?

The Democrats should now rigged California so very few GOP members are elected.

California is a laboratory of liberal policy. Any GOP influence there is insignificant as demonstrated by the large homeless population and the inability to open a shop without intractable tent cities popping up on your sidewalk there.

[_Doctor Steuss]

Came into thread expecting...



...and left disappointed.

[_Res Ipsa]

Came into thread expecting...



...and left disappointed.

Some day, we’ll be together.

[_Themis]

The US is also the biggest democracy and losing that democracy can have very negative long term affects on the other democratic countries like Australia.

Does democracy in your opinion mean rule by US citizens or rule by citizens of the world? Do US voters have a right to establish and enforce immigration law or does this decision belong to the UN? Or does it only matter if the immigrant agrees with immigration law or not?

Not sure what this has to do with what I said, but I don't see anyone saying the US government shouldn't have control over immigration. I suspect your raciest beliefs are at the heart of your positions on things like immigration.