The process of Gerrymandering has disenfranchised an obscene amount of voters. Redrawing districts to separate or even eradicate certain demographics from voting essentially violates the 15th amendment. The protection of the 15th amendment allows citizens to vote no matter race or gender, and have their vote matter. Gerrymandering takes away the gravity of their vote if they are removed from the population or drowned by a sea of other votes 100 miles away from where the voter lives. A prime example of this tactic in practice is in Texas. Austin, Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio are all split into several different districts so the population is separated. These spread out districts water down the voters with whomever the ones drawing the districts choose.
With those in office deciding where they want votes to come from, the right to vote given by the 15th amendment is effectively nulled. Taking away this right is criminal by nature and should be ruled unconstitutional, and sometimes it even is. If a district is deemed illegally drawn, the ones who drew it are forced to redraw it. This should not be the case. What's to say that those who drew the original line aren't going to redraw another district just as bad but get away with it under some loophole? We have the resources necessary to draw districts without the influence of those in office but refuse to do so. Gerrymandering should be brought to the supreme court as a federal matter and ruled unconstitutional for every situation.
Thursday, March 30, 2017
Tuesday, March 7, 2017
"TapGate"
In the article, Obama Camp's Disingenuous Denials of FISA Surveillance of Trump, the author, Andrew C. McCarthy, claims that Obama and his aides are lying about their involvement in an alleged wiretap on Donald Trump. McCarthy's audience is heavily conservative republicans who believe in conspiracy theories. McCarthy is an experienced attorney with an emphasis towards prosecuting attacks against the U.S.
In the article McCarthy writes, he attempts to woo his audience by providing some in-depth information about the Trump wiretapping scandal. He also uses his knowledge as an attorney to make it sound like he is providing an informed argument as to how he knows that the Obama administration did, in fact, tap Trump during the election. What McCarthy does not do, however, is lend any credible evidence towards his accusation. Instead, McCarthy provides information about how a FISA works, how it is ordered, etc. Effectively, all he is doing is connecting a definition to a person by ways of circumstantial evidence.
McCarthy's second point about Obama ordering Trump to be under surveillance is the least constructed argument I have ever seen. All McCarthy provides is a very circumstantial (and frankly not even connected) bit about how Obama, "had American citizens killed in drone operations". McCarthy does not provide any evidence whatsoever that Obama actually did order a FISA (or ordered Americans killed) but believes that he would be the kind of person to do so.
All in all, the arguments McCarthy attempts to make in his "article" are very weak. He provides no solid evidence towards his statements while only giving the reader some conspiracy theory fuel. This article was obviously written to try and stir the pot amongst his readers and not to try and actually write about something meaningful.
In the article McCarthy writes, he attempts to woo his audience by providing some in-depth information about the Trump wiretapping scandal. He also uses his knowledge as an attorney to make it sound like he is providing an informed argument as to how he knows that the Obama administration did, in fact, tap Trump during the election. What McCarthy does not do, however, is lend any credible evidence towards his accusation. Instead, McCarthy provides information about how a FISA works, how it is ordered, etc. Effectively, all he is doing is connecting a definition to a person by ways of circumstantial evidence.
McCarthy's second point about Obama ordering Trump to be under surveillance is the least constructed argument I have ever seen. All McCarthy provides is a very circumstantial (and frankly not even connected) bit about how Obama, "had American citizens killed in drone operations". McCarthy does not provide any evidence whatsoever that Obama actually did order a FISA (or ordered Americans killed) but believes that he would be the kind of person to do so.
All in all, the arguments McCarthy attempts to make in his "article" are very weak. He provides no solid evidence towards his statements while only giving the reader some conspiracy theory fuel. This article was obviously written to try and stir the pot amongst his readers and not to try and actually write about something meaningful.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)