I don't even know that that means, but I'm sensing a bit of anger, with a helping of ad hominem.
I'm not sure there is a point to be made here, but you do seem quite angry.
fixed to highlight the silliness of your suggestion.
I would say rephrasing what someone said to ridicule it is a sure sign of a defeated wit.
How Democrats Gerrymandered Their Way to Victory in Maryland
Mother Jones produced a map of the gerrymandered districts.
The people in far western Maryland have little culturally in common with people in the DC suburbs who are reliably Democratic.
Mother Jones described the gerrymandering this way:
Democrats added a strange-looking appendage to the district, reaching all the way down into the affluent Washington, DC, suburbs to scoop up Democratic voters. More than 360,000 people were moved out of the district, and nearly as many were moved in. It went from solidly Republican to reliably Democratic; the Cook Political Report identified it as the biggest district swing in the country.
You surely trust that
Mother Jones is not biased to the right.
I do not know why you are reacting so personally. You and I disagree on a political matter. I do not ascribe malign intent to that. You are not a bad person. In fact, I would credit your motivations to an attempt to care for the downtrodden and to help the less fortunate.
But you and I disagree, and that means a differences in facts, in reasoning, or in values. I find those differences interesting.