politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Do.. do you just not understand what happened in Virginia or what this decision represents?
First off. The GOP didn't do this. It was a Virginia supreme court decision about a technicality that they are saying the Virginia state legislature fucked up on some timing and details. The GOP wasn't involved. The Democrats in Virginia did this, as in, they were moving forwards with a gerrymander in Virginia which would favor Democrats. So its gerrymandering, but in favor of Democrats.
I don't think you're even in the right museum. Maybe you thought this was an article about red-state/ GOP led redistricting? Which is part of the conversation, but not what this specific, extremely disappointing article is about.
This is about Democratic led redistricting getting shut down by the courts while GOP redistricting is being allowed to proceed.
We were absolutely doomed before Dems picked up and started actually fighting fire with fire regarding redistricting. No buts about it. But we saw a genuine turn with California and Virginia taking up the mantle and deciding that if the GOP is going to re-district, that they would too. It was a genuinely good thing and its why the narrative shifted towards the Dems taking the house and maybe even the Senate.
However if only the GOP is allowed to redistrict, then we're one hundred percent doomed because with the dissolution of the voting rights act, it absolutely does put the Dems at such a structural disadvantage, its hard to see a practical path for them taking the house. Its not too soon to be able to say that. We knew that to be the case it in 1965 because we lived that reality and passed to voting rights act to address it.
A Republican majority decision. Everything after this part was irrelevant or frankly wrong. Like this but:
Crawl out from under your rock. Even decently liked presidents lose double digit house seats in the midterms, they're barely hanging onto the majority right now, with just a couple seat advantage.
Its still not the GOP. And nothing I said was irrelevant or wrong.
You crawl out from under your rock and look at the decisions being made at the SC right now. Republicans have carte-blanc to redistrict as they see fit. Democrats aren't being allowed to respond in-kind. Before California and Virginia took up the redistricting process, we were not talking about Dem's taking the house. Now were looking at facing even more structural barriers to doing so, not to mention the almost certainty of ICE fuckery around the election and the absolute certainty of court challenges whenever convenient, voter roll purges, polling place changes, and whatever else we can and should expect to happen between now and then.
You can't just keep "hoping" things will be fine by following the process, if the consequences of that process failing are that you no longer have a democracy, which is the consequence we're facing. This needs to be treated like a 3-alarm fire and responded to as such. Hope among Democrats is what has continuously led to things getting worse. Hope isn't a strategy.
Yes we were. You deciding to ignore more context doesn't make you less wrong here. But it is pointless continue this conversation because you're still unable to follow it.