this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2025
131 points (99.2% liked)

politics

26683 readers
3435 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 12 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] minorkeys@lemmy.world 33 points 3 weeks ago

Red states have all gerrymandered themselves for decades. Blue generally haven't. So if both go full out to gerrymander, it seems like the blue states that haven't done so yet would have a lot more opportunity to gain seats.

[–] ShellMonkey@piefed.socdojo.com 32 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

FAFO?

Would be pretty sweet if this stands but they fail to block CA's redraw that was only done to counter this shit to begin with.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 17 points 3 weeks ago

There's a few other fascist states following Texas, so even if Texas fails CA is still necessary.

[–] Vorticity@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago

Here's the next argument from the right: The CA redraw is in response to a racial redraw, therefor it is also based on race and therefor unconstitutional.

[–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 16 points 3 weeks ago

This judge was like, Texas had a whole plan to gerrymander away PoC while pretending it has nothing to do with race as approved by the Supreme Court. The DOJ can't keep their mouth shut and are too incompetent to understand the nuance of the case they were citing.

[–] CubitOom@infosec.pub 12 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Ha Ha...Bubba.

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 10 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

The only benefit to a kakistocracy, is that these morons are so incompetent, that they can't actually accomplish any of their nefarious plans. It's like a bank robber that shoots themselves in the crotch, while trying to pull their gun out of their pocket.

[–] HulkSmashBurgers@reddthat.com 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Ah ah aaahhhh! I shot my dick off!

[–] Capricorn_Geriatric@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

You forgot the part where he sues the bank for damages because they were caused in their building. $3 bn.

[–] muusemuuse@sh.itjust.works 8 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

And just like that he is no longer useful to them.

Remember the end of the lion king where the hyenas eat Scar?

[–] tigeruppercut@lemmy.zip 1 points 3 weeks ago

He was never useful to them. They just couldn't find a way to stop him as he turned the electorate into his cult

[–] resipsaloquitur@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago

Sexy explosion.