this post was submitted on 29 Apr 2026
231 points (99.6% liked)

politics

29767 readers
1660 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
all 32 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Asafum@lemmy.world 72 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I still can't even get over the partisan gerrymandering being legal part... What fucking country is this?

"Yeah when one party takes full control they can just choose their voters to make sure they always win. Totally Legal and Cool™©®."

Now this bs. "In order to win your case you just have to be a mindreader. It's simple really."

[–] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 39 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

He keeps arguing that voting laws, in general, whether they be gerrymandering or other laws that objectively and overwhelmingly disenfranchise select peoples, are fine so long as they are not (provably) intentionally discriminatory based on constitutionally protected class, but rather politically motivated/discriminatory. As if political discrimination for a constitutional right, let alone one that decides the ones who set these laws, is any better or more acceptable. At this point, he'd argue that a law requiring you to vote Republican is fine since it's only politically discriminatory. Jesus Fucking Christ.

[–] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world 15 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

At this point, he'd argue that a law requiring you to vote Republican is fine since it's only politically discriminatory.

He'd also shamelessly declare that anyone who disagreed with that law a communist, because trolling is the only thing they know anymore

[–] Malyca@lemmy.zip 4 points 2 weeks ago

That and projection

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 65 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Great job, fascists.

Okay lefties, get squabbling.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 41 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (3 children)

Great job, fascists.

Moderate Republicans have been campaigning against the Voting Rights Act since August 7th, 1965. It's been a primary factor in the Federalist Society domination of the federal courts system, particularly following the election of George Bush Jr.

Abbott v. Perez

Bartlett v. Strickland

Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee

Georgia v. Ashcroft

We've been chipping away at this thing for over 20 years. They're running out of provisions to gut, nevermind a DOJ willing to faithfully prosecute under its provisions.

Okay lefties, get squabbling.

"If you wanted the right to vote, you should have voted harder" is one hell of a take.

[–] Jhex@lemmy.world 13 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Moderate Republicans have been campaigning against the Voting Rights Act since August 7th, 1965.

why do you refer to fascists as "moderate republicans"?

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 15 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The US is a country of, by, and for fascists. But the VRA has been a target of Neo-Confederate White Nationalists specifically. Their party is the Republican Party.

[–] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world 7 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Biden tried hard to win them back by telling everyone what great pals he was with Strom Thurmond and going after efforts to desegregate schools

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago

What a eulogy. Truly the statesman of our generation, standing up for poor disenfranchised segregationists like that.

[–] Whostosay@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 weeks ago

Likely a tomato tamato situation.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 10 points 2 weeks ago

Moderate Republicans have been campaigning against the Voting Rights Act since August 7th, 1965. It's been a primary factor in the Federalist Society domination of the federal courts system, particularly following the election of George Bush Jr.

Exactly so. They played the long game. Solidifying their voting bloc, using any means necessary to ensure both election victories and select court appointments.

"If you wanted the right to vote, you should have voted harder" is one hell of a take.

Voting harder isn’t a thing, but the circular firing squad is. When the leftists quadruple down on hating ‘liberals’ and screaming their finely crafted FSB talking points, we will once again miss a window of opportunity to take back some ground. Just like they hated Hillary and that’s how we got Gorsuch, Boof, and Amy Covid to finally give Roberts the death knell he’s sought all along.

Republican squabbling is close to non-existent except for variations in extremes. Being called a genocider by someone who (theoretically) shares 90% of the same political opinions is our lot. And it’s about to crank up again for November.

WILL ‘the left’ / ‘progressives’ / ‘liberals’ / ‘democrats’ be able to support the same thing in November?? Only TIME . . will tell. But the odds are really not great.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 weeks ago

"If you wanted the right to vote, you should have voted harder" is one hell of a take.

I think you think this is much more poignant than it actually is.

Yes, in order to keep thee right to vote, you may need to vote against the people who openly want to fuck it up. How is this still controversial?

[–] switcheroo@lemmy.world 43 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The Pedo Party can't win unless they cheat.

[–] Bwaz@lemmy.world 34 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

Why is gerrymandering, for ANY reason, legal at all?

[–] Malyca@lemmy.zip 15 points 2 weeks ago

I've got a better one for you, why is oligarch bribery legal? Both come from the same source.

[–] Snowies@lemmy.zip 10 points 2 weeks ago

Because the working poor are too tired, divided, and financially vulnerable to unite and protest in any meaningful persistent way.

We are planning a protest on May 1st. Don’t go to work and don’t buy anything. Take to the streets and make your voice heard.

Watch how it goes. Too many of us won’t even know it’s happening, or will know — but won’t be able to afford taking that day off, or will know — but won’t care.

The majority is easy to divide apparently.

[–] Bwaz@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago

Why not divide each state into slices like a pie with each relatively proportioned to have an equal number of citizens?

[–] i_am_not_a_robot@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

How do you prove that somebody is or is not gerrymandering for political gain?

[–] DillDough@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 weeks ago

Restructure the government to operate on total votes. End districts, the EC, all this bullshit, you run for town/city, county,state, or federal and it counts every person living in those areas. Add ranked choice and either expand or reduce number of representatives.

Gerrymandering is necessary with dogshit systems like we have now, it just becomes an issue when it's weaponized and we allow blatant corruption and manipulation.

[–] DarkFuture@lemmy.world 24 points 2 weeks ago

A traitor to the United States of America and someone our forefathers would have dealt with swiftly and with extreme prejudice.

[–] Bluedragon012@lemmy.world 22 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Hmmm.. No taxation without representation. So.. What we dumping into a body of water?

[–] CuddlyCassowary@lemmy.world 29 points 2 weeks ago

Alito and his cronies.

[–] HootinNHollerin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 2 weeks ago

The blood of the fascists

[–] egerlach@lemmy.ca 19 points 2 weeks ago

After the leaked memos from SCOTUS recently, I'm not surprised. LegalEagle video on the subject:

[–] fartographer@lemmy.world 19 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

“Vast social change has occurred throughout the country and particularly in the South, which have made great strides in ending entrenched racial discrimination,” Alito writes.

We tried and found some success. Time to shut down the experiment to find out if we can reduce the effects of racism.

/s or not-/s, IDK anymore. This shit is so blindingly stupid.

[–] ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago

Because he and his ilk wants racism back...

[–] Jhex@lemmy.world 9 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Ok Muricans... tell me again how you "aRE noT TheRe YeT"

[–] kylie_kraft@lemmy.world 12 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

"I still got beer and Netflix, I'm good"

[–] _fryerDan@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 weeks ago

basically. we're too spread out for all-out revolt

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

It took me a few times to read that right