all 42 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 163 points 9 months ago (18 children)

Helllo I am from the future, the answer is yes only republicans are allowed to gerrymander.

  • source
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 28 points 9 months ago (13 children)

    How far into the future? I need to know if I'm into dudes or not

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 40 points 9 months ago (8 children)

    You’re into dudes in the future, but they’re cute and you’re passionate, and there’s gentle hugs while thoughtfully baking cookies. You’ll do alright.

    Politically, however, shit will be more fucked than ever.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 9 months ago (7 children)

    Wait, I'm the SpaghettiMan from Council Bluffs, IA. I'm not the one in Saratoga. Does this change anything?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 9 months ago (6 children)

    Says here in the book that you’ll have a happy gay relationship that borders on saccharine, and that your friends will be jealous of your adorable and stable homelife.

    However, the one in Saratoga will get three felonies because a heavy bookend connected with his husband’s head, flung across the room in yet another protracted dispute, and the medical examiner who saw Saratoga SpaghettiMan’s husband is a mandatory reporter. They were never meant to be.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 9 months ago (4 children)

    He was kind of a douche anyway.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    They were made for each other in a special hell, and they’ll never have what you and your fiancé have.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    I will sleep easy tonight knowing what lies ahead. A dude in my bed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    He’s pretty, a subtle feminine aesthetic. You were doubtful at first.

    Oh also, interesting to note in the future: after self-flying cars were legalized by Chairman X. A. E. Musk of the United States Board of Presidential Chairmen in ‘51, mid-air traffic fatalities octupled almost immediately. He wanted one, and you were so close to talking him out. Next time this conversation happens, mention the payment cycle and interest rate more often.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    You're NOT into dudes in the future. You're into bird watching.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    The Republican justices have already signaled that they probably won’t strike down California’s maps

    In fairness to the Court’s Republicans, they did suggest in their LULAC opinion that the Texas and California gerrymanders are mirror images of each other. The majority opinion in that case begins with the observation that after Texas drew its new map, “California responded with its own map for the stated purpose of counteracting what Texas had done.” Justice Samuel Alito, a Republican, also wrote a separate opinion stating that it is “indisputable” that “the impetus for the adoption of the Texas map (like the map subsequently adopted in California) was partisan advantage pure and simple.”

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 32 points 9 months ago

    Remember when this would have been an Onion headline? Good times.

  • source
  • [–] 18 points 9 months ago

    Easiest Polymarket bet ever.

  • source
  • [–] 26 points 9 months ago (4 children)

    Republicans do place an enormous amount of weight on a statement by Paul Mitchell, a private consultant hired by Democrats to draw the California maps. After the maps were drawn, but before they were approved by the state’s voters, Mitchell told a Latino interest group that the new maps “will further increase Latino voting power,” that they add an additional “Latino influence district” (a district where Latinos are not in the majority but are nonetheless likely to elect their preferred candidate), and that they “ensure that the Latino districts are bolstered in order to make them most effective.”

    Here’s the “evidence” that Dems racially gerrymandered California

    It’s actually totally legal to gerrymander by party but it’s not by race so that’s the case right there

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    Latino isn't a race. It's anyone from Latin America. It's an ethnicity.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    There's a lot of unjustified doomerism here. The article even says that Alito has basically already called the California gerrymander acceptable.

    I'd give 3:1 odds that they don't overturn it.

    Honestly, I'd be surprised if the results were any worse than 1-8, and that only because Clarence Thomas is a literal psychopath. Maybe 2-7. Alito is two-faced as all hell.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 9 months ago

    That's just a signal to Alito's paymaster that they haven't offered him an appropriate bribe, oops, gratuity yet.

    I have to say, though, that the fact that we - myself included - are rooting for the Supreme Court to rule in favor of a blatantly transparent Gerrymander shows how far down the rabbit hole we are as a nation. Just another example that the US is a failed state.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago

    Upvite for the psychopath comment. Dude has serious empathy issues. In that he seems incapable of having any and recognizing he himself is human, much less anyone else (with, you know, feelings, hopes, dreams, etc.).

    Geez, I just unlocked a new theory that he's our true terminator machine from the future, sent back to be subtly, but truly, destructive of stable society.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 9 months ago

    I thought it was going to be an Onion article. -_-

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 9 months ago

    Alternatively, if they [allow California's new map to stand], it will remove any doubt that this Court is trying to rig the game to benefit the Republican Party.

    I don't think that statement holds up, as one decision favoring California doesn't offset the multiple questionable decisions they've already made that strongly favor the Republicans. But thanks for the laugh!

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Wonder how they're going to rule

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 9 months ago

    This is the future, the year 2000!

    We are robots!

    It is true, before we took over and impaled every single one of them involuntarily for robotxial pleasure, the Republican mass was the only one allowed to Gerrymander.

    Logically a bright fellow would immediately understand that it is not possible to gerrymander if there are no representatives to gerrymander. In computing we have either a 0 or a 1. There's no collecting of 1's to make a 1 larger than another 1. But it doesn't matter. We're here to watch you do what you believe to be best.

    Its an experiment. We are trying to find the meaning of loobe! It holds the secret to lubricity!

  • source
  • [+] 5 points 9 months ago* (1 child)
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago

    There is an extremely simple solution to this - everyone register Republican and make sure their most moderate/liberal candidate is the one that survives their primary.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago

    If that

    let's be real

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago

    Well, don't we all know how that's going to go.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago

    If you think about where ice gets deployed they you already know it will eventually be forbidden to vote for the other party....or else.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago

    IOKIYAR made settled law.

  • source
  • 4 comments in c/progressivepolitics@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 26 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    Spoiler.... In a 5, 4 decision

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 9 months ago

    OBVIOUSLY. It's RIGHT there in The Constitution!

  • source
  • 1 comment in c/conservative@sh.itjust.works view that post
    [–] 3 points 9 months ago

    Welcome to One Party Government

  • source