zlacker

>>codeze+(OP)
This is the thin edge to a national police action. Crazy how little oversight there is over the executive branch (and this administration in particular).

>>r00fus+N1
The entire "checks and balances" system breaks down when a handful of Republicans in the Senate are complicit in everything that is going on.

>>paxys+Z1
> ...system breaks down when a handful of Republicans...

Sorry to burst your bubble, but it isn't just Republicans who resort to... creative executive strategies that are worth criticizing.

>>microc+s2
I'm sorry, but "both sides" arguments are nothing but a deflection.

>>malnou+I7
Is it “deflecting” to point out how much Democrats benefit form gerrymandering while taking Republicans to task for the same thing? [0][1][2]. What about about senate confirmations[3][4][5]?

[0] https://thefulcrum.us/worst-gerrymandering-districts-example...

[1] https://www.thedailybeast.com/democrats-hate-gerrymanderinge...

[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/03/28/how-m...

[3] https://www.heritage.org/homeland-security/commentary/hypocr...

[4] https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/senate-nuclear-filibuster-ru...

[5] https://time.com/3701079/obama-filibuster/

If we don’t wanna go there that’s fine I suppose, I just want to know where we’re gonna draw the line between “deflection” and having a substantive discussion on the gamesmanship going on inside the beltway without devolving into the usual brutish “my side good, your side bad”.

>>dvtrn+Jh
You can't ascribe singular districts to Democrats gerrymandering. The ones in Ohio, Texas, Alabama, NC, Mich were all done by Republican legislatures, some using REDMap. And while Maryland is certainly an offender and they too should be subject to independent redistricting, comparing a single state with a concerted, organized, multistage effort using advanced mapping software designed to maximize your advantage is the kind of bullshit bothsiderism that the right and the apolitical love to use.

Stop punishing one party for not being perfect but striving for better, but letting the other off for the most blatantly obvious destructive practices because that is who they are.

>>dlp211+8k
Stop punishing one party for not being perfect but striving for better, but letting the other off for the most blatantly obvious destructive practices because that is who they are.

Hang on, you think that’s what I’m doing here? I don’t think we have a thing to discuss if this is really the immediate conclusion you’re coming to, since it frames my entire position as antagonistic to anything but whatever critique you think should be made instead, and there’s no way out of that corner for me, now is there?

How am I even supposed to respond to an assertion about what I’m doing when providing numerous sources for my position only to get boxed in as “letting the other off for the most blatantly obvious destructive practices”?

I’m no partisan hack, Gerrymandering and Senate Procedure are probably the best examples of how both parties engage in pure unabated gamesmanship to get what they want while launching strikes against the other side for doing the exact same thing. Either argue the impact and convince me why the rules are inconsistently applied (as I’ve shown clearly was the case with Harry Reid changing Senate confirmation rules) or don’t, but leave the straw manning at the door.’

BOTH parties deserve a wag of the finger and a volume of criticism for their behavior where warranted. This should not be excused by anyone who pretends to give a damn about the country.

>>dvtrn+mk
Democrats in the Senate changed the rules only after Republicans became the most obstructive body in the history of Congress. They forced the hands of the Democrats. But notice you don't also point out that Democrats follow pay-go rules or put back into place and follow blue slip rules or the 100 other norms that Republicans have destroyed over the last decade.

You want to feel superior to both parties, that you're above it, fine, but at least know you aren't being an honest broker when you do so.