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
Perhaps the reason Democrats complain about Republicans gerrymandering is because the Republicans are better at it than them[0]? If your opponent cheats more than you do, then obviously you have an incentive to make cheating harder.

For a substantive discussion on gamesmanship, we need to ask "Which side is most likely to work to end partisan gerrymandering (perhaps with a change to a more proportional voting system[1])?"

[0] https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/11/republicans-ger...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_2018_Maine_Question_1

>>dane-p+Hl
I mean it’s certainly possible, have definitely floated that idea around before whilst talking politics with friends over beers.

It’s just seems to me the problem many have when this type of conversation emerges isn’t with the behavior, it’s the actor and that doesn’t quite square with me.

“Don’t hate the player, hate the game”. If gerrymandering is a “threat to democracy”[0], seems to me we should be critiquing anyone who plays that game instead of waiting for our team’s turn to ratfuck the country the country by the same measure. That signals either the rules were a problem to begin with and we should have changed them long ago, or we kept them in place knowing they were being taken advantage of and just waiting for our team to get the ball back-does it not?

But that’s just merely one example, it’s not representative of the totality of Capitol Hill politicking. Arguably one party is focused and pushing a message of progress and righting social ills but I’m not going to let them off when they play stupid games either, nor should anyone IMO.

[0] https://www.npr.org/2018/10/23/659745042/gerrymandering-is-a...