volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@CuriousMagpie@mastodon.social I still think it's worth criticizing the press when they put out misleading articles, and even headlines.

Counting on readers to know better than the report isn't a great excuse for them.

@tc_morekindness but the extract overlooks the core notion of districting being geographic, so that argument misses the mark.

If it was purely a matter of dem and rep votes being counted equally then they'd need to stop districting altogether and move to more of a parliamentary election system. But since they're retaining the geographically based districting, that's not what they're implementing.

You also mention proportionately representing the view of Black voters, but that too conflicts with counting dem and rep votes equally. You can't put your finger on the scale AND want the scale balanced.

So your argument seems to keep going back to being dissatisfied with the wrong team winning, which defeats the purpose of holding democratic elections in the first place.

If this really is the previous court's argument, then the previous court was obviously wrong.

@tc_morekindness no, I really appreciate the long message because I want to understand the situation.

The problem is you still didn't say exactly what was wrong with the maps.

It still sounds like you are simply saying the wrong team is winning, but that's not itself proof that the maps violate the free requirement.

Maybe the previous court ruling was incorrect.

@KatieLoves2Read oh I'm hearing a TON of Republicans saying that US aid has been ineffective due to the policy of providing weapons so slowly.

Even Republicans who are in favor of sending more aid are criticizing the administration for slow walking things like tanks and missiles that they refused to give early but are now pivoting to provide.

I think that's a very common perspective in Republican circles among both those pushing for more aid and those tapping the brakes.

@chad That's just not factual.

Republicans voted overwhelmingly to keep the House operating in the face of Democrats, voting unanimously to derail it and shut it down.

@Dogzilla so that is what I thought you were saying, you are advocating for shutting down the democratic institution for the sake of not having Jordan as speaker.

You are saying to forget democracy because you're afraid of who might get elected by the democratic process.

And yes, not only do they have that mechanism but we see in the voting rolls that they used it, but that's a different issue, that's a matter of procedure separate from your advocacy of anti-democratic action for the sake of blocking this politician you don't like.

@KatieLoves2Read a person can simultaneously speak out against what Russia is doing to Ukraine while also saying that the US shouldn't be throwing cash into ineffective programs to counter them.

This article seems to miss that.

@Dogzilla when you say by any means necessary, I assume you are including keeping the democratic institution shut down.

If that's not what you mean, I apologize.

@SteveThompson I think she's merely pointing out the fact that an independent Supreme Court is fundamental to the constitutional separation of powers.

They hold themselves, emphasizing that nobody else has authority to interfere with the Supreme Court beyond the impeachment option.

@Muddobbers

I mean, increase staffing and the whole line gets to move faster.

@governa

@CuriousMagpie@mastodon.social I think this is one of those stories where they oversimplify a complicated situation by blaming it all on a single individual.

In reality, this is about the strategizing and self interests of hundreds of representatives, with diverse ideas about what should happen, regardless of what Jim Jordan thinks.

He didn't break the system. We all elected reps who had (ahem) questionable ideas about what to do with the system.

@tc_morekindness but what exactly did they do wrong in the process?

You can't simply say that the districting is bad because it didn't favor the right team.

What specific errors did they make?

@DanaBlankenhorn

Maybe not as aggressively as many think, as there was so much misreporting on the event.

The SCOTUS said that AL was required to engage in racial gerrymandering that it hadn't used in its districting.

Later, it declined to say more when asked for clarification.

@tc_morekindness

@SteveClough

That's not how regulatory interactions like this work, though.

The regulator goes through legal processes that don't really care who Musk is.

It does us no good for folks to try to make this into a sensationalized melodrama instead of looking at the actual actions of the agencies legally bound to follow their procedures.

@maxkennerly

@Dogzilla the disagreement I have is that whether Jordan is an existential threat to democracy or not, you're talking about actually undermining democracy to oppose him, and I wouldn't make that trade.

It's avoiding the possibility of harm by guaranteeing the harm, burning the village to save it.

Democratic processes might select Jordan. So you're bringing up the subversion of democracy because Jordan MIGHT subvert democracy, and I'd rather leave open the possibility that he might not.

(And that's all assuming the Democrats maintain their strategy that puts this all on the table in the first place)

@Dogzilla my point is not that Jordan is in any way a good person.

It's that you are promoting division, for better or worse, by saying Democrats need to oppose him, whatever it takes.

You might even conclude that the division is better than having Jordan as Speaker. That's fair! But recognize that you're promoting division because you believe it to be better than the alternative.

Personally, I think it's a bad idea to keep our democratic institution shut down like this, but if you believe the alternative is worse, again, that's fair.

@MaRY1Fem this sort of narrative misses that it's not up to Jordan, not up to the candidate, but up to the general membership of the House.

It's a narrative that oversimplifies the situation.

All of the hundreds of members of the House can vote for whomever they want, regardless of what the people they vote for might think of it. Candidates don't have to register, and it's not really up to them whether they get votes or not.

We don't need to talk about an offramp for Jordan. We need to talk about an offramp for the entire membership of the House, to get them off of this stalemate.

Yes, that's a more complicated discussion, but it's the reality.