257
'At Least He Admits It': Trump Says Pro-Democracy Resolution Would Destroy GOP
(www.commondreams.org)
this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2026
257 points (98.9% liked)
politics
30310 readers
2542 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Computer programs don't inherently remove bias. If anything, they obfuscate it. We wouldn't have less gerrymandering from a computer program, we'd have more. We could require absolutely open and transparent code and data, and that still wouldn't be enough because the manipulations would be performed right in the open for everyone to see, but it would be 'okay' because it's not illegal. Much like our current system allows for gerrymandering for political purposes, this wouldn't address the issue, it would just make hiding and obfuscating the reasoning easier.
And as for electing supreme Court judges, if you thought presidential elections and political ads were bad now, it would be 100 times worse if we have to put up with political ads for judges on top of that. It would put more money in politics which is absolutely the wrong direction to go. We need a bigger, more representative supreme Court. We need more courts in general, and more judges to get through the cases that are already in the backlog. Your proposals would exacerbate our existing issues, not help us.
That's incorrect. I could make a completely fair state map with ArcGIS, voter data & about a week's time. It's the people working the software that are the problem.
A computer program can't be biased because it has no emotions. The only input it's needed are the boundary of a state, the population, where they live, and the desired number of districts. The winning program would be peer-reviewed to ensure the integrity of the program.
No, the selection process would remain unchanged. The President selects and the Senate confirms. The difference in my proposal is the process repeats after six years for a particular justice.
A computer program can be biased, if the software developers who write it are biased.
Also, a six year term on SC Justices would mean that any time there's a two-term president, by the end of the second term, literally every single SC Justice would have been selected by the same president. That's a terrible idea.
A 10-year term at least guarantees that there's a different president in office when one is up for reappointment, and they can be staggered to avoid appointing all at once. But even that's not so great of an idea, because it would be too volatile. Every time a new president comes in, he would get rid of all or most of his predecessor's appointments. That wouldn't restore non-partisanship to the courts, it would make things worse.