this post was submitted on 28 Jan 2026
368 points (100.0% liked)

politics

27586 readers
3537 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] oxysis@lemmy.blahaj.zone 166 points 1 day ago (4 children)

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

[–] My_IFAKs___gone@lemmy.world 42 points 1 day ago

Unshocking futurenews. A no from you would have been heart attack fuel, so thanks for sparing us the shock of a decent future event.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 17 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.”

[–] muusemuuse@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago

Alito: “fuck your bullshit. You just mad your tricks don’t work like you hoped they would.”

Guys, you need another strategy. Manipulating the vote isn’t sustainable. Alito is your canary.

[–] SpaghettiMan@lemmy.world 28 points 1 day ago (2 children)

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

[–] tanisnikana@lemmy.world 40 points 1 day ago (1 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.

[–] SpaghettiMan@lemmy.world 16 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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

[–] tanisnikana@lemmy.world 16 points 1 day ago (2 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.

[–] SpaghettiMan@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

He was kind of a douche anyway.

[–] tanisnikana@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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

[–] SpaghettiMan@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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

[–] tanisnikana@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] SpaghettiMan@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago

We'll have had a good run

[–] Triumph@fedia.io 6 points 1 day ago

What a coincidence that both SpaghettiMen are in relationships with men.

[–] Tikiporch@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago (2 children)

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

[–] SpaghettiMan@lemmy.world 2 points 14 hours ago

Some birds are dudes.

[–] Asafum@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Ok, but are the birds into dudes?

The birds are into everyone.

[–] ceenote@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

That must have been a source of great distress for voters, at least for as long as they kept having elections.