This is why I said it’s a case of “Don’t hate the player, hate the game.”

If our founding fathers were to have set up another method of dealing with changing populations, gerrymandering wouldn’t be a thing and we wouldn’t be having this discussion. But the rules set up by our founding fathers was essentially little more than a blueprint for gerrymandering without actually using the word gerrymandering. I don’t have to like it, but I can’t necessarily hate one party or another when they’re both just trying their best to exploit the rules they were given to maximum advantage.

Are you actually going to try to say that Democrats don’t engage in gerrymandering? Really?

Barack Obama wouldn’t tell California Democrats to gerrymander their map so they’d keep the house. He wouldn’t have to, because they’d do it anyway. Just like every other Democrat state would. And just like every other Republican state does. Trump telling Texas to do it is redundant because it’s something that Texas was going to do anyway.

And yes, Conservatives lose their shit when a Democrat does it. And Democrats lose their shit when a Republican does it. Because they both try to play the game under “Rules for thee, not for me” rules. But the fact of the matter is, for better or worse, gerrymandering is a part of our electoral system that both parties routinely engage in in order to maintain their majority.

It’s literally an example of “Don’t hate the player, hate the game”.

That’s only for Cabinet positions. Judicial nominees are only required to engage in some light rimming.

This is Trumpworld. The only thing you need to have a basic understanding of is how to kiss Trump’s ass.

The lack of a basic understanding of the Constitution isn’t a disqualifier. It’s a prerequisite.

The problem for him is that a hard NO would also disqualify him in front of this Congress…

Silly, silly boy…

You didn’t actually think that the rules he wants enforced on everybody else is supposed to apply to him too, did you?

Very important thing, you know. Some of those transsexuals may have actually survived the floods, and they may actually have to go take a piss after emerging from the floodwaters…

Hardly newsworthy. Gerrymandering is literally enshrined in our constitution. Congressional maps have always been redrawn by the party in power to ensure that they remain in power. I would expect Democrats to be doing the same thing if we were talking about California.

I’ve heard this before. I’m not convinced.

And I’m sure Trump will gladly abide by such and order…

She’s legally in the clear because Trump is an adjudicated rapist.

I only wish this were true. Remember that CBS just got finished paying out a multimillion dollar settlement and forced one of their own reporters to apologize for merely reporting that Trump was found liable for rape. Now, granted, there was all sorts of shady stuff going on behind the scenes as CBS was trying to preserve (and was ultimately successful in preserving) a merger.

But as we all know, all victories like that do is embolden Trump further. Especially in an environment where he’s essentially stacked the courts with his own cronies and can easily judge-shop until he gets what he wants topped off by a Supreme Court system hellbent on anointing Trump king. We’ve seen courts reach back to medieval times and ancient countries to find justifications for their pro-Trump rulings, and I could easily see a judge ruling in Trump’s favor not because of the merits of the case but simply because Trump.

Let’s be realistic, it wouldn’t even be the first time.

EDIT: To answer everybody’s replies. Yes, I know it was a bribe. But Trump was ultimately successful in his goal of getting CBS to pay out and to force Stephanopoulos to apologize for simply reporting facts as written in the court record. To Trump, why he was successful doesn’t matter. All that matters is that he was successful. And when he’s successful, he uses that tactic again, and again, and again. He gets one country to bow to his will on trade, and suddenly he’s flinging tariffs everywhere. He got one college to bend the knee, and started an attack on universities. He got one corporation to back down, and has been attacking the press since. It’s what he does. He was successful with CBS, and is much more likely to use the same tactic on her. He has no legal basis to stand on in 99% of these cases, but he does it anyway because he knows that in the end, the Supreme Court is likely to back him up simply because he’s Trump.

That’s the point I’m trying to make. Yes, his case against her would be baseless. But in this political environment, against this person, in this court system that ultimately leads to this Supreme Court, the fact that it’s baseless doesn’t matter. He has a very real chance of getting his way not based on the merits or the law, but simply because he’s Trump and the courts have decided for some reason that he gets to play by a different set of rules.

Yes.

Right. My point is that they (or at least, the Democrats) will pass this with the well-intentioned point of extending protections of EMTs or law enforcement who are engaged in legitimate activity like you said, and will instead be used almost exclusively as a way to protect ICE and punish brown people. I want to support a law like this because of the people that it is intended to help, but also fully acknowledge the reality of the world we live in and know how a law like this will most likely end up being (ab)used in the real world. Hence, the conflict.

This is the kind of propaganda fluff piece you get when the President of the United States is allowed to threaten the media with punitive EOs, frivilous lawsuits, and legislative retribution if they don’t start saying nice things about Trump.

Expect more of this in the future. Shame on AP for even running this garbage.

Honestly, I don’t know how I feel about this. On one side, I’m all for increasing penalties against those who bring harm to legitimate emergency service workers who are just trying to do their jobs, including cops.

On the other hand, I just see this as a tool that ends up being used against brown people who fight against ICE raids, or to drum up charges against brown people in order to justify their deportation.

Isn’t this the same guy who just makes up tournaments at his own golf courses that he always mysteriously “wins”?

Serious question, what would you do if you were in America? Call your buddies and organize a march? Start offing people by yourself? Stand on a street corner with a sign? Donate money to a contradicting politician?

I’ll go further than that. What do you expect to accomplish? What are you expecting other citizens to actually accomplish? And what do you think the realistic results of your actions will be?

People keep saying to arm up, as if ICE is going to just show up to your door, see that you’re armed, and say “Aw, shucks”. They’ll go home while you stand on your front porch, standing triumphantly as the evil authorities slink away while the rest of the neighborhood claps?

No, what’s going to happen is that they’ll call in reinforcements. And by “Reinforcements”, I mean they’ll have enough people to play Team Deathmatch with your driveway as their base. If you’re lucky, they’ll drag your ass out of the house, cuffed up and in your underwear at 3 in the morning. Most likely, though, they’ll just remove the splattermark that used to be you from the walls with a squeegee after they’re done accounting for the 278 rounds, 2 grenades, and a flashbang that they sent into your bedroom. Oh, and if you are alive, now you’ve got felony gun possession and attempted murder charges tacked to you (or outright murder of an officer if you manage to kill a cop), giving them the exact charges needed to justify the removal you were trying to prevent in the first place.

Planning on storming the capitol alone? The most you can expect is being the subject of another “Man with manifesto shot, killed at state capitol building” article on CNN for about 5 minutes before you’re forgotten completely. Well, outside of the stigma that your family will have to deal with every time they have to explain that they’re the son/daughter/brother/whatever of “that guy. You know the one. The one that tried to shoot up the capitol that one time…”

Organizing a resistance? Yeah, good luck getting any kind of organization together without getting infiltrated long, long before you achieve any meaningful number or manage to gather any meaningful amount of resources. All it takes is just one suspected member carrying a cell phone and they’ll just round up the entire group and send them on an involuntary tropical vacation.

So for all the Rambos out there who think that they’re the next John Connor or something, feel free to tell us exactly what you think we should be doing.

The fuck, was this guy an idiot?

“Maybe he will stop these wars.” Fucking LOL, are you kidding me? He was literally campaigning on glassing Gaza and turning it into beachfront property for the wealthy. “Maybe we’ll see what’s up with this Epstein shit”. The man was neck deep in Epstein shit. How many pictures of Trump and Epstein together over the years do you need? He’s probably got more pictures of him with Epstein than he has of his own kids. “Seeing what’s up with this Epstein shit” would mean him finding a nice new home on the sex offender registry.

You knew what he was like. You spent the entire election season stumping for him on your podcast. You helped create this. You don’t get to play dumb and absolve yourself of responsibility for your role in allowing all of this to happen in the first place. Fuck you.

Why are they wording this as if it’s some kind of secret plan, quietly happening behind the scenes?

It’s not like gerrymandering is a new concept or something…

Heck, I’m surprised Abbot’s response to this isn’t “Yeah, no shit sherlock. What’s your point?”

Well. They didn’t though. In court they say that they don’t, they wouldn’t, and would never dream of defying court orders.

I’m not sure exactly what the rest of your stream of consciousness was supposed to say, but they absolutely did testify in front of the Supreme Court that they would defy court orders that they didn’t like.