Congress probably can’t stop gerrymandering for state or local seats but 100% could for the US House

Article I, Section 4, Clause 1:

“The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.”

Congress could pass a law prohibiting gerrymandering

Good tsar, bad boyar

Ohhh so now they care about due process

I can’t even get more than a paragraph in before my brain involuntarily goes, “oh fuck all the way off.”

Republicans when a rape victim comes forward: “What happened to innocent until proven guilty?!?”

Republicans when a civil jury finds Trump raped E. Jean Carroll: “It’s all lies and lawfare!”

Republicans when a Democrat rapes someone: “Hang him.”

Why are these people so obsessed with you 😭

But they’ll never really be “in power” because they don’t want to be

We give them a one house? They need in both. We give them both? They need to overcome the filibuster. They do that? They need the White House so it’s not vetoed. It’s signed to law? They need SCOTUS so it’s not struck down

28th amendment (making non-US born citizens eligible for the presidency) when?

Excusing the Democrats from doing anything meaningful unless they get the White House, supermajorities in congress, and a majority on the Court—without holding *them* accountable for actually securing those things—makes no sense

Democrats—not Republicans—controlled the Senate in 2021. Failed legislation is not an advancement in civil rights. Meanwhile, not even a year in and Zohran has met 2/4 of his main economic campaign policies. He has fewer procedural obstacles than federal democrats? Well that hasn’t stopped Trump.

You mentioned the Civil Rights Act. What has the modern Democratic Party done in the last decade (or few) to advance civil rights?

Before you just accept that there *must* be a choice between economic justice and social equality, consider who benefits from pitting those aims against each other

FDR was first elected in 1932, which was 96 years ago. But sure, that four year difference really changes this whole discussion

Interesting how conservatives are super into scientific and academic pluralism, but hate cultural and professional pluralism

I don’t mean to discount his accomplishments & many—especially those on the horizon with Lina Khan at the FTC—would’ve been even greater with more time. But the power of the oligarch class has grown so great, nothing short of revolutionary change will suffice. Biden was too afraid to shake the boat

At least the burgeoning welfare state benefitted a huge number of Americans (even though it should’ve been more). We have no democratic reason to support Israel as they commit war crimes. It doesn’t benefit constituents. It violates the Leahy Act. And it cost Dems a necessary voting bloc in 2024

1. I voted for Kamala Harris, does merit a response from you?

2. Why exactly should our government support Israel—with weapons of war—with zero conditions? No other countries are supplying us with missiles to attack Iran & I guarantee many are reconsidering their relationship with us going forward

Second Bill of Rights - Wikipedia

And just to finish…FDR’s proposed Second Bill of Rights would be a great place for modern Democrats to pick up from

You’re either misunderstanding what he’s saying or US history. FDR was far from perfect. But he was creative, experimental, open-minded. He cultivated popular support and then had the political will to act on it. Democrats need to move forward…and looking to history is actually helpful in doing that

Which part

Even assuming it was the right choice for FDR to sacrifice equality and inclusion in exchange for a (white) welfare state—what exactly was accomplished by the Biden-Harris administration’s refusal to budge on Israel?

Like I’m not sure why Hemingway would be any more credible regarding how she collected this information than anything else. It’s a particularly easy lie since no justice will come out to dispute her claims, especially since she doesn’t specify which individual justice supplied an account

I don’t necessarily trust a known liar’s claims regarding her sources. I’m not saying the liberals wouldn’t as a rule…but they’re generally tight lipped and have to know in this instance the bent an Alito biography will have

For example, some of FDR’s housing initiatives were pretty revolutionary for America…but generally excluded Black folks (a political compromise he made to get enough southern Democrat support in Congress). Zohran’s advocating for the first part, not the second

At that point the two major parties were roughly divided by economic policy, whereas social attitudes were more reflected by geography

So southern Democrats had more in common with the GOP than with northern Democrats when it came to race

Zohran’s just talking about the economic part though

Fuck it, run him in 2028. If Trump can run unconstitutionally so can Zohran.

“The rate of attempted terrorist attacks is rising exponentially” - Kash Patel

From KY gubernatorial debate in 2023: “Beshear noted there are ‘some crimes so terrible and some people so dangerous that I do believe this [death penalty] law needs to continue to be on the books.’ Asked again if he would support expanding the death penalty, Beshear said ‘it would depend on the crime.’ ‘But right now,’he added, ‘a court order is preventing any of those executions.’”

Maybe if he thought of incarcerated individuals as “justice involved people,” he’d be more hesitant about the death penalty?

He’s not the worst. But claiming, “it’s about form, not substance” in 2026 is crazy. Especially for someone trying to stake out the “normal, peaceful politics” lane for 2028

This isn’t a technological problem, it’s a political one. Plenty of states (mostly blue and purple ones) have independent redistricting bodies. The only reason they’ve been abandoned in the last year or two is because Republicans have become unhinged with map-making