Below is my column in The Hill on open hypocrisy of many denouncing the Texas redistricting effort. While I have been a critic of gerrymandering for decades, the faux outrage of Democrats in heavily gerrymandered states would make Captain Louis Renault blush.
Here is the column:
Former diplomat and Democratic senator Adlai Stevenson once remarked that “a hypocrite is the kind of politician who would cut down a redwood tree, then mount the stump and make a speech for conservation.” If so, this week in politics was nothing but the worst form of stump speeches.
In New York, Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) declared that the move by Texas Republicans to redistrict mid-decade was a “legal insurrection of our U.S. Capitol.”
In Texas, Democratic State Rep. Jolanda Jones (D) must have felt “insurrection” did not quite capture the infamy. Instead, she insisted, “I will liken this to the Holocaust.”
Others repeated the Democratic mantra that it was the death of democracy. That includes former President Barack Obama, who had said nothing when Democrats made his own state the most gerrymandered in the union.
In Illinois, surrounded by Texas legislators who had fled their state to prevent a legislative quorum, Gov. JB Pritzker (D) bellowed that gerrymandering was an attempt to “steal” congressional seats and to “disenfranchise people.”
It did not matter that the stump Pritzker and Texas Democrats were standing on in Chicago is located in the most gerrymandered state in the country. The redistricting law, signed by Pritzker left Republicans with just three of the state’s 17 congressional seats, even though they won nearly half the votes in the last election.
What is missing in any of this is any sense of shame. The most telling moment came when Pritzker went on the Stephen Colbert’s show on CBS — a show that offered him a reliably supportive audience and a long track record of 86 percent of jokes slamming conservatives or Republicans.
Pritzker received roaring cheers when he said that he was protecting democracy from Texas gerrymandering. Colbert then showed him the map of Illinois, which features ridiculously shaped, snaking districts that stretch across the state — all drawn to maximize Democratic performance in elections. Pritzker just shrugged and joked how they had kindergarteners design it. Colbert and the audience laughed uproariously.
So let’s recap. Pritzker had just declared gerrymandering a threat to democracy. He followed up by making a joke of his own unparalleled gerrymandering. The New York audience cheered both statements.
Some of the outrage by Democrats seemed part of a comedy routine. In Massachusetts, Gov. Maura Healey pledged to retaliate by gerrymandering her heavily gerrymandered state. The problem? It is already so badly gerrymandered that there are no Republican House members in the state — there haven’t been any since the 1990s.
We have reached the point in our age of rage where one’s hypocrisy can be openly acknowledged but then dismissed with a chuckle.
It is not cheap to lock Republicans out completely in heavily Democratic states. California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) quickly pledged to order a new round of gerrymandering in a state where Republicans constituted roughly 40 percent of the congressional vote in 2024 but received only about 17 percent of the House seats. To reduce the Republicans to near zero would require passage of a ballot proposition, costing more than $200 million, even as California faces a budget crisis and a deficit greater than $20 billion.
And that may prove to be just a fraction of the true cost.
In response to the gerrymandering, Democratic strategist James Carville seemed to call for what Texas State House Democratic Caucus Chair Gene Wu (who fled to Illinois) described as “launching nukes at each other.”
Carville insisted that once the Democrats retake power, they should “unilaterally add Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia as states” and pack the Supreme Court to guarantee that the Republicans can never win again.
He is not the first Democrat to openly advocate such a plan. In an October 2020 interview, Harvard law professor Michael Klarman explained how Democrats needed to use their power to enact “democracy-entrenching legislation,” which would ensure that “the Republican Party will never win another election.”
Perhaps you can appreciate the unintended humor there. But Professor Klarman noted that Democrats would still have to gain control of the Supreme Court to make such legislation stick.
What is striking about the Carville interview is that he was describing rigging both the legislative and judicial branches, all in the name of democracy. Carville admitted that “in isolation,” each of these ideas may be objectionable and open “Pandora’s box.” However, when done together, they somehow become acceptable. It is akin to saying that burning a home is arson, but torching a city is urban renewal.
Nevertheless, Carville declared: “If you want to save democracy, I think you got to do all of those things because we just are moving further and further away from being anything close to democracy.”
Again, no one listening to such unhinged ranting would fail to see the hypocrisy. What is chilling is that no one really cares. You can stack the Supreme Court and the Congress. You can gerrymander legislative and congressional maps. You can even engage in ballot cleansing by barring Republican and third-party candidates from elections. You can do all of that and still claim to be righteously defending democracy.
You can even commit the most venal acts as a form of virtue signaling … even though there is not a scintilla of virtue in what you are saying.
There may be one benefit to Carville and his counterparts in opening up Pandora’s Box. In the story, Pandora released an array of evils on the world, including sorrow, disease, vice, violence, greed, madness, old age, and death. However, few recall the last thing to escape the jar and perhaps the thing that the vengeful Zeus least wanted humanity to have: hope.
It is possible that citizens will finally get fed up listening to these self-righteous hypocrites and join together to end gerrymandering once and for all. Rather than yield to our rage, reason could still prevail in this country in barring or at least limiting partisan redistricting. When we do that, these clear-cutting politicians will not have a stump to stand on.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of the best-selling book “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
Seems Carville and Klarman are calling for a one party state e.g. “the Republican Party will never win another election.” Sounds a lot like a dictatorship or totalitarian state with them and only them in charge. Where else in history have we seen that?
Could that be why so many Democrats have such a low approval of their party?
Or there just talking BS, seeking attention so they can get on some news broadcast and make a buck.
Probably a bit of both, really. However, do these talking heads actually get paid for their bloviation, especially by podcasters?
These far left wing, fringe Democrats are the reason why the Democrats are polling so low among their own members. It is not just the gerrymandering. The calls to add Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia as states, pack the SC, calls for socialism, supporting pro-Hamas terrorists, alienate moderate and traditional Democrats. Democrats, you need to get the stupid and crazy out of your party. Give them the boot! Take back your party!
“The world is a complicated place, and it’s not just about oppressor and oppressed,”
“They have a thought in their head that white people did some very bad things — and white people did some very bad things — but so did everybody else in the world. But they don’t know that. They just see the world through this one prism. And until they do, I don’t think you’re gonna get them off this issue, and I don’t think the Democratic Party is gonna be able to go forward until they make a decision. Whose side are you on here? Are you on the side of Western civilization and Western values, or are you on the side of the terrorists?”
— Bill Maher
No, we’re not going to give leftists two more senators and a full house member by making DC a state. Nice try, but everyone can see through the game.
There is a massive problem with the dysfunctional federal control of the city, however. The obvious solution is to reduce the district to just the central buildings of the federal government and give the rest back to Maryland. Make the only residents of DC the president and members of the family who choose to live in the White House. We’ve shrunk DC before, Virginia got it’s section back.
Puerto Rico keeps voting to not become a state. So, I’m scratching my head as to how anyone outside of PR can “force” them to do so against their will. Then again, we are talking about leftists here. Government force is kinda their jam.
Chavismo anyone?
The Dems provide non-stop examples of hypocrisy daily. And Republicans exclaim “Oh My” and sit on their hands and chuckle. . .
The Texas Democrats, fleeing to Illinois claiming patriotism is like a bunch of hookers hiding behind the skirts of the “house madam” claiming their virginity.
Jonathan: I’m a native Californian who moved to Arizona 6 years ago. CA has a redistricting commission that is supposed to be non-partisan and provide the fairest lines; it has failed. How can we have truly impartial redistricting? At least when politicians do it, there can be some accountability. But if they put it into a non-partisan commission, who appoints the commission? If it’s left to AI, who trains the AI? Who inputs the parameters? It’s the entire problem of the bureaucratic state — unelected people make major decisions that impact the lives of Americans. I’m honestly interested in how any redistricting can be “fair and impartial.”
It can be done with mathematical models that translate a political-legal process into a solvable problem using statistics and optimization. The real problem is prohibiting gerrymandering for congressional districts in all states. Under the Election Clause of the Constitution Congress could define a standard for defining districts (e.g., population based, compactness, etc.) which would then have to be implimented by all states. The census data for each zipcode together with a compactness requirement might be a good starting point. I have long thought that this approach is the only thing that is fair and doable.
Your argument is sound, though I am skeptical of models, even mathematical models, which can be skewed toward a desired result (I’m thinking specifically of the COVID models and the climate change models.) And you identified the crux of the problem: the constitution leaves the process up to the states. Ultimately, the process will be rife with potential corruption (or Gerrymandering) because there is no one way to fix it — either it’s overt (Illinois, Texas, etc) or it’s subvert (which is harder to do anything about.)
The Constitution does leave the process up to the states EXCEPT that it can at anytime Congress can set regulations for congressional districts and it did so in the past. For example, it limited the number of representatives in each district to one. See Election Clause, Article 1, Section 4, Clause 1.
If, for example, the requirement is that a districts must have equal population and be as compact as possible there is little wiggle room and the logic is transparent.
edit: EXCEPT that Congress can set ….
Good to know. Thanks for the explainer. I wish I trusted congress to just be straightforward and not try to be “cute” and try to do too much (or too little) or add in caveats, etc.
… though I am skeptical of models, even mathematical models, which can be skewed toward a desired result (I’m thinking specifically of the COVID models and the climate change models.)
Agreed.
A PhD level computational biologist faculty member and I had a meeting a while ago to discuss HIV, cures, immune activation by defective HIV RNA, HIV proteins and the like. In spite of viral suppression, people with HIV have a two to three-fold rate of cardiac death, and a 50% higher prevalence of dementia, with all other things being equal. He showed me his spiffy presentation of 100 powerpoint slides, and 3/4 of the way through I asked bluntly, “how does any of this benefit the HIV patient in my clinic?” Silence. I then had to do some cleanup because i left him feeling deflated.
For the past 6 months I have been working feverishly on elucidating in precise language, for academic cardiologists and ID/HIV physicians, the molecular mechanisms of how pathogen and damage associated molecular patterns (e.g. proteins, lipoproteins, nucleic acids, etc) activate the most studied innate immune receptor in humans: toll-like receptors. I have read many papers on the subject that used computational methods and mathematical modeling, and each time they leave me unimpressed.
Human behavior, like biochemical living processes, have what it appears to be infinitesimal snapshots, based on all sorts of dynamics: time, space, orientation, neighboring/bystander effects, etc. Cells are far more clever than their owners, while owners (humans) think they are a step ahead of the general population. As most of the comments on this forum reflect, we as a society have reached the point of becoming a cancer (uncontrolled, abnormal cell growth and spread). It is said that 99% of all species that have ever lived on Earth are now extinct. That humans believe they are exempt is instructive.
the beatings will continue until morale improves
enjoy the article
Bzówka, M., et al. (2023). Recent advances in studying toll-like receptors with the use of computational methods. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, 63(12), pp.3669-3687.
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jcim.3c00419
By using longitude and latitude of course.
You make excellent points. I might say that the word “hypocrisy” has lost its punch, partly since the days of Bill Clinton through which we saw the death of shame (recall Monica Lewinsky). The word has lost its kick. Besides, any party that would sanction the arrival of 10-15 million illegals (to vote) would think nothing of a little “kindergarten” gerrymandering, to paraphrase J B Pritzker. Dems have no shame whatever.
Remove illegals from the equation. Not by renaming to immigrants or migrants but actually remove frome any count. We aren’t doing integers.
If you want to fix this, you have to pass a constitutional amendment to require compact districts and ban gerrymandering. Congress does not have the power to pass this legislation since the Constitution gives the power to draw districts to each individual state. Since amendments must be ratified by state legislatures, where it is not in the best interest of the party in power to draw compact districts that cede power to the minority, the odds of fixing this legislatively is zero.
The only way is for the Supreme court to declare “gerrymandering” to give the party in power more representation than it deserves violates the 14th amendment of equal protection. Lots of luck with that happening.
THANK YOU!!!!
The Election Clause of the Constitution gives Congress the right to set the rules for congressional districts. For example, this was done in 1967 when Congress overrode state rules and required that each district have only one member.
I would respect the TX republicans more if they said:
“We’re doing this to retain control of the House in 2026. If we’re successful, we promise to enact federal legislation, or even a Constitutional Amendment eliminating partisan gerrymandering for good. We are willing to see it replaced by redistricting using software algorithms designed by non-partisan professionals on the principle of maximizing the competitiveness of as many districts as possible. We Republicans want to compete on policy proposals, and let the voters decide — rather than us choosing the voters. ”
I know, that’s not what Republican partisans are thinking. They are just as self-serving and willing to game-the-system for power as the Democrats. An outcome where The People gain power at the expense of political activists?
Not what they’re thinking — because if they were, they’d be talking the way I suggest above. They’d be fighting to clean up a corrupt system, rather than be the ones running it.
“I know, that’s not what Republican partisans are thinking. They are just as self-serving and willing to game-the-system for power as the Democrats.”
You ought to use your power of mind reading to earn yourself some real money.
Name me one Congressional Repub in favor of a new system that precludes partisan gerrymandering.
They already have talking points for not doing that. They simply don’t fully trust the voters to choose them over Dems based purely on policy competition and governing competence. They’re not going to give up elitist gaming and cede power to The People to call the policy shots.
Oh boy, you discovered that no politician wants to give away their power. That doesn’t prove that you can read minds.
“I would respect the” IL, NY, CA democrats if they admitted:
Yes, we did it. But you can’t. We are the Voice of the People. You are merely the unwashed masses.
Cut the number of federal reps and States can pork up State legislators if they want to pay for them.
The modern Democratic party is a form of organized crime, much greater in size but no more honest than the Mafia. Its sole purpose is to use the federal government to transfer money and power to its members, giving its leaders lavish lifestyles and giving its followers income support. In pursuing this end, every law, custom, and moral principle, esp. a respect for the truth, may be gaily sacrificed with a self-conscious giggle.
The BBB did just that for the Republicans. Funny isn’t it?
“The BBB did just that for the Republicans. Funny isn’t it?”
Not really, since your statement isn’t true. You’re bad at this trolling thing, you may want to consider another line of work.
It’s true. The BBB gives tax cuts to billionaires and Republican party donors. They are protecting their lavish lifestyles and positions of power under Trump. They are transferring wealth away from the poorest and more to the wealthiest and in the process adding $4.1 Trillion to the national debt even after making drastic cuts to Medicaid and SNAP, and adding more money to the defense department and have a $1 trillion military budget.
Your talking points are lame. Get better ones.
Your inability to refute them is more telling.
How does one refute the “logic” that says that keeping a tax rate constant is somehow a reduction? It’s such a bald-faced lie, anything else you say is immediately suspect by association.
The “constant tax rate” is still a lower rate for Billionaires and the ultra wealthy. It was unsustainable when it was first proposed and it was peddled as a temporary tax. Now to make it permanent it required Republicans make massive cuts to Medicaid which will affect the poor and a lot of MAGA members. It also raises the debt substantially which is supposed to be a big deal for Republicans. It’s a transfer of wealth in the direction of Billionaires and millionaires at the expense of the poorest in the nation.
A temporary tax cut is still a tax cut when it’s made permanent.
No law is permanent, so that’s a specious argument. The tax rate is not changing. That is not a cut. You can keep spinning and bloviating, but you cannot get over the basic fact that you’re wrong.
MAGA MAGA MAGA. For when you have no argument, just throw the MAGA label around a few more times, surely that’ll do the trick! Just like in the 2024 election!!
GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE
Let’s take your comment point by point.
“The BBB gives tax cuts to billionaires and Republican party donors.”
Since you’re a partisan leftist, I can only assume that you mean keeping the existing tax rates as they are. That’s not a cut, moron. Besides, I got a nice tax break from the original bill, and last I checked I’m neither a billionaire or a Republican donor.
Sorry, you failed in one. Not worth going further.
It is a cut, since they are supposed to revert to previous rates. The original cuts were claimed to be temporary. The BBB made them permanent. They are still tax cuts. Billionaires and donors got a huge cut. What the BBB did is pay for them by cutting a huge chunk out of Medicaid and SNAP and added more money to the defense budget while adding even more to the national debt. I thought us Republicans were against adding more to the national debt.
So, not a tax cut. Thanks for actually admitting that you were lying.
That’s some fancy tap dancing when you could have just said: “I lied. Sorry for lying.”
It’s not a lie. It’s still a tax cut when it’s supposed to be permanent. Making it permanent is still keeping the tax cut. It doesn’t change the fact that it is still a tax cut.
Correction; it’s supposed to be temporary.
You’re still spinning a falsehood. No law is permanent. You’re wrong about this, just admit it and move on already. You can’t win a battle that you’ve already lost.
No law is permanent. The tax rate is not changing. That is not a cut. You can keep waving your top hat around, and spinning your cane, but your tap dancing is not making your argument correct. Nothing can, because you’re just plain wrong. At some point you need to stop digging your hole here.
It’s still a tax cut. It’s the continuation of what was supposed to be a temporary tax cut. Now the BBB made it permanent. Then there is the addition of cutting Medicaid and SNAP to support the tax cut Republicans want to keep.
Actually, the fact is under the BBB, the tax rates would not change. That means not up or down for the reading comprehension impaired. And you are correct, had Democrats gotten their way, we would have seen an historic tax rate increase. Thank you for playing.
He’s not impaired, he’s just spinning a lie in order to attack Republicans. It’s just that he didn’t expect to get called out on it, since he’s obviously unprepared to defend his lie.
Enacting legislation to prevent tax rates from rising is not a tax cut. You’re engaging in typical Democrat doublespeak.
Second, by definition the poor have no wealth. Your assertion that “wealth” is being transferred away from the poor to the wealthy is an absurdity. The money given to recipients of Medicaid and SNAP never belonged to them. The government used coercive legislation to steal the money from those who have it and give it to the welfare recipients. QED.
The only thing you are right about is that the Defense Department budget does not need to be plussed up. Not when the US policy under both parties is to lose wars, or at least not win them by forcing the enemy to surrender. The US has not forced a surrender since WWII. All the so called “wars” have done is enrich defense contractors and enabled social re-engineering programs to allow women, homosexuals and cross dressing tanssexuals with no expectation it increases lethality. Yet the defense budget and officer ranks only increase.
It’s grotesque.
I learned this sleight of hand decades ago when Limbaugh pointed out their trick in spinning cuts in the rate of growth of a budget as actual reductions in a budget. Not only did the budget not shrink, it still grew, just not as fast, but that was somehow a “cut”.
And no conservative should be against going through the defense budget. Don’t we still have more admirals than ships in the navy? How does that make any sense?
Trump’s tax cuts were created as temporary. When they passed the BBB they sought to make them permanent. They are still a tax cut. Trump calls them tax cuts and even Republicans call them tax cuts.
Then they’re wrong. They’re not lowing the tax rates, therefore it’s not a tax cut. The tax rates are not changing, it’s not a tax cut, deal with it. Or you can keep tap dancing, I suppose, but you’ll still be wrong.
*. Snap, medicaid, can be seen as a subsidy and then adds to the lethality as intended?
Kind of joking..
Ed, do you mean RICO? Is it RICO?
What solutions is the New Democratic Party (now far left of left) offering to the working citizens of this nation? The stand for flooding the nation with unvetted illegals. They vehemently fight to protect gang members, drug dealers, human traffickers. They let hardened criminals walk free. They are weak on retail crime. They side with terrorists.
Where are their common sense proposals to help the working citizens of this nation?
They are about power and are for destroying the fundamental tenets that have made this a great nation, which is empowering the individual citizens and giving them an environment in which to thrive, free from the tentacles of government interference and burdensome regulation and taxes.
They are showing their true colors.,
In Other News: “Democrats Outraged by Response from AI to Query About How to Most Favorably Gerrymander Texas”
~+~
When DNC senior leadership contracted with an AI firm to produce a map most favorable to electing Democrats, they got a response they did not like.
The AI returned a map showing new legislative districts in the shapes of a handgun, a drag racer, and a big-haired, large brested woman typically seen on mudflaps of semi-trucks.
Despite their initial outrage, winning future elections was the goal. Yet, when faced with the fact that most rank-and-file democrats would likely object to the first and last shapes, the DNC suggested the Handgun was really a Pop-Tart and the last was Trans.
I see that the Soros checks must have cleared, given the amount of leftist nuttery in the comments today.
The solution, the *only* solution, has a couple stages. First stage>> make congressional races statewide. Full stop. Only way to stop parties in power from rigging districts in their favor. Next stage>> is to run congress through AI under the domain of human controlled political parties because the more human exposure to dark money, the more opportunity for the type of corruption you’ve fallen prey to, Turls. At least by running individual seats through logic channels the corrupt stupidity opportunities lessen.
All this is just a prelude to the trump administration openly rigging and stealing the ’26 mid terms though (and you coming out in support of the effort, Jon). Done deal. The admin sicks Bondi and Hegseth to seize voting results. Upper 90% certainty.
At which point we’re faced with blue states having to withhold tax money from the feds in responce. NY state should kick Fox and Newscorp from functioning within its borders as well.
Ano
All this is just a prelude to the trump administration openly rigging and stealing the ’26 mid terms
***********************
You have proof or just being stupid as usual.
Proof is that Trump is repeating what he did to steal the ’20 election. Have to be blind not to see it.
That doesn’t even make sense. I guess that I’m blind, because I seem to recall that starting on January 20, 2021 there was some senile fool, not named Trump, who was pretending to be president for four very long and painful years. We had disaster after disaster, foreign and domestic, and then in the next election people re-elected Trump. What am I not seeing?
The obvious.
Ok, thanks. What else is obvious to you and nobody else? Have you been taking your meds recently?
As it relates to this place? The intense idiocy of magats.
Bunch of crap, Gigi. We already have state wide representation, they’re called Senators. The rest of your comment is just as dumb, lame partisan sniping and rants about Fox News. It’s no wonder your failed political party has a 20% and falling approval rating.
@Anonymous
Was actually 17% last time I checked, and because polls tend to trend high, it’s probably even lower than that. I personally believe it has been for some time, but you see, the dems lie, cheat, steal, and suppress the truth. They openly advocate for their entitlement to cheat these days, it’s something to behold.
It’s amazing what happens when you make the federal government stop funding the arms of the Democrat party. USAID, anyone?
I wouldn’t be so proud of perhaps the most idiotic foreign policy move ever….but hey, you be you.
Are we still talking about the Afghanistan debacle and surrender? Inviting Putin to invade Ukraine? Favoring the Islamic dictatorship of Iran, leading directly to the October 7 2023 massacre and the resulting regional wars? Yeah, you really don’t want to have this argument. Cutting off a counterproductive leftist slush fund and moving the work back into State directly was the right thing to do.
Idiotic in it’s complete misunderstanding of American soft power. Let alone its anti humanitarian connotations. ^^^
“Idiotic in it’s complete misunderstanding of American soft power. Let alone its anti humanitarian connotations. ^^^”
In just one example above, Biden and his ship of fools did more humanitarian damage with their Afghanistan debacle than anything positive that USAID could have dreamt of accomplishing. Why don’t you express concern about the humanitarian concerns of the women and girls suffering under Taliban rule? Biden did that, and yet no Democrat can be bothered to care. I could go on, but I refuse to be shamed by the shameless.
Ha. Biden just carried out the withdrawal plan of trump, albeit in messy way.
Oh, so Biden had no agency at all? Who picked the arbitrary date of 9/11? Who ignored the snapback points in the agreement? Who ignored the rapid advance of the Taliban during the summer? Who was the supposed president, the commander in chief, during all of this??
This is all on Biden and his sycophants. You can’t spin your way out of this. The disaster of Afghanistan was when Biden’s poll numbers started their nose dive, and they never recovered. The American people knew who to blame.
D’s low approval stems from their inability to do what’s necessary to fight the fascism in the R party. Full stop. Let’s see if D’s catch on to that.
“D’s low approval stems from their inability to do what’s necessary to fight the fascism in the R party. Full stop. Let’s see if D’s catch on to that.”
Fascists always reduce the size and scope of government, returning power and rights to the people. You sound like a the moron that you are when you call Republicans fascists. Look up the definition some time, the Democrat party are textbook fascists.
Also, since Democrats can’t win enough elections, what are proposing to do about it? More “direct action” like Butler, PA?
The voters have had it with leftist street theater and congressional theatrics. It didn’t work for you in 2024, it won’t work in 2026.
Incoherent. Fascists return power and rights to the people??
No, they don’t. That’s called mockery of your inane assertion that the president is somehow a fascist. I get that I write at a higher reading level than you’re used to, so next time I’ll dial it back to kindergarten level for you.
Lol. You’re an idiot.
Good retort. Very persuasive logic. Now go back to Politico where you belong.
Thanks!
Gee, liking your own idiotic comment doesn’t make it any smarter.
Do you not actually realize the senate and congress don’t have exactly the same function? Course you don’t, they’d never admit to that on Fox.
“Congress” includes both the House and the Senate. Did you learn anything in school?
Different functions. If you’re not aware of that your problems are bigger than you’d ever know.
“Different functions. If you’re not aware of that your problems are bigger than you’d ever know.”
Unlike you, I know that we have a bicameral legislature, and that the Congress is comprised of both chambers, the House and the Senate. Do you even know what point you were trying to make?
Oh it’s slow…but has a Google machine. K then who ratifies treaties and confirms presidential appointments? And who gets taxation bills off the ground?
“K then who ratifies treaties and confirms presidential appointments? And who gets taxation bills off the ground?”
The Senate, which is part of the Congress. You’re trying to be smart, but you’re too ignorant to admit that you didn’t realize that neither the House of Representatives nor the Senate is all of Congress. Both combined are the Congress. Try reading the constitution sometime. It’s not that hard.
You do realize that only answering one part of my question, thereby avoiding the part that shows the Senate and Congress have different functions actually proves my point right? Especially since all you come back with are insults and that both fit under the term ‘congress’. What you’re saying is equivalent to saying something like every male characteristic on the planet fits under the name ‘Larry’.. lol
Not Gigi btw.
What blue state “tax money” are you referring to? Individuals and corporations pay income taxes, to both the state and the federal governments. States aren’t paying the federal government anything. Now, when you’re at cocktail parties and some idiot tries to tell you that “Blue states are subsidizing red states…”, you’ll have something intelligent to say.
While we’re on the topic. Even among the bluest of these “Blue states”, I suspect that republicans are paying the lion’s share of the income taxes. I believe this because I can see where the democrats live (and vote) on an election heat map. States like NJ and Maryland have an overwhelming number of votes coming from very poor inner cities, where the residents pay little to no income tax. That might be one obvious reason why democrats are so opposed to tax cuts in general. Kind of an easy position to take when your voters don’t pay any tax.
And yet, through all your “fuzzy math” you ignore the fact that 9 of the 10 states who pull most from the federal government are red states. Plainly blue states provide more tax money to the federal government than red states. In the face of what will be a rigged and stolen election — full on coup behavior– the withholding of that money will be a given.
And when you take out military base expenditures, the math suddenly doesn’t add up as you think.
Rigged and stolen election, like 2020?
Trump tried, but failed in ’20. The people in his own DOJ and DOD blocked his efforts. No such people in this version hence he’s openly rigging the election. If he’s blocked somehow by the courts he’ll do something like attack Mexico, say we’re in a war and ‘postpone’ the ’26 election, or DOJ and DOD will seize voting results. No way trump wants oversight. He’ll be impeached again immediately. Since R senators used the excuse of an election coming up, and the legal system being responsible in his previous impeachments as a reason not to convict, they’ll have a different sort of pressure if he’s impeached for fraud or dereliction of duty right away in the next session…
But R’s are pussies, they’ll just find another reason to avoid their responsibility.
What’s it like in the fever swamps? When you’re ready, you can return to reality with the rest of us. Cheers!
See…, was it really that hard to concede the point?
Ok, let us know when you’re ready to come back. Apparently, not today.
There is no “fuzzy math”. Blue states aren’t paying the federal government anything. You really need to grasp this concept. PEOPLE and CORPORATIONS pay both federal and state taxes. They answer separately to both federal and state govts. There is no “withholding” of taxes by a state, from the federal government. The only taxes states collect, are, wait for it…state taxes. As far as the federal government and the IRS are concerned, the color of your state of residence is irrelevant.
As to your point about who is receiving federal funds, here you go.
States receiving the most federal aid (total dollar amount in 2021), and as one would expect, the largest states in the country
California ($162.9 billion)
New York ($110.2 billion)
Texas ($105.8 billion)
Florida ($58.8 billion) Red, but oddly receiving half of what NYS receives for a state of about the same size
Pennsylvania ($57.1 billion) We’ll call this one Purple but with a Liberal Gov and two Libs in the Senate, that’s a stretch
States receiving the most federal funding per capita (in 2021)
Alaska ($8,628 per person)
Rhode Island ($6,821 per person)
New Mexico ($6,748 per person)
Wyoming ($6,718 per person)
Delaware ($6,011 per person)
States receiving the least federal funding per capita (in 2021)
Florida ($2,693 per person)
Kansas ($2,750 per person)
Nevada ($2,792 per person)
Wisconsin ($2,889 per person)
South Dakota ($2,919 per person)
You’ve not provided the list that shows the states that take the most but provide the least. 9 of 10 of those are red and southern. And you’re not dealing with the basic fact red states are poorer.
You’re not dealing with the fact that the two biggest recipients of federal funds, both blue states, receive more than the next eight combined. What you are also not dealing with is that within those “blue states” are millions of republicans paying both state and federal income tax. And based upon where democrats and republicans live in these states, we get a general idea of who’s paying these taxes. A fairly small number of people pay the bulk of income taxes in this country, and those people are not living in the Bronx or Watts. I feel like I’m explaining this to you, but I can’t comprehend it for you. State borders are meaningless for federal income taxes.
May come as a newsflash to you, but all you’re saying is that states come in different sizes. You’re not acknowledging the ratio and proportion by which they take money from the federal government. Which means that if blue states hold back their contributions, red states are in trouble. This has to be used as leverage by blue states as trump continues to rig and steal the ’26 election.
Looks like we have our new talking point to excuse the inevitable leftist violence after they lose the 2026 federal elections big time.
You can abandon your name ID once and for all Gigi, but you can’t abandon your writing “personality”. It stands out like a John Hancock signature. My apologies to him.
That being said, 10 years after the name Trump entered your *ahem* brain, your “prediction” success rate remains at 0%. Interestingly, that also means the America First movement the rest of us support is sitting at 100%. So there is that. Thank you for your support. 🤣
It’s EB. But thanks for reading, Olls.
Remember Olly, Gigi is formerly “Natacha”. No degree of anonymous will ever hide that.
And EB is neither. But that won’t remedy the crush you have on her will it?
I don’t think many people really care about hypocrites. The professor seems to only point out Democrats as hypocrites to distract from the Republican gerrymandering that Trump is pushing for, which is aimed at helping his party keep control of Congress. If he truly opposes gerrymandering, why isn’t Turley speaking out more against what the Republicans are doing?
If Republicans aren’t playing by the rules, why should Democrats? It seems like that’s the reasoning. Trump reached out to Texas Governor Abbott to push for changes in the district maps there, and while Abbott and other Texas Republicans were hesitant, Trump’s pressure ended up winning. As long as the Democrats in places like Illinois and California stick together, Abbott can’t do much. Even the FBI doesn’t seem to have any ground to act.
These disputes over district lines, known as gerrymandering, could backfire on the Republicans in the long run. If Texas goes ahead with these changes, it’s likely that states like California will respond with their own adjustments, which could render the Republicans’ efforts pointless.
The DOJ, not Trump, pushed Texas to redistrict because of discrimination in their existing map. If you can’t get that first basic fact right, why should anyone read further? Democrats are the kings of gerrymandering, and short of forcibly relocating republicans it’s doubtful that heavily gerrymandered states like Illinois or California could steal any more seats.
The DOJ’s claim came after Trump made the call to Abbott. The only reaon the DOJ claim was trotted out after the call was to provide cover for Trump’s demand. The DOJ’s argument is just a smoke screen to justify Abbott’s acquiesce of Trump’s demand. Abbott and the rest of the state’s Republican lawmakers were not going to redistrict until Trump called and demanded it. They are doing this to appease Trump’s demand. Not because of the DOJ “report”.
Gerrymandering for political party affiliation has been found to be constitutional by the Supreme Court thanks to Republican efforts. California still has seats that can be changed to Democrat control by gerrymandering and effectively voiding the Texas effort.
False again. But since you’re a liar, you lying is just to be expected.
You have not proven your claim to be true. Saying so is not proof. Show us your evidence that what i have said is a lie. Give us timelines, articles, reports, documents, anything that can substantiate your claim.
Shirley, you made the original accusation. It’s on you to back that up. It’s not on us to disprove whatever crap falls out of your diseased brain this morning. You’re terrible at this.
I already did. You are just refusing to acknowledge it because it puts the ball in your court. You cannot refute the facts and the only way to get out of that is to pretend there was no evidence provided. Here it is again for your consideration,
“WASHINGTON — Before he called lawmakers back to Austin to redraw Texas’ congressional maps, Gov. Greg Abbott was initially resistant to the plan pushed by President Donald Trump’s political team to pick up new GOP seats through a rare mid-decade redistricting, according to two people who have spoken to Abbott and the White House about the behind-the-scenes discussions.
The majority of Texas’ GOP congressional delegation was also wary of the idea, with many members concerned that Republican map-drawers could miscalculate and spread their voters too thin — thus putting their jobs in jeopardy — while trying to flip Democratic seats, six people involved in internal delegation discussions told The Texas Tribune.
Abbott told House Republicans from Texas that he was reluctant to take up the issue in Austin, where state lawmakers approve the new lines, if it would pit him against the delegation. In discussions with Abbott’s office, White House staffers attempted to assuage his worries but were unsuccessful, according to two people with direct knowledge of the developments.
Then, Trump placed a call to Abbott during which they discussed redistricting. The governor subsequently agreed to put it on his agenda for the special session, according to two people who spoke with White House officials about the call, one of whom also discussed the matter with Abbott’s office.”
https://www.texastribune.org/2025/07/22/texas-redistricting-abbott-republicans-resistant-trump/
This was in July.
The DOJ claim was never mentioned until after the DOJ trotted out it’s claim later in August.
https://www.texastribune.org/2025/08/01/texas-congressional-redistricting-doj-coalition-districts/
You say that’s not true. Prove it.
Nothing here provides any credible evidence to back up your initial, made-up lies. You’re just plain awful at this, you may want to find another job other than online trolling.
No, you are just denying your failure to prove what I said was a lie. According to what are you saying what I reported is a lie?
Wow, truly astounding logic there. You have to back up your statements. You have failed. I don’t have to do squat other than ask you to back up your statements. You haven’t. The end.
Texas redistricting will help the dems. You never research anything. You just screech.
Again you have not proven my claim to be a lie. Just saying so does not make it a lie.
Here’s Abbotts original reaction to Trump’s demand,
“WASHINGTON — Before he called lawmakers back to Austin to redraw Texas’ congressional maps, Gov. Greg Abbott was initially resistant to the plan pushed by President Donald Trump’s political team to pick up new GOP seats through a rare mid-decade redistricting, according to two people who have spoken to Abbott and the White House about the behind-the-scenes discussions.
The majority of Texas’ GOP congressional delegation was also wary of the idea, with many members concerned that Republican map-drawers could miscalculate and spread their voters too thin — thus putting their jobs in jeopardy — while trying to flip Democratic seats, six people involved in internal delegation discussions told The Texas Tribune.
Abbott told House Republicans from Texas that he was reluctant to take up the issue in Austin, where state lawmakers approve the new lines, if it would pit him against the delegation. In discussions with Abbott’s office, White House staffers attempted to assuage his worries but were unsuccessful, according to two people with direct knowledge of the developments.
Then, Trump placed a call to Abbott during which they discussed redistricting. The governor subsequently agreed to put it on his agenda for the special session, according to two people who spoke with White House officials about the call, one of whom also discussed the matter with Abbott’s office.”
https://www.texastribune.org/2025/07/22/texas-redistricting-abbott-republicans-resistant-trump/
This was reported in July.
The DOJ claim came out later in August when Trump needed an excuse to justify his demand.
https://www.texastribune.org/2025/08/01/texas-congressional-redistricting-doj-coalition-districts/
Nothing here backs up your initial made up assertion at all. The tribune is a crap newspaper, everyone in Texas knows that. Can you prove any of your made up garbage?
Oh so you blame the reporting from a Texas newspaper because you can’t refute my claim.
It certainly backs up my assertion. Abbott was reluctant to engage in redistricting before Trump called him. It was not just the Tribune that reported it. You still have not provided anything to support your claim that anything reported is not true.
Texas legislators talking to the Tribune corroborate the reporting and as we all know local sources are often the most reliable.
You do not want to admit that you do not have any evidence to refute the reporting.
The timeline is not even in dispute. Trump called Abbott first, then came the DOJ claim. Meaning Trump’s DOJ went to bat for Trump after he made the call. Nobody knew about the DOJ claim before Trump made the call. We all know the DOJ will help Trump rig an election in his favor by providing “justification” for it in any way possible.
More baseless assumptions as usual. And no evidence to back any of them up. Same as usual for you.
Again, you’re not refuting the claim because you cannot. Trump called Abbott to demand Texas add 5 more seats. Abbott was reluctant and to do so and so were many Republicans in the Texas legislature. They did not want to get into a protracted legal battle that is most certain to happen if they acquiesced to Trump’s demands. Now the Texas Governor and it’s legislature is mired in a dispute Trump forced them into because he wants 5 more seats to guarantee a win in the midterms. Texas did not want this. Trump bullied Texas into this fight. It showed Governor Abbott as willing subject of Trump.
You keep saying things without any evidence to back it up. Oh well, I suppose like all leftists you just make it up as you go along. After all, it “seems” right to you, so why not.
Note to readers: this rhetorical technique is known as DARVO. Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender. Here, the leftist uses this trick to accuse Republicans of what Democrats have been doing. The most heavily gerrymandered states are Democrat controlled.
It’s an accusation. It’s pointing out that Republicans do this too and now they are doing it because Trump is demanding it. The Trump DOJ is just providing him with the poltiical cover to “support” his demands. Trump is also seeking to change census requirements so that his redistricting effort nationwide is easier to rig.
So, you’re admitting that you just made it up. Kinda like the Steele “dossier”. Guess that’s a theme with leftists.
Nothing was made up. I stated a well known fact. You are just in denial and you cannot prove what I said was a lie.
“ you cannot prove what I said was a lie”
Chico, you made the accusation. You have to supply the evidence. I don’t have to disprove anything.
I have provided the evidence. You have not disproven what I have said is a lie. Just saying so is not proof.
“ I have provided the evidence. You have not disproven what I have said is a lie ”
You have provided no evidence backing up any of your initial made up lies. It’s not on us to disprove your made up lies. You’re really bad at this.
Your denial of the facts is not constitue evidence what I said is not true. You were given evidence by way of local reporting on the issue. You cannot prove it was a lie.
“Your denial of the facts is not constitue evidence what I said is not true. You were given evidence by way of local reporting on the issue. You cannot prove it was a lie.”
It’s not on me to disprove your assertions. Again, you have provided nothing credible that backs up your original made up lies in your first comment. You’re bad at this, have you considered another line of work?
“I stated a well known fact.”
Assertion that a lie is true is not evidence at all. You’re really bad at this.
You keep asserting what I said is a lie without being able to prove it. According to what do you assert what I said is a lie?
You made the initial statements without providing evidence. You don’t get to just make up anything, assert that it’s true, and then expect people to disprove it.
Thanks
What’s the strategy used when trolls completely destroy the topic, comments and the article is becomes mist?
The bewitched canoe! The devil got their souls. 😉
“If [JT] truly opposes gerrymandering . . .”
“. . . I have been a critic of gerrymandering for decades . . .” (JT)
Maybe next time, read the column.
OK Professor, what is the solution? Why aren’t you advocating it?
He won’t offer a solution. Not while Trump is the one demanding Texas do his bidding. He’s already thrown his upport behind the Texas effort by criticizing the Texas legislators who went to illinois. He’s not criticiaing Governor Abbott for his attempts to appease Trump’s demand to do a redistricting to gain 5 more seats that will guarantee Trump doesn’t lose the Republican majority in Congress. His agenda won’t succeed if Democrats gain control of the House. He knows they will make it very painful and frustrating if Republicans lose control of the House.
“Not while Trump is the one demanding Texas do his bidding”
You already pushed this false talking point already. The DOJ did this, not Trump. Your screeds fall apart when you realize that truth. Which is why you lie about it.
Babies are being killed by Israel with our bombs and blessing and we are arguing over this.
Seems about right.
“Babies are being killed by Israel with our bombs and blessing and we are arguing over this.”
My heart bleeds for the poor babies of those who cheered the unprovoked raping and murder of innocent Israelis on October 7, 2023. Did you cry over those murdered babies? I thought not.
If the “Palestinians” don’t care enough about their babies to lay down their arms and stop starving hostages and release all of them, then I can’t work up much caring on my end.
That is me, Farm4501.
It is the only time in history where a group supposedly being attacked in a genocidal fashion a) originally attacked the party wining the war, b) could stop the attacks right now if they RELEASED THE HOSTAGES THEY TOOK and c) surrendered after losing the war.
When you start a war and then badly lose the war you will suffer. This is as old as history itself and frankly if there was a just world Israel would siege Gaza, starve them out until they surrender, remove them from ever living there again and then never have to get attacked by these lunatics as they have been for decades.
PS. For Britain, France and Canada who are demanding a 2 state solution I ask for you to please ask Hamas if they support a 2 state solution. Ask Iran if they support a 2 state solution. Ask Hezbollah. Ask the Houthis. Ask MAMDANI, Tlaib and Omar if they support a 2 state solution.
Leftist cheerleaders of Hamas terrorist butchers fail to remember that the taking of hostages is a war crime per the Geneva Conventions. Additionally, the use of civilian shields, and the failure to wear military uniforms, are also war crimes. Funny how the left can only accuse (incorrectly) the Israelis of war crimes, when it’s their terrorist pets are actually committing them.
The Israelis don’t care about the hostages. They killed their own hostages when they tried to prevent Hamas from taking them back to Gaza. They also killed hostages who escaped. Bibi doesn’t care about the hostages. He cares about removing the Palestinians from Gaza and making the U.S. pay for reconstructing the territory for Israeli settlement.
“The Israelis don’t care about the hostages. They killed their own hostages when they tried to prevent Hamas from taking them back to Gaza. They also killed hostages who escaped. Bibi doesn’t care about the hostages. He cares about removing the Palestinians from Gaza and making the U.S. pay for reconstructing the territory for Israeli settlement.”
So, you don’t refute that your pet Hamas terrorists are committing war crimes. Good to know. The rest of your stupid screed we can dismiss as the anti-semitic garbage that it is. Thanks for playing, you can go back to Democratic Underground now.
“Babies are being killed . . .”
Easy solution: Hamas (and Iran) surrender unconditionally.
“Babies are being killed . . .”
There’s an obvious solution: Hamas surrenders unconditionally.
Man, your comment has the same intellectual rigor as the man who starts a barroom brawl and then ducks behind his pregnant wife and six-year-old, convinced they’ll win it for him. It’s that rare combination of misplaced courage and borrowed outrage that seems to fit you to a T.
Did your mother ever try and tell you the truth? You are ignorant.
The Democrat’s goal is obvious, a socialist dictatorship they control.
If you research Turley you will find his views have changed since Obama. Slate has a screed against Turely calling him a ‘clown’ for appearing on Fox News and actually supporting the Constitution. Turley routinely criticizes both sides and currently identifies as a libertarian. His parents were Democrats, so it is not surprising he started out in life as a Democrat, but like most people his political views have evolved.
lawshun /is-jonathan-turley-constitution-law-expert-a-republican-or-democrat
slate /what-happened-to-jonathan-turley-really.html
You ever stop to think that maybe the professor hasn’t changed, but instead you nutcases took his party and drove it over a cliff? Enjoy your 20% and shrinking approval rating.
“Turley routinely criticizes both sides and currently identifies as a libertarian.”
He routinelly criticizes Democrats more than Republicans. When he does criticize Republicans he does it with kid gloves and pivots right back to Demcrats. The professor has indeed changed and he’s more of a Trump Sycophant than a balanced critic of both parties.
“He routinelly criticizes Democrats more than Republicans. When he does criticize Republicans he does it with kid gloves and pivots right back to Demcrats. The professor has indeed changed and he’s more of a Trump Sycophant than a balanced critic of both parties.”
Or maybe Democrats in their current insane form just deserve more serious criticism? Your partisanship won’t let you see that obvious solution to your accusation.
Incorrect
Slate? Lawshun? What, the gravitas of democrat underground wasn’t good enough for you?
I’m pretty sure most of us have already reached the “fed up” stage. Most of us do our best to shut out the nattering of the political talking heads. It’s only the masochistic drive to “stay informed” and keep informed of the current most outrageous things they say that keeps us listening at all . . . a little like scratching at a mosquito bite. You know it’s pointless, but do it anyway.
And, again, when they say protect democracy they really mean the protect the Democrat Party. Those are not the same things