1788
Comments (60)
sorted by:
95
South_Florida_Guy 95 points ago +95 / -0

Tom Fitton is one of a very few actually putting his money where his mouth is. Always doing the HEAVY LIFTING while a bunch of RINO cucks talk shit and do NOTHING.

28
Zepp87 28 points ago +28 / -0

I mean, you've seen his guns. All he does is heavy lifting.

11
AmericanJawa 11 points ago +11 / -0

He even lifts, bro!

1
user365927285937 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yah he’s fit and lifts a ton. Fit ton.

15
Liberty123 15 points ago +15 / -0

I've donated thousands to tom fitton, and more this year too. He does more for us than the whole gop put together not counting trump

6
try4gain 6 points ago +6 / -0

Very cool man

11
cyberwar 11 points ago +11 / -0

imagine the RNC would have spent 10% of the hundreds of millions of $$$ they scammed from voters to do something about the steal and then did nothing.

11
4more 11 points ago +11 / -0

I rarely buy stuff from Amazon but when I have to, Judicial Watch is the cause I donate to.

4
try4gain 4 points ago +4 / -0

JW is worth donating to

https://www.judicialwatch.org/donate/donate/

America First Legal also fighting the good fight and has former Trump team

https://www.aflegal.org/about

23
ExileOnRedditStreet 23 points ago +23 / -0

And people wonder why Baltimore has become a total shithole.

8
deleted 8 points ago +8 / -0
19
Trumpchoochoo 19 points ago +19 / -0

When a DEMOCRAT judge says "This is bullshit"

2
__I_dindu__nufin_ 2 points ago +2 / -0

That will fade away too

19
War_Hamster 19 points ago +19 / -0

I have been pleasantly surprised at how many defeats the Dems met in courts challenging their gerrymandering efforts. I imagine Eric Holder is fuming right about now, considering he spent the past 6 years focusing on this.

More importantly, this is further evidence that my thesis that the legal system, as cucked as it is, still has a bit of integrity, might be correct. But it's still ridiculous that it's still a guessing game as to whether we're going to get screwed by the courts or not.

Justice still exists, but it's far too random.

11
PotatusHead 11 points ago +12 / -1

Their biggest mistake was including Kyiv on the map.

1
trumpORbust 1 point ago +1 / -0

Kyiv had always been on the map

7
FauciOuchi 7 points ago +7 / -0

Should be rectangle shaped districts only. The end

4
tdtech9 4 points ago +4 / -0

But only in rectangle shaped states. I like hexagons, myself.

1
yeldarb1983 1 point ago +1 / -0

unironically, triangles might be better, more flexible in terms of where to fit them...

1
fazaman 1 point ago +2 / -1

Hexagons are the bestagons.

1
FauciOuchi 1 point ago +1 / -0

Too many interpretations of that. 4 sides, 2 pairs of equal sides, or bust

3
Gadsden 3 points ago +3 / -0

The. End.

1
AmericanJawa 1 point ago +1 / -0

As close to as much as possible.

I'd also accept a handful of circular shaped districts where appropriate.

5
Concerned__Citizen 5 points ago +5 / -0

The problem with gerrymandering is when it's abused - you WANT your respresentative to represent YOUR interests. You DON'T want maps drawn that are based on fairness to political opponents, it's the equivalent to knee-capping Asians based on their relative higher IQ scores to make sure that other students have a chance.

Plenty will probably disagree with what I just said, but hear me out.

When you draw a political subdivision that's 1/2 farming land, and 1/2 urban city, and then the urban cities cheat the votes and outlaw herbacides - who does that really screw? The half a dozen of so people in the urban city that are trying to keep their lawns looking good, or the farmers trying to grow a crop?

Urban representatives DO NOT represent farmers, they have completely opposing views to us, and should NEVER be drawn into a political subdivision with farmers.

Now if I'm wrong on this, please explain... I'm all ears and openly share that I don't know everything - there's always the real possibility that I'm missing something here. I expect you to consider and think about the argument from us crop growers however.

1
TEXinLA [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

Exactly. I was in western rural Kern County yesterday. Drove through lots of orchards, fallow land, some row crop, and sizable oil fields.

City people have no clue how and why society functions.

1
mdexile 1 point ago +1 / -0

Check out the Wikipedia (I know, but the graphics are terrific) page for MD Congressional districts. Some of the convoluted snakes that are called contiguous districts are laughable.

In the last redistricting, a reliably republican district of Garrett, Allegheny, Washington, and Frederick counties was split north/south and subburbs of Washington DC were added to the district to turn it democrat.

Baltimore City had sections in 4 or 5 different districts. On the new map, Baltimore City is, for the most part, one district. Pikesville got carved out and assigned to a Baltimore County/Carroll County district. Someone else can explain if they choose to do so,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland%27s_congressional_districts

1
shatmaself 1 point ago +1 / -0

Well, you typically don't have pockets of farms extending like fingers into urban areas, so in that example, boundaries based on geography would work out OK. In the example of trying to group together one ethnic group in strange disregard to geography (weird lines and shapes to bend over backwards to create the grouping), that's going down the path of identity politics, and you get into the situation of trying to favor one group over another. If you want to take that to an extreme, what's to stop the world's nations from gerrymandering their borders to include their "people", not unlike what Russia is doing in Ukraine or in Transnitria in Moldova. I understand your intention to get "fair and balanced" representation, but it's a very slippery slope.

2
Concerned__Citizen 2 points ago +2 / -0

No, I was saying I don't want lines drawn for the sake of 'fair and balanced'.. I want lines drawn for representation - i.e. urban districts should contain urban, rural should contain rural, because the people within those districts would want somoene that has the concerns for the people in those districts in mind, vs. someone who creates urban rules and doesn't have a clue to rural needs.

1
Concerned__Citizen 1 point ago +1 / -0

If their extending into an urban area like fingers, then where is the wrist and hand located? It's farmland.

So we're taking farmers and urbanites and saying to people - this guy/gal is going to be able to represent your interests if you elect them. It's complete bullshit!!

If you're drawing political lines based on race, or political leanings, you're fucking the population. If you want representation, you must draw the lines based on what they need representation for, and that means that if you have 90% of the population in an urban area and 10% in farmland, you need 10% of your representatives that make up your state to come from your urban areas.

1
Sansa_Belt 1 point ago +1 / -0

How about from where they pay taxes? There are whole swaths of compact urban areas who pay practically none.

You can find that in the rural areas too to a degree, but there is no comparison per capita.

1
user365927285937 1 point ago +1 / -0

outlaw herbicides

How dare you take away my right to poison the fuck out of humanity!

1
Concerned__Citizen 1 point ago +1 / -0

I know right? We'd much prefer starving 50% of our population to death TODAY than to formulate new brands of herbicides that are safe for us.

4
AmericanJawa 4 points ago +4 / -0

Anyone have a link to the map that was struck down? I don't disagree with the ruling, I just want another look to be reminded of the madness that was struck down.

4
deleted 4 points ago +4 / -0
2
TEXinLA [S] 2 points ago +2 / -0

^^THIS^^

4
DestroyerofCobwebs 4 points ago +4 / -0

If anyone ever needed proof that the Democrats strategy is to accuse their opponents of what they are doing, this 2020 Census gerrymander drama has been it.

Look at the evidence. Over and over again, the maps drawn up by Republican legislatures are being approved by the state high courts, even though in many cases those courts are made up of majority Democrat judges.

In contrast, the Democrat drawn maps are being rejected by their state courts, despite said courts generally being Democrat lead as well.

This is happening all over the country. The rational conclusion is clear: Democrat legislatures truly want to disenfranchise rural and exurb voters, while Republican legislatures are trying to make sure their predominantly rural states aren't further dominated in representation by small, high population density areas.

1
TEXinLA [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

^^THIS^^

4
independent_fury 4 points ago +4 / -0

Fuck Lockdown Larry "Wear the damn mask" Hogan!

[edit]...fat bastard.

[edit2]...and his RINO replacement wannabe Kelly Schultz.

2
TEXinLA [S] 2 points ago +2 / -0

Tar and feather.

1
finscreenname 1 point ago +1 / -0

Agreed but this is not his win, its ours.

3
SmokeyAF 3 points ago +3 / -0

I donate to Tom Fitton and Judicial Watch. I can at least see some wins coming from those patriots.

3
Harper42190 3 points ago +3 / -0

Tom Fitton is the fuckin GOAT. Been following him from the start and have loved everything he's done, he's a fucking fighter. He doesn't get the attention he deserves, that is for sure.

3
Sansa_Belt 3 points ago +3 / -0

Judicial Watch, one of the very few that I support financially because... results.

Finally Federalism is at work slowly kicking things back to the States instead of the Federal Government. This chronically biased gerrymandering (Elbridge Gerry from Massachusetts of course), Row vs. Wade, and even Constitutional Carry. It may still be based on 2A, but state legislatures are moving the ball.

2
TrumpsWallet 2 points ago +2 / -0

Just

-1
Mungo -1 points ago +2 / -3

2 weeks

-3
Ayahuasca_One -3 points ago +2 / -5

Redistricting could be made by a computer or some nerds by a simple algorithm so population totals is equilibrated among constant Cartesian squares.