LOUNGE all new asksnapzu ideasforsnapzu newtribes interesting pics videos funny technology science technews gaming health history worldnews business web research entertainment food living internet socialmedia mobile space sports photography nature animals movies culture travel television finance music celebrities gadgets environment usa crime politics law money justice psychology security cars wtf art google books lifetips bigbrother women apple kids recipes whoa military privacy education facebook medicine computing wildlife design war drugs middleeast diet toplists economy fail violence humor africa microsoft parenting dogs canada neuroscience architecture religion advertising infographics sex journalism disaster software aviation relationships energy booze life japan ukraine newmovies nsa cannabis name Name of the tribe humanrights nasa cute weather gifs discoveries cops futurism football earth dataviz pets guns entrepreneurship fitness android extremeweather fashion insects india northamerica
+37 37 0
Published 1 year ago with 5 Comments

Join the Discussion

  • Auto Tier
  • All
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Post Comment
  • leweb
    +6

    So he's going to fight for our Democracy now? Maybe it would have been more effective to do it as the POTUS?

    • NotWearingPants (edited 1 year ago)
      +3

      Neither party wants to give up its safe districts, the only problem they have with gerrymandering is the other party's safe districts.

      • leweb
        +3

        The easy solution is for a neutral third party to do it then.

        • NotWearingPants
          +5

          Easy? Maybe in principle. Not so much in practice.

          About as easy as convincing lifers to vote for term limits. Or really reforming campaign finance.

          You're asking both parties to give up safe districts. (And the lifers in those safe districts to change the status quo) You're asking the Congressional Black Caucus to give up majority-minority districts.

          Any change that favors one party, or is perceived that it might favor one party is dead out of the gate.

          Find a dozen truly neutral people who would be interested to do it that don't have an agenda. That all parties would agree to. They can't even agree who won the last presidential election.

          • leweb
            +4

            I guess you're right. At the end it seems the only option is to do away with everyone and start over from scratch. Which is not going to happen.

Here are some other snaps you may like...