It's almost like the problem isn't social media, but the algorithms that put content in front of your eyeballs to keep your engagement in order to monetize you. Like a casino.
Since you appear to have conveniently missed the more important part of my previous comment, I will repeat it here.
You're talking about redistricting for US House districts. I was referring to state-level positions. Since this article is about a state-level bill, federal districts are not relevant.
You're talking about redistricting for US House districts. I was referring to state-level positions. Since this article is about a state-level bill, federal districts are not relevant.
Old map, drawn by bipartisan government:
One strong Dem district
One Dem district
One toss-up
Four Rep districts
One strong Rep district
New map, drawn by Republicans:
One strong Dem
One Dem
One light Rep
Four Rep
One strong Rep
The only difference above is the toss-up is gone and the light Rep is in. This is by far the weakest gerrymandering I've ever seen, if you could even call it that.
Depends on how many of them voted for fascists. Based on the fascist governor, and the MO Gen'l Assembly being roughly 2/3 fascist, definitely leopards eating faces.
Engelmayer, in his decision Monday on the Maxwell-related transcripts, quoted a 1973 legal ruling, which said that “the policy that ‘proceedings before a grand jury shall generally remain secret’ is ‘older than our Nation itself.’ ”
“A member of the public, appreciating that the Maxwell grand jury materials do not contribute anything to public knowledge, might conclude that the Government’s motion for their unsealing was aimed not at ‘transparency’ but at diversion — aimed not at full disclosure but at the illusion of such,” he wrote.
“Contrary to the Government’s depiction, the Maxwell grand jury testimony is not a matter of significant historical or public interest,” Engelmayer wrote. “Far from it. It consists of garden-variety summary testimony by two law enforcement agents.”
SCOTUS already crossed that line with Trump v. Anderson.