This is also a key part of it. People should explore the complexity instead of treating this as team sports. I think we have a genetic disposition to this sort of thinking, but can overcome it.

▲

CaptArmchair 21 hours ago | parent | next [-]

From the posted article:

> EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

> The move continues to expose communities across the country to toxic forever chemicals in tap water

If this really were a "team sport", one half of the team wouldn't be set on undermining the health of the other half of the team.

▲

somenameforme 21 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Rolling back PFAS protections would not simply affect "the other half of the team", it would affect everybody. If there isn't some context missing here, this is an action that would be ubiquitously unpopular, let alone when contrasted against the goals of MAHA.

▲

estearum 21 hours ago | parent [-]

The beauty of gerrymandering is that the gerrymanderers don't need to be popular.

Also the baseline GOP today exists in a different reality (e.g. where Trump won the 2020 election and Democrats did the COVID lockdowns)

▲

somenameforme 20 hours ago | parent [-]

Gerrymandering has no effect on the Senate or Presidency making this largely a non sequitur. Furthermore, administrators of independent agencies (such as the EPA) need to confirmed by the Senate. Up until 2013, appointees could be blocked by a minority with a filibuster. That rule was changed in 2013 by a Democrat majority Senate under Obama, to make it such that a simple majority could force through any appointee.

That was one of countless examples of where powers passed by one side with a majority invariably end up coming back to bite then when they become the minority. The Founding Fathers designed our political system to be largely dysfunctional without widespread consensus. That was clearly wiser than the path we are increasingly choosing in modern times.

	▲	estearum 15 hours ago \| parent [-]
		This is true in a world of balanced power between Congress, the judiciary, and the executive. It is not true anymore, as all power is centralized in the parties. The House’s impeachment power will essentially never be used against the dominant party’s President, which allows POTUS to act with impunity and strongly incentivizes him to secure his party’s House dominance — a dynamic we’re seeing very explicitly at play over the last few months. POTUS keeps the House reps in power, the House reps let POTUS do whatever he wants. Both win by severing their need to have popular policies in order to hold political power, so that’s what they work to do. Gerrymandering is an absolutely critical tool in this effort which is why POTUS has been publicly pressuring “members of different parts of the government” to pursue it (and they are!) So no, it’s not a non-sequitur.

▲

testaccount28 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

hi there! i'm not sure you read the comment you're replying to!

i guess you reject their request to stop trying to defeat the other team. but you also object to the use of the word "team" to describe a political party?

could you explain?

▲

21 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]