this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2025
358 points (99.4% liked)

politics

25454 readers
2669 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

In an extraordinary move brokered with Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, dozens of Texas House Democrats aim to deny a quorum as the GOP is set to draw new maps.

The roughly 30 Democrats are expected to stay for the week in a plan brokered with Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, who had met with the Texas caucus late last month and has directed staff to provide logistical support for their stay. A news conference with the governor and Texas Democrats is expected later Sunday.

Last week, Texas Republicans released a proposed new congressional map that would give the GOP a path to pick up five seats in next year’s midterm elections. It followed President Donald Trump’s public pressure for a new map in the state as he works to retain a majority in Congress in what historically is a difficult year for the party holding the White House.

The proposed map would shift district lines in ways that would target current Democratic members of Congress in and around Austin, Dallas and Houston, as well as two already endangered Democrats representing south Texas districts that Trump carried last year.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 18 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Pretty sure if they tried to do anything outside of Texas the local PD would probably be justified in arresting them or even just shooting them.

[–] MagicShel@lemmy.zip 20 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Justified? Sure. I suspect "professional courtesy" would prevent any such thing, though.

[–] vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 8 points 3 weeks ago

Some cops especially sheriffs can be very very territorial, plenty of them are bastards to those outside their region but are chill for those from within the region. A jumped up Texas ranger would be well within the "They aren't gonna find your bodies" area.

[–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 13 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Why do you think the local PD would be on the side of democracy?

[–] vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Don't think they would be, but they are far more likely to shoot some jumped up out of stater.

[–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 11 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

History says they'll side with power/authoritarian. Don't put any faith in westernized law enforcement. Their job is to keep the workers in line. Not to question orders.

[–] vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

If there is one thing that can get deputies and local PD twitchy its tribalism especially if that triablism is being agitated by someone else's tribe. Fact of the matter is that Texas Rangers don't have power or authority outside of Texas, and frankly speaking cops are just as aware of their paycheque as everyone else. If they work with the Texas rangers without higher approval from within the state they risk getting their pay cut for basically nothing.

[–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

They didn't care last time. And the time before that... As long as they are going after marginalized people the local authorities will at best be passive bystanders, at worst they'll actively help the authoritarian.

[–] vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

You are seeing them as a monolith they aren't, they may be broadly aligned but if some Texas ranger started stomping around SoCal he is going to have the sheriff and whatever PD up his ass. I am under no illusion about the general corruption of such groups but they are as I said very territorial and will fight over jurisdiction. Most cops are more than willing to sit on their assess and do nothing, there's a reason they all rush to check out some teenagers drawing knives and it's because they have nothing better to do.

They gain NOTHING from helping out outside authorities unless the state is enabling them, if a protest breaks our yes they'll be jackboots. But if alls quiet on the western front then they'll sit on their assess and do nothing or watch porn in their squad car because that's what my local cops do for some reason.

Also when I say state I don't mean the feds, I'm pretty sure my local deputies would jump at the idea of shooting a fed.

[–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

If they weren't prepared to be the boot for the oligarchy, they wouldn't work in law enforcement in the first place.

[–] vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 weeks ago

The flaw in your assumption is that the oligarchy is actually united. Depending on the region you may very well see an area dominated by a handful of old money families who will call in favors with the good old boys and have them cause trouble. Factionalism is rife amongst the rich the only reason it seems like they have any amount of unity is because a handful of ultra oligarchs such as Thiel, Musk, and Zuckerberg dominate the media.

The police often know their place in such order or at least the ones at the top do. This is why you can get sheriffs departments break rank with town and city PD on occasion because they answer to different powers be they legitimate IE the state or county cheque makers of illegitimate such as the broadly rich in LA vs the old families of a rural Eastern Californian county.

[–] onslaught545@lemmy.zip 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Isn't jurisdiction something that departments fight over fairly regularly?

[–] vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 weeks ago

Yep sometimes they'll even draw guns on each other.