There's been a lot of talk on the forum lately about the sick state of our democracy. Rather than manning the barricades, we should do whatever we can to address gerrymandering. It's the cancer that's eating away at our core. Above all else, and regardless of party affiliation, anyone who really wants our democracy to succeed and flourish should become a single-issue voter on gerrymandering. Vote in your state elections and don't vote for anyone who won't commit to work to address this issue.
Any hope of fixing gerrymandering ended with Kennedy's retirement.
Kennedy punted on gerrymandering before retiring - I think if he were inclined to fix gerrymandering, he would have done it in that case.
This still leaves state-level fixes, although what I do worry about with Kennedy retiring is that the new majority is going to be inclined to strike down gerrymandering reforms as unconstitutional.
That, and the fact that most states can't be fixed without legislative action, which is unlikely.
I'm a little less pessimistic about that. For one, many states (not sure how many) have ballot initiative processes. I'm on the fence about whether those are good ideas in general, but it seems perfectly suited to things like gerrymandering reform (apparently they just passed a gerrymandering reform in Ohio via ballot initiative). For another, especially as gerrymandering reforms pass in some states, it puts pressure on others, and this is something that's easy to generate bipartisan support for among voters (the trickier part being, I think, to get said voters actively engaged). And it's something that public awareness of has blossomed in recent years.
We'll see. But like I said, I do worry that even once these reforms catch on, that an aggressive SCOTUS is going to gut them.
There's been a lot of talk on the forum lately about the sick state of our democracy. Rather than manning the barricades, we should do whatever we can to address gerrymandering. It's the cancer that's eating away at our core. Above all else, and regardless of party affiliation, anyone who really wants our democracy to succeed and flourish should become a single-issue voter on gerrymandering. Vote in your state elections and don't vote for anyone who won't commit to work to address this issue.
Any hope of fixing gerrymandering ended with Kennedy's retirement.
Kennedy punted on gerrymandering before retiring - I think if he were inclined to fix gerrymandering, he would have done it in that case.
This still leaves state-level fixes, although what I do worry about with Kennedy retiring is that the new majority is going to be inclined to strike down gerrymandering reforms as unconstitutional.
That, and the fact that most states can't be fixed without legislative action, which is unlikely.
I'm a little less pessimistic about that. For one, many states (not sure how many) have ballot initiative processes. I'm on the fence about whether those are good ideas in general, but it seems perfectly suited to things like gerrymandering reform (apparently they just passed a gerrymandering reform in Ohio via ballot initiative). For another, especially as gerrymandering reforms pass in some states, it puts pressure on others, and this is something that's easy to generate bipartisan support for among voters (the trickier part being, I think, to get said voters actively engaged). And it's something that public awareness of has blossomed in recent years.
We'll see. But like I said, I do worry that even once these reforms catch on, that an aggressive SCOTUS is going to gut them.
Only 26 states have ballot initiatives, and many are limited in scope or can be reversed by the legislature. Also, a state-by-state effort makes me worry about the nightmare scenario: Democratic-leaning states adopt fairly uniform rules creating fair districts, while Republican-leaning states are gerrymandered to produce maximal Republican representation, creating a permanently-slanted-to-the-Republicans Congressional map nationwide.
Wed Oct 20, 2004 1:17 am
Zarathud: The sad thing is that Barak Obama is a very intelligent and articulate person, even when you disagree with his views it's clear that he's very thoughtful. I would have loved to see Obama in a real debate.
Me: Wait 12 years, when he runs for president. :-)
There's been a lot of talk on the forum lately about the sick state of our democracy. Rather than manning the barricades, we should do whatever we can to address gerrymandering. It's the cancer that's eating away at our core. Above all else, and regardless of party affiliation, anyone who really wants our democracy to succeed and flourish should become a single-issue voter on gerrymandering. Vote in your state elections and don't vote for anyone who won't commit to work to address this issue.
Any hope of fixing gerrymandering ended with Kennedy's retirement.
Kennedy punted on gerrymandering before retiring - I think if he were inclined to fix gerrymandering, he would have done it in that case.
This still leaves state-level fixes, although what I do worry about with Kennedy retiring is that the new majority is going to be inclined to strike down gerrymandering reforms as unconstitutional.
That, and the fact that most states can't be fixed without legislative action, which is unlikely.
I'm a little less pessimistic about that. For one, many states (not sure how many) have ballot initiative processes. I'm on the fence about whether those are good ideas in general, but it seems perfectly suited to things like gerrymandering reform (apparently they just passed a gerrymandering reform in Ohio via ballot initiative). For another, especially as gerrymandering reforms pass in some states, it puts pressure on others, and this is something that's easy to generate bipartisan support for among voters (the trickier part being, I think, to get said voters actively engaged). And it's something that public awareness of has blossomed in recent years.
We'll see. But like I said, I do worry that even once these reforms catch on, that an aggressive SCOTUS is going to gut them.
Only 26 states have ballot initiatives, and many are limited in scope or can be reversed by the legislature. Also, a state-by-state effort makes me worry about the nightmare scenario: Democratic-leaning states adopt fairly uniform rules creating fair districts, while Republican-leaning states are gerrymandered to produce maximal Republican representation, creating a permanently-slanted-to-the-Republicans Congressional map nationwide.
Fireball, in the past I've posted that if the Dems were to take both houses and the executive office, they could update the Permanent Appointments Act with just a new law to update the House of Representatives numbers and Electoral College numbers - am I correct in this assumption that it is only a law, and not reflected in the Constitution requiring an Amendment?
the House passed the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929, fixing the number of Representatives at 435. The U.S. Constitution called for at least one Representative per state and that no more than one for every 30,000 persons. Thus, the size of a state’s House delegation depended on its population. But the founders were vague as to how large future Congresses should be and what method to use to reapportion the House after each federal census. ...
...Signed into law on June 18, 1929, the Permanent Apportionment Act capped House Membership at the level established after the 1910 Census and created a procedure for automatically reapportioning House seats after every decennial census.
The GOP would never be inclined to do this when so tied to limiting the vote, but I can see the Dems both able to do this (if they gain control) and having an incentive to do so.
Black Lives definitely Matter Lorini!
Also: There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Yes, it's just a law. We'd need 60 votes in the Senate, however.
If I had my druthers, one of the first things we would do in 2021 would be to double the size of the House, and then admit Puerto Rico and DC as states.
Wed Oct 20, 2004 1:17 am
Zarathud: The sad thing is that Barak Obama is a very intelligent and articulate person, even when you disagree with his views it's clear that he's very thoughtful. I would have loved to see Obama in a real debate.
Me: Wait 12 years, when he runs for president. :-)
Fireball wrote: Thu Jul 12, 2018 4:32 pm
Yes, it's just a law. We'd need 60 votes in the Senate, however.
If I had my druthers, one of the first things we would do in 2021 would be to double the size of the House, and then admit Puerto Rico and DC as states.
Why 60? Why not pull a McConnell and include it in a bill which can be passed with 51?
Black Lives definitely Matter Lorini!
Also: There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
I don't think you can get that through parliamentarian muster as a spending proposal.
Wed Oct 20, 2004 1:17 am
Zarathud: The sad thing is that Barak Obama is a very intelligent and articulate person, even when you disagree with his views it's clear that he's very thoughtful. I would have loved to see Obama in a real debate.
Me: Wait 12 years, when he runs for president. :-)
There's been a lot of talk on the forum lately about the sick state of our democracy. Rather than manning the barricades, we should do whatever we can to address gerrymandering. It's the cancer that's eating away at our core. Above all else, and regardless of party affiliation, anyone who really wants our democracy to succeed and flourish should become a single-issue voter on gerrymandering. Vote in your state elections and don't vote for anyone who won't commit to work to address this issue.
That sounds good in theory, but it is a difficult topic to tackle. As 538 demonstrated, the maps can change a lot depending on what your priorities are and not everything that looks like gerrymandering actually is.
Thanks for that 538 link. Really interesting stuff there. But looking at those results, I’m not sure picking the right map is all that hard. Why isn’t the “compact while following county borders” map the obvious choice? None of them are free from issues, but that one strikes me as the one that goes to the heart of the problem with drawing districts with the clear aim to advantage one political party over the other and “bullet-proof” a given district from challenge from the opposition party. And according to 538, it results in a 28% increase in highly competitive districts, which, I believe would really change the substance and tenor of the political discourse in this country.
Regarding whether these types of changes would be easy to implement, I don’t think anyone’s so naive to think this would be a simple process. But that doesn’t mean it’s not worth pushing for.
Just 'cause you feel it, doesn't mean it's there -- Radiohead
Do you believe me? Do you trust me? Do you like me? 😳
I'm hoping Maine's "Ranked Choice Voting" makes a difference. Not that Maine makes many waves politically, but it's an interesting thing - and Republicans have been in a fury over it, but it keeps passing with voter approval. Functionally, a Dem might say A, B, C - in that order. And an Rep might say C, B, A - in that order. It A and C don't get majority votes, then the "weakest" is eliminated and the second choice for those eliminated is used - meaning B might win easily in round 2.
Black Lives Matter
2021-01-20: The first good night's sleep I had in 4 years.
2025-01-20: The nightmares continue.
I got phone surveyed last night. The first question was about how I think Scott Walker is doing. I left Wisconsin in 2013 - I no longer have first hand knowledge. I told this to the interviewer, but she persisted to go through all the senate and governor race possibilities for the state. I picked the Democrat option in all cases, but want to let you all know that at least one poll is going to be a bit off as I can't actually vote in any of those races.
This is a thread on creepy and weird goings-on in conspiracy fever-land.
A militia grifter in Arizona has been raising cash on theories of a Clinton/Soros pedophilia ring, but the drama has heated to a point where he might be getting ready to kill himself on social media (if he doesn't kill others).
Four officers from the Jasper Police Department have been suspended after making and upside-down "OK" sign with their hands in a post-arrest photo taken by a Jasper Daily Mountain Eagle photographer, city officials told AL.com.
Some people have claimed the gesture is actually a hate symbol that means "white power." The photo in question was posted Thursday in a story about a recent drug arrest in Jasper.
Or they were playing the circle game, which I have seen making the rounds on reddit without any reference to race/politics.
The objective of the game is to form a circle with one's thumb and forefinger (the "OK" gesture) below the waist and get someone else to look at it. If he or she looks, the prankster gets to hit them.
For weeks now, New York politicos have been jazzed about former Sex and the City co-star Cynthia Nixon’s insurgent campaign for New York governor. The incumbent, Andrew Cuomo, has become a villain on the party’s left even as he reportedly draws up plans to join the throng of Democrats likely to run for the presidency in 2020. Nixon, speaking stridently on topics like wealth inequality and mass incarceration, has directed her pitch squarely at those disgruntled progressives. As the New York Times reported Tuesday, she’s gained 16 points worth of ground against Cuomo in the past month, although he still holds a healthy lead, 58 percent to 27. Cuomo’s approval rating has also slipped beneath 50 percent for the first time since 2015.
So some skank ass fucktarded 17 year old boy repeatedly raped his 15 year old sister and got her pregnant. She gets an abortion and they give her 6 months in prison after asking for a year and all he got was 2 years. Some countries just dont give a shit about females. Might as well be sub human animals to them.
--------------------------------------------
I am Dyslexic of Borg, prepare to have your ass laminated.
I guess Ray Butts has ate his last pancake. http://steamcommunity.com/id/daehawk
"Has high IQ. Refuses to apply it"
When in doubt, skewer it out...I don't know.
The non-profit will be a central source of polling, advice on messaging, data targeting, and think-tank research for a ragtag band of right-wingers who are surging all over Europe, in many cases without professional political structures or significant budgets.
Bannon’s ambition is for his organization ultimately to rival the impact of Soros’s Open Society, which has given away $32 billion to largely liberal causes since it was established in 1984.
Over the past year, Bannon has held talks with right-wing groups across the continent from Nigel Farage and members of Marine Le Pen’s Front National (recently renamed Rassemblement National) in the West, to Hungary’s Viktor Orban and the Polish populists in the East.
He envisions a right-wing “supergroup” within the European Parliament that could attract as many as a third of the lawmakers after next May’s Europe-wide elections. A united populist bloc of that size would have the ability to seriously disrupt parliamentary proceedings, potentially granting Bannon huge power within the populist movement.
I put the odds that he's in bed with Russia here at about 100%.
Hopefully this crashes and collapses before they have a chance to burn somebody's Reichstag.
Defiant wrote: Wed Jul 18, 2018 2:36 pm
Is anyone shocked that her support among non-white voters would be much lower than that among white voters?
Not really. The issues that Cuomo is most vulnerable on -- corruption, cronyism, and transit -- aren't particularly "ethnic" issues. He's always done a good job of courting political leaders from minority communities. And minorities in New York don't naturally gravitate toward white liberals from Manhattan.
If she's anything like her father, the "winding down" will take an extended amount of time, and ultimately consist of transferring the ownership to "Ivanka Trump, LLC".
In July 2018 - 19 months after Trump took office - we have the nation's top law enforcement official chuckling along and encouraging his audience to chant for incarceration of Trump's political opponent.
Yeah, that's not disconcerting. Nothing to see here citizen, move along.
He should just Single White Female the hell out of this and buy an orange wig, a bunch of too long ties, and wear platform shoes around D.C..
It annoys me he pretends to be the "principled conservative" (as if there were such a thing anymore), but is fast becoming one of Drumpf's biggest lickspittles next to Devin Nunes.
I link this here because if I put in the R&M thread it will quickly turn political because of the nature of the attacks. When do we get Internet2, where you need to be a verified subscribed member to join?
I think this is something both sides are guilty of, to be honest. Social media is leading to the destruction of lives over offensive jokes and stupid or bad behavior. And folks from both sides have jumped on the bandwagon. I'm hoping this recent rash of ridiculousness will cause both sides to reflect on how they react to social media.
But I doubt it.
Deadpool 3 will need to shoot for a PG-13 if it wants to survive its release.
This is pretty pathetic. Our 'culture' has become a bunch of people bickering over who offended who the most. People just trying to get shit done have to always tread carefully lest someone with an agenda try to pull them down. In Harmon's case, he was experimenting when he was younger. It hardly fits who he is today. If we are all to be held to snapshots of everything we did at different times in our lives...then welcome to a world of hurt for everyone. Cause young people never do un-wise things, right? I am starting to get Europe's pivot towards privacy and a right to forget. I think they've properly gauged how terrible the future can look.
malchior wrote: Wed Jul 25, 2018 12:33 pm
In Harmon's case, he was experimenting when he was younger.
I'm not sure experimenting is the right concept. Harmon has admitted to and shown a great deal of humility for being a pretty shitty person in his past and I don't doubt that came through in his comedy. Once a mirror was held to who he was, he did not hide from it or make excuses. I don't think he asks for his behavior to be excused but he does seem to demonstrate that he had learned and grown. He's by no means a hero for being who he was, but he at least gives the public impression that he has learned, which is important to me. I don't want to say "I won't watch R&M and feed money to such a terrible person."
It's almost random what will trip the sensors of some people, leading to the evisceration of anyone who dares have a dark sense of humor, or makes an off color joke on social media.
I'm fine with people getting offended with whatever they want to be offended with. And even posting how offended they are.
Where it crosses the line is when action is taking on that offense as a knee-jerk reaction. It's a disproportionate response to a very tiny fraction of vocal attention whores.
YellowKing wrote: Wed Jul 25, 2018 3:08 pm
I'm fine with people getting offended with whatever they want to be offended with. And even posting how offended they are.
Where it crosses the line is when action is taking on that offense as a knee-jerk reaction. It's a disproportionate response to a very tiny fraction of vocal attention whores.
I also hate how we've gotten to "Everything you've ever said or done will be used against you (in as biased a view as possible). If we don't like you, we'll edit what you've said or done so that we can use it against you."
Black Lives definitely Matter Lorini!
Also: There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
malchior wrote: Wed Jul 25, 2018 12:33 pm
In Harmon's case, he was experimenting when he was younger.
I'm not sure experimenting is the right concept. Harmon has admitted to and shown a great deal of humility for being a pretty shitty person in his past and I don't doubt that came through in his comedy. Once a mirror was held to who he was, he did not hide from it or make excuses. I don't think he asks for his behavior to be excused but he does seem to demonstrate that he had learned and grown. He's by no means a hero for being who he was, but he at least gives the public impression that he has learned, which is important to me. I don't want to say "I won't watch R&M and feed money to such a terrible person."
By experimenting I meant creatively. That it was a reflection of whatever shitty outlook he had again when he was young is what it is. A reflection of someone who was immature. That he became a less shitty immature adult is how he developed. That someone needed to dig up everything he did to discredit his whole body of work is pretty insane to me. It is culture enforcement of a really distasteful sort. Someone elsewhere put it nicely that this is the perversion of consumerism to an extreme degree. Everyone is ridiculously sensitive to outrage. Except where it matters...say in the hands of the person in charge of our nation. It really feels like our country's culture is pretty bonkers.
I sometimes start to think of the number of entertainers and artists who would now be run out of town on rails for their work, and it's a pretty damn staggeringly huge one.
hepcat wrote: Wed Jul 25, 2018 1:35 pm
It's almost random what will trip the sensors of some people, leading to the evisceration of anyone who dares have a dark sense of humor, or makes an off color joke on social media.
Lenny Bruce is spinning in his grave.
YellowKing wrote: Wed Jul 25, 2018 3:08 pm
I'm fine with people getting offended with whatever they want to be offended with. And even posting how offended they are.
Where it crosses the line is when action is taking on that offense as a knee-jerk reaction. It's a disproportionate response to a very tiny fraction of vocal attention whores.
from the AVClub article, and this is worth repeating:
"Offensive though the video may be, nobody is actually offended by it. This is a work of mock outrage, generated from the depths of Reddit and 4chan and shepherded into the mainstream by alt-lite goons like Mike Cernovich and Jack Posobiec"
it's an attack vector from basement dwellers, is all.
Te be fair, it has been happening for a while...and not always from the conservative media/trolls. Sometimes its liberals attacking liberals, just as sometimes it's conservatives attacking conservatives. It's been heading towards my breaking point for a while now. This whole thing with Gunn and Harmon just set me off though. I do definitely agree that the instances I just mentioned are conservative trolls attempting to stoke outrage for the sake of politics.
And just because I am going off on this stuff, that doesn't mean I'm trying to downplay the real cases of abuse found in the testimonies of people from the #MeToo movement, nor am I now siding with all the gamergate jerks who threatened women over their protests of sexism in gaming/movies/etc..
