ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

Anyone else see Tim Pool on Joe Rogan with Jack Dorsey (CEO of Twitter) and Vijaya Gadde? Was really surprised how well that interview went.

I'm not rooting for a long sentence. I don't really care about that. I'd much prefer he pay restitution to anyone he's harmed + a light sentence to make him wary of committing future crimes.

But I do believe he's being sentenced again soon. So it's going to be 47 months + the next one.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Hyper partisanship is preventable. It's a bad thing.
...
Second, a competitive race between D and R isn't nearly as unhealthy as a genuinely competitive primary contest between the far left and the moderate left, providing that our metric for health is that of the federation.
...
I am genuinely interested by what series of mental gymnastics you believe the ultimate result of bipartisan compromise is war and secession.

Bipartisan "compromise" on partisan issues is the equivalent of splitting the baby. Build half a wall, ban half the guns, bomb half a country. Realistically, it often doesn't end in "compromise", it's ends in concession, because people are aware enough that splitting a baby is bad.

Hyperpartisanship leads eventually to a world of no concessions. Which means that "compromise" results in the consistently worst outcome. The government shutdown was a bipartisan compromise, for one example, and if it becomes commonplace, you can imagine where that will go.

Separately, I do believe that sometimes the healthiest thing for the federation is dissolution. Sometimes a marriage is so bad that separation is the best outcome. There exist lines that should not be crossed.

Primarily, I only disagree with your opinion that districting is the primary cause of partisanship, though. I think it's preventable, but not by districting. I've never said I'm in favor of partisanship, and your opinion about the link between districting and partisanship isn't proof of such.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Considering that independent jurisdictions already have a direct say in federal laws via Senators, I'd consider it egregiously redundant if the same principle applied equally to the House.

I consider it egregiously necessary that both House and Senate have similar principles despite their different proportioning.

Taken to the extreme, I would not object to the characterization of the House being a "Senate of Cities" while the Senate is a "Senate of States".*

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

The "bottom left" system you advocate ensures that the one representative protesting is just bread and circuses, and at the end of the day is oppressed. And I can prove it.

[diagram]
[pneuma note: I agree with this simplified model and its outcome]

Now admittedly, under my system the representative of District 1 probably doesn't squawk as loudly as under your system.

The point I'm making is that there are countless qualifiers which you don't know about a priori. By splitting up a group that is not measured in R/D/Circle/Square, you will disenfranchise them and deny them a voice at the federal level over federal policy that may specifically affect them. It's the difference between 1 representative "squawking loudly" (read: sitting on a committee, introducing bills) and 0 representatives.

The one thing we know is true is that people with similar interests and shared resources tend to self-congregate. Barring your magical (and NP-Complete) satisfier, any districting system which discards this effect is actively worse than one that doesn't.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

What I am advocating here is full-bodied republicanism, with a little r. Is that unnatural? Of course! As a rule, republican mechanisms are — look at the Electoral College and how confusing it is to most people. "Why can't we just go by the popular vote?" they whine. Well, that's what the bottom left method functionally is — direct democracy, with a republican paint job. The rINO system, if you will.

Just think of it this way: I'm talking about making the House more like the Senate, and you're saying that that's the opposite of "full-bodied republicanism".



The plot has been lost in your effort to prove... something. I did like your idea about requiring higher majorities for federal law in general, for what it's worth.

"

RPGlitch wrote:

Anyone else see Tim Pool on Joe Rogan with Jack Dorsey (CEO of Twitter) and Vijaya Gadde? Was really surprised how well that interview went.

Yeah, I watched the whole thing and it was fantastic. The evasiveness of Twitter was extremely obvious, and Tim Pool did a great job slamming them over and over again on their bias.

I was amazed at how clear his argument was about a "global" company eschewing the core tenets of the countries in which they operate. I agree entirely that it's going to lead to regulation, and no amount of saying "we'll look into it, it was probably just a mistake" will save them from it.

"

BearCares wrote:

I'm not rooting for a long sentence. I don't really care about that. I'd much prefer he pay restitution to anyone he's harmed + a light sentence to make him wary of committing future crimes.

But I do believe he's being sentenced again soon. So it's going to be 47 months + the next one.

Well, so far at least, Manafort is being sentenced for his actual crimes, and not (as Mueller would have liked) for the crime of association with a known Orange Man. =^[.]^=

"

pneuma wrote:

"

RPGlitch wrote:

Anyone else see Tim Pool on Joe Rogan with Jack Dorsey (CEO of Twitter) and Vijaya Gadde? Was really surprised how well that interview went.

Yeah, I watched the whole thing and it was fantastic. The evasiveness of Twitter was extremely obvious, and Tim Pool did a great job slamming them over and over again on their bias.

I was amazed at how clear his argument was about a "global" company eschewing the core tenets of the countries in which they operate. I agree entirely that it's going to lead to regulation, and no amount of saying "we'll look into it, it was probably just a mistake" will save them from it.

Well 'bias' in and of itself is a loaded term and I'm sure you're intelligent enough to already know that. For example, a bias towards accuracy in today's climate means by default that you are now anti-Trump. And that's not a crime - in fact, in journalism people get awards for having exactly that kind of bias. That's why when I hear conservatives talking about bias, I know they are doing the same thing with the word bias as those people in Charlottesville did with the phrase free speech.

Anyway, I would say that both Sean Hannity and Rachel Maddow are biased. The difference is, that one of them expresses their bias with facts, literal documents and records. While the other just wings it and says whatever feels good to him. Oops I think I just gave away which was which.

"

BearCares wrote:

Anyway, I would say that both Sean Hannity and Rachel Maddow are biased. The difference is, that one of them expresses their bias with facts, literal documents and records. While the other just wings it and says whatever feels good to him. Oops I think I just gave away which was which

"

pneuma wrote:

"

RPGlitch wrote:

Anyone else see Tim Pool on Joe Rogan with Jack Dorsey (CEO of Twitter) and Vijaya Gadde? Was really surprised how well that interview went.

Yeah, I watched the whole thing and it was fantastic. The evasiveness of Twitter was extremely obvious, and Tim Pool did a great job slamming them over and over again on their bias.

I was amazed at how clear his argument was about a "global" company eschewing the core tenets of the countries in which they operate. I agree entirely that it's going to lead to regulation, and no amount of saying "we'll look into it, it was probably just a mistake" will save them from it.

Agreed.

I also found it really surprising when you have journalists, reporting that out of the 22 high profile twitter bannings in 2018, 21 were conservative-leaning, and for Vijaya to reply, "Well, we don't look at their political views when banning them."

I'm like well you obviously have something fucking wrong when the algorithm you are using has 99% chance of banning a specific group. Not to mention, the double-standard when it came to reporting individuals and mob behavior. But yeah, danm, props for Tim Pool for such great journalism in that podcast and Joe Rogan for setting up the whole thing.

Been played GD awhile Hey guys...Hate to say I told y'all so but I did. No political cares about you or ever will so dont put your faith in them - they are at best venal and only put faith in self/family/friends/Faith and the smallest govt possible so they can't screw too much up.

Trump doesnt care about "wall" whatsoever was rehtoric all for public consumptiion.

-Record 900K border crossings this year
-Wants millions more H1B tech visas
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/03/07/trump-requests-more-foreign-workers-as-southern-border-gets-overrun/
-Actually signed an amnesty bill
https://rense.com/general96/trump-signs-amnesty-budget-bill-for-millions-of-illegals.php

Anyway 7 hrs till patch and Game go time whoohoo!!!

Peace