Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 137: America Derserves Better

(+) Yeah! (+)

Jakyl25 posted...

Some Louisiana schools are threatening to punish kids if they kneel for the Anthem at football games

If those are public schools, that crosses a line IMO

Pretty sure this isn't legal but it's not like that stops public schools from doing stupid conservative horseshit.
---

I just wonder how long it will take Trump to get to "Lock Them Up" for Anthem kneelers

I feel like he's 2 steps away from it
---

Kenri posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Some Louisiana schools are threatening to punish kids if they kneel for the Anthem at football games

If those are public schools, that crosses a line IMO

Pretty sure this isn't legal but it's not like that stops public schools from doing stupid conservative horseshit.

Heard about it from the ACLU so at least they're on it.
---

Anyone knowledgeable about the state of affairs for the Catalan independence vote in Spain on Sunday? Seems the government is acting inappropriately trying to suppress the vote?
---

It's a pretty complicated situation. I haven't read too much about it, but the Spanish government has been suppressing the vote and arresting officials since this would be a constitutionally illegal referendum, as Catalonia would be deciding on its own on deciding independence. From what I hear, both sides of the government is corrupt to some degree, too.
---

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/09/28/us/politics/trump-tax-benefit.html?_r=0

"Trump Could Save More Than $1 Billion Under His New Tax Plan"
---

You could remodel a kitchen with that!
---

Peace___Frog posted...

You could remodel a kitchen with that!

If you do all the work yourself, sure.
---

redrocket_pub posted...

Peace___Frog posted...

You could remodel a kitchen with that!

If you do all the work yourself, sure.

I'm referring to post #156 and was not being serious, thank you.
---

Peace___Frog posted...

You could remodel a kitchen with that!

I dunno, man, could you afford that much gold with that money?
---

Don't think Dem voters would go for her, but please no:

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/913573732618301440
---

http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/27/news/economy/inequality-record-top-1-percent-wealth/index.html

Not great!
---

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/28/politics/kfile-roy-moore-openly-gay-appointments/index.html

Good work Alabama
---

roy moore is a piece of shit

Roy "quite possibly a downgrade from Jeff Sessions" Moore
---

There is a reason the normal GOP wanted Strange and Bannon and co wanted Moore.

He's actually going to be a downgrade from Sessions.
---

Roy Moore is just the symptom guys. Alabama is literally choosing him to represent them.
---

Eddv posted...

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gerrymandering-is-on-trial/?ex_cid=538twitter

Next week political gerrymandering comes up before the Supreme Court.

A quick glance and Wisconsin doesn't look that bad, but I'm not sure what the demographics are. However, is it really that hard to make districts that stay within a county? Honestly outside of counties that require more than one district (Milwaukee in Wisconsin's case) there shouldn't be districts only taking up part of a county.

Here's a map I made for Wisconsin's 8 congressional districts (Milwaukee city and its surrounding area is the 8th one) only using Wikipedia's regions of Wisconsin page... (Each district is +/- 10% of the average population)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regions_of_Wisconsin

My map
https://imgur.com/a/AU9Vc

Current map
https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/host.madison.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/f/33/f3377c2a-f1a6-11df-9366-001cc4c002e0/4ce2bf486f134.image.jpg
---

It's apparently quite bad using the plaintiff's proposed metric (the efficiency gap, which pretty directly corresponds to partisan advantage); iirc using that metric it's the second worst-gerrymandered state in the country.
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

It's apparently quite bad using the plaintiff's proposed metric (the efficiency gap, which pretty directly corresponds to partisan advantage); iirc using that metric it's the second worst-gerrymandered state in the country.

Which one is the worst?
---

I think it's North Carolina.
---

They actually didn't mention that in the podcast eddv posted!

Also one fuckup on my part: the case actually concern's Wisconsin's state assembly districts (which are also the ones that were especially badly gerrymandered)
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Don't think Dem voters would go for her, but please no:

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/913573732618301440

Celebrities who become politicians have some obvious downsides of course, although it seems to happen a lot in US politics (Reagan, Trump).

Obviously these tend to be very rich people usually out of touch with the middle class, often with little political experience.

With all these caveats in place...eh, off the top of my head I can't think of a reason to disapprove of Oprah compared to any other celeb. Like...she is a politically active activist, and uses her platform to fight for causes she feels strongly about, for example:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/oprah-how-prisoner-own-series-released-is-redemption-tribeca-tv-festival-2017-1042513

And also this was kinda cool:

http://time.com/money/4923704/oprah-winfrey-women-raises/

Like...yes, there are huge and real downsides to any celeb president, and I would rather they get someone with more relevant job experience. But of celeb options? You know, I can't think of a real reason to object to Oprah compared to any other celeb.
---

Like, if we're going to elect another celebrity, Oprah is honestly more than several steps up from what we have now.

I'd still prefer someone with actual experience with politics, but I get the impression Oprah would be more willing to learn than our current President is.

I just hope this doesn't result in a second term for Trump or Pence.
---

I would for sure take Oprah over Donald Trump (because you'd presumably at least get rid of the malice), but the Presidency is not an entry-level position. I'm no Reagan fan, but he was governor of California before he was President.
---

BowserCuffs posted...

Like, if we're going to elect another celebrity, The Rock is honestly more than several steps up from what we have now.

I'd still prefer someone with actual experience with politics, but I get the impression The Rock would be more willing to learn than our current President is.

FTFY
---

BowserCuffs posted...

I just hope this doesn't result in a second term for Trump or Pence.

Honestly, Oprah would probably have a better chance at beating Trump than most of the other potential candidates. People really hate all politicians that much these days (especially "liberal" ones, which all the Dems are).
---

Go my Biden + competent young VP
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

I'm no Reagan fan, but he was governor of California before he was President.

Holy shit this can't be stated enough.

He served eight years as governor of the largest state in the country.

Can we stop mentioning him in the same breath as Trump like, yesterday.

Can we please fucking stap ajsjwwjdkddjdj
---

BowserCuffs posted...

What a naive viewpoint. You do realize good things have come about, too, right? Support networks have increased, socializing is easier than it ever has been, even for introverts, and now there's no excuse for not fact checking (unless you believe that all fact checking websites are of the devil or something)

Listen. I respect you when you're not talking about The "cassulll revtuoin of 20987". But when you do talk about it, I get this grimace on my face:

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/067/917/remiq.net_9526.jpg

It's as annoying as militant veganism is. Focusing explicitly on the negative of something (meat, social media/pocket internet) in order to push an idea and shoving it down people's throats when they don't immediately agree with you.

Also, calling it the "Casual Revolution" just reminds me of modern day gaming culture's obsession with blaming casuals for everything they don't like in video games, which just further pisses me off.

This is the last time I'm addressing this. I'm not going to treat your silly theory with any more credibility than this, no more than I treat militant veganism.

I mean I think you are getting a bit too emotionally attached to things about it you dont like. Fair enough. Just to let you know more and more people respect the concept of it and are aware. And honestly, the "good" that social media has caused does not out weigh the bad, when the bad is the current president.
---

Metal_DK posted...

Just to let you know more and more people respect the concept of it and are aware.

Metal_DK posted...

And honestly, the "good" that social media has caused does not out weigh the bad, when the bad is the current president.

---

weren't you going to stop responding to him? >_>
---

I never once said just because more people agree with it means its true, as i was saying it way before anyone else was and thought it was true then. I'm saying though more people will bring it up, and you seem to get really angry about it for some reason, instead of me just wanting to have a discussion about it.

Social media caused Trump, painfully obvious.
---

Metal_DK posted...

Social media caused Trump, painfully obvious.

i agree with you that the casual revolution is a thing and i still think this is stupid. social media played a part in the election but it didn't "cause trump." there was a wide variety of things that made it possible for trump to become president.
---

Man, Bowser literally gets triggered by this.
---

charmander6000 posted...

Eddv posted...

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gerrymandering-is-on-trial/?ex_cid=538twitter

Next week political gerrymandering comes up before the Supreme Court.

A quick glance and Wisconsin doesn't look that bad, but I'm not sure what the demographics are. However, is it really that hard to make districts that stay within a county? Honestly outside of counties that require more than one district (Milwaukee in Wisconsin's case) there shouldn't be districts only taking up part of a county.

Here's a map I made for Wisconsin's 8 congressional districts (Milwaukee city and its surrounding area is the 8th one) only using Wikipedia's regions of Wisconsin page... (Each district is +/- 10% of the average population)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regions_of_Wisconsin

My map
https://imgur.com/a/AU9Vc

Current map
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin%27s_congressional_districts#/media/File:Wisconsin_Congressional_Districts,_113th_Congress.tif

In addition to what LotM posted, it's important to remember that visual fidelity (i.e. looking pretty) does not a good districting map make. It's pretty easy to draw lots of squares and rectangles that just happen to give one party 60/40 advantages all over the place.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

Metal_DK posted...

Social media caused Trump, painfully obvious.

i agree with you that the casual revolution is a thing and i still think this is stupid. social media played a part in the election but it didn't "cause trump." there was a wide variety of things that made it possible for trump to become president.

I'd argue that the alt-right began around 2006/2007/2008 on places like 4chan /b/ with their habbo hotel swastika raids, tom green talk show raids, etc. Pepe the Frog became used as a meme around early 08 too. Late teens early 20s people doing nothing but trying their hardest to say racist stuff on the internet.

As for the rise of Trump, you cant deny that we are now 3/3 in the modern era social media age where the person with the more popular social media presence has won the election. Obama >>>>> McCain, Obama >>>>>> Romney, Trump >>>>>> Hillary. It definitely is a massive factor.

Then when you combine with how the internet news cycle is becoming:

1) Story posted
2) Enough people comment on it in anger from many political spectrums
3) Fact checking begins, finds out most of the story is BS
4) Enough people already have accepted the story, moved onto the next internet news story

Its easier for a BS story to catch fire because it takes minutes to make up, fact checking 1) requires the story to exist, and 2) requires people to do homework.

I am sorry to BowserCuffs though, I had no intention of me bringing up Tumblr being founded in 2007 (somewhat in jest ill admit, but i do want to have a discussion about that 06/07/08 period but people only post 2 sentences per post usually) to cause him to be pretty pissed off. Seriously I am sorry for that. But I do think its funny that he says this:

BowserCuffs posted...

Tumblr, like so many other social media, has become an utter hellsite.

Then accuses me of being "old man get off my lawn i hate tech". He hates it now, but Tumblr has always been a fucking awful place though, not just recently. The only difference between him and me is he thinks that social media is only now a problem or something?
---

Social media causing Trump is laughable when if you went on social media and listened to it, he had zero chance of winning. The real world is where it was painfully obvious he was winning this thing.

What caused it was the economy and our social structure both getting wrecked by democrats and people wanting a return to normal. If you ignored this because you're an ignorant leftist, that's your problem.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmNz2jGzsDA

Oh look, I was right about Antifa from day one and right about the media being culpable. Somehow "I told you so" doesn't begin to cover it on this one.

As usual, the leftiss in this topic are completely embarrassed for ever defending this nonsense. Never forget Lordofthemorons sticking up dor these people when they rioted all over Berkeley.

(Inb4 "fake video", but Antifa submitted multiple privacy claims, thus making the video accurate; if they had nothing to hide and if the video was fake, they wouldn't care)

They're planning a bunch of riots on November 4th. I also mentioned here way ahead of time that they would riot all through the summer, and was right. When the enemy is destroying itself, let them. These people constantly getting violent is ruining democratic election hopes.

https://twitter.com/johnjharwood/status/913715623691202560

Uh oh Trump; if Obama did it, you should do the opposite
---

UltiXX posted...

Social media causing Trump is laughable when if you went on social media and listened to it, he had zero chance of winning. The real world is where it was painfully obvious he was winning this thing.

What caused it was the economy and our social structure both getting wrecked by democrats and people wanting a return to normal. If you ignored this because you're an ignorant leftist, that's your problem.

No the biggest names on social media kept saying he had no chance, probably because if he did win people could say "well nobody predicted it so im not wrong". Its like how every year sports analysts pick pretty much the last years WS/Super Bowl/SCF/NBAF finalsts for a rematch, when rarely it happens unless its the super team NBA era or something lol. Its an easy "well they made the playoffs so i wasnt THAT wrong" safe thing to do.

You then read the comments section (when allowed could get hundreds of people) and numerous people were saying Trump 2016 and what not (sadly imo - not a fan of Trump). Sure CNN, 538, George Clooney, Hollywood in general said he had no chance, but the observant saw a lot of this when looking at the "everyday people" on social media. Trump definitely had popularity. Furthermore, when elites anywhere (real world, social media world, broadcast news) all say one thing, people frequently tend to do the opposite, especially in a jealousy driven social media world.

But to say the "real world" caused Trump is ridiculous. Hell weren't you the person who said Trump had a "silent minority majority" type thing because people in the real world were afraid to vocalize support for Trump?
---

Metal_DK posted...

538

They gave him a far higher chance than any other mainstream news source. Just because you don't understand mathematics doesn't mean that their methods were improper.
---

statistics are hard
---

Peace___Frog posted...

Metal_DK posted...

538

They gave him a far higher chance than any other mainstream news source. Just because you don't understand mathematics doesn't mean that their methods were improper.

I know they did, i just mentioned some random places that were popular during the election tbh. They didnt give him a great chance still, but yes they did give him a better one than almost everywhere else.

Nitpick something really poorly? I have a masters degree in Statistics btw. I have a few times in these topics had to explain how sample sizes work (mostly to Corrik when he mentioned something stupid about a poll involving Republicans supporting/not supporting Nazis or something i forget)

Seriously that was the shittiest "gotcha" attempt ive ever seen in these politics topics
---

Saying it was obvious when you talked to people in the "real world" really depends on where you live.

I currently live in a slightly republican leaning part of California, and work in game development. I know one person in my IRL circles who might have supported Trump--my Dentist. (I know people online obviously, but not in person).

By contrast, a friend of mine who lives in Austin Texas (the left leaning part of Texas) did expect Trump to win because so many people around him were voicing support for Trump.

So like...saying "go out into the real world"? Really depends where you live what you will hear. And normally left leaning or right leaning districts were not always a good predictor of which candidate they would support.
---

metroid composite posted...

So like...saying "go out into the real world"? Really depends where you live what you will hear. And normally left leaning or right leaning districts were not always a good predictor of which candidate they would support.

This is a fair point and thanks for the contribution. It probably did matter where you live. Austin having significant Trump support is interesting.

As somebody who lives in Atlanta (Georgia actually stayed "too close to call" longer than most places fwiw and people actually believed that Hillary would win Georgia....she did win Cobb County though which was an big case study post election), most of why I thought Trump had a significant chance was because I saw tons of youtube comments on left leaning videos, Slate/Huffpo articles that had tons of dislikes and angry comments, etc. Could of just chalked it up to trolling, but it was so much more abundant since 2015 or so that it just seemed alarming.

Gamergate becoming very popular a year or so earlier was another pivot point imo, same with the Ghostbusters backlash. Then combined with how the midwest has felt neglected since the 70s/80s and for some reason Trump had a populist vibe (Republican populist wtf) among him, and I was saying Trump had a significant chance among my friends yes.
---

"The real world*" is a "clever" way to put down "liberal bases" like America's biggest cities and states. Don't look much into it.

*Not to be confused with "The Real World."

"Air quotes."
---

On Antifa, truth be told I don't know a lot about them. I know there are a number of fake antifa accounts out there; see:

https://twitter.com/opwolverines/status/913548117206642689

And I know that antifa organizations have existed in the past, see this interview about antifa in the 1980s in England:

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/5gkewk/afa-interview-nf-james-poulter-384

But truth be told I don't know much about 2017's antifa. Haven't met anyone who calls themselves antifa. Haven't seen any interviews with antifa leaders. I'm never sure when a group is called antifa on the news if they actually call themselves antifa, or if the news station just used that as a convenient label for anyone protesting the KKK and Neo Nazis.
---

Antia if replacing George Soros as the right's boogeyman. I mean I'm sure Antifa has probably done some pretty bad stuff. But as the rightwing has become the party that cried wolf, it's hard to take them at their claims.
---

dowolf posted...

charmander6000 posted...

Eddv posted...

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gerrymandering-is-on-trial/?ex_cid=538twitter

Next week political gerrymandering comes up before the Supreme Court.

A quick glance and Wisconsin doesn't look that bad, but I'm not sure what the demographics are. However, is it really that hard to make districts that stay within a county? Honestly outside of counties that require more than one district (Milwaukee in Wisconsin's case) there shouldn't be districts only taking up part of a county.

Here's a map I made for Wisconsin's 8 congressional districts (Milwaukee city and its surrounding area is the 8th one) only using Wikipedia's regions of Wisconsin page... (Each district is +/- 10% of the average population)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regions_of_Wisconsin

My map
https://imgur.com/a/AU9Vc

Current map
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin%27s_congressional_districts#/media/File:Wisconsin_Congressional_Districts,_113th_Congress.tif

In addition to what LotM posted, it's important to remember that visual fidelity (i.e. looking pretty) does not a good districting map make. It's pretty easy to draw lots of squares and rectangles that just happen to give one party 60/40 advantages all over the place.

To be fair I did my homework in terms of finding geographically similar areas. Of course certain areas I had to make calls that a person from Wisconsin may disagree with in order to get enough people in one district. For example the pink district had to include counties like Polk, Jackson, Juneau and Sauk in order to have enough people. Looking at the map again another option for the Orange and Green districts is to trade Marathon with Florence, Forest, Marinette, Langlade, Oconto and Menominee. The Lake Superior Lowlands counties are pretty distinct, but the population for them is way too small to be given a district while Dodge County would fit better in the yellow district, but that district already has enough people.

As you can tell I've completely ignored the voting intension of the state and to be honest anyone making these maps should also avoid doing so.

Using the results of the Presidential Election and transposing my map over it the Republicans would win 6-2 or 5-3, depending on how the rest of Milwaukee County votes minus Milwaukee City and its nearby cities.

http://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president/wisconsin/

For a state that barely voted Trump you'd expect a 4-4 tie, but the issue is the distribution of Democrats/Republican voters. Milwaukee and Dane County alone gave Clinton a 300k lead over Trump despite representing only 25% of the population.

Even if Gerrymandering is removed Democrats may still be at a disadvantage due to their over performance in some urban areas and their weak performance in rural areas, but that's the Democrats' issue to solve because cutting Milwaukee or Madison into 2-3 pieces is no different than the Gerrymandering the Republicans are doing.
---