From the "let's talk about something else because I'm losing this argument" playbook. Well played, sir, well played.
Will You Accept the Findings of the Muller Probe?
- Thread starter Gameface
- Start date
From the "let's talk about something else because I'm losing this argument" playbook. Well played, sir, well played.
A straight line would not necessarily be the optimal solution.
And screw the "communities of interest" -- let the algorithm rule.
Red
Well-Known Member
So, if I understand the Trump defenders here, any presidential candidate, of any political party, if offered help winning the election, by America's number one geopolitical adversary of the last 70 years, would keep their mouths shut about it, and, just as Trump did, (according to Mueller), expect to benefit from it, and even, as Trump did right out in the open, actively support it("Russia, if you're listening...."). Trump defenders would have me believe that this response by Trump would be played out regardless of who the beneficiary of this assistance was. Every last presidential candidate, of any political party, would be happy as a pig in slop to accept help from Russia. This is my interpretation of what defenders of Trump are claiming in this thread.
I don't buy it.
Max Boot, of the Post: "On Tuesday, President Trump said he has such a wonderful relationship with Kim Jong Un that he wouldn’t let the CIA spy on the North Korean despot. On Wednesday, Trump said that if a foreign country provided information to him on his political opponents, “Oh, I think I’d want to hear it. … I think I’d take it." In short, the president of the United States thinks it’s wrong to spy on the enemies of the United States but perfectly acceptable to spy on his enemies.
This is what happens when a crook gets away with his crimes: He is emboldened to commit more of them. Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III did not find sufficient evidence to conclude that Trump’s campaign was guilty of criminal conspiracy with Russia during the 2016 campaign, but he did find ample evidence that Trump welcomed Russian interference and that he obstructed the investigation of that interference."
(Roll that around in your noggin for a minute! That's our president).
More from Max Boot: "Trump tried to minimize the enormity of what he had said by suggesting that it’s just “oppo research” and that all politicians would take such research from any source — “they all do it, they always have, and that’s the way it is.” He is “defining deviancy down,” as Daniel Patrick Moynihan put it — or rather he is defining his own deviancy as the norm. It’s not. I worked on John McCain’s 2008 campaign, and I know exactly what McCain would have done if a Russian lawyer had come calling with “dirt” on Barack Obama: He would have called the FBI. So would any other normal, law-abiding candidate. Veteran political strategist Matthew Dowd wrote: “I have worked on 2 Presidential campaigns, & have close friends who have worked on every major nominee campaign since 1988. The Trump campaign is the only ones that have done this.”.
(And that is exactly what all you Trump defenders are doing, defining Trump's deviancy as the norm, by claiming he's only speaking the truth!)
Max Boot: "He is trolling for any dirt that any foreign intelligence service might have on the Democrats. He is thereby kneecapping the FBI, which is charged with enforcing the laws against foreign interference, just as he kneecapped the CIA by saying that it should not have recruited Kim’s brother as an informant. What Trump said may not be illegal, but it is definitely unethical, unpatriotic — and impeachable. He has once again violated his oath to “faithfully execute the office of president” and “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/06/13/trump-has-bragged-that-he-will-break-law/
I don't buy it.
Max Boot, of the Post: "On Tuesday, President Trump said he has such a wonderful relationship with Kim Jong Un that he wouldn’t let the CIA spy on the North Korean despot. On Wednesday, Trump said that if a foreign country provided information to him on his political opponents, “Oh, I think I’d want to hear it. … I think I’d take it." In short, the president of the United States thinks it’s wrong to spy on the enemies of the United States but perfectly acceptable to spy on his enemies.
This is what happens when a crook gets away with his crimes: He is emboldened to commit more of them. Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III did not find sufficient evidence to conclude that Trump’s campaign was guilty of criminal conspiracy with Russia during the 2016 campaign, but he did find ample evidence that Trump welcomed Russian interference and that he obstructed the investigation of that interference."
(Roll that around in your noggin for a minute! That's our president).
More from Max Boot: "Trump tried to minimize the enormity of what he had said by suggesting that it’s just “oppo research” and that all politicians would take such research from any source — “they all do it, they always have, and that’s the way it is.” He is “defining deviancy down,” as Daniel Patrick Moynihan put it — or rather he is defining his own deviancy as the norm. It’s not. I worked on John McCain’s 2008 campaign, and I know exactly what McCain would have done if a Russian lawyer had come calling with “dirt” on Barack Obama: He would have called the FBI. So would any other normal, law-abiding candidate. Veteran political strategist Matthew Dowd wrote: “I have worked on 2 Presidential campaigns, & have close friends who have worked on every major nominee campaign since 1988. The Trump campaign is the only ones that have done this.”.
(And that is exactly what all you Trump defenders are doing, defining Trump's deviancy as the norm, by claiming he's only speaking the truth!)
Max Boot: "He is trolling for any dirt that any foreign intelligence service might have on the Democrats. He is thereby kneecapping the FBI, which is charged with enforcing the laws against foreign interference, just as he kneecapped the CIA by saying that it should not have recruited Kim’s brother as an informant. What Trump said may not be illegal, but it is definitely unethical, unpatriotic — and impeachable. He has once again violated his oath to “faithfully execute the office of president” and “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/06/13/trump-has-bragged-that-he-will-break-law/
idestroyedthetoilet
Well-Known Member
1. It's pretty well known HC tool foreign money. The point of selective outrage here stands.
2. It's information. Why? What obligation?
Good, great. Selective outrage. Agreed.
Defending anything by pointing to other bad behavior is no defense.
framer
Well-Known Member
In a hypothetical state that was 50/50 rural and urban, it would be better to have 1 urban rep and 1 rural rep rather than 2 of split voters. That way both communities are represented. The other way it is possible that one of the communities is shut out from representation. If there is a certain section of a city that contains a lot of black voters, it is probably a good idea to not split them up over multiple districts.
Additionally an algorithm will have the bias of whoever programmed it. At least with a state legislature dividing the borders, the bias is transparent and can be voted out. Also, keep in mind that there is plenty of bipartisanship when dividing districts as incumbents of both parties will make deals to keep each other in power.
They need a way to have this decided by a 8 year old with no knowledge of politics playing a video game like Ender's Game.
Bingo
The book, not the movie.
Last edited:
idestroyedthetoilet
Well-Known Member
That gets to question 2. Why? What obligation?
You're asking what obligation the president has to not break the law?
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
The object function of the algorithm would be to minimize the border distance. The map that minimizes the border distance wins. Bias is nonexistent and irrelevant.
If you want to engineer for urban vs rural, black vs white, lgbtq vs straight, whatever, have at it. I think it’s unnecessary election engineering that devolves into gerrymandering no matter how pure your intentions. I’d just like to elect the best candidate.