[The Final Dakar]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...g-over-whites/

A large plurality of Republican respondents nationally say that the bigger problem is whites losing out, by 45-19.

As I've said before, for a lot of people his refrain "America doesn't win anymore" is code for "Whites don't win anymore".

[Chongo]

There was the Grover Cleveland "MA, MA, where's my Pa"




I'm sure the Donald would've made a better deal!

[The Final Dakar]

[besson3c]

How should female Trump supporters who are aware of this be interpreted? In Trump's World, Women Have Always Been Objects
In Trump's World, Women Have Always Been Objects

[The Final Dakar]

So, Trump seems to be slumping or it feels that way because he's finally slipped from dominating the news cycle. Question being, which caused which?

[Waragainstsleep]

Its weird, I would have thought most of his supporters were anti-abortionists but it seems not.

[P]

It seems that the pace of the campaign may be taking its toll. I think that the abortion thing was a slip (the perfect scandal is where someone says straight out what people suspected anyway), and we are in a bit of lull right now. He could probably do with a break

At the same time, Trump is not far behind the pace he needs to clinch this when California votes. Wisconsin was a miss, but it is not a terrible one, and a good performance in New York could make up for it. Sanders isn't dropping out, which means that Dems won't be crossing over to vote for an anti-Trump. This is still open.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

How should female Trump supporters who are aware of this be interpreted? In Trump's World, Women Have Always Been Objects
In Trump's World, Women Have Always Been Objects

Even here in the conservative South, nearly every woman I know varies somewhere between distrust of Trump to hating his guts.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

So, Trump seems to be slumping or it feels that way because he's finally slipped from dominating the news cycle. Question being, which caused which?

I honestly think sheer exhaustion is becoming a factor.

Originally Posted by P 

It seems that the pace of the campaign may be taking its toll. I think that the abortion thing was a slip (the perfect scandal is where someone says straight out what people suspected anyway), and we are in a bit of lull right now. He could probably do with a break

At the same time, Trump is not far behind the pace he needs to clinch this when California votes. Wisconsin was a miss, but it is not a terrible one, and a good performance in New York could make up for it. Sanders isn't dropping out, which means that Dems won't be crossing over to vote for an anti-Trump. This is still open.

With Paul Ryan declaring there's no way he wants to be or will be the Republican candidate, regardless of what plays out, I feel like people are started to accept the inevitable. Despite all the theatrics, this is going to be Hillary vs. Trump.

Honestly... How, in a nation of nearly 320 million people, are Hillary and Trump the best nominees that we can get?

[subego]

As is so often the case, we get the nominees we deserve.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

As is so often the case, we get the nominees we deserve.

Who is we?

Here's ol' dakars election system fix:

1. Ranked choice voting
2. Parties lose control of the primary system. All primaries become open, and you may choose a candidate for each party.
3. Kill citizens United.

[subego]

Us. The American people.

How much you deserve your election reforms are directly proportional to the amount of effort you put into making them manifest.

For me, that's talking on the Internet, and a nearly worthless vote.

[The Final Dakar]

I mean, I sort of agree, but there is a purposeful barrier to entry on instituting such reforms.

[subego]

I feel if you take that argument to its conclusion you end up with "all effort is meaningless".

[The Final Dakar]

I don't see why it needs to be taken to its conclusion, though.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Who is we?

Here's ol' dakars election system fix:

1. Ranked choice voting
2. Parties lose control of the primary system. All primaries become open, and you may choose a candidate for each party.
3. Kill citizens United.

This would be a vast improvement over what we have today, I like your thinking.

How about killing off gerrymandering somehow? I feel this is manipulated to depend on people voting straight tickets in areas where people have strong political leanings.

[P]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

This would be a vast improvement over what we have today, I like your thinking.

How about killing off gerrymandering somehow? I feel this is manipulated to depend on people voting straight tickets in areas where people have strong political leanings.

Would be great to fix this, but has anyone come up with a law that can ban it? Mathematically, it is a hard problem to define fair districts without human intervention, and if you have that human intervention, there will be gerrymandering.

[The Final Dakar]

Computer algorithms. As its neutral commissioners are a vast improvement, judging by the legislatures trying to eliminate them.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Computer algorithms. As its neutral commissioners are a vast improvement, judging by the legislatures trying to eliminate them.

You still run into transparency issues and rigged computers.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Computer algorithms. As its neutral commissioners are a vast improvement, judging by the legislatures trying to eliminate them.

Originally Posted by Laminar 

You still run into transparency issues and rigged computers.

[subego]

In theory, transparency wouldn't be an issue.

I don't know what the precedent is for algorithmic law, but I would sure as hell hope the actual algorithm is in the law, so it can be audited and checked by independent parties.

I'd say a bigger problem, by several orders of magnitude, is 99% of the people involved in the process will be de facto uninterested in fair apportionment.

Rather than a rational system, the results will be based on who can get the sneakiest mathematicians.

That will be the Dems (they have pals at university), so the GOP will block for all eternity.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

You still run into transparency issues and rigged computers.

I didn't say it was perfect. But compared to current redistributing, it's a vast improvement.

[andi*pandi]

Never mind the math, or drawing fair lines etc... sometimes the game is rigged at a whole nuther level. I heard from someone recently that libertarians had made a concerted effort to move en mass to certain areas, where they could then vote for libertarians. If you see libertarians winning local elections, this is why.

[subego]

This'll be like herding cats who have credit cards.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I didn't say it was perfect. But compared to current redistributing, it's a vast improvement.

Is there an actual, functioning project you're discussing? I'd like to read it over and slag it.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Never mind the math, or drawing fair lines etc... sometimes the game is rigged at a whole nuther level. I heard from someone recently that libertarians had made a concerted effort to move en mass to certain areas, where they could then vote for libertarians. If you see libertarians winning local elections, this is why.

Yes they were trying to take over New Hampshire. There was complaints about it a few years ago. I think some white supremacists tried to take over a town in the Midwest.

I find it amusing the libertarians had to resort to influencing a pre-existing government because all their efforts to create a libertopia keep failing.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Is there an actual, functioning project you're discussing? I'd like to read it over and slag it.

No, because for real world results I'm referring to non-partisan redistributing commissions. It must have been doing something right because the legislature took them to the SCOTUS to try and dismantle them.

[The Final Dakar]

Actually laminar, read the wiki article on Arizona. The commission is fairly transparent.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

No, because for real world results I'm referring to non-partisan redistributing commissions. It must have been doing something right because the legislature took them to the SCOTUS to try and dismantle them.

That's what I meant.

Hook me up with a redistributing commission who's using an algorithm.

[The Final Dakar]

I just said I don't have any

[subego]

I think I misunderstood where you were going with the phrase "real world results". My bad.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by subego 

That will be the Dems (they have pals at university), so the GOP will block for all eternity.

I doubt the gender studies and social "science" depts will be of very much help, but okay.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Never mind the math, or drawing fair lines etc... sometimes the game is rigged at a whole nuther level. I heard from someone recently that libertarians had made a concerted effort to move en mass to certain areas, where they could then vote for libertarians. If you see libertarians winning local elections, this is why.

That's how we ended up with a bona fide (L) mayor (and 2 (L) county com. members), we're everywhere around here.

[subego]

The Koch's are throwing down.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by subego 

The Koch's are throwing down.

Will they cease to be eeeeevil if they start throwing cash at Billary?

[subego]

I'm torn.

It comes down to whether the deliciousness of this irony is worth cracking one of the seals from Revelations.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

The Koch's are throwing down.

How so?

[Cap'n Tightpants]

They're talking about backing Hillary, in earnest.

[subego]

As an aside, the Koch's make some great paper napkins.

[Chongo]

Koch brothers BAD!

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

They're talking about backing Hillary, in earnest.

Link? All I've seen is some quote bandied about that says they could back Hillary if she didn't hold her positions which amount to ****-all.

[subego]

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/firs...-clinton/?_r=0

He said she'd have to change her positions, but the current republicans are in the same boat.

For a Koch on a Clinton, that's earnest support.

[The Final Dakar]

Isn't that essentially meaningless? Is it any more newsworthy than me saying, "I could support Trump, if he changed his positions." ???

Edit: isn't that less a turn of support for Clinton and more an indictment of the GOP candidates? Hell, isn't it just a veiled threat that they might not get his sweet, sweet cash unless they start pandering to him?

[The Final Dakar]

Let me put it another way: "Rich guy will monetarily support candidates who hold his views." This is newsworthy?

[Cap'n Tightpants]

It's more newsworthy than the Kardashian standard news cycle.

[The Final Dakar]

Congrats on the low bar.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

I didn't set it, bitch at the Millenials.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

I didn't set it, bitch at the Millenials.

Blame millenials for you making a poor tangential point in response to my point about the Koch news being poorly represented?

[The Final Dakar]

In other barely related news, I decided to do a run trying to role-play a Trump government in Democracy 3. It was a better success than I imagined. Policies I implemented:

Create Tax Havens
Cut foreign aid to minimum
Cut state pensions
Cut capital gains
Cut inheritance tax
Cut income tax
Cut military spending (I rationalized this as cutting back NATO funding)
Increase intelligence service funding to MAX
Increased police funding
Introduced Community policing funding
Introduced recycling
Tax breaks for private schools
Crack down on alcohol (light beers only. Somewhat justifiable as Trump is a teetotaler)
Restrict abortions to life threatening only

There a whole host of others I don't recall. Mostly regarding car use, other tax breaks/subsidies, and the environment. That was the weird thing – somehow Trump became an environmentalist without really imposing new regs on businesses. It was almost all tech and less car use. Also, the GDP went down for 16 straight quarters from inauguration (worldwide recession), but I managed to get re-elected and continue to the end of my second term. Race relations were a complete mess, and inequality went up, and honestly I may have come close to getting assassinated by the blacks. But otherwise, interesting play through.

[besson3c]

I watched an interview with Koch where he said something about how big government provides a tyranny of decision or something like that, basically deciding what you should be doing and how you should be doing it.

Fine, but then he said that his goals were to help "make people's lives better". Isn't this replacing the tyranny of big government with the tyranny of rich people deciding what they think makes people's lives better?

As far as I'm concerned, nobody with a brain should be happy about a big financial player like a Koch influencing politics, and while there is good argument to be made for government not exerting certain kinds of controls, at least we have some say in who we vote into office. We have no say over what a Koch/Soros/whomever decides to do with his money to influence politics.

[subego]

Light beers only is justifiable as light beers.