ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

"

Turtledove wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Ellipses and bold his.

"

in 2000 when I started at Fox as a paid contributor (aka “hitman’) and asked my new boss (like my pal Joan Walsh from Slate.com asked him in 2000 as well) “So Roger tell me… who is your Fox News target audience and what turns ’em on?”

What he told me… of course “off-the-record”… should not be shocking. But now that he is gone, it’s time to be real and tell the truth about Fox News… about everything I lived and experienced in my 14 years as a paid contributor and part-time anchor on Fox Business Network.

According to Roger:
“Toby . . . I created a TV network for people 55 to dead,” Ailes said.
“What does our viewer look like?
“They look like me… white guys in mostly Red State counties who sit on their couch with the remote in their hand all day and night.”
“What do they want to see [?]”
“After the producers/host scares the shit out of them, I want to see YOU tear those smug condescending know-it-all East Coast liberals to pieces… limb by limb… until they jump up out of their LaZ boy and scream “Way to go Toby… you KILLED that libtard!”

That is Tobin Smith saying Roger Ailes was using the term "libtard" in 2000.

It is ridiculous to think that is an exact quote.

If you mean it's ridiculous to imagine Ailes circa 2000 saying that ver batim, then yes, it is. If you mean it's ridiculous to interpret it as Smith saying Ailes said that, no, it's not. That's how you represent a direct quote in print.

I guess it's also how one represents speech in a work of fiction. Which is basically what Smith is presenting here. "Based on a true story" basically means "we took real events as a loose inspiration, then dramatized all the boring parts and added the moral of their choosing. Well, that seems to fit here: a fictionalized retelling of the past.

What's funny is how Smith draws an ageist distinction between FOX viewers and the audience of the article, and then uses that distinction to explain how he exploits the fears of his audience without his audience realizing it's their fears he's exploiting. Smith's game hasn't changed since 2000 — same techniques, different sides. Refreshingly almost open about it, too — well, almost refreshingly.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

If you mean it's ridiculous to imagine Ailes circa 2000 saying that ver batim, then yes, it is. If you mean it's ridiculous to interpret it as Smith saying Ailes said that, no, it's not. That's how you represent a direct quote in print.

I guess it's also how one represents speech in a work of fiction. Which is basically what Smith is presenting here. "Based on a true story" basically means "we took real events as a loose inspiration, then dramatized all the boring parts and added the moral of their choosing. Well, that seems to fit here: a fictionalized retelling of the past.

What's funny is how Smith draws an ageist distinction between FOX viewers and the audience of the article, and then uses that distinction to explain how he exploits the fears of his audience without his audience realizing it's their fears he's exploiting. Smith's game hasn't changed since 2000 — same techniques, different sides. Refreshingly almost open about it, too — well, almost refreshingly.

I understand that libtard didn't become a word until 2004 or something around there. It seemed that you were arguing that this somehow invalidated the work which should now be rejected as a work of fiction. I just disagreed with that position.

It is a book written about the inner workings of Fox News by someone that worked there for 14 years. It is reasonable, in my opinion, to write it using quotes of people as a literary device. It makes the book much more readable. It is ridiculous to think that after 17 years or so exact historically correct quotes are going to be remembered. Ideally perhaps the book should mention this fact in the introduction, perhaps it did, I don't know?

In any case, saying that Ailes used the word "libtard" in a quote in 2000 is somehow evidence that the crux of the book is false is not a reasonable position to take, in my opinion.

"

Qiu_Qiu wrote:

I would simply think it's important to have third parties take care of redrawing the districts because it avoids the people that get elected being able to tamper with the list of people who vote on their elections.

Not quite. I think you are underestimating how often people will cheat given the opportunity. We have something similar where a third party counts votes in certain counties, and the reality is that every so often people in those third-parties get arrested for voting fraud for helping one side or the other.

If someone really wants to gerrymander (and why wouldn't you, if a billionaire is willing to give you half-million dollars if you succeed and don't get caught), there are a lot of ways to get around, small stuff like an independent third-party.

"

You wouldn't play a game of Risk where the one in the lead decides the continent compositions, would you? Why would the same situation in the real world, with real-life incentives to game the system lead to better results?

Well, in the real world, you can't really opt out of game though. It's not like you can stop playing when someone steals all your money.

We have the the World Trade Organization for example that has laws that are look fair on paper, but are heavily stacked against poorer nations. And the United Nations, as useless as it is, favors the big 5.

The world rewards behavior that give you the most advantages later down the line. Sometimes, being fair gets you want you want. Other times, you have to be ruthless and an asshole.

And the rewards for cheating wherever you can, are enormous. China figured this one out early.

"

The_Reporter wrote:

Randy Rainbow :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7q0bz0sk30

LOL Hilarious!

"

pneuma wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Oh. So when you see AOC dragging the Democrats further left or Breitbart calling Trump "Amnesty Don" for considering a pathway to citizenship for Dreamers, you think that's a good thing. The truth of hyperpartisanship coming out, finally, after so much breathless anticipation!

No, I never said it was a good thing. I said it was a reality, a thing, absent moral judgment. And that the alternative to primarying in safe districts is highly contpentious districts which lead to the bad things I listed earlier.

First off, it's not some inexorable fact of life. 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. The types of federations that allow hyperpartisanship are not necessarily governments that get nothing done, but they are governments where tyranny of the majority, absent negotiations and compromise, is clearly demonstrated by whichever party holds a narrow majority of seats.

"

pneuma wrote:

In my last paragraph I stated "The ideal is that federal legislation about these topics get completely clogged... The next best thing would be balkanization". We have the exact same opinion on this issue of the endgame of bipartisanship.

No, that is not the endgame of bipartisanship. The endgame of bipartisanship is: we make laws that reflect our shared interests, insofar as they exist; we don't make federal laws to cater to a smaller jurisdiction when enacting those laws within that jurisdiction only would suffice; and we stay together as United States of America.

What I thought we agreed on was that the endgame of hyperpartisanship led to those things, while we differed over whether said partisanship was a bad ungood thing or not. I am genuinely interested by what series of mental gymnastics you believe the ultimate result of bipartisan compromise is war and secession.

"

pneuma wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Districts do not have their own laws or policies to refine over time — unless you count federal laws, shared amongst all districts.

To the first, I obviously and openly am counting federal laws shared amongst all districts in the set of laws that individual districts should have a direct say in.

Yes, that's actually beyond obvious and bordering on tautological. I can't fathom a way to comprehend districts otherwise — so I agree with this as well. But this is different from saying independent jurisdictions should have a direct say in federal laws via the House of Representatives. 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.

"

pneuma wrote:

Independent jurisdictions (cities, counties) and representative districts have a strong overlap… You may be inured to this form of misrepresentation since it's been going on for so long. Keep in mind, we're both talking about what districting should be, certainly not what it is now.

Bullshit. The "bottom left" method you advocate is status quo. If city lines were redrawn every 10 years to better homogenize those within their borders, cities would look like current districts.

"

pneuma wrote:

If a federal law is proposed that primarily benefits the constituents of 434 districts at the cost to the constituents of 1, I want the representative of that affected district screaming on the floor of the house, sitting in a committee around that law, going on TV, everything he can do to do his job and represent…

Your argument is that I'm conflating jurisdiction with representative districts. My argument is that you're suggesting forcibly and unnaturally separating them, which is a form of gerrymandering in itself.

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.

Let's go back to my previous example of the "bottom right" districting method using two variables:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

consider a total of 81 people to be drawn into 9 districts, wherein 36 are red squares, 18 are red circles, 18 are blue squares, and 9 are blue circles. I think a good (but perhaps not perfect) districting would be…
District 1: 3 blue circles, 2 red circles, 2 blue squares, 2 red squares.
→ Expected winner: blue (5:4) circle (5:4)
Districts 2 and 3: 4 red circles, 1 blue circle, 3 red squares, 1 blue square
→ Expected winners: red (7:2) circles (5:4)
Districts 4 and 5: 4 blue squares, 1 blue circle, 3 red squares, 1 red circle
→ Expected winners: blue (5:4) squares (7:2)
Districts 6 and 7: 6 red squares, 1 blue square, 1 red circle, 1 blue circle
→ Expected winners: red (7:2) squares (7:2)
Districts 8 and 9: 5 red squares, 2 blue squares, 2 red circles
→ Expected winner: red (7:2) squares (7:2)

I'm not going to change a thing. Now let's contrast that with your "bottom left" system of 1 Congressperson representing 9 blue circles, 2 congresspersons representing 18 blue squares, 2 congresspersons representing 18 red circles, and 4 congresspersons representing 36 red squares.

Now let's say a law hugely discriminatory against blue circles (but not to the extent of disenfranchising them), that mildly benefits req squares, is proposed. Under your system, the blue circle representative squaks and begs and pleads and loses.

Under my system, however, this proposal loses 5-4, with districts 1-5 voting nay. This is because the small blue circle community is an important potential swing vote that is crucial to elections in districts 2-5, and each of those four representatives can afford to lose up to 2/3 of the red squares. Meanwhile, District 1 has enough blue circles in the district to ensure the representative of District 1 leads the charge (and is probably a blue circle themselves).

Now admittedly, under my system the representative of District 1 probably doesn't squawk as loudly as under your system. Representing blue circles isn't his or her only job, and for practical reasons they probably wouldn't want the defeat of a law that would have benefitted the state's largest minority to make major headlines. But unlike your system, the oppression actually is stopped in legislature. So which do you care about more: stopping oppression, or loudly but futilely virtue-signalling against it?

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.

"

The_Reporter wrote:

Watch for the child sex trafficking operation to be fully revealed: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article227184299.html Keep an eye on Trump's pals in this.

Denial is such a huge hurdle to overcome while the ego is gnawing at the ankles...

Manafort is "gonna die in prison!" ...Not.

"

The Latest: Manafort sentenced to 47 months in prison

https://apnews.com/93a090258cc64d858ec4adc514adfc7f

"

Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort has sentenced to nearly four years in prison for tax and bank fraud related to his work advising Ukrainian politicians, much less than what was called for under sentencing guidelines.

Found guilty of criminal acts (unrelated to Trump), Manafort will pay the penalty the sentencing judge felt was appropriate to the offenses. ='[.]'=

Well, not of natural causes, anyway.