The (ostensibly) Low Content Thread - Page 10 - Politics and Society -- Two Plus Two Poker Forums

Seems like a waste of time to do all this fancy IQ testing and statistical analysis and stuff when Jared Diamond can just have a brief chat with a few people to determine which races have superior cognitive powers.

Quote

06-26-2019 , 01:40 PM

#227

randominternet2345

Guest

Posts: n/a

Quote:

Originally Posted by Money2Burn

The weeds and Ezra Klein’s podcast are very good, Center left.

Thank you

Quote

06-26-2019 , 02:36 PM

#228

Huehuecoyotl

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 29,296

The Republican Party comes in as close to the German neo nazi party. Kind of hard to measure this stuff though because there are so many axes

Quote

06-27-2019 , 10:35 AM

#229

Huehuecoyotl

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 29,296

Partisan gerrymandering is legal! If you don't like it you can vote the guys out!

Quote

06-27-2019 , 10:36 AM

#230

grando1.0

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 17,111

Yeah that decision is all types of ****ed up

Quote

06-27-2019 , 10:56 AM

#231

well named

poorly undertitled

Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 78,078

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huehuecoyotl

Partisan gerrymandering is legal! If you don't like it you can vote the guys out!

That just about sums it up, doesn't it. smh.

Quote

06-27-2019 , 10:58 AM

#232

spanktehbadwookie

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 19,374

Partisanship is very hard for partisans. So hard, that any judges judging it is just impossible.

Quote

06-27-2019 , 11:43 AM

#233

well named

poorly undertitled

Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 78,078

The gerrymandering ruling is here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...8-422_9ol1.pdf

I'd like to understand the argument for this being a "political question" rather than a judicial one.

Quote

06-27-2019 , 12:11 PM

#234

spanktehbadwookie

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 19,374

Here is a take:

Quote

06-27-2019 , 12:18 PM

#235

well named

poorly undertitled

Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 78,078

Ah, so it's back to his comment about "sociological gobbledygook", from arguments that happened quite a while back.

Quote

06-27-2019 , 12:30 PM

#236

Kelhus999

banned

Join Date: Apr 2019 Posts: 3,282

What is the process to make up a legal definition of gerrymandering? How is this rationale not used all the time? Does everything else the Supreme Court rules on have a legal definition?

Quote

06-27-2019 , 12:38 PM

#237

well named

poorly undertitled

Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 78,078

If I understand the ruling, the court is claiming there can't be a legally determined definition of gerrymandering, but rather that legislatures (states, I'm not sure if he would allow for an overriding federal law that defined requirements?) have to determine it.

IANAL, but my understanding is that the answer to your last question is basically yes, but it's not uncommon for the court to invent definitions. For example, I'm familiar with standards related to copyright infringement in software which I think were created through court decisions rather than passed by Congress.

So it's not immediately obvious to me why the court couldn't create tests to determine whether a gerrymander was illegal or not, in an analogous way, apart from Roberts' apparent hostility to the kinds of quantitative methods developed by social scientists. I haven't read the decision yet, though.

Quote

06-27-2019 , 12:40 PM

#238

Money2Burn

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 12,628

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kelhus999

What is the process to make up a legal definition of gerrymandering? How is this rationale not used all the time? Does everything else the Supreme Court rules on have a legal definition?

Just wait till Gorsuch gets rid of Chevron Deference.

Quote

06-27-2019 , 12:49 PM

#239

Money2Burn

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 12,628

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kelhus999

What is the process to make up a legal definition of gerrymandering? How is this rationale not used all the time? Does everything else the Supreme Court rules on have a legal definition?

I don’t know about gerrymandering specifically, but generally the legislature passes a law that sets out some general parameters then the executive agency will make rules that fill in the details. This is more complicated, though.

Quote

06-27-2019 , 01:02 PM

#240

Huehuecoyotl

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 29,296

Quote:

The majority opinion and the separate conservative opinions, however, have given the agency plenty of non-pretextual things to say about why it would want to include the citizenship question. Administrative law professor Jennifer Nou even ponders that they could argue they were doing it for partisan reasons, following the decision in Thursday’s partisan gerrymandering case giving such conduct the green light.

But whatever the reason, the agency will likely act quickly to rehabilitate its pretexual ruling. The agency has said that printing had to begin in July, but plaintiffs challenging inclusion of the question have long claimed the real deadline is October. The government will surely concede now that October is doable. The agency could come back with new reasons, and the part of Roberts’ opinion joined by the conservatives which recognizes the broad agency discretion to include the question for non-pretextual reasons will be front and center.

It's going to be tragicomic that Republicans are so lazy and the Courts so corrupt that Republicans get the green light to say the agreed upon reason they want to do everything to maintain political power is expressly to f*ck over Democrats because that's ok and definitely not to f*ck over minorities because that's bad, like they did with the gerrymandering cases

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...t-october.html

Quote

06-27-2019 , 04:50 PM

#241

Huehuecoyotl

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 29,296

Quote:

Should Blue States Start Gerrymandering More Shamelessly?

Quote:

This raises a vexing question about how Democrats (and/or small-d democrats) should proceed on the issue: Should they continue pushing for fair districting wherever they have power, or would such efforts actually make federal representation even more inequitable? After all, if blue states forfeit their power to gerrymander, while red states do not, then Congress’s historic bias in favor of the GOP will deepen.

Quote:

Precisely because Republicans have already used gerrymanders to entrench their power in purple states, and many blue states have already adopted independent commissions barring extreme partisan gerrymanders, Democrats might not have much to gain from embracing shameless gerrymandering where they still have the power to do so. In other words, such a move might simply embolden Republicans, while netting Democrats an almost negligible number of House seats.

Quote:

In practice, nonpartisan districting might actually net Democrats more House seats than the alternative. The reason for this is simple: If you give Democratic incumbents the power to draw maps, they’ll be liable to prioritize protecting their own seats over maximizing the party’s power.

Quote:

Unabashedly trying to disenfranchise Republican voters in blue states could inspire a political backlash that costs Democrats in statewide elections. Remember, many of America’s bluest states still have a penchant for electing Republican governors.

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/...tm_campaign=di

Quote

06-27-2019 , 04:52 PM

#242

well named

poorly undertitled

Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 78,078

From the decision:

Quote:

(b) Any standard for resolving partisan gerrymandering claims must be grounded in a “limited and precise rationale” and be “clear, manageable, and politically neutral.” Vieth, 541 U. S., at 306–308 (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment). The question is one of degree: How to “provid[e] a standard for deciding how much partisan dominance is too much.” LULAC, 548 U. S., at 420 (opinion of Kennedy, J.). Partisan gerrymandering claims rest on an instinct that groups with a certain level of political support should enjoy a commensurate level of political power and influence. Such claims invariably sound in a desire for proportional representation, but the Constitution does not require proportional representation, and federal courts are neither equipped nor authorized to apportion political power as a matter of fairness.

While I was having lunch I was thinking that maybe the best long-term solution to this problem is actually moving to some kind of proportional representation system with party list voting for the house of representatives, if it's possible to implement one where there are no districts? Just a state-wide popular vote which determines how many of the state's seats each party gets?

Quote

06-27-2019 , 04:59 PM

#243

Huehuecoyotl

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 29,296

Quote:

Originally Posted by well named

From the decision:

While I was having lunch I was thinking that maybe the best long-term solution to this problem is actually moving to some kind of proportional representation system with party list voting for the house of representatives, if it's possible to implement one where there are no districts? Just a state-wide popular vote which determines how many of the state's seats each party gets?

I read this and I thought it was an important distinction but one I hadn't really heard as opposition to gerrymandering. I think that's because if you did want an equitable system you'd naturally move to more percentage of vote = percentage of representation in order to avoid huge jarring shifts in the make up legislators

Quote:

“Partisan gerrymandering claims,” Roberts writes, “invariably sound in a desire for proportional representation.”

This statement is inaccurate. The phrase “proportional representation” suggests that legislative representation should closely track electoral results. So if Democrats win 54% of the vote, they should receive close to 54% of the seats in the legislature. But that’s not at all what many anti-gerrymandering advocates demand.

Rather, many of these advocates developed sophisticated mathematical models that sniff out asymmetric legislative maps. A map is symmetric if it produces roughly the same results regardless of which party performs well in a given election. Thus, a symmetric map may give Democrats 65% of the seats in an election where they win only 54% of the vote, but that’s okay if Republicans would also receive 65% of the seats in an election where they performed just as well.

Fairness in elections, in other words, does not necessarily flow from perfect proportionality. It can flow from maps that simply aren’t rigged to favor one party or the other.

https://thinkprogress.org/supreme-co...-4a918fd46ce3/

Quote

06-27-2019 , 05:16 PM

#244

Huehuecoyotl

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 29,296

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huehuecoyotl

Quote

06-27-2019 , 07:10 PM

#245

Huehuecoyotl

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 29,296

Quote:

In a first-ever study of its kind, public health researchers have found that prohibiting U.S. aid to any organization that performs or provides counseling on abortion actually*increases*abortions – and not just by a little.* According to a new study*published*in the*Lancet Global Health Journalabortions – likely unsafe ones – have increased by 40 percent in sub-Saharan African countries that are more reliant on U.S. aid, while the so-called “Global Gag Rule” has been in effect.

Why?

Quote:

The same organizations that provide abortion counseling in these countries are also often the ones offering family planning services. So, when their funding is cut, modern contraceptive use goes down, unintended pregnancies increase and women turn to abortion.

The study found that in when the global gag rule was in effect during the Bush administration, modern contraceptive use dropped 14 percent in countries highly impacted by the policy, pregnancy rates rose 12 percent and abortions increased 40 percent. The opposite occurred when the policy was not in effect (1995-2000 and 2009-2014).

https://www.undispatch.com/major-stu...bortion-rates/

Quote

06-27-2019 , 11:33 PM

#246

spanktehbadwookie

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 19,374

There is no two party system in the USC, but it seems like that’s what SCOTUS just did establish. Why wouldn’t judges who judge laws, judge the laws that comprise politics? Are there legal or otherwise details that add up to dispelling these notions?

Quote

06-28-2019 , 09:51 AM

#247

coordi

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 23,654

Have you guys ever been in heavy traffic, and you're going straight at a light with a cornerstore on the left side, but someone turning into the corner store didn't turn left at the light? So instead of turning left and having an open right turn, they go straight and stop traffic while they wait for an opening.

Should be illegal.

Driving is one of the few simple pleasures I have in the world. It's unfortunate that city driving is absolutely miserable. When I first got my license, cruising around the city was so enjoyable. There are so many things like this that irk me about driving though. We all have to share this space. Just think 5 seconds ahead and consider those around you.

Quote

06-28-2019 , 02:16 PM

#248

Huehuecoyotl

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 29,296

Quote:

Trumpism insists that his supporters not only accept obvious falsehoods, but also that they express umbrage at the very suggestion of dishonesty, even when documented proof to the contrary exists—and that for his critics to refuse to accept his lies is an act of unacceptable incivility. This is now also the moral philosophy of four justices on the Supreme Court.

Although the conservative justices may diverge from their colleagues on cases with little partisan salience, on the big cases, the Trumpification of the Supreme Court is complete. The Trump administration’s dishonesty and even its bigotry are no barrier to its success at the Supreme Court, even when it demands that the court endorse blatant discrimination and disenfranchisement. All that Roberts asks is that they lie about it more convincingly. His conservative colleagues don’t even need that much.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...source=twitter

A better explanation of the Roberts Court

Quote

06-28-2019 , 11:40 PM

#249

Huehuecoyotl

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 29,296

Quote:

Just like everyone else, immigrants need places to live. Their demand for a limited supply of apartments and houses drives up rents, especially in metropolitan areas where immigrants tend to concentrate. Curbing immigration levels would do more than any welfare program to ensure that working-class Americans can afford the roofs over their heads.

Take the Bay Area, for example. Immigrants account for*roughly 36% of the population.*The average home was valued around*$1.34 million last year.*San Francisco’s housing prices have risen so rapidly that one U.N. official called it a “human rights violation.”

https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/...s-14057262.php

"Immigrants taking the white man's houses, breathing the white man's air" - Clayton Bigsby

Yea nevermind the locals fight tooth and nail if anything more than a single family house is built. If we're talking about using the government, just have it sieze the houses, tear them down, and build big ass apartment buildings. No needs to change something that might have some tangential effect on housing, just go to the source.

Quote

07-01-2019 , 01:31 PM

#250

well named

poorly undertitled

Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 78,078

NY Times on 5 years of legal weed in Colorado

It seems like the most noteworthy thing about the story is that nothing *really* noteworthy happened in the aftermath.

Quote

Page 10 of 160

First

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 20 30 60 110

Last

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 10 of 160

First

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 20 30 60 110

Last