Let us never forget that wealthy “business men” can be tasteless white trash too. And pedophiles. Actually that overlap is practically a circle.

AI companies going to start generating fake claims and denying them for rewards, I guarantee it.

“You ever notice how _____ people do [insert common, innocuous, rational behavior]…”

Yeah, but not due to photosynthesizing pigments, afaik. Only other pigmentation in the leaf. Though it may still be an adaptive benefit.

You might be thinking, well wouldn’t it it better to absorb green too? Why didn’t chlorophyll evolve to absorb all colors, making plants black? The answer is because evolution don’t give a damn about the best way to do things, only the good enough way. Chlorophyll developed by random chance, and blue-green algea (with chlorophyll) beat red algae (with phycoerythrin) to evolving into complex plant structures.

I was gonna say like a funky pop, but same sentiment. That woman’s gourd is overgrown.

Just to be clear, limiting free speech is already allowed to a degree. The Supreme Court has long ruled that it’s legal to constrain the right to expression based on time, manner, and place restrictions, so long as those restrictions are content neutral, serve a legitimate public need, and are minimally restrictive to serve that need.

This law absolutely does not qualify. I’m sure they will argue it served some bullshit need to prevent disruption to campus activities, issues with policing, public safety, etc. But there is no chance that restricting all 1st amendment expression on a college campus for nearly 12 hours a day serves any legitimate public need in the least restrictive manner to serve that need. It will certainly be struck down as unconstitutional by a sensible judge somewhere along the way.

But the problem is that this law is not the goal. They want a judge to strike it down. That is the actual goal. That is why they keep passing such blatantly unconstitutional laws in red states pertaining to religion, free speech, lgbt rights, etc. They are doing it for 2 reasons A) They are trying to make the legitimate acts of the judicial branch out to be some sort of overreach on the will of Trump and conservative states to help remove stopgaps that they can’t control from their way entirely. That’s what the SCOTUS’ ruling against national injunctions for lower federal courts was meant to hinder. And B) when it does get ruled against, they just have to keep appealing until they get to the Supreme Court and let the right wing nuts redefine our 1st amendment rights to suit their desires for the entire country, not just Texas. Even if this particular law doesn’t survive their decision, again, that was never the point. You can bet your ass that even in striking the specific law down, they will set new precedent with the case that will fundamentally weaken free speech rights for all of us. It will make it easier to implement draconian laws like this on a national scale.

Gross

I live in Indiana in a hard red district. If I thought there was even a chance, I’d seriously be considering it. I couldn’t even manage to get to city council here though. Half of the local elections dont even have a Dem or independent running because there is no chance for it. Your name has an R next to it or you fuck off with your maybe 15 percent.

pinch bridge of nose… deep breath

How the fuck is the left losing to literal insane people and morons. How the fuck are there DOZENS, if not hundreds, of people sitting in the highest positions of our government who believe 1000% in actually certifiable conspiracy theories about giants, space lasers, weather machines, chem trails, microchips vaccines, 5G mind control/Covid generation, and virgins blood drinking rituals… and yet we are still debating the democrats based on high brow merit.

I fucking hate these people, but I really hate all of the mother fucking morons and degenerates that helped put them into these positions more. And that includes all of you dumbasses that just didnt vote for Kamala whether willfully or apathetically. I have no love for the woman either, but come the fuck on. Look what the fuck you have done. I’m so tired of pretending that any of this shit is abnormal and temporary and will be reigned in. There is no end in sight, and seems only likely to get way worse. Fuck all of you shortsighted, idiotic and hateful assholes. You did this and now we all suffer because of it.

Batman questions anyone and anything and has a plan for any eventuality, PARTICULARY those that pose a global scale threat. It’s nothing personal, it’s just reasonable precaution. That’s basically his true superpower. He also does trust Superman as a person, as a colleague and friend. I don’t think he ever considers there to be a true risk that Superman turns on humanity of his own will. However, Superman is susceptible to mind control, to magic, to unpredictable forms of kryptonite. And he is not the only living Kryptonian in existence either. It would be stupid not to plan for such threats.

Lex depending on the version, may or may not think that Superman actually poses a willful threat to humanity. But even if he also trusts that Superman is what he appears to be, a selfless hero that only wants to help people, he probably hates that idea even more. He usually doesn’t distrust Superman’s intent. He hates what it says about and does to human-kind, and by extension, himself. He things depending on an alien demigod will make humanity weak and complacent. He thinks that Superman holds the Earth back from reaching their potential. That it permanently neuters them from become Supermen themselves. So he makes it his mission to ruin Superman however he can. If he can kill him, good. Not a problem anymore. If he can publically discredit him, sow distrust across the globe, that’s good too, maybe better. People who distrust him won’t depend on him and may, in fact, fear him. As a result they are more likely to better themselves, their technology, their science, to rival and fight back against Superman.

TL:DR: Batman takes precautions. Lex hates and attempts to kill or sabotage. They’re not the same.

Stuff removed, stuff added, everything pulled tight. It’s like taxidermy but for still alive vanity-obsessed women, and it often looks like it too.

Districts each get a seat. That is the part you are not getting. That is what gerrymandering manipulates. You seem to think that the districts are voting blocks with equal say (1 vote each) in an election of a single seat (thus why you think Blue wins it all) but that is NOT how districting and gerrymandering works in the US (where the word comes from and the only place it is really used, btw). I dont know why you are quoting definitions at me like I dont understand the concept.

I am not conflating anything. I am deliberately ignoring anything not in the info-graphic that presumably wants to teach us something.

You specifically brought up that other people are saying that there are better systems, which is exactly what I was responding to and saying you were conflating with the “perfect” term used in the info graphic. So no, this is bull.

You are the one conflating the abstract presentation on this graphic with some specific real-life situation.

The abstract presentation in the graphic is a hypothetical that EXPLAINS the real-life situation. Gerrymandering is not a concept in a vacuum. It is a thing that happens and show a simplified version of it here demonstrates how manipulative it is in a digestible way. That is the point. It’s not a mathematical or logical axiom that exists purely in and of itself. It is a pretend situation meant to parallel a real life one and demonstrate a form of political manipulation.

The graphic literally illustrates that one of two teams “wins”. In the “perfect” case that is blue.

They win majority of the district. Not all of the seats. I don’t know why you’re are being so obtuse about this. It’s pretty apparent to everyone else. And it is exactly how districts in real life work

That is an assumption you are making based on some real world system that is not depicted here.

Yes, becuase the purpose of this info graphic is to show how Gerrymandering works in real life. Gerrymandering has nothing to do with taking individual seats. Ever. Period. It is about taking outweighed control of a multi-seat body. That is the ENTIRE point of gerrymandering, a subject that is not obscure in the slightest.

I don’t criticize the result. I just don’t think it’s perfect.

What then would be the “perfect” result between only two parties running, and 60% support going to the blue party? Whether for 1 seat or for 5 as IS SHOWN in this graphic?

People here keep telling me the system is bad but it’s the best we have.
If that is your definition of perfect that I suppose we just have a vastly different understanding of perfection.

I most certianly did not say that this is the best system we could have, but you confusion is because you are conflating vastly different things. When people are talking about different voting systems that would be better, that assumes that there is more than 2 choices in the matter. If there are only two, such as is in this example, the voting system resolves to being identical to First Past The Post, so it doesnt matter, FOR THIS ONE EXAMPLE. In real life, things are not that simple, but that doesnt matter when we are talking about a simplified hypothetical like this. That is the point.

Your example is literally what is being illustrated. There is some disconnect you are suffering. There isn’t only one seat they are competing for. There are 5 districts with 5 seats and depending on how you divide the districts, fairly or intentionally gerrymandered, you can get a fair outcome or outcomes that heavily favor one party. Even if they WERE competing for one seat, then blue winning that seat would still be the correct outcome in this case, so even if your misunderstanding the hypothetical were accurate, I dont get why you have a problem with the end result.

Ok, so there is an election system like the one I criticized in the US, just not in every state.

Would you then say, that this is better than “winner takes all” and that “blue wins” is not perfect?

No… because in the example, it was NOT winner take all. Blue won the majority of districts. Red won the other districts. Nobody took all. I feel like you are trying really hard to misunderstand a VERY simple hypothetical example. Yes, winner take all states for electors is bullshit, but that is NOT what is happening in the example, for the love of god!

For the love of God, it’s a hypothetical to illustrate how Gerrymandering works. We know that this is not a demonstration of the ideal world. Stfu.

“Not my fucking job”

As I said elsewhere, if there is only two parties/candidates running for each of these seats and the districts are divided this way then there is no functional difference between Ranked Choice, Approval, Proportional, or First Past The Post. The results would be 100% identical in any of those systems. In this specific situation, the result is “perfect”, as it says. Under different circumstances, it would be less than perfect, but that is not how hypothetical work, my guy.

What do you think “districts” means? Each district gets represention for the whole body, whatever body that may be. If you need that explained to you, okay, but don’t then lecture others on minutae of semantics when you arent familiar with what the word “district” entails.

And the U.S. President is not elected like this, no. There is no districting involved in US Presidential elections, at least not currently and not directly. It is far stupider than that, unfortunately. Each state has so many districts on the federal level based on population of the whole state (minimum 1), and each district gets a federal representative in the US House of Representatives wing of congress. Each state also gets 2 and only 2 Senate seats regardless of population in that wing of congress. The Presidency is actually determined by the votes of Electors in the Electoral College. Each state gets as many Electors as they have seats in both the Senate and House, and it has nothing to do with how the districts in that state are subdivided or what party their Representatives are from.

Now, each state gets to determine for itself how they run their elections, how they assign their Electors, and even whether their electors are required to vote the same way as their state, so things can be pretty complicated. In many states, it is winner take all for that state’s Electors, with the winner being the one with the plurality of votes in a FPTP election, which is dumb as fuck. Some others assign their Electors proportionally. There is even a slowly growing coalition of states that, once they reach a plurality of Electors in the coalition, have agreed to no longer assign their Electors on a state by state basis, but on the national popular vote instead. Again, within each of these states, rules differ on the relative power of the Electors themselves to vote according to their own desires even if that goes against the state’s popular vote. They could, also, if they wished, leave each House-tied Elector up to each individual district, or just decided the Electors without considering or even having a democratic vote at all, neither or which currently happens, though. It’s a giant fucking mess, it leads many many people in hard red or blue states to just to just not bother as their vote will be overwhelmed anyway, which is why the Electoral College should just be eliminated and replaced with a national popular vote. But that is a whole other story.