re: Last Cuck Tonight with Johnny Trigger Warning

quote:

---

Not saying Maddow is good or worth watching but she's far more qualified than Hannity to discuss policy. She's a Rhode's scholar, he is a college dropout shock jock radio host.

---

Yeah, which is why Maddow doing that Trump leak really surprised me. I expect that kind of shite from Don Lemon or BuzzFeed, but not her.

quote:

---

Well it wasn't Oliver's point.

---

That's the thing with Oliver. He always points out the facts, but I often disagree with him on how to handle said facts. Like for instance on his piece on the migrant crisis, he says that since Europe isn't making babies anymore that the Europeans need to allow the migrants in so they can keep the workforce up to where it has historically been.

I on the other hand think this is the reason that you DON'T let them in, because soon they will outnumber the natives and their culture will be overwhelmed. Europe is horrible at assimilating citizens unlike the US which does that very well.

quote:

---

So I presume you find no problem with the much larger issue of partisan redistricting? Or the "cracking" issue he brought up? Where a state that votes 40% for one party can end up with little or no representation

---

I have a problem with all of it. Unfortunately, oliver does not. Because he's a partisan hack.

However, the response of this "good" gerrymandering is partisan gerrymandering.

Or should repulbicans give democrats minority representation and then split everything leftover based on voter splits?

That's what the democrats want and what the democrats are filing lawsuits to achieve. And it's disgusting.

quote:

---

She's a Rhode's scholar

---

What's a "Rhode's scholar"?

quote:

---

John Oliver was decent at first...his problem is there are only so many things you can be outraged about on a weekly basis. So once he started running out of the low aging fruit and had to start reaching, his 'rants' became lame, unoriginal, and just boring

---

He's money when he tackles smaller, under the radar subjects like State Lottos, Payday Loans, or how big of a racket speeding tickets can be.

The problem is, like you said, he's gone away from that and become just one of many comedians who go after Trump all the time.

quote:

---

I have a problem with all of it. Unfortunately, oliver does not. Because he's a partisan hack.

However, the response of this "good" gerrymandering is partisan gerrymandering.

Or should repulbicans give democrats minority representation and then split everything leftover based on voter splits?

That's what the democrats want and what the democrats are filing lawsuits to achieve. And it's disgusting.

---

His solution is pretty simple, move toward non-partisan re-districting reform, like exists in several states now. You ignoring it makes me think you didn't bother really watching it. And in your triggered state glossed over the part that minority representation is a product of the voting rights act.

What is your solution?

quote:

---

Get rid of minority representation as the first step, because you're never going to be able to assess things when you have legally mandated gerrymandering.

---

So how do we draw the lines?

This is what I am asking you. How do you structure the system to work optimally, democratically and to be optimally representative of voters within states? Ensuring that whatever you do, doesn't open the door to actively dis-enfranchise minorities?

As John Oliver points out in the Illinois example. The minority line is drawn in an already Democratic district. Done to give Latinos and AA communities their own representation(though he rightly points out as a whole, Democratic Illinois as a whole is guilty of their own partisan re-districting frickery elsewhere). I am not sure what inherently makes that particular example bad? Or supports some of the larger charges you are making toward him? He doesn't advocate for unfair reform by the end, quite the opposite. And you could take the Illinois example out and it doesn't change anything, really. In fact it is sort of a red-herring to his rant.

As I said, I am an infrequent viewer, so maybe some past episodes are what you are pointing to? But you seem to have jumped into the thread with an agenda. Only halfway payed attention to the piece, then started making spastic charges and incoherent criticisms.

All I know is in that gerrymandering episode that Illinois Democrat's face when he said they'd be fair about it made me laugh my arse off.

quote:

---

Once you get rid of the regulatorily required gerrymandering, you are left with state legislators elected by the people of that state defining their congressional districts. What's the problem?

---

The problem is articulated in the piece you claimed to have watched?

The entire thesis of the story?

Our current arrangement means politicians decide the voters they want to have. Backwards democracy.

Which means in a census year, the party in power gets the power to stack the deck in their favor and against their opponents for ten years.

There is a reason basically no other democratic country that has came after America has adhered to this standard. It's very undemocratic.

quote:

---

Why is this an excuse for gerrymandering. As I said, I'm embarrassed to say I reside in SJL's district. Without her gerrymandered district guaranteeing she is elected, I would have better representation with a competent democrat. Many democrats in my district would likely feel the same way. Are we not disenfranchised by this gerrymandering?

---

So how would you restructure Illinois? The ironic thing here is that your earlier solution all but invites an even higher amount of frickery of this kind.