Character matters a lot. If you measure character by saying warm and fuzzy things while implementing destructive policies, I’d argue that you aren’t measuring character in a particularly meaningful sense.
Going back to my favorite fictional book, Aragorn had a very poor reputation in Bree, but his strength of character was consistently demonstrated throughout the books.
Saruman was a master of words, and his weakness of character was also consistently demonstrated throughout the book.
Tim Walz is a retarded communist, best compared to Grima Wormtongue.
Trump isn’t really comparable to any LOTR characters because Tolkien didn’t write any of his characters to be as rambling and as bombastic as Trump, but his public policies are far more consistent with the Men of The West in Tolkien’s writings than any of his predecessors, and certainly Tim Walz.
Ehh, I have a difficult time believing that from you. In your previous posts you leave that undefined and then selectively apply it. If “character” excludes how someone speaks, treats others, or conducts themselves publicly, then you’ve narrowed it so much that it only includes what you already agree with.
That’s not really a standard, it’s a conclusion in disguise, like your weird Trump=Aragorn idea.
Yet you deem yourself able to read the minds of men across many leagues…
How much did it cost to learn that The Lord of the Rings is actually a woke tale celebrating diversity, equity, inclusion, and socialist thinking?
Do the people who were seduced by Saruman’s words possess good character when they failed to see his deception but were instead moved by his compelling words?
Was all of the “gathering and sharing” in The Shire facilitated by hobbits of good character?
Were the writers who girl-bossed Galadriel in The Rings of Power displaying good character?
Listening to Tim Walz speak sounds exactly like Maine politicians speaking. Once you understand what the code words actually mean in terms of public policy, it is pretty easy to understand what he’s actually talking about.
“Citizens” does not mean “US Citizens” in any practical sense. It means anyone who occupies the geography. It also means anyone who registers online and participates via the UOCAVA process. No tests for US Citizenship are performed at any step of the process in Maine or Minnesota. It’s the same language of Shenna Bellows and Janet Mills here in Maine.
In the second clip he uses the language of emotional blackmail, suggesting anyone who doesn’t want boys in girls sports or to force public employees to use the cultish vocabulary wants to “assault” trans people’s “right to exist”. “Right to gender-affirming care” means a LOT here in Maine, including the “right” for children as young as 16 to receive taxpayer-funded cross-sex hormones without any parental knowledge or participation.
“Everyone belongs” includes fraudsters, illegal immigrants, drug dealers, and corrupt politicians.
The Mayor of Lewiston uses the exact same scripted language as code for subverting Maine election law that requires US Citizenship.
This is a very impactful ruling by the Supreme Court. If the parties actually “switched”, you would think that Democrats would be ecstatic that drawing congressional districts along racial lines is now illegal.
Of course they are furious about this, because they have been the party of racism since their founding. They just call it “anti-racism” today.
And they say conservatives don’t have a sense of humor.
Now that we’ve gotten our morning snark out of the way, let’s talk voting rights.
I feel that the current supreme court really hates the voting rights act, so that’s going to disappear, but on the flip side, the SAVE act dosen’t seem to have a way forward, so I’m not sure where that leaves us.
Maybe. I do think when you’re trying to make civilization happen you have to keep in mind that when a privilege is taken away it can feel like discrimination.
I think doing things based solely on race is pretty clearly discrimination. And where do you draw the line? Do you need majority gay districts? Asian? Left-handed?
The guy with a Nazi SS tattoo running for Senate in Maine is very unhappy about the Court’s latest decision. He also wants to impeach Clarence Thomas.
Nothing Graham Platner has ever said or written comes close to the clarity and depth of thought Justice Thomas has been delivering for decades. Of course, that doesn’t matter when your target audience is narcissistic social justice warriors, anarchists, DSA types, aging hippies, and other people who have neither the interest nor the capacity to comprehend the arguments of Justice Thomas.
Let a STEM draw the lines. This is the perfect problem for AI to solve.
Each state has a population from the last census. Take the number of representatives that the state is allowed. Divide the population equally to each representative. Draw the lines where they form areas that maximize the population with the smallest perimeter. Then draw them where that minimizes the standard deviation among the population (area) per miles of perimeter that is the border of the districts.
This method has no respect of persons. All are treated as having the same value.
Former President Obama weighs in on the ruling shortly after urging Virginians to vote for extremely gerrymandered districts.
Governor Newsome lets the mask slip even more. Their ridiculous idea is that we NEED race-based rigging of the system to combat the secret racism all white people have in their hearts.
Florida just redistricted today with a totally normal looking map, which should pick up about 4 seats for Republicans.
I had my Bible friend to ask Grok. It is lengthy. Below is what he sent me from Grok
Your initial parameters plus Grok’s refinements:
Here is a restated and refined version of your initial query, incorporating the recommended improvements for clarity, mathematical rigor, and practical feasibility while preserving the core goal of a completely unbiased, algorithm-driven process for drawing congressional district boundaries:
Refined AI Task: Neutral Algorithmic Redistricting for U.S. House Congressional Districts
For each state, utilize the total resident population from the most recent decennial census and the number of representatives apportioned to that state by Congress. Compute the ideal district population by dividing the state’s total population by its allocated number of House seats. The objective is to partition the state into exactly that number of districts such that each district’s population deviates from the ideal by no more than 0.5% (with a maximum deviation not exceeding 1%).
Hard Constraints (non-negotiable):
• All districts must be contiguous.
• Districts must remain entirely within state boundaries.
• Population equality must be strictly maintained within the deviation threshold.
Primary Optimization Objective – Geometric Compactness and Population Efficiency:
Draw district boundaries to form areas that maximize population enclosed while minimizing total or average perimeter length. This should be operationalized by maximizing established compactness scores across the districts, such as the average and minimum Polsby-Popper scores (4π × Area / Perimeter²) and Reock scores (Area / Area of smallest enclosing circle), or by directly minimizing boundary length per capita in a manner that favors compact, efficient shapes resembling circles or squares over elongated or irregular ones.
Secondary Optimization Objective – Uniformity:
Among candidate maps satisfying the hard constraints and primary compactness objective, select or further refine the map that minimizes the standard deviation of the ratio (District Population ÷ District Perimeter) across all districts. This promotes consistent efficiency in how population is distributed relative to boundary length in each district.
Additional Recommended Neutral Criteria (to be minimized where possible, as tertiary objectives):
• Minimize the splitting of counties, municipalities, and other established political subdivisions.
• Respect communities of interest to the extent feasible without compromising the primary geometric and population criteria.
The algorithm should employ high-resolution census block-level population and geographic data, along with computational geometry techniques, to generate and evaluate candidate maps. Multi-objective optimization methods (such as heuristic search, simulated annealing, graph partitioning, or recursive shortest-splitline approaches) may be utilized to balance the objectives while ensuring reproducibility and transparency. The process must remain strictly neutral, excluding any consideration of voting history, partisan data, incumbency, or racial demographics except where explicitly required by federal law (e.g., Voting Rights Act compliance, if applicable).
This refined formulation provides a clear, measurable, and defensible framework for producing unbiased congressional district maps that prioritize equal population representation and geometric fairness.
Would you like me to apply this restated task to a specific state (for example, Florida, which has 28 congressional districts following the 2020 census), develop pseudocode for implementation, or make further adjustments to the parameters.
Maine’s Secretary of State, whose stunt to pull Trump off of the ballot was too much for even KBJ, Sotamayor, and Kagan, is echoing the same talking points about the voting rights act, speaking in the same euphemisms she always does.
“Free and fair elections” means that no documentation is required to participate whatsoever, no tests for US Citizenship or local residency are needed, and a 12:1 ratio in favor of the left-leaning positions on last two ballot measures among the UOCAVA votes is purely coincidental.
