the rules were that there would be no fact checking

a:  if we are blowing up ships trying to mine the strait or are who are attacking civilian ships that are trying to cross.  I am 100% comfortable assigning culpability to the Iranians. - mig mig:  "does no culpability for a lack of a peace deal fall on the Iranians at all"  here is the update on that.  literal hours after he extended the ceasefire indefinitely.  ~a paul/mig:  democrats have been fighting against gerrymandering in many states for the past twenty some years.  i.e. in virginia.  the republicans have been fighting anti-gerrymandering tooth and nail, in fact in texas they even went out of their way to gerrymander even harder?  what you're just mad at is you've been accustomed to a democratic party that rolls over, doesn’t fight and takes everything sitting down (ocasio-cortez).  ~a paul:  "how can we top that badness the other side did now"?  ~a I've come to realize that part of why I've stopped following politics so much (besides a lack of time) is that it's just gotten so damned depressing. We got a ton of bad outcomes before but now it's like a constant drumbeat of "how can we top that badness the other side did now?" -Paul I'm pretty bummed about the outcome last night too. It's just the latest example of voters (from both parties) just prioritizing screwing over the other side at the expense of any sort of political norms or principle or respect for Democratic institutions. -Paul a: "any thoughts on how this ends?" No idea. Best guess is Republicans get walloped in mid-terms, TACO, and we end up at a place that is about the same (for us) as before (if not worse). -Paul a:  democratically decided results can absolutely have authoritarian results. - mig mig:  (texan voters, for instance, did not vote for their new maps)  ~a mig:  isn't having the whole population vote on what the voter maps should be even less authoritarian and more *literally* democratic than anything we've ever had?  ~a mig:  what?  why is it academic?  there's nothing academic about what happens in 2030.  but, otoh, i didn't realize you were talking about getting the people to vote for the new maps.  you realize that they are literally having a democratically decided (50%+) voter maps.  if they did this (had the whole population of virginia agree on the new maps) every four years, wouldn't that be even more open than an independent commission?    ~a but its academic at this point it looks like.  Virginia is for authoritarians i guess. - mig a:  and yes the sunset is written into the constitution but nothing prevents the legislature to simply try to pass another amendment extending their power to write maps in another 4 years just as they did now. - mig a:  i don’t believe you and I’m willing to also bet on it. - mig mig:  "do you really think a democrat controlled va house and senate would basically give back 3-4 us house seats to the gop?"  100% yes.  and i'd be willing to bet on it.  ~a mig:  oh you didn't read the constitutional amendment?  your question has a big fault:  they won't have that choice.  having control of the legislature isn't enough to stop the willing ceding of control back to the independent commission.  the sunset is written into the constitution, and changing that would require a new constitutional amendment (which would again require, among other things, a new majority vote from the public).  ~a we already saw how quickly the va state constitution can be amended for partisan aims.  If there were better guard rails for amending the state constitution I would find the sunset provision somewhat palatable.  Given the current climate, its effectively meaningless. - mig I mean do you really think a democrat controlled va house and senate would basically give back 3-4 us house seats to the gop? - mig a:  I have no objections to the sunset provision I simply do not believe democrats will willingly cede control back to the independent commission if they still control the va state gov come 2030. - mig mig:  "non negotiable" so i guess i shouldn't try to negotiate then?  "restoring fairness", i agree it's partisan language, but i'd hardly call it "rich".  if anything democrats had to somehow point out that this was happening in other states.  you didn't appreciate that it sunsets in 2030?  i do.  100% i would have voted no if they didn't sunset it like they did.  if anything, this just temporarily puts things like they were pre-2020.  ~a I also took great offense to the wording of the proposal.  It’s incredibly rich to call this measure “restoring fairness”.  I also don’t believe for one second that this measure will be temporary if democrats are in power in va come 2030. - mig a:  i voted no.  partisan gerrymandering is something that is non negotiable. - mig is raw story a reliable source?  regardless, i'm surprised you guys aren't at all focused on the obvious downside for the economy these decisions have.  (sure democrats love to try really hard to destroy the economy too, but they seem to mostly fail at it if you look at the numbers?)  ~a mig:  "does no culpability for a lack of a peace deal fall on the Iranians at all?"  culpability for a lack of a peace deal falls on both sides.  of course.  but, i mean . . . you have to admit . . . the language we get from the whitehouse has been, inconsistent?  "inconsistent" is as generous as i can get.  you don't want inconsistency if you want a peace deal.  if you want a peace deal that is mutually beneficial.  ~a mig:  oh, where did you come down on that?  i'm pretty on the fence, but i did end up voting "yes" in the end, and i hope that yes ends up winning.  but i do see both sides of this issue, and had trouble even making up my mind on which way i would vote.  ~a a:  does no culpability for a lack of a peace deal fall on the Iranians at all? - mig a:  you’ll be happy to know this redistricting issue has riled me up enough to go actually vote today.  - mig paul:  yes they're both bad.  agreed.  any thoughts on how this ends?  it seems like every time we get to the possibility of an end, trump seems immediately fuck it all up.  ending the 2015 iran deal also seems the quintessential and expected trump-move.  ~a a: Does that make sense? Like civilian targeting is worse, but starting the war is bigger? Either way, they're both bad. Can we agree on that? -Paul a: But just bombing a sovereign nation unprovoked? That's also really bad. I guess per Capita the civilian hitting is worse but overall the unjustified nature of the war is the bigger issue. -Paul a: Hmmm.... I'm honestly not sure if I agree or not. Obviously intentionally targeting civilian targets (not just accepting some civilian casualties while hitting military targets) is bad. -Paul federal reserve: without tariffs, inflation would have dropped to pre-pandemic levels during 2025 (reason)  ~a paul:  if you agree, it doesn't matter that this war is unjustified?  iow, it's actually not the bigger issue?  ~a paul:  if you agree, AND there are intentional hits of a civilian targets in this war, then it actually matters not whether the war is justified or not?  i don't think the minab school was intentional, but i do think the karaj b1 bridge (civilian target + double tap strike) was intentional (8 dead 95 injured, all civilian).  ~a paul:  i'm pretty sure this is how i see it:  intentionally hitting civilian targets during a justified war (i dunno ww2?) is worse than accidentally hitting a civilian during an unjustified war (iran).  ~a paul:  ok, cool thanks for replying!  i'd like to get into a bit more nuance on this part:  you said "accidentally or intentionally".  what if we separated them out into two concepts?  would intentionally hitting civilian targets during a justified war be better or worse than accidentally hitting a civilian target during an unjustified war?  ~a a: Does it make it worse that we are (accidentally or intentionally) hitting civilian targets? Sure. But I think the bigger issue and initial issue is starting the war in the first place. -Paul a: Nah, you got it. That's the one I was thinking of. I don't think we disagree much on the generalities, just a different focus on specifics. This war is a damned tragedy. I blame the fact that it's completely unjustified with no clear goals. -Paul paul:  if you don't know how ethnic cleansing is relevant, maybe we should discuss what israel is doing in gaza.  and what israeal is doing in lebanon?  ~a paul:  it's officially called distinction (which is really fucking confusing because now we're really just talking about the "distinction distinction").  proportionality will also probably come up.  (i mention it because they are both considered war crimes.  and the US and isreal are both probably breaking both distinction and proportionality)  ~a paul:  it is not xkcd.  although, i understand there might be an xkcd i'm forgetting about.  more importantly though:  this is * not * the distinction i was trying to make.  you're making the distinction between enemy soldiers vs soldiers we support.  i'm making the distinction between soldiers and civilians.  gauld mentions nothing about civilians, soldiers, or war crimes.  ~a a: Although I'm not sure I get the ethnic cleansing implication. Yeah, most of the victims are Iranian but that's kind of because the country is largely made up of Iranians. -Paul a: One could make the pretty strong argument that given that basically no justification was provided for this war at all the entire operation is one giant war crime. We're basically bombing a country relentlessly until they fully surrender for... reasons? -Paul a: It wasn't intended to be a blow off, just a slightly cynical take on an answer. Isn't there an XKCD showing two kingdoms on opposite sides of a river where one's army is labeled "our brave defenders" and the other is "their evil barbarians" or something? -Paul of all the times to get the blow off, i feel like this isn't one of them.  ~a i get the blow off?  ~a a: "war crime" is something the other side does that we don't like. "ethnic cleansing" is when your tribal group is being attacked. -Paul can someone define "war crime" or "ethnic cleansing" for me?  i feel it might become relevant this week.  ~a at his easter sunday address this morning, the president said, "Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran. There will be nothing like it!!! Open the Fuckin' Strait, you crazy bastards, or you'll be living in Hell - JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah," ~a a: So I agree it's an explanation and not an excuse. I think if this was a justified war it would be understandable that things like that happen (still obviously utterly tragic), but given the circumstances around this war it's even worse. -Paul a: Yeah. It's a war (despite what the administration might try to say) and unfortunately innocents die during wars. There's collateral damage. But this obviously wouldn't be happening if we didn't completely blunder into this war of choice. -Paul paul:  that's exactly right it's an explanation, but it is not an excuse.  "our government sucks, and it seems to be mostly one guys fault, but also somehow the fault of the people who enable him" is another wording of that explanation.  ~a a: Is "old data" a good excuse? Not really, but part of saying it's the "most reasonable explanation" is that I can't think of a better one. Sounds like you can't either? -Paul a: "the school isn't old?" I assume you mean it isn't new? Wasn't the school built right next to some missile launcher or something, though? I agree using 10+ year old data isn't ideal but I've seen far worse with the government (have you seen the treasury site?) -Paul paul:  i'll also throw this one on top:  what has trump said about this before and since?  that people die in war?  ~a paul: (3 continued) the dia (who is responsible for old and bad intelligence) and the state department have also seen huge cuts in early 2025.  "what do you think?"  i don't know.  but the main story doesn't make any sense.  do i think trump intentionally killed 100-200 girls?  no.  no i do not.  but he sure as hell is directly responsible (see #1, #2, and #3 here).  ~a paul: 3. *why* do they have old data? you cant argue for firing all "mid-level bureaucrats" and putting in your people (proj 2025) then complain that the mid-level bureaucrats didnt do their jobs. i mean you can, but you should not. "cia plans to cut more than 1000 staff positions through attrition over the next few years as the trump administration shrinks the federal government, according to officials briefed on the plans." (early 2025) ~a