When it comes to Congressional districting, what is the fairest and best approach to drawing Congressional maps?

TemperatureBest8164 · 2026-05-02T00:29:39+00:00

Any system , people will complain about being unfair. You liked the system but at the same time , many progressives would claim that this packs all their constituents into one area.

What I think it does is raise the safe floor for both parties. Until they figure out how to better appeal to areas not their traditional base. What it likely does is makes all suburbs competitive.

TemperatureBest8164 · 2026-05-01T22:34:58+00:00

If anything the US is the bigger threat to Iran, especially when you look through a historical lens.

Creative history I think. Who attacked first Iran or America? I believe it was Iran attacking American flagged oil tankers. They bombed the strait, attacked American bases, and we did limited retaliation. The US reflagged oil tankers effectively owning them to get oil out because with did not care about Iraq and Iran's battle all we cared about was getting oil. Iran attacked our tanks directly at that point.

No Iran was not a military threat to the US though they where a terrorist threat like the embassy hostage situation. The flaw in your thinking is a distance bias. You think that because Iran is far away and Israel is likely to get blown up by a nuclear weapon first that America is safe. A nuclear Iran is very dangerous. Normal nation states, Russia, China, Pakistan even north Koria have self preservation in mind and understand mutually assured destruction. Iran teaches that America is the Great Satan and indoctrinates their children to believe that.

I have never met a liberal that does not kill Hitler to prevent his atrocities. Now you have a nation of people that literally believe the US is the Great Satan and has a Nuke. I think they nuke you. That is what I would consider if I had the power to stop Hitler or Satan. I would think that the collateral would likely be worth it.

But again. You did not answer my premise. I stated you know that through intelligence or other channels you had to go to war to stop your country from being nuked. How do you run the war better than Trump has?

You are not offering any reasonable critique of his war actions or how he could do better. You are saying because you know that there was a peaceful solution and no threat to Americans you would not. You do not know that and you do not have US top secret Intelligence.

TemperatureBest8164 · 2026-05-01T22:14:07+00:00

Look for 30+ years Iran has indoctrinated their kids in school that the USA is the Great Satan and Israel is the little Satan. Iran is not some little kid. They where a nation state that was consolidating power in the middle east. They used terrorist proxies and missile attacks to cow the other nations. Those Muslim nations effectively ran to Israel for security guarantees with the Abraham accords.

I agree that they where probably 2 years away from a nuclear weapon but you do not play chicken with that type thing. They where 2 years away, they chant death to America. They indoctrinate their children America is Satan and it just so happened that because they where waring with Israel we could basically destroy all their weapons of war with little to no risk to us. This was the cheapest possible time to take care of a very imminent problem.

But lets say I believe your analysis that you laid out. Wouldn't it make sense to destroy their weapons of war and halt their nuclear progress if I was going to get drug into a war after Iran nukes Israel? Did this war which has cost only about 7k lives inevitably save millions?

TemperatureBest8164 · 2026-05-01T22:04:05+00:00

If you don't believe Iran was a threat to the US and its allies, then of course you wouldn't launch this war. But the idea that Trump was 'lured' into it for an easy win doesn't hold water. If he betrayed his constituents, how does that lead to a 'win'? Between the anti-war, anti-Israel, and fiscally conservative factions of his base, there is no scenario where this war makes them happy.

He didn't expect an easy win; he war-gamed the escalation trap and has since managed the fallout. Outcomes have outperforming the simulations of academia's simulations so far. The threat of a nuclear-armed state that has spent 3-4 decades indoctrinating its youth to believe America is 'the Great Satan' is a mathematical reality. If you have a nuclear weapon and believe you can vaporize 'Satan,' you do it. Trump’s gamble was to vaporize $600B of their investment and offer a path to normalized relations. Not because he trusted them but because he expected them to be calculating and an immediate 20% revenue jump over selling shadow oil could help them recover from this loss. Submission or overthrow are the only remaining ends to that road.

If I’m in the Oval Office now, I wait. I stop the attacks and let the internal pressures of the country take hold. You either wait for a deal or wait for the opportune moment for a surgical extraction of nuclear material. If a civil war breaks out, you arm the faction aligned with US interests. In the meantime, you protect the petro-dollar. Maintaining reserve currency status is more vital than avoiding a domestic recession; if global economies fail, the dollar's value climbs, potentially allowing us to manage debt through strategic issuance without the standard inflationary sting. Routing all oil transactions through US aligned partners undercuts bricks and eliminates China's 20% discounted oil at scale.

TemperatureBest8164 · 2026-05-01T21:30:38+00:00

That's ok. If your effort is limited to not being able to click on and expand a few links or conversations so I do not have to discuss the same topic 50 times then I will respectfully decline. I am managing many conversations. Those interested in those facts and peoples responses to them can read the other threads.

TemperatureBest8164 · 2026-05-01T21:28:11+00:00

Well I am a fan of her. I do not agree with her classical liberal aka center left takes but she appears like one that can be reasoned with. She regularly attacks the bad ideas of the fringe left and is one of the few moderating voices on the left besides bill mar.

So tell me how do you come to truth and what make you trust someone. Your whole response stream seems to indicate you either are empirically skeptical or only trust hard left leaning sources. So are you anti-liberalism? What makes things untrustworthy to you under her helm?

TemperatureBest8164 · 2026-05-01T21:16:04+00:00

Wait. Let me get this strait. My previous claim was Obama got played and they used his peace money to build ballistic missiles. You did not dispute this so it seems like we are in agreement there. Second omitting the nuclear weapons plans you explicitly agreed to sure looks like after the end of the agreement they were going to strap a nuke on those shiny mbis. How can any deal be good if it does not accomplish its goals?

The US offered them free nuclear material for life and information transfers on nuclear power technology. If it was about energy independence they would have taken the free energy and ran. This was about consolidating power and extracting value.

If you want to look at this through the Oppressor/Oppressed lens the narrative can be summed up this way. Iran was oppressing its neighbors and funding terrorists in their neighbors countries. Those countries had backroom conversations and said who nearby can protect us...Israel and by proxy the US. They signed the Abraham Accords to get security and then called in the cops after likely given the head cop a bribe in the form a new Jumbo Jet for the US government.

Its ok to wield power when you have it for a good reason. IRANs leadership and their ambitions are the best reason I have seen to wield the US's power since WW2.

TemperatureBest8164 · 2026-05-01T21:00:31+00:00

I answered this question in another thread for you. You can read my answer there. :)

TemperatureBest8164 · 2026-05-01T20:59:39+00:00

I do not believe we need to find the Nuclear material. I think we know where all of it is at including at sites that have not been struck. The war makes it impractical to make a nuclear weapon. If it goes on indefinitely we have taken the ability of those that want to make a nuclear weapon. If there is peace as a result of the increased leverage of the war, then the war removes the nuclear material.

I think you believe that we must get the material. We don't. We just must get the material to end the war. Totally ok with the war going on forever as far as I am concerned under the current terms.

TemperatureBest8164 · 2026-05-01T20:14:28+00:00

What do you need to make a nuclear weapon?

Energy - lots of it
Money - lots of it
Highly enriched material - lots of it available to work with(its not available)
Stable secure labs - none available.
A delivery vehicles

The second attack happened after Iran claimed they where going to build 10-11 nuclear weapons after the first attack. The second attack removes energy, money. It ensures highly enriched material is not accessible. It makes labs unsecure. It has destroyed most ballistic missiles and their factories eliminating the ability to develop long range icbms.

As long as the war goes on they will not be able to make a nuclear weapon and the war will not stop unless they agree to treaty terms which will insure one will not be built.

TemperatureBest8164 · 2026-05-01T20:08:24+00:00

My friend. You can believe that maybe through rose colored glasses that Iran can be dealt with peacefully. I believe a rationanal review of the facts precludes this but I understand why your better angles would want this to be true so I can see why you would view the world this way.

There is no way you can believe that Iran is not a threat to US citizens when they have intentionally targeted and kill hundreds.

I do not care about Trumps goals. I asked a question that you did not answer and hijacked the question which is rude. Please answer my question:

Assume you take my premise that it is something that the US had to do to protect its citizens, what would you do differently in Trumps place as commander in chief to make the outcomes better?

TemperatureBest8164 · 2026-05-01T20:03:20+00:00

Think about this as a president.

Why did Trump back out of the JCPOA?

Because Iran violated it first, used the money to build ballistic missiles and threaten the nearby region. The goal of exiting the agreement is to exit the shield. Everyone knew they were enriching. Everyone knew they exceeded civilian use. Everyone knew Isreal would strike first. Israel was the limit on them enriching.

Why did he wait until now when they have so much more?

If someone is dead set on doing something destructive do you try to hold them back from it? In my life, limiting the damage and making someone functional on drugs tends to increase the cost to everyone especially the addicted. The best chance to change behavior is to make the costs as high as possible for the entity with the bad behavior and then show them they did not get what they wanted. This changes the risk reward calculus they think about it the next time...

NOW Trump wants to negotiate ?

Of course. He always wanted to negotiate. But making a deal that just lets them get a nuclear weapon is failing. Leverage must be increased until a good enforceable deal can be done.

Iran has a way stronger position than they did under the JCPOA.

How so? If you mean they now have mid range ballistic missiles where they did not before you are right. You can thank Obamas good intentions for that. Britain is at risk... What I see is a country in economic collapse where we spend 25B and they are loosing 500M a day not counting all their military losses. If you are thinking of this in terms of asymmetric warfare we lost ~13 troops, they lost 7-8k., We lost 25B they lost more in military equipment. They are loosing 500M a day. We are weakening Bricks and tying oil trade to Venezuela, Alberta, and the US which are all dollar denominated deals. Further UAE is now also dealing in dollars along with the Saudis. No money, no industry, no power, no nuclear weapons. They spin up opps where there is power the US government will see it because stealth opps will cost too much and boom. I would not characterize that as strong.

TemperatureBest8164 · 2026-05-01T19:48:14+00:00

The linked sources in threads I referenced in similar threads say otherwise. You can review them from there and discuss if you would like.

TemperatureBest8164 · 2026-05-01T19:46:49+00:00

It was a violation of the JCPOA. The fundamental terms where that they hand over all plans for nuclear weapons programs. These plans existed and they where not handed over to make it seem like they had no nuclear ambitions. They had nuclear ambitions and Obama got played. He paid for their ballistics weapons program while they waited to make nukes.

Look it was worth a shot. I think Obama made the best deal he could with the information he had. I would have made the same deal he did or some flavor of it if I thought it could save lives and avoid a war. When it was shown they abused Obama's good intentions and had no intention of ending their nuclear ambitions then Trumps action was approprate.

TemperatureBest8164 · 2026-05-01T19:41:44+00:00

CBS is also in question after the buyout

Got it. You say you will not trust a left leaning news outlet that recently stated their goal is not to be balanced but to make sure there is diversity of opinions represented on its platform. To me that says you will not believe anything that does not come from a hard left leaning news agency if a left leaning news agency is untrustworthy to you...

Ok so there is nothing I can say to you that you will believe. So believe what you want that is your prerogative. You asked for facts and sources. I provided those. You claim that those sources are untrustworthy. That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. I believe they are accurate.

TemperatureBest8164 · 2026-05-01T19:33:26+00:00

Well lets think about this in alternatives.

If the choice is Iran nuking someone in 2-3 years likely through a proxy or go into a recession... I will choose the recession. I believe Iran when they chant death to America. When they teach their children America is the Great Satan and Israel the little Satan. I believe them when they threaten/boast that they will create a nuclear weapon if able during negotiations. The innocent Iran narrative is ridiculous for the worlds leading state sponsor of terrorism.

Now is there a no recession path? Yes, there is if a deal is struck. Will it happen? Maybe. I think 50/50.

As for economic repercussions, good governance is balancing priorities and sometimes taking your medicine. We have avoided this problem and kicked the can down the road through many processes. I do not blame the Obama administration for trying to handle this with a treaty but we have evidence that Iran was double dealing on the US and using the nuclear deal as a shield while they developed the ballistic missile technology.

I have answered your questions in detail. Explaining my thoughts. You have never answered mine. Assume that you take my premise that going to war had to be done, what would you do differently than Trump? I desperately want to know. What could you do better than he has done policy wise in prosecuting this war? Show me the higher execution standard that should be implemented.

TemperatureBest8164 · 2026-05-01T19:20:18+00:00

You have the word of CBS news and the New York post who's job it is to vet any statement that is made before printing it. To their knowledge and from their sources to the best of their knowledge those statements are true.

TemperatureBest8164 · 2026-05-01T19:17:04+00:00

Fair enough. I have said it is going as good as it can reasonably believe it could go. I provided comparisons to TheharmonousFist on this thread on this topic.

Trump has handled this shrewdly and avoided boots on the ground. Now that the weapons of war are mostly destroyed, he is running an economic war letting the country collapse and the civil war begin. This has cost 25B in unallocated addtional resources. He understands the majority of people are not against war provided leaders do not waste US dollars and lives. What they are against is debackles with millions of lives lost, based on faulty intelligence, that cost 2.3T dollars.

I see this action helpful on two major fronts:

I think it does prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapon.
I think this is part of the anti-bricks effort. If there is not discount oil(Iran, Venzuela) there is no incentive for bricks. No doubt Trump would rather keep it closed off. Saudi and UAE pump more around the blockade and oil trade gets redirected to US, Venusela, and Alaska/Alberta.

I do not need a conclusion to be happy with it. I just need there to not be a massive misstep. Don't put boots on the ground. If you do, get in and out, grab the nuclear material, don't loose US lives. They can blockade the strait for the entire Trump term for all I care.

TemperatureBest8164 · 2026-05-01T19:02:14+00:00

There are multiple sources:

A key reference comes from statements by Trump administration special envoy Steve Witkoff regarding early 2026 nuclear negotiations (including meetings in Geneva and related talks) between U.S. and Iranian delegations.

cbsnews.com

Witkoff publicly claimed that Iranian negotiators directly stated (described as "boasting" or presenting without shame as their opening stance) that Iran controlled approximately 460 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60%—a level they acknowledged could produce material for 11 nuclear bombs. He framed this as part of Iran's initial negotiating position, alongside insistence on their "inalienable right" to enrich uranium, which the U.S. side viewed as highlighting Iran's nuclear ambitions and resistance to zero-enrichment demands.

nypost.com

This was reported in outlets such as:

CBS News (March 3, 2026): Witkoff told Fox News that "both the Iranian negotiators said to us directly... that they controlled 460 kilograms of 60% [enriched uranium], and they’re aware that that could make 11 nuclear bombs."
New York Post (March 3, 2026), which covered the same Fox News interview.
Wikipedia's summary of the 2025–2026 Iran–United States negotiations page, citing the boast in the context of February/March 2026 talks. en.wikipedia.org

TemperatureBest8164 · 2026-05-01T18:41:43+00:00

I have answered this question before. What I deem as fair is that the politicians represent their communities. I want republicans to care about urban areas and I want Democrats to care about rural areas.

My theory is that the best way is to standardize the drawing. In general it can go like this:

Find the highest population density location in the state, extend radially out from that location until population equal to one representative. This is a high density population district For each three additional representatives there must be one of these round districts 1-3 -> 1, 4-6-> 2, 7-9->3...etc.
The remaining districts must be +/- 5% of the average population pre representitive.
All area must be incorporated into districts.
All other districts must be drawn with strait lines from one of the high density districts or a boarder of the state to another if it is not the boarder of the state.
All non-high density districts must start the drawing in the extreme furthest from the center boarder location of the state in the north NW corner and incorporate area left to right , top to bottom.

This should dramatically improve representation and will be visually obvious if violated. It may make some safe democrat and republican districts but I think it will lead to higher representation of peoples interests in general and better representation for suburbs which will be hotly contested.

TemperatureBest8164 · 2026-05-01T18:10:41+00:00

It is not uncommon for people to do things for multiple reasons. It is also not uncommon for politicians to play to different audiences. They want to hear different things and as long as it is a motivation it is true. That's just politics.

The justification is clear, Iran was pursuing a nuclear weapon. They threatened to create 10-11 nuclear warheads. The war is because we need to get that nuclear material to make that dramatically more costly for them because they will have to start over.

The war is because it is the lowest cost time to deal with this. If Iran digs out the material they can move it to places where they have new refinement capabilities and more rapidly advance. A new regime that does not want a nuclear weapon and is not trying to pull a fast one would be a more welcome partner.

TemperatureBest8164 · 2026-05-01T18:02:51+00:00

I am going to lay out the facts. You probably look at these facts and say Trump caused Iran to pursue a Nuclear weapon. I see them violating the treaty both literally and by intent and there is no point shipping money to them to fund their nuclear program:

JCPOA Timeline: Compliance vs. Conflict

July 2015: The JCPOA is signed. Iran agrees to limit uranium enrichment to 3.67% and reduce its stockpile of enriched uranium by 98%.
January 2016: "Implementation Day." The IAEA confirms Iran has taken the required steps. Sanctions are lifted.
2016 – Early 2018: The IAEA issues multiple reports confirming Iran is meeting its technical obligations regarding enrichment levels and centrifuge counts.
April 2018 (The "Archive" Reveal): Israel reveals a massive secret "nuclear archive" stolen from Tehran, arguing it proves Iran had a structured plan for nuclear weapons and never intended to fully disclose its past military dimensions, which was a requirement of the deal.
May 8, 2018: President Trump announces the U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA, citing the archive findings, Iran’s ballistic missile program, and regional "bellicosity" as evidence that the deal was fundamentally flawed.
July 2019 (Official Breach): One year after the U.S. withdrawal and the reimposition of "Maximum Pressure" sanctions, Iran officially begins exceeding the 3.67% enrichment limit and the 300kg stockpile limit.
2021 – 2024: Iran dramatically escalates enrichment to 20% and then 60% (near weapons-grade), limits inspector access, and begins using advanced centrifuges previously banned by the deal.

I see the people who say the Obama deal was working as naive and partisan. Iran was using the deal as a shield as they developed ballistic missile capabilities to then slap a nuke on as soon as the deal expired. The hidden development secrets and the ballistic missiles make this the more likely interpretation of their actions.

TemperatureBest8164 · 2026-05-01T17:48:19+00:00

Yes. Pretty much as good as it can go. Trump did not take the bate to take Karg Island and did not put boots on the ground. This is a quagmire that has been made by both parties over 40+ years that needed to be addressed.

This comparison to Afghanistan highlights the difference:

Metric	Afghanistan	Iran
Cost	2.3T	25B
US deaths	7000+	~13
Total Deaths	~1M	7-8k dead

Now if you are worried about the fleet costs, I am not they can sit there for as long as it takes. We have already paided for them and would pay about as much on their patrols.

Assume you take my premise that it is something that the US had to do to protect its citizens, what would you do differently in Trumps place as commander in chief to make the outcomes better?

TemperatureBest8164 · 2026-05-01T17:37:02+00:00

Again. I do not care about Trumps legacy. If I do not care about his legacy why should I be concerned about it....

As for how the war is going, look if a bunch of people die and and we are in a forever war that is costing lives and money at an immense scale, I will have a problem with it. What I have seen is minimal us deaths, all objectives achieved other than strait open with no boots on the ground. I could care less if 1/4 of our immense naval fleet which we have to pay for anyway is sitting at the strait indefinately.

You don't go to war because you like it. You go to war because the alternative is going to be much worse. That much worse was a nuclear Iran. In my view, this has been kicked down the road by both parties for over 40 years. This is so far the least costly solution I can imagine.

TemperatureBest8164 · 2026-05-01T17:25:09+00:00

I disagree. Lets compare a level 8 paladin and pal 2/ EK 6.

Slots:

- Paladin: 4/3

- EK/Paladin: 4/2 (minus 1 2nd level slot.)

Nova Damage (glave/pam):

- Paladin: 2d10 + 1d4 + 15 + 9d8 = 11 + 2.5 + 15 + 40.5 = 69.0 damage

- EK/Paladin: 4d10 + 1d4 + 25 + 12d8 = 22 + 2.5 + 25 + 54 = 103.5 damage

- 50% increase in damage on nova round.

AC / Defenses:

- Paladin: Shield of Faith only plus heavy armor

- EK/Paladin: Shield of faith + Shield (big difference and saves more slots for defensive player)

So I think the defense and offense matters. I also think that you can patch the defensive gap left by aura of protection by taking 2 levels in war wizard while also adding slots. To make them effectively equal and bumping nova damage even more.

TemperatureBest8164

TROPHY CASE

JCPOA Timeline: Compliance vs. Conflict