Had to scroll through the rest of it to get there . Fucking why . <| sep |> How did u get it to 581 ? best I could do was 611 . <| sep |> I ' ve heard this before . If you don ' t mind me asking , why do you avoid large banks ? <| sep |> Thank you for all the information ! It ' s very helpful for planning and decisions ahead . <| sep |> it ' s good , but as all prebuilds , it ' s a bit overpriced and has one or the other WTF component like the tiny cooler , or an SSHD completely uselss when you already have an SSD pretty outdated . <| sep |> My aren ' t we the cheerful one <| sep |> Kind of was what you were saying . Well , I guess it might be interpreted that way , but that ' s not what I meant . if something happens in that 25 % of non voters leaning Democrat actually started participating , there ' s going to be a totally different turnout in Republicans as wellI agree that it ' s hard to narrowly appeal to just one group without alerting or appealing to others . E . g . get Democrats to turn out by appealing to the stakes on climate change , and you might just separately appeal to Republicans who want to stop jobkilling regulations against the energy industry in Texas . Or just make them aware that there ' s a surge of interest on the other side for whatever reason that could put the state in play . But I think it could be done through lowlevel channels . For instance , if you just keep the faith and be the change you want to see in the world while appealing to Democrats in a chainletter fashion I convince 2 friends , you convince 2 friends , etc . Doesn ' t mean it ' s going to happen , I just don ' t think it ' s insurmountable . They ' ve had a Republican Governor and Republican controlled legislature since 2010 Right . The governor is elected in offyear elections , which benefits Republicans in terms of turnout . They gerrymandered the fuck out of the state after 2010 , just like Republicans did nationally . Perhaps you ' ve heard that a panel of judges just overturned the gerrymander . The deciding vote was a Reagan appointee . Even the GW Bush appointee who dissented opened his opinion by writing Through a secretive and onesided process , the state Republican leaders who controlled the legislature used the latest computer software and political consultants to draw up legislative district maps with the unashamedly partisan goal of winning as many seats as possible . The maps they drew gave short shrift to traditional districting principles , often producing districts with unusual and suspicious shapes . The governor , also a Republican , quickly signed the act . The Republicans ' efforts we re rewarded when , in the very next election , they won more than twenty percent more seats in the legislature than their statewide vote totals would have suggested . The state in question is Indiana , not Wisconsin . The procedure used to draw the map in Indiana is identical to what led up to the enactment of Wisconsin ' s Act 43 in short , it was crafted in secret by Republicans who , at least in Indiana , conceded that naked political gain was their overwhelming purpose . It also allowed the Republicans to win far more seats than their statewide vote totals would warrant in the Plaintiffs ' parlance , a historicallyhigh efficiency gap of eleven percent . Thirty years ago , however , the Supreme Court upheld the districts drawn by Indiana Republicans , with a plurality of the Court concluding that the Democrats had not shown they were sufficiently injured . Basically , he agrees that what they did was bullshit but argues that established precedent binds them and that it ' s a political matter . Which is fine , but still illustrates what ' s going on .