Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Poopymonster]

Yeah...that speech on racial inequality is going to be 100% telepromptor just so he doesn't say "The sheriff is near!"

Or...was "police should still use choke holds" the speech on racial inequality? Was this E.O. the statement on race?

But my Grandma was dutch.

[Thepersona]

Not in the US. States can't afford the loss of revenue, nor can big businesses afford the losses.

They'll have to. Without lockdowns, we'll be seeing 100s of thousands of dead americans in the coming months. And that may just make some people start seeing the hammer and sickle with a more sympathetic light

[Stormspark]

Not in the US. States can't afford the loss of revenue, nor can big businesses afford the losses.

I honestly think the US is just going to reopen everything, and stop testing, and just ignore the 150k-200k dead.

[Poopymonster]

They'll have to. Without lockdowns, we'll be seeing 100s of thousands of dead americans in the coming months. And that may just make some people start seeing the hammer and sickle with a more sympathetic light

That's long term. The next quarter is what matters the most.

Honestly, if another lockdown happens, the company I work for goes under. Nationwide closings. I'm OK with that, due to not being the emo nihilist I was in the early/mid 90s and not wanting to die horribly. There will be other jobs. May pay less, may pay more. I'd find one eventually. Others will also. But the suits who have been working from home with no contact with the public think "A sneeze guard, gallons of hand sanitizer, and signs telling people to stay 6 feet apart and shit" will fix it now BUY OUR SHIT! They are horribly wrong. "Come back to work or lose your unemployment." is a nasty gun to have to your head, I told my workers back at the end of March to not answer the phone if it's work if you don't feel it's safe.

[PhaelixWW]

But you argued previously that it would result in NO changes

- which means your initial premise was incorrect, using your own logic above. We know at least five times where it would increase gains and change the totals of the Electoral College (while admittedly not changing the result of the vote at all). I know the actual percentages are small, but a change is a change - and that's the point of this piece of the discussion.

Recall you said:

Uh... I don't know why this is hard to understand, but it would change next to nothing because it's still proportional.

Hrm, yes, I do recall saying that. Especially the bolded portion, which I very carefully, and deliberately stated.

So, no, I didn't say "no changes", I said "change next to nothing". That qualifier has meaning, and ignoring it is a part of the goalpost shift that's pissing me off right now. Changes that bolster the already-winning party are meaningless to the outcome. And in the remaining <20%, the change averages around half a percent.

Surely you agree that that qualifies as "next to nothing"?

Moreover, the wiki article goes on to say that the 2000 election would have resulted in a tie. Bush and Cheney would have won the Contingent election of course, but no one can argue that isn't a change - and a dramatic one.

This goes under the heading of "anecdotal evidence". Rare things do occasionally happen. The idea that an uncommon half-percent push is "next to nothing" is not antithetical to a situation in which that half-percent actually has some kind of impact. Both are rare; the confluence of both even more so. The 2000 election was quite clearly the exception and not the rule. And ultimately, even a tie in that situation would have produced no different outcome.

So yes, in the anecdotal case of the 2000 election, it could have almost been meaningful.

While the overall outcome might not change, and this was admittedly a surprise to me, the distribution of votes and the watering of the power states like Montana and New Hampshire carry over states like California and Texas is a goal in and of itself. While proportionality would remain, the distribution of EC votes would be more accurate to the population. It would make it much closer to one person one vote, whereas now that is not the case.

But see, then the problem lies with the root of the EC and the standard winner-takes-all state EVs, not specifically the House representation. Why not make make House EVs vote according to the vote of the Congressional district, like Nebraska? GoP lawmakers in Nebraska were unhappy that Obama was able to "steal" one of their EV's by winning the district around Omaha and have attempted to go back to the winner-takes-all method.

Of course, you run into the same problem as increasing the size of the House: whoever is in power is unlikely to sign a law that diminishes that power. And while the idea of the Wyoming method is novel, there's not a great deal of public support for increasing the size of the House, which makes it somewhat of a non-starter.

I have to admit I was very surprised to see that the results don't dramatically change with the Wyoming Rule in place. I'm going to annoy the holy shit out of you here (if I haven't already - ) by saying that just *feels* wrong. I know, I know - feels have nothing to do with statistics and math and logic. But dammit, it's hard to shake off.

Again, the far easier solution would be through the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. That would make every presidential election vote have equal weight, period.

I mean, I have very little problem with the Wyoming method as it relates to House representation by itself. But its effect on the EC would be minimal, and there's definitely no guarantee that it would specifically favor one political party over another.

In this section you're measuring only the House EV's and not the state's total - which includes the Senate pieces of the combined EC vote from each state, which dramatically affect the variables and worth of each vote. Maybe I'm missing something, but per your points above, the static nature of the Senate apportionment of EV is what makes the smaller states EC votes worth dramatically more than the larger states.

Am I missing something here?

But that's the nature of the EC. It was set up that way specifically to give a larger voice to smaller states who feared that the federal government would only pay attention to the larger states. The idea is that the tradeoff for having less overall representation in Congress is having a higher proportion of representation in Congress on a per capita basis.

Now, we've somewhat outgrown that idea, with state populations that range as dramatically as they do today. Yet any EC system that focuses solely on increasing the size of the House will maintain that disparity, even if it's lessened. And the point that I was trying to make is that Senate EV is already dramatically overshadowed by House EV by more than 4:1. Any increase in House size (and thus EV) will tend to have less of an effect than it "feels" like it should, because the House EV is already weighted so highly.

But fine; you brought up Montana and California, for example. Under current rules, Montana has a total EV (not just House EV) worth of 330k per vote (990k / 3 EV), while California is 677k (37m / 55 EV). That means that a vote in Montana is worth 2.05x that of a vote in California, right? Well, under the Wyoming method, that changes to Montana at 247k per vote (990k / 4 EV) and California at 548k (37m / 68 EV). So under the Wyoming method, a vote in Montana would now be worth 2.22x that of a vote in California.

Which means that the Wyoming method would actually increase the disparity between Montana and California. Now, this is only one example; there are other examples where the disparity is lessened. And for sure, the overall trend as the size of House increased would be a general overall lessening of the disparity, but as I've pointed out a few times now, that lessening will be minimal, even once you start reaching truly absurd levels of House size.

The whole point of all of this is that it's better to change the rules entirely than to bemoan a disparity yet do very little to effectively change it.

[cubby]

Well I posted on this before, so I'll be brief: I think the publisher already has signed documents from the White House giving the green light, I think Trump is trying to back out of a signed contract again, I think more and more press and publishers are looking at Trump's attack against them and are done waiting their turn to be next, and I think the book will be leaked.

Agreed. The lawsuit might be a nonstarter, since you pointed out that the White House National Security Team already vetted the book. And it's set to be released next fucking week (that a publishing term of art btw), which means advanced copies might have already been sent out.

The real reason this popped up again, if I had to bet, is because Trump forgot about it. We did this whole thing back in February/March, and the book's contents were vetted. So there isn't any merit to the lawsuit. I would ponder a guess that Resident Deplorable was reminded of the book's upcoming release while indulging in a birthday Obama Appreciation Day marathon treat of McDonald's and Fox News/OANN gorging. When he saw the "story" and lost his fucking mind.

There is also an outside possibility that the entire endeavor is a publicity stunt to sell more books for Bolton - but I myself wouldn't buy into that. Trump does not like to be disagreed with, and seeing in written form, with more "examples of impeachable offenses" doesn't seem like something even he would sign up for on the long con.

[Breccia]

You can't make this shit up.

Interesting tactic. Hey @cubby can you launch a lawsuit, then fire your lawyer, with the express intent of dragging things out?

[Edge-]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-...-signed-an-nda

So...apparently Trump's niece is writing a scandalous book about Trump. And apparently Trump is looking into ways to stop that, including taking her to court over NDA's she's previously signed.

No, this isn't a really bad season finale for Desperate Househusbands, the hottest new reality TV show on on Starz. This is real life and the President of the United States of America.

[PhaelixWW]

After which Antigannon showed, correctly, that the proportionality did change, because more Reps means that "minimum of one" has a much smaller effect. I won't bother quoting it, you already did, so you either read it already or didn't bother.

* BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT! *

Nope, the proportionality never changes, excluding the usual rounding errors. Until a state population is less than 1/870th the population of the 50 states, that's not a problem. Based on 2010 census data, each House seat is nominally equal to about 708k population. That proportionality is consistent. Wyoming's 563k correctly rounds up to 1 EV. Montana's 990k correctly rounds down to 1 EV. The only thing causing disparity are the rounding errors, not the proportionality, which remains constant.

You can correctly argue that certain methods limit the rounding errors, but they don't change the proportionality.

I've helpfully bolded the numbers that aren't zero.

Aw, sad. Not only did you quite obviously fail to read it in the initial conversation, but you failed to read it even when I quoted and bolded it for you. I clearly stated that the House EV was proportional, not that the state EV was proportional.

I tried to make that as clear as I could. I expected you, being a math and statistics instructor, to understand that concept, but I guess I was just giving you too much credit.

Those bolded changes are indeed changes. But they're changes based on the total state EV calculation (which is not proportional), not on the House EV calculation (which is proportional, less rounding issues).

Now, maybe you're about to say "I meant no significant change" at which I point out Antigannon meant to say "directly proportional", and he still wins.

Lulz with the "what he meant was". Does it feel dirty to be picking up GoP tricks? Shame, shame. Regardless, it's wrong for the above reason.

It should also be noted that @cubby made a suggestion of 700 Reps. I know you saw his post too, you quoted it, hopefully you read it.

Well, sure, I did 547 Reps and 10273 Reps, but I'm sure 700 Reps will be wildly different, eh! Because that's how math works, right? /s

Assuming no other changes (Reps still worth 1, Senators are still worth 2) and these handy dot-gov results, I recomputed every state's EC on the new 800 total, which is what @cubby was saying when you jumped in and changed the rules.

* BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT! *

Point of order: The good folks of the DC area take exception to your complete dismissal of their votes. 700 Reps would equal 803 EC votes, as DC would still be worth 3 EVs, mirroring Wyoming. Not off to a great start, are you?

California gets 86 of them. As in "I just eighty-sixed your argument" by giving California 31 new votes.

That'd sting harder (not really) if it weren't for the fact that California would actually get 87, not 86.

A nominal value of between ~440515 and ~440825 per House seat allow for 700 total seats with proper rounding, based on 2010 census data for the 50 states. Any less than ~440515 and SC gains another seat (to 11) making it 701 Reps and any more than ~440825 and Arizona loses a seat (to 14) making it 699 Reps.

That nominal value range would lead to 85 California House EVs, plus the 2 for the Senate makes 87.

I don't know how your math is failing you, but it is.

Clinton's dominance in too many larger states, which just got a buttload of effectively unmatched EC votes, means in cubby's scenario Clinton wins 434 to 366.

* BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT! *

Well, now you've truly gone off the rails. I dunno, but maybe you should demand some money back for your education, because in this scenario, Trump would still win 457-346 (or maybe 458-347, depending on whether Maine ended up going 4-1 or 3-2; I'll give Hillary the benefit of the doubt, however).

For reference, the 700 Reps method gives Trump a 56.91% victory, which is still worse than reality's 56.88% victory, but ever-so-slightly-better than the Wyoming method's 56.92% victory.

Unfortunately, that means we'd still be sitting here in this TRUMP SHITSHOW regardless.

That sound you heard was me dropping the mic.

The only thing I hear sounds suspiciously like you sobbing quietly into your drink. Or perhaps the sound of you fainting from embarrassment.

Who knows.

But seriously, I can't for the life of me imagine how it can be hard for a math and statistics instructor to understand basic concepts.

Hillary won 20 states (+DC) totaling 134.3m people. Trump won 30 states totaling 174.3m people. How can you possibly not get that increasing the weight of votes tied to population could not possibly bring him below 50%? He won 58.8% (30/51) of Senate EV and 56.5% (174.3m/308.6m) of the states' population's worth of House EV. Weighting more towards the Senate EV (lowering House size) would push his victory percent closer to that 58.8 mark and weighting more towards the House EV (increasing House size) would push his victory percent closer to the 56.5 mark, but those are the absolute boundaries.

Nothing else is mathematically possible.

I don't know why you personally invited this three-on-one beatdown, but it'll be the last. I might be Chef Breccia, but you only get served once.

It's true: you're finished. "Chef Breccia" will be serving himself crow tonight.

[Breccia]

It doesn't take effect until July 3. Which tells you a lot about what they think about the chances of the case going anywhere.

I saw that, and I'm also thinking the case won't get very far -- based on some assumptions, namely the publishers not being complete morons. I added to that list of assumptions "swapping lawyers is a reason to file for an extension" and Trump wants desperately to stall till mid-Nov.

[Stormspellz]

It doesn't take effect until July 3. Which tells you a lot about what they think about the chances of the case going anywhere.

- - - Updated - - -



Trump is trying to sue anyone and everyone writing a book he doesn't like... this could get dangerous since I'm not sure he's ever met a book he did like.

its also the only strat he knows. bully nuisance suit spam

[Breccia]

This one mystified me.

Oklahoma health commissioner recommends Trump rally attendees get coronavirus tests

Recommends? Why wasn't this mandated? By Trump of course. Yes, I know they're doing temperature checks. No, that's not the same thing.

[Antiganon]

This one mystified me.

Oklahoma health commissioner recommends Trump rally attendees get coronavirus tests

Recommends? Why wasn't this mandated? By Trump of course. Yes, I know they're doing temperature checks. No, that's not the same thing.

Well more testing might show that we have more cases. We can't have that.

@PhaelixWW I will admit my math was off. I still think it is worth doing for the benefits to general legislation (smaller districts are objectively better at providing an avenue for constituents to reach out to their representative), but doing it in favor of the EC changes isn't even half the puzzle, you'd need to also do district based allocation with a statewide popular vote kicker for that to work.

Or just eliminate the EC entirely, or get a few more states on board with NPVIC.

[Breccia]

Record spike in new coronavirus cases reported in six U.S. states as reopening accelerates

"You already posted that."

Last time, it was four. Doesn't matter, this is still today's article.

Arizona, Florida, Oklahoma, Oregon and Texas all reported record increases in new cases on Tuesday after recording all-time highs last week. Nevada also reported its highest single-day tally of new cases on Tuesday, up from a previous high on May 23. Hospitalizations are also rising or at record highs.

At Arizona’s Tucson Medical Center on Monday, just a single intensive care unit (ICU) bed designated for COVID-19 patients was available, with the other 19 beds filled, a hospital representative said.

Across the United States, 17 states saw new cases rise last week, according to a Reuters analysis.

Health officials in many states attribute the spike to businesses reopening and Memorial Day weekend gatherings in late May. Many states are also bracing for a possible increase in cases stemming from tens of thousands of people protesting to end racial injustice and police brutality for the past three weeks.

In other words, everyone saw this coming. And now, it's here.

- - - Updated - - -

The good people at NBC News found something interesting. It's "there's always a tweet for it" only worse.

Trump says Obama didn't reform policing — but he did. Then the president ditched it.

President Donald Trump claimed Tuesday that his predecessor did not take action on reforming police — even though it was under Trump that several Obama-era changes were scrapped.

"President Obama and Vice President Biden never even tried to fix this during their eight-year period. The reason they didn't try is they had no idea how to do it," Trump said in the White House Rose Garden before he signed an executive order that encourages police departments to adopt high standards, like banning chokeholds unless the life of the officer is at risk, and to create a database of excessive force complaints.

But Obama, the nation's first Black president

...fucking seriously?

who confronted and addressed race and racism frequently, did take action to reform police and try to reduce bias in law enforcement. The Trump administration is well aware of that, too: It unraveled those changes.

"He said President Obama did nothing on police reform, but the fact is they made a lot of progress and President Trump rolled it back," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said Tuesday.

In August 2017, Trump reversed an Obama policy that banned the military from selling surplus equipment to police, a measure that had been put in place amid criticism over the armored vehicles, tear gas and assault rifles used to control protests after the police killing of Michael Brown, 18, in Ferguson, Missouri, in 2014.

In addition, in September 2017, the Justice Department said it would stop the Obama-era practice of investigating police departments and issuing public reports about their failings. For example, the Justice Department had investigated the Ferguson Police Department and found unconstitutional, unlawful and racist behavior and policing within the department.

Those reports were used to demand change and negotiate consent decrees, legal agreements between local police and the Justice Department mandating reforms enforceable by courts.

It doesn't say "choke holds" but, yeah, Trump explicitly made things worse -- from the point of view of the protestors, I should clarify. They seem to be right where Trump wants them for using military force against unarmed civilians.

- - - Updated - - -

We have more on the lawsuit, courtesy of real news CNN.

The suit, filed in Washington, DC, federal court, alleges that Bolton's 500-plus page manuscript was "rife with classified information," and prosecutors say that Bolton backed out of an ongoing White House vetting process for the book that he'd been obligated to do as a result of the agreements.

"(Bolton) struck a bargain with the United States as a condition of his employment in one of the most sensitive and important national security positions in the United States Government and now wants to renege on that bargain by unilaterally deciding that the prepublication review process is complete and deciding for himself whether classified information should be made public," prosecutors write.

Bolton's book has already shipped to warehouses ahead of its scheduled release. He has taped an interview with ABC slated to air Sunday. And a source close to him says he is intent on publishing the book as scheduled Tuesday, meaning he expects to deal with any ramifications from the administration in the aftermath, not before.

Bolton's attorney, Chuck Cooper, told CNN they "are reviewing the Government's complaint, and will respond in due course."

Bolton's publisher, Simon & Schuster, said in a statement Tuesday that the lawsuit "is nothing more than the latest in a long running series of efforts by the Administration to quash publication of a book it deems unflattering to the President."

"Ambassador Bolton has worked in full cooperation with the NSC in its pre-publication review to address its concerns and Simon & Schuster fully supports his First Amendment right to tell the story of his time in the White House to the American public," the statement said.

In a letter sent to the NSC's legal adviser last week, Cooper accused the White House of seeking to block the book for "purely political reasons," adding that "as a practical matter, (it) comes too late."

After several in-person meetings and rounds of edits culminating in late April, Bolton appeared to have cleared the prepublication review. Ellen Knight, the official who reviewed the book, had determined that the latest version of the manuscript no longer contained classified information, the lawsuit says.

But less than a week later, another round of reviews had begun in the White House, this time conducted by Michael Ellis, the NSC's senior director for intelligence. That review came at the request of Robert O'Brien, Bolton's successor as national security adviser, according to the lawsuit.

So, yep, Trump broke the contract.

Having worked with publishers plenty, I'm working under the assumption that a publisher big enough to land Bolton's book will be careful and thorough enough to handle it properly. This isn't some random-ass blogger, after all.

In addition to the delayed publication, the administration is asking the court to order Bolton's publisher to "retrieve and dispose" of any copies of the book that have already been disseminated. They also ask for any money the book earns from its sales -- or the sale of movie rights from it -- in the event that it is published without a completed prepublication review.

"You can't sell it, and give us the money from sales". Um...what?

This will not end well for Team Trump. The court might try to push it back out of an abundance of caution, but if the publishers have a signed contract saying "You may publish the book, signed Trump" and Bolton waves it in court, I don't see how Trump changing his mind has any legal standing.

[cubby]

Interesting tactic. Hey @cubby can you launch a lawsuit, then fire your lawyer, with the express intent of dragging things out?

Indeed. The judge, when he's done laughing, will keep the original date of the hearing and expect Department of Justine Trump's Personal Law Firm to meet their own court date.

[Breccia]

when he's done laughing

Oh wow, it's that bad? Damn. So that raises some interesting questions like "why is the lawyer leaving?" and "Did Trump pay him?|"

[PhaelixWW]

@PhaelixWW I will admit my math was off. I still think it is worth doing for the benefits to general legislation (smaller districts are objectively better at providing an avenue for constituents to reach out to their representative), but doing it in favor of the EC changes isn't even half the puzzle, you'd need to also do district based allocation with a statewide popular vote kicker for that to work.

Oh, absolutely. I would also hope that a larger pool of Representatives would somewhat limit lobbyist spending as less worth it for a reduced effectiveness. It would at least spread the money out a bit more, at the very least. Maybe it's just the blind optimist in me that hopes that that would lead to more honest Representatives in general.

Or just eliminate the EC entirely, or get a few more states on board with NPVIC.

I mean... por que no los dos?

But again, I sincerely doubt that the House is going to vote to diminish their individual power. Any such reapportionment change would likely have to come through an Amendment. The NPVIC at least has a decent chance of succeeding, without requiring the Amendment needed to outright undo the EC.

[Breccia]

The Senate GOP puts out a bill about chokeholds which looks a lot like Trump's E.O. on chokeholds.

So...the E.O. did basically nothing?

- - - Updated - - -

Pence says campaign looking at other venues for Trump Tulsa rally

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

*deep breath*

MUHAHAHAHAHAHA

A Trump campaign official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said later the rally would be held at the BOK Center arena in downtown Tulsa as planned, “but the campaign is also considering other areas adjacent to the arena to allow the president to address even more people.”

Questions about logistics for the rally and its public health implications mounted as an Oklahoma judge denied a petition for a court order to block the event until organizers adopt social-distancing measures to curb coronavirus infections.

Pence acknowledged the health risks of bringing so many people together - the campaign said it had received more than 1 million ticket requests - during an interview with Fox News.

Pence's talk of "oh, we need a place with more people" seems...disingenuous. I think Tulsa is doing what NC is doing, refusing to change laws and risk their own people just to save Trump's feelings. This leaves Team Trump playing the "we were going somewhere else anyhow!" game. Or possible "in fact, forget the blackjack!"

[Milchshake]

A friend does a great Jeff Foxworthy impression:
"If you're afraid of ramps and your niece .... you might be President of the US!"

[Antiganon]

Intuitively it seems that the Wyoming rule would create significant disparity in representation between the most populous state with n legislators and the least populous one with n+1 legislators (with it at max between the largest single legislator and the smallest double legislator states). Realistically the only way to get out of that and get much closer to parity would likely require a significant increase in seats.

Imo the most important aspect of increasing the number of seats would not even be parity in representation anyway. It would be disturbing lobbying efficiency. Every additional seat added weakens lobbying by increasing the cost it takes to buy a desired outcome. Really a country the size of the US could easily have a lower chamber with a thousand or more members.

As for the presidential elections, no adjustment to the elector system will really give parity. The only solution is to abolish and move to direct representation, if needed through a two-round system.

I think the EC can be salvaged, but it would require a few things.

1. Wyoming method for Congressional apportionment. This has other benefits as well, which have been detailed above.
2. District-based allocation of all but two EVs per state. Remaining 2 EVs go to the statewide popular vote winner.
3. Ranked Choice Voting for ALL federal positions. For the Presidency, add a second stage of instant runoff if no candidate reaches 51% of EVs.
4. Campaign Finance Reform (this is complex enough to warrant its own thread). TL;DR, reverse Citizens United, Buckley, and McCutcheon.

With those changes, you would have the following:
1. 570 Representatives in the House, each representing ~600,000 people.
2. A real opportunity for third parties to compete at the national level, even for the Presidency.
3. The ability for new parties or independent candidates to compete on less uneven footing with the big established parties.
4. A requirement to build a coalition to form a majority in the House, and to a lesser extent, the Senate, encouraging more cooperation between parties on issues where the majority of the electorate supports action.