Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Breccia]

Unless I missed it kinda shocked no one posted this.
https://www.ajc.com/politics/trump-p...MJ6YXDPXQOSWY/

Maybe. I chose not to post that. "A decision is coming" did not strike me as worth posting.

But, I did see a few people suggesting this is less of an announcement and more of a warning. "Talk to the DA voluntarily while you still have a shot", they translated. I don't know if I believe that, honestly, but I can't exactly refute it, either.

That said, I can't think of a good reason someone in that position would say "a decision is coming" when they already know they're going to drop all charges against everyone.

[Poopymonster]

Of course, there's always "run third party". That'd end the matter, right there.

Oh for Cher's sake you have to stop with this. After Fux news settled, Cucker got fired, and now you're dangling Trump running third party splitting the vote?



This priapism is going to be the death of me.
And possibly my SO.

[Gorsameth]

Gerrymandering doesn't actually affect the electoral college at all. It's based on the absolute number of seats in each state, not which parties hold them.

But that absolute number of seats is games aswell. Its not a static 1 seat per X people that is the same for every state. a single vote in low population states is worth 'more' then in high population states. And the former then to be conservative and the latter tend to be liberal.

[Fugus]

But that absolute number of seats is games aswell. Its not a static 1 seat per X people that is the same for every state. a single vote in low population states is worth 'more' then in high population states. And the former then to be conservative and the latter tend to be liberal.

DELETED OLD POST AS I DID THE MATH MYSELF.

When it comes to a presidential election, 1 single vote in Wyoming is worth 3.69 votes in California.

[Edge-]

When it comes to a presidential election I believe i read it came out to 1 vote in Wyoming being worth over 60 votes in California. Just due to the electoral college.

https://theconversation.com/whose-vo...-college-74280

Seems to be around 3:1 for that comparison. Which is still insane that in terms of the presidency that each California vote is worth 1/3 of a Wyoming vote.

[Fugus]

https://theconversation.com/whose-vo...-college-74280

Seems to be around 3:1 for that comparison. Which is still insane that in terms of the presidency that each California vote is worth 1/3 of a Wyoming vote.

Actually corrected that myself but thanks for the response. Slow to respond myself on my phone.

It’s 3.69 to 1.

Takes 4 California votes to beat a single Wyoming vote.

[DarkTZeratul]

But that absolute number of seats is games aswell. Its not a static 1 seat per X people that is the same for every state. a single vote in low population states is worth 'more' then in high population states. And the former then to be conservative and the latter tend to be liberal.

But that's not something that a party can really "game" since the electors are chosen based on the popular vote within that state.

[Fugus]

But that's not something that a party can really "game" since the electors are chosen based on the popular vote within that state.

Except for the part where they admit territories that they think will vote for them and even going as far as to split territories up to inflate their representation while at the same time fighting to prevent others from joining because they wouldn’t.

We have Puerto Rico and DC as recent examples of it. If they had thought Alaska would vote Democrat it would still be a territory Hawaii backfired on them.

Wyoming and every other territory they admitted at once has paid off for them for over a century by comparison they want places that wouldn’t vote for them to have no representation at all if they can help it.

Then combine that with voter disenfranchisement where you block people to vote with the current states with skews their results as well.

[DarkTZeratul]

Except for the part where they admit territories that they think will vote for them and even going as far as to split territories up to inflate their representation while at the same time fighting to prevent others from joining because they wouldn’t.

We have Puerto Rico and DC as recent examples of it. If they had thought Alaska would vote Democrat it would still be a territory Hawaii backfired on them.

Wyoming and every other territory they admitted at once has paid off for them for over a century by comparison they want places that wouldn’t vote for them to have no representation at all if they can help it.

That has a lot more to do with the balance of the Senate than with the Electoral College. When was the last time Wyoming actually mattered in a presidential election?

Then combine that with voter disenfranchisement where you block people to vote with the current states with skews their results as well.

Which sucks, to be clear, but still isn't "manipulating the electoral college." Making it harder to vote is frustratingly effective regardless of the system.

[Ivanstone]

Except for the part where they admit territories that they think will vote for them and even going as far as to split territories up to inflate their representation while at the same time fighting to prevent others from joining because they wouldn’t.

We have Puerto Rico and DC as recent examples of it. If they had thought Alaska would vote Democrat it would still be a territory Hawaii backfired on them.

Wyoming and every other territory they admitted at once has paid off for them for over a century by comparison they want places that wouldn’t vote for them to have no representation at all if they can help it.

Then combine that with voter disenfranchisement where you block people to vote with the current states with skews their results as well.

You really can’t compare how statehood was used in the 19th century compares to modern politics. Most notably each party has realigned their voter bases in the intervening years. Yeah Harrison made two Dakotas because it helped him politically although the settlers wanted that anyways. Not so sure Harrison would’ve like a GOP that was full of Dixiecrats.

[Fugus]

That has a lot more to do with the balance of the Senate than with the Electoral College. When was the last time Wyoming actually mattered in a presidential election?

Had to do with both due to how the electoral college was setup. Help in the Senate directly contributed to the EC.

And it’s not just Wyoming, it’s also North Dakota, South Dakota, and a bunch of others and those numbers add up.

They didn’t just do some massive event to rig it, that would have been way too obvious, they have been doing it as much as they can get away with whether it is big or small, it adds up.

In old school WoW terms, a single item giving you 3% crit wasn’t huge but when you add it up over the course of your entire gear set it can be huge.

Which sucks, to be clear, but still isn't "manipulating the electoral college." Making it harder to vote is frustratingly effective regardless of the system.

Voter disenfranchisement is manipulating the electoral college. Good example, if your state has 25 EC votes and is winner take all, cutting your opponents votes by 5% can flip the results for the entire state and that is 25 stolen votes from that single state, now multiply that cross every battleground state and every state that is trending blue.

[postman1782]

Republicans sure love their sex offenders.

Considering they are defending Tucker, are you surprised? He is possibly one as well.

[Edge-]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/house-r...ing-bill-vote/

House Republicans made changes overnight to their legislation raising the debt ceiling and slashing roughly $4.5 trillion in government spending, as GOP leaders sought to bring on board a group of holdouts ahead of a vote that could come as soon as Wednesday.

The tweaks to Republicans' bill, which would lift the debt ceiling for the rest of the year and into 2024, leave intact ethanol tax credits that would've been repealed through the original proposal and move up implementation of more stringent work requirements for recipients of food stamps and Medicaid by one year, from 2025 to 2024.

Welp, them corn guys and gals got theirs. I wonder if other Republicans will see this as open season to deny McCarthy their votes unless he adds specific pot sweeteners for them, too.

[Breccia]

I wonder if other Republicans will see this as open season to deny McCarthy their votes unless he adds specific pot sweeteners for them, too.

Not yet.

This will fail in the Senate. Then McCarthy will turn around with a smug smile and say "See?"

[Edge-]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-b2327379.html

So uh...maybe there's a reason Trump didn't wade neck-deep into the whole Bud Light controversy.

He's a shareholder. And still is, apparently.

[Breccia]

He's a shareholder.

I'm fairly sure Trump didn't intentionally buy most of his shares of non-Trump businesses with much thought at all. But, yes, until he doesn't just sell but says "I'm selling because XXX" he is now telling Republicans he's part of this entire hilarious non-controversy.

[Edge-]

https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/26/polit...nts/index.html

Two of Donald Trump’s defense lawyers now believe that classified briefings of phone calls with foreign leaders were among “all manner of documents” in 15 boxes that Trump returned to the National Archives a year after he left the presidency, according to a new letter his lawyers sent to Congress.

This organization of the materials “indicates that the White House staff simply swept all documents from the President’s desk and other areas into boxes, where they have resided ever since,” the two lawyers, Timothy Parlatore and Jim Trusty, wrote to the GOP chair of the House Intelligence Committee on Wednesday.

It was just a few transcripts of calls with foreign heads of state! Amongst a lot of other things! Those get misplaced all the time!

[Fugus]

https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/26/polit...nts/index.html



It was just a few transcripts of calls with foreign heads of state! Amongst a lot of other things! Those get misplaced all the time!

Except the part where they have testimony that Trump went through the boxes by hand removing stuff he wanted to keep before returning them.

Would love to see his defense comments on that that isn’t calling them fake.

[Breccia]

Those get misplaced all the time!

Interesting that it was Timothy Parlatore and Jim Trusty. Not the names that jumped to mind.

[Edge-]

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/26/u...documents.html

Lawyers for former President Donald J. Trump asked lawmakers on Wednesday to place the intelligence community in charge of assessing Mr. Trump’s handling of the classified documents found in his possession after leaving office, saying Congress should strip the Justice Department of authority to run the investigation.

The 10-page letter to members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has little chance of leading to enactment of the legislation it seeks given that Democrats are in control of the Senate and the White House. But it seemed to serve a second function as well: It read like a trial brief of arguments that Mr. Trump could raise in his defense should the inquiry into his handling of classified materials being conducted by the special counsel Jack Smith result in criminal charges.

“A legislative solution by Congress is required to prevent the D.O.J. from continuing to conduct ham-handed criminal investigations of matters that are inherently not criminal,” said the letter, written by Timothy C. Parlatore, one of Mr. Trump’s lawyers.

The letter proposed that the Justice Department “should be ordered to stand down,” allowing the intelligence community to “conduct an appropriate investigation and provide a full report to this committee.”

Now this seems a bit odd since the DoJ is usually the one that does the investigating and charging in partnership with these intelligence agencies.

Obviously this will go literally nowhere since it will never leave the House, but it sure is curious how often Republicans want such hyper specific legislation that appears to only be proposed in an attempt to protect them from criminal investigation or charges.