Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread III

Leroy, while I don't really disagree with what you're saying, you and the poster you replied to are talking about different things.

Your entire solution works for the popular vote whereas Danzy is talking about what actually matters and that's the electoral college. You can't dismiss a claim that the Dems aren't engaging with large swathes of America by saying they win a lot on the coasts. Edit: The image above this post shows what I'm talking about.

Sure, you can argue that Democrats need to get young people outside of the Clinton archipelago out and voting more, but their leadership hasn't really changed since 2016 so I don't have any real hope for them campaigning better in 2020. They need to ignore California and NY to an extent, and take back the heart of the country if they want to make a long term difference and get majorities in the houses.

robinph

ELM327 wrote: »

Look at all the red areas vs all the blue areas

And instead of by the land area, how did it work based on the number of people who actually voted?

pixelburp

ELM327 wrote: »

Gerrymandered means changed to suit political bias
It has not been changed
The american political system has always revolved around the electoral college system. This is to stop one state controlling the entire union.
You forget it's not one country, it's a union of states.



The system was designed this way, and it has worked. If hillary won, it would have been a victory for two large cities over the rest of the country. By area it was a landslide for trump.


Look at all the red areas vs all the blue areas
https://brilliantmaps.com/2016-county-election-map/

Wrong; gerrymandering means redrawing constituency lines to suit a certain party, which has been going on for years now and is most evident in the various District elections. It has the most impact in Congressional elections - NOT the national Presidential one.

Just google the Pennsylvania 7th District to get a good example of how insane the redraws have become. So much so the Supreme Court had to get involved, IIRC to instruct that the constituencies be redrawn.

Edit: yes, here's a breakdown:

In February 2018, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court actually ruled the state's congressional boundaries were unconstitutional and demanded a new map. Pennsylvania's 2010 congressional map was widely criticized for gerrymandering, particularly the oddly shaped 7th district that eventually became a national joke. Due to its odd shape, it was nicknamed "Goofy Kicking Donald Duck."

After the court ruling, the Republicans in the state legislature produced a new congressional map. However, Governor Tom Wolf vetoed the map as it looked too similar to the 2010 version. Eventually, the task of creating a congressional map fell on the Pennsylvania Supreme court, who released a new version on February 24, 2018. This version was completely different, drawing districts vastly more cleanly. The map - if approved - will likely make Pennsylvania elections more competitive in the future.

Mancomb Seepgood

pixelburp wrote: »

Wrong; gerrymandering means redrawing constituency lines to suit a certain party, which has been going on for years now and is most evident in the various District elections.

Just google the Pennsylvania 7th District to get a good example of how insane the redraws have become. So much so the Supreme Court had to get involved, IIRC to instruct that the constituencies be redrawn.

As far as I know,you have to prove racial bias before the Supreme Court will act on gerrymandering.This happened in a districting North Carolina but that was a particularly blatant example (I believe some Republicans more or less admitted that's what they were up to).If you are simply trying to exclude voters from a particular party (or concentrate them into as few districts as possible),that seems to be ok.

Water John

Correct there Pixel. It's within the Disricts, the worst of this is carried out. We in Ireland brought it to a fine art in NI, even if its origin is US.

This a decent visual representation of gerrymandering.

Mancomb Seepgood

ELM327 wrote: »

The system was designed this way, and it has worked. If hillary won, it would have been a victory for two large cities over the rest of the country. By area it was a landslide for trump.

There are an awful lot of cities coloured in blue on that map.And generally speaking gerrymandering has no relevance in the presidential election,but in the House of Representatives, it's crucial.

pixelburp

Water John wrote: »

Correct there Pixel. It's within the Disricts, the worst of this is carried out. We in Ireland brought it to a fine art in NI, even if its origin is US.

And flippant, incorrect statements from ELM327 just feed into what's essentially wrong with the system in America; the focus is almost ENTIRELY on the Presidential Election, that it's the election to win and set in stone therefore everything else must be - when the real damage to the election process is being done via the gerrymandering to congressional maps that happens year in, year out (except for those exceptional circumstances where national ridicule arguably spearheads change - ala the 7th in Pennsylvania).

Plus, to be frank, the evidence suggest that it's Republican congressional members that are behind much of the gerrymandering in the first place. There are some examples of Democrats redrawing the map to suit them, but most of the more egregious examples - such as the 7th - were caused by Republicans (though absolutely open to correction because it's a subject I'm only passingly aware of).

sabat

ELM327 wrote: »

If hillary won, it would have been a victory for two large cities over the rest of the country. By area it was a landslide for trump...

... Look at all the red areas vs all the blue areas

So you're saying that a cornfield in Kansas has as much electoral weight as a residential city block in Manhattan?

robinph

Here are some maps, that we probably all saw a couple of years ago, but that show the red or blue voting more accurately than any version that tries to tie itself to the geography rather than to the population:

http://uk.businessinsider.com/2016-election-results-maps-population-adjusted-cartogram-2016-11/#counties-themselves-arent-uniformly-blue-or-red-looking-at-a-color-gradient-using-varying-shades-of-purple-we-can-see-most-counties-had-a-tight-split-between-republican-and-democratic-voters-although-a-few-islands-of-deep-red-and-blue-still-remain-6

Some of the maps are a bit freaky looking.

Danzy

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Leroy, while I don't really disagree with what you're saying, you and the poster you replied to are talking about different things.

Your entire solution works for the popular vote whereas Danzy is talking about what actually matters and that's the electoral college. You can't dismiss a claim that the Dems aren't engaging with large swathes of America by saying they win a lot on the coasts. Edit: The image above this post shows what I'm talking about.

Sure, you can argue that Democrats need to get young people outside of the Clinton archipelago out and voting more, but their leadership hasn't really changed since 2016 so I don't have any real hope for them campaigning better in 2020. They need to ignore California and NY to an extent, and take back the heart of the country if they want to make a long term difference and get majorities in the houses.

term difference and get majorities in the houses.[/quote]

What he says.

To throw Leroy a bone there is issues at district levels but the Dems won't challenge that much, it goes both ways and on a macro level it will not change the problem they face.

The issue is more fundamental than problematic systems disadvantaging the Dems, their own attitudes leaves a lot to be desired and their attitudes to much of their natural or older Base is often prickish.

It would be like the Tories sneering at small shopkeepers or bankers.

Pelvis

eagle eye wrote: »

This thing about people flipping is fairytale stuff. Fact is that if you do flip then your life as you know it is over because nobody in Washington will want to know you.

Errr.... criminals making a deal to give up a bigger fish for lower sentence/immunity is common practice.

Fairytale? Jesus wept...

VinLieger

eagle eye wrote: »

This thing about people flipping is fairytale stuff. Fact is that if you do flip then your life as you know it is over because nobody in Washington will want to know you.

If you go to jail nobody in washington will want to know you so people flip if jail is inevitable and they can get less time

Professor Moriarty

VinLieger wrote: »

If you go to jail nobody in washington will want to know you so people flip if jail is inevitable and they can get less time

No sane person in Washington will have anything to do with Cohen or Manafort now.

StringerBell

Leroy42 wrote: »

We already have two examples of people flipping, Flynn and Papodopolous.

Strange that you would call reality fairytale stuff.

It's really not strange at all if you have been following the users posts to this point.

Water John

Total rameis from Trump at his press conference. Should be just dismissed as such. Not even entertained by any thinking person.

For example, 'economy was going down' when he came into office.

Congressman Reed (R) very reasonable. So there are GOP who can be dealt with. If neither Bill gets passed today, he'll support a simple Bill to solve the family divisions.

TomOnBoard

A picture being worth a thousand words:

Professor Moriarty

TomOnBoard wrote: »

A picture being worth a thousand words:

Time man of the year plus a Nobel peace prize.

TomOnBoard

And finally, the truth of that Summit is out..

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DvqW5ynwFxas&ved=0ahUKEwiZ_dKvt-XbAhUDvVkKHbfNBhYQ3e4CCO8BMB8&usg=AOvVaw2rpTiB850e6Q5XqrCEAnhp

Rjd2

Such easy pr to be made today by Melania and she is stupid enough to wear that jacket. I don't believe the conspiracy theories of da resistance~::pac: but ****ing hell how absolutely stupid can you be? Its such an obvious gaffe that shouldn't happen.

Itssoeasy

Rjd2 wrote: »

Such easy pr to be made today by Melania and she is stupid enough to wear that jacket. I don't believe the conspiracy theories of da resistance~::pac: but ****ing hell how absolutely stupid can you be? Its such an obvious gaffe that shouldn't happen.

I seems a very tone deaf thing to do. Well obvious pitfalls and avoiding them isn't something that this administration is known for.

Edit: No it appears far worse than that.

" I really don't care. Do You ?"

Sweet suffering jesus they aren't even hiding it now.

Rjd2

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Was it something about not believing in conspiracies or something like that ? I seems a very tone deaf thing to do. Well obvious pitfalls and avoiding them isn't something that this administration is known for.

Its unbelievably tone deaf. I don't believe she thought was owning the libs or any tribal bollocks like that, just that she was incredibly stupid and clearly surrounded by idiots. This was the easiest bits of PR on paper for the Trump campaign and she does that. Whoever is advising her better have his phone off today.:pac:

If I were a democrat I'd be wearing "I do care" type jackets if doing the same visit. :pac:

TomOnBoard

Rjd2 wrote: »

Its unbelievably tone deaf. I don't believe she thought was owning the libs or any tribal bollocks like that, just that she was incredibly stupid and clearly surrounded by idiots. This was the easiest bits of PR on paper for the Trump campaign and she does that. Whoever is advising her better have his phone off today.:pac:

If I were a democrat I'd be wearing "I do care" type jackets if doing the same visit. :pac:

The Dems should say absolutely nothing and all Congress/Senate members should wear I DO care Tee shirts to work tomorrow...

pixelburp

Wait, I'm confused and too lazy to google: what jacket are we talking about here?

aloyisious

It'll be hard to put a spin on it being a wardrobe error and say the lady didn't do a spin in front of the mirror to see if her costume was OK, after the jacket was laid out for her to look at first before she put it on. @pixelburp: the jacket she was wearing when she walked up the stairs to board the aircraft to fly/visit the centre where the kids are being held, with the logo "I really don't care, do u" on it's back visible to all looking at her..

Blowfish

pixelburp wrote: »

Wait, I'm confused and too lazy to google: what jacket are we talking about here?

Melania decided to wear a jacket with 'I really don't care, do u?' on her trip to the immigration centre.

spacecoyote

pixelburp wrote: »

Wait, I'm confused and too lazy to google: what jacket are we talking about here?

https://www.elle.com/culture/career-politics/a21753821/melania-trump-i-really-dont-care-do-u-jacket-immigrant-children-visit/

TomOnBoard

Blowfish wrote: »

Melania decided to wear a jacket with 'I really don't care, do u?' on her trip to the immigration centre.

Melanie sez "me no so really god at seeing ze eeng!isch, tovarisxch...me not see vich vords it sez on cote.... Me just thinks she sez mek ze merikies grate egen...so very sorrie..."

listermint

These things are extremely purposeful that jacket served a purpose. It was designed to antagonise and get a rise. For what end I'm not sure.perhaps it was for trumps base so they could get off on the outrage and reaffirm that all those liberals out there will go crazy over a jacket look how pc they want you to be.


There's no accident here. It's by design

Call Me Jimmy

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Melanie sez "me no so really god at seeing ze eeng!isch, tovarisxch...me not see vich vords it sez on cote.... Me just thinks she sez mek ze merikies grate egen...so very sorrie..."

my japanese friend read this post, he said and I quote 'hoooo thaaa is so lacist!', I kind of agree