• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Federal search warrant executed at Rudy Giuliani’s NYC apartment

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

NWRMidnight

Golden Member
Jun 18, 2001
1,174
773
136
This is the same map for '16. Note that the map for '20 has even more red::



There isn't more red. Some states shuffled to red, where other's shuffled to blue, but over all not much difference other than a lot more light blue turned dark blue in 2020. Also, Texas demonstrates the effect of their gerrymandering on the southern cost line where a lot turned red. Yet, the democrat's gained ground in Texas compared to 2016. Just think what would have happened if they didn't gerrymander the state in red's favor.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
28,149
3,492
126
So, you're saying that only the votes of people in NY and CA should matter?
Why would the votes of only NY and CA matter? You still have over a hundred million voters beyond those two states.

Population wise, TX is #2, FL is #3...then NY is #4.

People vote, not land. The EC gives smaller states a huge advantage in terms of representation. A vote in Wyoming or Alaska counts more than a vote in California or Texas.

This setup allows the presidency to theoretically be won with as little as 20% of the popular vote, which is very much the antithesis of being "representative" of the people in any way whatsoever.

and don't forget, there were more votes for trump in california than texas (6M in CA vs. 5.8M in TX), and because of EC and winner-take-all, those votes didn't count for anything
 
Last edited:

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
72,160
22,761
136
So, you're saying that only the votes of people in NY and CA should matter?
No, why would only they matter? I’ve seen people say this before and the only conclusion I can come to is that they have never bothered to do the very basic math that should tell you that’s nonsense.

I’m saying everyone’s votes should count equally because the president is the president of everyone. No special treatment.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
72,160
22,761
136
Why would the votes of only NY and CA matter? You still have over a hundred million voters beyond those two states.

Population wise, TX is #2, FL is #3...then NY is #4.

People vote, not land. The EC gives smaller states a huge advantage in terms of representation. A vote in Wyoming or Alaska counts more than a vote in California or Texas.

This setup allows the presidency to theoretically be won with as little as 20% of the popular vote, which is very much the antithesis of being "representative" of the people in any way whatsoever.

and don't forget, there were more votes for trump in california than texas (6M in CA vs. 5.8M in TX)
Apparently despite only accounting for ~17% of votes New York and California would be able to somehow elect whatever president they wanted.

Big, if true.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

NWRMidnight

Golden Member
Jun 18, 2001
1,174
773
136
So, you're saying that only the votes of people in NY and CA should matter?
Can you explain how that math works? When I add the population of NY and CA together, I get 48 Million people.. not 331 Million people. That is only 14.5% of the total population. Now, I know that not every person is a voter, but for argument sake, it's safe to conclude that voters come out to be simular percentage.

Basically, the real argument is that you don't want Democrats dictating the outcome of the election, as it appears that more people want a democrat running this country than a republican. What does that tell you?
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
105,816
20,680
136
The EC worked as intended. It balanced the will of the people in less populous states with that of the people in more populous states. That was the whole point of it ... to make sure that a smaller numbers of states with more people could not determine elections regardless of how smaller states voted.

If there were a similar plan within states balancing county votes, the Orange Turd would have won GA, MI and a few others also.


Now on the point of unfitness to serve, you might make the argument it failed, but would probably still lose. We all knew he was total and complete trash, but that alone doesn't mean 'unfit'.
please: learn simple civic things like why something like the EC was crafted. The reasons are literally spelled out directly. This perversion of "preserving minority votes" is a late 19th, to now century retcon to act as support of this whole "States rights!" movement to further pervert the actual meaning of words, laws, and precedence.

Stop perpetuating the direct destruction of historical fact and legal precedent. It leads to federal justices like "originalists" that have taken it upon themselves to do things like, change the actual tense of words, e.g. "people," to have a singular meaning, e.g "to defend an individual right." It literally rejects what "people" means (it means: people. a group. plural. ..."persons" has always been the singular, plural. Meaning "many individuals.") these fucks literally lie, change word definitions, claim them then to be "original," the main bullshit argument that "Every individual can own a gun!" It is literally the exact opposite of what these very simple words, so clearly say, but these brainless fuckshits declare it so. They have no shame.

Stop being them. Stop changing the plainly inarguable truth of history and simple words, and perpetuate this bullshit.

learn the basic laws. Learn basic context. Learn how to fucking read ("what do words mean?" start there)
 
Last edited:

skyking

Lifer
Nov 21, 2001
19,558
1,318
136
the basic premise of going to a pure popular vote eludes people. They get hung on the idea that California and NY will decide, but it is no longer a state issue. No EC= everyone's vote in every state counts. That seems to be a bridge too far.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,187
3,879
126
Right, but I strongly suspect your thought was that Trump would win outright, not that he would lose the popular vote but still squeak in.
No, the risk was always from a few states.

I think my ideas are winning, and we are getting closer every year. It’s only a matter of time until the law moves dramatically in my direction.
Your ideas, promised by Newsom are now completely off the radar.

We have tried things like shifting job creation to currently less desirable states for years now and it’s nearly always failed at great expense
But you have no objections to your own ideas which have also consistently failed. When have we tried a universal living wage?


It does have some pretty high density housing, and in the past when housing was being built quickly it was definitely affordable for regular people.Sadly, in recent decades per capita housing starts in NYC have cratered, which has caused housing costs to explode. It’s really a perfect showcase for my point.
But that makes it a perfect showcase for my point too. The people of NYC must have wanted increasing density to stop and ceased to support it, no?

The folk that want in will always close the door behind them when they do get in because high density creates stresses of many kinds. But then perhaps someday when people have completely forgotten what it is to be human they won't notice living like ants.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,187
3,879
126
the basic premise of going to a pure popular vote eludes people. They get hung on the idea that California and NY will decide, but it is no longer a state issue. No EC= everyone's vote in every state counts. That seems to be a bridge too far.
Suppose by chance you bought a Datsun 510 and it became popular so as to be worth a million dollars. Would you want the government to step in and change the law so that every car had to be a black Ford? Why would people who for this or that chance reason live in sparsely populated states what to give up their greater proportional representation. They didn't steal it. Why do people who notice others have an advantage they did nothing personal to attain want to take it from them? A lot of the rationalizations people do in the name of the good always turn out to be what is good for them personally, not because of any universal truth. Naturally, since there is surely a real universal good, that can't always be the case. So how do we tell the difference?
 

skyking

Lifer
Nov 21, 2001
19,558
1,318
136
In light of the last election, it is easier to see that universal good. Someone tried to manipulate the system, and then tried to circumvent it entirely when it did not go they way they wanted.
A popular vote leaves no room for these shenanigans.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie and dawp

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
48,195
8,788
126
A good condition 510 would be a sweet find these days. Not a million dollars, but just sayin.

As for EC, the problem is that there should be over a thousand EC votes, not just 538. In fact, going off the original ratio in the Constitution, there should be almost 11,000 EC votes (and members of Congress). I'm not saying that there should be quite that many, but that there are only 538 is the source of the problem.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
72,160
22,761
136
No, the risk was always from a few states.
Well if that’s the case can you show me a single post of yours before the election saying as much? Something like ‘I know Trump is unpopular, but he’s popular with the people in the crucial swing states’ or something like that.

Your ideas, promised by Newsom are now completely off the radar.
Think again, a large number of them are back on the legislative calendar and more and more people are pushing for them as the crisis in California gets worse. In addition individual cities in CA are moving forward with repealing their housing bans. Sacramento, Berkeley, etc.

Remember, all I’m arguing for is for you to stop telling people what kind of house you will permit them to live in. Surely you agree they should be able to make that choice without your permission?

But you have no objections to your own ideas which have also consistently failed. When have we tried a universal living wage?
When have they failed? Really the reason I support them is their worldwide track record of success.

Also, while I support universal basic income, the idea that zoning reform can’t be passed but UBI can is not grounded in reality, and UBI would not solve California’s housing crisis. The ONLY thing that will is more houses.

But that makes it a perfect showcase for my point too. The people of NYC must have wanted increasing density to stop and ceased to support it, no?

The folk that want in will always close the door behind them when they do get in because high density creates stresses of many kinds. But then perhaps someday when people have completely forgotten what it is to be human they won't notice living like ants.
No, it’s that incumbent property owners have large financial incentives to inhibit construction and they are disproportionately represented at these types of planning and zoning meetings because of it. If you look at the people trying to stop housing construction they aren’t the average person in the community, and they certainly aren’t the people being driven into homelessness by rising rents. They are the rich.

When you look at polls my ideas for ending this sort of zoning are highly popular with the populace overall, it’s just that what regular people want is often overshadowed by the rich as you well know.
 

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
16,055
5,967
136
I went through a period of watching what I call American Murder shows. Almost 100% cell phone evidence gets them every time. And it's mostly just location meta data. No you weren't where you said you were when x happened.
I also figure, that if I'd ever had to go that route I'd start by hooking up with an amateur theater group, get into the costume and makeup of things. You also have to consider the prospects of getting caught down the line when increasingly smarter AI's review video footage going back many many years.
 

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
20,585
12,261
136
A good condition 510 would be a sweet find these days. Not a million dollars, but just sayin.

As for EC, the problem is that there should be over a thousand EC votes, not just 538. In fact, going off the original ratio in the Constitution, there should be almost 11,000 EC votes (and members of Congress). I'm not saying that there should be quite that many, but that there are only 538 is the source of the problem.
But then we would have to modify the capital building to hold more people in the house chamber and that would be wrong because it would destroy the very fabric of our nation if the building was changed. Why do liberals hate history and America so much?

Conservative response
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

ASK THE COMMUNITY