The Senate Trial of Donald J Trump 2020

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

Although it is against protocol to telephone a rep that is not from your State (as explained per the Government website) I went against that back during the televised Inquiry just because he was catching so much crap from Trump. I left a message that simply thanked him for doing what was right and proper in defense of our Nation and its Constitution. My own rep certainly didn't and I called him too, but he is a coward and an ass so I wanted to let Schiff know that at least one person from my 'red' District wasn't a moron and was watching and weighing the facts and the testimony.

[henrygandorf 29174]

5 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Although it is against protocol to telephone a rep that is not from your State (as explained per the Government website) I went against that back during the televised Inquiry just because he was catching so much crap from Trump. I left a message that simply thanked him for doing what was right and proper in defense of our Nation and its Constitution. My own rep certainly didn't and I called him too, but he is a coward and an ass so I wanted to let Schiff know that at least one person from my 'red' District wasn't a moron and was watching and weighing the facts and the testimony.

schiff is my rep.  i'll pass along your message. 

if trump wins, he might have to run in 2024.

[MonkeyDoughnut 10138]

19 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

yeah, i have a big problems with the voters.  i have a big problem with the voters who use the "both sides" argument to justify the actions of the mob boss in the oval office.

well then surely they will switch sides in the next election, no? 

[henrygandorf 29174]

9 minutes ago, TXSG8R said:

Yea, hes killed it since the beginning of all of this.  The only way you hear all of this and still vote no to witnesses and materials is by breaking the oath you took to start the trial, and the one to the constitution when you swore in to the office.  

someone on cnn this morning (i think, it was early) made a comment and i think it's valid.

basically that at this point, a complete sham trial might actually work out better for the dems.  trump wants this over so that he can claim victory, vindication, exoneration, etc.  when it gets pointed out repeatedly that he only won a rigged trial with no documents and no witnesses, then it creates a better narrative coming from the left.

obviously he'll say whatever he's gonna say regardless, but much like losing the popular vote, we know there are certain things that stick in his craw.  and saying "you only won your trial because uncle mitch ensured it was bought and paid for" sounds like something that would bother him.

[henrygandorf 29174]

1 minute ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

well then surely they will switch sides in the next election, no? 

i don't understand what you're asking.

do i think trump will lose the popular vote in 2020?  yes, by 5mm+ votes.

[washparkhorn 9934]

https://twitter.com/froomkin/status/1220054443011473408

 

[MonkeyDoughnut 10138]

Just now, henrygandorf said:

i don't understand what you're asking.

do i think trump will lose the popular vote in 2020?  yes, by 5mm+ votes.

You're implying there is a "good" side and a "bad" side that is obvious to you. I'm saying either others agree and it's a slam dunk election for the democrats or maybe the "both sides" argument has much more validity than you think.

[bolverk 29394]

2 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

i don't understand what you're asking.

do i think trump will lose the popular vote in 2020?  yes, by 5mm+ votes.

I think he's implying that the "mob boss" in the Oval office will then be from the other side and that the libs/dems/whatevers will be forced to justify his/her criminal actions.

[jimmyjazz 45538]

6 minutes ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

You're implying there is a "good" side and a "bad" side that is obvious to you. I'm saying either others agree and it's a slam dunk election for the democrats or maybe the "both sides" argument has much more validity than you think.

Or maybe one side is full of stupid, craven bootlickers and the other side isn't.  Just a theory.

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

1 minute ago, henrygandorf said:

someone on cnn this morning (i think, it was early) made a comment and i think it's valid.

basically that at this point, a complete sham trial might actually work out better for the dems.  trump wants this over so that he can claim victory, vindication, exoneration, etc.  when it gets pointed out repeatedly that he only won a rigged trial with no documents and no witnesses, then it creates a better narrative coming from the left.

obviously he'll say whatever he's gonna say regardless, but much like losing the popular vote, we know there are certain things that stick in his craw.  and saying "you only won your trial because uncle mitch ensured it was bought and paid for" sounds like something that would bother him.

Thanks, I do hope you pass it along, he's been a real stalwart through these times. (referring to your rep, Schiff)

With respect to the narrative, obviously his base won't budge, but I do worry about Parscales' strategy and what  message they will use to microtarget voters.

Finding things that needle the President is not a bad take. He doesn't handle that very well at all.

 

[henrygandorf 29174]

4 minutes ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

You're implying there is a "good" side and a "bad" side that is obvious to you. I'm saying either others agree and it's a slam dunk election for the democrats or maybe the "both sides" argument has much more validity than you think.

plenty of folks agree, and plenty of others use the "both sides" argument to justify their opinions and assessment of our current situation.  hey, i get it.  fox news can be very convincing when it's all you watch.  "but obama" is a perfectly good defense of why trump illegally held up congressionally approved funds to a country and conditioned its release on the announcement of an investigation of a personal domestic political rival.  i mean, it isn't, but those people think it is.  

as far as a popular vote, which is typically what decides things in a democracy, yes, it's an absolute slam-dunk for the democrats.  5-6 points is my guess.  but that's not how it works right now.  a handful of states will decide this election, and i'm sure there won't be any interference of any kind.  no monkey business in those states, nah.

the unfortunate part, is that about 47% of the voting population doesn't care enough to even get involved in the process.  the lower that number stays, the better it is for the gop.

[Jive Turkey 12567]

Schiff just went full on Lin Manuel Miranda Alexander Hamilton. 
 

 

[bolverk 29394]

1 minute ago, Jive Turkey said:

Schiff just went full on Lin Manuel Miranda Alexander Hamilton. 
 

 

Damn that's prescient.

[jimmyjazz 45538]

It's too bad Schiff has the charisma of Michael Dukakis, because otherwise he'd make a great President.

[bolverk 29394]

2 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

as far as a popular vote, which is typically what decides things in a democracy, yes, it's an absolute slam-dunk for the democrats.  5-6 points is my guess.  but that's not how it works right now.  a handful of states will decide this election, and i'm sure there won't be any interference of any kind.  no monkey business in those states, nah.

the unfortunate part, is that about 47% of the voting population doesn't care enough to even get involved in the process.  the lower that number stays, the better it is for the gop.

That's because the electoral college system is a kind of gerrymander - only it's the states that are gerrymandered instead of districts.

There is absolutely no possible way to defend a representative scheme whereby one state (TX) gets 1 electoral vote per 763,000 residents and another (WY) gets 1 electoral vote per 193,000.

In other words, each vote in Wyoming counts 3.9 times more than in Texas when it comes to electing the president.

[Biff Tannen 45491]

20 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Or maybe one side is full of stupid, craven bootlickers and the other side isn't.  Just a theory.

Careful!  You're gonna make him vote for the dotard again!

[hayden_horn 11360]

4 minutes ago, bolverk said:

That's because the electoral college system is a kind of gerrymander - only it's the states that are gerrymandered instead of districts.

There is absolutely no possible way to defend a representative scheme whereby one state (TX) gets 1 electoral vote per 763,000 residents and another (WY) gets 1 electoral vote per 193,000.

In other words, each vote in Wyoming counts 3.9 times more than in Texas when it comes to electing the president.

really? i was under the impression that electoral votes were based on population at census time? is this not the case?

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

10 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

It's too bad Schiff has the charisma of Michael Dukakis, because otherwise he'd make a great President.

I don't really care or rank much for the charisma factor when it comes to politicians. I look at some of them like I do salespeople: what is it you're trying to sell me (or America)? Why should I want what you're selling? Is it good for America? Why is that? What's in it for you? And so on.

If they are smiling at me when they are talking, my guard goes up, waaaaay up because it usually draws my mind to the old Warner Brothers cartoons with Sylvester and Tweety or Wile E. Coyote and the Roadrunner. Except, unlike the Roadrunner, I can't escape the machinations of the political machine as adroitly.

But back to charisma- I do rank an eloquent speaker who stays on task higher than I do, oh I don't know, unfocused but passionate ramblers. I resemble the latter but admire and aspire to the former.

[Brisketexan 104537]

Just now, hayden_horn said:

really? i was under the impression that electoral votes were based on population at census time? is this not the case?

Your number of reps is based on census.  BUT, in low-population states, which get a minimum of 1 rep, in light of the fact that we have a capped number of total reps.....then the total population of Wyoming divided by the total senators+reps for Wyoming (3) gives each of those electoral votes a much lower number of persons behind it than you get when you do the same math for Texas, with 2 senators and 36 reps (38 electoral votes).

So, small population of some states plus capped number of total reps dictates that the weight per electoral vote will be skewed towards small states.

[henrygandorf 29174]

i'm on mute, but saw earlier they played the trump clip where he's asking for ukraine (and china) to investigate the bidens.

forget speaking.  can they just play indefensible trump (and supporters) clips all day?  can we get them an oscar winning editor to splice something together that runs for several hours and is just full of hypocritical comments, lies, exaggerations, and contradictions?

where is michael kahn?  get him on a fucking plane.

[MonkeyDoughnut 10138]

24 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Or maybe one side is full of stupid, craven bootlickers and the other side isn't.  Just a theory.

Pretty sure most voters agree with your theory

[Brisketexan 104537]

5 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

But back to charisma- I do rank an eloquent speaker who stays on task higher than I do, oh I don't know, unfocused but passionate ramblers. I resemble the latter but admire and aspire to the former.

But here's the thing....Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure had us pegged as a society.

You can have someone give an eloquent, on-point, well-researched presentation.....and that will go over fine.

But the crowd goes NUTS for this moron yelling "SAN DIMAS HIGH SCHOOL FOOTBALL RULES" (or, "MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!", whatever):

The people fucking love a moron.

[elfenix 34169]

8 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Your number of reps is based on census.  BUT, in low-population states, which get a minimum of 1 rep, in light of the fact that we have a capped number of total reps.....then the total population of Wyoming divided by the total senators+reps for Wyoming (3) gives each of those electoral votes a much lower number of persons behind it than you get when you do the same math for Texas, with 2 senators and 36 reps (38 electoral votes).

So, small population of some states plus capped number of total reps dictates that the weight per electoral vote will be skewed towards small states.

and lets not forget the whole purpose of giving electoral votes to states based on population (+2), rather than just counting individual votes, was that the south had a turnout problem. 

Edited January 22, 2020 by elfenix

[henrygandorf 29174]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

The people fucking love a moron.

 

[hayden_horn 11360]

11 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Your number of reps is based on census.  BUT, in low-population states, which get a minimum of 1 rep, in light of the fact that we have a capped number of total reps.....then the total population of Wyoming divided by the total senators+reps for Wyoming (3) gives each of those electoral votes a much lower number of persons behind it than you get when you do the same math for Texas, with 2 senators and 36 reps (38 electoral votes).

So, small population of some states plus capped number of total reps dictates that the weight per electoral vote will be skewed towards small states.

thanks for that explanation. i'm kind of stunned that i'm only just now finding out about this.

[hayden_horn 11360]

this man is not wrong.

[Brisketexan 104537]

1 minute ago, hayden_horn said:

thanks for that explanation. i'm kind of stunned that i'm only just now finding out about this.

Also, we used to have slaves, they counted for 3/5 of a person, we had a civil war, Lincoln freed the slaves, and then some other stuff happened too.

I mean, if we've gotta catch you up on stuff.

[GopherRock 1765]

Adam Schiff will be the Speaker of the House sometime soon, and the US will be better for it. 

[henrygandorf 29174]

1 minute ago, hayden_horn said:

thanks for that explanation. i'm kind of stunned that i'm only just now finding out about this.

the other issue with the large, empty states getting votes (land gets to vote!) is that it creates a map that looks mostly red, even though the blue side had millions more votes.

and idiots love pictures, because pictures = no reading.

[TwiceHorn 31240]

23 minutes ago, bolverk said:

That's because the electoral college system is a kind of gerrymander - only it's the states that are gerrymandered instead of districts.

There is absolutely no possible way to defend a representative scheme whereby one state (TX) gets 1 electoral vote per 763,000 residents and another (WY) gets 1 electoral vote per 193,000.

In other words, each vote in Wyoming counts 3.9 times more than in Texas when it comes to electing the president.

It's not a representative scheme, in the popular vote sense.  It's a system that emphasizes the states over the popular vote.  Intentionally.

Other schemes considered included having the governors of the states appoint the President by vote, or the Senators.

The idea that the election of the President was ever intended to be a purely popular election is a creature of ignorance.

That's not a comment on whether the EC is good or bad.  It's the way it is and was intended to be from jump.

Edited January 22, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Brisketexan 104537]

Just now, hayden_horn said:

this man is not wrong.

It's called "making your record."  Any trial lawyer worth his salt has tried a case to a judge or jury that he knew was a stone-cold lock against him from day one.  You still try the case.  In fact, you try it as perfectly as you can, because you are making a record to go up to the next level (the court of appeals etc.).

In this case, the "next level" is the public.  Schiff's job isn't to win over this unwinnable jury.  It's to a try a case that's so strong that it makes it obvious that this jury is bought and paid for, so that the court of appeals/the electorate sees fit to reverse their decision.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

5 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

really? i was under the impression that electoral votes were based on population at census time? is this not the case?

The House is based on census.  However, every state gets at least one representative.  The average population per rep is 700,000 and Wyoming only has 577,000 people.

But the EC isn't entirely based on population.  Every state gets an elector for each of its senators and representatives.  So Wyoming gets 3 and gets a double dip of voting power increases when voting for President.  Overall, the EC setup favors the GOP heavily.

In between censuses, there is also growth and contraction of state populations, so in 2020, we also have that to contend with.  That favors Dems slightly in 2020.  Blue states are expected to lose at least 2 electors and red states are expected to gain at least 2 in aggregate.

[DDD Dad 14243]

32 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

It's too bad Schiff has the charisma of Michael Dukakis, because otherwise he'd make a great President.

Disagree.

He seems pretty charismatic right now.

[bolverk 29394]

1 minute ago, hayden_horn said:

thanks for that explanation. i'm kind of stunned that i'm only just now finding out about this.

Many thanks to Brisket while I was away trying to figure out how to embed a fucking FB posting (success!).

Don't feel bad, Hayden. I only did the math on the EV votes per population a year or so ago when I finally figured out just how NOT representative it really is, and I was floored. If it were ever actually explained that way to the wider public, I think we'd get more traction on doing away with the damn thing entirely.

[cactusflinthead 27594]

 

Edited January 22, 2020 by cactusflinthead

[hayden_horn 11360]

irresponsible use of twitter, imo:

 

[Biff Tannen 45491]

2 minutes ago, bolverk said:

If it were ever actually explained that way to the wider public, I think we'd get more traction on doing away with the damn thing entirely.

Problem is the general public would have this response:

[DDD Dad 14243]

"I don't think our impeachment power is a relic.  If it is a relic, I don't know how much longer our republic can survive."

-Schiff just now.

[bolverk 29394]

4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

It's not a representative scheme, in the popular vote sense.  It's a system that emphasizes the states over the popular vote.  Intentionally.

Other schemes considered included having the governors of the states appoint the President by vote, or the Senators.

The idea that the election of the President was ever intended to be a purely popular election is a creature of ignorance.

That's not a comment on whether the EC is good or bad.  It's the way it is and was intended to be from jump.

Yeah, and we've had a tradition of expanding our democracy from the beginning from who has the suffrage (adding blacks and women) to who gets to vote for Senators (people and not state legislatures). We are allowed to evolve for the better or democracy if we choose to.

[RayDog 682]

If I were the next president I would make Schiff Attorney General and give him access to all the evidence.

[TwiceHorn 31240]

Just now, DDD Dad said:

"I don't think our impeachment power is a relic.  If it is a relic, I don't know how much longer our republic can survive."

-Schiff just now.

Donald, would you rather be indicted and tried?  Because that is the alternative.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

3 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Many thanks to Brisket while I was away trying to figure out how to embed a fucking FB posting (success!).

Don't feel bad, Hayden. I only did the math on the EV votes per population a year or so ago when I finally figured out just how NOT representative it really is, and I was floored. If it were ever actually explained that way to the wider public, I think we'd get more traction on doing away with the damn thing entirely.

No we wouldn't.  The minority party loves it, and the minority party would need to vote it out.  The same minority party that is behaving nearly treasonous right now in order to maintain its grip on power.

The Interstate Popular Vote Compact does have some potential though.  It still needs 74 more EVs though.

[TwiceHorn 31240]

5 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Yeah, and we've had a tradition of expanding our democracy from the beginning from who has the suffrage (adding blacks and women) to who gets to vote for Senators (people and not state legislatures). We are allowed to evolve for the better or democracy if we choose to.

The 17th Amendment is a perfect analogy.

Ironically, the Electoral College and the original Senate appointment scheme were intended to keep jacklegs like Trump out of high office.

Edited January 22, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[bolverk 29394]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The 17th Amendment is a perfect analogy.

Ironically, the Electoral College and the original Senate appointment scheme were intended to keep jacklegs like Trump out of high office.

Admittedly no scheme is fool proof, but if we'd gone with the popular vote a while back, there's a strong likelihood we wouldn't have destabilized the entire Middle East with the invasion of Iraq AND we wouldn't have this jackass in the White House so maybe "the People" aren't so untrustworthy.

Spoiler

 

 

[burntorangebongos 10681]

If Congress had guarded their institutional power more jealously instead of abdicating power to the executive, then we wouldn't be here now. They didn't heed Hamilton's prescient warning about the fucktards like him.

[TXSG8R 3360]

So Mitch took away their cell phones to make everyone attending even more angry and surlier about having to sit through this, right?  "Do you really want to call witnesses and have to sit there without your phone 8 hours a day for a month?"

[Brisketexan 104537]

4 minutes ago, burntorangebongos said:

If Congress had guarded their institutional power more jealously instead of abdicating power to the executive, then we wouldn't be here now. They didn't heed Hamilton's prescient warning about the fucktards like him.

^^^^^

This too.  Like, lots of this.

[Bateshorn 9897]

27 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Many thanks to Brisket while I was away trying to figure out how to embed a fucking FB posting (success!).

Don't feel bad, Hayden. I only did the math on the EV votes per population a year or so ago when I finally figured out just how NOT representative it really is, and I was floored. If it were ever actually explained that way to the wider public, I think we'd get more traction on doing away with the damn thing entirely.

Oh my sweet summer child.

For the founder's it wasn't a flaw, it was a feature of the system.  It's operating exactly as they intended: empowering a minority southern government.

[jimmyjazz 45538]

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

28 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

irresponsible use of twitter, imo:

 

Satire or not, I don't think he is correct. GOP senators would have to have been living under a rock to not have the dope on what was going on, when, where, and why due to their staff, McConnell, etc. 

I figure if any of them weren't already on the take (looking at you Senator Johnson of Wisconsin, Senator Graham of South Carolina, etc) then McConnell told them exactly what to do and when to do it, or they are through. Look at Collins trying to balance on that wire above the pool with the sharks with fricken' laser beams. That is not the demeanor of someone who is wide-eyed and innocent and gets all their info from Fox.