Trumps Presidency 2025

[chasfh]

19 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

So which countries would be significant tourist sources but also visa overstays? Mexico certainly. That and it would be the Central and South American upper/middle classes that would be hit I would suppose. I don't think there are many visa overstays from Western Europe or Japan. Is there PRC tourism on the West Coast?

If I understand correctly, Mexicans are required to have a visa to visit the US for pleasure, but can use something called a Border Crossing Card that is unique to Mexican nationals residing in Mexico and functions as a stand-in for an actual visa. I hypothesize that the vast majority of Mexicans use BCCs, so the stats for overstaying visas don't apply to Mexico.

Otherwise, here's the latest visa overstay data I could find. It's from 2023. I would imagine it's going to look a lot a lot different for 2025.

 

[chasfh]

12 hours ago, GalagaGuy said:

Regarding the redistricting nonsense going on in Texas.....

Texas has 38 seats in the House and 25 are currently filled by Republicans.  That's 66% of the seats in a state where between 55-60% of the vote for President goes to the Republican candidate.

Now lets look at California.  They have 52 seats and 9 are currently filled by Republicans.  That's 17% of the seats in a state where 35-40% of the votes are for the Republican candidate for President.  

Seems that both sides are just as bad when it comes to gerrymandering.   At least we're playing fair here in Michigan.  13 seats with it currently being 7-6 for Republicans.  

 

Not according to this. Take it as you will.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/most-gerrymandered-states

[chasfh]

One more take on gerrymandering, this time grading every state for which there are sufficient data. The results generally pass the sniff test for me. Again, take it as you will.

https://gerrymander.princeton.edu/redistricting-report-card/

[GalagaGuy]

Politicians shouldn't have anything to do with redistricting, I was just making a point that independent commissions aren't some magic fix all to the problem of equal representation.    The only way to really fix things would be to eliminate congressional districts all together and have representatives assigned to voters instead of plots of land.  

[pfife]

2 hours ago, Motown Bombers said:

Speaking of interesting, imagine supporting a whole campaign to punish the only person capable of defeating Trump who is the monster you describe. A campaign against a man who was one of the most empathetic presidents ever, appointed the most women to federal courts, and was the most LGBT friendly president ever. Imagine helping Trump defeat that person like El-Genocide did. 

Speaking of interesting this post isnt

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, chasfh said:

If I understand correctly, Mexicans are required to have a visa to visit the US for pleasure, but can use something called a Border Crossing Card that is unique to Mexican nationals residing in Mexico and functions as a stand-in for an actual visa. I hypothesize that the vast majority of Mexicans use BCCs, so the stats for overstaying visas don't apply to Mexico.

Otherwise, here's the latest visa overstay data I could find. It's from 2023. I would imagine it's going to look a lot a lot different for 2025.

 

Nice work Chas. I guess the Mexican ID card thing is probably along the lines of the  'enhanced' drivers license in MI that allows you to cross in Canada without your Passport. Pre Trump there had been occasional, usually halting, efforts to 're-normalize' US/Canada/Mexico travel at least a little bit toward the pre 9/11 freedom of motion - so the Mexican card program fits that.

Edited 6 hours ago by gehringer_2

[chasfh]

1 hour ago, GalagaGuy said:

Politicians shouldn't have anything to do with redistricting, I was just making a point that independent commissions aren't some magic fix all to the problem of equal representation.    The only way to really fix things would be to eliminate congressional districts all together and have representatives assigned to voters instead of plots of land.  

I would not object to at-large representative by state on principle, but man, would that ever make election day a mess for voters, especially in big states. Plus, they would have to overturn the The Uniform Congressional District Act that stipulates that representatives must be elected from geographical districts, and that these must be single-member districts.

[CMRivdogs]

 

[CMRivdogs]

1 hour ago, GalagaGuy said:

Politicians shouldn't have anything to do with redistricting, I was just making a point that independent commissions aren't some magic fix all to the problem of equal representation.    The only way to really fix things would be to eliminate congressional districts all together and have representatives assigned to voters instead of plots of land.  

But those “plots of land” have actual people living there. I really don’t know if it’s possible just to take a map and draw squares for proposed districts and actually make them equal in population. 
Multiple representation districts would be a headache as well. How would you do it in states like California or Texas where you would effectively have to choose among say 50 or more people?

The average has little clue on who to vote for when there’s more than two candidates sometimes. 
 

It would be easier to break up the states onto several smaller fiefdoms 

[Edman85]

More gerrymandering means more districts where the only competitive race is who can out extreme the other in a primary. No thanks.

[GalagaGuy]

1 hour ago, CMRivdogs said:

But those “plots of land” have actual people living there. I really don’t know if it’s possible just to take a map and draw squares for proposed districts and actually make them equal in population. 
Multiple representation districts would be a headache as well. How would you do it in states like California or Texas where you would effectively have to choose among say 50 or more people?

The average has little clue on who to vote for when there’s more than two candidates sometimes. 
 

It would be easier to break up the states onto several smaller fiefdoms 

I said to eliminate districts, not redraw them with some generic grid pattern.  Let people vote for which party they want representing them and then divy up the reps to individual voters rather than a plot of land. Yeah, it would be a mess but at least everyone could say they were being represented by a member of the party they chose. 

[GalagaGuy]

Diddler on the Roof will be the funniest thing I hear this week.

 

[oblong]

2 hours ago, CMRivdogs said:

 

There is a big of unintended consequences though in the voting rights enforcement mechanism.  I don’t know if that’s what happened here but in general by having to create specifically “black” districts that are guaranteed you inadvertently create whiter districts nearby. 

[CMRivdogs]

1 hour ago, GalagaGuy said:

I said to eliminate districts, not redraw them with some generic grid pattern.  Let people vote for which party they want representing them and then divy up the reps to individual voters rather than a plot of land. Yeah, it would be a mess but at least everyone could say they were being represented by a member of the party they chose. 

In other words choose the party and not the rep? No way man. I may lean Democratic but I reserve my right to choose the best CANDIDATE not the party. You actually expect the average voter in Texas or California to go into the booth with over 100 candidates on the ballot and make a choice to vote for the best 30 or more people to represent them?

Aint gonna happen that’s a worse idea than the current way. 

[CMRivdogs]

Just now, CMRivdogs said:

In other words choose the party and not the rep? No way man. I may lean Democratic but I reserve my right to choose the best CANDIDATE not the party. You actually expect the average voter in Texas or California to go into the booth with over 100 candidates on the ballot and make a choice to vote for the best 30 or more people to represent them?

Aint gonna happen that’s a worse idea than the current way. 

To add on. Issues that affect me in SE Virginia may not be the same as those in say Roanoke or Winchester or Charlottesville. I want a rep in DC who looks after my interests and understands MY DISTRICT 

[CMRivdogs]

Just now, CMRivdogs said:

To add on. Issues that affect me in SE Virginia may not be the same as those in say Roanoke or Winchester or Charlottesville. I want a rep in DC who looks after my interests and understands MY DISTRICT 

That was the way I was taught representative democracy works. We effectively have what you want and how’s that working for you

[GalagaGuy]

44 minutes ago, CMRivdogs said:

In other words choose the party and not the rep? No way man. I may lean Democratic but I reserve my right to choose the best CANDIDATE not the party. You actually expect the average voter in Texas or California to go into the booth with over 100 candidates on the ballot and make a choice to vote for the best 30 or more people to represent them?

Aint gonna happen that’s a worse idea than the current way. 

Sure you do and you'd still be able to do that by voting for reps of the party you support.  Right now it's all about which people they want to throw you in with and call it a district.   

I'd say this is infinitely worse. 

 

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, oblong said:

There is a big of unintended consequences though in the voting rights enforcement mechanism.  I don’t know if that’s what happened here but in general by having to create specifically “black” districts that are guaranteed you inadvertently create whiter districts nearby. 

The Voting Rights Act mandates for minority representation in more districts is in a sense one of the original sins of  redistricting abuse. Back in the 60's when the Dems' control of the House appeared beyond threat, packing high percentages of minority voters into single districts to insure a minority election winner was an easy solution for Dems. Not so much today when the consequence of those packed urban districts is to help elect larger numbers of GOP reps in the surrounding districts.

If you are a minority voter, which is more important to you, that your rep look like you, or that your Congress have a chance of implementing policy in your favor? Not clear to me at all that the answer to that question in 2025 should be the same as it was in 1964.

Edited 2 hours ago by gehringer_2

[CMRivdogs]

10 minutes ago, GalagaGuy said:

Sure you do and you'd still be able to do that by voting for reps of the party you support.  Right now it's all about which people they want to throw you in with and call it a district.   

I'd say this is infinitely worse. 

 

The only way your proposal could possibly fair, inmo, is if you proportioned out the number of reps according to the statewide vote. 
Which brings me to the next question, who is in charge of choosing candidates to represent the whole state. Are you doing primaries, convention, a big gladiator style competition? 
The style of gerrymandering you're objecting to has been going on since the birth of the Republic. TBH there is no perfect way unless we outlaw parties or find a way to have more than two competitive parties. And force our reps to compromise 
 

Edited 2 hours ago by CMRivdogs

[CMRivdogs]

Quote

" However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion. "

FAREWELL ADDRESS | SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 1796

 

[GalagaGuy]

19 minutes ago, CMRivdogs said:

The only way your proposal could possibly fair, inmo, is if you proportioned out the number of reps according to the statewide vote. 
Which brings me to the next question, who is in charge of choosing candidates to represent the whole state. Are you doing primaries, convention, a big gladiator style competition? 
The style of gerrymandering you're objecting to has been going on since the birth of the Republic. TBH there is no perfect way unless we outlaw parties or find a way to have more than two competitive parties. And force our reps to compromise 
 

Everyone goes to the polls and votes as to which party they want representing them.  At the same time, they vote for reps from that party.   After all the votes are counted, you look at the results and select the reps to represent each side.  People would then end up with a team of representatives.  That's a better solution than having a single representative that you don't support. 

Edited 2 hours ago by GalagaGuy

[CMRivdogs]

10 minutes ago, GalagaGuy said:

Everyone goes to the polls and votes as to which party they want representing them.  At the same time, they vote for reps from that party.   After all the votes are counted, you look at the results and select the reps to represent each side.  People would then end up with a team of representatives.  That's a better solution than having a single representative that you don't support. 

Who gets final approval? Is this ranked choice voting? How about a compromise, especially in states with a large number of reps. Divvy the districts up into multi rep districts. Say cut the number of Congressional districts in half, then create multi member districts with proportional representatives. Something similar to what's being used in Cambridge, MA or Minneapolis. 
 

I'm coming around, just need to get the rest of the country on your side

[GalagaGuy]

1 hour ago, CMRivdogs said:

Who gets final approval? Is this ranked choice voting? How about a compromise, especially in states with a large number of reps. Divvy the districts up into multi rep districts. Say cut the number of Congressional districts in half, then create multi member districts with proportional representatives. Something similar to what's being used in Cambridge, MA or Minneapolis. 
 

I'm coming around, just need to get the rest of the country on your side

Using Michigan as an example, maybe you have people vote for 5 people from the party of their choosing.  Doesn't need to be ranked choice as you've already declared the party you want representing you.  Once the votes are tallied and the state knows the split, they take the top vote getters to fill the seats.  

Obviously this is just a silly idea I came up with, but the more I think about it, the more I like it.   I've already mentioned how this would give every person in the state the representation they want, but there's also another benefit.   Lets say you have an issue or concern and need to reach out to a Rep.   You have the option of contacting the Rep you think can best help you or who will be most receptive to your concerns.   

 

[GalagaGuy]

This just pisses me off.