Trumps Presidency 2025

[chasfh]

Is this the great part? Is America Great Again yet?

 

Edited 17 hours ago by chasfh

[chasfh]

Never mind this nonsense, what about Trump grabbing Melania's ass! 

 

[gehringer_2]

6 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Never mind this nonsense, what about Trump grabbing Melania's ass! 

 

I'm not sure this analysis is complete. Creating minority districts generally favor the GOP overall because it concentrates higher numbers of Dem voters into fewer winnable districts - IOW exactly what GOP gerrymanders try to do. Spreading out Black votes could actually create more swingable districts. In any case the outcome is going to be more complicated than this byline implies. It will certainly hit minority representation, but that's not the same thing as hurting the Dem party.

Edited 16 hours ago by gehringer_2

[ewsieg]

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/25/us/politics/lafayette-park-fountains-trump-contract.html

Now I understand the Kwame pardon, he must be consulting for the administration.

[romad1]

1 hour ago, gehringer_2 said:

I'm not sure this analysis is complete. Creating minority districts generally favor the GOP overall because it concentrates higher numbers of Dem voters into fewer winnable districts - IOW exactly what GOP gerrymanders try to do. Spreading out Black votes could actually create more swingable districts. In any case the outcome is going to be more complicated than this byline implies. It will certainly hit minority representation, but that's not the same thing as hurting the Dem party.

I think this is true.  The minority districts were positive in that more minority representation in government is good but it did create the negative aspect of less competitive districts.  However, Citizens United and other gerrymandering malfeasance is killing that anyway. 

[Tigerbomb13]

 

 

[romad1]

 

[Tigerbomb13]

 

another indictment coming I’m sure 

[CMRivdogs]

3 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

I'm not sure this analysis is complete. Creating minority districts generally favor the GOP overall because it concentrates higher numbers of Dem voters into fewer winnable districts - IOW exactly what GOP gerrymanders try to do. Spreading out Black votes could actually create more swingable districts. In any case the outcome is going to be more complicated than this byline implies. It will certainly hit minority representation, but that's not the same thing as hurting the Dem party.

I have completely come around to having Congressional (and statewide) districts with Multiple members. Instead of 13 congressional districts, divide the state into 4 regions, maybe 5 if you give the UP it's own district. One big election, the top two or three vote getters get to go to Washington.

Same with Lansing

[romad1]

6 minutes ago, CMRivdogs said:

I have completely come around to having Congressional (and statewide) districts with Multiple members. Instead of 13 congressional districts, divide the state into 4 regions, maybe 5 if you give the UP it's own district. One big election, the top two or three vote getters get to go to Washington.

Same with Lansing

Its an interesting model to be sure.  

[CMRivdogs]

2 minutes ago, romad1 said:

Its an interesting model to be sure.  

I've tried to model it a few times with A-I Chatgpt  keeps wanting to combine Virginia's Northern Neck with far SW Virginia. That would never work

[chasfh]

6 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

I'm not sure this analysis is complete. Creating minority districts generally favor the GOP overall because it concentrates higher numbers of Dem voters into fewer winnable districts - IOW exactly what GOP gerrymanders try to do. Spreading out Black votes could actually create more swingable districts. In any case the outcome is going to be more complicated than this byline implies. It will certainly hit minority representation, but that's not the same thing as hurting the Dem party.

This seems backwards to me. Majority-black districts are not just “pack Dem voters to help Republicans”; Section 2 exists because Black voters were already being cracked and packed so they couldn’t elect their candidates of choice. A fair opportunity district can be both legally required and politically Democratic-leaning, but that doesn’t mean it’s a GOP-favoring gimmick. Minority representation and partisan advantage are related, but they're not the same thing, and the legal question is vote dilution—not whether Democrats lose a seat somewhere else.

[Motown Bombers]

 

[gehringer_2]

11 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

 

Diesel is about $10/gal in Italy right now. We are burning through every bit of international goodwill we ever had.

[chasfh]

Never mind this boring ****, talk about Trump's face on passports! 

 

[romad1]

1 hour ago, chasfh said:

Never mind this boring ****, talk about Trump's face on passports! 

 

$25b for pancreatic cancer research would not hurt about now.

[mtutiger]

9 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

I'm not sure this analysis is complete. Creating minority districts generally favor the GOP overall because it concentrates higher numbers of Dem voters into fewer winnable districts - IOW exactly what GOP gerrymanders try to do. Spreading out Black votes could actually create more swingable districts. In any case the outcome is going to be more complicated than this byline implies. It will certainly hit minority representation, but that's not the same thing as hurting the Dem party.

Also mentioned his before, but there are VRA districts in blue states too... And after the decision not clear whether these states won't just revise their own districts without these in place constraints. NY, CA, even IL (which is already gerrymandered to hell) could theoretically draw out R districts on their existing maps without VRA requirements.

I really don't like the VRA being gutted and the precedent it sets, but this is the other side of the coin as well.

Edited 6 hours ago by mtutiger

[gehringer_2]

4 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

Also mentioned his before, but there are VRA districts in blue states too... And after the decision not clear whether these states won't just revise their own districts without these in place constraints. NY, CA, even IL (which is already gerrymandered to hell) could theoretically draw out R districts on their existing maps without VRA requirements.

I really don't like the VRA being gutted and the precedent it sets, but this is the other side of the coin as well.

yes  - as example you could probably wipe out at least one GOP district in the Detroit NE burbs by dividing part of the city into it, though redistricting is off the table in MI.

[Tiger337]

1 hour ago, romad1 said:

$25b for pancreatic cancer research would not hurt about now.

Research is for nerds.  

[pfife]

Beef tallow will cure it 

[chasfh]

Now we are engaged in a great civic war. Who knows whether this nation will endure.

[guy incognito]

Meanwhile, in Minneapolis, its business as usual for Pig-King’s Brownshirt terror thugs.

Edited 2 hours ago by guy incognito

[guy incognito]

[gehringer_2]

16 minutes ago, guy incognito said:

Not necessarily true though. If the districts in the North flip the country, then the districts in the South can be restored. People have to stop worrying about the details of the win and Just find the straight line path. Win first and everything else can follow.

Edited 1 hour ago by gehringer_2