HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » jimmy the one » Journal
Page: 1

jimmy the one

Profile Information

Gender: Male
Member since: Wed Nov 7, 2012, 09:26 AM
Number of posts: 2,584

Journal Archives

Approve Merrick Garland, due popular vote win by Hillary

Well aware it will not happen.
But while the obsolete & biased electoral college gifted the presidency to trump, the electoral college & electoral vote count should not influence the appointment of a supreme court justice who died under the auspices of our sitting president Obama, 10 months ago. The electoral college was designed to elect presidents not to appoint supreme court justices, especially those replacing justices who died 10 months prior to the election.
Earlier this year, the republican argument was that 'the people should decide', via the november election, which president should appoint to the scalia vacancy.
Well, the people decided by close to 3 million votes that Hillary Clinton was the choice for president. Totally sequitur that therefore the people decided for a liberal or democrat supreme court appointment, rather than a right wing republican one.
As I said, it will not happen, but the argument should be made prior to inauguration, & I haven't seen it. Apologies if it is indeed redundant.

Earlier 2016: North Carolina Republican Richard Burr “The American people deserve a voice in the nomination of the next Supreme Court Justice,” Burr explained.

Cruz statement read. “The People will decide. I commend Mitch McConnell and Chuck Grassley for holding the line and ensuring that We the People get to exercise our authority to decide the direction of the Supreme Court and the Bill of Rights.”

They've both changed their views, of course.

Electoral college votes biased I wrote above, will have a fuller thread in an hour or so (on general discussion) to demonstrate what I mean http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028361403
here is a snapshot:

Reliably red states Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, NDak, Oklahoma, SCar, SDak, Tenn, Texas, Utah, WVa, Wyoming.
Reliably blue states: California, Conn, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Masssa, Minnesota, New Jersey, NMex, NewYork, Oregon, RI, Vermont, Washington.

Blue states above, total population: 96.4 million; total Electoral Votes (EVs) = 194
Red states avove, total population: 77.1 million; total EVs = 191

Blue state Electoral Votes per million = 2.01 EVs/million
Red state Electoral Votes per million = 2.48 EVs/million

Red states enjoy ~25% more electoral votes per million people, than blue states do.
Traitorous Michigan & Pennsy, downgraded to purple states this year, had they been included in the blue state count, would've made it slightly worse for dems, but not significantly.
Posted by jimmy the one | Tue Dec 13, 2016, 02:14 PM (2 replies)

Electoral Vote Inequality per gun states vs. control states (REVISED)

OK, some of you see thru my ruse; I'm trying to keep it on topic by making it gun states vs control states, but it isn't really, it's just the disparity between red states & blue states when it comes to the electoral votes & subsequent electoral college.
So if you need lock it FL don't worry about offending, I'll understand; just thought it would be good for fellows on this forum to see how disadvantageous the obsolete electoral college is for democrats. Reposted from my exact same general discussion thread I started minutes ago, copied & pasted.

Reliably Red States enjoy approx 7% advantage (revised over original post) over reliably blue states in the electoral college distribution rate.

23 Reliably red states, Electoral Votes, then EVs per million: Alabama 9, 1.85 EVs/million; Alaska 3, 4.05/million; Arizona 11, 1.59; Arkansas 6, 2.00; Georgia 16, 1.55; Idaho 4, 2.38; Indiana 11, 1.66; Kansas 6, 2.05; Kentucky 8, 1.80; Louis 8, 1.71; Mississ 6, 2.00; Missouri 10, 1.64; Montana 3, 2.88; Nebraska 5, 2.62; NDak 3, 3.90; Okla 7, 1.78; SCarolina 9, 1.81; SDak 3, 3.48; Tenn 11, 1.65; Texas 38, 1.36; Utah 6, 1.97; WVa 5, 2.72; Wyoming 3, 5.10

15 Reliably blue states, EVs, then EVs per million: Calif 55, 1.39; Conn 7, 1.95; Delaware 3, 3.14; Hawaii 4, 2.78; Illinois 20, 1.56; Maryland 10, 1.66; Massachusetts 11, 1.61; Minnes 10, 1.81; New Jersey 14, 1.56; NMex 5, 2.40; New York 29, 1.46; Oregon 7, 1.71; RI 4, 3.77; Vermont 3, 4.80; Washington 12, 1.65

12 battleground states, including traitors michigan & pennsy this year: Colorado 9, 1.62 (albeit becoming reliably blue); Florida 29, 1.40; Iowa 6, 1.91; Maine 4, 3.00; Michigan 16, 1.61; Nevada 6, 2.04; New Hampshire 4, 3.00; NCarolina 15, 1.48; Ohio 18, 1.55; Pennsy 20, 1.56; Virginia 13, 1.54; Wisconsin 10, 1.73:

Blue state Electoral Votes per million = 1.65 EVs/million
Red state Electoral Votes per million = 1.79 EVs/million
Purple battleground states EVs per million = ~1.60 EVs/million

Red states enjoy ~7% more electoral votes per million people, than blue states do.
Traitorous Michigan & Pennsy, downgraded to purple states this year, had they been included in the blue state count, would've made it slightly worse for dems, but not significantly.

Purple battleground states are immaterial, since they fluctuate and benefit either side, so they cannot be included in a meaningful comparison.
Less populated states get inordinately higher EVs/million than the rest, but quirky enough, there is not much advantage gained by either red or blue sides, since they pretty much balance each other out, with red Alaska 4.05, Montana 2.88, NDakota 3.90, SDakota 3.48 balanced out by blue Delaware 3.14, Hawaii 2.78, Rhode Island 3.77, & Vermont 4.80, with purple new hampshire 3.00.
Texas gets the least EVs per million with 1.36, just barely & at parity with Florida 1.40, California 1.39, and New York 1.46, the four largest states by population. Wyoming is highest EV/mill at 5.10.

Edit: My original OP used one of two different methods I used to determine EVs per million, but alas the one I posted did not provide what I said it did. I omitted 'parity' states from the method I posted, which mislead. I did this a month back & forgot the two methods in my haste to post it. Mea Culpa, Confiteor & Apologies.
The imbalance is not as pronounced as I first reported, but red states do indeed benefit from an electoral college disparity.
However, rather than being 80% of a red state voter, the rate is about 93% of a red state voter. Far less dramatic for sure, but still there.
Posted by jimmy the one | Tue Dec 13, 2016, 01:59 PM (4 replies)

Approve Merrick Garland, due the popular vote win by Hillary

Well aware it will not happen.
But while the obsolete & biased electoral college gifted the presidency to trump, the electoral college & electoral vote count should not influence the appointment of a supreme court justice who died under the auspices of our sitting president Obama, 10 months ago. The electoral college was designed to elect presidents not to appoint supreme court justices, especially those replacing justices who died 10 months prior to the election.
Earlier this year, the republican argument was that 'the people should decide', via the november election, which president should appoint to the scalia vacancy.
Well, the people decided by close to 3 million votes that Hillary Clinton was the choice for president. Totally sequitur that therefore the people decided for a liberal or democrat supreme court appointment, rather than a right wing republican one.
As I said, it will not happen, but the argument should be made prior to inauguration, & I haven't seen it. Apologies if it is indeed redundant.

Earlier 2016: North Carolina Republican Richard Burr “The American people deserve a voice in the nomination of the next Supreme Court Justice,” Burr explained.

Cruz statement read. “The People will decide. I commend Mitch McConnell and Chuck Grassley for holding the line and ensuring that We the People get to exercise our authority to decide the direction of the Supreme Court and the Bill of Rights.”
Posted by jimmy the one | Tue Dec 13, 2016, 01:19 PM (0 replies)

asssault rifle ban for those on terror watch list - at least

What congressional Dems might suggest is to create an 'assault weapons ban' for those on a terrorist watch list.
That is to say, if not a total gun ban for them as is politically improbable, at least ban those on a terrorist watch list from being able to buy assault rifles such as the sig mcx or the AR15. These both use a low weight 0.223 bullet or the similar nato round which are so light at ~60 grains they do not create much rifle recoil, which makes shooting more accurate as the rifle needs not be re-aimed as much after firing shots, as do bullets with heavier weight & larger calibers. Also known as 'rifle rise' due greater recoil.
These assault rifles using these low weight bullets are 'en vogue' for mass shootings due the same reasons soldiers like them - can carry more light weight bullets, light recoil, & higher accuracy & lethality. The lady shooter at san bernardino was reported as having an AR15, or a 0.223 rifle, & she weighed little over 100 lbs, making the AR15 ideal for her - tho whether she actually shot, dunno.
Obtaining a handgun or conventional rifle by a suspect terrorist would generally not be as effective in mass shootings as these assault rifles.
At least suspect terrorists wouldn't be able to get assault rifles, while still being able to exercise their (barf) 2nd Amendment rkba.

...........AR15/M16 ..... AK-47 (122 grain bullet) >>>> Free Recoil
momentum 40.4 ft-lbs .. 54.3 ft-lbs
(some rifles have 240+ grain bullets with much greater recoil than ar15)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_AK-47_and_M16

Also, the nra is fos when saying a ban on all those formerly on a terrorist watch list (as recent orlando shooter) might not be deterred by a ban on those currently on a terrorist watch list.
Some 'formerly's' indeed would be deterred by such a ban, as there would be a 'threat' of being identified as having once been on a terrorist watch list, and this in itself would inhibit many of those people from even desiring to try to purchase a gun, for either an irrational fear of being reported to cops & quickly arrested, or being exposed by the gun dealer to the community he lives in, iow paranoia.

As far as 'law abiding americans' being prohibited from buying a gun if they are accidentally on a terrorist watch list ban, the gun lobby makes the absurd conclusion that all of these people would even want to buy a gun. Most would likely not even want to buy a gun, unless they were truly terroristic of course.
Some unfairly on the list would already be gun owners, thus not being left gun-less.
Most all of the rest should not complain severely about being accidentally put on one since they could simply go to sheriff or authority & provide proof that they are legal beagles, and weighing the positive benefits from a terrorist watch list a true citizen should understand. True terrorists generally could not do this.
Posted by jimmy the one | Mon Jun 27, 2016, 02:38 PM (2 replies)

asssault rifle ban for those on terror watch list - at least

What congressional Dems might suggest is to create an 'assault weapons ban' for those on a terrorist watch list.
That is to say, if not a total gun ban for them as is politically improbable, at least ban those on a terrorist watch list from being able to buy assault rifles such as the sig mcx or the AR15. These both use a low weight 0.223 bullet or the similar nato round which are so light at ~60 grains they do not create much rifle recoil, which makes shooting more accurate as the rifle needs not be re-aimed as much after firing shots, as do bullets with heavier weight & larger calibers. Also known as 'rifle rise' due greater recoil.
These assault rifles using these low weight bullets are 'en vogue' for mass shootings due the same reasons soldiers like them - can carry more light weight bullets, light recoil, & higher accuracy & lethality. The lady shooter at san bernardino was reported as having an AR15, or a 0.223 rifle, & she weighed little over 100 lbs, making the AR15 ideal for her - tho whether she actually shot, dunno.
Obtaining a handgun or conventional rifle by a suspect terrorist would generally not be as effective in mass shootings as these assault rifles.
At least suspect terrorists wouldn't be able to get assault rifles, while still being able to exercise their (barf) 2nd Amendment rkba.

...........AR15/M16 ..... AK-47 (122 grain bullet) >>>> Free Recoil
momentum 40.4 ft-lbs .. 54.3 ft-lbs

(some rifles have 240+ grain bullets with much greater recoil than ar15)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_AK-47_and_M16

Also, the nra is fos when saying a ban on all those formerly on a terrorist watch list (as recent orlando shooter) might not be deterred by a ban on those currently on a terrorist watch list.
Some 'formerly's' indeed would be deterred by such a ban, as there would be a 'threat' of being identified as having once been on a terrorist watch list, and this in itself would inhibit many of those people from even desiring to try to purchase a gun, for either an irrational fear of being reported to cops & quickly arrested, or being exposed by the gun dealer to the community he lives in, iow paranoia.

As far as 'law abiding americans' being prohibited from buying a gun if they are accidentally on a terrorist watch list ban, the gun lobby makes the absurd conclusion that all of these people would even want to buy a gun. Most would likely not even want to buy a gun, unless they were truly terroristic of course.
Some unfairly on the list would already be gun owners, thus not being left gun-less.
Most all of the rest should not complain severely about being accidentally put on one since they could simply go to sheriff or authority & provide proof that they are legal beagles, and weighing the positive benefits from a terrorist watch list a true citizen should understand. True terrorists generally could not do this.
Posted by jimmy the one | Mon Jun 27, 2016, 02:25 PM (19 replies)
Go to Page: 1