factsandconjecture

[factsandconjecture]

Download the entire report and read it. Read it. Stop taking the news' word for What's in it. Tell me this doesn't read like a political thriller written by an author who was pushing an agenda. Does this read like an official report from the highest ranking official in an impartial federal investigation? Does this investigation, as reported, read like it followed due process and was conducted entirely to find out what happened? Or does it read like it was conducted from the presumption of guilt on the part of the President Of The United States Of America - who, at the time of the start of this whole thing, was a political rival of the media darling and political power player that all of the news sources preemptively declared the sure winner of the 2016 election - Hillary Clinton - who was the literal chosen one of the Democrat Party - the same Democrat Party who's media influence looks a lot like this??? Why does the news look like this at every level - including the biggest names in news!?!?

Read the report, remember that even the President's most ardent opponents couldn't find grounds for an impeachment even after an investigation that culminated in a 484 page report filled with presumptive guilt bias from an investigation that was conducted by a team of legal all-stars who all had a presumption of guilt bias and who were all literally allied to the political opponents of The President Of The United States Of America...

Stop trusting the news. Stop trusting the people who have been working feverishly - since before Trump was even inaugurated - to find grounds for impeachment against the duly & legally elected PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Read the call between the two Presidents, ours and Ukraine's. Read the declassified documents - not the news' opinion of the document - read the document itself.

Watch how these two Presidents talk to each other - they can barely understand each other, the Ukrainian President is definitely not fluent in English...

The Ukrainian President even told the reporter who asked him if he felt pressured "I think you already knew that nobody pushed it - pushed me."

Now read the call again and tell me you think there was quid pro quo - blackmail by a nicer name - in that call...

There's the Mueller Report on Russiagate, the Ukrainegate transcript, the Ukrainian President saying he wasn't pressured during that call.

The rest is smoke & mirrors - political maneuvers being controlled by the President's political opponents.

Read, watch, think, learn.

Give me facts, proof, evidence of any of the recent allegations that do NOT require faith in a negative opinion in order for me to believe the left about anything they've accused President Trump of - if you can!

Because I have Facts, Proof, & Evidence of a lot of things the right is saying about both the President and the left! Don't believe me? Provide me with your FACTS, PROOF, & EVIDENCE about your side's claim then ask me for the Facts, Proof, & Evidence from my side on such topics as:

1. Employment & job opportunities in the United States.

2. Media inaccuracy & the leftist narratives they've pushed loudly and retracted quietly.

3. Anthropogenic Climate Change.

4. Gun Control.

5. Police violence against minorities.

Or try me with a topic of your choosing!

[factsandconjecture]

Give me facts, proof, evidence of any of the recent allegations that do NOT require faith in a negative opinion in order for me to believe the left about anything they've accused President Trump of - if you can!

Because I have Facts, Proof, & Evidence of a lot of things the right is saying about both the President and the left! Don't believe me? Provide me with your FACTS, PROOF, & EVIDENCE about your side's claim then ask me for the Facts, Proof, & Evidence from my side on such topics as:

1. Employment & job opportunities in the United States.

2. Media inaccuracy & the leftist narratives they've pushed loudly and retracted quietly.

3. Anthropogenic Climate Change.

4. Gun Control.

5. Police violence against minorities.

Or try me with a topic of your choosing!

[factsandconjecture]

The Broken Electoral College.

Many people can agree that the Electoral College has flaws. Some will say it is unnecessary, out-dated and oppressive in that it makes the value of votes unequal. Others say that it is the fairest solution possible, to insure that every state has a voice in politics, despite it's imperfections, and thus necessary. Many more will have various other reasons to like or dislike it but I want to focus mainly on these two stances.

The first stance first.

I hear you. So did the founding fathers. That's why the originally intended for each state to have 2 senators total and one representative for every 250,000 people within each state.

Yep. The size of the House is supposed to change with every election following the national census.

I was curious so I did some number crunching to find out what kind of power dynamics would be in play if we did indeed allocate Electoral Votes by population at a ratio of 1:250,000. (I rounded to the nearest quarter million)

Current California Electoral Vote count = 55.

That's 2 for their senators and 53 for their congresspeople.

What happens if we allocate the EVs as the Founders intended?

California Electoral Votes with original intent Electoral College ratio = 142

That's a difference of 87 electoral votes.

The change would give California 258% more EVs than it now has.

Texas = 38.

Projected =117.

Difference = 79.

Change = 307%.

Florida = 29.

Projected = 88.

Difference = 59.

Change = 303%.

New York = 29.

Projected = 80.

Difference = 51.

Change = 275%

Pennsylvania = 20.

Projected = 54.

Difference = 34.

Change = 270%.

Illinois = 20.

Projected = 53.

Difference = 33.

Change = 265%

Ohio = 18.

Projected = 49.

Difference = 31.

Change = 272%

Georgia = 16.

Projected = 44.

Difference =28.

Change = 275%.

North Carolina = 15.

Projected = 44.

Difference = 29.

Change = 293%.

Michigan = 16.

Projected = 42.

Difference = 26.

Change = 262%

Those are the top ten most populated states, shall we do the bottom 10 states as well?

Wyoming = 3.

Projected = 5.

Difference = 2.

Change = 166%

Vermont = 3.

Projected = 5.

Difference = 2.

Change = 166%

Alaska = 3.

Projected = 5.

Difference = 2.

Change = 166%

North Dakota = 3.

Projected = 5.

Difference = 2.

Change = 166%

South Dakota = 3.

Projected = 6.

Difference = 3.

Change = 200%.

Delaware = 3.

Projected = 6.

Difference = 3.

Change = 200%

Rhode Island = 4.

Projected = 6.

Difference = 2.

Change = 300%.

Montana = 3.

Projected = 6.

Difference = 3.

Change = 200%.

Maine = 4.

Projected = 8.

Difference = 4.

Change = 200%.

New Hampshire = 4.

Projected = 8.

Difference = 4.

Change = 200%

Interesting isn't it?

Compared to the other top nine most populous states and Vermont, California would lose political power, but compared to Wyoming and the other eight least populous states it would gain political power.

(I'm singling California out since it's the most populous state with the most Electoral Votes.)

I wonder what happens when you do all 50 states and then figure out the differences between percentage of EV won by each candidate in the previous few elections?