JD Vance Response to Mark Cuban: ‘Insulting to My Wife,’ Melania Trump, Lara Trump and All Women Supporting Trump

[BPPLEE]

He was found guilty based on the evidence. And lets us not forget his other trials.

He wasn’t found guilty he was liable civilly. There was no evidence it was based solely on her accusation. He was found guilty of slander against her.

 

[FaithT]

He wasn’t found guilty he was liable civilly. There was no evidence it was based solely on her accusation. He was found guilty of slander against her.

Sorry, my mistake. Yeah he’s a swell guy. Not.

 

[FaithT]

BPPLEE, what are you going to do if he loses?

 

[BPPLEE]

Sorry, my mistake. Yeah he’s a swell guy. Not.

I’m not a fan of his but even less of Kamala

 

[BPPLEE]

BPPLEE, what are you going to do if he loses?

Nothing. It’ll just be another day. I’ve got to train for another job in case surgery doesn’t fix my problems and I can’t go back to my job, I’ll be busy.

 

[BPPLEE]

BPPLEE, what are you going to do if he loses?

Looks like I don’t have to worry about that. What are you going to do?

 

[BPPLEE]

It's going to be a lot of fun watching the reaction to the election last night.

 

[FaithT]

Looks like I don’t have to worry about that. What are you going to do?

Other than bum out, nothing.

 

[prodromos]

Looks like I don’t have to worry about that. What are you going to do?

Isn't it strange that at last count Trump still doesn't have as many votes as he did in the 2020 elections, yet he has soundly defeated Harris?
What happened?
Did thirteen and a half million Democrat voters die in the last four years?

 

[BPPLEE]

Isn't it strange that at last count Trump still doesn't have as many votes as he did in the 2020 elections, yet he has soundly defeated Harris?
What happened?
Did thirteen and a half million Democrat voters die in the last four years?

Now, now, you sound like those MAGA extremists casting doubt on our secure election system and starting conspiracy theories.
You wouldn't want to be like them would you?

 

[JSRG]

Isn't it strange that at last count Trump still doesn't have as many votes as he did in the 2020 elections, yet he has soundly defeated Harris?
What happened?
Did thirteen and a half million Democrat voters die in the last four years?

I'm a bit confused as to what point you're trying to make, but trying to compare vote totals to 2020 is basically pointless until all the votes are actually counted. Most of the states have basically finished up, but there are some that still aren't quite finished and will increase the totals--most notably California, which due to being behind the other states and having a large population still has about 8 million ballots not counted yet (the election tracker website I looked at had the candidates all together having received 10 million, and it's 55% counted, so that's about 8 million left to count).

 

[prodromos]

Now, now, you sound like those MAGA extremists casting doubt on our secure election system and starting conspiracy theories.
You wouldn't want to be like them would you?

If you want to see an interesting visual, check the results by counties. Even in the states won by Harris, most of the counties are red except for a few states in the North East. If someone did a colour map of the USA election results by county, close to 90% would be red.

 

[JSRG]

If you want to see an interesting visual, check the results by counties. Even in the states won by Harris, most of the counties are red except for a few states in the North East. If someone did a colour map of the USA election results by county, close to 90% would be red.

The problem with this idea--and I know I've seen people demonstrate it by showing maps of it--is that this is based on land, not people. To take an extreme example, if a county is 100 square miles and has only 5 inhabitants and the majority vote Republican, whereas another county is 10 square miles but has thousands of people and the majority vote Democrat, on a map it'll look like you have a giant Republican area and a tiny Democrat area, even though the population of the latter is dramatically bigger.

And generally speaking, Democrats do well in the places where you have a lot of people packed into a smaller location (that is, the big cities) whereas Republicans do well in the areas where people are more spread out, which means you get large red tracts of land where comparatively fewer people live per square mile, and then some smaller blue areas where a lot of people live.

So, for example, here's a map of Illinois results by county from the 2020 election (taken from here)

We can clearly see that most of the map is red, even though the state was strongly Democrat (Biden won by 17%). The reason for this is that the blue areas have much larger populations than the red ones. Cook County, which contains Chicago and is very blue, is one of the ones in the upper-right area (it's the one with the longer border with the lake). It's not all that big of an area, and doesn't look all that impressive on a map like this. But has a larger population than every red county in the state combined.

So while one can indeed say a county map showing results is interesting to look at, it also doesn't mean much because it's based on land rather than people. All it's really a demonstration of the fairly well-known fact that Republicans generally do better in rural areas and Democrats generally do better in urban areas.

 

[prodromos]

The problem with this idea--and I know I've seen people demonstrate it by showing maps of it--is that this is based on land, not people. To take an extreme example, if a county is 100 square miles and has only 5 inhabitants and the majority vote Republican, whereas another county is 10 square miles but has thousands of people and the majority vote Democrat, on a map it'll look like you have a giant Republican area and a tiny Democrat area, even though the population of the latter is dramatically bigger.

And generally speaking, Democrats do well in the places where you have a lot of people packed into a smaller location (that is, the big cities) whereas Republicans do well in the areas where people are more spread out, which means you get large red tracts of land where comparatively fewer people live per square mile, and then some smaller blue areas where a lot of people live.

So, for example, here's a map of Illinois results by county from the 2020 election (taken from here)

View attachment 356783

We can clearly see that most of the map is red, even though the state was strongly Democrat (Biden won by 17%). The reason for this is that the blue areas have much larger populations than the red ones. Cook County, which contains Chicago and is very blue, is one of the ones in the upper-right area (it's the one with the longer border with the lake). It's not all that big of an area, and doesn't look all that impressive on a map like this. But has a larger population than every red county in the state combined.

So while one can indeed say a county map showing results is interesting to look at, it also doesn't mean much because it's based on land rather than people. All it's really a demonstration of the fairly well-known fact that Republicans generally do better in rural areas and Democrats generally do better in urban areas.

Yes, I figured that it would be mostly rural areas. I've only visited California, Arizona and Wisconsin so have little appreciation for the vast rural areas of the US in other states. Still, it paints an incredibly red picture.

 

[BPPLEE]

If you want to see an interesting visual, check the results by counties. Even in the states won by Harris, most of the counties are red except for a few states in the North East. If someone did a colour map of the USA election results by county, close to 90% would be red.

Nothing unusual about that.