Paul Rogers

[Paul Rogers @pigeyex]

@XFactor3kze @TalkinYanks Fallacy of sunken costs. It’s insane.

[Bill Maher @billmaher]

The World Cup is at our shores, and all these people are doing us a great service. They are reminding Americans that this place is kind of awesome.

[Paul Rogers @pigeyex]

@nicksortor @ScottPresler Yeah ask Liz Cheney how that started out for her. And then how it ended.

[Paul Rogers @pigeyex]

@catturd2 Bingo.

[Paul Rogers @pigeyex]

@RubinReport Pretty much. It’s unwatchable.

[DNI Tulsi Gabbard @DNIGabbard]

Today, I’m releasing never before seen intelligence revealing new evidence of past US government funding for more than 120 biolabs in over 30 countries, including Ukraine.

In support of President Trump‘s Executive Order to end federal funding of dangerous gain of function research around the world, and increase transparency and accountability, ODNI will continue working with partners across the Administration to identify where these labs are, what pathogens they contain, and what “research” is being conducted.

https://t.co/pLMD0krc69

[Paul Rogers @pigeyex]

@MichaelARothman Yes, but was it in real time? 🙄

[🇺🇸 Edward T. Winslow @EdwardTWinz]

🚨 A JOURNALIST JUST FILMED INSIDE THE NEWARK ICE PROTEST CAMP. READ THAT AGAIN:

Nick Sortor went in with a hidden camera. What he found wasn't a spontaneous protest.

It was a fully operational logistics base.

– Tens of THOUSANDS of dollars in equipment already on site

– Riot gear. Not signs. Not banners. RIOT EQUIPMENT.

– Hot food delivered every single hour, on schedule

– Medical sections, expensive tents, organized supply chains

– This is outside Delaney Hall ICE detention center in Newark, NJ

– Protests have been running for over a week — round the clock

– Andy Ngo documented week-long violence by Antifa at the same facility

– State police had to intervene just to restore basic order

– Nobody is asking who is paying for hourly catered deliveries to a protest camp

– Nobody is asking who sourced the riot equipment

– Nobody is asking who coordinates the resupply logistics for a week-long operation

This is not a group of angry citizens who showed up with signs.

This is a funded, staffed, continuously resupplied operation with riot capability.

Someone is writing checks for this. Someone is organizing the deliveries. Someone made sure the equipment arrived.

The protesters didn't just open a door that CANNOT be closed.

The funders did. And nobody is looking for them.

Follow and turn on notifications before it's too late.

[Paul Rogers @pigeyex]

@NYGovPress 🤣🤣🤣

You’re really not good at this, Guvnah. 🤦🏻‍♂️

[Nick shirley @nickshirleyy]

CBS News said there was no evidence of fraud.

The NYT said the Somali community was being targeted

CNN said there was "little evidence."

Tim Walz said it was “white supremacy” to expose fraud

Today: $90M busted and 15 charged.

IT WAS ALL FRAUD AND THEY KNEW.

[Paul Rogers @pigeyex]

@DemTabby @FoxNews I do.

[Mark R. Levin @marklevinshow]

Subhuman monsters

[Jesse Watters @JesseBWatters]

🚨 BREAKING: JD Vance JUST FROZE OVER $1 BILLION HEADED TO CALIFORNIA 💣

“Fraud Czar” says DIRTY DOCTORS and FAKE HOSPICES have been BLEEDING TAXPAYERS DRY 😳

800 HOSPICES SHUT DOWN…and almost NOBODY COMPLAINED 👀

The GRAVY TRAIN may FINALLY BE OVER 🔥

[Paul Rogers @pigeyex]

@MattWhitlock @mirandadevine Theater kids. 🙄

[Paul Rogers @pigeyex]

Well, another AI had this answer for me, INSTANTLY. Still just blows my mind. 🤯

No — those are related ideas, but they are not the same thing, and VDH is treating them as separate mechanisms.

The easiest way to think about it:

* “Redistricting war” = the broad partisan fight over drawing maps.
* “End of racial gerrymandering” (Callais) = a specific legal change that alters the rules of that fight.

So #3 affects #1, but it is not identical to it.

Here’s the distinction.

1. “Redistricting war”

This refers to the normal political process where state legislatures redraw congressional districts to maximize partisan advantage.

That includes:

* partisan gerrymandering,
* incumbent protection,
* cracking and packing voters,
* mid-decade remaps,
* aggressive mapmaking by either party.

VDH’s “262 Republicans vs 173 Democrats” claim is basically:

“If Republicans fully exploit the map-drawing process in states they control, they could create a very favorable House map.”

That argument exists even if Callais had never happened.

This is about:

* who controls state governments,
* who draws the maps,
* where voters geographically live,
* partisan clustering,
* census apportionment.

⸻

2. “End of racial gerrymandering (Callais)”

This is narrower and more legal/constitutional.

The argument here is:

* before Callais, the Voting Rights Act often forced states to create majority-minority districts,
* those districts frequently elected Democrats,
* after Callais, states may have more freedom to dismantle or redraw those districts.

So this is not “general redistricting.”
It is specifically about:

* weakening Section 2 Voting Rights Act protections,
* reducing the requirement to create minority-opportunity districts,
* allowing maps that are more partisan even if they dilute minority voting power.

That’s why commentators say Democrats could lose additional seats after the ruling.

⸻

Why it can feel like double-counting

Your instinct is reasonable because the two effects overlap heavily.

In practice:

* many majority-minority districts are also Democratic districts,
* removing those protections helps Republicans in the broader redistricting battle.

So if someone says:

1. Republicans gain huge advantages from aggressive redistricting,
2. and Republicans also gain huge advantages from Callais,

you can fairly ask:

“Are those the same seats being counted twice?”

And the answer is:

* partially yes, there is likely overlap,
* but conceptually they are still different drivers.

A cleaner formulation would be:

* #1 = partisan mapmaking advantage
* #3 = legal removal of constraints on partisan mapmaking

So #3 amplifies #1 rather than being fully independent of it.

⸻

An analogy:

Suppose a football team says:

1. “We’ll score more because our offense is better.”
2. “We’ll also score more because the salary cap rules changed.”

Those are distinct claims.
But the second one strengthens the first one, so you cannot simply add both estimates together without overlap.

That’s the issue with VDH’s framing. He may be directionally distinguishing different forces, but the numerical implications are probably not additive in a clean way.

Also worth noting:

* his seat projections are highly speculative,
* redistricting outcomes depend on courts, commissions, state constitutions, demographics, turnout, and candidate quality,
* and House maps change constantly through litigation and political shifts.

So the “262–173” and “plus another 10–15 seats” numbers should be viewed more as political forecasting rhetoric than rigorous mathematical projections.

[Paul Rogers @pigeyex]

@MichaelARothman @grok (or anyone else) as it relates to the above article, what is the difference between the redistricting war and the end of gerrymandering? Aren’t they the same thing and VDH is counting the same numbers twice?

[Paul Rogers @pigeyex]

@BrentASJax Never 3-putted so many greens in my life as when I played there. We used to say there was an elephant buried under that one green!

[Rick Scott @SenRickScott]

But where the hell is NATO in all this? Sure, they’ll get to benefit from the peace and prosperity America creates after not showing up during this ENTIRE operation, and not letting us use the bases we PAID FOR. Never mind that they would all be speaking German if it wasn’t for our help!

It’s especially embarrassing to look at the United Kingdom in all this and see it led by a Chamberlain instead of a Churchill.

Our NATO allies need to GET REAL and GET SERIOUS before it’s too late!

[Paul Rogers @pigeyex]

@BonginoReport @SilverlochMedia @VinceCoglianese Nothing will happen. Never does.

[Paul Rogers @pigeyex]

@jsolomonReports I’m sure it’s a great story. Unfortunately I just can’t, with all the pop-ups.