RSS
From another great in-depth YouGov poll comes percentages people, by selected demographic characteristics, who favor the US Census asking people whether or not they are American citizens. “Not sure” responses, constituting 14% of the total pool, are excluded. The graph thus shows the percentages who support the question being asked while the residual values indicate opposition to its inclusion:
Some populist, president Trump, caving on an issue that isn’t only wildly popular with his base but is also supported by a large majority of independents, a plurality of non-whites, and even a sizable minority of Democrats–the same Democrats who voted for him in 2016 but may not do so again in 2020.
Though the poll doesn’t break respondents down by both partisan affiliation and race, it’s easy to deduce from these results that white liberals–like, say, Jared and Ivanka–are the biggest opponents of the citizenship question being included.
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Persian
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
More proof that Democrats are the anti-American party.
IIRC, there was Zac Goldberg data that showed that white postgraduate liberals were the most opposed to immigration restriction on ethnic grounds. Like 9-1 against, non-whites were 50-50.
That’s our problem, the intellectual class can veto a lot of our desires. White liberals view themselves as the scolds keeping whites at large from going feral.
*Chosen from an extraordinarily small pool: 5 Harvard Law grads, 4 from Yale.Replies: @Anonymousse
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/italian-court-frees-seawatch-captain-in-blow-to-matteo-salvini-a8985356.html?amp#comments
It's hard to imagine how naive we all were a few years ago.Replies: @Rosie, @Rosie, @iffen
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palamedes_(Arthurian_legend)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dagonet
That never changed, even when European elites promoted nationalism to the masses in the 19th century (while the royals were incredibly ethnically mixed and nobles and high bourgeois raised as multilingual cosmopolitans, with long-term living abroad as their rite of passage).Replies: @Audacious Epigone, @Oleaginous Outrager
Indeed. Even blacks and Hispanics are far more interested in this question being on there than white leftists.
Truth be told, we would be better off with exactly four political parties, rather than two. That would be too granular for the media to manipulate into a level of ‘us vs. them’ as is possible with two parties. Furthermore, blacks would not be in the same party as rich white leftists, which would weaken the pull of each. Given that political ideologies distribute along two axes instead of one, this would also be better (for example, the ‘alt-right’ tends to have left-wing economic views, and hence their polar opposite is not the Democrat socialists like Bernie Sanders by any means, but rather Libertarianism).
The Parliamentary system in countries like Britain has problems because if there are too many parties, some idiot can always play kingmaker. But if there are exactly four parties, I think that removes more problems than it creates.
In the Four-party system :
i) The President is from the party with the most votes.
ii) The #1 and #3 (yes, three) parties via popular vote have to add up their votes in combination, apply it to the Electoral college, and then win if they have over 270 EVs. Hence, when the President is up for a second term, his allies in the second term might be quite different from those in his first term.
This way, alliances are not fully predictable, and political lobbies cannot get too entrenched.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Chilean_general_election
The entire structure of the US government militates against a multiparty scheme (the differences in how Cabinets are constituted, for one).
Seriously, first-past-the-post systems seem to drift to a two-party equilibrium. The thing is to try to drag the GOP in a populist rather than a free-market direction.
Truth be told, we would be better off with exactly four political parties, rather than two. That would be too granular for the media to manipulate into a level of 'us vs. them' as is possible with two parties. Furthermore, blacks would not be in the same party as rich white leftists, which would weaken the pull of each. Given that political ideologies distribute along two axes instead of one, this would also be better (for example, the 'alt-right' tends to have left-wing economic views, and hence their polar opposite is not the Democrat socialists like Bernie Sanders by any means, but rather Libertarianism).
The Parliamentary system in countries like Britain has problems because if there are too many parties, some idiot can always play kingmaker. But if there are exactly four parties, I think that removes more problems than it creates.
In the Four-party system :
i) The President is from the party with the most votes.
ii) The #1 and #3 (yes, three) parties via popular vote have to add up their votes in combination, apply it to the Electoral college, and then win if they have over 270 EVs. Hence, when the President is up for a second term, his allies in the second term might be quite different from those in his first term.
This way, alliances are not fully predictable, and political lobbies cannot get too entrenched.Replies: @216, @Oleaginous Outrager, @MarkU, @SFG
Some variant of this system exists in Chile. Nominally two “coalitions” but smaller parties inside them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Chilean_general_election
How do we know some of the people answering this survey weren’t illegal aliens? It’s illegal alien turtles, all the way down.
…the US Census asking people whether or not they are American citizens.
What is the exact proposed question? — it is a binary ‘Citizen’/’Not a Citizen’? — or are other answers possible?
I don’t pay attention to the details of bullshit like this; I more or less assumed the concern was it could give the government an idea of how many illegals are in a particular area — but an answer like ‘Not a Citizen’ covers more than just illegals; why would those here legally but who are not citizens (eg green card holders) have a problem with answering? — since one use of the census is congressional apportionment, the question is not unreasonable.
Besides, since ‘diversity’ is a strength, and most non-citizens are non-white, what’s wrong with trying to find out how ‘strong’ the country is?
Exactly. What ought to be discussed is the manipulation of how that citizenship question was to be on the Census in the first place. On the surface, it sounds like a no-brainer. However...
Thomas Hofeller, a well-known conservative mapmaker who gave gerrymandering advice to Republicans at the state level, died last summer, and his estranged daughter in going over his things found something important!
Enter the Washington Free Beacon, a conservative newspaper owned by a billionaire (Paul Singer), who thought of filing a federal lawsuit about voting rights, but needed information. Hofeller was hired by the Beacon to conduct a study how to draw political maps, using Texas as a model since it has a large minority population (Hispanics). This study used data of ONLY American citizens of voting age (new criteria), NOT population (old criteria), for that state.
Why?
To determine if the maps would give Republicans an even better advantage in that state to maintain their control of the state legislature by decreasing the future political power of Hispanics, which is a growing population and tends to vote for Democrats. Using the new criteria meant a large segment of the Hispanic population would not be represented...a problem!
Problem solved—> The newly drawn maps would have to meet Constitutional criteria of “one person, one vote” AND 1965 Voting Rights Act criteria—districts must reflect diversity—meaning that districts would “naturally” be packed. Democrats favor those standards, so Hofeller thought “How can they complain?”.
Answer—> They can’t!
New problem —> The detailed citizenship data, however, did not exist, as required by federal and state law to redraw the districts. Hofeller used statistical sampling measures, NOT total numbers.
Problem solved —> Require a citizenship question on the national census, something NEVER done before. Thus, states could exclude illegal aliens from the count. The definition of “total population” would now mean ONLY AMERICAN CITIZENS, not ANY AND ALL PEOPLE, as apparently intended by the Framers.
Shenangians? How did this new citizenship question on the census suddenly become important...
Mark Neuman, a Trump transition team member who is friends with Hofeller, was informed by Hofeller about the study. Nueman testified in one of the three federal lawsuits about the citizenship question that Hofeller’s study concluded the new criteria would mean an INCREASE in Latino representation...the opposite of the results of the study.
Then we have Wilbur Ross, a Trump transition team member who becomes Commerce Secretary, which is responsible for adding the citizenship question to the 2020 census. Ross was informed about the study by Neuman. Ross then pressured the Justice Department, who is responsible for enforcing the 1965 Voting Rights Act, that it should support the citizenship question because the data collected would help that cause.
The Trump Administration denied any connection (no surprise, it lies routinely), but several files from four external hard drives and 18 thumb drives indicate in detail Hofeller's activities as a Republican consultant...including his role in working with Trump officials to push for the citizenship question...were given by the daughter to lawyers in one of those three cases. Those same lawyers filed a lawsuit in federal court Thursday, May 30, 2019 to block the citizenship question from appearing on the 2020 Census. The Supreme Court, as we know, ruled against Trump.Replies: @MarkinLA
The official Cause For Concern is that illegal aliens will be scared by the prospect thus make themselves scarce when the Census workers try to contact them. That will lead to an undercounting of the populations in heavily illegal (ie heavily Democrat) districts and consequentially a loss in electoral votes and districting.Replies: @Oleaginous Outrager, @Mr. Rational
That's our problem, the intellectual class can veto a lot of our desires. White liberals view themselves as the scolds keeping whites at large from going feral.Replies: @Oleaginous Outrager, @Rosie, @Toronto Russian
Yep , nine intellectual assholes* in black, bureaucrats with lifetime gigs who can overrule the legislature, the executive, and the people, with little or no recourse.
*Chosen from an extraordinarily small pool: 5 Harvard Law grads, 4 from Yale.
Truth be told, we would be better off with exactly four political parties, rather than two. That would be too granular for the media to manipulate into a level of 'us vs. them' as is possible with two parties. Furthermore, blacks would not be in the same party as rich white leftists, which would weaken the pull of each. Given that political ideologies distribute along two axes instead of one, this would also be better (for example, the 'alt-right' tends to have left-wing economic views, and hence their polar opposite is not the Democrat socialists like Bernie Sanders by any means, but rather Libertarianism).
The Parliamentary system in countries like Britain has problems because if there are too many parties, some idiot can always play kingmaker. But if there are exactly four parties, I think that removes more problems than it creates.
In the Four-party system :
i) The President is from the party with the most votes.
ii) The #1 and #3 (yes, three) parties via popular vote have to add up their votes in combination, apply it to the Electoral college, and then win if they have over 270 EVs. Hence, when the President is up for a second term, his allies in the second term might be quite different from those in his first term.
This way, alliances are not fully predictable, and political lobbies cannot get too entrenched.Replies: @216, @Oleaginous Outrager, @MarkU, @SFG
Which means eliminating the Executive as it exists now, in other words completely revamping the Constitution, indeed the entire system of government the US has had for over 200 years.
The entire structure of the US government militates against a multiparty scheme (the differences in how Cabinets are constituted, for one).
On the one hand, the Trump presidency’s lack of results on these issues is understandable, given the hitherto and unmistakeable degree of obstructionism from the courts, GOPe, Congress, and federal bureaucracy.
On the other, the Trump administration’s lack of drive, focus, and concerted effort is demoralizing. I think Trump the man cares about these issues, but he has failed to staff his White House and cabinet with people who will make it his business to deliver on them. Where is Kris Kobach?
I often get the feeling that Trump often dangles these red meat issues before our face to get us excited, but then he folds as soon as it’s time to to stand firm and get his way. Apparently the DoJ is looking at how it can include the citizenship question, but this feels more like a sop for our votes and continued loyalty than part of a grand plan to win.
Truth be told, we would be better off with exactly four political parties, rather than two. That would be too granular for the media to manipulate into a level of 'us vs. them' as is possible with two parties. Furthermore, blacks would not be in the same party as rich white leftists, which would weaken the pull of each. Given that political ideologies distribute along two axes instead of one, this would also be better (for example, the 'alt-right' tends to have left-wing economic views, and hence their polar opposite is not the Democrat socialists like Bernie Sanders by any means, but rather Libertarianism).
The Parliamentary system in countries like Britain has problems because if there are too many parties, some idiot can always play kingmaker. But if there are exactly four parties, I think that removes more problems than it creates.
In the Four-party system :
i) The President is from the party with the most votes.
ii) The #1 and #3 (yes, three) parties via popular vote have to add up their votes in combination, apply it to the Electoral college, and then win if they have over 270 EVs. Hence, when the President is up for a second term, his allies in the second term might be quite different from those in his first term.
This way, alliances are not fully predictable, and political lobbies cannot get too entrenched.Replies: @216, @Oleaginous Outrager, @MarkU, @SFG
Sorry but a solution to the electoral issues that states “we would be better off with exactly N political parties” (regardless of what number is chosen as N) is just plain misguided. It really doesn’t matter how many parties there are if they are all different cheeks of the same arse.
What you actually need is a better electoral system, one that cannot be so easily bought. I would also recommend a different voting system, some version of the single transferable vote (STV) this would allow new parties to actually gain some traction instead of just being seen as ‘wasted’ votes.
That's our problem, the intellectual class can veto a lot of our desires. White liberals view themselves as the scolds keeping whites at large from going feral.Replies: @Oleaginous Outrager, @Rosie, @Toronto Russian
The world over, the system has redundant failsafes to prevent any populist revolt. The media is controlled, the politicians are controlled, the money supply is controlled. When all else fails…the judiciary.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/italian-court-frees-seawatch-captain-in-blow-to-matteo-salvini-a8985356.html?amp#comments
It’s hard to imagine how naive we all were a few years ago.
2. Some smugglers with rickety boats.
3. Some unidentified (((donors)))
4. A pretty girl, and
5. A cooperative (controlled) judiciary.And all the while Italy is a nominal "democracy."https://sea-watch.org/en/
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/italian-court-frees-seawatch-captain-in-blow-to-matteo-salvini-a8985356.html?amp#comments
It's hard to imagine how naive we all were a few years ago.Replies: @Rosie, @Rosie, @iffen
I would be very curious to see how transnational organizations bully states into turning over the major policy questions of their societies to unelected judges who will reliably advance their globalist agenda.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967067X18300400
They see any democratic control over the judiciary as a major (unacceptable) threat.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-poland-judiciary/eu-targets-poland-romania-with-defense-of-judicial-independence-idUSKCN1RF14V
I’m wondering when the citizenship questions will be removed from the form 4473 (ATF questionnaire and affidavit for buying a gun.) Because why should illegal aliens be legally prohibited from buying guns? If the left wasn’t so anti-gun, it would’ve been done by now.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/italian-court-frees-seawatch-captain-in-blow-to-matteo-salvini-a8985356.html?amp#comments
It's hard to imagine how naive we all were a few years ago.Replies: @Rosie, @Rosie, @iffen
So all it takes to dissolve Europe’s borders is:
1. Four families.
2. Some smugglers with rickety boats.
3. Some unidentified (((donors)))
4. A pretty girl, and
5. A cooperative (controlled) judiciary.
And all the while Italy is a nominal “democracy.”
https://sea-watch.org/en/
He just folds too often and very easily.
*Chosen from an extraordinarily small pool: 5 Harvard Law grads, 4 from Yale.Replies: @Anonymousse
**And three (would have been four if the left succeeded with Garland) from the same tiny extended family of hostile foreigners. That’s more of a concern than particular schools.
What is the exact proposed question? -- it is a binary 'Citizen'/'Not a Citizen'? -- or are other answers possible?
I don't pay attention to the details of bullshit like this; I more or less assumed the concern was it could give the government an idea of how many illegals are in a particular area -- but an answer like 'Not a Citizen' covers more than just illegals; why would those here legally but who are not citizens (eg green card holders) have a problem with answering? -- since one use of the census is congressional apportionment, the question is not unreasonable.
Besides, since 'diversity' is a strength, and most non-citizens are non-white, what's wrong with trying to find out how 'strong' the country is?Replies: @Corvinus, @Audacious Epigone
“What is the exact proposed question? — it is a binary ‘Citizen’/’Not a Citizen’? — or are other answers possible? I don’t pay attention to the details of bullshit like this…”
Exactly. What ought to be discussed is the manipulation of how that citizenship question was to be on the Census in the first place. On the surface, it sounds like a no-brainer. However…
Thomas Hofeller, a well-known conservative mapmaker who gave gerrymandering advice to Republicans at the state level, died last summer, and his estranged daughter in going over his things found something important!
Enter the Washington Free Beacon, a conservative newspaper owned by a billionaire (Paul Singer), who thought of filing a federal lawsuit about voting rights, but needed information. Hofeller was hired by the Beacon to conduct a study how to draw political maps, using Texas as a model since it has a large minority population (Hispanics). This study used data of ONLY American citizens of voting age (new criteria), NOT population (old criteria), for that state.
Why?
To determine if the maps would give Republicans an even better advantage in that state to maintain their control of the state legislature by decreasing the future political power of Hispanics, which is a growing population and tends to vote for Democrats. Using the new criteria meant a large segment of the Hispanic population would not be represented…a problem!
Problem solved—> The newly drawn maps would have to meet Constitutional criteria of “one person, one vote” AND 1965 Voting Rights Act criteria—districts must reflect diversity—meaning that districts would “naturally” be packed. Democrats favor those standards, so Hofeller thought “How can they complain?”.
Answer—> They can’t!
New problem —> The detailed citizenship data, however, did not exist, as required by federal and state law to redraw the districts. Hofeller used statistical sampling measures, NOT total numbers.
Problem solved —> Require a citizenship question on the national census, something NEVER done before. Thus, states could exclude illegal aliens from the count. The definition of “total population” would now mean ONLY AMERICAN CITIZENS, not ANY AND ALL PEOPLE, as apparently intended by the Framers.
Shenangians? How did this new citizenship question on the census suddenly become important…
Mark Neuman, a Trump transition team member who is friends with Hofeller, was informed by Hofeller about the study. Nueman testified in one of the three federal lawsuits about the citizenship question that Hofeller’s study concluded the new criteria would mean an INCREASE in Latino representation…the opposite of the results of the study.
Then we have Wilbur Ross, a Trump transition team member who becomes Commerce Secretary, which is responsible for adding the citizenship question to the 2020 census. Ross was informed about the study by Neuman. Ross then pressured the Justice Department, who is responsible for enforcing the 1965 Voting Rights Act, that it should support the citizenship question because the data collected would help that cause.
The Trump Administration denied any connection (no surprise, it lies routinely), but several files from four external hard drives and 18 thumb drives indicate in detail Hofeller’s activities as a Republican consultant…including his role in working with Trump officials to push for the citizenship question…were given by the daughter to lawyers in one of those three cases. Those same lawyers filed a lawsuit in federal court Thursday, May 30, 2019 to block the citizenship question from appearing on the 2020 Census. The Supreme Court, as we know, ruled against Trump.
The only issue in front of the court is whether or not the executive has the legal authority to put the question in, which everybody agrees it does. It is not up to the courts to determine if a "good enough" reason for it was given to some low level ass-clown in a black robe.Replies: @Corvinus
That's our problem, the intellectual class can veto a lot of our desires. White liberals view themselves as the scolds keeping whites at large from going feral.Replies: @Oleaginous Outrager, @Rosie, @Toronto Russian
The top educated/rich/highborn people always were their own community, more comfortable hanging out with each other than with commoners of their own ethnicity. The medieval legends of King Arthur have Saracen knights from Babylon treated as equals at the Round Table, but someone who wasn’t a lord could only be included as a joke:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palamedes_(Arthurian_legend)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dagonet
That never changed, even when European elites promoted nationalism to the masses in the 19th century (while the royals were incredibly ethnically mixed and nobles and high bourgeois raised as multilingual cosmopolitans, with long-term living abroad as their rite of passage).
"So your father was German, you're half-German and you married a German?"
“Very popular” Um…no. Slightly more than half of Burritos and Hip-Hopers are interested. A mysterious “other” people even less.
Since when is the demographic weight of Independants, Democats, and Republicans equal? There are 44 million registered dems, 30 million Republican. Roughly 20 % difference. Independents, no matter what their registration, don’t actually exist as a “third party”. Folks who sit on a bench.
Honestly, if you try to treat the sample population as a single population, the numbers don’t even add-up.
What is the exact proposed question? -- it is a binary 'Citizen'/'Not a Citizen'? -- or are other answers possible?
I don't pay attention to the details of bullshit like this; I more or less assumed the concern was it could give the government an idea of how many illegals are in a particular area -- but an answer like 'Not a Citizen' covers more than just illegals; why would those here legally but who are not citizens (eg green card holders) have a problem with answering? -- since one use of the census is congressional apportionment, the question is not unreasonable.
Besides, since 'diversity' is a strength, and most non-citizens are non-white, what's wrong with trying to find out how 'strong' the country is?Replies: @Corvinus, @Audacious Epigone
It’s binary–citizen or not.
The official Cause For Concern is that illegal aliens will be scared by the prospect thus make themselves scarce when the Census workers try to contact them. That will lead to an undercounting of the populations in heavily illegal (ie heavily Democrat) districts and consequentially a loss in electoral votes and districting.
On the other, the Trump administration's lack of drive, focus, and concerted effort is demoralizing. I think Trump the man cares about these issues, but he has failed to staff his White House and cabinet with people who will make it his business to deliver on them. Where is Kris Kobach?
I often get the feeling that Trump often dangles these red meat issues before our face to get us excited, but then he folds as soon as it's time to to stand firm and get his way. Apparently the DoJ is looking at how it can include the citizenship question, but this feels more like a sop for our votes and continued loyalty than part of a grand plan to win.Replies: @Audacious Epigone
News of the revisiting came out right after I finished up this post. I was going to add mention of it, but found myself too cynical to do so.
I will not vote for Trump nor will I vote for any Republican Party politician whore who does not call for an immigration moratorium and a complete and total deportation of all illegal alien invaders.
Trump wants to flood the USA with mass legal immigration "in the largest numbers ever."
Trump refuses to deport the upwards of 30 million illegal alien invaders in the USA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palamedes_(Arthurian_legend)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dagonet
That never changed, even when European elites promoted nationalism to the masses in the 19th century (while the royals were incredibly ethnically mixed and nobles and high bourgeois raised as multilingual cosmopolitans, with long-term living abroad as their rite of passage).Replies: @Audacious Epigone, @Oleaginous Outrager
Indeed. The elite cosmopolitan view infuses everything–media, pop culture, academia, religion, the corporate world–but most people aren’t cosmopolitan, in behavior or sentiment.
How many states has everyone here visited? How many countries?
(OH, IN, MI, PA, MD, MA, NY, FL) so 8
And CAN (ON)Replies: @Mr. Rational, @Oleaginous Outrager, @The Alarmist, @MikeatMikedotMike, @Talha, @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan, @Hallie Scott Kline
They ask some pretty personal stuff in the census.
The political benefit of merely demanding to know WHY it can’t be asked is good politics.
We know why it can’t be asked. Make them say it. Explain it. Over and over’.
Besides, the DHS/deep state knows exactly who is in the country.
Does Roberts have a yarmulke in the woodpile somewhere? It would explain much; that’s pretty near a majority.
You can't mix the idioms like this. It ain't kosher.Replies: @Talha
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/italian-court-frees-seawatch-captain-in-blow-to-matteo-salvini-a8985356.html?amp#comments
It's hard to imagine how naive we all were a few years ago.Replies: @Rosie, @Rosie, @iffen
The media is controlled, the politicians are controlled, the money supply is controlled.
Women used to be under control, then along came people like you. 🙂
The official Cause For Concern is that illegal aliens will be scared by the prospect thus make themselves scarce when the Census workers try to contact them. That will lead to an undercounting of the populations in heavily illegal (ie heavily Democrat) districts and consequentially a loss in electoral votes and districting.Replies: @Oleaginous Outrager, @Mr. Rational
Why wouldn’t they just lie (especially visa overstayers)? Does anyone believe there’s going to be any follow-up and enforcement involved? Just like “moar gun laws”, “moar immigration laws” just mean more statutes left lonely and ignored.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palamedes_(Arthurian_legend)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dagonet
That never changed, even when European elites promoted nationalism to the masses in the 19th century (while the royals were incredibly ethnically mixed and nobles and high bourgeois raised as multilingual cosmopolitans, with long-term living abroad as their rite of passage).Replies: @Audacious Epigone, @Oleaginous Outrager
“I’m as British as Queen Victoria!”
“So your father was German, you’re half-German and you married a German?”
“The official Cause For Concern is that illegal aliens will be scared by the prospect thus make themselves scarce when the Census workers try to contact them.”
What surprises me is how many illegal immigrants have acknowledged as much on census data. I have no idea what the Supreme Court was thinking, of course citizenship is legitimate categorical distinction when taking an account of the citizens of the US. I will never comprehend the failure of any of supposed government pretending as though the founders did not make it crystal clear who they designed the Constitution and why.
Spelled out right at the start.
a yarmulke in the woodpile somewhere
You can’t mix the idioms like this. It ain’t kosher.
Peace.
For ex:
How many states has everyone here visited? How many countries?
(OH, IN, MI, PA, MD, MA, NY, FL) so 8
And CAN (ON)
Italy, Austria, Switzerland, Slovenia
Visited 92 ... Lived six months or more in 8 of them.
South Korea, Singapore, Thailand, Australia, Bahrain, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Guam doesn't really count, Mexico, docked in Jordan but never set foot there.
I've been to about 35 states, including Hawaii.
Pakistan, Singapore, Egypt, Saudi, Sweden, Kosovo, Canada, Switzerland (and a bunch more as a stopover, but never made it out of their airports).
Peace.
Alaska
Washington state
Oregon
Montana
Wyoming
The Dakotas
Utah
New Mexico
Iowa
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Florida
Georgia
South Carolina
Alabama
Mississippi
Louisiana
Vermont
Rhode Island
SoetorolandI primarily travel in the Northeast and Midwest. From this list, the three states I would most like to see are (in no particular order). Alabama, Wisconsin, and Oregon.Of course I'd like to see all of the rest too. Except Hawaii.Is there anything worth seeing in Rhode Island? Genuinely curious.Replies: @The Alarmist
I’ve been to every state except Alaska. Been to Puerto Rico, as well.
Also Canada, Mexico, Italy, the Vatican, the Dominican Republic.
How do you do? (Nobody knows me.) I lurk often, but for me, this is a place of rarified air. I’m glad to see a question I can answer. ~pleased~
The official Cause For Concern is that illegal aliens will be scared by the prospect thus make themselves scarce when the Census workers try to contact them. That will lead to an undercounting of the populations in heavily illegal (ie heavily Democrat) districts and consequentially a loss in electoral votes and districting.Replies: @Oleaginous Outrager, @Mr. Rational
As it should be. Counting illegals (and non-citizens in general) creates “rotten boroughs”.
How many states has everyone here visited? How many countries?
(OH, IN, MI, PA, MD, MA, NY, FL) so 8
And CAN (ON)Replies: @Mr. Rational, @Oleaginous Outrager, @The Alarmist, @MikeatMikedotMike, @Talha, @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan, @Hallie Scott Kline
Me? States off the top of my head: CA OR WA ID NV AZ UT WY MT ND SD NE KS CO NM TX OK AR LA MS AL TN KY IL IA MN WI IN MI OH PA NY MA NH WV VA NC SC GA.
Canada: ON MB SK AB BC
Mexico: My aunt drove me across the border from McAllen once just so I could say I’d gone. I was back in 5 minutes.
You can't mix the idioms like this. It ain't kosher.Replies: @Talha
But it isn’t Saturday yet!
Peace.
Truth be told, we would be better off with exactly four political parties, rather than two. That would be too granular for the media to manipulate into a level of 'us vs. them' as is possible with two parties. Furthermore, blacks would not be in the same party as rich white leftists, which would weaken the pull of each. Given that political ideologies distribute along two axes instead of one, this would also be better (for example, the 'alt-right' tends to have left-wing economic views, and hence their polar opposite is not the Democrat socialists like Bernie Sanders by any means, but rather Libertarianism).
The Parliamentary system in countries like Britain has problems because if there are too many parties, some idiot can always play kingmaker. But if there are exactly four parties, I think that removes more problems than it creates.
In the Four-party system :
i) The President is from the party with the most votes.
ii) The #1 and #3 (yes, three) parties via popular vote have to add up their votes in combination, apply it to the Electoral college, and then win if they have over 270 EVs. Hence, when the President is up for a second term, his allies in the second term might be quite different from those in his first term.
This way, alliances are not fully predictable, and political lobbies cannot get too entrenched.Replies: @216, @Oleaginous Outrager, @MarkU, @SFG
Conservatives, progressives, libertarians, and populists? I like! I can vote populist and hang out with the libertarians and talk sci-fi!
Seriously, first-past-the-post systems seem to drift to a two-party equilibrium. The thing is to try to drag the GOP in a populist rather than a free-market direction.
How many states has everyone here visited? How many countries?
(OH, IN, MI, PA, MD, MA, NY, FL) so 8
And CAN (ON)Replies: @Mr. Rational, @Oleaginous Outrager, @The Alarmist, @MikeatMikedotMike, @Talha, @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan, @Hallie Scott Kline
CA, NV, ID, WA, OR, AZ, NM, OK, TX, AR, TN, AL, MS, KY, NC, SC, VA = 17
Italy, Austria, Switzerland, Slovenia
I would prefer the free market direction.
But either is preferable to SJW lunatics having this much power, or the various other maladies inherent to a two-party system in an age of mass media and mass brainwashing.
Plus, blacks will have to actually chose an ideology, rather than just ‘all blacks vote Democrat because…I dunno’. Whatever ideology they choose, it is certain that most of them will not be in the same party as the rich white leftists.
Hence, four parties.
Exactly. What ought to be discussed is the manipulation of how that citizenship question was to be on the Census in the first place. On the surface, it sounds like a no-brainer. However…”
This doesn’t much sense to me. Who cares who who wrote it. The point remains that category is very simple. Your attempt to draw some manner of sinister just does not wash.
———————–
“Plus, blacks will have to actually chose an ideology, rather than just ‘all blacks vote Democrat because…”
You seem to think blacks have iedologcal grounding. I am sure that might the case for some just as it the case for whites party loyalty is a two way street.
This has enabled the States with a large number of people (some good number not even citizens) to pad their representatives number; thus, giving them illegitimate control of one of the major organs of our democracy...The House of Representatives...
We need to somehow put a stop to it and this is Trump trying to do just that...or at least show people what has been going on...Replies: @MarkinLA
“Which means eliminating the Executive as it exists now, in other words completely revamping the Constitution, indeed the entire system of government the US has had for over 200 years.
The entire structure of the US government militates against a multiparty scheme (the differences in how Cabinets are constituted, for one).”
Before I could. Insider tbis, you need to be more specific about in the constitution hinders parties beyond the two we have. If tere are structural barriers I don’t see in the document. The social construction serves as the mechanism for parties. And while arguments can be made that about fairness, without identifying the mechanism in relation to the constitution, a contend to change it looks over the top.
“Which means eliminating the Executive as it exists now, in other words completely revamping the Constitution, indeed the entire system of government the US has had for over 200 years.
The entire structure of the US government militates against a multiparty scheme (the differences in how Cabinets are constituted, for one).”
Before I could. Insider tbis, you need to be more specific about in the constitution hinders parties beyond the two we have. If tere are structural barriers I don’t see in the document. The social construction serves as the mechanism for parties. And while arguments can be made that about fairness, without identifying the mechanism in relation to the constitution, a contend to change it looks over the top as unnecessary complexity.
“How many states has everyone here visited? How many countries?”
States: Probably all but two or very close to it.
Countries: panama, germany, japan, france, UK (not ireland) korea, South of the border, Canada
_______________________________________
Correction: Before I could consider this, you need to be more specific about in the constitution hinders parties beyond the two we have. I
How many states has everyone here visited? How many countries?
(OH, IN, MI, PA, MD, MA, NY, FL) so 8
And CAN (ON)Replies: @Mr. Rational, @Oleaginous Outrager, @The Alarmist, @MikeatMikedotMike, @Talha, @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan, @Hallie Scott Kline
All 50.
Visited 92 … Lived six months or more in 8 of them.
How many states has everyone here visited? How many countries?
(OH, IN, MI, PA, MD, MA, NY, FL) so 8
And CAN (ON)Replies: @Mr. Rational, @Oleaginous Outrager, @The Alarmist, @MikeatMikedotMike, @Talha, @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan, @Hallie Scott Kline
Countries:
South Korea, Singapore, Thailand, Australia, Bahrain, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Guam doesn’t really count, Mexico, docked in Jordan but never set foot there.
I’ve been to about 35 states, including Hawaii.
How many states has everyone here visited? How many countries?
(OH, IN, MI, PA, MD, MA, NY, FL) so 8
And CAN (ON)Replies: @Mr. Rational, @Oleaginous Outrager, @The Alarmist, @MikeatMikedotMike, @Talha, @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan, @Hallie Scott Kline
9 states.
Pakistan, Singapore, Egypt, Saudi, Sweden, Kosovo, Canada, Switzerland (and a bunch more as a stopover, but never made it out of their airports).
Peace.
Exactly. What ought to be discussed is the manipulation of how that citizenship question was to be on the Census in the first place. On the surface, it sounds like a no-brainer. However...
Thomas Hofeller, a well-known conservative mapmaker who gave gerrymandering advice to Republicans at the state level, died last summer, and his estranged daughter in going over his things found something important!
Enter the Washington Free Beacon, a conservative newspaper owned by a billionaire (Paul Singer), who thought of filing a federal lawsuit about voting rights, but needed information. Hofeller was hired by the Beacon to conduct a study how to draw political maps, using Texas as a model since it has a large minority population (Hispanics). This study used data of ONLY American citizens of voting age (new criteria), NOT population (old criteria), for that state.
Why?
To determine if the maps would give Republicans an even better advantage in that state to maintain their control of the state legislature by decreasing the future political power of Hispanics, which is a growing population and tends to vote for Democrats. Using the new criteria meant a large segment of the Hispanic population would not be represented...a problem!
Problem solved—> The newly drawn maps would have to meet Constitutional criteria of “one person, one vote” AND 1965 Voting Rights Act criteria—districts must reflect diversity—meaning that districts would “naturally” be packed. Democrats favor those standards, so Hofeller thought “How can they complain?”.
Answer—> They can’t!
New problem —> The detailed citizenship data, however, did not exist, as required by federal and state law to redraw the districts. Hofeller used statistical sampling measures, NOT total numbers.
Problem solved —> Require a citizenship question on the national census, something NEVER done before. Thus, states could exclude illegal aliens from the count. The definition of “total population” would now mean ONLY AMERICAN CITIZENS, not ANY AND ALL PEOPLE, as apparently intended by the Framers.
Shenangians? How did this new citizenship question on the census suddenly become important...
Mark Neuman, a Trump transition team member who is friends with Hofeller, was informed by Hofeller about the study. Nueman testified in one of the three federal lawsuits about the citizenship question that Hofeller’s study concluded the new criteria would mean an INCREASE in Latino representation...the opposite of the results of the study.
Then we have Wilbur Ross, a Trump transition team member who becomes Commerce Secretary, which is responsible for adding the citizenship question to the 2020 census. Ross was informed about the study by Neuman. Ross then pressured the Justice Department, who is responsible for enforcing the 1965 Voting Rights Act, that it should support the citizenship question because the data collected would help that cause.
The Trump Administration denied any connection (no surprise, it lies routinely), but several files from four external hard drives and 18 thumb drives indicate in detail Hofeller's activities as a Republican consultant...including his role in working with Trump officials to push for the citizenship question...were given by the daughter to lawyers in one of those three cases. Those same lawyers filed a lawsuit in federal court Thursday, May 30, 2019 to block the citizenship question from appearing on the 2020 Census. The Supreme Court, as we know, ruled against Trump.Replies: @MarkinLA
The issue of “why” the question was on the census should never have been asked by the court. This is what makes the Supreme Court look so stupid. Roberts was crying about respect for the court but he is creating the lack of respect. Asking why is putting the question in the political relm and the courts should have nothing to do with political questions.
The only issue in front of the court is whether or not the executive has the legal authority to put the question in, which everybody agrees it does. It is not up to the courts to determine if a “good enough” reason for it was given to some low level ass-clown in a black robe.
Actually, it was proper to bring this issue to the Court considering how the matter was contrived.
"Asking why is putting the question in the political relm and the courts should have nothing to do with political questions."
Actually, there is precedent for the Supreme Court to be involved in political questions.
"The only issue in front of the court is whether or not the executive has the legal authority to put the question in, which everybody agrees it does."
Not everybody, only those who believe the president has the authority.
"It is not up to the courts to determine if a “good enough” reason..."
Actually, it is up to the Supreme Court.
Trump is a baby boomer backstabbing bullshit artist who abandoned White Core American voters. White Core American voters will abandon Trump.
I will not vote for Trump nor will I vote for any Republican Party politician whore who does not call for an immigration moratorium and a complete and total deportation of all illegal alien invaders.
Trump wants to flood the USA with mass legal immigration “in the largest numbers ever.”
Trump refuses to deport the upwards of 30 million illegal alien invaders in the USA.
How many states has everyone here visited? How many countries?
(OH, IN, MI, PA, MD, MA, NY, FL) so 8
And CAN (ON)Replies: @Mr. Rational, @Oleaginous Outrager, @The Alarmist, @MikeatMikedotMike, @Talha, @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan, @Hallie Scott Kline
Here are the states I haven’t visited:
California
Alaska
Washington state
Oregon
Montana
Wyoming
The Dakotas
Utah
New Mexico
Iowa
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Florida
Georgia
South Carolina
Alabama
Mississippi
Louisiana
Vermont
Rhode Island
Soetoroland
I primarily travel in the Northeast and Midwest. From this list, the three states I would most like to see are (in no particular order). Alabama, Wisconsin, and Oregon.
Of course I’d like to see all of the rest too. Except Hawaii.
Is there anything worth seeing in Rhode Island? Genuinely curious.
The political benefit of merely demanding to know WHY it can't be asked is good politics.
We know why it can't be asked. Make them say it. Explain it. Over and over'.
Besides, the DHS/deep state knows exactly who is in the country.Replies: @L Woods
You grossly overestimate the competence and authorities of said deep state.
A rare White pill:
https://www.lifesitenews.com/mobile/news/victory-german-homeschooling-parents-win-back-custody-of-their-children
This family has done Europeans a great service, probably much to their own detriment.
EDIT:
“When there are so many children and they are talking about all kinds of things, it’s really loud,” Joshua said.
ROFLOL!
So it was a limited victory...Replies: @dfordoom
How many states has everyone here visited? How many countries?
(OH, IN, MI, PA, MD, MA, NY, FL) so 8
And CAN (ON)Replies: @Mr. Rational, @Oleaginous Outrager, @The Alarmist, @MikeatMikedotMike, @Talha, @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan, @Hallie Scott Kline
“How many states has everyone here visited? How many countries?”
I’ve been to every state except Alaska. Been to Puerto Rico, as well.
Also Canada, Mexico, Italy, the Vatican, the Dominican Republic.
How do you do? (Nobody knows me.) I lurk often, but for me, this is a place of rarified air. I’m glad to see a question I can answer. ~pleased~
This doesn't much sense to me. Who cares who who wrote it. The point remains that category is very simple. Your attempt to draw some manner of sinister just does not wash.
-----------------------
"Plus, blacks will have to actually chose an ideology, rather than just ‘all blacks vote Democrat because…"
You seem to think blacks have iedologcal grounding. I am sure that might the case for some just as it the case for whites party loyalty is a two way street.Replies: @Anounder, @NYMOM
Go look up voting by race. Blacks do not want to vote for the party of Whites (Republicans).
“Go look up voting by race. Blacks do not want to vote for the party of Whites (Republicans).”
And yet they have voted overwhelmingly for whites even when blacks have been on the ballot. But to the real point, it’s pretty clear that blacks do have an ideology as when multiple blacks are on the ballot they vote for one and not the other.
I do leave room for blacks to vote on as shallow basis as whites, voting on: looks, voice, affiliation, etc. as opposed to actual policy positions.
It wasn’t really clear to me from the article if this was a complete victory for the parents…I mean they got their children back but it seems they still have to comply and place them in public school…
So it was a limited victory…
This doesn't much sense to me. Who cares who who wrote it. The point remains that category is very simple. Your attempt to draw some manner of sinister just does not wash.
-----------------------
"Plus, blacks will have to actually chose an ideology, rather than just ‘all blacks vote Democrat because…"
You seem to think blacks have iedologcal grounding. I am sure that might the case for some just as it the case for whites party loyalty is a two way street.Replies: @Anounder, @NYMOM
The point of the citizenship question is to try and get a handle on how Democrats manipulate the system to keep themselves in power. Our courts have ruled that the raw number of ‘people’ not just citizens but ‘people’ that reside in a state determines how many electoral seats they get…In Democratic states (meaning most vote Democratic) this determines how many electoral respresentatives they get in the House…
This has enabled the States with a large number of people (some good number not even citizens) to pad their representatives number; thus, giving them illegitimate control of one of the major organs of our democracy…The House of Representatives…
We need to somehow put a stop to it and this is Trump trying to do just that…or at least show people what has been going on…
So it was a limited victory...Replies: @dfordoom
If they still have to comply and place them in public school then it was a complete defeat for parents who would like to home-school. They now know that if they try it the state will take their children away from them until they cave in.
I don't know what their prospects will be there.Replies: @dfordoom
Alaska
Washington state
Oregon
Montana
Wyoming
The Dakotas
Utah
New Mexico
Iowa
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Florida
Georgia
South Carolina
Alabama
Mississippi
Louisiana
Vermont
Rhode Island
SoetorolandI primarily travel in the Northeast and Midwest. From this list, the three states I would most like to see are (in no particular order). Alabama, Wisconsin, and Oregon.Of course I'd like to see all of the rest too. Except Hawaii.Is there anything worth seeing in Rhode Island? Genuinely curious.Replies: @The Alarmist
I enjoyed visiting the “summer homes” of America’s Gilded Age rich & famous in Newport, like Vanderbilts Breakers.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Breakers
The children are allowed to homeschool pending a final decision on the compulsory schooling law from the European Court of Human Rights.
I don’t know what their prospects will be there.
I don't know what their prospects will be there.Replies: @dfordoom
OK, thanks. I wouldn’t be too hopeful.
This has enabled the States with a large number of people (some good number not even citizens) to pad their representatives number; thus, giving them illegitimate control of one of the major organs of our democracy...The House of Representatives...
We need to somehow put a stop to it and this is Trump trying to do just that...or at least show people what has been going on...Replies: @MarkinLA
This also effects the Electoral College giving the states with the rotten districts MORE political power than those without.
I saw some pundit on TV saying Roberts came up with his nonsense based on an “equal protection” argument. However, as always, you can make any argument you want for equal protection. By allocating House seats based on “people” you effectively weaken the voting power of people in states with few immigrants and strengthen the power of those with immigrants.
The only issue in front of the court is whether or not the executive has the legal authority to put the question in, which everybody agrees it does. It is not up to the courts to determine if a "good enough" reason for it was given to some low level ass-clown in a black robe.Replies: @Corvinus
“The issue of “why” the question was on the census should never have been asked by the court.”
Actually, it was proper to bring this issue to the Court considering how the matter was contrived.
“Asking why is putting the question in the political relm and the courts should have nothing to do with political questions.”
Actually, there is precedent for the Supreme Court to be involved in political questions.
“The only issue in front of the court is whether or not the executive has the legal authority to put the question in, which everybody agrees it does.”
Not everybody, only those who believe the president has the authority.
“It is not up to the courts to determine if a “good enough” reason…”
Actually, it is up to the Supreme Court.