What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

116th Congress: Episode 2 The Turtle Has Total Control

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: 116th Congress: Episode 2 The Turtle Has Total Control

It’s going to be embarrassing when historians find out he used the entire first article of the constitution to wipe the cum off his mouth.
 
dxmnkd316 said:
It’s going to be embarrassing when historians find out he used the entire first article of the constitution to wipe the cum off his mouth.
Click to expand...

One of the twitter replies was the scene from Team America...not quite wiping from the mouth but same idea
 
Re: 116th Congress: Episode 2 The Turtle Has Total Control

The goose step quickens.

Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross has directed the Census Bureau to prepare to offer states the data they’d need to do a redistricting overhaul that would boost “Republicans and Non-Hispanic Whites,” in the words of a deceased GOP consultant.

That the administration is taking that step is not surprising, given that President Trump said that it would last week while announcing that the 2020 census would not have a citizenship question.

But the government formally put that intention in writing in a regulatory notice that was published over the weekend.

The document was an update to a previous notice about the the government’s plans for the 2020 census that confirmed that the survey would not include a citizenship question due to the Supreme Court decision blocking it.

“Accordingly, the Secretary has directed the Census Bureau to proceed with the 2020 Census without a citizenship question on the questionnaire, and rather to produce Citizenship Voting Age Population (CVAP) information prior to April 1, 2021 that states may use in redistricting” the new version of the notice said.
Click to expand...
 
Re: 116th Congress: Episode 2 The Turtle Has Total Control

I will leave this up to the constitutional scholars, but my understanding is that redistricting is a function of the results of the census, not the census + blah blah blah. As in congressional districts need roughly the same amount of people living in them as captured by the census (with the obvious caveats of states with a lone representative, etc).
 
Rover said:
I will leave this up to the constitutional scholars, but my understanding is that redistricting is a function of the results of the census, not the census + blah blah blah. As in congressional districts need roughly the same amount of people living in them as captured by the census (with the obvious caveats of states with a lone representative, etc).
Click to expand...

The GOP is trying to argue that states can apportion by eligible voters instead of residents. SCOTUS previously ruled that states can't be forced to apportion that way, but they've yet to say they aren't allowed to apportion that way (because no state has tried to, yet)

It's a horseshiat argument, because children, green card holders, and convicted felons would all not be counted for apportionment in addition to illegal immigrants.

Plus, there's the inconvenient fact of the whole 3/5ths compromise where slaves were counted, so you can't legitimately claim the founders didn't mean to include non-citizens.
 
unofan said:
The GOP is trying to argue that states can apportion by eligible voters instead of residents. SCOTUS previously ruled that states can't be forced to apportion that way, but they've yet to say they aren't allowed to apportion that way (because no state has tried to, yet)

It's a horseshiat argument, because children, green card holders, and convicted felons would all not be counted for apportionment in addition to illegal immigrants.

Plus, there's the inconvenient fact of the whole 3/5ths compromise where slaves were counted, so you can't legitimately claim the founders didn't mean to include non-citizens.
Click to expand...

C'mon. Never let the facts get in the way of a good story!

IIRC citizenship was on every census until 2010.
 
joecct said:
C'mon. Never let the facts get in the way of a good story!

IIRC citizenship was on every census until 2010.
Click to expand...

1790 - No.
1800 - No, again.
1810 - Still no.
1820 - Yes it was added.
1830 - Still there.
1840 - Removed.
1850 - Nope.
1860 - No.
1870 - Only asked for males aged 21 or older.
1880 - Only males aged 21 or older again.
1890 - Yes, in some form of question.
1900 - Yes.
1910 - Yes.
1920 - Yes.
1930 - Yes.
1940 - Yes.
1950 - Yes.
1960 - No. But place of birth was asked.
1970 - Only on the long form (1/6th of Americans), not the short form (rest of America).
1980 - Long form only.
1990 - Long form only.
2000 - Long form only.
2010 - Short form only was mailed to all Americans, and the long form questionnaire was eliminated. But, the "American Community Survey," which is continually sent to randomly selected Americans every year has contained the question since its inception.
2020 - Trump is trying to add citizenship to the short form, despite the census department collecting better/recent data every year.


But yes, it's always been on the Census, so why let facts get in the way? ;)
 
aparch said:
1790 - No.
1800 - No, again.
1810 - Still no.
1820 - Yes it was added.
1830 - Still there.
1840 - Removed.
1850 - Nope.
1860 - No.
1870 - Only asked for males aged 21 or older.
1880 - Only males aged 21 or older again.
1890 - Yes, in some form of question.
1900 - Yes.
1910 - Yes.
1920 - Yes.
1930 - Yes.
1940 - Yes.
1950 - Yes.
1960 - No. But place of birth was asked.
1970 - Only on the long form (1/6th of Americans), not the short form (rest of America).
1980 - Long form only.
1990 - Long form only.
2000 - Long form only.
2010 - Short form only was mailed to all Americans, and the long form questionnaire was eliminated. But, the "American Community Survey," which is continually sent to randomly selected Americans every year has contained the question since its inception.
2020 - Trump is trying to add citizenship to the short form, despite the census department collecting better/recent data every year.


But yes, it's always been on the Census, so why let facts get in the way? ;)
Click to expand...

Should have clarified in my lifetime. Though I did find it on Ancestry when looking for my gg etc. parents.
 
Re: 116th Congress: Episode 2 The Turtle Has Total Control

unofan said:
The GOP is trying to argue that states can apportion by eligible voters instead of residents. SCOTUS previously ruled that states can't be forced to apportion that way, but they've yet to say they aren't allowed to apportion that way (because no state has tried to, yet)

It's a horseshiat argument, because children, green card holders, and convicted felons would all not be counted for apportionment in addition to illegal immigrants.

Plus, there's the inconvenient fact of the whole 3/5ths compromise where slaves were counted, so you can't legitimately claim the founders didn't mean to include non-citizens.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's what I figured. If you were here legally but not yet a citizen couldn't you have standing to sue as in your rights were being violated by basically being ignored even though you were legally counted for in the census.

The simplest solution here is to shi tcan Chump during the 2020 election of course. I believe mapmaking won't actually take place until 2021-2022.
 
Re: 116th Congress: Episode 2 The Turtle Has Total Control

unofan said:
It's a horseshiat argument, because children, green card holders, and convicted felons would all not be counted for apportionment in addition to illegal immigrants.
Click to expand...

It's also kind of stupid. If I'm an eligible voter, I want more people who are not eligible voters included in my area. If there are a million of us and we're all eligible voters, my vote is just one in a million. But if there are a million of us and only half are eligible voters, my vote is one in 500,000.
 
Re: 116th Congress: Episode 2 The Turtle Has Total Control

SJHovey said:
It's also kind of stupid. If I'm an eligible voter, I want more people who are not eligible voters included in my area. If there are a million of us and we're all eligible voters, my vote is just one in a million. But if there are a million of us and only half are eligible voters, my vote is one in 500,000.
Click to expand...

Wait, what?

I'm totally against this as obvious partisan suppression by the GOP Nazis but your argument seems backwards to me: the more you restrict the franchise the more your vote counts (as long as you still qualify). If you suppress every vote except SJHovey then your vote is one in one and you get to decide every election. :)

I for one look forward to women, as 51% of the electorate, disenfranchising men. We have done a sh-t job of this whole voting thing. Time to hand it to the ladies.
 
Re: 116th Congress: Episode 2 The Turtle Has Total Control

Kepler said:
Wait, what?

I'm totally against this as obvious partisan suppression by the GOP Nazis but your argument seems backwards to me: the more you restrict the franchise the more your vote counts (as long as you still qualify). If you suppress every vote except SJHovey then your vote is one in one and you get to decide every election. :)

I for one look forward to women, as 51% of the electorate, disenfranchising men. We have done a sh-t job of this whole voting thing. Time to hand it to the ladies.
Click to expand...

Here is the way I was looking at it.

If we apportion only with eligible voters, let's say there are 400,000 eligible voters per representative in this country, my elective power is 1 in 400,000. But if we apportion according to humans, and there are 400,000 humans per representative in this country, but of those 400,000 humans in my district, I'm the only eligible voter, then I control my district. In other words, I'd like to count as many people in my district as possible who aren't eligible to vote because as an eligible voter my vote should then be proportionately worth more.
 
Re: 116th Congress: Episode 2 The Turtle Has Total Control

SJHovey said:
Here is the way I was looking at it.

If we apportion only with eligible voters, let's say there are 400,000 eligible voters per representative in this country, my elective power is 1 in 400,000. But if we apportion according to humans, and there are 400,000 humans per representative in this country, but of those 400,000 humans in my district, I'm the only eligible voter, then I control my district. In other words, I'd like to count as many people in my district as possible who aren't eligible to vote because as an eligible voter my vote should then be proportionately worth more.
Click to expand...

Your vote isn't what matters when apportioning districts, people represented are. The system was designed so that if there are more people in an area, they should have a proportional amount of say. They might need more resources or a higher priority. If you have one person who is eligible and 99 people who aren't, your needs are going to be the exact same as an area that has 99 eligible people and 1 ineligible person.
 
Re: 116th Congress: Episode 2 The Turtle Has Total Control

SJHovey said:
Here is the way I was looking at it.

If we apportion only with eligible voters, let's say there are 400,000 eligible voters per representative in this country, my elective power is 1 in 400,000. But if we apportion according to humans, and there are 400,000 humans per representative in this country, but of those 400,000 humans in my district, I'm the only eligible voter, then I control my district. In other words, I'd like to count as many people in my district as possible who aren't eligible to vote because as an eligible voter my vote should then be proportionately worth more.
Click to expand...

Sure, but you only gain over other districts' eligible voters if your district has a higher percentage of ineligible voters, so this merely reinforces the preference of people in districts with more ineligible voters to want them to count in the Census. Since Republicans tend to live in districts with a lower percentage of ineligible voters (they think so, anyway -- who knows if it's true?) they want to chop them out of the Census. That's not stupid reasoning. It's just evil and racist (as usual from them).

Am I being dumber than usual here? I still don't see why the righties forcing this through is "dumb." It's corrupt and anti-democratic. But it's pretty smart, assuming you're an obsessed xenophobe with spiders in your soul.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top