Page 9 of 44 FirstFirst 12345678910111213141516171819 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 180 of 875

Thread: 116th Congress: Episode 2 The Turtle Has Total Control

  1. #161

    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    Long Winded Posts That Go Nowhere (TM)
    Posts
    69,061

    Re: 116th Congress: Episode 2 The Turtle Has Total Control

    Quote Originally Posted by BCeagle View Post
    Iím not telling you or anyone how

    So an opinion is not justified under our amendments ?

    Adios
    I thought he was clearly joking.
    Cornell University
    NCAA Champion 1967, 1970
    ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
    Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019

  2. #162
    NICKERSON HAS [CENSORED]
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Mountain View, CA
    Posts
    20,343

    Re: 116th Congress: Episode 2 The Turtle Has Total Control

    Lindsay is continuing to be a ******** cumdumpster: https://twitter.com/LindseyGrahamSC/...42489549336576

    Cornell '04, Stanford '06


    KDR

    Rover Frenchy, Classic! Great post.
    iwh30 I wish I could be as smart as you. I really do you are the man
    gregg729 I just saw your sig, you do love having people revel in your "intelligence."
    Ritt18 you are the perfect representation of your alma mater.
    Shirtless Bob That's it, you win.
    TBA#2 I want to kill you and dance in your blood.
    DisplacedCornellian Hahaha. Thread over. Frenchy wins.

  3. #163
    Lucia Apologist
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    29,989

    Re: 116th Congress: Episode 2 The Turtle Has Total Control

    Itís going to be embarrassing when historians find out he used the entire first article of the constitution to wipe the cum off his mouth.

  4. #164
    there's a good buck in that racket.
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    oasis in the middle east
    Posts
    43,579

    Re: 116th Congress: Episode 2 The Turtle Has Total Control

    Quote Originally Posted by dxmnkd316 View Post
    Itís going to be embarrassing when historians find out he used the entire first article of the constitution to wipe the cum off his mouth.
    homophobia is ugly
    a legend and an out of work bum look a lot alike, daddy.

  5. #165
    Lucia Apologist
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    29,989

    Re: 116th Congress: Episode 2 The Turtle Has Total Control

    Quote Originally Posted by mookie1995 View Post
    homophobia is ugly
    Well, he obviously doesnít have a vagina. Heís too much of a pansy.

  6. #166
    NICKERSON HAS [CENSORED]
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Mountain View, CA
    Posts
    20,343

    Re: 116th Congress: Episode 2 The Turtle Has Total Control

    Quote Originally Posted by mookie1995 View Post
    homophobia is ugly
    It's not mocking homosexuality, it's mocking unwavering subservience. If Trump was a woman we would say "twat juice" instead of "cum".

    Cornell '04, Stanford '06


    KDR

    Rover Frenchy, Classic! Great post.
    iwh30 I wish I could be as smart as you. I really do you are the man
    gregg729 I just saw your sig, you do love having people revel in your "intelligence."
    Ritt18 you are the perfect representation of your alma mater.
    Shirtless Bob That's it, you win.
    TBA#2 I want to kill you and dance in your blood.
    DisplacedCornellian Hahaha. Thread over. Frenchy wins.

  7. #167
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Posts
    5,883
    Quote Originally Posted by dxmnkd316 View Post
    Itís going to be embarrassing when historians find out he used the entire first article of the constitution to wipe the cum off his mouth.
    One of the twitter replies was the scene from Team America...not quite wiping from the mouth but same idea

  8. #168

    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    Long Winded Posts That Go Nowhere (TM)
    Posts
    69,061

    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.
    Cornell University
    NCAA Champion 1967, 1970
    ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
    Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019

  9. #169
    The Dark One
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    killin your brain like a poisonous mushroom
    Posts
    16,667

    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).
    Legally drunk???? If its "legal", what's the ------- problem?!? - George Carlin

    Ever notice how everybody who drives slower than you is an idiot, and everybody who drives faster is a maniac? - George Carlin

    "I've never seen so much reason and bullsh*t contained in ONE MAN."

  10. #170
    unofan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Omaha, NE, USA
    Posts
    19,614
    Quote Originally Posted by Rover View Post
    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).
    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.

  11. #171

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    20904/13677/07677/07621
    Posts
    38,967
    Quote Originally Posted by unofan View Post
    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.
    C'mon. Never let the facts get in the way of a good story!

    IIRC citizenship was on every census until 2010.

  12. #172

    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Living from my car
    Posts
    24,203
    Quote Originally Posted by joecct View Post
    C'mon. Never let the facts get in the way of a good story!

    IIRC citizenship was on every census until 2010.
    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?

  13. #173
    unofan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Omaha, NE, USA
    Posts
    19,614

    Re: 116th Congress: Episode 2 The Turtle Has Total Control

    Quote Originally Posted by joecct View Post
    IIRC citizenship was on every census until 2010.
    Nope.

  14. #174

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    20904/13677/07677/07621
    Posts
    38,967
    Quote Originally Posted by aparch View Post
    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?
    Should have clarified in my lifetime. Though I did find it on Ancestry when looking for my gg etc. parents.

  15. #175
    The Dark One
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    killin your brain like a poisonous mushroom
    Posts
    16,667

    Re: 116th Congress: Episode 2 The Turtle Has Total Control

    Quote Originally Posted by unofan View Post
    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.
    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.
    Legally drunk???? If its "legal", what's the ------- problem?!? - George Carlin

    Ever notice how everybody who drives slower than you is an idiot, and everybody who drives faster is a maniac? - George Carlin

    "I've never seen so much reason and bullsh*t contained in ONE MAN."

  16. #176
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Posts
    7,695

    Re: 116th Congress: Episode 2 The Turtle Has Total Control

    Quote Originally Posted by unofan View Post
    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.
    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.
    That community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.

  17. #177

    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    Long Winded Posts That Go Nowhere (TM)
    Posts
    69,061

    Re: 116th Congress: Episode 2 The Turtle Has Total Control

    Quote Originally Posted by SJHovey View Post
    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.
    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.
    Cornell University
    NCAA Champion 1967, 1970
    ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
    Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019

  18. #178
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Posts
    7,695

    Re: 116th Congress: Episode 2 The Turtle Has Total Control

    Quote Originally Posted by Kepler View Post
    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.
    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.
    That community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.

  19. #179
    Lucia Apologist
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    29,989

    Re: 116th Congress: Episode 2 The Turtle Has Total Control

    Quote Originally Posted by SJHovey View Post
    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.
    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.
    Code:
    As of 9/21/10:         As of 9/13/10:
    College Hockey 6       College Football 0
    BTHC 4                 WCHA FC:  1
    Quote Originally Posted by SanTropez View Post
    May your paint thinner run dry and the fleas of a thousand camels infest your dead deer.
    Quote Originally Posted by bigblue_dl View Post
    I don't even know how to classify magic vagina smoke babies..
    Quote Originally Posted by Kepler View Post
    When the giraffes start building radio telescopes they can join too.
    He's probably going to be a superstar but that man has more baggage than North West.

  20. #180

    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    Long Winded Posts That Go Nowhere (TM)
    Posts
    69,061

    Re: 116th Congress: Episode 2 The Turtle Has Total Control

    Quote Originally Posted by SJHovey View Post
    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.
    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.
    Cornell University
    NCAA Champion 1967, 1970
    ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
    Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (1 members and 1 guests)

  1. Jimjamesak

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •