Donald Trump & 2016 Election

[PermissionToLand]

Trump fucked up on his argument for it.  I could have made a better case for it.

Yeah, he "fucked up" by saying the quiet part out loud.

Here are a couple  meaningful reasons for it-

How do we determine representation in government? By how many citizens we have. Take the fact that we base the amount of US house representatives of a given state based on their population. These house members represent the citizens in their districts.  CITIZENS !

Wrong.  Read the Constitution.  It says NUMBERS, as in population. Not number of citizens.  Number of people residing, at the time of the census. Citizenship has NOTHING to do with it. Says so right there, in the forefathers handwriting.

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.

Not citizens.

Non-citizens are not allowed to vote....that bit is right.  But representation is based wholly on population.  Why, you ask? Because slaves, indians who payed taxes (who were not considered citizens), and noncitizens were considered partial people in the original census count away back then.  No amendment (not even the 14th) has changed the "numbers" language....only the "partial people" bit.

In other words, the 14th amendment actually DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS your point.

Maybe you should reread the constitution, while you're at it?

Wow, and he has the gall to tell US to learn our history! 

[PermissionToLand]

Ok, I stand corrected on the Numbers vs citizens part.  But the issue still remains that when you count illegal aliens, students from abroad and guest workers it does distort representation.
 

Yes, if by "distort", you mean "accurately represent who is actually living in the country".

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Another big loss for Trump and his supporters:

NO citizenship question on the census.

I suppose now they've been given carte blanche to gerrymand with impunity, it's LESS important now than it was...but it's still a huge loss for this administration.  They will NOT be able to shape this census AND they will be long gone before the next one!

Edit: And now Donnie Trainwreck has tweeted that the fight will go on.

EXCEPT...it can't.  The Dept of Commerce has sent out notification that the census forms are to be printed (yesterday).

DOJ reps have notified plantifs in the suit (and we have actual, corroborated, officially official copies of the emails doing so) they will not be pursuing adding the question to the form.

If they change gears, now, they will be reprimanded by the court.  And the current SC order stands (and will continue to stand) based on those notifications.

Donnie looks like he's sundowning, again.  Somebody get him is meds and a Happy Meal!!! STAT!

It's a completely useless question, not all non citizens are undocumented.

It's especially disquieting when you consider the fact that we have concentration camps for immigrants right now. Remember, they never told the German public what their true intentions were with those camps. The idea that we have to wait until somebody either openly admits they are going to kill people, or until they actually start killing people to call them out or draw historical parallels is incredibly naive and will in fact only enable such things to happen again by hushing criticism of those who would seek to do the same.

There is no parallel between the Nazi concentration camps and the detention centers at the southern border.  You should study your history. 

Funny, because 140 Holocaust experts say otherwise.

https://splinternews.com/over-140-holocaust-experts-agreeing-with-aoc-should-fin-1836028204

You should study your history.

Since you are saying we are running concentration camps down there now it likely is now a real crisis and no longer  just a manufactured crisis? 

FYI- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_concentration_camps  ( this isn't what we are doing at the border)

Find it humorous you guys give me shit for Fox News ( which I almost never cite)  and you post an article from Splinter which has only one point of view.

[pilferk]

Since you are saying we are running concentration camps down there now it likely is now a real crisis and no longer  just a manufactured crisis? 

FYI- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_concentration_camps  ( this isn't what we are doing at the border)

Find it humorous you guys give me shit for Fox News ( which I almost never cite)  and you post an article from Splinter which has only one point of view.

It is a manufactured humanitarian crisis, of Trumps making, that no amount of wall funding is going to fix.  It's like saying that, after shooting yourself in the leg, you suddenly need medical attention.  And then saying you need to build a house to live in to solve the problem.  There's literally no relation between the Trump Border Crisis (completely fake), and the humanitarian crisis he's created at the border by creating concentration camps and separating families.  It's a strawman argument (and he knows it...which is why it's so despicable).  That you equate the two.....it's just sad (and one of those "shake your head and roll your eyes" moments).

You never "cite" Fox News...you don't often cite anyone.  You just regurgitate their talking points with alarming frequency.  Verbatim.  Whether the "ingestion" of the propaganda is first hand, or second hand, or third hand doesn't make it any less ingested.  Again, maybe listen to that quiet little voice in the back of your head asking "Am I indoctrinated" a bit more?

In terms of sources, how about merriam-webster? Is that less biased?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/concentration%20camp

a place where large numbers of people (such as prisoners of war, political prisoners, refugees, or the members of an ethnic or religious minority) are detained or confined under armed guard

Your position that what's going on at the border has no parallel to the Nazi concentration camps is untrue...especially in light of PL's context and ACTUAL point: That we have concentration camps, people being held in them are being mistreated, and it's not all THAT far down the slippery slope to full bore killings.  He's not saying "We're there".  He's saying "We could be there, and nobody is going to do anything UNTIL (and I'll add the "maybe" to that) the killings actually occur.  Instead, conservatives stand by and watch, privately cheering the mistreatment, and saying things like "They could all just leave and go home". Ignoring, of course ,that many of these people LEGALLY APPLIED FOR ASYLUM AT THE BORDER as provided for by the law, and our Constitution. 


They do not resemble the Nazi concentration camps in their final incarnation. They very much resemble the EARLY incarnations of the Nazi concentration camps, or the Japanese concentration camps of WWII in the US.

PL is opining they could just as easily TRANSFORM into the kind of concentration camps of WWII Germany.  And if you doubt that, take a look at the reports about the "secret Facebook Group" that ICE members are members of, and the type of despicable things they are espousing.  Or at the approximately 1200 allegations of sexual abuse levied against guards in those facilities.  Or at the refugees being denied basic human rights.  The only difference, at this point, is this administration is not (as far as we know) ushering people into gas chambers or slaughtering them en masse.  I truly want to believe they will never get there, but Trump unchecked? I'm not so sure.

You're trying to derail that point, and make a false equivalence.  But we'll go a little further down that path, just to humor you.

Given ICE's behavior....and this is documented, you literally CAN NOT ARGUE it's true.....it's not a far step to envision prisoners being abused to the point they die.  I don't THINK they'll take the next step into mass executions, but....I'm certainly less sure on that front than I was before Trump took office.

So, here's the question: If you find out that ICE is killing people, or taking actions that result in their deaths, are you ready to disavow this administration? Is that your line in the sand?  Or will you continue to defend their actions while they abuse people and treat them as subhumans, like they are now?  Will you turn a blind eye, still?

"If you're thirsty, go get water from the toilet".

Again, maybe it's you who needs to revisit history.  All of it, and not just the final stages.  So far, today, you've proven you could benefit from an in depth civics lesson......I'd suggest you make some plans for personal growth on that front.  It might actually change your perspective.

PS:

https://www.newsweek.com/holocaust-genocide-experts-defend-ocascio-cortez-concentration-camp-1446911

[sandman]

Trump’s speech was incredible. Maybe the best he has ever done. Even better than sotu which was widely praised.

It was not about him. Just an awesome tribute to our great country.

He took a ton of shit leading up to it, but he did it anyway. All for his love of the USA and our military. Totally heartfelt.

So damn proud to be an american today!

[tim_m]

Another big loss for Trump and his supporters:

NO citizenship question on the census.

I suppose now they've been given carte blanche to gerrymand with impunity, it's LESS important now than it was...but it's still a huge loss for this administration.  They will NOT be able to shape this census AND they will be long gone before the next one!

Edit: And now Donnie Trainwreck has tweeted that the fight will go on.

EXCEPT...it can't.  The Dept of Commerce has sent out notification that the census forms are to be printed (yesterday).

DOJ reps have notified plantifs in the suit (and we have actual, corroborated, officially official copies of the emails doing so) they will not be pursuing adding the question to the form.

If they change gears, now, they will be reprimanded by the court.  And the current SC order stands (and will continue to stand) based on those notifications.

Donnie looks like he's sundowning, again.  Somebody get him is meds and a Happy Meal!!! STAT!

It's a completely useless question, not all non citizens are undocumented.

In years past, it was on the census & It actually is a useful question.

https://www.census.gov/acs/www/about/why-we-ask-each-question/citizenship/

Place of Birth, Citizenship, Year of Entry

We ask questions about a person’s place of birth, citizenship, and year of entry into the United States to create data about citizens, noncitizens, and the foreign-born population.

Agencies and policymakers use our published statistics to set and evaluate immigration policies and laws, understand the experience of different immigrant groups, and enforce laws, policies, and regulations against discrimination based on national origin. These statistics also help tailor services to accommodate cultural differences.

And if your think that's Trump's reasoning for the question, i have a bridge to sell you.

[PermissionToLand]

Since you are saying we are running concentration camps down there now it likely is now a real crisis and no longer  just a manufactured crisis? 

FYI- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_concentration_camps  ( this isn't what we are doing at the border)

Find it humorous you guys give me shit for Fox News ( which I almost never cite)  and you post an article from Splinter which has only one point of view.

Yes, a crisis created by Trump where there was none before.

You should look up the definition of that term before embarrassing yourself like this. If you actually did your history homework, you'd know that Dachau did not start out as an extermination camp, and yet was called a concentration camp from day one. It seems you did not comprehend a word of my post, and simply got triggered by the words I used. Let me give you a tip that will make life much easier for you; don't be so easily offended. 

You're free to point out where Splinter is making a fallacious argument or question their sources. However, you did not because you cannot. So you just lob a meaningless insult and run away. Yawn...

[PermissionToLand]

Trump’s speech was incredible. Maybe the best he has ever done. Even better than sotu which was widely praised.

It was not about him. Just an awesome tribute to our great country.

He took a ton of shit leading up to it, but he did it anyway. All for his love of the USA and our military. Totally heartfelt.

So damn proud to be an american today!

Ladies and gentlemen; the fraught mind of a cult member.

[tim_m]

Trump’s speech was incredible. Maybe the best he has ever done. Even better than sotu which was widely praised.

It was not about him. Just an awesome tribute to our great country.

He took a ton of shit leading up to it, but he did it anyway. All for his love of the USA and our military. Totally heartfelt.

So damn proud to be an american today!

Ladies and gentlemen; the fraught mind of a cult member.

Whenever someone says he loves America, I'm like 🙄. He loves money and power.

[sandman]

Trump’s speech was incredible. Maybe the best he has ever done. Even better than sotu which was widely praised.

It was not about him. Just an awesome tribute to our great country.

He took a ton of shit leading up to it, but he did it anyway. All for his love of the USA and our military. Totally heartfelt.

So damn proud to be an american today!

Ladies and gentlemen; the fraught mind of a cult member.

Whenever someone says he loves America, I'm like 🙄. He loves money and power.

Even when immigrants who came to america recently say it?

[pilferk]

Trump’s speech was incredible. Maybe the best he has ever done. Even better than sotu which was widely praised.

It was not about him. Just an awesome tribute to our great country.

He took a ton of shit leading up to it, but he did it anyway. All for his love of the USA and our military. Totally heartfelt.

So damn proud to be an american today!

Ladies and gentlemen; the fraught mind of a cult member.

Whenever someone says he loves America, I'm like 🙄. He loves money and power.

Yup. Anytime soneone says Trump loves America.....i chuckle. Trump (and a whole lot of his supporters) dont seem to know what America is. Trump loves power and money. His "America" is white, affluent, christian, and hetero, who think exactly (and I mean in lockstep) like him on every issue. Others need not apply (and dont matter...they are, at best, plebes to be tolerated so they can do the grunt work). You see it here in this thread: if you arent supporting Trump with full throated (lie filled) support....you are somehow Unamerican. Nothing could be further from the truth.

There is nothing so American as pointing out the Emperor has no clothes (or scruples, or principals, or character).


Also.....airports in the revolutionary war? When your "motivational speech"  has glaring historical and factusl issues littered through it.....and people are eating it up...thats when you know they are washing it down with copious amounts of kool aid.

[pilferk]

Jobs report is a bit of a mixed bag, but much better than last month. 220k new jobs created vs the 165k predicted. But unemployment ticked up to 3.7%

Wage growth was 3.1%....below predictions. 2018 annual inflation rate was around 2.4%.

As has been the trend, April (216k down from 224k) and May (72k down from 75k) were both revised down. April has now dropped almost 50k jobs from the initial report (263k). These revisions are really starting to call into question initial report validity.

We will see if, as in previous big months, we see a big revision down for June, in a month or two.

[sandman]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2019/07/05/jobs-report-june-2019.html

Strong job growth is back: Payrolls jump in June well above expectations
- Non-farm payrolls rose 224,000 in June, well above market expectations of 165,000, according to the Labor Department.
- The unemployment rate hedged higher to 3.7% but was still near 50-year lows.
- Wage growth was 3.1% year over year, one-tenth of a point below market expectations.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Since you are saying we are running concentration camps down there now it likely is now a real crisis and no longer  just a manufactured crisis? 

FYI- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_concentration_camps  ( this isn't what we are doing at the border)

Find it humorous you guys give me shit for Fox News ( which I almost never cite)  and you post an article from Splinter which has only one point of view.

Yes, a crisis created by Trump where there was none before.

You should look up the definition of that term before embarrassing yourself like this. If you actually did your history homework, you'd know that Dachau did not start out as an extermination camp, and yet was called a concentration camp from day one. It seems you did not comprehend a word of my post, and simply got triggered by the words I used. Let me give you a tip that will make life much easier for you; don't be so easily offended. 

You're free to point out where Splinter is making a fallacious argument or question their sources. However, you did not because you cannot. So you just lob a meaningless insult and run away. Yawn...

Good to see you no longer consider it a fake crisis.

The current system we have  is getting overwhelmed. The whole immigration system needs to be reformed. But politics is hindering the improvements that must be made to deal with it.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Ok, I stand corrected on the Numbers vs citizens part.  But the issue still remains that when you count illegal aliens, students from abroad and guest workers it does distort representation.
 

Yes, if by "distort", you mean "accurately represent who is actually living in the country".

Article is a bit dated, but this will help explain what I mean by ' distort'

Illegal Immigrants Distort Congressional Representation and Federal Programs

Most Americans know that their representation in the U.S. House of Representatives is based on proportional representation as determined by the decennial Census. And, many Americans are aware that the Census takers try to count everybody residing in the country. But, most Americans do not make the connection that illegal immigrants and other foreigners who are not legal permanent residents are part of the calculation for the apportionment of Congressional representatives. If the population of illegal aliens and other long-term foreign residents were inconsequential, this would not be an important issue. However, with 18.5 million more persons counted in the 2000 Census than the number of U.S. citizens, this is a valid major concern.

Because illegal aliens should not even be in the country, and other nonimmigrants such as foreign students and guest workers are here only temporarily, it makes no sense to distribute Congressional seats as if these foreign nationals deserved representation the same as American citizens.

The U.S. population that logically should be enumerated includes U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents (immigrants). As only the former may vote in federal elections, the apportionment of seats in Congress should be done on the basis of the number of citizens in each state. 1 Apportionment of federal funds should be based on the number of citizens and legal residents of each state.

Some federal funding programs provide compensation to the states based on mandated expenditures for foreign residents, i.e., emergency medical care, incarceration, English language learning. The number and identity of these non-citizen users of these services is appropriately collected by the service provider and should be provided to the federal government as a condition precedent to receiving any distribution of federal funds.

On the basis of the current Census questionnaire, however, there is no way to determine if a foreign resident is legally or illegally in the country. But the Census does ask whether persons are U.S. citizens. It could also ask persons who are not U.S. citizens if they are legal permanent residents ("green card" holders).

As a result of the current incoherent system of allocating seats based on all persons counted in the Census, some Member of Congress represent many fewer U.S. citizens and permanent residents than others. Similarly, some states that have large numbers of illegal aliens and other non-citizens gain the advantage of additional representation in Congress at the expense of states that have fewer illegal aliens and non-citizens, since the total number in the House of Representatives is currently fixed by law at 435 members.

Besides the distortions in apportionment of representation among the states and in the number of citizens represented by each representative, the Census also causes distortions when it is used to allocate federal public assistance funds among the states because nonimmigrants, including illegal aliens, are not entitled to public welfare.

If apportionment based on U.S. citizenship had been in force following the 2000 Census, the distribution of seats in the House of Representatives would have been as shown in the chart below, which also shows the actual apportionment and the difference (states not listed would have no change).

- see link for chart


As may be seen from the reallocation of seats based on the distribution of U.S. citizens, the states with the largest illegal and resident nonimmigrant populations currently gain influence in the law making process as a result of the current distribution of congressional seats. The perverse effect of this current apportionment process is that it encourages states to accommodate the presence of persons who constitute a major fiscal burden on their citizenry.

If the seats in the House of Representative were reapportioned based on the distribution of U.S. citizens, the big loser of seats would be California, losing 6 seats. Three other states with large immigrant populations both legal and illegal would also lose one seat each, i.e., Texas, New York and Florida. The winners in this reallocation of congressional representation would be the residents of Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Wisconsin. Those states each would gain one additional representative.

Footnotes and endnotes

Section 2 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution provides, “Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed.” Section 1 of the same Amendment provides, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” The order of these two Sections implies that the persons upon whom apportionment is to be made are persons born or naturalized in the United States.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Here are a couple  meaningful reasons for it-

How do we determine representation in government? By how many citizens we have. Take the fact that we base the amount of US house representatives of a given state based on their population. These house members represent the citizens in their districts.  CITIZENS !

Wrong.  Read the Constitution.  It says NUMBERS, as in population. Not number of citizens.  Number of people residing, at the time of the census. Citizenship has NOTHING to do with it. Says so right there, in the forefathers handwriting.

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.

Not citizens.

Non-citizens are not allowed to vote....that bit is right.  But representation is based wholly on population.  Why, you ask? Because slaves, indians who payed taxes (who were not considered citizens), and noncitizens were considered partial people in the original census count away back then.  No amendment (not even the 14th) has changed the "numbers" language....only the "partial people" bit.

In other words, the 14th amendment actually DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS your point.

Maybe you should reread the constitution, while you're at it?

 Ill take a step back and off er this take on what you posted- from the article I posted above-

Section 2 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution provides, “Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed.” Section 1 of the same Amendment provides, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” The order of these two Sections implies that the persons upon whom apportionment is to be made are persons born or naturalized in the United States.

Your interpretation isn't  cut and dry.

[pilferk]

 Ill take a step back and off er this take on what you posted- from the article I posted above-

Section 2 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution provides, “Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed.” Section 1 of the same Amendment provides, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” The order of these two Sections implies that the persons upon whom apportionment is to be made are persons born or naturalized in the United States.

Your interpretation isn't  cut and dry.

It absolutely is. Bolstered by hundreds and hundreds of years of practical application.  And interpretation by thousands and thousands of instances of jurisprudence.  And every reputable constitutional scholar on BOTH sides of the aisle. 

And upheld by the SC when challenged, and further specified by the 14th amendment and it's reduction of the 3/5ths compromise.

The specific quote you reference? Nothing to do with the census which has very specific, very clear, language For a reason.  Again, I suggest you ACTUALLY READ the constitution so you can discern the ACTUAL context.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_Clause

You might not like that interpretation, but it's been the interpretation of the law of the land since the founding of our country. In practice and in principal. It is widely held, widely accepted, and CUT AND DRY. 

I can find some crackpot, or crackpot organization, to espouse a different opinion.  Did you look into the one you're using here? You probably should have....

Finding an activist interpretation by a conservative mouthpiece (who some define as a hate group) who is espousing xenophobia isn't, maybe, your best look.  It pretty much solidifies exactly what I said in my previous post. No reputable organization, court, or issue of jurisprudence has EVER interpreted the Constitution the way you're trying to.

Numbers means population.  Always has.  Take the loss and move on.  And your definition of "distortion" is in direct contrast with the Constitution.  What you mean (and what the "article" (aka warped opinion piece) you posted means) is that "It's working as intended and I don't like it."  Just say that, and move on.  It's a whole lot more honest, even if you might not particularly like the way it reflects on you.

https://www.fairus.org/issue/societal-impact/illegal-immigrants-distort-congressional-representation-and-federal-programs

https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2012/08/10/how-do-we-know-fair-hate-group

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation_for_American_Immigration_Reform

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-federation-for-american-immigration-reform-fair/

So, now you've demonstrated a lack of civic knowledge, a lack of knowledge on the topic at hand, AND quoted and used an anti-immigration, extremist, at best borderline hate group, as a source to try to bolster your opinion (and, for some reason, didn't include an actual link to it).

Is the voice in  your head SCREAMING at you yet?  Because it should be.

[pilferk]

Article is a bit dated, but this will help explain what I mean by ' distort'

Yes, as we said, what you mean by distort is:

"Working exactly as intended, and written, in the Constitution...which I really don't like because immigrants don't, generally, think like me and might end up giving more representation to the Dems".

When you say "distort", you mean "not in my best interests".

The fact you can't see the inherent xenophobia, and anti-Constitution , sentiment in the article....or that its a cry for an amendment to change the constitution so only "citizens" count is mind boggling.  Seriously, I essentially summarized this article in my last response, and laid out that's what you meant by "distort".

You just confirmed it.  Thanks, I guess?

[jarmo]

When they took over the airports in 1775, was that just after Jesus had flown home? Or did he stay longer to get rid off the dinosaur emergency?




/jarmo

[sandman]