ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags donald trump , political speculation

Reply
Old 22nd September 2019, 09:08 PM   #81
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 30,224
Yes, Republicans and Trump are actively working to dismantle democracy of the people and replace it with a selection process by Republicans only.
__________________
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd September 2019, 09:46 PM   #82
Cabbage
Graduate Poster
 
Cabbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,628
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
All the Democrats have to do to win elections is not be crazy.
You've focused on the symptom without realizing that people like you are the actual cause:
Mod Warning<SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.

Please stop calling other members liars, in this thread and elsewhere.
Posted By:zooterkin

Last edited by zooterkin; 23rd September 2019 at 02:08 AM.
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd September 2019, 10:01 PM   #83
Venom
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 3,121
He's doing what many Republicans have been thinking. Now the masks are coming off.
Venom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd September 2019, 10:18 PM   #84
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,704
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
It's not a conspiracy, it's a Republican Strategy.
Why is Trump pushing so hard for data on Nationality in the Census? Why has he ordered the use of other sources of data to fill in nationality question if he doesn't get it in the Census?
Everyone looking at this understands it as a ploy to move seats from Blue States under the pretense that they have "millions of illegals voting".
Before putting this down as a conspiracy theory, maybe do a little research.
The reason they don't want to count undocumented immigrants is because they dont think they count.

I don't see any evidence that they think illegal immigrants should be counted for apportionment of seats but are deciding to go with the politically advantageous move.

Last edited by BobTheCoward; 22nd September 2019 at 10:20 PM.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd September 2019, 10:26 PM   #85
BadBoy
Graduate Poster
 
BadBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,456
More deregulation and pollution
USA descends further as having the dumbest leader in world (probably).
USA bans abortion
USA bans atheists and Muslim immigration
USA begins it's descent into becoming a less influential power and second/third most powerful nation.
etc etc etc.

Things will get really really really bad for most of the population until they recognize this great leader does not represent them or their interests at all.

Edit: Then someone called Marty will find some way to go back in time and unravel the current tangled ball of barbed wire
__________________
Go sell crazy someplace else we're all stocked up here

Last edited by BadBoy; 22nd September 2019 at 10:33 PM.
BadBoy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd September 2019, 10:37 PM   #86
BadBoy
Graduate Poster
 
BadBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,456
Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper View Post
With a demented Trump loitering the white house corridors, thinking he's still president.
if she got that powerful she may just lock him up in the tower. Et Tu, Brute. Now that would be fun.

(It rubs the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again)
__________________
Go sell crazy someplace else we're all stocked up here

Last edited by BadBoy; 22nd September 2019 at 10:39 PM.
BadBoy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd September 2019, 11:05 PM   #87
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 9,816
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
The reason they don't want to count undocumented immigrants is because they dont think they count.

I don't see any evidence that they think illegal immigrants should be counted for apportionment of seats but are deciding to go with the politically advantageous move.
If you want to be an Originalist (as many on the Right pretend they are), then the Founders never considered that there might be such a thing as an Illegal immigrant - if you managed to get onto US soil, you got to stay.

And the only time the US considered counting a person on the Census as less than 1 for purposes of House Seats was the infamous 3/5th compromise.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2019, 12:15 AM   #88
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 44,197
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
If you want to be an Originalist (as many on the Right pretend they are), then the Founders never considered that there might be such a thing as an Illegal immigrant - if you managed to get onto US soil, you got to stay.

And the only time the US considered counting a person on the Census as less than 1 for purposes of House Seats was the infamous 3/5th compromise.
Apportionment is by the number of people, not by the number of citizens. I donít think Trump can change that. He might like to exclude illegal immigrants, but the proposed census question doesnít distinguish between legal immigrants and illegal immigrants. So I donít see how he can do what people here are claiming he wants to do.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2019, 12:22 AM   #89
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 44,197
Originally Posted by BadBoy View Post
USA bans abortion
Even the most ambitious abortion opponents only hope to overturn Roe v. Wade, which would allow individual states to ban abortion. Nobody thinks itís possible to have a federal abortion ban, and if it were up to the states, lots of them would keep it legal.

Quote:
USA bans atheists and Muslim immigration
Yeah, no. Not going to happen, not going to be even tried. And hell, how could you possibly do it even if you wanted to? Thatís the easiest thing in the world to lie about.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2019, 12:34 AM   #90
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 9,816
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Apportionment is by the number of people, not by the number of citizens. I don’t think Trump can change that. He might like to exclude illegal immigrants, but the proposed census question doesn’t distinguish between legal immigrants and illegal immigrants. So I don’t see how he can do what people here are claiming he wants to do.
Yes he can, and Hofeller in his memos showed exactly how.
The GOP is following his battle plan to disenfranchise Americas who live in states with a lower ratio of citizens to non-citizens.

It seems that you haven't kept up with this, but this is hardly an excuse for just presuming it ain't so.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2019, 03:27 AM   #91
Wowbagger
The Infinitely Prolonged
 
Wowbagger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Westchester County, NY (when not in space)
Posts: 15,207
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Wanna bet?
I made that statement based on the observation that, historically, most world leaders with dictator-like qualities tend to want to abhor term limits.


Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
__________________
WARNING: Phrases in this post may sound meaner than they were intended to be.

SkeptiCamp NYC: http://www.skepticampnyc.org/
An open conference on science and skepticism, where you could be a presenter!

By the way, my first name is NOT Bowerick!!!!
Wowbagger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2019, 04:04 AM   #92
Lurch
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 940
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
If you're positing an actual conspiracy, sorry, I don't find that credible. If it's just some tweaks to how the data is interpreted, 1) that can't shift things very much, certainly less than the margin of many political victories, and 2) it won't matter in 10 years when the next census is taken, quite possibly by a Democratic administration.

If, that is, the Democrats can be not crazy. Which, I admit, seems like a big ask right about now. But maybe not in 10 years.
Yep. Better the lying, cheating, debt-and-deficit-bloating Rs than the 'crazy' Ds who want to make the system fairer for all.
Lurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2019, 04:09 AM   #93
Lurch
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 940
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Apportionment is by the number of people, not by the number of citizens. I donít think Trump can change that. He might like to exclude illegal immigrants, but the proposed census question doesnít distinguish between legal immigrants and illegal immigrants. So I donít see how he can do what people here are claiming he wants to do.
What he wants to do is merely to *frighten* illegals from participating in a census. No participation, they effectively don't exist for apportionment.
Lurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2019, 04:12 AM   #94
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 9,816
Originally Posted by Lurch View Post
What he wants to do is merely to *frighten* illegals from participating in a census. No participation, they effectively don't exist for apportionment.
it goes way beyond that.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2019, 04:13 AM   #95
Lurch
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 940
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Even the most ambitious abortion opponents only hope to overturn Roe v. Wade, which would allow individual states to ban abortion. Nobody thinks itís possible to have a federal abortion ban, and if it were up to the states, lots of them would keep it legal.



Yeah, no. Not going to happen, not going to be even tried. And hell, how could you possibly do it even if you wanted to? Thatís the easiest thing in the world to lie about.
Jeez, Zig, should we be checking behind your ears for dampness? You're so charmingly naive I wonder if you're just a young 'un. Either that or you're merely exuding feigned naivete.
Lurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2019, 04:19 AM   #96
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 44,197
Originally Posted by Wowbagger View Post
I made that statement based on the observation that, historically, most world leaders with dictator-like qualities tend to want to abhor term limits.


Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
That isn't an answer. Do you want to bet on your prediction? As in you and me, making a bet.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2019, 04:19 AM   #97
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 85,100
Originally Posted by Trebuchet View Post
Trump wins bigly in 2020. What then?
Four more years of good comedy.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2019, 04:50 AM   #98
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 31,769
Here’s a question that occurred to me, recently: If President Bozo wins a second term, how will he get that next sweet, sweet campaign rally fix?

I guess he could campaign for other Republicans, but it would still be 95% about himself. I wonder whose campaign will want to pay for that?
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2019, 04:56 AM   #99
Cabbage
Graduate Poster
 
Cabbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,628
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Hereís a question that occurred to me, recently: If President Bozo wins a second term, how will he get that next sweet, sweet campaign rally fix?

I guess he could campaign for other Republicans, but it would still be 95% about himself. I wonder whose campaign will want to pay for that?

He could cut costs by charging admission.
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2019, 05:24 AM   #100
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 85,100
Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
He could cut costs by charging admission.
Given that he works like a televangelist, and his followers work like the faithful, it would certainly work.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2019, 05:32 AM   #101
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,704
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
If you want to be an Originalist (as many on the Right pretend they are), then the Founders never considered that there might be such a thing as an Illegal immigrant - if you managed to get onto US soil, you got to stay.

And the only time the US considered counting a person on the Census as less than 1 for purposes of House Seats was the infamous 3/5th compromise.
In Alabama's lawsuit on this issue they argue that person meant lawful presence at the time of ratification of the 14th amendment. That may be wrong, but it is an originalist argument.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2019, 05:41 AM   #102
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 9,816
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
In Alabama's lawsuit on this issue they argue that person meant lawful presence at the time of ratification of the 14th amendment. That may be wrong, but it is an originalist argument.
"New Rule as of X" is not an originalist argument.

But all this shows is that the question of how Census data translates to House seats and Electoral College votes is far from unambiguous.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2019, 05:43 AM   #103
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,704
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
"New Rule as of X" is not an originalist argument.

But all this shows is that the question of how Census data translates to House seats and Electoral College votes is far from unambiguous.
What do you mean? The meaning of an amendment anytime of ratification is the basic structure of originalism.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2019, 05:51 AM   #104
Bogative
Graduate Poster
 
Bogative's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,228
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
I guess he could campaign for other Republicans, but it would still be 95% about himself. I wonder whose campaign will want to pay for that?
The ones who want to win.
Bogative is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2019, 06:54 AM   #105
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 25,665
Originally Posted by Trebuchet View Post
Simple. Just include the phrase: "But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President prior to when this article was proposed by the Congress."
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Some sort of "You can't change the rules of your own elected position and any changes you make to don't take effect during your office" is one of those no brainers I can't believe we even have to argue.
From what I understand, it only makes sense to include these clauses in amendments to ensure that they pass. For example, if you add the clause about term limits and try to limit, say, the terms of senators, then no sitting senator (or hardly any) will want to vote for it. But if you try to remove term limits then what is the benefit of only restricting terms to a select few?
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2019, 07:41 AM   #106
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trebuchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Great Northwet
Posts: 22,905
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Hereís a question that occurred to me, recently: If President Bozo wins a second term, how will he get that next sweet, sweet campaign rally fix?

I guess he could campaign for other Republicans, but it would still be 95% about himself. I wonder whose campaign will want to pay for that?
He's AREADY campaigning for a third term.
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.
Trebuchet is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2019, 08:14 AM   #107
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 38,395
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
unfortunately, no, it's very easy for the President to do.

It is established law that the President does more than just pass on the Census Data to the States - he has some leeway to interpret it.
That was the case in the past when counting where Soldiers Abroad had their Home State.
Trump could use data on Illegal Immigration (from the Census or other sources) to claim that California is getting too many seats - and it would be up to a very Red Supreme Court to disagree with him.
I think we can all agree that if a state were found to have more Representatives than the constitution specifies, that error should be corrected.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2019, 08:20 AM   #108
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 9,816
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I think we can all agree that if a state were found to have more Representatives than the constitution specifies, that error should be corrected.
you don't seem understand how the Census works. It is the basis for Reapportionment and Redistricting.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2019, 09:58 AM   #109
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 38,395
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
you don't seem understand how the Census works. It is the basis for Reapportionment and Redistricting.
I understand how the Census works.

I'm saying, if the Census data were to show that California has too many Reps (or too few), I think we would all agree that this should be corrected by reapportionment.

Certainly you and I would agree to this, yes?
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2019, 10:31 AM   #110
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 9,816
Too many Reps because too many non-citizens?
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2019, 12:40 PM   #111
Ladewig
I lost an avatar bet.
 
Ladewig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 26,706
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Some sort of "You can't change the rules of your own elected position and any changes you make to don't take effect during your office" is one of those no brainers I can't believe we even have to argue.
Welcome to the new normal.

There is a lengthy list of things that were no-brainers in 2015 that are now considered up for debate.

The president should not own a business that foreign powers purchase hundreds of thousands of dollars of goods and services from.

Congress has the right to investigate the president.

The president needs to have more faith in this countryís intelligence organizations than he has in foreign leaders.

No one should photograph and tweet the slides in a classified intelligence briefing.

Etc.
__________________
I lost an avatar bet to Doghouse Reilly.
Ladewig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2019, 12:41 PM   #112
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 20,468
Originally Posted by Ladewig View Post
Welcome to the new normal.

There is a lengthy list of things that were no-brainers in 2015 that are now considered up for debate.

The president should not own a business that foreign powers purchase hundreds of thousands of dollars of goods and services from.

Congress has the right to investigate the president.

The president needs to have more faith in this countryís intelligence organizations than he has in foreign leaders.

No one should photograph and tweet the slides in a classified intelligence briefing.

Etc.
"Children shouldn't be put in cages"

"Facts exist."
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2019, 12:43 PM   #113
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 45,623
Originally Posted by Ladewig View Post
Welcome to the new normal.

There is a lengthy list of things that were no-brainers in 2015 that are now considered up for debate.

The president should not own a business that foreign powers purchase hundreds of thousands of dollars of goods and services from.

Congress has the right to investigate the president.

The president needs to have more faith in this countryís intelligence organizations than he has in foreign leaders.

No one should photograph and tweet the slides in a classified intelligence briefing.

Etc.
And we have new one: To oppose the President is act of treason.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2019, 12:45 PM   #114
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 38,395
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Too many Reps because too many non-citizens?
Because of whatever reason. But I asked you a question; would you mind answering it, now that I've answered yours?
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2019, 01:13 PM   #115
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 9,816
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Because of whatever reason. But I asked you a question; would you mind answering it, now that I've answered yours?
No, not because of whatever reason. Total population is all that should count.
But the Hofeller plan is to allocate Representatives based on citizen population only.
States with a high migrant population would lose a lot of seats.
This would be a terrible abuse of the power by the President.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2019, 01:43 PM   #116
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 38,395
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
No, not because of whatever reason. Total population is all that should count.
Sorry, I thought whatever valid reason went without saying.

This isn't intended to be a gotcha. I'm just trying to find a point of basic agreement. If the Constitution says apportionment by population, and California is in line with that, then we agree it has the right number of Reps, yes?

And if California isn't in line with that, then we agree that its number of Reps needs to be corrected, yes?
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2019, 01:48 PM   #117
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 23,187
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
And we have new one: To oppose the President is act of treason.
Not new.

The act of treason has always been opposition to established power and I believe right now that's a certain Donald J Trump.

Treason is defined as: the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill or overthrow the sovereign or government.

For clarity, betrayal is defined as: to not be loyal to your country or a person, often by doing something harmful such as helping their enemies.

You could make a case that being in an opposition party and campaigning against the incumbent is treason. They should run that through the current incarnation of SCOTUS. I suspect you'd see being a member of the Democratic Party made into a crime.

Seems to work fine in lots of countries, and Donnie's boss looks to have mastered it.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2019, 02:04 PM   #118
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trebuchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Great Northwet
Posts: 22,905
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
And we have new one: To oppose the President is act of treason.
Also it was a standard Republican and Fox talking point from 2001 to 2009. Then they forgot about it for eight years, for some reason.
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.
Trebuchet is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2019, 02:09 PM   #119
Wowbagger
The Infinitely Prolonged
 
Wowbagger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Westchester County, NY (when not in space)
Posts: 15,207
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
That isn't an answer. Do you want to bet on your prediction? As in you and me, making a bet.
Before Trump was elected, I bet some folks real money he would win, hoping I would lose those bets. After that happened, I decided I don't really like making bets on things that I hope I am wrong about. So, for that reason, I will have to turn your offer down.

But, we'll still be able to see to what degree I was right or wrong, should he manage to get re-elected.

(I hope he doesn't. But, unfortunately, I made a small bet with one person on that, early in his term right before I decided to no longer do bets like that. At least that won't happen, anymore.)

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
__________________
WARNING: Phrases in this post may sound meaner than they were intended to be.

SkeptiCamp NYC: http://www.skepticampnyc.org/
An open conference on science and skepticism, where you could be a presenter!

By the way, my first name is NOT Bowerick!!!!
Wowbagger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2019, 02:11 PM   #120
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 38,395
As to the rest of it:
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
But the Hofeller plan is to allocate Representatives based on citizen population only.
States with a high migrant population would lose a lot of seats.
This would be a terrible abuse of the power by the President.
I don't think it can possibly be an abuse of power by the President, since the President doesn't actually have the power to change Apportionment. That's done by the Legislature itself. For example: the Reapportionment Act of 1929. It was an Act of Congress, not the President.

And it's not clear to me that it would be an abuse of power for the Legislature to change the apportionment in this way. It does seem like it would probably be unconstitutional, though, since the language of that document seems to imply residents, not citizens. Still, I don't think it's an abuse of power for the Legislature to enact some constitutionally-questionable law, and leave it for the courts to decide one way or the other.

And it's definitely not clear to me that basing legislative representation on number of citizens rather than number of residents is somehow wrong or evil. In fact, it kinda seems like the evil shoe might be on the other foot, here. It kinda seems like the "3/5 of a person" compromise all over again.

The slave states wanted their legislative influence to be strengthened by counting all their non-voting slaves for the purposes of Representative apportionment. The non-slave states rightly saw this as a travesty, and argued against counting slaves at all. In the interest of actually forming the Union, a compromise was reached. Even though slaves couldn't vote, and probably shouldn't have counted towards their masters' power in the new government, they were weighted at 3/5 of a person for the purposes of apportionment.

Now, immigrants aren't the same as slaves. In my book, everyone counts as 1/1 of a person. It does not follow for me that everyone should therefore count as 1/1 of a Represented Person in the Legislature. I don't necessarily have a problem with counting non-citizens towards that representation. But I also don't have a problem with only actual citizens counting towards representation.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:55 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.