https://www.yahoo.com/news/justice-depar...27218.html

Quote:President Donald Trump’s Wednesday morning announcement that he still aimed to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census, despide a serious Supreme Court setback, appears to coincide with the Department of Justice being “instructed” to find a way to include it.

So called judges just don't like him.

Another L on immigration (what else is new), but honest question, why on earth would you side with inaccurate reporting on the census which leads to misappropriation of resources?

Under this logic, states are incentivized to encourage more illegal immigration. They get rewarded for it.

Oh he got his way alright, he is the President of the United States of America! Happy 4th of July!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

(07-04-2019 12:15 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  Oh he got his way alright, he is the President of the United States of America! Happy 4th of July!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

You got it. Trump is our President and will be our President for a while. The fact the libs here whine about it everyday is truly priceless.

(07-04-2019 03:44 AM)usmbacker Wrote:  

(07-04-2019 12:15 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  Oh he got his way alright, he is the President of the United States of America! Happy 4th of July!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

You got it. Trump is our President and will be our President for a while. The fact the libs here whine about it everyday is truly priceless.

Amen! The fact that the OP had to type the 1st word of the thread title just makes me smile. The TDS will be in overdrive across the country today as real Americans celebrate our independence and greatness while the pathetic America hating and Trump hating trash sits around drinking Starbucks and longing for America to be a 3rd world socialist nation led by Czar Bernie who doles out their free shtt. F ‘em

It just struck me who CB reminds me of!

(07-04-2019 12:00 AM)Kronke Wrote:  Another L on immigration (what else is new), but honest question, why on earth would you side with inaccurate reporting on the census which leads to misappropriation of resources?

Under this logic, states are incentivized to encourage more illegal immigration. They get rewarded for it.

Because this is 100% the way the constitution was originally written. The census is not about "counting citizens." How you know this is because of the 3/5's compromise. Direct quote from Article 1 section 2 from the constitution.

"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."

Nowhere does it say citizens at all, and the fact that there was a big fight about trying to get credit for slaves lets you know that there is no reading that allows you to come up with citizenship having anything to do with the purpose of the census. The quote from Wikipedia below about how the inclusion of the 3/5 compromise helped the south.

"The Three-Fifths Compromise gave a disproportionate representation of slave states in the House of Representatives relative to the voters in free states until the American Civil War. In 1793, for example, Southern slave states had 47 of the 105 members but would have had 33, had seats been assigned based on free populations. In 1812, slave states had 76 out of 143 instead of the 59 they would have had; in 1833, 98 out of 240 instead of 73"

So under your logic above states were given incentive to have as many slaves as possible. This would have all worked too and the weaponized activist right wing Supreme Court would have flat out ignored the original intent of the constitution if it wasn't for the Hofeller documents coming out.

(07-05-2019 09:43 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(07-04-2019 12:00 AM)Kronke Wrote:  Another L on immigration (what else is new), but honest question, why on earth would you side with inaccurate reporting on the census which leads to misappropriation of resources?

Under this logic, states are incentivized to encourage more illegal immigration. They get rewarded for it.

Because this is 100% the way the constitution was originally written. The census is not about "counting citizens." How you know this is because of the 3/5's compromise. Direct quote from Article 1 section 2 from the constitution.

"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."

Nowhere does it say citizens at all, and the fact that there was a big fight about trying to get credit for slaves lets you know that there is no reading that allows you to come up with citizenship having anything to do with the purpose of the census. The quote from Wikipedia below about how the inclusion of the 3/5 compromise helped the south.

"The Three-Fifths Compromise gave a disproportionate representation of slave states in the House of Representatives relative to the voters in free states until the American Civil War. In 1793, for example, Southern slave states had 47 of the 105 members but would have had 33, had seats been assigned based on free populations. In 1812, slave states had 76 out of 143 instead of the 59 they would have had; in 1833, 98 out of 240 instead of 73"

So under your logic above states were given incentive to have as many slaves as possible. This would have all worked too and the weaponized activist right wing Supreme Court would have flat out ignored the original intent of the constitution if it wasn't for the Hofeller documents coming out.

This perception you have is based on an understanding of current taxation and not taxation at the time. At the time, taxation was not collected from individuals, but was primarily based on excise and tariffs collected at the ports by the states.... thus the south wanted a low valuation on 'property' while the north wanted a higher one, hence the compromise.

We have an entirely different situation now where taxes are paid by individuals directly to the feds, not the states and based on income while money FROM the feds is based on population.

(07-05-2019 12:34 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-05-2019 09:43 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(07-04-2019 12:00 AM)Kronke Wrote:  Another L on immigration (what else is new), but honest question, why on earth would you side with inaccurate reporting on the census which leads to misappropriation of resources?

Under this logic, states are incentivized to encourage more illegal immigration. They get rewarded for it.

Because this is 100% the way the constitution was originally written. The census is not about "counting citizens." How you know this is because of the 3/5's compromise. Direct quote from Article 1 section 2 from the constitution.

"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."

Nowhere does it say citizens at all, and the fact that there was a big fight about trying to get credit for slaves lets you know that there is no reading that allows you to come up with citizenship having anything to do with the purpose of the census. The quote from Wikipedia below about how the inclusion of the 3/5 compromise helped the south.

"The Three-Fifths Compromise gave a disproportionate representation of slave states in the House of Representatives relative to the voters in free states until the American Civil War. In 1793, for example, Southern slave states had 47 of the 105 members but would have had 33, had seats been assigned based on free populations. In 1812, slave states had 76 out of 143 instead of the 59 they would have had; in 1833, 98 out of 240 instead of 73"

So under your logic above states were given incentive to have as many slaves as possible. This would have all worked too and the weaponized activist right wing Supreme Court would have flat out ignored the original intent of the constitution if it wasn't for the Hofeller documents coming out.

This perception you have is based on an understanding of current taxation and not taxation at the time. At the time, taxation was not collected from individuals, but was primarily based on excise and tariffs collected at the ports by the states.... thus the south wanted a low valuation on 'property' while the north wanted a higher one, hence the compromise.

We have an entirely different situation now where taxes are paid by individuals directly to the feds, not the states and based on income while money FROM the feds is based on population.

Sometimes you have to explain to folks that the personal income tax didn't come into existence until the Civil War. Even then it was temporary and didn't become bonafide until 1913 with the ratification of the 16th Amendment.

Trump has a pen and a phone twitter.

(07-03-2019 11:27 PM)cb4029 Wrote:  https://www.yahoo.com/news/justice-depar...27218.html

Quote:President Donald Trump’s Wednesday morning announcement that he still aimed to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census, despide a serious Supreme Court setback, appears to coincide with the Department of Justice being “instructed” to find a way to include it.

So called judges just don't like him.

The title of this thread ..... "President sore loser can't get his way"

That's so rich (and ironic) coming from the Left. What a bunch of clowns. Guess they all forgot that the Muller Report they all demanded, and railed about for 2+ years in hopes that it would derail Trump let them down flat on their faces and just look how they have reacted since. WAAAAAA!!!!! Lets do our own investigation!!!

Guess they also forgot how after the 2016 election didn't go the way they thought it would how they reacted. WAAAAA!!!!! Hillary was cheated and should have won. Let's do away with the Electoral College!!!

Guess they again forgot how immediately after the 2016 election - and before Trump was inaugurated - how they reacted. WAAAAA!!!!! Hillary lost (sob, sob, sob). Let's see if we can get the state's delegates to give their Electoral College votes to Hillary instead of Trump even though it is not in accordance with how the voters in those states voted.

For the most part, the Left is a bunch of Hypocrite Losers.

(07-03-2019 11:27 PM)cb4029 Wrote:  https://www.yahoo.com/news/justice-depar...27218.html

Quote:President Donald Trump’s Wednesday morning announcement that he still aimed to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census, despide a serious Supreme Court setback, appears to coincide with the Department of Justice being “instructed” to find a way to include it.

So called judges just don't like him.

The citizenship question has been asked before in census records. Just off the top of my head. In census years, 1890, 1900, 1910, 1920 and 1930. Why is it a problem now?

(07-05-2019 02:06 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(07-03-2019 11:27 PM)cb4029 Wrote:  https://www.yahoo.com/news/justice-depar...27218.html

Quote:President Donald Trump’s Wednesday morning announcement that he still aimed to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census, despide a serious Supreme Court setback, appears to coincide with the Department of Justice being “instructed” to find a way to include it.

So called judges just don't like him.

The citizenship question has been asked before in census records. Just off the top of my head. In census years, 1890, 1900, 1910, 1920 and 1930. Why is it a problem now?

Because leftists value non-citizens over citizens....

(07-05-2019 02:06 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(07-03-2019 11:27 PM)cb4029 Wrote:  https://www.yahoo.com/news/justice-depar...27218.html

Quote:President Donald Trump’s Wednesday morning announcement that he still aimed to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census, despide a serious Supreme Court setback, appears to coincide with the Department of Justice being “instructed” to find a way to include it.

So called judges just don't like him.

The citizenship question has been asked before in census records. Just off the top of my head. In census years, 1890, 1900, 1910, 1920 and 1930. Why is it a problem now?

Because

(07-03-2019 11:27 PM)cb4029 Wrote:  https://www.yahoo.com/news/justice-depar...27218.html

Quote:President Donald Trump’s Wednesday morning announcement that he still aimed to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census, despide a serious Supreme Court setback, appears to coincide with the Department of Justice being “instructed” to find a way to include it.

So called judges just don't like him.

I'm trying to figure out what your complaint is here.... or why you make it personal.

When Obama believed that Heller would be upheld and gun rights further limited, he lost that in the courts. Did he not then repeatedly instruct his people to find ways to get the guns anyway?

Did you consider him a sore loser?

Do you consider Democrats sore losers who continue to push for ways to accomplish things that have already been decided in the courts?


THIS is why Trump was elected, and isn't a dead lock cinch to be defeated

(07-05-2019 03:24 PM)blah Wrote:  

(07-05-2019 02:06 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(07-03-2019 11:27 PM)cb4029 Wrote:  https://www.yahoo.com/news/justice-depar...27218.html

Quote:President Donald Trump’s Wednesday morning announcement that he still aimed to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census, despide a serious Supreme Court setback, appears to coincide with the Department of Justice being “instructed” to find a way to include it.

So called judges just don't like him.

The citizenship question has been asked before in census records. Just off the top of my head. In census years, 1890, 1900, 1910, 1920 and 1930. Why is it a problem now?

Because leftists value non-citizens over citizens....

This seems to be the D's overriding theme so far this election cycle.