Judge Strikes Down Citizenship Census Question

[COR-TEN]

Not only is Kodiak an idiot and a bigot, but a homophobe as well. Niice. Keep posting. It makes you look really good. /s

You just got owned by a dumb, ignorant, fantasy land college professor, and you still stand by your idiocy. I'll say it is entertaining if not pathetic at the same time.

26% of the voter eligible public voted for dumpster. So that's roughly a quarter, which is a fucking minority. I know it is what it is, but jeesus fucking christ. Look at the goddamn numbers. Are you really this stupid?



From here : https://mises.org/wire/26-percent-eligi ... oted-trump

But I'm sure it'll just be labeled as fake news. And it's not the only source. But go ahead and quibble about a percentage point or three.

Dumbass.

[Donnie Brasco]

Not only is Kodiak an idiot and a bigot, but a homophobe as well. Niice. Keep posting. It makes you look really good. /s

You just got owned by a dumb, ignorant, fantasy land college professor, and you still stand by your idiocy. I'll say it is entertaining if not pathetic at the same time.

26% of the voter eligible public voted for dumpster. So that's roughly a quarter, which is a fucking minority. I know it is what it is, but jeesus fucking christ. Look at the goddamn numbers. Are you really this stupid?



From here : https://mises.org/wire/26-percent-eligi ... oted-trump

But I'm sure it'll just be labeled as fake news. And it's not the only source. But go ahead and quibble about a percentage point or three.

Dumbass.

If I'm reading that pie chart right, 26% voted for Clinton?

[jebrick]

[

If I'm reading that pie chart right, 26% voted for Clinton?

26% of ALL eligible voters. The big blue part of the pie did not vote or voted for someone else.

[Donnie Brasco]

[

If I'm reading that pie chart right, 26% voted for Clinton?

26% of ALL eligible voters. The big blue part of the pie did not vote or voted for someone else.

Yes, I should have clarified

So I'm unsure what the OP's point was:

26% voted for Trump
26% voted for HRC

Was there a punchline? (not directed at you per se)

This was a poor turnout year regardless...partly due to the polls believing HRC was a shoe-in and essentially many believed their vote wouldn't sway anything.

[COR-TEN]

The point is that only 26% of the public is on board with this preszident's* policies. A huge minority. Nobody wants this, yet this is what we get. They make it seem like the entire country is behind the bullshit, which is bullshit. So the right should stop acting like they want democracy and freedom. They don't.

[Donnie Brasco]

The point is that only 26% of the public is on board with this preszident's* policies. A huge minority. Nobody wants this, yet this is what we get. They make it seem like the entire country is behind the bullshit, which is bullshit. So the right should stop acting like they want democracy and freedom. They don't.

And if HRC was elected you could say the exact same thing: the majority isn't onboard with her policies.

Again- what is your point except to further prove this was a poor turnout?

I'm not sure where exactly you're going with this...it sounds like you're spinning a percentage narrative

[SteelPro]

The point is that only 26% of the public is on board with this preszident's* policies. A huge minority. Nobody wants this, yet this is what we get. They make it seem like the entire country is behind the bullshit, which is bullshit.

By the standard you are using no president would have a majority support ever... Presidential elections have routinely hovered around 60% participation. It is nearly impossible for any candidate to even get 35% of eligible voters. At 60% participation a candidate would need to take more than 58% of the vote to reach 35% of the eligible vote. That hasn't happen since Reagan in 1984.

[COR-TEN]

Wait. I was responding to someone contesting the idea that 26% voted for dumpster, and that most of the country is in favor of his bullshit. I provided some facts.

And now I get arguments over history and who votes for this and that?

Whatever.

[Donnie Brasco]

Wait. I was responding to someone contesting the idea that 26% voted for dumpster, and that most of the country is in favor of his bullshit. I provided some facts.

And now I get arguments over history and who votes for this and that?

Whatever.

But you failed to provide any context, hence the confusion.

There's a difference between a percentage of ELIGIBLE VOTERS vs a percentage of whom voted- that is why the math seemed to not make any sense at first glance

[SteelPro]

Wait. I was responding to someone contesting the idea that 26% voted for dumpster, and that most of the country is in favor of his bullshit. I provided some facts.

And now I get arguments over history and who votes for this and that?

Whatever.

But you failed to provide any context, hence the confusion.

There's a difference between a percentage of ELIGIBLE VOTERS vs a percentage of whom voted- that is why the math seemed to not make any sense at first glance

The same article COR-TEN linked to as a reference states this...

The numbers become even smaller when we look at how many votes he received as a proportion of the population overall. In this case, Trump won votes from only 19 percent of the overall population.

There is nothing unique about these numbers, however, when compared against other elections.

In 1992, Bill Clinton won with similar numbers, when he received 43 percent of all votes cast, and received votes from under 30 percent of the voter-eligible population.

Even in the largest blowout in the past 40 years — Reagan's 1984 election — the victor won only 34% of the voter-eligible population.

Also notable is the fact that the 2016 election marks the fourth time in the past seven elections that the victor failed to break the 50-percent mark. In 1992, 1996, 2000, and now 2016, the winner has failed to win a majority of the votes cast.

None of this means the winners aren't the winners, of course. They each won according to the rules (with the possible exception of 2000, when judges interpreted the rules to suit their own political agendas).

https://mises.org/wire/26-percent-eligi ... oted-trump

[955876]

Wait. I was responding to someone contesting the idea that 26% voted for dumpster, and that most of the country is in favor of his bullshit. I provided some facts.

And now I get arguments over history and who votes for this and that?

Whatever.

Let’s delve into those “facts”...

When you said “only 26% voted for dumpster” you framed it in such a way that the “only 26%” was to be taken as derogatory or at least to mean a very small amount.

You also left out the key fact that same exact amount of people statistically voted for Hillary.

Didn’t know you were referring to % voted vs total population. But since that’s what you actually meant I did some digging.

What I found was pretty funny. And that was that going back over past elections prior to 2016 there has been only 2 candidates ever that received more votes.

That was Barrack Obama and HRC.

And not “only” did dumpster get more votes than every other candidate not named Obama or Hill but MORE people voted in the 2016 elections than any of the preceding presidential elections with the exception of 2008 where approx 600,000 more people voted.

Trump’s 62.9 million votes were 4th most in history. #1 and #2 was Obama 2008 & 2012. #3 was Hillary in a losing effort.

Only 1 presidential election in our history saw more people vote and that was 2008.

Maybe you should rethink your use of “only” and how you frame an argument because this current one you are trying to have just got blown out of the water.

[Kodiak]

Not only is Kodiak an idiot and a bigot, but a homophobe as well.

By the way, I would ask the mods to ban this bullshit. Corten called me a homophobe and a bigot. I am not, and none of my posts suggest this.

You can't get more of a definitive personal attack than that. GIVE HIM A VACATION. This has gone on way too long - when is this tool going to be censored for interjecting politics into every other post?

[Kodiak]

But I'm sure it'll just be labeled as fake news.

No, just ignorance.

It's been well shown that you don't know anything. I'm sure you can bukkake all of us with fake news that you swallowed as fact. It will never make you intelligent, or insightful. But it may make you feel significant.

But the irony is that being ignored for being ignorant is what motivates, what emboldens you You don't fool those of use who are actually educated and experienced.

From day one, I always thought you were a total twat. You've never posted anything other than to confirm that.

[COR-TEN]

Awwwwww. Poor booby. S'matter snowflake, can't take the insults? Pot calling the kettle black, no less. Now you go running to daddy to take away the person that made you cry?

WHAAAAAAAaaaa!!!



Go hide behind your mommy's skirt and ask her for a cookie, you putz.

[zeke5123]

I honestly think I have met more 18 year olds I'd want voting than I've met 70+ year olds I want voting.

I've honestly met more 18 year olds that weren't qualified to wipe my ass. Many of them had college degrees, but that's another thread....

There are many, many people from all age brackets that I do not consider to be qualified to vote. There are many extremely impressive, informed 18 year olds, and there are many that know next to nothing. I can say the same about 40 year olds. And there are plenty 80 year olds who are facing senility, but also a great number who are as sharp as a tack.

An 18 year old is an adult. They can serve in the military, purchase a home, and work a full time job (and pay the associated taxes). They have a right to have a say in who makes important policy decisions that have a direct affect on them.

Let's be real for a sec --

The reason you don't want young people to vote is because they overwhelmingly vote democrat. I don't want old people to vote because they overwhelmingly vote republican. We've each created justifications for those positions. But being an informed voter doesn't come with a minimum age requirement, nor does it have an age limit. And, given that voting is a fundamental right, I'm a lot more inclined to expand voting rights than I am to restrict them.

I see voting more as instrumental as opposed to an fundamental. Stated differently, the right to life, liberty, and property are fundamental rights. The right to vote, among others, are instrumental rights designed to protect the fundamental rights.

In the end, I think voting is overrated -- if you have free exit with no toll charge, that would do more to protect fundamental rights compared to voting.

[Kodiak]

I do cry that ignorant morons like you get to vote. That's how Trump got elected. Sure, you didn't vote for Trump....but that's only because Bernie didn't brainwash as many dumbasses.

I would add that you're such a Libtard trope, that I might actually believe you're just a troll.....Call people racist because you've been humiliated by facts and reality is straight out of the identity politics playbook.

But jokes aside, I hope they increase the minimum wage so your internet doesn't get shut off....

[zeke5123]

The point is that only 26% of the public is on board with this preszident's* policies. A huge minority. Nobody wants this, yet this is what we get. They make it seem like the entire country is behind the bullshit, which is bullshit. So the right should stop acting like they want democracy and freedom. They don't.

No -- the point is that only 26% of voters voted for Trump. Some of those voters may not be on-board with his policies. Voters are dumb.

But likewise, some of HRC's voters may actually be on-board with Trump's policies. Some of the people who didn't vote might agree with Trump.

Basically, looking at percetange of the population who voted for Trump tells you nothing.

Also, don't see why you need an asterik. Is he not the President?

[Kodiak]

... Voters are dumb.

Sadly, if this was not the case at least 3/4 of Congress would be thrown out on their ass next election.

Everyone bitches about DC....but when they vote, they do nothing about it.

[COR-TEN]

The point is that only 26% of the public is on board with this preszident's* policies. A huge minority. Nobody wants this, yet this is what we get. They make it seem like the entire country is behind the bullshit, which is bullshit. So the right should stop acting like they want democracy and freedom. They don't.

No -- the point is that only 26% of voters voted for Trump. Some of those voters may not be on-board with his policies. Voters are dumb.

But likewise, some of HRC's voters may actually be on-board with Trump's policies. Some of the people who didn't vote might agree with Trump.

Basically, looking at percetange of the population who voted for Trump tells you nothing.

Also, don't see why you need an asterik. Is he not the President?

Actually, no. If you voted for dumpster you agreed to the terms and conditions of his presidency. You made the choice to accept the good with the bad. Especially with this guy since it's either for or against. Therefore, you accept and condone the bad, if you see the bad. It's acceptable collateral damage. Whether voters are dumb is moot.

And I disagree with the notion that the percentage that voted for dumpster is irrelevant. It's relevant with every presidential election. 26% is different than 36% is different than 46%. It would be intellectually dishonest to not recognize that fact.

And the asterisk is for the same reason barry bonds has an asterisk next to his home run record. It's tainted. This much cannot be denied, as much as the rightwingnut propaganda machine is hellbent on changing the narrative.

[955876]

It's tainted. This much cannot be denied,

What cannot be denied is the origins or the “Russia investigation” was nonsense and kicked off by a fraudulently obtained FISA warrant based on bogus propaganda paid for by the Clinton campaign.

It was a political hit job with amble evidence to prove as much.

And yet the lemmings keep believing that somehow the Kremlin got Trump elected in some sort of tin foil hat conspiracy.

Is it sooo hard to believe that Hill was a horrible candidate that 30 of the 50 states did not want as their President?

Two years, millions of tax payer dollars, and a staff or pro-Clinton attorneys could not prove any collusion or conspiracy and yet you still want to believe it exist. If Don Lemmon or Rosie O’Donnell didn’t tell you what to think on the matter you’d be lost.

If there was even a shred of evidence that shown collusion existed the entire left and pro-left media would have been jumping for joy and articles of impeachment would have already been put into motion.

Be a man and stop acting like a petulant child that didn’t get a participation trophy or post game juice box.

[955876]

And I disagree with the notion that the percentage that voted for dumpster is irrelevant. It's relevant with every presidential election. 26% is different than 36% is different than 46%. It would be intellectually dishonest to not recognize that fact.

Can you at least agree that 62.9 million is the 4th highest number of votes for a President in history?

Or will you spin that as well?

[Steelafan77]

I found this clever and funny. Although, sad but true.

Tax return submitted by a New Jersey person…





Thank you for existing!’ Makes one smile, but grimace also.

The New Jersey filer was too close to the truth as to who is dependent

upon him and other taxpayers.



Tax return submitted by a New Jersey person:

The IRS returned a tax return to a man in New Jersey after he

apparently answered one of the questions

incorrectly.



In response to question 23: "Do you have anyone dependent on you?",

the man wrote: "2.1 million illegal

immigrants, 1.1 million crack-heads, 4.4 million unemployable

scroungers, 80,000 criminals in over 85

prisons, plus 650 idiots in Washington, and the entire group that call

themselves politicians".



On the returned form, someone at the IRS had attached a Post-it Note

beside the question with an arrow

and the words: “Your response to question 23 is unacceptable.”



The man sent it back to the IRS with his response on the bottom of the

Post It Note: "Who did I leave out?"

[955876]

Ha that was funny.

Cue Metallica music...

[Kodiak]

But likewise, some of HRC's voters may actually be on-board with Trump's policies. Some of the people who didn't vote might agree with Trump.

Trumps brand of "economic nationalism" was fundamental to the Democratic platform 20 years ago, only they called it "FAIR" trade. They abdandoned it after it proved to be a loser.

90% of Washington is out purely for re-election. They change policy with the polls. As much of a clown as Trump is, he's exposed how hypocritical Washington and their media are.....Unforuntely, 80% of the electorate is pretty much brain dead - not a question of who they will vote for, but only whether they will vote. Which is why winning elections really is about turnout - the candidates really aren't different enough for the middle moderates/independents to matter (they split to close to 50/50).

[Donnie Brasco]

Trump is proposing to make Asylum Seekers pay

https://www.13abc.com/content/news/Trum ... P2Dn6VpQ_c

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump is proposing charging asylum seekers a fee to process their applications as he continues to try to crack down on the surge of Central American migrants seeking to cross into the U.S.


In a presidential memorandum, Trump directed his attorney general and acting homeland security secretary to take additional measures to overhaul the asylum system, which he insists "is in crisis" and plagued by "rampant abuse."(Source: Shealah Craighead/White House/MGN)
In a presidential memorandum signed Monday, Trump directed his attorney general and acting homeland security secretary to take additional measures to overhaul the asylum system, which he insists "is in crisis" and plagued by "rampant abuse."

The changes are just the latest in a series of proposals from an administration that is struggling to cope with a surge of migrant families arriving at the southern border that has overwhelmed federal resources and complicated Trump's efforts to claim victory at the border as he runs for re-election. Most of those arriving say they are fleeing violence and poverty, and many request asylum under U.S. and international law.

As part of the memo, Trump is giving officials 90 days to come up with new regulations to ensure that applications are adjudicated within 180 days of filing, except under exceptional circumstances.


And he is directing officials to begin charging a fee to process asylum and employment authorization applications, which do not currently require payment.

The White House and Department of Homeland Security officials did not immediately respond to questions about how much applicants might be forced to pay, and it is unclear how many families fleeing poverty would be able to afford such a payment.

The memo says the price would not exceed the cost of processing applications, but officials did not immediately provide an estimate for what that might be.

Trump also wants to bar anyone who has entered or tried to enter the country illegally from receiving a provisional work permit and is calling on officials to immediately revoke work authorizations when people are denied asylum and ordered removed from the country.

The Republican president also is calling on Homeland Security to reassign immigration officers and any other staff "to improve the integrity of adjudications of credible and reasonable fear claims, to strengthen the enforcement of the immigration laws, and to ensure compliance with the law by those aliens who have final orders of removal."


Arrests along the southern border have skyrocketed in recent months, with border agents making more than 100,000 arrests or denials of entry in March, a 12-year high.

Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen resigned in early April amid Trump's increasing frustration over how many Central American families were crossing the U.S.-Mexico border.

___

Associated Press writer Colleen Long contributed to this report.

[jebrick]

But likewise, some of HRC's voters may actually be on-board with Trump's policies. Some of the people who didn't vote might agree with Trump.

Trumps brand of "economic nationalism" was fundamental to the Democratic platform 20 years ago, only they called it "FAIR" trade. They abdandoned it after it proved to be a loser.

90% of Washington is out purely for re-election. They change policy with the polls. As much of a clown as Trump is, he's exposed how hypocritical Washington and their media are.....Unforuntely, 80% of the electorate is pretty much brain dead - not a question of who they will vote for, but only whether they will vote. Which is why winning elections really is about turnout - the candidates really aren't different enough for the middle moderates/independents to matter (they split to close to 50/50).

Thus my points in the other thread. Sanders and Trump target, mostly, the same voters. Those that have been abandoned by the traditional Dems and never represented by the GOP. Biden tries to target the same ones while holding on to the Wall Street Dems.

[COR-TEN]

Honest Question For All :

If you voted for dumpster the first time around, would you vote for him again simply on *economic* issues? IOW, de-regulate/ tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy. Because he's certainly not responsible for unemployment numbers, or helping the middle class. Would you vote for him again, regardless of the candidate on the other side? Because most all of them are pretty much the same, with both bernie and joey being slightly different.

[Donnie Brasco]

Honest Question For All :

If you voted for dumpster the first time around, would you vote for him again simply on *economic* issues? IOW, de-regulate/ tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy. Because he's certainly not responsible for unemployment numbers, or helping the middle class. Would you vote for him again, regardless of the candidate on the other side? Because most all of them are pretty much the same, with both bernie and joey being slightly different.

Didn't we already establish that the Prez has minimal impact over the economy?

I know this wasn't directed at me necessarily (bc I voted for Johnson). But I couldn't say if I'd vote for Trump right now- depends on the other candidates (which isn't looking so hot)
If Bernie would have run, I honestly would have voted for him. But I will absolutely NOT and NEVER vote for him because he sold out to the DNC.

So if I had to choose NOW: Trump vs the Field, I'd vote for Trump mostly due to his crackdown or willingness to do something about the illegal immigration problem

Again my vote could change if it comes to light that he committed a crime or is impeached...

[zeke5123]

The point is that only 26% of the public is on board with this preszident's* policies. A huge minority. Nobody wants this, yet this is what we get. They make it seem like the entire country is behind the bullshit, which is bullshit. So the right should stop acting like they want democracy and freedom. They don't.

No -- the point is that only 26% of voters voted for Trump. Some of those voters may not be on-board with his policies. Voters are dumb.

But likewise, some of HRC's voters may actually be on-board with Trump's policies. Some of the people who didn't vote might agree with Trump.

Basically, looking at percetange of the population who voted for Trump tells you nothing.

Also, don't see why you need an asterik. Is he not the President?

Actually, no. If you voted for dumpster you agreed to the terms and conditions of his presidency. You made the choice to accept the good with the bad. Especially with this guy since it's either for or against. Therefore, you accept and condone the bad, if you see the bad. It's acceptable collateral damage. Whether voters are dumb is moot.

And I disagree with the notion that the percentage that voted for dumpster is irrelevant. It's relevant with every presidential election. 26% is different than 36% is different than 46%. It would be intellectually dishonest to not recognize that fact.

And the asterisk is for the same reason barry bonds has an asterisk next to his home run record. It's tainted. This much cannot be denied, as much as the rightwingnut propaganda machine is hellbent on changing the narrative.

1. It isn't relevant in determining whether the President's policies have wide ranging support, which was the question at hand. You can talk about how it is relevant in other factors. But you can't disagree with that major point that not voting =/= disagree.

2. I don't see how it is tainted. President won enough states to be elected President. If this is about Russia...dude. If they could sway an election with hundreds of thousands of ad dollars compared to the millions upon millions spent just by the campaigns themselves...we should be hiring those guys to do pretty much everything. So, the only thing left with is the leaked emails. I agreed they may have swayed the election. But they were also true. So, is that bad? What it be tainted if the Wash Post got those emails and released them? Is it bad that the out of context "grab 'em by the pussy" tapes were made public? Sunlight is a good thing.

3. Finally, I say the above as someone who is not a Trump supporter and who (i) abstains from voting on moral grounds and (ii) would've voted Johnson (L) if I voted.

[zeke5123]

Honest Question For All :

If you voted for dumpster the first time around, would you vote for him again simply on *economic* issues? IOW, de-regulate/ tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy. Because he's certainly not responsible for unemployment numbers, or helping the middle class. Would you vote for him again, regardless of the candidate on the other side? Because most all of them are pretty much the same, with both bernie and joey being slightly different.

It is far from clear what or who is responsible for helping the poor or middle class.

I think what will animate voters the most is SCOTUS. RBG will likely not make it to 2024, so the question becomes who replaces her. Hopefully, we get another Gorsuch and can be rid of Chevron.

I morally abstain from voting, but if I were to vote I'd have to write-in some candidate; maybe Cuban haha. Trump isn't a great pick for norm reasons. Biden is a lousy pick from SCOTUS perspective. Lizzie Warren -- who I don't think will make it to Super Tuesday -- would be a disaster of epic portions. Ditto Bernie. Beto is interesting. Harris' record as an AG is disqualifying. Spartacus should be disqualified based on BK. Mean Amy is interesting. America's mayor is a moron.