Trump's Solution to the Census Debacle - GENIUS!

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Because that billionaire is paying a hell of a lot more into the system and is taking much greater risks than you or I are, simple as that. I do not believe they should be above the law, but in terms of justifying a system where those who have the most skin in the game also have the loudest voices... that seems fair to me and serves as a personal motivator rather than an excuse to whine.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

So why even bother if politicians aren't going to listen to you? Sounds like you advocate for corporatocracy, so much for the Constitution.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Why should a billionaire have more of a voice than you or me?

Like I've said before, money speaks louder than words. You don't need to be an economics genius to figure that out. Common sense is common sense. Lobbying and money in politics is the biggest issue in America right now, along with the liberal agenda they're pushing through the media. One is the same as the other if you ask me. Do you know how the corporate world works? You do what you're told or you're replaced. Only the biggest ass kissers make it to the top, same goes for the heavily corporate-influenced political arena and the media.

The most important question though, why should one person's voice be louder than yours? Why is a billionaire allowed to influence your laws and freedoms more than you? How is that fair for the common working family?

Shut up
You dont even vote
You CHOOSE to have NO voice
All you do is whine

What law that subverts the 5th Amendment compels one to answer this question in the first place?

originally posted by: EternalShadow
What law that subverts the 5th Amendment compels one to answer this question in the first place?

5th Amendment might be one of those "said under oath" things.

Anybody can legally lie just about at any time and anywhere 😎

a reply to: shooterbrody

You sound butthurt, lol. I must have really strummed a chord in you.

The reason I don't vote is because a corporation has more of a voice than I do. Their money overrides my vote.

How's it feel to be an advocate for a corporatocracy? Pay to win, it's what Trump knows best. Now get on your hands and knees and continue licking those boots and don't forget to not break eye contact with your sugardaddy-in-chief.

Oh, and that isn't rain you're feeling while you're down there either.

a reply to: xuenchen

Speaking of "lying".

Shilling is illegal in many circumstances and in many jurisdictions because of the potential for fraud and damage; however, if a shill does not place uninformed parties at a risk of loss, but merely generates "buzz", the shill's actions may be legal.

Who's this sound like? Hmmm..... looks like you're good to go xue. You're probably perfectly legal. 😎

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: xuenchen

Speaking of "lying".

Shilling is illegal in many circumstances and in many jurisdictions because of the potential for fraud and damage; however, if a shill does not place uninformed parties at a risk of loss, but merely generates "buzz", the shill's actions may be legal.

Who's this sound like? Hmmm..... looks like you're good to go xue. You're probably perfectly legal.

Sound like a law that Julius Caesar wrote.

Or was it Yogi Berra ? 😃

a reply to: Tempter

What if representation has been skewed already? Wouldn't it then balance out (lower) representation from states of which there are a high number of falsely counted illegals?

It certainly could. Which is why I expect this to be opposed at every turn, just as attempts to slow illegal immigration are opposed at every turn.

Not to mention, I am assuming there will be a lot of anger among the population when the Census numbers on how many illegals there really are, are released.

TheRedneck

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

The most important question though, why should one person's voice be louder than yours?

It shouldn't. Which is why a person living among a high illegal immigrant population in a sanctuary city shouldn't receive greater representation than I do (which is how it works now thanks to the DNC).

This is a separate issue from lobbyists. We are literally talking about a greater vote than someone else in elections.

TheRedneck

a reply to: EternalShadow

What law that subverts the 5th Amendment compels one to answer this question in the first place?

Nowhere in the question does it ask if someone is legal or illegal, only if they are a citizen. It is not illegal to simply not be a citizen; people are foreign nationals all the time without breaking a single law. Therefore the 5th Amendment does not apply.

Please tell me that's not the best the DNC has got? I really expected better.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

It shouldn't.

But it is.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Your simply a whiny child complaining about a subject you obviously know little about and dont participate in.
The ONLY one butthurt is you, so much so you have given up on the right others died to secure for you.
Your lack of respect is disgusting.
Not surprising tho.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

So you're saying this is a good thing, getting the information on the Census to determine who is and is not a citizen so citizens all have equal representation? Trump did good?

TheRedneck

a reply to: shooterbrody

Here goes the character assassination bit lol. Is name calling all you have left? I thought they died for my right to make my own choices? Isn't that what freedom is all about?

Why should I participate in something that has thrown my voice aside in favor of a paycheck? Would you play a game of cards where certain players were allowed to pay the dealer to deal them a superior hand? If so, you're an idiot.

a reply to: TheRedneck

I'm saying that the erosion of our freedoms continues and some people seem to be cheering it on, again. History is ignored, again.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I'm not getting how that is applicable to the subject of Census determination of citizenship status. Care to elucidate?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Here's what you said earlier:

I'll admit I don't like the precedent... but yeah, for the short term, Trump just fried the DNC's plans. 

As I said, I place any blame for future privacy concerns over this squarely on the necks of Pelosi, Shumer, AOC, Waters, Williams, and the other "anti-Trump" people in Congress and the MSM. Had they just allowed the question, there would have been no need for this. 

Thinking in short terms is being short-sighted. You don't like the precedent, but you justify it anyways. The long term effects will outweigh any short term ones, every time.

They create the problem then provide the "solution", which is the erosion of our freedom and privacy. You already suspect "future privacy concerns" over this, yet none of the fault lies on the one who passed it somehow.

The sides are played against each other so that our freedoms can continue being taken away. If you don't like the precedent then why do you justify it?

"If they had just allowed the question", yet Trump could have easily required the question but changed his mind and passed something even more invasive. Freedoms eroded with people cheering it on and justifying it. Unbelievable.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Thinking in short terms is being short-sighted. You don't like the precedent, but you justify it anyways. The long term effects will outweigh any short term ones, every time.

OK, that's a fair enough point.

Tell me, though... have you spoke out in support of a physical barrier along the border? Less loopholes in immigration law? Tougher laws that are enforceable by the CBP? Have you complained against sanctuary cities?

If you have not, then you are also responsible in part for the very crisis that has led us to this point. Government may have created this problem, but it was We The People who allowed it by listening to the MSM and the leaders who led us here. Without the support, direct or tacit, of We The People, government cannot create a problem they can then leverage with a less-than-optimal solution. People get what they deserve.

"If they had just allowed the question", yet Trump could have easily required the question but changed his mind and passed something even more invasive.

No, he could not. The date of his Executive Order was July 11, 2019. The deadline for having questions submitted to be printed was June 30, 2019, 11 days earlier. it was simply too late to have the question printed on the ballot. Even extending the deadline would not have worked, as those in the government trying to block this question were using every legal stall tactic known to delay any resolution.

Trump and the DoC proposed the change in plenty of time to be included. It was the DNC, the MSM, and the establishment in general who decided to stall and force Trump's hand... I believe not thinking he would do this.

Your "facts" do not bear out reality.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Trump and the DoC proposed the change in plenty of time to be included. It was the DNC, the MSM, and the establishment in general who decided to stall and force Trump's hand... I believe not thinking he would do this. 

Yes, "forced" his hand, as if that's not a convenient excuse. They created the problem and gave us the "solution". You're still under the impression that the two parties are actual enemies instead of two forces working together to get laws like the Patriot Act and this one passed with at least half the population justifying it somehow.

It's a very convenient scenario from two parties who are on the same payroll, a payroll that does not care about parties but instead uses them to their own advantage.