Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
How Should Liberals Fight a Citizenship Question on the Census?

Let’s suppose, as seems likely, that the Supreme Court lets Donald Trump go ahead with adding an obviously partisan citizenship question to the 2020 census. How should liberals react?

1) Mount a big educational campaign telling non-citizens not to be afraid of telling census takers that they aren’t citizens.

2) Mount a big educational campaign telling non-citizens to just go ahead and lie about being citizens.

This is what makes the cynicism of modern conservatism so toxic. The best bet for liberals is almost certainly the second one, but that merely fights cynicism toward governance with yet more cynicism. When does it end?

The Census Case Will Define the Roberts Court
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/04/census-case-roberts-court-
legacy.html
The court’s conservative wing disregarded the fact that both the original Constitution and the 14th Amendment require the Census to count all persons — citizens and non-citizens alike.


The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Should probably just add the line: "Enter your Social Security Number Here" instead of asking if you're a citizen.

Then nobody has to lie.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Yes. I did disregard that.

There's really no point to the census if we can't even get a proper idea of how many illegal aliens have invaded America with it.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Yes. I did disregard that.

There's really no point to the census if we can't even get a proper idea of how many illegal aliens have invaded America with it.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

There is already a good enough method that doesn't require Trump making the Census inaccurate for the purpose in the Constitution :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigrant_population_of_the_Unit
ed_States#Estimation_method

The "residual method" is widely used to estimate the illegal immigrant population of the US. With this method, the known number of legally documented immigrants to the United States is subtracted from the reported U.S. Census number of self-proclaimed foreign-born people (based on immigration records and adjusted by projections of deaths and out-migration) to obtain the total, illegal immigrant (residual) population. This methodology is used by the US Department of Homeland Security,[12] the Pew Hispanic Center, the Center for Immigration Studies,[13] and the U.S. Census Bureau.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

---

Quote:

---

Federal Funding to the State. In some cases, the Census population count affects how much federal funds each state receives. That is, many federal statutes allocate funding to the states based on a formula that uses states’ populations—as determined by the Census—as one variable to determine their respective shares of the funding. In most cases, the higher a state’s population count, the more federal funding the state is eligible to receive. Similarly, certain federal funds provided directly to local governments and nongovernmental entities are based on Census population counts.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Democrats, especially those in so-called "Sanctuary Cities" don't want this question asked because if illegal aliens dodge the census, they get less funding per person that is actually living in their state.

Period.

End of story.

Game Over.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Yes. I did disregard that.

There's really no point to the census if we can't even get a proper idea of how many illegal aliens have invaded America with it.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

There is already a good enough method that doesn't require Trump making the Census inaccurate for the purpose in the Constitution :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigrant_population_of_the_Unit
ed_States#Estimation_method

The "residual method" is widely used to estimate the illegal immigrant population of the US. With this method, the known number of legally documented immigrants to the United States is subtracted from the reported U.S. Census number of self-proclaimed foreign-born people (based on immigration records and adjusted by projections of deaths and out-migration) to obtain the total, illegal immigrant (residual) population. This methodology is used by the US Department of Homeland Security,[12] the Pew Hispanic Center, the Center for Immigration Studies,[13] and the U.S. Census Bureau.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

---

Quote:

---

Federal Funding to the State. In some cases, the Census population count affects how much federal funds each state receives. That is, many federal statutes allocate funding to the states based on a formula that uses states’ populations—as determined by the Census—as one variable to determine their respective shares of the funding. In most cases, the higher a state’s population count, the more federal funding the state is eligible to receive. Similarly, certain federal funds provided directly to local governments and nongovernmental entities are based on Census population counts.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Yeah.

Tell it to Rachel Maddow's millions, Second.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Nope. No support for medicare 4 kids.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I don't have a problem with medicare.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I don't have a problem with medicare.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Are you sure? You've complained about the tax taken from your paycheck: the Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax (FICA) to fund Social Security and Medicare.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

I have a problem with how it is taxed. Sure.

Going to have a much bigger problem with how it's taxed if I'm funding other people's kids and still don't have insurance myself.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
With a program like Medicare-for-Kids-Only, all the childless people and all the people with grown-up-children don't want a program for Kids Only. Republicans can use that against Medicare-for-Kids-Only.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
With a program like Medicare-for-Kids-Only, all the childless people and all the people with grown-up-children don't want a program for Kids Only. Republicans can use that against Medicare-for-Kids-Only.

---

Exactly. I managed to say in one single sentence what it took you 5 paragraphs to say.

Given how many working class people have family insurance that already covers their kids until they're out of college anyhow, and that this extended family insurance for the kids is markedly cheaper than individual plans are, the amount of children who would benefit from this is extremely small.

It doesn't do anything at all to address the fact that after 18 not only won't they have insurance anymore, but now they'll be paying for other kids insurance.

Social Security is already a ponzi scheme. I don't see what the point of Medicare-4-Kids is, other than to hook them on government benefits when they're young.


It's not even worth debating since this program has even less of a chance of ever passing than the UBI would.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
The congressional process for addressing disasters has been around for some time, and it’s heavily flawed. The sluggish appropriations process can cause significant delays in the delivery of aid.

It’s an unsustainable approach, disaster preparedness experts say, given the surge we’ve seen in natural disasters in recent years. And it desperately needs to change as this trend continues.

Over the past several decades, the government responded to roughly six disasters a year that caused $1 billion each in damages. But between 2014-2018 that number spiked to 13 disasters a year.

Massive flooding overwhelmed multiple states in the Midwest. A “bomb cyclone” exacerbated the issue. And lawmakers still have yet to approve a dime, on a package they’ve been debating since last December.

All of this is to say that the way the US approaches disaster aid hasn’t kept up with the pace of climate change.

Congress is currently caught up in a spending battle over disaster aid, and it’s largely because of Trump’s aversion to helping places that did not vote for him. The politicization of disaster aid has been disheartening for some experts.

According to a FiveThirtyEight analysis, “voters reward presidents for spending on relief, but not for spending on preparedness.” The argument for spending more on mitigation, though not as self-evidently and immediately beneficial, has been proven by numerous studies: A review by National Institute of Building Sciences found that every $1 invested in preventative efforts translated to $6 saved in longer-term relief costs.

More at www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/5/16/18617697/disaster-aid-senate
-puerto-rico-trump-climate-change

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Pray for violent acts of god to destroy everything so you can blame it on Trump.

Maybe that will work.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

This Alabama abortion bill is a gift to democrats one year before the elections. Thanks guys...
T

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
75% of women who obtain abortions are low-income, with nearly half living below the federal poverty level.
www.marketwatch.com/story/nearly-half-of-women-who-have-abortions-live
-below-in-the-federal-poverty-level-2019-05-17

Alabama’s Extremist Abortion Bill Ruins John Roberts’ Roe v. Wade Plan

There are easy and near invisible ways for the Supreme court to end Roe v. Wade. The five Republican justices in the majority could do it while finding ways to say that abortion regulations were not an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to choose. The courts and state legislatures could continue their lilting love songs to the need for the states to protect maternal health and to help confused mommies make good choices, and nobody need dirty their hands by acknowledging that the three decades’ worth of cumbersome clinic regulations and admitting privileges laws were just pretexts for closing clinics and ending abortion altogether.

Why feel sorry for John Roberts? Because what keeps the Supreme Court in business is polite subterfuge. It’s easiest when the court pretends to be a bit more human than it is while what are essentially unvarnished religious arguments get dressed up in platitudes about patient care, informed consent, maternal information, and solicitude for mothers in distress.

But the state of Alabama runs now to the Supreme Court with its mask of tender solicitude for women and their health askew. The briefest look at the debate as Alabama on Tuesday passed the cruelest and most punitive abortion regulation in modern American history shows exactly how much concern they have for the health of pregnant women. Every woman who suffers an unwanted pregnancy is bad, her baby is good, and such a woman should be punished and made to suffer for her sins. It’s about God. That makes things awkward for Chief Justice John Roberts and his tacit scheme to overturn Roe v. Wade.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/05/alabama-abortion-bill-supr
eme-court-john-roberts-roe.html

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
lol.

Roe vs. Wade is not going to be overturned.

There is no gift. Just more chicken little media.

You can put that in the prediction thread.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Not going to happen.

Overturning Roe vs. Wade is going to ensure that Trump loses and we don't see another Republican elected for a generation.

This is just another dead-end to try to get Trump removed. I wonder what it will be next week.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
We all deserve judges who can be fair and impartial, but we are not getting that.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
We all deserve judges who can be fair and impartial, but we are not getting that.

---

We're never going to get that.

I once thought that if we waited long enough for an AI to come along that was up to the job and we surrendered to their own judgement that it would be possible, but recent revelations about how algorithms have been designed and carried out to bring the "correct" news to people doing searches for news proves otherwise.

Any AI derived from humankind will be just as imperfect and petty as mankind itself.

Impartiality is a dream.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
Does Anyone Actually Want Joe Biden to Be President?

Early polls are a poor barometer for electoral success. At this point in the lead-up to 2016, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and Scott Walker were the top contenders for the Republican nomination.

The case that people make for Mr. Biden’s electability is not that any one group of people is particularly excited by him, but that he stands the best chance of getting independents and perhaps even some moderate Republicans to cross over and vote Democratic; unenthusiastic lefties will nevertheless vote for him because this is an emergency and Donald Trump is so much worse. It’s Politics 101: The candidate closest to the median voter will scoop up the biggest share.

But getting elected is not about appealing to the bland median. It’s about appealing to the people who actually feel motivated to turn out and vote.

The Democratic Party of 2019 does not look much like Joe Biden. Women, African-American, Latino and Asian voters are all much more likely to say they support Democratic candidates than Republican ones. White voters, male voters and especially white male voters generally support Republicans.

Those assumptions about electability reflect entrenched biases more than political science, and have a dash of arrogance to boot. An electable candidate, the thinking goes, has to be authentic and broadly appealing. But authenticity itself is coded as white and male when it’s defined by white men.

This perpetual reading of the white working-class tea leaves (or beer hops?) only makes sense if those voters are actually more influential than all the others. In the Democratic Party, they’re not. Just under a third of white men without college degrees said they voted for a Democrat in the 2018 midterms. And Democrats don’t need anywhere near a majority of these men to win. Women vote in larger numbers than men; voters with college and post-graduate degrees turn out in larger shares than those without. These high-turnout groups are the same ones that are trending Democratic. If they're motivated to turn out to vote, a Democrat will wind up in the White House.

But what about those Obama-to-Trump swing voters who will reportedly make or break this election, as they did the last one? The Democratic Party shouldn’t leave anyone behind, but working-class white men are declining as a share of the Democratic base, while whites generally are declining as a share of the general population. The entire premise that white men without college degrees are the only possible swing voters is a faulty one.

There’s also little evidence that most voters pick a candidate based on policies and that a moderate candidate who wrote campaign talking points to appeal to a broad swath of voters would do significantly better than a more visionary and progressive one. Instead of trying to win back a waning electoral and demographic force (white males with no college degree), Democrats would be better served to consider what will get voters to the polls. Hillary Clinton’s loss can only be explained by a long list of factors, but surely one of them was apathy. (Biden is the personification of Apathy. Who is excited about Biden? Nobody.)

More at www.nytimes.com/2019/05/17/opinion/joe-biden-president.html

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Why don't these racists and sexists that write articles like this focus on what the candidate's platforms are instead of the color of everyone's skin and what sexual organs they possess?

This is why Democrats lose. Always.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

https://peteforamerica.com/issues/
1) Electoral College
Democracy means that nothing should be allowed to overrule the vote of the American people when it comes to choosing our nation’s leader.

Key Policy: A national popular vote to replace the Electoral College

It’s simple: the candidate who gets the most votes should win. States don’t vote, people vote, and everyone’s vote should count exactly the same. The Electoral College has to go.

The best route to removing the Electoral College would be a constitutional amendment. Recognizing that this cannot be done overnight, Pete supports the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact to ensure the president is chosen by the American people while we seek constitutional reform.

2) Judicial System
Democracy means depoliticizing our judicial system.

Key Policy: Depoliticize the Supreme Court

We need to reform the Supreme Court in a way that will strengthen its independence and restore the American people’s trust in it as a check to the Presidency and the Congress. One promising idea is to restructure the Court so that ten members are confirmed in the normal political fashion, with the other five promoted from the lower courts by unanimous agreement of the other ten. Others have proposed implementing term limits. As president, Pete will create a bipartisan reform commission for the purpose of recommending structural improvements to protect the Supreme Court from further politicization.

3) National Service
Democracy means more shared experiences in the service of our country.

Key Policy: Expand opportunities for national service

We need to grow our national service programs to give more opportunities for young Americans to serve. Service provides a deeper sense of community, tackles critical national and global challenges, and can help heal our divided nation.

When Pete was a Navy Reserve Officer, he learned to trust and collaborate with women and men from radically different backgrounds -- including different races, religions, and political leanings. Right now, we turn away hundreds of thousands of young people who volunteer to serve. Military service, Peace Corps service, and domestic service-year opportunities through efforts like AmeriCorps should be expanded until service becomes a universal expectation for every American youth.

Bringing together people of different backgrounds in pursuit of a common shared purpose -- from climate adaptation to supporting disinvested American communities and neighborhoods -- is America at its best.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
It seems we've come full circle. Right back to the basket of deplorables.

How'd that work out for you in 2016?

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
It seems we've come full circle. Right back to the basket of deplorables.

How'd that work out for you in 2016?

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Worked great! I got a huge tax cut from Trump and I fired all my "deplorable" Trump-loving employees. They were convinced they were essential, but they were wrong. My business runs so much smoother without those whiny Trump-lovers incompetently handling the jobs I assigned them. How are things working for you, now that you are forced to move from the house where you once though you'd live forever? Did Trump not deliver on his promises to Make America Great Again?

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

---