Part of the problem is that the utilization of the census data has expanded beyond the mandated counting for representation. Though I see merit in your complaints in that regard. The censuses have expanded to collect demographic data that's needed to understand the composition and needs of each region and community.
Actually, even the original model didn't really work strictly for the original purpose of representing electors (borrowing your usage for those able to cast a vote). Neither women nor children (arguably more than half the population) could vote, yet they were counted. Slaves most definitely could not vote, yet they were also counted at a 3:5 ration (a compromise for the slave states).
There's another wrinkle about residence requirements that I've glimpsed.
It is kind of common for US citizens to retire out-of-country in order to be able to stretch their pension dollars in an more forgiving economy. I've seen something similar in "house hunters" type shows where British retirees look to move to the Continent, as well as the classic "A Year in Provence". While travelling with my Mexican family in Mexico (shortly before they kicked me out), some of the local guides would point out where the US retirees were living. US citizens, so they should have voting rights but for where?
When I was serving on active duty, we had to declare a state of residence (it's been nearly three decades, so I forget the actual precise term). I don't remember the exact details, but I'm sure that I could get an absentee ballot for voting in California even though I was stationed in North Dakota; and I'm also pretty sure that my then-wife had to register and vote locally (she won't talk to me about anything at all, so I have no way to check that out).
Then I came across a statement of a requirement for Social Security recipients that if they leave the country for more than 60 days then they stop getting their benefits. I'm not sure just where I saw that.
Lots of weird twists and turn for ex-patriots, both long- and short-term. And this administration is pushing to make it all incredibly more weird.
the vice president is a YEC, what a great time to be alive.
How could you ever figure that?
You are saying that the VP (known during his governorship of Indiana as "Mike Dense" -- kind of like how Rick Perry's governorship led to his predecessor, George W. Bush, being referred to as "the smart one") being so ignurunt of science as to be fooled by the false claims of YEC is supposed to be a good thing?
Well, here's a quote I have from a former governor of Mississippi (circa 1990) to justify his attempts at educational reform:
quote:We've already tried ignurunce, so we know that it doesn't work!
I do not doubt that a lot of the anti-science pro-ignurunce pro-Christian-Nationalism BS coming out of this adminstration is coming from Mike Dense. Because Trump is little more than a conduit for the worst intentions of everybody around him.
... to having a president who courts the religious right ...
Yeah, because that's how he rolls. During the 2016 campaign, a woman at a rally expressed to him her concerns about what he was saying. He "reassured" her that he didn't mean anything that he said, but rather he was just saying what the crowd wanted to hear. That turned her into a Trump supporter, which baffles any normal. If a candidate told me that everything he said was a lie playing to elements that he's trying to mislead, for myself I would have run away from that cluster-fuck immediately.
Trump has his own goals (self-aggrandizement and ego-stroking (short strokes, from what we've heard) and profiteering with copious servings of corruption) and cares nothing about anything else.
... and a VP who is a born again YEC.
First, aren't you a Catholic? Sorry if I got that wrong, but I'll continue this thought based on the initial assumption. Keep in mind that I'm speaking from the perspective of USA fundamentalism.
Basically, fundamentalist Christians hate all other Christians, especially Catholics (just review some of forum member Faith's undiluted vitriol against Catholics (search on variations of "RCC"), as being not only wrong but as fighting on the wrong side (ie, Satan's side). I've spoken with a young woman from such a sect and while fundamentalism appears homogenous to normals viewing it from the outside, on the inside it is a ... fur-ball (think of old cartoons where two cats or a cat and a dog start to fight). As a normal, I just cannot keep up with such minutiae, so I'll just call all of them "fundamentalists". Even if you just happen to be Catholic and holding to fundamentalist beliefs.
So then, you're a YEC? What do you base that on? Nothing other than your misunderstanding of Scripture and Doctrine?
Or do you claim to have scientific evidence that the earth is no older than 10,000 years?
If you claim to have such evidence, then do please present it.
I started studying "creation science" around 1981. To date, I have yet to encounter any evidence for "creation science", let alone the narrower question of the age of the earth.
If you possess any evidence that the earth is young, then do please present it.
Edited by dwise1, : Having to correct for farking stiupid censorship within a quote, you farking iceholes!
quote:Each year, the U.S. gets about 1,000 applications from immigrant families in the U.S. seeking permission to stay in the country and not face deportation so family members can continue lifesaving medical care that is not available in their home countries.
But the Trump administration recently told families who were granted permission to stay for medical care that their permission to stay has been rescinded and they have 33 days to leave the country. The policy, which was not publicly announced, is being applied retroactively to any requests filed on or before Aug. 7. ...
"I don’t know how they expect parents to pull their children from hospital beds, disconnect them from lifesaving treatments and go some place where they are know they are going to die," said Marino. "But that is what they are telling them to do.”
Well, those are actual children, not fetuses. Don't expect conservatives to care.
Years ago, I heard an atheist group point out that they are the true pro-lifers since they believe in life after birth and before death, whereas the "true Christian" faux "pro-lifers" only believe in life before birth and after death.
And we are seeing that difference in action more and more, day after day.
quote:When Nixon lied, it was an earthquake. Now Trump lies many times a day. Does it matter? Why is it that evangelicals remain solid with Trump? How is it that evangelicals no longer care about his personal immorality? Do Christian values jibe with his policies? In an insightful discussion, Elesha Coffman, assistant professor of History at Baylor University, a Christian evangelical college, answers these puzzling questions. She says evangelicals want a tough guy who will fight for them when they felt victimized by other presidents. And that evangelicals see the government as encroaching on what is rightfully their power. They are economic libertarians with ties to big oil, though some sectors do see their role as being stewards of God’s creation, the earth. Perhaps above all, a priority is restoring the rule of white masculinity. They eventually gave up on Nixon; what about Trump?
1 hour audio download available at above link.
I haven't listened to yet, but it looks to be good. I've downloaded it for probable future use at our little Two Harbors, MN radio station.
I've never bought the notion that so many red state nihilists vote Republican and support Trump because the Democrats have ignored the needs of rural white America.
US conservatives basically want a return to traditional hierarchy (including the traditional racial and gender roles) and the traditional heroic narrative that describes traditional America. The economic problems are more an excuse to allow the racism to be more explicit; the fact that they claim to believe even the most absurd of Republican claims strikes me as a desperate attempt to deny to themselves they're voting for racism and misogyny.
Krugman doesn't quite say all of that, but his line of thinking is in the same direction.
So what were farmers thinking? My guess is that they let the will to believe override their judgment. Trump seemed like their kind of guy. He certainly seemed to share their dislike for urban elites who, they imagined, looked down on people like them. So they convinced themselves that he knew what he was doing, that he would win his trade war and that they would be among the victors sharing the spoils.
Edited by Chiroptera, : Handwriting recognition keeps spelling krugman with lower case k. <- See?
Hard as it is to fathom, Mr President, just because you’re the leader of the free world doesn’t entitle you to a free pass. Unfortunately, just a free press. -- Neil Cavuto
Entry #3, 629,865 in the "what liberals said would happen" list
The cruelty is the point.
quote:From the AP:
quote:Migrant children who were separated from their parents at the U.S.-Mexico border last year suffered post-traumatic stress and other serious mental health problems, according to a government watchdog report Wednesday. The chaotic reunification process only added to their ordeal.
The Associated Press obtained a copy of the report in advance of the official release.
The children, many already distressed in their home countries or by their journey, showed more fear, feelings of abandonment and post-traumatic stress symptoms than children who were not separated, according to a report from the inspector general’s office in the Department of Health and Human Services.
Some cried inconsolably. Others believed their parents had abandoned them and were angry and confused. “Other children expressed feelings of fear or guilt and became concerned for their parents’ welfare,” according to the report.
Maybe that will show the parents that they should just let their kids be traumatized by gangs and criminals in their own shithole country, eh? Nobody's going to give them any breaks in this shithole, that's for sure
There's a levee system nearby the River Bend Resort and Golf that was installed by the Bush administration around 2006 to protect against flooding and to provide a boundary for immigration officials to patrol, but though a very visible pathway for the levee is present through the golf course, the levee itself was never built within its confines.
Now Trump proposes building his wall atop the levee, and the plan includes completing the levee within the golf club. You can see the route of the levee on this map. It's the white line passing across the top of the map:
The wall would cut the golf course community roughly in half. This it typical of what Trump's wall would do. The Rio Grande runs not straight but crooked, just like the area shown in the map. Trump's wall will only very roughly follow the river's contours and will leave many Texas communities south of it, suddenly more a part of Mexico than of the US.
No wall is necessary along the Rio Grande. The river is already a patrolled barrier, both on the water and beside it. Trump's unnecessary wall, being built by money stolen from funds originally allocated to places as disparate as New York State and needy Puerto Rico, is a tribute to his ego.
Edited by Percy, : Correct text to match the map's actual appearance.
But if built high enough, wide enough, with gun turrets, towers, lights, tank traps, etc, think of all the illegals the wall contractors could employ. Think of it as a really big international public works project, an economic boon to many nations. Maybe even enough to get Mexico to help pay for part of it.
You should find this segment of last night's Rachel Maddow Show interesting:
Basically, Obama responded to Putin's invasion of the Ukraine with four measures:
Imposing sanctions on Russia and Russians. One of Trump's first acts as President was to remove those sanctions, but Congress (yes, the GOP-controlled Congress) overwhelmingly voted against Trump's actions such that it was veto-proof.
Russia was expelled from the G-8, making it now the G-7. And we recently saw Trump at the G-7 meeting single-mindedly lobbying to let Russia join them again -- the other members just listened politely and then conducted business without Trump.
$1 billion aid to the Ukraine, including military aid. Last week, Trump asked that this program be reviewed. As long as the review lasts, the money cannot be spent and there's a time-limit on these funds such that if they are not spent by the end of September 2019, then they expire and will go away and will never be spent. IOW, this is a sneaky way to cut off aid to the Ukraine.
The European Reassurance Initiative (ERI), called at other times the European Deterrence Initiative (EDI). These are military programs intended to demonstrate our solidarity with our European allies that "we have their back" as they need to stand up against Russian aggression. $1 billion was allotted to fund the ERI and EDI. This is the crux of this message and has everything to do with Trump's Wall.
So we see that Trump is working hard for Putin's benefit. But what does this have to do with the Wall? This part starts at around 6:45.
Last week, Trump had the DoD transfer $3.6 billion away from military projects to fund the building of the Wall. The press has been paying a lot of attention to the direct impact that this will have on our troops at home and the detrimental effects this will have on our military readiness. In the midst of that, there are usually a few words mentioning that some of the projects affected are overseas.
Well, when you look at the list of projects affected you see that over 25 of those overseas projects being cut are part of the ERI and EDI. Basically, Trump is using this back-door move to eliminate that last measure against Russian aggression.
So Trump is not only stealing funding from the military in a move to bypass Congress' power of the purse, but he is also benefiting Putin by weakening our deterrence against Russian aggression in Europe and betraying our allies.
And what's getting attention? Trump's violation of federal law by issuing false weather warnings and falsifying official weather maps, AKA "SharpieGate". Whenever Trump does something really stiupid, consider it a diversion and that you need to look at the real harm that he is doing.