Idiotic dictator plans to include census question despite Supreme Court
Comments
-
The hostility and fear they have of simply asking if the person living here is a citizen gives away the game. They know there are millions of non-citizens living here and they know that many Rat Congressional seats depend upon counting those non-citizens.
-
Fine. You don't the Constitution and the Supreme Court.SFGbob said:The hostility and fear they have of simply asking if the person living here is a citizen gives away the game. They know there are millions of non-citizens living here and they know that many Rat Congressional seats depend upon counting those non-citizens.
-
Trump is so incompetent, inept and disingenuous he couldn’t get a majority scotus vote in favor of what should have been an easy slam dunk decision. Sad.SFGbob said:The hostility and fear they have of simply asking if the person living here is a citizen gives away the game. They know there are millions of non-citizens living here and they know that many Rat Congressional seats depend upon counting those non-citizens.
-
Not one lib on here is willing to be honest and state why they don't want the question asked. Pathetic.ApostleofGrief said: -
AOG posts at 10:50 and looks like he’ll disappear by 11:30. That might be a new record.ApostleofGrief said:
Because the Supreme Court blocked this GOP rigging tactic and the Constitution says to COUNT not ask 4th Amendment violating questions. The only issue in the Constitution is to exclude Indians not taxed.RaceBannon said:Good
Why shouldn't we ask it? Has it been asked before?
Are you a fucking moron? -
Thanks for backing up my statement. They live here and must be counted. Illegals still require billions of dollars in budgeting for all the services they are sucking up. If they don't want to be counted they can move home to the shit hole of their origin.ApostleofGrief said:
No, they don't need to answer any intrusive questions. All it says AGAIN! ... COUNT. That what it says, so long as the person being counted is not an Indian not taxed, which they are either none or so few that really, all the Constitution says is COUNT.Sledog said:
We need to count heads. If they are living here they need to answer. Simple ain't it?ApostleofGrief said:
That's an ad hominem. The red herring is that it is not a question of what I would like to see or you would like to see. It's what the legality is and what the Supreme Court decides (rules, opines etc).SFGbob said:
Actually neither of those points are either a red herring or a strawman argument. But you're not very bright.ApostleofGrief said:
red herrings, straw man arguments..... I refer you to the Constitution (read it). It only says COUNT.RaceBannon said:
There are numerous questions on the census. The supreme court did not block itApostleofGrief said:
Because the Supreme Court blocked this GOP rigging tactic and the Constitution says to COUNT not ask 4th Amendment violating questions. The only issue in the Constitution is to exclude Indians not taxed.RaceBannon said:Good
Why shouldn't we ask it? Has it been asked before?
Are you a fucking moron?
Why are you against knowing how many illegals we have here?
The point is that the Constitution says only to count. There is no legislation mandating asking such a question. It has been included, yes, but only about 43% of the years of census taking. The Supreme Court ruled against this being added. So, I find all of your arguments weak. This is much worse since we have a dictator ready to override the check of the Supreme Court! -
WTF? Grammarly, D2. Grammarly!ApostleofGrief said:
Fine. You don't the Constitution and the Supreme Court.SFGbob said:The hostility and fear they have of simply asking if the person living here is a citizen gives away the game. They know there are millions of non-citizens living here and they know that many Rat Congressional seats depend upon counting those non-citizens.
-
AOG melting down nicely. Hondo must be on a break.
-
Substantive reason: it will result in an undercountBendintheriver said:
Not one lib on here is willing to be honest and state why they don't want the question asked. Pathetic.ApostleofGrief said:
Procedural reason: Daddy lied about the reason for its inclusion
I think every "lib" has said that at one point or another. -
so to summarize your various criticisms, I didn't post and leave. It doesn't matter so much what we think -- it's what the Supreme Court does and what is in the Constitution that counts. That's my argument. I deflected a mass of your usual fallacies like red herrings and ad hominems.
