US PoliERA 2019 |OT5| She's got a plan for that, now sashay away

Status
Not open for further replies.

Kusagari

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,139
Pretty much, I don't really know who he is other than he's apparently an alt-right fucko, but I know about The Room and THPS so I laughed anyway.
To keep it short: He's a "journalist" who says he's "center-left" in every single video he does, but then proceeds to do nothing but give right wing talking points and scream about the "far left."

He also loves Tulsi Gabbard.
 

Hours Left

Member
Oct 26, 2017
7,050
Famous people DM me all the time, I just can’t show you.

I know you’re super jealous. You can’t argue against facts.
 

Wilsongt

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,749
There are so many things Tom Stayer can do with his money.

So many good, humanitarian things.

Instead he decides to waste it on a vanity presidential run. Probably thinking that it worked for Trump and it might work for him.
 

Casa

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,935
Oh boy. Trump is NOT gonna be happy when he turns on the TV later tonight and checks Twitter to see all these "TRUMP CAVES AGAIN" headlines.

And with Mueller next week? I expect some heinous distraction to draw everyone's attention. Maybe Iran related.
 

devSin

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,270
Barr saying they're going to use citizenship data anyway to determine apportionment is ominous as fuck.
 

Linkura

Member
Oct 25, 2017
15,244
There are so many things Tom Stayer can do with his money.

So many good, humanitarian things.

Instead he decides to waste it on a vanity presidential run. Probably thinking that it worked for Trump and it might work for him.
Except the average layman knew who Trump was. No one except fucking nerds like us know who Steyer is.


Weird that a SC poll counts. I thought only national ones did.
Yeah I'm confused. We sure about this? At least only 6 people who are def gonna be in September anyway get it added to the September tallies.
 

Autodidact

Member
Oct 25, 2017
13,924
Barr saying they're going to use citizenship data anyway to determine apportionment is ominous as fuck.
1) They can't. They have to use total population to apportion districts. If they tried to use only the citizen population, it'd get to court so fast their heads would spin. SCOTUS ruled as recently as 2016 that non-citizen population must be included in legislative district totals. That part is a bluff. Including the question itself was always just a play to depress Hispanics' response rates. They still would've had to count non-citizens (people who answered no to the question) in the totals. They were just hoping people wouldn't respond at all.

2) They could, however, use citizenship data from other sources besides the census forms to go after people - bad in its own way but not technically related to apportionment.

3) Trump won't receive the data until December 2020 (standard turnover rate from the census), so with any luck he'll be a lame duck with only weeks left and they won't be able to do a damn thing about apportionment even if it's destined to fail in court. It makes winning next year that much more important.
 

devSin

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,270
1) They can't. They have to use total population to apportion districts. If they tried to use only the citizen population, it'd get to court so fast their heads would spin. SCOTUS ruled as recently as 2016 that non-citizen population must be included in legislative district totals. That part is a bluff. Including the question itself was always just a play to depress Hispanics' response rates. They still would've had to count non-citizens (people who answered no to the question) in the totals. They were just hoping people wouldn't respond at all.
The way he framed it as being in dispute, though, makes me think we could see a big push from them to try to get the courts to rule differently.

Though it may not ever help Trump, it could be immensely damaging in future if they find a way.

It makes winning next year that much more important.
The stakes couldn't be higher.
 

Teggy

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,449
1) They can't. They have to use total population to apportion districts. If they tried to use only the citizen population, it'd get to court so fast their heads would spin. SCOTUS ruled as recently as 2016 that non-citizen population must be included in legislative district totals. That part is a bluff. Including the question itself was always just a play to depress Hispanics' response rates. They still would've had to count non-citizens (people who answered no to the question) in the totals. They were just hoping people wouldn't respond at all.
Can’t they just draw the lines however they want though? Look at the citizen data, draw the lines so it’s most advantageous to them, and say it’s a partisan gerrymander.
 

Autodidact

Member
Oct 25, 2017
13,924
Can’t they just draw the lines however they want though? Look at the citizen data, draw the lines so it’s most advantageous to them, and say it’s a partisan gerrymander.
You're jumping a little bit ahead. The Census Bureau uses the data to determine which areas have grown and to apportion the House seats. If the formula they use determines that, say, Texas gets 38 districts, and in the state itself, San Antonio has grown massively, the TX legislature had to draw 38 districts of roughly equal population that reflect the growth patterns in the state. They use the numbers the federal government gives them from the census, and if the census doesn't have citizenship data... they can't use it. If they tried to dilute Hispanic voting power anyway, it could be found to be a racial gerrymander, which this Court has struck down.
 

plagiarize

Untethered once more
Moderator
Oct 25, 2017
7,476
Cape Cod, MA
You're jumping a little bit ahead. The Census Bureau uses the data to determine which areas have grown and to apportion the House seats. If the formula they use determines that, say, Texas gets 38 districts, and in the state itself, San Antonio has grown massively, the TX legislature had to draw 38 districts of roughly equal population that reflect the growth patterns in the state. They use the numbers the federal government gives them from the census, and if the census doesn't have citizenship data... they can't use it. If they tried to dilute Hispanic voting power anyway, it could be found to be a racial gerrymander, which this Court has struck down.
Thank you. Exactly.
 

Sheepinator

Member
Jul 25, 2018
5,228
Check. Mate.

Edit: This appears to be a legitimate tweet

Yeah he actually said that about free speech.

"To me free speech is not when you see something good and then you purposely write bad. To me that's very dangerous speech, and you become angry at it. But that's not free speech."

Imagine if Obama said that about free speech, while also "joking" about staying more than 2 terms, and apparently seriously considering ignoring the Supreme Court. Just imagine.
 

Teggy

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,449
You're jumping a little bit ahead. The Census Bureau uses the data to determine which areas have grown and to apportion the House seats. If the formula they use determines that, say, Texas gets 38 districts, and in the state itself, San Antonio has grown massively, the TX legislature had to draw 38 districts of roughly equal population that reflect the growth patterns in the state. They use the numbers the federal government gives them from the census, and if the census doesn't have citizenship data... they can't use it. If they tried to dilute Hispanic voting power anyway, it could be found to be a racial gerrymander, which this Court has struck down.
When they get sued for them being racist gerrymanders, they won't be able to prove otherwise with no paper trail.
I hope you guys are right, because people on the right (bill Barr, for one) have thought about this and they clearly have a plan in mind.
 

Autodidact

Member
Oct 25, 2017
13,924
I hope you guys are right, because people on the right (bill Barr, for one) have thought about this and they clearly have a plan in mind.
I mean, they had a plan to get the question on the census.

Remember also that if next year goes according to plan, by the time the states receive the data in 2021, Trump and Barr will be gone.
 

B-Dubs

Oh well, what the hell?
Administrator
Oct 25, 2017
15,506
Not Very Online enough. You have to read more shitty twitter, people! (Or following Will Sommer is a less brain rotting way).


I’m seriously embarrassed of our country right now.

I deal with enough toxic bullshit in any given day, I'm fine not knowing lol
 

shadow_shogun

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,829
@rebeccaballhaus
Trump says he will direct federal agencies to provide the Commerce Dept with records on the # of citizens and non-citizens.

Ironically, Census Bureau staffers told Ross in *early 2018* that they could do that instead of a citizenship Q on the census.https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-to-hold-news-conference-on-census-citizenship-question-11562845502?mod=hp_lead_pos1 …
17:56 - 11 Jul 2019
 

Fork

Avenger
Oct 27, 2017
4,453
Lima, Peru

Some really really interesting new polls here.

Pete is apparently #1 in Iowa? WTF?

New Hampshire is led by Bernie but Warren is closely behind.

Harris is also close to Biden on SC and if Biden cant even secure SC then he is d o n e
 

Joe

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,010
Book is gonna end up being something stupid like "I'm telling you, he didn't know anything about government...but then he came in there with all his business expertise and really shook things up, drained the swamp, and made me proud to be an American. MAGA KAG 2020."
 

Plinko

Member
Oct 28, 2017
4,229

Some really really interesting new polls here.

Pete is apparently #1 in Iowa? WTF?

New Hampshire is led by Bernie but Warren is closely behind.

Harris is also close to Biden on SC and if Biden cant even secure SC then he is d o n e
Those are by Change Research, a garbage polling firm.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.