If Mort Divine ruled the world

[Dak]

Non-native who hates natives is more native than natives because she hates how natives do things and wants more non-natives to out-number natives.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Looks like Trump has officially started campaigning for reelection 2015-style with that recent rayciss tweet controversy thing.

 

[viewerfromnihil]

https://www.salon.com/2019/07/12/th...rump-could-rig-elections-for-decades_partner/

The charade and innuendos are almost entirely gone at this point. Open admission (not the only article like this either) that Democrats are the party of criminals and noncitizens and how dare non-criminal citizens object to being robbed blind by "rigging" elections. Because importing noncitizens and letting them vote isn't "rigging." Cherry on top is pointing out that the blessing of diversity is an increase in crime.

Yes, because this totally isn't a complete mischaracterization.

They make it sound like doomsday just because delegates don't reflect the number of voters. This honestly sounds like more accurate representation. Why should non-voters count at all? Am I missing something?

Non-citizens (non-voters) have always counted because it says so in the Constitution. Here's the original in Article 1, section three:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

All free persons, even those in indentured servitude, were counted. Even slaves counted, albeit as 3/5s of a person. Indians were the exception to this. Of course, the first sentence in Article 1, Section 3 was replace by Section 2 of the 14th Amendment with the abolition. It reads:

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

First sentence is pretty straight forward. Representatives are apportioned based on number of inhabitants, regardless of citizenship--this was also during a period of mass migration to the US, so it's not as if they weren't aware that non-citizens would be counted. The second sentence is nice legalese, saying to the former slave holding states, 'If you deny former slaves the right to vote, we'll restrict your apportionment to white males.'

Love it when Dems pretend to care about "voting rights" while at the same time when the DNC was confronted about rigging its own primaries to the detriment of its own voters their defence was "we're a corporation, we don't owe anybody a fair go, we can also change our rules whenever we like."

Also; why would checking citizenship status intimidate millions of non-whites into not voting?

It's not about intimidating non-voters into not voting. It's about intimidating non-citizens into not filling out census forms. The number of representatives and electoral college votes the 50 states receive is based on census data. There's only 435 seats in the House and 535 votes for the electoral college, and every census reapportions which state gets what. Adding the question could intimidate some of the 13 million legal resident non-citizens from filling out the forms. Of course, it will certainly discourage illegal immigrants from participating, but that's not exactly a new problem. There are lots of stories from 2010 about illegal immigrants being afraid of filling out the forms.

 

[CiG]

I said non-white, regarding this section from the article:

It was a huge victory for voting rights, as Trump and his allies have sought to use the inclusion of such a question to intimidate minorities out of responding to the census at all, undercounting millions of people in disproportionately nonwhite, Democratic parts of the country and denying them funding and representation.

Reads as if they're shoehorning race into the subject to me.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Indians not taxed aren't represented, but Maria and her 17 children all on government benefits are. Clearly there are no perverted incentives at hand behind the current wave of mass migration, and our current system of government is functioning as intended.

 

[The Ozzman]

Brunning and stave

One of my favorite movie franchises ruined

https://nypost.com/2019/07/14/lashana-lynch-cast-as-007-in-new-james-bond-movie-report/

 

[CiG]

Brunning and stave

One of my favorite movie franchises ruined

https://nypost.com/2019/07/14/lashana-lynch-cast-as-007-in-new-james-bond-movie-report/

From article:

"Bond himself will still be played by Daniel Craig — and will still adhere to his old-fashioned macho characteristics, an insider told the UK paper.

‘Bond, of course, is sexually attracted to the new female 007 and tries his usual seduction tricks, but is baffled when they don’t work on a brilliant, young black woman who basically rolls her eyes at him and has no interest in jumping into his bed,” a source told the Mail."

“There are spectacular chase sequences and fights, and Bond is still Bond but he’s having to learn to deal with the world of #MeToo.”

 

[CiG]

Reminds me of this gem:

 

[The Ozzman]

She a strong, independent woman who don't need no man

 

[Dak]

Yes, because this totally isn't a complete mischaracterization.

disproportionately nonwhite, Democratic parts of the country

racially diverse, Democratic cities where mass incarceration comes down hardest

If states do this, the consequences could go much farther than just noncitizens. Millions upon millions of citizens are not “voter eligible,” like children and prisoners

the average seat would become whiter and more Republican.

Not a mischaracterization at all bro. Democrats are minorities, illegals, prisoners, (and children).

I'm fine with your train of thought connecting the population of illegals to slaves; they are being imported to man the Democratic Party voter plantation. Can we at least continue the analogy and A. Actually count them B. Count them as 3/5s a person and C. Not allow them to vote?

 

[CiG]

InCel hunted down a girl he was obsessed with online, lured her away from a party and almost cut her head off, then took photos and shared them to Instagram. Later he tried to kill himself by cutting his own neck but survived.

Insane fucking story.

 

[viewerfromnihil]

I said non-white, regarding this section from the article:

Reads as if they're shoehorning race into the subject to me.

I see your point and don't necessarily disagree with what you're getting at, but I wouldn't say they're shoehorning it. The vast majority (like over 90%) of immigrant and legal resident aliens are 'non-white.'

Indians not taxed aren't represented, but Maria and her 17 children all on government benefits are. Clearly there are no perverted incentives at hand behind the current wave of mass migration, and our current system of government is functioning as intended.

Uh, ships filled with people were unloaded in the US with very little restrictions until after WWI (Chinese Exclusion Act and small regulatory measures regarding the passenger/square footage to restrict the Irish aside). The welfare state and taxing of undocumented immigrants is a related, but nonetheless different problem.

Not a mischaracterization at all bro. Democrats are minorities, illegals, prisoners, (and children).

I'm fine with your train of thought connecting the population of illegals to slaves; they are being imported to man the Democratic Party voter plantation. Can we at least continue the analogy and A. Actually count them B. Count them as 3/5s a person and C. Not allow them to vote?

I love how your willingness to buy into conspiracy theories stop when language from the Hofeller files, which directly noted the points you quoted, finds its way copy and pasted into the Justice Departments push to add the question to the census. I get that you're triggered any time the white elephant in the room gets pointed at, but come on.

And yeah, thanks again for that factually obtuse and historically blind remark on the Democratic party.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Uh, ships filled with people were unloaded in the US with very little restrictions until after WWI (Chinese Exclusion Act and small regulatory measures regarding the passenger/square footage to restrict the Irish aside). The welfare state and taxing of undocumented immigrants is a related, but nonetheless different problem.

It's a different problem best addressed through the executive being able to enforce immigration law and enact new administrative policy to deter specific kinds of immigration. "Arbitrary and capricious" is applied quite arbitrarily; courts and "experts" are willing to shut down a census question, an ending of DACA, and a pre-Obama redefinition of grounds for asylum, all of which create massive incentives for illegal immigration. But by contrast, suits are very rarely filed when the incentives are first given out. It's not just immigration either; New England and California sue when Trump ends a tax benefit that specifically advantages those living in expensive urban areas, but afaik you never had suits from rural non-beneficiary regions when the tax benefit was passed to begin with. Though the executive branch in theory is much more powerful through gradual expansions of agencies as well as greater war powers, the presidency itself is gradually becoming a ceremonial position with respect to domestic issues thanks to a ratchet effect of infinitely-building regulations. Trump being a notably dumb and incompetent president doesn't help, of course. The result is a permitted open-borders situation, in clear defiance to both law and long-term economic health, in deference to voting blocs and partisan pandering.

 

[Dak]

I love how your willingness to buy into conspiracy theories stop when language from the Hofeller files, which directly noted the points you quoted, finds its way copy and pasted into the Justice Departments push to add the question to the census. I get that you're triggered any time the white elephant in the room gets pointed at, but come on.

And yeah, thanks again for that factually obtuse and historically blind remark on the Democratic party.

The Salon article specifically agrees with Hofeller. Democratic politicians want people who should not have political representation to have it, because they rightly expect that those ignorant people will vote for the gibs. They also are aware of the demographics of the <18 crowd, which they have been pumping through terrible immigration policy for decades. Republicans, a mixed bag of well-meaning nitwits and neocon charlatans, let it happen, and are now trying to play catch-up. Most likely too late, but at least some are making an effort. You're setting a low bar for conspiracy, but at that bar yes, these are "conspiracies." Both parties conspire.

 

[Dak]

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0033350610003203

The lack of available nature might explain part of the mental health issues found in major urban areas. Give it another 20 years and probably a physical health issue disparity too.

 

[CiG]

I see your point and don't necessarily disagree with what you're getting at, but I wouldn't say they're shoehorning it. The vast majority (like over 90%) of immigrant and legal resident aliens are 'non-white.'

It's a dodgy conflation.

 

[Einherjar86]

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0033350610003203

The lack of available nature might explain part of the mental health issues found in major urban areas. Give it another 20 years and probably a physical health issue disparity too.

I highly doubt the latter, especially given that people in rural areas are currently more likely to be victims of the five leading causes of death.

There's a significant reason for that: people in urban areas walk and cycle. And plenty of them leave the city to spend time in extra-urban environments.

 

[Dak]

I highly doubt the latter, especially given that people in rural areas are currently more likely to be victims of the five leading causes of death.

There's a significant reason for that: people in urban areas walk and cycle. And plenty of them leave the city to spend time in extra-urban environments.

I specifically put the time frame I did because of the age differential. Rural people are more likely to be victims because of age. Give another 20 years and a lot of rural boomers will be dead. It's certainly true that a lot of white urban professionals walk and cycle within certain enclaves. That misses the obesity epidemic happening everywhere else and all the problems that come with it even earlier than the boomer population faced them.

 

[Einherjar86]

It sounds like you're saying that urban residents walk and cycle and that there's an obesity problem in rural areas. I don't see how that reverses in twenty years because boomers are dying off.

Additionally, what I've read suggests that people in rural areas are more likely to suffer from depression and other mental health issues than urban residents.

 

[Dak]

It sounds like you're saying that urban residents walk and cycle and that there's an obesity problem in rural areas. I don't see how that reverses in twenty years because boomers are dying off.

Additionally, what I've read suggests that people in rural areas are more likely to suffer from depression and other mental health issues than urban residents.

There are quite a few contingent factors such as age, IQ, education and income (correlates with IQ), and race. Holding those constant, urban environments are bad for mental health. I'm suggesting that outside of some age and IQ related exceptions, they are bad for physical health as well. Urban environments have a much higher static mental load and decrease natural opportunities for physical exertion. I do want to be clear when I say urban I don't mean your average 100kish city or near sister, I mean the major urban areas. NYC, Boston, LA, Houston, etc.

Edit: Also natural opportunities for nature exposure, which is the point of the linked study.