Question - Citizenship Question for Census

[Harpy Eagle]

Justices, Blocking Citizenship Question on Census, Call Trump's Push 'Contrived' | National Law Journal

how was the question actually raised on the proposal? could it be rephrased or better detailed to get this on there?

i hear it will misrepresent minorities and i don't understand how. if you're a citizen, who cares of what background? you did what you needed to do to be here, you get the same benefits we all do at that point. we keep throwing bodies into a crossfire of confusion and i just don't get it.

most stories are beating up trump or calling the "news" news but not really going into detail. i'll dig more as my day allows but would love to hear honest discussion on the question and why it's a "problem" to count citizens.

Claiming that having to answer a question will force illegals to either lie or not fill out a census is nonsense.
CA and NY shouldn't be allowed to fill their states with illegals and have them counted on the census.
This is why CA and NY have more representatives and more electoral votes than any other state.....because they've broken the law and declared themselves to be sanctuary states. They shouldn't be allowed to benefit from harboring fugitives.

they can claim it - i'll ask for the connection and proof. why is an illegal citizen even given a census questionnaire to begin with?

Because they are living on our soil, and the Census counts everyone on our soil.

 

[OldLady]

Trump won't allow a census without that citizenship question, so its keep working at it until its in...

How can Trump stop it?

 

[iceberg]

Justices, Blocking Citizenship Question on Census, Call Trump's Push 'Contrived' | National Law Journal

how was the question actually raised on the proposal? could it be rephrased or better detailed to get this on there?

i hear it will misrepresent minorities and i don't understand how. if you're a citizen, who cares of what background? you did what you needed to do to be here, you get the same benefits we all do at that point. we keep throwing bodies into a crossfire of confusion and i just don't get it.

most stories are beating up trump or calling the "news" news but not really going into detail. i'll dig more as my day allows but would love to hear honest discussion on the question and why it's a "problem" to count citizens.

What the court decided
In the opinion, which was written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court ruled that the Commerce Department does have the authority to add a question to the census asking respondents if they are citizens of the U.S. The conservative members of the court agreed with Roberts on that point.

Legal scholars and court watchers Thursday agreed that the Trump administration got in its own way by offering a justification that would not pass legal muster.
But Roberts took issue with Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross’ explanation that adding the question would help enforce the Voting Rights Act. “The evidence tells a story that does not match the explanation the Secretary gave,” Roberts wrote.

This claim is ultimately what the Supreme Court took issue with, describing the reasons behind the administration’s reasoning as “contrived.” The final opinion of the court also suggested that Ross, who runs the department charged with administering the census, had plans to include the citizenship question long before that explanation. “The record shows that the Secretary began taking steps to reinstate a citizenship question about a week into his tenure,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote.

The Supreme Court blocked a citizenship question from the census. Now what?

I'm not sure why the Court will give Wilbur Ross a second chance to come up with a reason for the question--that seems contrived. Or how that would happen--on appeal, I suppose. But it sounds as if no matter what the "reason," the Court has already seen evidence that Ross had an agenda to disenfranchise Hispanics from the start.

If you're confused about the case, you're not the only one, according to the article. The "experts" are arguing about it, too.

how does it disenfranchise anyone at all who is a legal citizen? if not legal, what is the problem?

not trying to be an ass - honest. just trying to understand.

 

[iceberg]

Justices, Blocking Citizenship Question on Census, Call Trump's Push 'Contrived' | National Law Journal

how was the question actually raised on the proposal? could it be rephrased or better detailed to get this on there?

i hear it will misrepresent minorities and i don't understand how. if you're a citizen, who cares of what background? you did what you needed to do to be here, you get the same benefits we all do at that point. we keep throwing bodies into a crossfire of confusion and i just don't get it.

most stories are beating up trump or calling the "news" news but not really going into detail. i'll dig more as my day allows but would love to hear honest discussion on the question and why it's a "problem" to count citizens.

Claiming that having to answer a question will force illegals to either lie or not fill out a census is nonsense.
CA and NY shouldn't be allowed to fill their states with illegals and have them counted on the census.
This is why CA and NY have more representatives and more electoral votes than any other state.....because they've broken the law and declared themselves to be sanctuary states. They shouldn't be allowed to benefit from harboring fugitives.

they can claim it - i'll ask for the connection and proof. why is an illegal citizen even given a census questionnaire to begin with?

They don't know who they are. It might be one person in a family of six. That's kind of a silly question, ice.

why? they are saying this is hurting our hispanic population - asking HOW it will do this is NOT a silly question. avoiding it is.

 

[iceberg]

Justices, Blocking Citizenship Question on Census, Call Trump's Push 'Contrived' | National Law Journal

how was the question actually raised on the proposal? could it be rephrased or better detailed to get this on there?

i hear it will misrepresent minorities and i don't understand how. if you're a citizen, who cares of what background? you did what you needed to do to be here, you get the same benefits we all do at that point. we keep throwing bodies into a crossfire of confusion and i just don't get it.

most stories are beating up trump or calling the "news" news but not really going into detail. i'll dig more as my day allows but would love to hear honest discussion on the question and why it's a "problem" to count citizens.

Claiming that having to answer a question will force illegals to either lie or not fill out a census is nonsense.
CA and NY shouldn't be allowed to fill their states with illegals and have them counted on the census.
This is why CA and NY have more representatives and more electoral votes than any other state.....because they've broken the law and declared themselves to be sanctuary states. They shouldn't be allowed to benefit from harboring fugitives.

they can claim it - i'll ask for the connection and proof. why is an illegal citizen even given a census questionnaire to begin with?

Because they are living on our soil, and the Census counts everyone on our soil.

then count them. but if not citizens, why the refusal to differentiate?

and again - if EC votes are done by total population this DOES have an impact we should look into. giving CA 5 more votes because they have a ton of people who can't vote anyway - WHY?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Trump won't allow a census without that citizenship question, so its keep working at it until its in...

Trump would have to violate the Constitution to stop it. I realize you are cool with that, but you should not be

Census forms could be sent out as late as December 31 2020 to be legally counted as fulfilling the ten-year mandate.

The Federal Census Act mandates the 1 April date. To ignore that is to ignore Fed law, which would violate the Constitution

 

[Harpy Eagle]

then count them. but if not citizens, why the refusal to differentiate?

and again - if EC votes are done by total population this DOES have an impact we should look into. giving CA 5 more votes because they have a ton of people who can't vote anyway - WHY?

It comes down to one of the most basic concepts that our country was founded on...no taxation without representation.

 

[iceberg]

then count them. but if not citizens, why the refusal to differentiate?

and again - if EC votes are done by total population this DOES have an impact we should look into. giving CA 5 more votes because they have a ton of people who can't vote anyway - WHY?

It comes down to one of the most basic concepts that our country was founded on...no taxation without representation.

first, i'm pretty sure that's not in the constitution in such a manner. please correct me if i'm wrong. second, do they pay "income" taxes and how does that work if no SS#? sales taxes i don't care. i'll pay those when i visit another country but i can't elect their politicians.

finally - if they *want* representation, great. they're welcome to attend their day in court to review their amnesty request and ask for it.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

then count them. but if not citizens, why the refusal to differentiate?

and again - if EC votes are done by total population this DOES have an impact we should look into. giving CA 5 more votes because they have a ton of people who can't vote anyway - WHY?

It comes down to one of the most basic concepts that our country was founded on...no taxation without representation.

first, i'm pretty sure that's not in the constitution in such a manner. please correct me if i'm wrong. second, do they pay "income" taxes and how does that work if no SS#? sales taxes i don't care. i'll pay those when i visit another country but i can't elect their politicians.

finally - if they *want* representation, great. they're welcome to attend their day in court to review their amnesty request and ask for it.

It is not just illegals that cannot vote, it is also every legal resident aliens...yet they all pay taxes just like you and I.

 

[iceberg]

then count them. but if not citizens, why the refusal to differentiate?

and again - if EC votes are done by total population this DOES have an impact we should look into. giving CA 5 more votes because they have a ton of people who can't vote anyway - WHY?

It comes down to one of the most basic concepts that our country was founded on...no taxation without representation.

first, i'm pretty sure that's not in the constitution in such a manner. please correct me if i'm wrong. second, do they pay "income" taxes and how does that work if no SS#? sales taxes i don't care. i'll pay those when i visit another country but i can't elect their politicians.

finally - if they *want* representation, great. they're welcome to attend their day in court to review their amnesty request and ask for it.

It is not just illegals that cannot vote, it is also every legal resident aliens...yet they all pay taxes just like you and I.

Then find some category for them to be counted. But counting millions of illegals who can't vote so you get more EC votes is wrong.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Trump won't allow a census without that citizenship question, so its keep working at it until its in...

Trump would have to violate the Constitution to stop it. I realize you are cool with that, but you should not be

Census forms could be sent out as late as December 31 2020 to be legally counted as fulfilling the ten-year mandate.

The Federal Census Act mandates the 1 April date. To ignore that is to ignore Fed law, which would violate the Constitution

The reference day has been bounced around more than once. The act is legally malleable, and no date appears in the Constitution.

Article 1 Section 2

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

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. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.

When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers;and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Trump won't allow a census without that citizenship question, so its keep working at it until its in...

Trump would have to violate the Constitution to stop it. I realize you are cool with that, but you should not be

Census forms could be sent out as late as December 31 2020 to be legally counted as fulfilling the ten-year mandate.

The Federal Census Act mandates the 1 April date. To ignore that is to ignore Fed law, which would violate the Constitution

The reference day has been bounced around more than once. The act is legally malleable, and no date appears in the Constitution.

Article 1 Section 2

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

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. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.

When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers;and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

It is a Fed Law, it cannot be just ignored...or at least not if you believe in the Constitution.

 

[mudwhistle]

Justices, Blocking Citizenship Question on Census, Call Trump's Push 'Contrived' | National Law Journal

how was the question actually raised on the proposal? could it be rephrased or better detailed to get this on there?

i hear it will misrepresent minorities and i don't understand how. if you're a citizen, who cares of what background? you did what you needed to do to be here, you get the same benefits we all do at that point. we keep throwing bodies into a crossfire of confusion and i just don't get it.

most stories are beating up trump or calling the "news" news but not really going into detail. i'll dig more as my day allows but would love to hear honest discussion on the question and why it's a "problem" to count citizens.

What the court decided
In the opinion, which was written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court ruled that the Commerce Department does have the authority to add a question to the census asking respondents if they are citizens of the U.S. The conservative members of the court agreed with Roberts on that point.

Legal scholars and court watchers Thursday agreed that the Trump administration got in its own way by offering a justification that would not pass legal muster.
But Roberts took issue with Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross’ explanation that adding the question would help enforce the Voting Rights Act. “The evidence tells a story that does not match the explanation the Secretary gave,” Roberts wrote.

This claim is ultimately what the Supreme Court took issue with, describing the reasons behind the administration’s reasoning as “contrived.” The final opinion of the court also suggested that Ross, who runs the department charged with administering the census, had plans to include the citizenship question long before that explanation. “The record shows that the Secretary began taking steps to reinstate a citizenship question about a week into his tenure,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote.

The Supreme Court blocked a citizenship question from the census. Now what?

I'm not sure why the Court will give Wilbur Ross a second chance to come up with a reason for the question--that seems contrived. Or how that would happen--on appeal, I suppose. But it sounds as if no matter what the "reason," the Court has already seen evidence that Ross had an agenda to disenfranchise Hispanics from the start.

If you're confused about the case, you're not the only one, according to the article. The "experts" are arguing about it, too.

Illegals shouldn't be counted in the census. Non-citizens can be. However since only citizens participate in the election process, they should be the only folks represented in the US congress. Non-citizens get state level representation because they are residents of that state. Citizenship isn't a question. Illegals deserve no representation

 

[Unkotare]

...

What is the benefit of the citizenship question?

Oh, wait! I knew this one! Um, could it be so we can know how many people here are or are not citizens?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Trump won't allow a census without that citizenship question, so its keep working at it until its in...

Trump would have to violate the Constitution to stop it. I realize you are cool with that, but you should not be

Census forms could be sent out as late as December 31 2020 to be legally counted as fulfilling the ten-year mandate.

The Federal Census Act mandates the 1 April date. To ignore that is to ignore Fed law, which would violate the Constitution

The reference day has been bounced around more than once. The act is legally malleable, and no date appears in the Constitution.

Article 1 Section 2

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

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. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.

When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers;and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

It is a Fed Law, it cannot be just ignored...or at least not if you believe in the Constitution.

As I said, legally malleable.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Trump would have to violate the Constitution to stop it. I realize you are cool with that, but you should not be

Census forms could be sent out as late as December 31 2020 to be legally counted as fulfilling the ten-year mandate.

The Federal Census Act mandates the 1 April date. To ignore that is to ignore Fed law, which would violate the Constitution

The reference day has been bounced around more than once. The act is legally malleable, and no date appears in the Constitution.

Article 1 Section 2

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

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. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.

When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers;and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

It is a Fed Law, it cannot be just ignored...or at least not if you believe in the Constitution.

As I said, legally malleable.

Which is code for "I do not like this law so I am good with my side ignoring it" .

People like you and your wingnuts on the other side are dead set into turning the Executive branch into an all powerful entity

 

[Harpy Eagle]

...

What is the benefit of the citizenship question?

Oh, wait! I knew this one! Um, could it be so we can know how many people here are or are not citizens?

So, what is gained by that knowledge and does it outweigh the loss of accurate data due to a decreased response rate?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Census forms could be sent out as late as December 31 2020 to be legally counted as fulfilling the ten-year mandate.

The Federal Census Act mandates the 1 April date. To ignore that is to ignore Fed law, which would violate the Constitution

The reference day has been bounced around more than once. The act is legally malleable, and no date appears in the Constitution.

Article 1 Section 2

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

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. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.

When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers;and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

It is a Fed Law, it cannot be just ignored...or at least not if you believe in the Constitution.

As I said, legally malleable.

Which is code for "I do not like this law so I am good with my side ignoring it" .

No, it's code for "there is no such thing as 'settled law' and all can be revisited and modified within the mandates of the Constitution.

 

[Care4all]

Justices, Blocking Citizenship Question on Census, Call Trump's Push 'Contrived' | National Law Journal

how was the question actually raised on the proposal? could it be rephrased or better detailed to get this on there?

i hear it will misrepresent minorities and i don't understand how. if you're a citizen, who cares of what background? you did what you needed to do to be here, you get the same benefits we all do at that point. we keep throwing bodies into a crossfire of confusion and i just don't get it.

most stories are beating up trump or calling the "news" news but not really going into detail. i'll dig more as my day allows but would love to hear honest discussion on the question and why it's a "problem" to count citizens.

The purpose of the census is to get an accurate count of the TOTAL population according to the Constitution.

And the Constitution also says, from that TOTAL population of citizens, legal and illegal immigrants, our US Representatives are allotted.... I think it is 1 congressman for about every 750,000 residents... And also many federal funds are distributed to the states by TOTAL population.

The citizen question was purposely inserted by Republicans in to the census, so that an INACCURATE count of the population would be obtained, reducing the population count, which would reduce the number of US Congressmen that the Constitution requires them to have....per resident.

This would hurt citizens that live in communities where immigrants are placed by the federal gvt... refugees that are placed by the gvt, and asylum seekers waiting their court hearing s placed in the different states...

ALSO, It hurts citizens because with an inaccurate count, their state will get less funds allotted by population, yet have all the non citizens that they have jurisdiction over, and responsibility to police, and educate etc.... giving the needy citizens less money for them to receive...

 

[iceberg]

Justices, Blocking Citizenship Question on Census, Call Trump's Push 'Contrived' | National Law Journal

how was the question actually raised on the proposal? could it be rephrased or better detailed to get this on there?

i hear it will misrepresent minorities and i don't understand how. if you're a citizen, who cares of what background? you did what you needed to do to be here, you get the same benefits we all do at that point. we keep throwing bodies into a crossfire of confusion and i just don't get it.

most stories are beating up trump or calling the "news" news but not really going into detail. i'll dig more as my day allows but would love to hear honest discussion on the question and why it's a "problem" to count citizens.

What the court decided
In the opinion, which was written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court ruled that the Commerce Department does have the authority to add a question to the census asking respondents if they are citizens of the U.S. The conservative members of the court agreed with Roberts on that point.

Legal scholars and court watchers Thursday agreed that the Trump administration got in its own way by offering a justification that would not pass legal muster.
But Roberts took issue with Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross’ explanation that adding the question would help enforce the Voting Rights Act. “The evidence tells a story that does not match the explanation the Secretary gave,” Roberts wrote.

This claim is ultimately what the Supreme Court took issue with, describing the reasons behind the administration’s reasoning as “contrived.” The final opinion of the court also suggested that Ross, who runs the department charged with administering the census, had plans to include the citizenship question long before that explanation. “The record shows that the Secretary began taking steps to reinstate a citizenship question about a week into his tenure,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote.

The Supreme Court blocked a citizenship question from the census. Now what?

I'm not sure why the Court will give Wilbur Ross a second chance to come up with a reason for the question--that seems contrived. Or how that would happen--on appeal, I suppose. But it sounds as if no matter what the "reason," the Court has already seen evidence that Ross had an agenda to disenfranchise Hispanics from the start.

If you're confused about the case, you're not the only one, according to the article. The "experts" are arguing about it, too.

Illegals shouldn't be counted in the census. Non-citizens can be. However since only citizens participate in the election process, they should be the only folks represented in the US congress. Non-citizens get state level representation because they are residents of that state. Citizenship isn't a question. Illegals deserve no representation

and this is my point. to simply blindly count and base our entire system on a final # w/o thought into how that number was built - well you may as well get on a boat and shoot torpedos at yourself. you're going down.

and i still have not been told how counting them in such a manner stop people from voting. if you're legal, no one is stopping you. if not, you shouldn't be voting anyway.

we're making up strawman situations to sell emotionally and that benefits no one.