Trump to Exclude Illegal Aliens from Congressional Apportionment Counts

[JoeB131]

And no, there is no logic behind your post. It's quite opposite of what you think it is. If you are illegal, you're already breaking the law. Our law.

No, they are breaking A law. A law that is barely a misdemeanor. A whole bunch of us break laws, every freaking day, without noticing it. We still have all the constitutional rights afforded to us. If we are white, anyway.

You know, Comedy Central may teach you how to cook Minute rice in whole 58 seconds, and CNN could tell you what you're allowed to think, but they wont tech you critical thinking or history. Purposely, of course, because that's what you, for them, are meant to be... a simple brainless mass. I would say, they're doing a great job.

Yawn, guy. 15 years ago I was more right wing than you are. Then I realized I don't have enough money to vote Republican and that if I'm looking at a person with no money, no connections and a limited grasp on the English Language as a threat, that's my problem, not his.

The thing is, 15 years ago, I woke up, after my Romney Loving Boss screwed me and announced, "that's why I'm glad I don't have to deal with a union.

 

[Ame®icano]

And no, there is no logic behind your post. It's quite opposite of what you think it is. If you are illegal, you're already breaking the law. Our law.

No, they are breaking A law. A law that is barely a misdemeanor. A whole bunch of us break laws, every freaking day, without noticing it. We still have all the constitutional rights afforded to us. If we are white, anyway.

You still have no clue what "subject to jurisdiction is". Do you even know what what citizenship is? More I read from you, more it looks like you came to this country from elsewhere with this concept of righteous "citizen of the world" who suppose to tell me I suppose to give you something just because you're here.

I'll try one more time. The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ What exactly does it mean? In simplest possible term, it means not owing allegiance to anybody else. Natives were initially exclude from being citizens because they own allegiances to their own tribes. You got it? Anybody with allegiance to this country would, and you don't? Not surprised.

You know, Comedy Central may teach you how to cook Minute rice in whole 58 seconds, and CNN could tell you what you're allowed to think, but they wont tech you critical thinking or history. Purposely, of course, because that's what you, for them, are meant to be... a simple brainless mass. I would say, they're doing a great job.

Yawn, guy. 15 years ago I was more right wing than you are. Then I realized I don't have enough money to vote Republican and that if I'm looking at a person with no money, no connections and a limited grasp on the English Language as a threat, that's my problem, not his.

The thing is, 15 years ago, I woke up, after my Romney Loving Boss screwed me and announced, "that's why I'm glad I don't have to deal with a union.

Utter bullshit. Leftism is a disease that you're either born and raised with, or you brought it with you from wherever hell you came from. No rational person jumps from being conservative to be a leftist, unless there is a huge incentive for it. Just like in socialist countries, where you will get desired job, or be promoted if you do not support socialism/communism, leftists here are much cheaper, they sell their vote for a free phone, few bucks, or for promise of free college, free healthcare, welfare, reparations, etc. What did you sell your ass for?

 

[JoeB131]

You still have no clue what "subject to jurisdiction is". Do you even know what what citizenship is? More I read from you, more it looks like you came to this country from elsewhere with this concept of righteous "citizen of the world" who suppose to tell me I suppose to give you something just because you're here.

Really? That's what you read? Was your reading comprehension gained in some Home School where you learned all about "talking snakes".

The problem is, the Constitution doesn't say "Citizen", it says "Persons" or "people".

I'll try one more time. The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ What exactly does it mean? In simplest possible term, it means not owing allegiance to anybody else. Natives were initially exclude from being citizens because they own allegiances to their own tribes. You got it? Anybody with allegiance to this country would, and you don't? Not surprised.

But again, the constitution doesn't say that. It pretty clearly says Persons, not citizens.

Utter bullshit. Leftism is a disease that you're either born and raised with, or you brought it with you from wherever hell you came from. No rational person jumps from being conservative to be a leftist, unless there is a huge incentive for it.

Sure there was a huge incentive. I don't make enough money to vote Republican.

It's why you guys never figure out you are being played. Abortion never gets banned, but the rich ALWAYS get their tax cuts. It's the amazing level of gullibility that amazes me. They get you all upset about these racial, religious or sexual issues they really don't care about.

The only thing they REALLY care about is shifting as much money from the working class to the investor class. All the other shit is just get stupid people like you and Mormon Bob to vote against your own economic interests.

Illegal immigration is a case in point. Who do you think is hiring them to start with?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

All the other shit is just get stupid people like you and Mormon Bob to vote against your own economic interests.

Your big error, here, is in assuming that it is in everyone's best economic interests to stay at home, do drugs, collect government handouts, and make no attempt whatsoever to actually contribute anything to society. More so than ever, the Democraps have invested heavily in this premise, maliciously shutting down the economy and throwing people out of work, placating them with unsustainable government handouts in place of the honest wages that they could be earning honestly.

No,w I understand that that's the sort of subhuman piece of shit that you are, a worthless parasite that just wants to live at the expense of others, but just because that's what you are, do not assume that the same is true of most of us, who want to be allowed to earn our livings honestly.

 

[Ame®icano]

You still have no clue what "subject to jurisdiction is". Do you even know what what citizenship is? More I read from you, more it looks like you came to this country from elsewhere with this concept of righteous "citizen of the world" who suppose to tell me I suppose to give you something just because you're here.

Really? That's what you read? Was your reading comprehension gained in some Home School where you learned all about "talking snakes".

The problem is, the Constitution doesn't say "Citizen", it says "Persons" or "people".

I'll try one more time. The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ What exactly does it mean? In simplest possible term, it means not owing allegiance to anybody else. Natives were initially exclude from being citizens because they own allegiances to their own tribes. You got it? Anybody with allegiance to this country would, and you don't? Not surprised.

But again, the constitution doesn't say that. It pretty clearly says Persons, not citizens.

Natives are also persons, but somehow they were excluded. So, are they persons or not?

Utter bullshit. Leftism is a disease that you're either born and raised with, or you brought it with you from wherever hell you came from. No rational person jumps from being conservative to be a leftist, unless there is a huge incentive for it.

Sure there was a huge incentive. I don't make enough money to vote Republican.

It's why you guys never figure out you are being played. Abortion never gets banned, but the rich ALWAYS get their tax cuts. It's the amazing level of gullibility that amazes me. They get you all upset about these racial, religious or sexual issues they really don't care about.

The only thing they REALLY care about is shifting as much money from the working class to the investor class. All the other shit is just get stupid people like you and Mormon Bob to vote against your own economic interests.

Illegal immigration is a case in point. Who do you think is hiring them to start with?

Right, subject change.

You said that you were "right wing 15 years ago".

Now you're saying "I don't make enough money to vote Republican."

Were you making enough money when you were right wing?

What have changed? Your friends all get ahead of you, better lives, promotions, and poor you are left tapping in the place. I have yet to meet someone who did not improve in 15 years. That makes you a dumb fuck.

 

[JoeB131]

Your big error, here, is in assuming that it is in everyone's best economic interests to stay at home, do drugs, collect government handouts, and make no attempt whatsoever to actually contribute anything to society.

Nobody suggested that. Everyone should work an renumerative job. The problem is, too many Americans have to work two jobs to make ends meet. It's not their lack of contribution to society, Mormon Bob (who let's remember, is sitting at home collecting a disability right now), it's that their contributions aren't rewarded fairly.

So this is kind of funny. for 40 years, the right has been crushing the working class to the point they need government assistance. Most people on SNAP or Section 8 have jobs, just not jobs that pay well enough to put food on the table or roofs over their heads.

But then you bemoan the growth of government when... your side made it possible.

More so than ever, the Democraps have invested heavily in this premise, maliciously shutting down the economy and throwing people out of work, placating them with unsustainable government handouts in place of the honest wages that they could be earning honestly.

Um, no, guy, we had to lock down the country TO KEEP PEOPLE FROM DYING. Now, if you are one of these nuts who think that this whole thing is a hoax, there's really no talking to you.

I'm not willing to kill people so you can go to Applebees.

No,w I understand that that's the sort of subhuman piece of @shit that you are, a worthless parasite that just wants to live at the expense of others, but just because that's what you are, do not assume that the same is true of most of us, who want to be allowed to earn our livings honestly.

Again, I have a job. I also own a business. You are supposedly sitting at home on disability right now. Seems to me you are the parasite here, Mormon Bob... But I would never compare a Mormon to a Parasite. It's insulting to parasites.

 

[JoeB131]

Right, subject change.

You said that you were "right wing 15 years ago".

Now you're saying "I don't make enough money to vote Republican."

Were you making enough money when you were right wing?

No, actually, I wasn't. But back then, I used to get fooled by the whole "Family values" bullshit you guys spew...

Then I figured out it was all just a scam to get working people to vote against their own economic interest. It became clear to me when my boss screwed me over after I had a medical issue, and then announced "I'm so glad I don't have to deal with a union."

Yup, Realized I had been voting for the wrong side at that point.

What have changed? Your friends all get ahead of you, better lives, promotions, and poor you are left tapping in the place. I have yet to meet someone who did not improve in 15 years. That makes you a dumb fuck.

Actually, I have "improved". I gained more skills. I started my own business to bring in extra income. What I don't do is believe that the GOP has my best interests at heart.

Should I have figured this out three recessions earlier? Maybe.

 

[Ame®icano]

Right, subject change.

You said that you were "right wing 15 years ago".

Now you're saying "I don't make enough money to vote Republican."

Were you making enough money when you were right wing?

No, actually, I wasn't. But back then, I used to get fooled by the whole "Family values" bullshit you guys spew...

Then I figured out it was all just a scam to get working people to vote against their own economic interest. It became clear to me when my boss screwed me over after I had a medical issue, and then announced "I'm so glad I don't have to deal with a union."

Yup, Realized I had been voting for the wrong side at that point.

I think your former boss got it right by getting rid of you. I would do the same.

Some eight years ago, company I worked for unionized in order to get some union contracts. What was the worse year of my career. Not only that I gave up my right to represent myself, and negotiate for myself, but I submitted myself to bureaucracy that spent more time advance their interest over my own, and held me back, professionally. After a year of bullshit, I left and I haven't been happier since.

What have changed? Your friends all get ahead of you, better lives, promotions, and poor you are left tapping in the place. I have yet to meet someone who did not improve in 15 years. That makes you a dumb fuck.

Actually, I have "improved". I gained more skills. I started my own business to bring in extra income. What I don't do is believe that the GOP has my best interests at heart.

Should I have figured this out three recessions earlier? Maybe.

What "improvement" for you is might have different weight than for me, and I just want to be on the same page.
Can you explain what skill have you gained, because secrecy about you "improving" got me bit skeptical.

 

[busybee01]

The Constitution says all poeople shall be counted. All means citizens abd non-citizens.

At the time it wasn't considered that illegal aliens would be given sanctuary instead of being deported.

Doesn't it suck for you to have to admit to supporting the dilution of American citizen
representation by giving part of that representation to foreign national criminals?

In last Census, all people are counted.

Not all people get representation, just citizens.

The number of PEOPLE that are counted is used to apportion House seats. The 14th Amendment is very clear on this.

Everyone IS counted.

Person that are in the U.S. illegally don't get representation, since they should't be in the country anyways. Otherwise, you could have an influx of illegals at the time of census every ten years, just in time to get counted for appropriating seats, and go back afterwards.

Imagine having congressional district with 100,000 illegals and 100 voters, where those 100 would would get congressional seat. That's what basically happening in California, on a different scale.

And about 14th amendment, you should research what was its intent. The primary reason, other than balancing representation between slave states and free states, was because the Federal government was prevented direct taxation that wasn’t apportioned by states’ populations. The government, wanting as much revenue for the national government as the states would let them get away with, used as expansive a definition of personhood as they could get away with. They did this with full knowledge that tying taxation to total personhood would have included landless, native-born male citizens (and virtually all women) who, under the laws of their states, may have been just as ineligible to vote as the people who just got off the boats, of their own free will or otherwise.

By the way, when I say "you should research", it's just figure of speech, since I doubt you will do so. You're hopelessly stuck in your ideological labyrinth, and you know just what you've been told by your overlords, with complete lack of thought of your own.

The Amendment is written in plain English. You can talk intent all you want but that is 1 person's opinion

Are you stupid, retarded, or both?

Every single Amendment is written in plain English, but it doesn't bother you lefties to go around it when it's against what you want.

But lets go back to 14 Amendment and see who are the "persons" who are being represented, it's in the first sentence:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

People who sneak across the borders, and live wholly outside the laws of society, are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. They are alien invaders, not lawful immigrants. They are not persons that 14 Amendment is talking about, moron.

That is a question that you hneed to answer. It is written 8in plain English but you refuse to accept it.

"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. "

It clearly states the number of persons not citizens. That clearly makes what Trump wants to do unconstitutional. The Supreme Court is likely to do what they did on DACA and throw out Trump's order on procedural grounds.

Again, the same question for you. Are you stupid, retarded, or both?

Section 1 of the Amendment clarifies who are the "persons".

You are the one who is stupid retarded or both. Section 1 clarifies who is a citizen not a person. It says that every person shall be counted. It then uses the word citizen when it comes to voting. Clearly a distinction was intentional or they would have said citizens shall be counted rather than persons.

 

[Roudy]

It's funny how the Left keeps pushing for illegals to vote or be counted, when even LEGAL aliens aka residents CANNOT VOTE, according to the current laws.

Who can and cannot vote | USAGov

Can you vote in federal, state, and local elections? Learn about qualifications such as citizenship, minimum age, registration, and more.

www.usa.gov

 

[busybee01]

People who sneak across the borders, and live wholly outside the laws of society, are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. They are alien invaders, not lawful immigrants. They are not persons that 14 Amendment is talking about, moron.

By that logic, we can't convict an undocumented immigrant of any crime, because he is not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. We'd have to bring action against him in the country of his origin.

You guys can't have this both ways. Either they are subject to our laws or they aren't. If you arrest them for crimes, then you have to count them in the census.

This is all an academic excercise, since the Census doesn't count immigrant status.

First of, there is no such thing as "undocumented immigrant"? Either you immigrant, or you're illegal.

And no, there is no logic behind your post. It's quite opposite of what you think it is. If you are illegal, you're already breaking the law. Our law.

And your (non)understanding of "subject to the jurisdiction" shows how narrow sighted you are and your ignorance is self evident. Do you even know what it means?

Second, in order to understand the 14th Amendment, you need to understand the 13th.

The purpose of this language in the 14th Amendment was to prevent states from denying citizenship from freed slaves on the grounds that they could not prove either that they were born in the US or that their parents were citizens. Slaves were not regarded as citizens, and so a person born of slave parents was not a citizen at birth. The 13th Amendment would have ended condition of slavery, but would not have made him or her a citizen.

What the 14th Amendment did was grant citizenship to all freed slaves, who could prove that he or she was born in the United States, without regard to the status of his or her parents. Freed slaves who could prove their birth in the US were thus immediately citizens; those who could not would not necessarily be citizens, but their children would be. If Congress had left open any wiggle at all in this, democrats in Southern states would have used it to deny citizenship to freed slaves, which is why the language, and its ongoing interpretation, is so absolute.

The “subject to the jurisdiction” language was intended to exclude Natives from being citizens who, by treaty, had right of free passage and right of abode within the United States without being subject to the full force of the laws of the United States. At the time the 14th Amendment was adopted, many native tribes had negotiated treaties with the United States that allowed their members the right to reside in various parts of the United States, while remaining subject only to the authority of their tribal governments. The purpose of this language was primarily to exempt these natives from being granted citizenship. This became moot in 1924 when Congress adopted the Indian Citizenship Act, which extended US citizenship to the members of all recognized Native American tribes, and made all such persons fully subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Some tribes still view the 1924 Act as an abrogation of treaties lawfully entered into.

You know, Comedy Central may teach you how to cook Minute rice in whole 58 seconds, and CNN could tell you what you're allowed to think, but they wont tech you critical thinking or history. Purposely, of course, because that's what you, for them, are meant to be... a simple brainless mass. I would say, they're doing a great job.

That is not true. Many politicians back then were aware of the fact that it would grant citizenship to anyone born in this country unless they were diplomats. Comedy Central is qwhere you get your so-called facts from.

 

[busybee01]

It's funny how the Left keeps pushing for illegals to vote or be counted, when even LEGAL aliens aka residents CANNOT VOTE, according to the current laws.

Who can and cannot vote | USAGov

Can you vote in federal, state, and local elections? Learn about qualifications such as citizenship, minimum age, registration, and more.

www.usa.gov

The Constitution says all persons shall be counted.

 

[Roudy]

It's funny how the Left keeps pushing for illegals to vote or be counted, when even LEGAL aliens aka residents CANNOT VOTE, according to the current laws.

Who can and cannot vote | USAGov

Can you vote in federal, state, and local elections? Learn about qualifications such as citizenship, minimum age, registration, and more.

www.usa.gov

The Constitution says all persons shall be counted.

Not really, when they exclude Indians due to lack of taxation, one can only assume that illegals would be categorized even worse, since they definitely don't pay any taxes due to lack of inability to obtain a social security number, and there is no way to determine the duration of an illegal's residency in a state or county.

Anyhow, as usual this is yet another desperate attempt by the Left to create more fake / fraudulent voters. It will be decided in the Supreme Court, which will probably vote against the Democrats.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

It's funny how the Left keeps pushing for illegals to vote or be counted, when even LEGAL aliens aka residents CANNOT VOTE, according to the current laws.

Who can and cannot vote | USAGov

Can you vote in federal, state, and local elections? Learn about qualifications such as citizenship, minimum age, registration, and more.

www.usa.gov

And they want foreigners—including criminal invaders—to count toward representation in Congress and in the Electoral College.

Yet they have spent most of the past three and a half years, pushing a discredited conspiracy theory that accuses President Trump of complicity in alleged improper foreign interference in our government.

 

[Ame®icano]

The Constitution says all poeople shall be counted. All means citizens abd non-citizens.

At the time it wasn't considered that illegal aliens would be given sanctuary instead of being deported.

Doesn't it suck for you to have to admit to supporting the dilution of American citizen
representation by giving part of that representation to foreign national criminals?

In last Census, all people are counted.

Not all people get representation, just citizens.

The number of PEOPLE that are counted is used to apportion House seats. The 14th Amendment is very clear on this.

Everyone IS counted.

Person that are in the U.S. illegally don't get representation, since they should't be in the country anyways. Otherwise, you could have an influx of illegals at the time of census every ten years, just in time to get counted for appropriating seats, and go back afterwards.

Imagine having congressional district with 100,000 illegals and 100 voters, where those 100 would would get congressional seat. That's what basically happening in California, on a different scale.

And about 14th amendment, you should research what was its intent. The primary reason, other than balancing representation between slave states and free states, was because the Federal government was prevented direct taxation that wasn’t apportioned by states’ populations. The government, wanting as much revenue for the national government as the states would let them get away with, used as expansive a definition of personhood as they could get away with. They did this with full knowledge that tying taxation to total personhood would have included landless, native-born male citizens (and virtually all women) who, under the laws of their states, may have been just as ineligible to vote as the people who just got off the boats, of their own free will or otherwise.

By the way, when I say "you should research", it's just figure of speech, since I doubt you will do so. You're hopelessly stuck in your ideological labyrinth, and you know just what you've been told by your overlords, with complete lack of thought of your own.

The Amendment is written in plain English. You can talk intent all you want but that is 1 person's opinion

Are you stupid, retarded, or both?

Every single Amendment is written in plain English, but it doesn't bother you lefties to go around it when it's against what you want.

But lets go back to 14 Amendment and see who are the "persons" who are being represented, it's in the first sentence:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

People who sneak across the borders, and live wholly outside the laws of society, are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. They are alien invaders, not lawful immigrants. They are not persons that 14 Amendment is talking about, moron.

That is a question that you hneed to answer. It is written 8in plain English but you refuse to accept it.

"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. "

It clearly states the number of persons not citizens. That clearly makes what Trump wants to do unconstitutional. The Supreme Court is likely to do what they did on DACA and throw out Trump's order on procedural grounds.

Again, the same question for you. Are you stupid, retarded, or both?

Section 1 of the Amendment clarifies who are the "persons".

You are the one who is stupid retarded or both. Section 1 clarifies who is a citizen not a person. It says that every person shall be counted. It then uses the word citizen when it comes to voting. Clearly a distinction was intentional or they would have said citizens shall be counted rather than persons.

Section 1 clarifies persons who are the citizens. The persons they're are talking about specifically are freed slaves. Natives are also persons, but they were not considered citizens because they were "subject to the jurisdiction" of their own tribes. Illegals are not subject to the jurisdiction of United States, therefore they do not get representation in US government.

It's not really that hard to process it, unless you received your understanding of the federal Constitution from the government-controlled education system. Your first and lesser problem is comprehension of the issue, and second, bigger problem is that proper English word usage and meanings along with English concepts of implicit vs explicit, context defining meaning of words with multiple definitions, is ignored if they conflict with the true constitutional teachings.

I'll explain it just for you in simplest way possible, but I doubt you're intelligent enough to process it because of your above mentioned "government-controlled education". In order not to waste my time, let me present you with two sentences from two Amendments:

13th Amendment, Section 1. "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. "

14th Amendment, Section 1. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States... "

The question for you is... whose jurisdiction each Amendment is referring to?

It's not a trick question, and if you answer it correctly, I'll apologize to you and continue the discussion. However, failing to answer will eventually confirm what I, and others have suspected, or known about you. The stage is yours.

 

[JoeB131]

I think your former boss got it right by getting rid of you. I would do the same.

Of course. Clearly you are so small minded you think bad things should happen to people who disagree with you on a message board. Says more about you than it does about me.

Actually, he broke a bunch of laws, including age and medical discrimination... but never mind.

Some eight years ago, company I worked for unionized in order to get some union contracts. What was the worse year of my career. Not only that I gave up my right to represent myself, and negotiate for myself, but I submitted myself to bureaucracy that spent more time advance their interest over my own, and held me back, professionally. After a year of bullshit, I left and I haven't been happier since.

Okay, if you say so. What I usually find is that the kind of people who hate unions are the kind of people who are hated by their coworkers... my guess is yours were happy to see you leave.

Point is, there has been a distinct decline of the American Middle Class along with the decline of unions. This is indisputable and documented. The problem with "negotiating for yourself" is that they always have the advantage. All a Union does is level the playing field.

Come to think of it, all the people the Republicans hate are the ones who level the playing field for working folks. Government, unions, lawyers.

The one thing a plutocrat hates is a fair fight. the way they get dumbasses like you to keep voting for more of it is to play on your religious, sexual and racial fears.

Even you wouldn't be stupid enough to vote for "I want to work harder for less money!"

What "improvement" for you is might have different weight than for me, and I just want to be on the same page.
Can you explain what skill have you gained, because secrecy about you "improving" got me bit skeptical.

During that time, I gained CPIM certification. I started my own business. I do consulting on the side, and I bring in a lot more money now than I was then. At least until Trump wrecked the economy, anyway.

 

[JoeB131]

And they want foreigners—including criminal invaders—to count toward representation in Congress and in the Electoral College.

Yet they have spent most of the past three and a half years, pushing a discredited conspiracy theory that accuses President Trump of complicity in alleged improper foreign interference in our government.

Uh, guy, we've counted everyone for the last 200 years... including immigrants. This isn't anything new.

You have obviously never worked as a Census Enumerator. (I have in 2000 and 2010). They don't ask if someone is a citizen. If the person doesn't volunteer the information, then the enumerators go to their neighbors and ask, "How many people live at 123 Maple?"

And, yeah, Trump was totally conspiring with the Russians. once he's voted out of office, watch how much shit we find out that Barr was covering up.

 

[Ame®icano]

I think your former boss got it right by getting rid of you. I would do the same.

Of course. Clearly you are so small minded you think bad things should happen to people who disagree with you on a message board. Says more about you than it does about me.

Actually, he broke a bunch of laws, including age and medical discrimination... but never mind.

Not quite. I think that bad things mostly happen to people who who deserve them. So check your reasoning, since whatever bad happened to you, happened despite of what I posted on this board.

Some eight years ago, company I worked for unionized in order to get some union contracts. What was the worse year of my career. Not only that I gave up my right to represent myself, and negotiate for myself, but I submitted myself to bureaucracy that spent more time advance their interest over my own, and held me back, professionally. After a year of bullshit, I left and I haven't been happier since.

Okay, if you say so. What I usually find is that the kind of people who hate unions are the kind of people who are hated by their coworkers... my guess is yours were happy to see you leave.

Yeah, two of them were so happy to see me leave, and to open door for them in the company that I joined, another one left to another place, and rest... they were surviving for a year before company went under. You know, when people who are actually doing the work leave, those who were there just to get a paycheck have nothing left to take a credit for.

Point is, there has been a distinct decline of the American Middle Class along with the decline of unions. This is indisputable and documented. The problem with "negotiating for yourself" is that they always have the advantage. All a Union does is level the playing field.

View attachment 368965
Come to think of it, all the people the Republicans hate are the ones who level the playing field for working folks. Government, unions, lawyers.

The one thing a plutocrat hates is a fair fight. the way they get dumbasses like you to keep voting for more of it is to play on your religious, sexual and racial fears.

Even you wouldn't be stupid enough to vote for "I want to work harder for less money!"

You assume that because both, middle class, and union are in decline, that they're somehow related to each other.
Decline of middle class is not because of decline of unions. Unions are in decline because people are realizing that unions do not serve workers interests any longer, but their own. Unions, who used to deal with employers, are now dealing with politicians.

And why do you think that middle class is in decline? Or rather, can you tell me the definition of "middle class"?

Of course there is no useful definition of middle class, however those that miss-exist use solely income as the measure. Since so many have crossed the upside disqualifying border, there are fewer in the middle. For the unintelligent, the claim is that people are getting poorer which is utterly stupid. While is true that the American middle class is shrinking it's also true that major cause of this is because large parts of the population are simply becoming too rich to be considered middle class any more.

According to the Wall Street Journal:

“The latest piece of evidence comes from economist Stephen Rose of the Urban Institute, who finds in new research that the upper middle class in the U.S. is larger and richer than it’s ever been. He finds the upper middle class has expanded from about 12% of the population in 1979 to a new record of nearly 30% as of 2014.” ‘Any discussion of inequality that is limited to the 1% misses a lot of the picture because it ignores the large inequality between the growing upper middle class and the middle and lower middle classes,’ said Mr. Rose. The Urban Institute is a nonpartisan policy research group."

What "improvement" for you is might have different weight than for me, and I just want to be on the same page.
Can you explain what skill have you gained, because secrecy about you "improving" got me bit skeptical.

During that time, I gained CPIM certification. I started my own business. I do consulting on the side, and I bring in a lot more money now than I was then. At least until Trump wrecked the economy, anyway.

Great, you took a course, you get better at something (management, I guess), and you succeeded. For that, you and only you should take a credit for and enjoy the fruits of your labor. Now, since you're a business owner, hurry up and unionize.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

And they want foreigners—including criminal invaders—to count toward representation in Congress and in the Electoral College.

Yet they have spent most of the past three and a half years, pushing a discredited conspiracy theory that accuses President Trump of complicity in alleged improper foreign interference in our government.

Uh, guy, we've counted everyone for the last 200 years... including immigrants. This isn't anything new.

You have obviously never worked as a Census Enumerator. (I have in 2000 and 2010). They don't ask if someone is a citizen. If the person doesn't volunteer the information, then the enumerators go to their neighbors and ask, "How many people live at 123 Maple?"

And, yeah, Trump was totally conspiring with the Russians. once he's voted out of office, watch how much shit we find out that Barr was covering up.

There is no way that you can talk yourself away from the obvious truth, here, which is that what you defend and advocate directly, explicitly amounts top allowing foreign nationals to interfere with how America's government is run. Not just, as your absurd and disprove conspiracy theory alleges, allowing a distant foreign government to put advertising material before the American people in an effort to influence our vote, but directly giving Congressional representation to foreigners, including invading foreign criminals whose side you treasonously take against that of your own country and your own fellow Americans.

Even if your ridiculous conspiracy theory was true, if what it accuses President Trump of having done is wrong, then what you defend and advocate is far more wrong.

 

[Ame®icano]

And they want foreigners—including criminal invaders—to count toward representation in Congress and in the Electoral College.

Yet they have spent most of the past three and a half years, pushing a discredited conspiracy theory that accuses President Trump of complicity in alleged improper foreign interference in our government.

Uh, guy, we've counted everyone for the last 200 years... including immigrants. This isn't anything new.

You have obviously never worked as a Census Enumerator. (I have in 2000 and 2010). They don't ask if someone is a citizen. If the person doesn't volunteer the information, then the enumerators go to their neighbors and ask, "How many people live at 123 Maple?"

And, yeah, Trump was totally conspiring with the Russians. once he's voted out of office, watch how much shit we find out that Barr was covering up.

Yes, we counted immigrants, since they're legally here. Illegals are not immigrants, just migrants, and they're not counted.

Of course, leftists wants to count them to get more seats apportioned in Washington, but that would be unconstitutional.