Jason Posted January 15, 2019 Share Posted January 15, 2019 https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/15/us/census-citizenship-question.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaysWho? Posted January 15, 2019 Share Posted January 15, 2019 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted January 15, 2019 Author Share Posted January 15, 2019 I was totally read to leave a "kill yourself" comment. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwinIon Posted January 15, 2019 Share Posted January 15, 2019 Quote But while Mr. Ross’s violations were “egregious,” he said, there was not sufficient evidence to prove, as plaintiffs in the lawsuit had claimed, that he had deliberately sought to discriminate against noncitizens and minorities that were most likely to be affected by the citizenship question. In part, he said, that was because the Supreme Court had blocked the plaintiffs from taking sworn testimony from Mr. Ross about his actions. That's odd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 15, 2019 Share Posted January 15, 2019 Removed from the context of the day, I like the citizenship question because more data is better generally. But it’s pretty obvious that the current climate towards non-citizens will ensure undercounting as people hide from the census workers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osxmatt Posted April 23, 2019 Share Posted April 23, 2019 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CitizenVectron Posted April 23, 2019 Share Posted April 23, 2019 Of course they will. Personal privacy only matters to conservatives when it's an issue the Liberals are on the opposite side of. What we have learned the past few decades are that conservatives only hold two permanent opinions: Lower taxes and reduce regulations Everything else opposite of liberals Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted April 24, 2019 Author Share Posted April 24, 2019 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spawn_of_Apathy Posted April 24, 2019 Share Posted April 24, 2019 8 hours ago, CitizenVectron said: Of course they will. Personal privacy only matters to conservatives when it's an issue the Liberals are on the opposite side of. What we have learned the past few decades are that conservatives only hold two permanent opinions: Lower taxes and reduce regulations Everything else opposite of liberals Even reduced regulations is subject. They wouldn’t want to reduce regulations on say “adult” content. And while they are coming around little by little, they have been the largest voice against reduced regulations on marijuana. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted April 24, 2019 Author Share Posted April 24, 2019 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osxmatt Posted April 24, 2019 Share Posted April 24, 2019 2 minutes ago, Jason said: I think that's a great point, and was exactly my thought. Doesn't Justice Department refuses to comply with subpoena really mean Bill Barr is refusing to comply with subpoena? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted April 24, 2019 Share Posted April 24, 2019 1 minute ago, osxmatt said: I think that's a great point, and was exactly my thought. Doesn't Justice Department refuses to comply with subpoena really mean Bill Barr is refusing to comply with subpoena? And the consequence of refusal to comply with a subpoena? Referral to DOJ. Nothing matters! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwinIon Posted April 24, 2019 Share Posted April 24, 2019 17 hours ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said: Even reduced regulations is subject. They wouldn’t want to reduce regulations on say “adult” content. And while they are coming around little by little, they have been the largest voice against reduced regulations on marijuana. Yeah, I think you could maybe specify it a bit. Maybe they only want to reduce regulations that hinder profits? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CitizenVectron Posted April 24, 2019 Share Posted April 24, 2019 4 hours ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said: And the consequence of refusal to comply with a subpoena? Referral to DOJ. Nothing matters! At what point does the House send the Sergeant at Arms to go collect people? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anathema- Posted April 24, 2019 Share Posted April 24, 2019 4 hours ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said: And the consequence of refusal to comply with a subpoena? Referral to DOJ. Nothing matters! Well no, there are a number of things Congress can do up to and including throwing someone directly into jail without needing DoJ. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted April 24, 2019 Share Posted April 24, 2019 23 minutes ago, Anathema- said: Well no, there are a number of things Congress can do up to and including throwing someone directly into jail without needing DoJ. Having the sergeant at arms lock someone up hasn't happened since like the 30's or something Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anathema- Posted April 24, 2019 Share Posted April 24, 2019 Just now, b_m_b_m_b_m said: Having the sergeant at arms lock someone up hasn't happened since like the 30's or something That's because, as far as I can tell, nobody's been stupid enough to outright defy a lawful subpoena from Congress. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted April 24, 2019 Author Share Posted April 24, 2019 8 minutes ago, Anathema- said: That's because, as far as I can tell, nobody's been stupid enough to outright defy a lawful subpoena from Congress. The House held Holder in contempt, but they referred it to DOJ, and shockingly, Holder declined to prosecute. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anathema- Posted April 24, 2019 Share Posted April 24, 2019 Just now, Jason said: The House held Holder in contempt, but they referred it to DOJ, and shockingly, Holder declined to prosecute. Thanks for reminding me but also Darrell Issa was a fucking coward and house repubs knew they were bluffing. A contempt charge for failure to appear will be different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted April 24, 2019 Share Posted April 24, 2019 3 minutes ago, Anathema- said: Thanks for reminding me but also Darrell Issa was a fucking coward and house repubs knew they were bluffing. A contempt charge for failure to appear will be different. I'm not exactly brimming with confidence that house Dems will grow some stones here. Where would these people be imprisoned? A federal facility (in other words, under the executive branch)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osxmatt Posted April 24, 2019 Share Posted April 24, 2019 1 hour ago, Jason said: The House held Holder in contempt, but they referred it to DOJ, and shockingly, Holder declined to prosecute. I need an AG that will defend me like Holder and Kennedy!!?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anathema- Posted April 25, 2019 Share Posted April 25, 2019 3 hours ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said: I'm not exactly brimming with confidence that house Dems will grow some stones here. Where would these people be imprisoned? A federal facility (in other words, under the executive branch)? The basement of the Alamo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marioandsonic Posted April 25, 2019 Share Posted April 25, 2019 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osxmatt Posted April 25, 2019 Share Posted April 25, 2019 I guess here is as good as spot as any Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osxmatt Posted April 25, 2019 Share Posted April 25, 2019 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snaynay1 Posted April 26, 2019 Share Posted April 26, 2019 On 4/24/2019 at 3:01 PM, b_m_b_m_b_m said: I'm not exactly brimming with confidence that house Dems will grow some stones here. Where would these people be imprisoned? A federal facility (in other words, under the executive branch)? They havn't jailed anyone in almost 100 years. The supreme court says they can't be a law enforcement body. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snaynay1 Posted April 26, 2019 Share Posted April 26, 2019 On 4/24/2019 at 2:42 PM, Anathema- said: That's because, as far as I can tell, nobody's been stupid enough to outright defy a lawful subpoena from Congress. Didn't Obamas administration ignore subpoenas all the time? Are we now going with defying a subpoena is bad? Did the board have a discussion about flip flopping on this issue? I don't remember that discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anathema- Posted April 26, 2019 Share Posted April 26, 2019 42 minutes ago, Snaynay1 said: Didn't Obamas administration ignore subpoenas all the time? Are we now going with defying a subpoena is bad? Did the board have a discussion about flip flopping on this issue? I don't remember that discussion. Once is now all the time? We had that discussion above. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted April 26, 2019 Share Posted April 26, 2019 1 hour ago, Snaynay1 said: They havn't jailed anyone in almost 100 years. The supreme court says they can't be a law enforcement body. What's the case law there? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greatoneshere Posted April 26, 2019 Share Posted April 26, 2019 14 hours ago, Snaynay1 said: Didn't Obamas administration ignore subpoenas all the time? Are we now going with defying a subpoena is bad? Did the board have a discussion about flip flopping on this issue? I don't remember that discussion. Your arguments are almost entirely disingenuous. Eric Holder ignoring one subpoena (which, I grant, was bad) because Republicans were dicking Obama's administration around on a bluff is not the same as what's happening here. It's super weird I have to explain false equivocating and proportionality all the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted April 26, 2019 Share Posted April 26, 2019 https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/04/25/politics/gerry-connolly-subpoenas-white-house-cnntv/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anathema- Posted April 26, 2019 Share Posted April 26, 2019 my congressman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted July 3, 2019 Author Share Posted July 3, 2019 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted July 3, 2019 Author Share Posted July 3, 2019 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firewithin Posted July 3, 2019 Share Posted July 3, 2019 whelp this cuntry continues to be a fucking joke all because dipshit threw a tantrum this morning Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.