Jump to content

hayden_horn

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    8,617
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    2

Posts posted by hayden_horn

  1. 5 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

    High school kid just dunked on Ingraham.  The power shift is happening faster than I thought it would.  

     

    this is my big takeaway. the kid gets points. the sponsors get zero points. they just now realized she's a horrible person? no. the cost of the eyeballs just went higher than the price they paid.

  2. 2 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

    Nope.  My point is that the intent of the Census is to count legal residents, and exclude illegals.

    except:

    Quote

    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 other Persons. this isn't hard, dude. the intent is right there in front of you!

  3. 1 minute ago, TahoeHorn said:

    Come on.  When you say "taxes" do you mean ad valorem taxes or taxes on whiskey?  I'll bet the house it wasn't just any taxes.  I don't believe they counted Indians who lived on land that was untaxed.

    it's not what i mean. it's what the constitutional text from article 1, section 2 means. they weren't counting voters. they were counting people that they considered part of the nation. that included 3/5 of each slave. did these slaves pay taxes? no. they did not own land, but they were (partially) counted anyway.

    the point was not to count voters. as you said, they counted women and children too.

    it wasn't about counting white land owning men. it was about counting those who lived in the district. that they carved out non-tax paying indians is an interesting exception, but it in no way makes your apparent point.

  4. 12 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

    That isn't my point.  That would be stupid.  We clearly count felons.  And children.  And, before the Nineteenth Amendment, women.  And, non land owners.  And people who didn't pay their poll tax.  And people newly moved from another state.  And people who flunked the literacy test.  And newly freed slaves.

    I think we've always tried to count citizens.  I think that's the intent. 

    But I'm not a Constitutional scholar.  Maybe we'll find out.

    i supplied you with the text from the constitution that flat out says they wanted to count non-citizens. they counted tax paying indians and 3/5 of every slave. 

    you can know the intent because i quoted it above. non-citizens were absolutely counted.

  5. what, you don't like tahoe-style socratic?

    they counted some indians.

    Quote

    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.

    i mean, these facts are out there. laid out in the constitution, even.

    my point is that a representative represents those that reside in his district, not just those in his district that are citizens. that would also probably include those here illegally, whether or not they are dreamers. the representative should also represent those persons in his/her district who cannot vote.

    do we count felons in jail? do we count felons who have served their term?

    it seems to me that your point is that the numbers should only represent voters. i don't agree with that.

  6. 3 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

    If your objective is to count the number of citizens (which is the proper objective), it will help make that number more accurate than not asking the question.  It will discourage the inclusion of illegal aliens in the total.  

    Quote

    The U.S. Constitution empowers the Congress to carry out the census in "such manner as they shall by Law direct" (Article I, Section 2). The Founders of our fledgling nation had a bold and ambitious plan to empower the people over their new government. The plan was to count every person living in the newly created United States of America, and to use that count to determine representation in the Congress.

    https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial-census/about/census-constitution.html

  7. 1 hour ago, Brian Fantana said:

    I'm curious as to what smoothbrained conclusion you're suggesting. And you might want to brush up on Twitter policies.

    you know exactly the implication of that post. the implication is a dog whistle to like-minded folks to try and reinforce the false narrative that this hogg kid is a professional actor who travels around to crises, despite zero evidence.

  8. 14 hours ago, TahoeHorn said:

    I think they only plan to count non-citizens, with no distinction between illegal aliens and legal ones.  I don't know how they plan to treat a tourist who is in a hotel.  It doesn't seem to make sense to count them, but ...

    I wouldn't count tourists and I'd have separate categories for illegals and green card holders.

    ok. so you admit that counting non-citizens is agnostic as to legality of residence. and don't think about the tourist in the hotel. they don't give questionnaires to tourist checking in at a hotel, nor do they send follow up clerks to a hotel. they do count the homeless in shelters. they do it in one night, but i guarantee you the homeless are vastly undercounted.

    i worked on the census in 2010. it was an enlightening experience, for many reasons, but one i can highlight that relates directly to this thread is that the hispanic spanish-speaking population does not trust the government, and tend to not answer the questions when i showed up to the door. they don't like "white" as a race, even though the census considers hispanics whites and "hispanic" as an ethnicity. most would just answer "guatemalan" or whatever country of origin for race. that's when they would answer at all.

    given that anecdote, what effect do you think asking in a census about citizenship is going to have on the accuracy of the final numbers?

  9. man this whole thread is stupid.

    the school walkouts were related to school safety.

    this is classic whataboutism. this is a fairly weak tactic in order to try and catch people who support gun control and supported the rights of these students to protest and conflate into that a completly unrelated issue, in order to point and yell, "see?!? hypocrites!" that's it. that's all this is.

  10. On 3/27/2018 at 8:13 PM, WhatTheBuck said:

    Roseanne debuted in 1988 and the Connors had already been living in that house for a while. The plot point that they nearly lost their house during the housing crisis in the late 00's was paper thin.

    ok, i did not watch it, but they were always on very tenuous financial grounds, making hard decisions about this and that. they were not the best with money. it's entirely possible they took out a home equity loan to pay off some bill in the 00s and BAM slammed with the bubble bursting. that would be entirely within character and the luck they never seem to enjoy.

  11. i read an interesting article on business insider (yes, i know, i'm also amazed) about how they've gone overboard on the automation, and it's killing them:

    http://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-robots-are-killing-it-2018-3

    Quote

    The robots are killing Tesla.

    In a rare win for humans over robots in the battle for labor efficiency, Wall Street analysts have laid down a compelling argument that over-automation is to blame for problems at the billionaire Elon Musk's electric-car company.

    That is to say, the very innovation and competitive advantage that Musk says he's bringing to the car industry — his nearly fully automated plant in Fremont, California — is the reason Tesla is unable to scale quickly.

    According to the Bernstein analysts Max Warburton and Toni Sacconaghi, it's the robots that can't pump out Tesla's highly anticipated Model 3s fast enough. The whole process is too ambitious, risky, and complicated.

    more at the link

×
×
  • Create New...