10 hours ago, lynched1 said:

If that is true then it is wrong in terms of federal voting impact. That aspect should be citizens only. I suspect there are other things that should include legal non citizens. Certain funding for example.

7 hours ago, DrPhilly said:

If that is true then it is wrong in terms of federal voting impact. That aspect should be citizens only. I suspect there are other things that should include legal non citizens. Certain funding for example.

Legal residents get taxed without representation?

36 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Legal residents get taxed without representation?

Their choice. I made that same choice when I immigrated to Sweden. No rights to vote in the national parliamentary elections. I was able to vote in the local elections. I saw no problem with that and that is a common setup in Europe.

1 hour ago, DrPhilly said:

Their choice. I made that same choice when I immigrated to Sweden. No rights to vote in the national parliamentary elections. I was able to vote in the local elections. I saw no problem with that and that is a common setup in Europe.

I'm not arguing for the right to vote.

But if they're part of a community that has representatives based on population, should they count? Yeah, I think so.

8 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

I'm not arguing for the right to vote.

But if they're part of a community that has representatives based on population, should they count? Yeah, I think so.

Like I said, I think they should count for things that would impact items like funding. However, I don't think it makes sense for determining the overall voting strength of a state in Congress as that's just a representative extension of the voters themselves. A topic to think thru for sure and perhaps I'm missing something.

15 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Like I said, I think they should count for things that would impact items like funding. However, I don't think it makes sense for determining the overall voting strength of a state in Congress as that's just a representative extension of the voters themselves. A topic to think thru for sure and perhaps I'm missing something.

I get what you are saying, and I think I agree.

Either way, our law states they should be counted in the census. I dont get why MAGA hates our laws and why they think they dont apply to them.

1 hour ago, DrPhilly said:

Like I said, I think they should count for things that would impact items like funding. However, I don't think it makes sense for determining the overall voting strength of a state in Congress as that's just a representative extension of the voters themselves. A topic to think thru for sure and perhaps I'm missing something.

The funding part is the issue

39 minutes ago, lynched1 said:

The funding part is the issue

The entire original post was about congressional seating.

16 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

The entire original post was about congressional seating.

You brought it up

Sheet, wrong thread again. Hold on, let me see if I can delete it this time.

6 hours ago, DrPhilly said:

Like I said, I think they should count for things that would impact items like funding. However, I don't think it makes sense for determining the overall voting strength of a state in Congress as that's just a representative extension of the voters themselves. A topic to think thru for sure and perhaps I'm missing something.

That’s not how the Constitution works. We have always counted everyone, including those that can’t vote (children, immigrants, etc.). That’s why they had to count 3/5ths of all people in indentured servitude - southern states insisted on getting reps for slaves as well. And they sure as hell couldn’t vote. You would need to amend the Constitution.

24 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

That’s not how the Constitution works. We have always counted everyone, including those that can’t vote (children, immigrants, etc.). That’s why they had to count 3/5ths of all people in indentured servitude - southern states insisted on getting reps for slaves as well. And they sure as hell couldn’t vote. You would need to amend the Constitution.

My posts reflected how I thought it would work best but naturally those give way to the Constitution. I should have realized that’s why the Dems said what they said in the post Sloth posted.

6 hours ago, VanHammersly said:

Prosecute him. Now. We either have to stop letting these guys get away with it, or just throw our laws out the window

There was a CVONer that was a huge supporter of this freak, but I cant remember who is was

2 hours ago, Boogyman said:

Prosecute him. Now. We either have to stop letting these guys get away with it, or just throw our laws out the window

There was a CVONer that was a huge supporter of this freak, but I cant remember who is was

Think it was @Procus

1 minute ago, DrPhilly said:

Think it was @Procus

That tracks

1 minute ago, Boogyman said:

That tracks

Could be wrong

35 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Could be wrong

Just makes one wonder why so many Trumplikins support pedophiles....its F'ing gross.

14 minutes ago, It Hurts said:

You're an F'ing parrot hahahahaha

6 hours ago, It Hurts said:

When a man against fascism actually stands up for his rights and doesn't fit into the soy boy effeminate stereotype Trumptards have created for themselves for any male that dares to reject their insane brand of nazism, they completely wet themselves. I'm here for it.

Also Fanone was apparently born in DC but man if that isn't a strong Delco accent.

Sheet, wrong thread again