61–70 of 194 posts
I realize for political reasons we have to only support one side via extreme sophistry, essentially the whole topic is a giant dog whistle test to make sure our community is politically pure. However its VERY hard to ignore the reality that essentially 100% of the US population has no difficulty, on average, kinda paying electric bills and property tax bills and phone bills. Part of the sophistry is pretending that n…
I realize for political reasons we have to only support one side via extreme sophistry, essentially the whole topic is a giant dog whistle test to make sure our community is politically pure. However its VERY hard to ignore the reality that essentially 100% of the US population has no difficulty, on average, kinda paying electric bills and property tax bills and phone bills. Part of the sophistry is pretending that n…
> This means [it eliminated] literally a third of the time allocated for the Census Bureau to knock on doors, to try to enumerate the hard-to-count individuals, which happen to be African Americans, Latinx populations, immigrants, people in heavily transitory situations, tribal lands, some Asians. Random question but why would some races have more trouble than others responding to the census? Is it more to do with po…
Statistician (but not a Census statistician) here with a few answers: Black people have a higher than average non-response rate, even controlling for income, possibly due to a cultural mistrust of government institutions (for good reason). Recent immigrants may not be able to read the language the census was mailed to them in, and may also be hesitant to respond due to fears of deportation- the point of the census is…
FWIW, I believe the Census Bureau sent either an online form or a paper form, depending on the prevalence of internet access in your area. I think they would also follow up with a form in the mail if you didn't respond online.
Trying to sidestep democracy is how you end up with armed revolt. I wish both sides would realizing their destroying people’s faith in the system and how quickly that can destabilize everything.
There's a lot of things you can "both sides" but only one side is undermining democracy because their positions are unpopular.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd be fine with that, but let's be clear that that's not the system the Democrats move towards. Instead we have this weird system where a bunch of people jump through hoops to be here legally and a bunch of people don't, and Democrats pick and choose when they care about either one. There's no predictability, rule of law, consistency or sense on this issue from either party. I began immigration to the US under a Dem…
It really looks like you’re conflating policy with bureaucracy.
And even if those things were their policy, if the bureaucracy is still the same, what difference does it really make? The article concerns itself with links between how a bureaucracy is run and policies. This thread of conversation deals with people's faith in a "system".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I wish both sides would realizing their destroying people’s faith in the system And I wish people would stop saying 'both sides' when it's 95% only one side. That's the issue. One side is now against census so people aren't represented, restricting voting so people don't get a say, and people keep saying 'both sides'.
It might not be close to 50:50 but it’s not 95:5. Less tainted is still tainted. When I say both sides, I mean both sides. Gerrymandering to give minorities districts for example does the same thing to undermine people’s faith in the system. The goal should be to outlaw gerrymandering not find some way to allow it to be useful politically. Should people in DC maintain the right to vote? IMO they should, but it’s beco…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Democratic Party using the judicial branch and SCOTUS to legislate from the bench because Hasn't the supreme court been majority conservative for quite some time? Not majority liberal? (unless your comment is sarcasm)
Republican presidents placed 11 supreme court justices in a row, from Nixon through GH Bush. Clinton placed two, and republicans have been whining about needing to fix the liberal supreme court ever since. GW Bush placed two, Obama placed two, and it looks like Trump will place three. You are quoting someone, but I want to add on that "legislate from the bench" is a phrase that is invoked when the speaker doesn't agr…
I like the outcome of Roe v. Wade but see it as an example of legislating from the bench.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
thought it was sarcasm at first, but it appears rubyistSeva genuinely isn't aware that the Democratic nominee was blocked four years ago on the basis of it being an election year, only for the Republican party to turn around and do exactly that this year.
The Republican party had no reason to hold confirmation hearings for Merrick Garland - the votes did not exist to confirm him. The role of the Senate is to provide advice and consent - there was no consent so there was no reason to do it. This year is different - Republicans hold the majority of the Senate and the White House. This nominee has the votes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. I'm sick and tired of the Democratic Party using the judicial branch and SCOTUS to legislate from the bench because they can't get their agenda through in Congress like they are supposed to.
> Democratic Party using the judicial branch and SCOTUS to legislate from the bench because Hasn't the supreme court been majority conservative for quite some time? Not majority liberal? (unless your comment is sarcasm)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I wish both sides would realizing their destroying people’s faith in the system And I wish people would stop saying 'both sides' when it's 95% only one side. That's the issue. One side is now against census so people aren't represented, restricting voting so people don't get a say, and people keep saying 'both sides'.
It might not be close to 50:50 but it’s not 95:5. Less tainted is still tainted. When I say both sides, I mean both sides. Gerrymandering to give minorities districts for example does the same thing to undermine people’s faith in the system. The goal should be to outlaw gerrymandering not find some way to allow it to be useful politically. Should people in DC maintain the right to vote? IMO they should, but it’s beco…
> Should people in DC maintain the right to vote? IMO they should, but it’s become a political issue not a democracy issue.
Only in the 21st century do voting issues only become political when they can be looked at in terms of race.
"Political" means about the process of governance, not "when minorities or women have a complaint."