And now, unsurprisingly, he’s getting pissy about being corrected on a matter of fact. Seriously, facts, logic, and honesty are all foreign languges to him.
So, now you had to waste TWO or FOUR posts on this.
Two or four or six or even eight.
It’s Dr D we’re here to berate!
If by “aliens” he means “noncitizens,” then arguably they do. I’ve seen similar logic… somewhere in law school. Maybe it was Voting and Election Law. It’s part of the logic behind assigning electors and representatives based on population, rather than merely elegible voting population or even citizens: congressional representatives are supposed to represent not only the people who voted for them in their district, but also the people who didn’t, and the people who can’t. Some in the latter category are citizens (minor children, for example, or people who have been disenfranchised for criminal history) and others aren’t. They represent all who reside in their districts. Whether they are actually responsive to them is a different question with a (very) different answer.
If anything, the concept of representation even absent the right to vote was more common in the founders’ era, not less. Recall that in those days, even some white dudes who were citizens and not criminals couldn’t vote if they didn’t own (typically real estate) property.
So… yeah. Gotta agree with DrD on this one. Though it pains me.
Can’t agree with you there. It’s rather obvious that in American politics that “representation” means “voted for”.
Okay… so let’s consider the logical implications of that when it comes to “no taxation without representation” as a bumper sticker. Does that mean the Republicans are justified in insurrection if a Democrat wins? Because they’re being taxed without representation?
Just because DrD is so frequently wrong doesn’t mean he’s never right. Broken clocks and whatnot…
No. They got to vote. Just because they lost the vote does not mean they have lost representation.
Ok. What about a 16 year old working a fast food job. Taxation without representation?
If you live in a congressional district you have representation.
Whether you avail yourself of it, voted for or against, not at all. Ignore the fact there is a government, it’s still there.
Even if you’re a real deadbeat and don’t pay your taxes someone is representing the place you live.
The representation is not for “you” alone. It’s for all the people and the district.
On the one hand, it’s semantics. Representation can mean both things: “actual representation—that is, voting people into office to represent you—and virtual representation, in which people are represented by officials they did not play a role in electing” (source in link below).
But this is also a subject of great debate, so no one is going to win the argument. There have been court cases, all the way to SCOTUS, that concern what it means to have representation. Monty, it’s unfair to say DrDumb is unequivocally wrong on this, but it’s fair to disagree with his interpretation,
The (long) article below isn’t solely on this topic, but it dives deeper into the topic than you probably wanted to go.
^I endorse this point of view (by TroutMan—haven’t read the article).
“I called my Congressman and he said quote, I’d like to help you, kid, but you’re too young to vote” (the case of Cochran vs The Summertime Blues, 1958)
Today I saw two threads that he totally hijacked to enter into a political rant.
Is it his goal to shit in every thread on the Dope?
I don’t think it’s a goal, I think it’s a compulsive thing he does automatically because he’s an asshat and a dipshit.
I guess that’s better than being an assshit and a diphat.
I don’t even no what to say about this or if anyone would care, but compare DD’s posts in this thread:
To this thread from way back in the long-forgotten days of 2019:
Here’s an example…
2024
2019
We saw what you did there.
And over in this post in its thread:
The irony kills.
DD is the master of cites that disagree with his point.
(I didn’t read that thread so much, and didn’t read the cites so I have no idea if they disagree with the poster or not.)
For what it’s worth, the argument he’s trying to make there is irrelevant to the point I was making. As usual, he’s fixating on a straw man of his own invention. I considered getting into it, but what would be the purpose?
That’s how I feel about all of this posts. He picks something irrelevant and beats it to death.
He also googles things, briefly scans them and declares they means something they obviously don’t.
I simply don’t engage with him.