Of course not, his administration is proposing that non-citizens exclude themselves from the census count and population totals by adding the fear of deportation to the census form.
Before we all run off into guessing games and gotcha traps, let’s just lay out what was found on strategist Thomas Hofeller’s hard drives. . If you don’t know who Thomas Hofeller is, he is known as the “Michaelangelo of Gerrymandering” and he urged the Trump transition team to add the question to the census.
It is very practical. It changes their lives for the better while protesting makes it worse by devoting energy to things that do not bear fruit.
That is not a solution for a minority. Especially if they are a part of a very small minority, political action is a nonstarter. A solution is to move and improve your life instantly.
No the American liberal relies on others’ martyrdom to promote his agenda. Of course you will not martyr yourself.
Minorities require moves to escape predation if the majority isn’t budging. It is in these instances I have made my recommendation for political migration that you as a liberal are arguing against (hi iiandyii are you reading this?)
Right it was harder to move back then but still advisable. Precisely my point. It is easier now and you discourage political migration.
More privilege. There are many who are restrained in prisons across the US.
It is impossible as a minority to overcome the majority in a democratic system. If you ever find yourself on the other side of majority privilege and are being preyed upon, I pray you will be practical and not martyr yourself.
The hypotheticals that we’re being discussed before your triggering are in an earlier post if you care to read.
Didn’t I just read somewhere that leaked documents about the census question revealed the motivation was, pretty clearly stated, to be able to better jerrymander districts to political advantage.
I hate to break it to you, but you are living your life with the trigger taped in the “on” position. You can’t seem to let a day go by without voicing some kind of fear that government is coming to take your freedoms and money.
I don’t fear the expected and uncontrollable, but thanks for your concern.
elbows: You sure did! That’s why Trump just invoked executive privilege in an effort to keep this information out of the congressional record. Because he’s, you know, transparent. In his own lying words.
(As though the reason for the census question wasn’t obvious enough to begin with.)
I’m not concerned about you anymore than 9-11 truthers or gold bugs. You’re just occasionally amusing background noise.
Stepping back a bit:
Right, so those poor homosexuals should have simply moved to some imaginary (circa 1970) land where there would have been no repression. Those uppity homosexuals should know that there will never be any changes by the authors of the DSM, there will never be any changes to laws granting them more security in society, they will certainly never be permitted to marry. They should simply shut up and/or move because their “disruptive” practices upset Will.
Ah well.
Velocity is correct.
It’s not wonder you hate your opponents when you mischaracterize the statements that are right in your cite. Nothing, and I mean nothing in these proposed laws makes it “legal for drivers to kill protesters” and has nothing at all to do with the Charlottesville murder as these laws would not apply.
The laws merely state, as noted in the article, that if you are illegally in the street impeding traffic, and the driver unintentionally hits you, then you may not sue the driver. It’s amazing we needed this law in the first place. The street is for traffic. If you are there illegally and someone unintentionally hits you, it’s your fault.
You don’t get a pass by saying “I didn’t mean to” anymore than you would in any other circumstance. If I see the guy standing in the street who has been sleeping with my wife and I hit him with my car, there will be an investigation to see if I deliberately hit him. Neither in this, nor any other potential crime, is the suspect’s word taken as the end of the matter.
When you view something so non-controversial as a license for Nazis to murder good liberal protesters, then I can understand the hate. But read the article through the CNN spin.
I would disagree. Part of the privilege of driving means you are always conscious of what is in the roadway. If someone jumps out in front of you, liability is appropriate. But if someone is standing in the road and gets hit, both of you should be cited and/or charged for jaywalking and negligence, respectively.
But… now there exists the potential to take the suspect’s word as the end of the matter. If he says “I didn’t mean to” or “I didn’t see them”, the state now has the burden of determining his intent. And offenders know how what story they need to tell when questioned by police at the scene.
I am understanding these events as responses to protests. In this climate we saw right-wing media such as Fox and Daily Caller inciting their viewers to run over crowds of protesters. What was the red-state legislative response? Not to rein in hate groups. Not to respond to issues that caused protests in the first place. They responded by making it a little safer for drivers to hurt protesters.
You have to ignore a lot of context to believe there was no malice intended by these bills.
Serious question, UltraVires — Do you think it coincidence that five states operated by the Redneck party all passed this law after Heather Heyer was murdered?
I do not expect you to dare an answer, so I’ll post my follow-up question now: Are you just auditioning for some Trumpist version of The Onion?
The context is that *this *administration is telling *this *House to go pound sand on every matter whatsoever.
First, “redneck” in this context is somewhat slur-ish, not withstanding we have a self identified poster with the moniker.
Second, you need to dial back the personal shots.
[/moderating]
No the victims should have moved to escape predation, not because it offends me. Sadly many stayed and became martyrs.
If they had moved and formed accepting communities, perhaps they would have changed local laws first and served as a beacon to similar oppressed individuals so that they too could escape predation. Oh shit that’s what actually happened? You don’t say!
So you can’t imagine any circumstance under which populations that are being marginalized do not have the option to just pick up and move?
Yes I can imagine them they just don’t apply to the hypotheticals posited earlier in the thread for which I gave my practical advice.
If you would like to conjure another hypothetical I will give practical advice on that situation as well.
No hypotheticals:
a) Muslims in Yugoslavia pre ethnic cleansing
b) Black slaves in America’s south
c) Jews in Europe post 1933
d) Palestinians in Gaza
e) American Indians
f) Uyghurs in China
Ok pick one.
Then tell me how political action will improve the lives of the victims of state predation in that scenario. I will give my realpolitik advice.
No. You tell us how these people can pick up and move to avoid predation. Isn’t that your solution? G’on then. Solve away.