Is this finally enough? · Page 6

Free Fall
Auctions

Specials
Auctions

QuickBuy
Auctions

Newly Added
Auctions

Ending Soon
Auctions

Welcome Guest

Forum Terms & Conditions | My Topics

frankj1
Herf-A-Holic

7 years ago

#101

Frank,
Your information is inaccurate.

That's a polite way of saying you're wrong.

But just so you know, I wasn't talking about 70 years ago. I was talking about 20 years ago and the decades prior.

I had heard the same "info" you cite above: that it's been since 1950 or whatever. I heard it on the "news". But i looked into it a bit further, because I recall previous census forms. I'm not sure if I received the 1 in 6 "long form" or if I am recalling a different census maybe from the town or state.
The information is out there and easily obtained.
"Citizenship" and "Place of birth" were NEVER a hot button.

Until Trump.

tailgater wrote:

I understand that it has appeared on 1 in 6 (long) forms, which indicates to me that it was de-emphasized as not vital info.

but now we are in one of those fear cycles...

delta1
Herf-A-Holic

7 years ago

#102

Horsey?
Explain the blather you quoted, and that I highlighted.
It makes no sense.
How is anyone "excluded from the population count" by filling in a citizenship line on the census?
they're still counted.
Don't you get that??

It's like you don't understand English.

tailgater wrote:

the phrase you highlighted was the GOAL for gerrymandering districts in Texas...

the next paragraph explains that those maps don't exist...

the whole point of gerrymandering is to identify who the citizens are, the people/persons who VOTE, and where they live...if you just get total numbers from the Census, with non-citizens mixed in with citizens, you can't gerrymander voting districts easily...

so if you can include the citizenship question in the Census, it will provide the data needed to create those gerrymandered maps...

why you so angry? trip too short?

Edited by user 7 years ago | Reason: Not specified

frankj1
Herf-A-Holic

7 years ago

#103

maybe this will unravel some of contradictory "facts" here...

Joel, when you were employed by The Census Bureau, did you just canvass once a decade? If so, then you worked on the Census.

Or was your work part of the household info gathering for The American Community Survey (ACS) which is conducted by the Census Bureau on an on-going basis year round but is not THE Census?

The household survey hits slightly less than 300K homes per month and includes the types of questions people here seem to recall being asked on the Census...some of those questions may in fact have been included on the limited use "long form" but since that info is not germane to the purpose of the 10 year census, is no longer part of that.

If one does get asked by the Census Bureau stuff about place of birth, education, income, languages spoken in the home, it is not for the 10 year Census, it is for the Bureau's interest in compiling data useful to communities that might need to stay more current than once a decade...like for districts to prepare for an influx of non English speaking students that will impact the school system's curriculum etc..but is not of interest for the purposes of the 10 year Census required by the Constitution. It is for the yearly accumulation of data for the ACS.
The Census is more interested in Representation based on totals of residents, citizen or not.

An interesting thing I read about ACS, it is only concerned with people that expect to live at the residence for the next two months, no matter how long they have already been there, as it is more about immediate data that should be useful to geographical districts. You could be away on business fro two months, but that would still be considered your residence. But if you went to your vacation home for two months, your primary residence would not be counted in the local stats if you were surveyed while on vacation.

All answers are kept strictly confidential, employees face severe penalties for violating respondents rights to privacy

Also, there is some overlap between the two lists of questions,, and yes, once again, they are both under the Census Bureau.
This is likely the cause of confusion here.

frankj1
Herf-A-Holic

7 years ago

#104

And because I know Victor will ask yet again: No. I am not OK with Trump trying to bypass the decision by the Supreme Court.

tailgater wrote:

so...you're good with it?

delta1
Herf-A-Holic

7 years ago

#105

I'm kinda thinkin that there may not be anything wrong with the citizenship question...Dems have a decent shot at winning the 2020 elections...they can use the data to their advantage, like the GOP "contrived" to do...libs need to start getting devious and manipulative, and use the GOP power playbook, exploring the boundaries of ethics, morality and legality...

DrafterX
Herf-A-Holic

7 years ago

#106

So we're concerned the illegals won't be counted and represented by congress and not get federal funding even tho they're not supposed to be here... 🤔

Abrignac
Herf-A-Holic

7 years ago

#107

delta1 wrote:

Really?

victor809
Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter

7 years ago

#108

delta1 wrote:

Dems really shouldn't want to win.

Leave this unexploded bomb a few more years. Wait until 2024... then pick up the pieces of anything that's left.

DrafterX
Herf-A-Holic

7 years ago

#109

Good idea... we don't want anyone giving Hillary a pardon before she's done a few years.. 😟

Phil222
Herf-A-Holic

7 years ago

#110

I thought trump was gonna lock her up? Yet another failed promise...[-(

DrafterX
Herf-A-Holic

7 years ago

#111

Still working on it... 😟

Phil222
Herf-A-Holic

7 years ago

#112

Agreed. He's been too busy not delivering on his other promises... 😎

Edited by user 7 years ago | Reason: Not specified

tailgater
Herf-A-Holic

7 years ago

#113

are you ok with him using all legal options at his disposal to get his way?

opelmanta1900 wrote:

I'm against the use of executive order. If there are other options I'd have to consider them individually.
This isn't a national emergency. I'm not even sure why the Supreme Court had to rule on this at all. How can a question that existed previously suddenly be deemed unconstitutional.

So it needs to be looked at, but a blanket yes or no isn't something I can honestly provide.

tailgater
Herf-A-Holic

7 years ago

#114

delta1 wrote:

This is not a GOP "trump" card.
Data isn't subjective. The democrats could use it just as easily as the GOP.
It's not an advantage at a nationwide level.
If you'd stop allowing yourself to simply accept the MSM battle cry you might learn something.

And please don't insult yourself by trying to explain gerrymandering to a boy from Massachusetts.
The liberals in this state OWN that.

tailgater
Herf-A-Holic

7 years ago

#115

delta1 wrote:

LOL!
Comedy gold!

=d>

frankj1
Herf-A-Holic

7 years ago

#116

tailgater wrote:

old news, Joe.
The new champs appear to be Maryland and North Carolina.
MA is considered fair for all for the last decade

sheer numbers of dems vs few reps would make it hard for GOP to win very many elections in MA, yet MA had a well earned reputation for gerrymandering into the early 2000's...in fact it was invented here! YES!!!

But since 2010, Massachusetts has been ranked at or near the top of all states in having fixed that, even receiving an "A" from an agency or two with oversight powers in maintaining fair democratic process in elections.

one example, and there are many more...
https://www.commoncause.org/massachusetts/our-work/ensure-fair-districts-reflective-democracy/fair-districts/

dstieger
Herf-A-Holic

7 years ago

#117

No kidding, Frank. If anyone has not seen MD 3rd or NC 12th, check them out some time. Hearing about it is one thing. Seeing a map is a whole other....politicians suck

tailgater
Herf-A-Holic

7 years ago

#118

frankj1 wrote:

We still have the legacy to embrace.

As for the sheer numbers of D's vs R's, it's misleading.

If you remove the cities of Boston (with her suburbs), Lawrence and Springfield, the state is pretty close to 50/50.
Maybe not in registered affiliation, but in voting records over the past decade or so.

I think most states that have a clear majority in power will likely have a high percentage of "independent" (un-enrolled) voters. Most conservatives I know aren't registered as Republican.
I do it just to get a rise out of the old ladies during primary season.

delta1
Herf-A-Holic

7 years ago

#119

tailgater wrote:

for someone with such disdain for the MSM, you sure know a lot about them...

I'll bite, and sit quietly, Professor of Gerrymandering: what did the Trump administration intend when it decided to include a citizenship question...and please refrain from using the VRA argument hoisted by Trump and Trump media...SCOTUS already said that was "contrived"...

DrafterX
Herf-A-Holic

7 years ago

#120

Maybe they just want to enforce our laws.... 😟

Users browsing this topic

Important Information: