Some people, when they want to talk about themselves, approach conversations in that way.
I wonder if it ever works.
Some people, when they want to talk about themselves, approach conversations in that way.
I wonder if it ever works.
Thereâs a lot of projection going on in these parts.
Thatâs some level of inception there. I have no idea whatâs going on.
Me neither. I donât know who either backatcha is directed at.
I blame my fingers for typing it.
Thereâs a lot of projection going on in these parts.
If someone wants attention, I wish they would just be honest and direct about it.
âI want attention. I was abroad and I did X, Y, and Z. I think that people should admire me for doing X, Y, and Z. Just admire me. And please do it now, anonymous people.â
Whatever X, Y, and Z are. I never care what X, Y, and Z are anywayâwell, except for a friend who completed Peace Corps service in Guinea Bissau. That was some tough work. The medications he took regularly were almost as bad as the illnesses that they were designed to prevent. He said that the worldâs best diet plan was mosquitoes.
Iâm assuming that he meant illness from mosquitoes. i donât picture him running around with a net catching and eating mosquitoes. But he allowed for the ambiguity.
Are you new? If not who were you on the original boards. You are quickly matching marge in wit and ze funny
Thank you. I believe you mean margaretms, whose posts I enjoy quite a bit. I am not new. I have been here for about six weeks.
This isnât the original board?
Are you new? If not who were you on the original boards. You are quickly matching marge in wit and ze funny
marge? margaretms hasnât posted in this thread. Am I marge?
You are marge-in-training.
We are all marge-in-training.
Some of us have failed already, but I think you survived the first and second cut.
If you have failed, there is no one to inform you. The same goes if you have succeeded.
No one succeeds.
Parts of the country with large immigrant populations tend to vote Democratic. The current rules give them more votes in congress and in the electoral college.
The court ruled that states basing the congressional districts based on population figures that include illegal aliens did not violate the constitution even though it give a greater voice to voters in districts with large numbers of non-citizens:
Based on that decision I doubt that Alabama will be able get the court to force a change in the national apportionment. That does not prevent Congress from making the change.
No it should not.
The current system means that voters in areas with a large non-citizen population get extra representation in congress and the electoral college. That dilutes the representation of voters in other areas.
In the case of sanctuary localities why should they be rewarded with an extra benefit based on violations of federal law?
The current system means that voters in areas with a large non-citizen population get extra representation in congress and the electoral college. That dilutes the representation of voters in other areas.
In the case of sanctuary localities why should they be rewarded with an extra benefit based on violations of federal law?
Like Texas?
The current system means that voters in areas with a large non-citizen population get extra representation in congress and the electoral college. That dilutes the representation of voters in other areas.
In the case of sanctuary localities why should they be rewarded with an extra benefit based on violations of federal law?
Because the constitution. Donât like it, try to change it.
The current system means that voters in areas with a large non-citizen population get extra representation in congress and the electoral college. That dilutes the representation of voters in other areas.
If it was up to me, the electoral college would be abolished.
The current system means that voters in areas with a large non-citizen population get extra representation in congress and the electoral college. That dilutes the representation of voters in other areas.
In the case of sanctuary localities why should they be rewarded with an extra benefit based on violations of federal law?
Because the Founding Fathers set up the counting for all residents of the country with finite exclusions, none of which stated undocumented residents were to be so excluded.
Bill.in.PA:The current system means that voters in areas with a large non-citizen population get extra representation in congress and the electoral college. That dilutes the representation of voters in other areas.
In the case of sanctuary localities why should they be rewarded with an extra benefit based on violations of federal law?
Because the constitution. Donât like it, try to change it.
Or we could evict them from the country, problem solved no amendment needed.
Their own country?
They live and pay taxes in the United States.
Therefore should be represented.
Losing something off the old fastball @WuWei
Allan
Or we could evict them from the country, problem solved no amendment needed.
This thread is about all non-citizens. You want to evict all non-citizens?
zantax:Or we could evict them from the country, problem solved no amendment needed.
This thread is about all non-citizens. You want to evict all non-citizens?
Itâs better than executing them. In an either or situation Iâm going to choose eviction.
zantax:Or we could evict them from the country, problem solved no amendment needed.
This thread is about all non-citizens. You want to evict all non-citizens?
No, just the illegal ones.
Their own country?
They live and pay taxes in the United States.
Therefore should be represented.
Losing something off the old fastball @SneakySFDude
Allan
Yes their own country. How do they pay taxes when theyâre here illegally?