Ashcans posted:

Sure, but he isn't talking about relying on their votes, just using the influx as artificial growth to boost the number of seats your state gets following the census. Apportionment isn't based on voters or citizens, it's based on a simple count of all residents. In fact, having them not be voters is ideal, because you can import 30,000 refugee children and use their numbers to scoop up more seats without having to worry about them affecting the voting pattern for years and years.

I am pretty sure there are districts that already do basically this by counting the population of prisoners living in the area, aren't there?

Monkey Fracas posted:

I guess I'm not really surprised that ISIS has Americans everywhere quaking in their boots at the thought of fearsome and untrustworthy Syrian refugees coming into the US but it's making me really sad.

I can't even get mad at the "I know how to stop this; just don't let any Muslims into the country!" attitude anymore; the situation is just too loving depressing. We've thrown away our humanity because a group of barbaric murderers spooked us with an attack in another loving country. They're getting exactly what they want with this poo poo and the populace at large doesn't seem to understand that at all.


I guess I can get angry at opportunistic and feckless politicians deliberately fanning the flames of hatred and paranoia for attention and votes, though.

MySwan posted:

Pepe's is overrated sorry everyone

haveblue posted:

Not as much fun as the time an actual schoolchild proposed giving South Carolina an official state fossil and the legislature turned it into a huge slapfight over evolution.

zoux posted:

Fite me irl, says man aspiring to nation's highest office.

zoux posted:

Fite me irl, says man aspiring to nation's highest office.

zoux posted:

Well, gee fellas I sure can't see how that could possibly be abused.

Fried Chicken posted:

Oh and Trump is now calling for the GOP to shutdown the government over refugees.

if they don't do it, he captures the base's anger and racism

If they do it and lose (which they will) he can argue he would have gotten a better deal and capture the base's anger and racism

If they do it and win (not gonna happen) he gets acclaim for it (though here Cruz et al join in)

He really gets this group

zoux posted:

Well, gee fellas I sure can't see how that could possibly be abused.

My Imaginary GF posted:

You know what would be awesome to see? Obama challenge Ted Cruz to a one-on-one, Lincoln-Douglas style debate.

I think Ted Cruz is the only candidate with an ego large enough to take up such an offer.

Perestroika posted:

So... he's basically advocating total, unrestricted, eternal war?

Kafka Esq. posted:

Don't underestimate the likelihood of a politician boxing his way into the highest office in the land.

Monkey Fracas posted:

How have Conservatives gotten more xenophobic over time?


We... we must purge our ranks of those who would speak kindly of what is becoming a larger voting block by the year!!! Goddammit we gotta do it guys c'mon!

hobbesmaster posted:

Isn't Obama saying AUMF 2002 counts against ISIS?

Logikv9 posted:

I don't want Cruz to win the nomination. Not that I'm worried that he would win, I just want to preserve his crazy for future elections.

He's running on the lolplatform of more conservatism = win, and if Cruz gets the nomination and loses it disproves that whole thing. I mean, who is going to argue that Cruz isn't conservative enough? I want someone else that can easily be tossed under the bus after losing for not being conservative enough.

hobbesmaster posted:

Isn't Obama saying AUMF 2002 counts against ISIS?

PhazonLink posted:

Before naming the muffin state dessert.

Logikv9 posted:

I don't want Cruz to win the nomination. Not that I'm worried that he would win, I just want to preserve his crazy for future elections.

He's running on the lolplatform of more conservatism = win, and if Cruz gets the nomination and loses it disproves that whole thing. I mean, who is going to argue that Cruz isn't conservative enough? I want someone else that can easily be tossed under the bus after losing for not being conservative enough.

Radish posted:

There is always someone more conservative.

PhazonLink posted:

Lol no.

They failed conservatism, conservatism did not fail.

mcmagic posted:

When Cruz loses it will be because the evil GOP establishment who are all clearly RINO's will have sabotage'd him.

zoux posted:

Well, gee fellas I sure can't see how that could possibly be abused.

Luigi Thirty posted:

In Santa Monica, they're so afraid of minorities that they dispatch 19 armed police officers when your neighbor calls and says a Hispanic person is breaking into your apartment. And then point a gun to your head because you're black and "I ain't seen you here before"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...88063&tid=ss_tw

hobbesmaster posted:

Isn't Obama saying AUMF 2002 counts against ISIS?

Perestroika posted:

So... he's basically advocating total, unrestricted, eternal war?

Perestroika posted:

So... he's basically advocating total, unrestricted, eternal war?

Insane Republican Fan Fic posted:

“When I was elected, I told you I wanted to be briefed on your plan to utterly destroy ISIS, General,” the President said. He was young and usually quite calm, but as a Cuban-American son of immigrants, he understood tyranny and knew how to deal with it. “General, what you gave me are timid half-measures that don’t begin to meet the intent I expressed to you. Now, I may not have served myself, but I understand the old game of manipulating civilian leadership by providing just the options you want instead of the ones the commander-in-chief requested. You’re relieved of command, General. Fired. Agents, show the general out.”

He turned to his chief of staff. “Get the Wildman on the line.” As the Secret Service agents bum rushed the stunned four star out of the Oval Office, the President took the phone.

On a Florida golf course, the secure cell phone of the retired Marine everyone called “The Wildman” rang, ruining his putt. The Wildman was a legend for his aggression, hence his nickname. President Obama had naturally felt it necessary to replace him with a more pliable, passive CENTCOM commander. He answered, then listened.

“General, this is the President. We need you. I am ordering you off the retired list and back to active duty as CENTCOM commander, effective immediately. I want to see your plan for the total destruction of ISIS in 72 hours. Your rules of engagement are simple. Wipe them out.”

http://journal.ijreview.com/2015/11/250238-what-defeating-isis-would-look-like/

Mattavist posted:

gently caress him for thinking that a breakfast food is a dessert and gently caress any of you who agree with him.

quote:

"I’m not worried about what a bureaucrat in D.C. or an unelected judge thinks. ... We need to gather (Syrian refugees) up and politely take them back to the ICE center and say, 'They’re not coming to Tennessee, they’re yours.' "

zoux posted:

Additionally, the reason that Sanders, an actual serious candidate who is deffo trying as hard as he can to win the nomination, hasn't given a full on foreign policy speech is because "they take too long to write"

pathetic little tramp posted:

It's going to get a bit worse, republicans have been shown that refugees are literally already here and this is the response we're going to start seeing:

http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/politics/2015/11/17/tennessee-gop-leader-round-up-syrian-refugees-remove-state/75936660/


Expect to see the "round 'em up and get 'em out" contingent in full swing by the end of the week.

pathetic little tramp posted:

It's going to get a bit worse, republicans have been shown that refugees are literally already here and this is the response we're going to start seeing:

http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/politics/2015/11/17/tennessee-gop-leader-round-up-syrian-refugees-remove-state/75936660/


Expect to see the "round 'em up and get 'em out" contingent in full swing by the end of the week.

Riosan posted:

I actually don't know the details of all this, could they do anything about refugees who have already been living here? Are they technically on the way to becoming citizens, or do refugees stay here on semi-permanent visas?

But then again, the type of people who talk about this want to deport anybody who fails the paper bag test.

zoux posted:

Well, gee fellas I sure can't see how that could possibly be abused.

hobbesmaster posted:

Isn't Obama saying AUMF 2002 counts against ISIS?

Mr. Nice! posted:

Congress specifically said it was when he asked for a new AUMF.

BI NOW GAY LATER posted:

Yes, and the republicans refuse to call him on it, because they don't want to have that vote held over them.

zoux posted:

Ashcans posted:

Once admitted to the US refugees have an immigration status and work authorization, which can't be altered by anyone but the federal agencies responsible for it. After a year, refugees apply for permanent residence and become green card holders, and five years after that they can apply for citizenship.

The only way this changes is through the federal government, states and local offices have no control over immigration status or benefits. This doesn't mean they can't hassle people like shitheads though, I guess.

greatn posted:

Trump is in Birmingham Alabama today. I hope he takes my advice and promises to make america grits again.

Ashcans posted:

Once admitted to the US refugees have an immigration status and work authorization, which can't be altered by anyone but the federal agencies responsible for it. After a year, refugees apply for permanent residence and become green card holders, and five years after that they can apply for citizenship.

The only way this changes is through the federal government, states and local offices have no control over immigration status or benefits. This doesn't mean they can't hassle people like shitheads though, I guess.

fade5 posted:

Isn't Congress amazing? No, not amazing, nightmarish.

Seriously it's amazing how hosed up this is. Obama has specifically said he's not sure that the 2001 AUMF gives him the legality to attack ISIL, and so he tried to do things "the right way" and have Congress pass a new AMUF specifically for fighting ISIL. Congress refused.

So now we're using a bill that Authorizes the Use of Military Force against Al-Qaeda to attack a group that is not Al-Qaeda, and is in fact fighting with Al-Qaeda in Syria right now. The only reason this isn't more of an issue is because everybody hates ISIL.