Well, it's no different than the DeVos and Perry appointments then
Certainly those two are as unqualified but I'd argue appointing people with zero qualifications with every intention of actively sabotaging the federal reserve is a far worst risk than what devos can do to the education system. The impact of the federal reserve on the economy is far larger than what any president could hope to have over an 8 year term. and not just for the US economy but for the world as a whole. the dollar is the world's reserve currency, the pillar of the world's economy. This is bigger than the US education system... it's pretty much everyone's everything.
I'm not making fun of anything. I don't understand how that's anywhere remotely as toxic as a piece of shit not wanting to help 9/11 first responders and/or victims, but k.
AOC is better than 99% of the politicians, especially because she actually cares more about the people of this country than most others. Isn't there a picture of said toilet? And the second guy's tweet is apparently from a talkshow host? Has he been to a concentration camp?
I wasn't referring to them being unqualified, but that's certainly true with DeVos. I was more talking about both of them being on record as being very anti-Department of Education/Energy. Perry even said that he wanted to abolish it when he was running for President iirc. So the irony of them being given those positions is quite the thing, lol.
That's a whataboutism. You thinking someone else did it worse doesn't excuse yourself of anything. You saying you hope someone dies of ass cancer is unproductive, at best.
Well, we do have a president who has no idea what he's doing or how to lead running the country, so it's not a surprise he'd appoint incompetent people as well.
wah wah wah, like I care. Pieces of shit like him don't deserve to live. I don't feel the need to put much thought into why McConnell should drop dead for the betterment of US people, or why he's a horrible person (even out of all the politicians). If you don't get it then you won't get it.
I think there might be legal questions about it, but outside of that I don't really get it either. I supposed people are against it because it might be considered a form of self-incrimination. People are also suggesting minorities won't be represented accurately because people won't give accurate numbers of people in their household if they're not citizens. There's ramifications for inaccurate Census data since congressional representation is often based on it when it comes to redistricting and what not. And to put it plainly, underrepresented minorities is beneficial to Republicans.
This mentality doesn't add to anything, knock it off or I'll start deleting.
So... the argument against is basically that it would discourage minorities, who are also legal citizens, from taking part in the census altogether? I suppose that technically sounds plausible but the scale in which it would have to happen to have that big an effect is massive. To me it makes sense that illegal citizens shouldn't be considered for redistricting purposes anyways. They aren't going to vote anyways.
Well, I think the idea is that the Census data will be inaccurate since it asks questions about the people in your household, and if you have an illegal alien living with you, you probably wouldn't mention them in government documents.
That's more along the line of what I was thinking. Legal minorities don't have much to worry about. Illegals staying in the US via illegal mean can just ignore the census. However, illegals that want to respond to the census would have to put a target on their back to do so. The same goes for people who harbor illegals and want to respond to the census.
While true, the US military isn't always doing good things.