Men's Clothing Forums banner
1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,297 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I don't blame him. By pulling the census out of Commerce the POTUS is basically saying he doesn't trust him.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
507 Posts
I agree.

Moving the census into the White House is gross over-politicization. Resigning as Commerce was just emasculated was the least he could do. Puts paid to the initial 'masterful stroke' spin the selection received.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,066 Posts
I don't blame him. By pulling the census out of Commerce the POTUS is basically saying he doesn't trust him.
I agree.

Moving the census into the White House is gross over-politicization. Resigning as Commerce was just emasculated was the least he could do. Puts paid to the initial 'masterful stroke' spin the selection received.
Agree with both. And the WH is handling it poorly. Apparently, there was an ultimatum of some kind on Wednesday in the Oval Office. I think they tried to force him to vote Yes on the Spending Bill.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,258 Posts
^Politics a usual, I'm afraid. Putting Emmanuel in charge of the census is a horrible idea. Look for lots of ginned-up numbers to placate the Dems' core constituents during the next census.

I initially loved the idea of Gregg heading Commerce. I admire him for pulling out when he realized the WH's version of bipartisanship wasn't really bipartisanship after all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,297 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
The white house put out a statement stating that it was Gregg who had initiated the move to be nominated SOC and that under the circumstances it was best for both to part ways.

So this is how they treat people with whom they don't agree.
 

·
Connoisseur/Curmudgeon Emeritus - Moderator
Joined
·
37,088 Posts
^^Can't wait to see the approval ratings in the next edition of the "aah gawd, they must love me polls!" If I may paraphrase (I think it was Senator Benson), "I've read about Abraham Lincoln and our current POTUS...ain't no Abraham Lincoln!" I suspect the American electorate will be reasonably quick on the uptake, realizing that reality. ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,169 Posts
I never had any use for the appointment, anyway, but it doesn't make sense that he went after and accepted the job without knowing what his duties were going to be.

If the reports are correct it's not too surprising, since it's a traditional point of conflict between Democrats and Republicans: Democrats want to make sure to count everybody, Republicans don't.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,306 Posts
I never had any use for the appointment, anyway, but it doesn't make sense that he went after and accepted the job without knowing what his duties were going to be.

If the reports are correct it's not too surprising, since it's a traditional point of conflict between Democrats and Republicans: Democrats want to make sure to count everybody, Republicans don't.
I thought it was the other way around. Republicans want to make sure that everyone is counted by actually going out and counting people. Democrats want to use sampling and estimate population without having to bother with actual counting.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,169 Posts
No. Democrats (and statisticians) wanted to get a more accurate count by supplementing the traditional door to door counting methods with other statistical approaches to reach people that we know exist, but are hard to find and count using traditional methods. Republicans wanted to suppress the population estimate (it's always going to be only an estimate, even if it's based on counting everybody you can find) by prohibiting this approach, and even though I don't think there was any dispute about the existence of the undercount that the statistical method was intended to address.

IIRC, the Supreme Court sided with the Republicans, holding that the "actual enumeration" language in the Constitution prohibited the statistical approach. On the other hand, I found it pretty ironic that they could call what we do now an "actual enumeration" when we know it's not accurate.

Later in the day, Mr. Gregg said the census had been "only a slight issue" in his decision to withdraw. But the census has been a major issue between Republicans and Democrats for years, and Mr. Gregg has been involved in the dispute. A decade ago, he resisted efforts by President Bill Clinton to increase financing for the 2000 census.
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/13/us/politics/13gregg.html?hp
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
433 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,813 Posts
I'm just glad we spend precious executive time reworking the census while the economy is ailing. It's brilliant! If nothing gets better, the lead can spin the propaganda better by rearranging data and distribution.

We're doomed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,066 Posts
No. Democrats (and statisticians) wanted to get a more accurate count by supplementing the traditional door to door counting methods with other statistical approaches to reach people that we know exist, but are hard to find and count using traditional methods. Republicans wanted to suppress the population estimate (it's always going to be only an estimate, even if it's based on counting everybody you can find) by prohibiting this approach, and even though I don't think there was any dispute about the existence of the undercount that the statistical method was intended to address.

IIRC, the Supreme Court sided with the Republicans, holding that the "actual enumeration" language in the Constitution prohibited the statistical approach. On the other hand, I found it pretty ironic that they could call what we do now an "actual enumeration" when we know it's not accurate.

Later in the day, Mr. Gregg said the census had been "only a slight issue" in his decision to withdraw. But the census has been a major issue between Republicans and Democrats for years, and Mr. Gregg has been involved in the dispute. A decade ago, he resisted efforts by President Bill Clinton to increase financing for the 2000 census.
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/13/us/politics/13gregg.html?hp
Al Franken is only supplementing the count in his Senate race too! LOL

Jack, you have to be kidding...you can't possibly believe the Democrats just want an accurate count. How would that help them? They would lose a lot of seats with an accurate count and allocation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,169 Posts
Presumably people who vote for Democrats?
I believe the scientific evidence is that the undercount tends to be in Congressional districts held by Democrats. Apparently it's easier to find people living in their own homes in Grosse Pointe than to find people who are renting, doubled up in apartments, or relatively transient in inner city neighborhoods. Surprised?

Is there something you don't like about the evidence?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,066 Posts
I believe the scientific evidence is that the undercount tends to be in Congressional districts held by Democrats. Apparently it's easier to find people living in their own homes in Grosse Pointe than to find people who are renting, doubled up in apartments, or relatively transient in inner city neighborhoods. Surprised?

Is there something you don't like about the evidence?
There is no actual evidence of that and You haven't presented any.

I will say that what I don't like is that the people that argue your side are the ones that brought us the Klan. Living up North that may not be "evident" to you, or something you want to admit. All the local and state governments down here are full of racist democrats that think blacks and other minorities are stupid and pitiful. Condescension is not a virtue. Having tried to work both inside the system with state and county governments and outside the system with foundations I can tell you I've seen it repeatedly.

I'm not quite sure how you square that if your viewpoints are sincerely held.

Take for instance healthcare. There are not 47 million Americans without healthcare. There are 30 million Americans without health insurance. Which side seems to think 30 million Americans without health insurance needs to be inflated to support their policies?

I would think as a professional you would at the very least consider these inaccurate statements repeated over and over bad or inept lawyering by your side. And frankly some of us would take such issues and efforts at bipartisanship more seriously if your negotiators could be honest about the size of the problem.

I actually think a person that would be genuine and say hey, "I want to offer insurance to those 17 million illegal residents" would be hard to debate. Where is the commerce clause that states only citizens can do business with American companies? But no, we have to lie and call them Americans and give them representation in Congress. If that's the case why don't we count the Saudis and the people in Dubai who also own assets and conduct transactions in $USDs; and pay American taxes? Other than Bill Clinton who represents them?

Frankly, I'd love to know just how many illegal residents there are here. And I don't know how you do that without counting them; meaning having a thorough understanding of statistics and sampling I don't believe it can conquer human behavior.

As to your point: ACORN seemed to be able to find the people you are worried about. Many of them more than once! ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,865 Posts
^^Can't wait to see the approval ratings in the next edition of the "aah gawd, they must love me polls!" If I may paraphrase (I think it was Senator Benson), "I've read about Abraham Lincoln and our current POTUS...ain't no Abraham Lincoln!" I suspect the American electorate will be reasonably quick on the uptake, realizing that reality. ;)
CNN, which used to be very far left, seems to be turning anti-Obama. They gleefully reported that his approval rating is down ten points this week to 54%. They also mentioned that a Senator from Ohio is being flown back to DC on a government plane so he could vote for the spending bill after attending his mother's wake. Which, of course, would be branded an expensive boondoggle by the Democrats.
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top