This means I am often in a position to use shorthand methods to determine who is on what side of a given issue, and what is the conservative and/or correct side of that issue.
For example, voter fraud, voting rights, voter ID laws, and voting processes. When I examine the issue of voter fraud, voter rights/voter ID/voting processes, it is easy for me to side with the Constitution. Other related issues which may not be as clear cut since there are a hodgepodge of state voting processes, etc, I try to examine on a case by case basis, which is...a lot to look at, and I often look for shorthand evaluations to help.
A good example of this is the issue of voter fraud. When I look at this issue, I see clear facets that make 100% sense to me that help me decide. As an ancillary, I use other proxy factors. In the case of voter fraud, I can see two clear and undeniable things that will mitigate some aspects of voter fraud: Annual cleansing of the voter rolls by two means: Removing the names of people who have died, and removing the names of people who are no longer residents of a given state. Seems undeniably logical to me. Dead people can't vote, and people who are not residents of a state should be voting in another state.
As a proxy, I look at the people who are opposed to cleansing the voter rolls of dead people and people who are not residents of a state. They are overwhelmingly, and without exception, Leftists of all stripes. So when I see those same people on an issue, I take a knee-jerk reaction towards certain conclusions, and I am usually right.
In the case of this article, the question of asking citizenship on a census makes absolute and perfect sense to me, so I dismiss the arguments against it. When I see people like Eric Holder on an issue like this, I utilize a shorthand process to validate. (Basically, if he is for it, I am against it).
What are your thoughts on this particular issue, and the use of shorthand judgements in certain cases to cement a judgement?
There should be no questions on ethnicity. bammy wanted a “middle eastern” category (a proxy for “muslim”). However, it should ask about citizenship, and whether the person accepts the rights and obligations of the US Constitution. Those who reply NO, are deported the next day.
Took a little digging, but I find the question of citizenship has not been on the census since 1950, and no reason was given.
I would have guessed it was removed for 2010, reason obvious!
• Paper ballotsOf course, if this is a federal law, it would only apply to federal elections. If a state, county, city or wide spot in the road doesn't want to control who votes, they can pay to have separate local ballots for any munchkin who wanders in on election day printed out of their own pocket.
• Purple fingers
• Mandatory free on demand BIOMETRIC (iris scan, nobody ever left their irises at a crime scene!) photo ID, with a database that instantly flags for arrest anyone seeking multiple IDs. Change of name? Simply have your old card voided when you apply for the new one.
• No precinct reports their totals until ALL precincts report they have totals. This prevents the last to report precinct captains from knowing how much to fudge a report to give a win to their preferred candidate while maintaining some slight semblance of credibility.
• Repeal Motor Voter.
• End same-day registration where it exists, and allow ample time between registration and election for vetting of credentials of registrants.
• Instantly deport any non-citizen who registers to vote.
• Voter ID must be renewed every 10 years, in person.
• Put a little ⩍ next to the names of those registered voters with death certificates, and detain and put a 72 hour psychiatric hold anyone claiming to be a dead person...
The dead ARE ONLY AN ISSUE IF THEY VOTE.
SO ASK YOURSELF THE OBVIOUS QUESTION: HOW ARE THE DEAD VOTING?
When you answer that question you'll know how the fraud is done.
If the FBI wants to stop voter fraud they should ADD fake names to the roles - THEN GO AFTER THE PEOPLE VOTING THOSE NAMES. The same should be done will illegals on the roles. If they vote go after them for the crime of 'messing with our elections'. The FBI can pretend they're 'russians who might damage liberals' or something... but GO AFTER THEM, ARREST THEM AND LET THE COURTS DEAL WITH THE CRIME.
In the case of this article, the question of asking citizenship on a census makes absolute and perfect
Kalifornia will end up with two reps. Onoz!!!!
What you noted is probably the best fact finding and truth finding we have available for the critical issues exploding each day.
“I am often guilty of taking shortcuts to determine good from bad, friend from enemy, and right from wrong due to the fire hose stream of information we are often subjected to. I cannot read or watch every single thing out there on the Internet, but I do accept the responsibility for my own knowledge about events since I have stopped watching/listening/reading the media angle on things.”
In the case of this article, the question of asking citizenship on a census makes absolute and perfect sense to me, so I dismiss the arguments against it. When I see people like Eric Holder on an issue like this, I utilize a shorthand process to validate. (Basically, if he is for it, I am against it).
Same rule if ABCNNBCBS/Compost/New York Slimes is against the latest proposal by President Trump, we should probably support it. If the above are for any issue, we should probably be against it.