Census ... Trump calls for a recount. (Page 1/1) 82-T/A [At Work] AUG 10, 12:07 PM I don't know if you've been tracking, but Trump has recently called for an early re-do of the census. The reason is, he believes the census was unfairly counted in 2020. He's not wrong though... as Pew Research identified back in 2020, it most certainly would have been a different result had illegal immigrants not been counted: https://www.pewresearch.org...use-reapportionment/ For the most part, even with illegals, many Democrat-led states saw an exodus of residents that fled to Republican states... often as a result of taxes, and draconian COVID rules which we all now know where excessive and served no benefit. For those who remember 2020 and don't pretend like it was long-forgotten history, the Census bureau intentionally delayed the release of the Census information until after Trump was out of office. This went directly against the U.S. Constitution, and against the authority of the President to demand the release of the information. Instead, the Census bureau waited until after Biden had been inaugurated, so that Biden could issue an executive order re-asserting that illegals and non-citizens would be counted: https://www.texastribune.or...grants-census-count/ The numbers were already horrible for the Democrats, but including illegals basically saved them from what would have likely been catastrophic loses in the house. For those who remember, NPR was one of the first to report that the Census Bureau had totally screwed up, and that despite the horrific numbers for Democrats, that the numbers presented basically saved Democrats from catastrophic losses. You can see that Tweet here: https://x.com/NPR/status/1527291894275149827 Their news article on this can be found here: https://www.npr.org/2022/05...ppi-tennessee-texas? This image in the article is what's mostly pertinent here: As you'll see, with very little exception, the left-leaning states were significantly over-counted, and the right-leaning states were significantly under-counted. Estimates are that around 6-10 house seats would have been re-apportioned to Republican-leaning states had the Census correctly counted the population as they were supposed to (which is including illegal immigrants that responded). It's interesting to note that Biden's Census chief at the time declined to give any specific reason why these states were over or under counted. I'm all on board with a re-do of the census. Even if you eliminate the fact that Democrats violated law by refusing to release the Census on time, and that they grossly miscounted key states... there's still the point that it happened under COVID. Democrats are fighting a recount of course, because it would likely mean an enormous loss of house seats for Democrats that could see anywhere from 15-20 permanently lost seats to Republicans, particularly if they do not include illegal immigrants. Thoughts? Doug85GT AUG 10, 01:14 PM I am not sure if this would be considered supplemental census data or a full census. The constitution says that a census must be done within the 10 year census term. The current term is 2021-2030. Strictly by the Constitution the census could be done any time during those ten years. Congress has pass laws setting specific timelines and dates which fall outside of what President Trump is proposing. All that being said, the census continually collects data. President Trump can order the census to collect this data even if it is not the official numbers used for apportionment. That might be the justification being used for this effort. The census bureaucrats ignored President Trumps orders and favored the Democrats in 2020. Just another example of why the deep state cannot be trusted. They should be quickly fired and replaced by an elected populous president. Mike in Sydney AUG 10, 05:57 PM quote Originally posted by Doug85GT: … and replaced by an elected populous president. Doug, are you saying the Electoral College should be abolished and the President be elected by the popular vote of the people? If so, I’m in total agreement. The electoral college has outlived its usefulness. Doug85GT AUG 10, 06:01 PM quote Originally posted by Mike in Sydney: Doug, are you saying the Electoral College should be abolished and the President be elected by the popular vote of the people? If so, I’m in total agreement. The electoral college has outlived its usefulness. That the problem when you take things out of context. You lose the meaning of it. I did not mention the electoral college at all in my post. Mike in Sydney AUG 10, 07:04 PM quote Originally posted by Doug85GT: That the problem when you take things out of context. You lose the meaning of it. I did not mention the electoral college at all in my post. No, you didn’t mention the electoral college. You inferred the president should be elected by “populous” vote. I’m trying to understand what you meant by that. So, without mentioning the electoral college, what do you mean by “populous vote”? If you meant that the candidate who gets the majority of the popular votes is declared the winner, I agree with you. 82-T/A [At Work] AUG 10, 07:30 PM quote Originally posted by Mike in Sydney: No, you didn’t mention the electoral college. You inferred the president should be elected by “populous” vote. I’m trying to understand what you meant by that. So, without mentioning the electoral college, what do you mean by “populous vote”? If you meant that the candidate who gets the majority of the popular votes is declared the winner, I agree with you. He said, "They should be quickly fired and replaced by an elected populous president." An elected "populous" president. Grammatically, this means a president that was elected, that is popular. He did not say "populous elected president," which would align with what you're saying. You misread. Doug85GT AUG 10, 08:51 PM To clarify, my use of populous means a candidate that is no a political insider of one of the major parties but a candidate that is popular with the people. Teddy Roosevelt, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Donald Trump are example of populous candidates. In the context that I used it, it means someone that is not a part of the deep state mechanism. Both Republican Neocons and Democrats are part of the deep state mechanism. A political outsider must be able to fire deep state bureaucrats and implement the agenda that they were elected for.