Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 05, 2015, 01:45:47 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10

 1 
 on: Today at 01:45:16 pm 
Started by Free Bird - Last post by Monarch
And then there was George W. Bush who was too conservative to be elected President of the United States - twice!👍

You mean George W Bush, the man who expanded medicare coverage, pushed for pathway to citizenship for immigrants, signed the largest single minimum wage increase in US history, and passed more aid bills for poverty in Africa than any US President?

No, I'd say he was just about right.

 2 
 on: Today at 01:45:16 pm 
Started by Governor TDAS04 - Last post by Senator Cranberry
Tak

 3 
 on: Today at 01:45:02 pm 
Started by Mechaman - Last post by Snowstalker
You can't make an omelet without cracking some eggs.

 4 
 on: Today at 01:44:56 pm 
Started by The Arizonan - Last post by True Federalist
With those legislative findings, of course it wouldn't pass muster, but laws that ban or regulate practices or activities that happen to be religious are perfectly constitutional as per Employment Division v. Smith as long as the reasoning given is not religious.  That's why the Federal Government passed RFRA and many states passed similar laws.

Those who favor laws giving state recognition to only opposite-sex marriages have put forth non-religious reasons for doing so, tho strictly speaking those reasons aren't necessary.  It isn't the First Amendment that does those laws in, but the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

 5 
 on: Today at 01:43:52 pm 
Started by Torie - Last post by ag
On second look, restricting Republicans to just 10 seats in California won't be so hard to do. And even Jerry Brown won't stop the greedy democrats in the legislature if the SCOTUS delivers such a decision on party line.

Exactly. And fajita strips there will be all over. I also can easily see quite a few other places where no fajitas are necessary. I mean, Matsui is sitting on 70% of the vote in Sacramento - she has many more votes than necessary to shore up Bera forever. Thompson in is hoarding the Wine Country. There is a lot of fruit hanging around there, that should be picked.

Reserving 10 seats for the Republicans with the rest being reliably Dem would not seem very hard. It would be interesting, if that could be brought down to, say, 7, without undue danger of actually creating competition. I wish DRA were not so slow with California - would take me forever to draw it, and it would, probably, crash midway anyway. Could somebody with a better computer try?

 6 
 on: Today at 01:43:38 pm 
Started by seanNJ9 - Last post by Sawx, King in the North
Please, no more fycking Macklecrats.

 7 
 on: Today at 01:43:04 pm 
Started by Speaker of the South Maxwell - Last post by IDS Legislator Pingvin
250,000 is the right number, yes.

 8 
 on: Today at 01:43:01 pm 
Started by Lief - Last post by R2D2
Sigh. Right conclusion, wrong reasoning.

This. Still blown away by how Davis lost to this joker.

 9 
 on: Today at 01:42:55 pm 
Started by Sec. of State Superique - Last post by Speaker of the South Maxwell
Ground troops are basically the only option in Iraq. "MUH air strikes" don't do anything. Get serious.

Last I checked, you had time for more than a month to do just so, yet you chose to do nothing at all. Get serious.

Isn't it the Senate's authority to send for ground troops? Potus couldn't have done that unilaterally, obviously. Not that I agree with Potus at all on this issue, in fact I think his position on it is dangerous, but blaming him for not sending troops to fight ISIS is pretty ridiculous.

I can go on a bombing raid for 30 days without congressional authority. Following this, I need Senate authorization, which I have already said I will seek. Don't worry, we haven't done anything yet!


Yeah... so that would be Lumine's authority. Not Potus's.

 10 
 on: Today at 01:42:54 pm 
Started by Charlotte Hebdo - Last post by Charlotte Hebdo
So what these people really say here, is that they accept Muslims live in Denmark, but they don't want them to be much bigger group than they are now.

There is a steady increase in the Muslim population over time and it is unlikely to stabilize anytime soon. Growing refugee pressure will add to this.

The 7% saying zero percent are obviously Islamophobic and most likely consider DPP too soft.

I think it is clear that people saying 1-5% have a negative attitude towards Muslims. In my experience most Danes think that the Muslim population is around 10%, so this equals support for repatriations. This is mostly based on young people, but older folks are unlikely to think the number is lower.
(it would be interesting to see a poll of how many Muslims the average Dane thinks there are)

This is already 31% with a negative view, which is after all a substantial share of the population.

The 14% saying 6-10% are mostly "immigration stop" people.

You then got 5% that can accept some increase and 42%, who either feel it is racist to set a quota for a particular group or belong to the relatively few that are pro free immigration (part of those would be "open borders, but closed coffers" right wingers).

And again: Given the lack of olds and the non-neutral phrasing of the "no limit" option those numbers are bound to be on the low side.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines