fishbane

Apportionment happens the year after a census. The last census was performed in 2020. Aportionment was done in 2021 and redistricting after that. The new congressional districts did not take effect until the 2022 election. You posted projections for the 2030 census. These are projections as 2030 is 5 years from now. If these prove to be accurate they would not take effect until the 2032 election not 2028.

I also read the article where you found that figure. Here is the last paragraph you may have missed. "We have avoided using terms like “replacement theory,” “racism,” and “xenophobia” to describe the views of Elon Musk and others who have been promoting the view that illegal immigration is a deliberate plot to dilute red state power, though we could have. But we are not avoiding the word “wrong.” Their analysis and their conclusions about illegal immigration and apportionment are simply wrong."

Oh back to the burner account. Sure possibly Democrats gained 1 seat in the last apportionment which all hinges on whether there are more illegal immigrants in NY or Florida. Doesnt seem all that clear to me that there was any benefit. But was this really a plan by the Democrats coming to fruition to steal a seat? This data is from the 2020 census. When did these illegal immigrants get here? Can't really blame Biden's administration.

There are differences based on the estimates for number of illegal immigrants in each state. So since you disagree that it's unclear which party benefits through apportionment from this, which party benefits and how much?

The number of seats is capped so there isn't really aren't "extra" seats. It's how the seats get distributed could change. For a state to gain a seat due to the population of illegal immigrants in that state another state would lose a seat because of a lack of of illegal immigrants. You'd have to look at the political make up of the state and gaining the seat vs the state losing a seat to try and determine which party benefits. Current apportionment is ~750,000 people = 1 house seat. Every state has illegal immigrants but only a few have enough to equal a house seat. A couple different organization we through this analysis for the 2020 census which gets apportioned and redistricted for elections starting in 2022. Here is the Pew analysis from 2020.

Keep not answering the question - it only supports my assertion that it's unclear which party benefits through apportionment from illegal immigration. If that were untrue then you should be able to answer the question. Yet you cannot answer that question. So... We agree!

We are in agreement! If you cannot answer the question "which party gains seats/votes through apportionment due to the distribution of illegal immigrants across all 50 state?" then we are in agreement.

Go back to your burner account and answer the question I asked. Which party benefits through apportionment gaining extra seats/electoral votes due to illegal immigrants?

If you are unable to answer the question which party benefits from illegal immigrants through apportionment by gaining extra congressional seat(s)/electoral vote(s) then maybe we are in agreement after all that it's unclear.

Back to the burner account? Which party do you think gains seat(s)/electoral vote(s) through apportionment because of illegal immigrants? And how many seats/votes are gained?

And you have presented any evidence to argue with. If you want me to argue with myself - no thanks. You can do that with your other account lol.

When I said we I was talking about me and JimmySpeaks not you. Unless you're just signed into the wrong account...

Yes 45 more. What is the point? I thought we agreed that it is unclear that illegal immigrants benefit apportionment in favour of one party or the other.

I think that's accurate. Similarly, I believe that the Democrats' immigration policy had more short terms objectives. It wasn't a long terms master plan to import residents to shift apportionment in their favour over the next census. It also wasn't a plan to import illegal immigrants that would in the following decades either become citizens and/or have kids that would be citizens who would vote preferentially for the Democratic party. This is a plan that couldn't come up with a coherent strategy for the last presidential election they weren't executing a master plan with a 10-30 year horizon that could be thwarted by a fleet of buses.

So your point was that it is unclear which party will benefit from this. I also find this confusing. My understanding is that recently it has been the democrats credited with allowing illegal border crossings. Under the two Trump terms there has been increased enforcement at the border whereas Biden allocated resources differently allowing significantly more border crossings. However, regarding busing of illegal immigrants, I thought was a program run by Republican governors in border states such as Arizona, Texas, and Florida where they paid for busses to take undocumented immigrants to the city of their choice. In practice these were always "sanctuary cities" in blue areas such as New York, Chicago, Denver, and Washington, DC. So it would seem to me that one party letting them in (Democrats) and another party busing them around (Republicans). If the net effect of the illegal immigrants is extra electoral votes/representation in congress for Democrats then perhaps those Republican Governors were wrong to bus the migrants to the blue states. Instead if the population growth in the border states results in more Republicans in Congress and Florida and Texas gaining electoral votes they wouldn't have otherwise, perhaps Democrats will see their liberal immigration policy as a mistake. Which party is sinister and power hungry? The one that let them in or the one that bused them to their final destination?

I don't think this is true though I am not sure what you are trying to say. From the last census the number of illegal immigrants in NY, Texas, and Florida has increased. Of the states you mentioned I think only CA has seen a decrease in illegal immigrant residents. NY has lost population even with the increase in illegal immigrants in the state. It is unclear which political party these shifts will benefit. Florida and Texas gain seats/electoral votes, however their population gain is not explained entirely by illegal immigrants who cannot vote in federal elections. Much of the increase comes from US citizens moving out of states like NY and CA and are presumably less likely to vote for a republican candidate than the existing population in these states.

Who is? Isn't it kind of a wash? The state with the most illegal immigrants are California, Florida, Texas, New York, and New Jersey and there are almost equal amounts in CA, NY, and NJ as there are in FL and TX so the net gain in house seats/electoral college votes between red and blue states is ~0. Is this a win for a loss for the Republican/Democrat Party? It was not that long ago that Florida was a swing state and many of the people moving to these states are attracted by 0% income tax and come from high tax blue states like CA and NY. NY and CA losing votes might seem like a loss for the Democrats and win for the Republicans, but if Florida becomes a swing state again maybe the opposite will be true. FL resident Donald Trump wont be on the next presidential ballot, but maybe Rubio or DeSantis will be the nominee giving the Republicans a built in edge in the state.

Norm MacDonald once said that when his son was first born it was the most exciting thing that ever happened to him. Then six months later he went hang gliding and that was way more exiting.

He asked Pyles something along the lines of was Sasso buying drugs when he was shot? Pyles said no. Sonnen said that he now knew what his face like when he is lying. It was something like that. I tried to go back and rewatch but someone said flo edited that part out.

I always thought UNC would be a good fit for Ferrari with their vast paper class options.

The Bad Guy referenced this website in his appearance. After making a 69 reference the Flo guys laugh and Sonnen says "We're giggling over 69? Okay, he said 69!! What is this Intermat? You guys can't take a joke?" Spey: "Nice" Sonnen: " Remember when they were a thing. Do you remember that? It was like intermat wrestle backslash wrestling .org and something would come up." Sonnen then continues some story about the 1969 World team.

Not any more, but I was responding to someone speculating that an eminent USADA suspension was the true reason for his exit in Stillwater. If the NCAA automatically enforced any WADA/USADA ban he'd be in trouble. That isn't the case though and all those paragraphs you wrote about show cause don't really apply because he is already an employee. NCAA would have to initiate the disciplinary process here rather than have the institution show cause why he should/could be hired. Moreover, the examples you give are two individuals who actually broke NCAA rules. The rule Gilman broke does not have a counterpart in the NCAA - there are no whereabouts requirements for NCAA athletes. So I think that 1) the ban wouldn't be automatic and 2) OSU would not have had to show cause and could carry on until the if/when the NCAA initiated disciplinary action. I don't know that OSU would take action on their own. Daton Fix wasn't sent packing when he tested positive and no coaches were publicly disciplined related to that. It would seem that actually testing positive would be a more serious violation than missing whereabouts. OSU also allowed Gilman to wrestle an exhibition match after one of their duals and that occurred after the three missed tests which were 28 April 2024, 12 August 2024, and 23 September 2024. Finally, I don't know the nature of the appeal or what "accepted" means so it's all pretty speculative at this point. The 18 month ban starts from the date Gilman "accepted" the ban which is May 16. Accepting it as soon as possible might have a strategy to get the clock ticking on the ban especially if it didn't impact his appeal rights, rather than not gaf, admitting his guilt, or not thinking he had any chance at winning an appeal. I don't believe so. I don't think I commented in this thread or on this topic until after I had already seen the Willie/Basch podcast and the prospect of the ban interfering with him coaching at NLWC was brought up in that podcast, so I was aware this could be a problem for Gilman before posting in this thread. However, I don't really gaf about his coaching eligibility one way or the other. In general I don't think USAW should allow an athlete under a USADA doping ban to coach.

Unlikely that his USADA suspension would impact his ability to coach an NCAA team. USAW membership is not required.

It's a good question. I think I saw it in Downey's instagram story. I would assume those details would be in a charging document of some kind, but I couldn't one in any actual reporting on the subject. In any event I don't agree with Downey's assessment that the verbiage used I the alleged texts indicates much of anything.

Yeah I dunno. Another issue that was brought up was that this suspension suspends his USAW membership including any coaches membership he may have. This is problem if he was hired to coach at an RTC. Can't coach at any USAW events and that ostensibly includes practices of a USAW sanctions club/RTC. Perhaps at first he thought it wasn't an issue since he wouldn't be competing and now realizes it will be an issue.