|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On June 28 2018 06:43 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2018 06:17 GreenHorizons wrote:
For you, sure. But that's why her turnout numbers sucked. Did you want to get back to me on the slavery thing? You can do it in PM but I'm genuinely curious under what interpretation you think slavery was constitutional. Hillary's turnout numbers sucked because she was a horrible, lifeless candidate. No one has ever liked Hillary. She has always polled terribly. She was as artificial a politician as there ever has been. Policy was really quite besides the point when it came to her losing. As for slavery and the Constitution, I'm not sure what you're looking for. At the time of ratification, 1) the Constitution did not prohibit slavery, 2) the Constitution expressly contemplated the existence of slavery, and 3) the Constitution reserved issues not expressly addressed in the Constitution to the states. It's really that simple. I don't know any particularly reputable legal argument that slavery was unconstitutional before the passage of the 13th Amendment. That's why the 13th Amendment was necessary.
Perhaps for you and other republicans, but for the left policy was more important than the tabloid crap Republicans tended to focus on.
On slavery. Slavery isn't in the constitution at all. The constitution considered the importing of people, but not slaves. According to the constitution everyone here was a person. The treatment of Black people was irrefutably unconstitutional.
I swear you brought this up a while ago, so I don't know how you wouldn't be aware of an argument you presented to me.
EDIT: My bad, it was Danglars. You want to help him out danglars?
|
On June 28 2018 06:48 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2018 06:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 28 2018 06:27 Plansix wrote:On June 28 2018 06:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Hopefully, the next Democratic nominee will be able to overcome this in-fighting. If the upset victory in NYC shows us anything, the establishment democrats can lose with grace. At the end of the day, they want to win too. As long as they can put their guns away after the November, the progressives will do fine in congress. I hope so, although "doing fine" in Congress doesn't really mean much unless there's a Democratic majority. I wouldn't take the rants of some folks online as evidence of some tea party style division in the party. It isn't AS BAD as the Republicans and there is a lot of common ground. But we will have to wait until after November to see what the leadership looks. That is really going to set the tone in congress. Lets all pray it isn't Pelosi.
This is true but the issues that the divisions have caused in the democratic party is the complete flipside of the republican party. The division in the democrat party has resulted in very low enthusiasm for the party and voteing for the party. Its going to take someone special to get people out to vote again while Trump is going to get his people to vote for him regardless of what he does till 2020.
|
On June 28 2018 06:50 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2018 06:43 xDaunt wrote:On June 28 2018 06:17 GreenHorizons wrote:
For you, sure. But that's why her turnout numbers sucked. Did you want to get back to me on the slavery thing? You can do it in PM but I'm genuinely curious under what interpretation you think slavery was constitutional. Hillary's turnout numbers sucked because she was a horrible, lifeless candidate. No one has ever liked Hillary. She has always polled terribly. She was as artificial a politician as there ever has been. Policy was really quite besides the point when it came to her losing. As for slavery and the Constitution, I'm not sure what you're looking for. At the time of ratification, 1) the Constitution did not prohibit slavery, 2) the Constitution expressly contemplated the existence of slavery, and 3) the Constitution reserved issues not expressly addressed in the Constitution to the states. It's really that simple. I don't know any particularly reputable legal argument that slavery was unconstitutional before the passage of the 13th Amendment. That's why the 13th Amendment was necessary. Perhaps for you and other republicans, but for the left policy was more important than the tabloid crap Republicans tended to focus on. On slavery. Slavery isn't in the constitution at all. The constitution considered the importing of people, but not slaves. According to the constitution everyone here was a person. The treatment of Black people was irrefutably unconstitutional. I swear you brought this up a while ago, so I don't know how you wouldn't be aware of an argument you presented to me.
The Constitution considered blacks to be 3/5th of a person when it comes to the census. And it didn't prohibit slavery, but left that up to state laws. If we look at the founders intent, the legalization and preservation of slavery defined the division between the north and south. The placement of the capitol and numerous other compromises were all in an effort to bridge that and avoid conflict. Until the South decided that wanted conflict. There is no argument that can be made slavery was illegal under the Constitution at the founding of our nation.
|
democrats, progressives, whatever got complacent. xdaunt posted a article about conservatives and how, essentially, they always lost - the other side of that is the other side won. the other side got complacent in various ways - we started dividing ourselves, instilling purity tests, all the while ceding control of state level governments. and now we are here.
|
Romania9144 Posts
On June 28 2018 06:32 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2018 06:31 Dan HH wrote:On June 28 2018 05:11 xDaunt wrote:On June 28 2018 04:55 Zambrah wrote:On June 28 2018 04:49 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On June 28 2018 04:46 Zambrah wrote:On June 28 2018 04:45 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On June 28 2018 04:41 zlefin wrote:On June 28 2018 04:39 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On June 28 2018 04:36 zlefin wrote:
[quote]
they actually kinda do. not completely ofc; but there's a substantial validity to it.
just because such a rant won't result in meaningful discussion doesn't mean it's wrong.
and it's been amply demonstrated that meaningful discussion isn't their plan anyways. i don't think there is. they are good enough at meaningful discussion to lead the Democrats in governors 33-16 the Republicans are a well oiled political machine. that does not follow at all as an argument. Just because they win doesn't mean they hold meaningful discussion. It means they are a well oiled political machine; which is very different from having meaningful discussion. it's also very clear that their mechanism of victory isn't based on meaningful discussion; and there's vast amounts of literature in the political science field to show that reasonable, meaningful discussion isn't the basis of how most people vote in general. most of their terrible shit isn't expressly in their platform, but some of it is; and far more is proven by their wink and a nod patterns demonstrating so. meangingful discussion is how you persuade voters. Is it though? After the last election I feel more like stoking the populaces fear and insecurities is how you persuade voters. At least in the US. i find trump to be very charismatic... "make america great again" .. is meant to inspire... not invoke fear. reagan used it.. it worked for him. now Trump contradicts himself in crazy ways sometimes... to the point of almost being comical. I remember Trump's campaign more for it's Mexican Rapists, Bad Hombres, and Muslim Ban comments inspiring less in the conventional sense and more in the "you're uncomfortable with those scary brown folk right?" way. But campaign Trump was a lot like looking into a mirror, everyone sees something different. The key is to look at what Trump does and not what he says. I can't think of any recent leader that has done or attempted to do as many of their promises as Trump. And that's a legitimate thing for his voters to be content about. But no, some of you have to be contrarian and keep up the stupid 4D chess meme. iirc there's research showing most leaders do at least attempt to do the things they promised; and it's just a meme that they don't.
Yeah, and if it takes too much political capital they give up and never mention it again, which is why their attempts are not as publicized (in addition to their promises not being as extraordinary). Which is what I expected Trump to do about the far-fetched promises like the wall, the muslim ban, or the anti-global trade stance. But one and a half years later he's still fighting tooth and nail for those. And that's commendable in a way, definitely more so than this fan theory of Trump being some machiavellian genius word manipulator.
|
On June 28 2018 06:56 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2018 06:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2018 06:43 xDaunt wrote:On June 28 2018 06:17 GreenHorizons wrote:
For you, sure. But that's why her turnout numbers sucked. Did you want to get back to me on the slavery thing? You can do it in PM but I'm genuinely curious under what interpretation you think slavery was constitutional. Hillary's turnout numbers sucked because she was a horrible, lifeless candidate. No one has ever liked Hillary. She has always polled terribly. She was as artificial a politician as there ever has been. Policy was really quite besides the point when it came to her losing. As for slavery and the Constitution, I'm not sure what you're looking for. At the time of ratification, 1) the Constitution did not prohibit slavery, 2) the Constitution expressly contemplated the existence of slavery, and 3) the Constitution reserved issues not expressly addressed in the Constitution to the states. It's really that simple. I don't know any particularly reputable legal argument that slavery was unconstitutional before the passage of the 13th Amendment. That's why the 13th Amendment was necessary. Perhaps for you and other republicans, but for the left policy was more important than the tabloid crap Republicans tended to focus on. On slavery. Slavery isn't in the constitution at all. The constitution considered the importing of people, but not slaves. According to the constitution everyone here was a person. The treatment of Black people was irrefutably unconstitutional. I swear you brought this up a while ago, so I don't know how you wouldn't be aware of an argument you presented to me. The Constitution considered blacks to be 3/5th of a person when it comes to the census. And it didn't prohibit slavery, but left that up to state laws. If we look at the founders intent, the legalization and preservation of slavery defined the division between the north and south. The placement of the capitol and numerous other compromises were all in an effort to bridge that and avoid conflict. Until the South decided that wanted conflict. There is no argument that can be made slavery was illegal under the Constitution at the founding of our nation.
Exactly, they were people. Under what reading of the constitution do you guys arrive at the conclusion that the treatment of those people was constitutional?
|
On June 28 2018 06:50 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2018 06:43 xDaunt wrote:On June 28 2018 06:17 GreenHorizons wrote:
For you, sure. But that's why her turnout numbers sucked. Did you want to get back to me on the slavery thing? You can do it in PM but I'm genuinely curious under what interpretation you think slavery was constitutional. Hillary's turnout numbers sucked because she was a horrible, lifeless candidate. No one has ever liked Hillary. She has always polled terribly. She was as artificial a politician as there ever has been. Policy was really quite besides the point when it came to her losing. As for slavery and the Constitution, I'm not sure what you're looking for. At the time of ratification, 1) the Constitution did not prohibit slavery, 2) the Constitution expressly contemplated the existence of slavery, and 3) the Constitution reserved issues not expressly addressed in the Constitution to the states. It's really that simple. I don't know any particularly reputable legal argument that slavery was unconstitutional before the passage of the 13th Amendment. That's why the 13th Amendment was necessary. Perhaps for you and other republicans, but for the left policy was more important than the tabloid crap Republicans tended to focus on. On slavery. Slavery isn't in the constitution at all. The constitution considered the importing of people, but not slaves. According to the constitution everyone here was a person. The treatment of Black people was irrefutably unconstitutional. I swear you brought this up a while ago, so I don't know how you wouldn't be aware of an argument you presented to me.
What do you mean slavery is not in the Constitution? Surely you have heard of the 3/5 clause, right?
What I have argued previously is that the founders get an unduly bad rap for slavery given that they did quite a bit to curtail slavery and limit its influence in the US at the founding and in the years thereafter. For example, radical SJW types like to point at the 3/5 clause as evidence that the founders were a bunch of racists, saying "SEE! They didn't even consider black people to count as whole people!" The point that these folks are missing is that the 3/5 clause was put in expressly to limit the political power of the slave states. The simple reality is that the US probably would not have gained and retained independence and cohesion if the country chose to eliminate slavery at the time of the founding. It simply was not a realistic expectation. But if you look at what actually happened back then, the US had one of the most robust and successful abolitionist movements at the time of its founding. It was just too early to completely resolve the issue.
|
On June 28 2018 06:59 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2018 06:56 Plansix wrote:On June 28 2018 06:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2018 06:43 xDaunt wrote:On June 28 2018 06:17 GreenHorizons wrote:
For you, sure. But that's why her turnout numbers sucked. Did you want to get back to me on the slavery thing? You can do it in PM but I'm genuinely curious under what interpretation you think slavery was constitutional. Hillary's turnout numbers sucked because she was a horrible, lifeless candidate. No one has ever liked Hillary. She has always polled terribly. She was as artificial a politician as there ever has been. Policy was really quite besides the point when it came to her losing. As for slavery and the Constitution, I'm not sure what you're looking for. At the time of ratification, 1) the Constitution did not prohibit slavery, 2) the Constitution expressly contemplated the existence of slavery, and 3) the Constitution reserved issues not expressly addressed in the Constitution to the states. It's really that simple. I don't know any particularly reputable legal argument that slavery was unconstitutional before the passage of the 13th Amendment. That's why the 13th Amendment was necessary. Perhaps for you and other republicans, but for the left policy was more important than the tabloid crap Republicans tended to focus on. On slavery. Slavery isn't in the constitution at all. The constitution considered the importing of people, but not slaves. According to the constitution everyone here was a person. The treatment of Black people was irrefutably unconstitutional. I swear you brought this up a while ago, so I don't know how you wouldn't be aware of an argument you presented to me. The Constitution considered blacks to be 3/5th of a person when it comes to the census. And it didn't prohibit slavery, but left that up to state laws. If we look at the founders intent, the legalization and preservation of slavery defined the division between the north and south. The placement of the capitol and numerous other compromises were all in an effort to bridge that and avoid conflict. Until the South decided that wanted conflict. There is no argument that can be made slavery was illegal under the Constitution at the founding of our nation. Exactly, they were people. Under what reading of the constitution do you guys arrive at the conclusion that the treatment of those people was constitutional?
The one where the states that ratified it already had legal slave and the constitution did not invalidate those laws. Furthermore, it limited the power of the federal goverment over said laws. That is why they amended it to make all the slaves US citizens and make slavery illegal.
|
On June 28 2018 06:48 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2018 06:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 28 2018 06:27 Plansix wrote:On June 28 2018 06:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Hopefully, the next Democratic nominee will be able to overcome this in-fighting. If the upset victory in NYC shows us anything, the establishment democrats can lose with grace. At the end of the day, they want to win too. As long as they can put their guns away after the November, the progressives will do fine in congress. I hope so, although "doing fine" in Congress doesn't really mean much unless there's a Democratic majority. I wouldn't take the rants of some folks online as evidence of some tea party style division in the party. It isn't AS BAD as the Republicans and there is a lot of common ground. But we will have to wait until after November to see what the leadership looks. That is really going to set the tone in congress. Lets all pray it isn't Pelosi.
I agree, although my metric for gauging how bad the in-fighting is is whether or not we start to take back branches of government.
|
On June 28 2018 07:02 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2018 06:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2018 06:43 xDaunt wrote:On June 28 2018 06:17 GreenHorizons wrote:
For you, sure. But that's why her turnout numbers sucked. Did you want to get back to me on the slavery thing? You can do it in PM but I'm genuinely curious under what interpretation you think slavery was constitutional. Hillary's turnout numbers sucked because she was a horrible, lifeless candidate. No one has ever liked Hillary. She has always polled terribly. She was as artificial a politician as there ever has been. Policy was really quite besides the point when it came to her losing. As for slavery and the Constitution, I'm not sure what you're looking for. At the time of ratification, 1) the Constitution did not prohibit slavery, 2) the Constitution expressly contemplated the existence of slavery, and 3) the Constitution reserved issues not expressly addressed in the Constitution to the states. It's really that simple. I don't know any particularly reputable legal argument that slavery was unconstitutional before the passage of the 13th Amendment. That's why the 13th Amendment was necessary. Perhaps for you and other republicans, but for the left policy was more important than the tabloid crap Republicans tended to focus on. On slavery. Slavery isn't in the constitution at all. The constitution considered the importing of people, but not slaves. According to the constitution everyone here was a person. The treatment of Black people was irrefutably unconstitutional. I swear you brought this up a while ago, so I don't know how you wouldn't be aware of an argument you presented to me. What do you mean slavery is not in the Constitution? Surely you have heard of the 3/5 clause, right? What I have argued previously is that the founders get an unduly bad rap for slavery given that they did quite a bit to curtail slavery and limit its influence in the US at the founding and in the years thereafter. For example, radical SJW types like to point at the 3/5 clause as evidence that the founders were a bunch of racists, saying "SEE! They didn't even consider black people to count as whole people!" The point that these folks are missing is that the 3/5 clause was put in expressly to limit the political power of the slave states. The simple reality is that the US probably would not have gained and retained independence and cohesion if the country chose to eliminate slavery at the time of the founding. It simply was not a realistic expectation. But if you look at what actually happened back then, the US had one of the most robust and successful abolitionist movements at the time of its founding. It was just too early to completely resolve the issue.
They were racist and thought Black people less than a full person, but the constitution calls them persons not slaves or property. The stripping of their humanity was unconstitutional and all the white guys just agreed to turn a blind eye to it as long as they could.
There's no way you can read the constitution and find justification for enslaving people. Otherwise there would have been many more slaves of a variety of ethnicities. There's a reason other groups while working conditions were not much better than slavery they weren't property and had rights.
Because the stripping of their humanity was as unconstitutional as it was to do to black people but none of the white men in power gave a shit about Black people.
|
I am slowly thinking that maybe the best thing for the USA would be to actually split into two countries, as some other people have already mentioned. Yes, it would be hard to do, and probably incredibly chaotic. But that allows you to just let the republicans have their conservative one-party state with a broken coal-based economy. The other states could than just have a reasonable system of government where the democrats are the right-most party. Let people from the republican states claim asylum with a rather simple process, it shouldn't be hard to prove that you are prosecuted for a lot of people there.
And then just let the republicans rot in the shit they wanted to have. If they want to resist being a modern state so much, let them live in the 19th century and let everyone who wants out out. Meanwhile, the rest of america doesn't have to deal with their shit anymore.
The other alternative is apparently to let them shit up all of the country. Since for some inexplicable reason they seem to keep winning elections.
|
On June 28 2018 07:06 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2018 07:02 xDaunt wrote:On June 28 2018 06:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2018 06:43 xDaunt wrote:On June 28 2018 06:17 GreenHorizons wrote:
For you, sure. But that's why her turnout numbers sucked. Did you want to get back to me on the slavery thing? You can do it in PM but I'm genuinely curious under what interpretation you think slavery was constitutional. Hillary's turnout numbers sucked because she was a horrible, lifeless candidate. No one has ever liked Hillary. She has always polled terribly. She was as artificial a politician as there ever has been. Policy was really quite besides the point when it came to her losing. As for slavery and the Constitution, I'm not sure what you're looking for. At the time of ratification, 1) the Constitution did not prohibit slavery, 2) the Constitution expressly contemplated the existence of slavery, and 3) the Constitution reserved issues not expressly addressed in the Constitution to the states. It's really that simple. I don't know any particularly reputable legal argument that slavery was unconstitutional before the passage of the 13th Amendment. That's why the 13th Amendment was necessary. Perhaps for you and other republicans, but for the left policy was more important than the tabloid crap Republicans tended to focus on. On slavery. Slavery isn't in the constitution at all. The constitution considered the importing of people, but not slaves. According to the constitution everyone here was a person. The treatment of Black people was irrefutably unconstitutional. I swear you brought this up a while ago, so I don't know how you wouldn't be aware of an argument you presented to me. What do you mean slavery is not in the Constitution? Surely you have heard of the 3/5 clause, right? What I have argued previously is that the founders get an unduly bad rap for slavery given that they did quite a bit to curtail slavery and limit its influence in the US at the founding and in the years thereafter. For example, radical SJW types like to point at the 3/5 clause as evidence that the founders were a bunch of racists, saying "SEE! They didn't even consider black people to count as whole people!" The point that these folks are missing is that the 3/5 clause was put in expressly to limit the political power of the slave states. The simple reality is that the US probably would not have gained and retained independence and cohesion if the country chose to eliminate slavery at the time of the founding. It simply was not a realistic expectation. But if you look at what actually happened back then, the US had one of the most robust and successful abolitionist movements at the time of its founding. It was just too early to completely resolve the issue. They were racist and thought Black people less than a full person, but the constitution calls them persons not slaves or property. The stripping of their humanity was unconstitutional and all the white guys just agreed to turn a blind eye to it as long as they could. There's no way you can read the constitution and find justification for enslaving people. Otherwise there would have been many more slaves of a variety of ethnicities. There's a reason other groups while working conditions were not much better than slavery they weren't property and had rights. Because the stripping of their humanity was as unconstitutional as it was to do to black people but none of the white men in power gave a shit.
Well there is a way to read it as legalizing slavery because the southern states signed it. And that is how it was enforced for a nearly a century. You can say the language implies that black people are full citizens and cannot be deprived of civil liberties. And it does. But that is not how the people who wrote it saw it or enforced it.
|
On June 28 2018 07:13 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2018 07:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2018 07:02 xDaunt wrote:On June 28 2018 06:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2018 06:43 xDaunt wrote:On June 28 2018 06:17 GreenHorizons wrote:
For you, sure. But that's why her turnout numbers sucked. Did you want to get back to me on the slavery thing? You can do it in PM but I'm genuinely curious under what interpretation you think slavery was constitutional. Hillary's turnout numbers sucked because she was a horrible, lifeless candidate. No one has ever liked Hillary. She has always polled terribly. She was as artificial a politician as there ever has been. Policy was really quite besides the point when it came to her losing. As for slavery and the Constitution, I'm not sure what you're looking for. At the time of ratification, 1) the Constitution did not prohibit slavery, 2) the Constitution expressly contemplated the existence of slavery, and 3) the Constitution reserved issues not expressly addressed in the Constitution to the states. It's really that simple. I don't know any particularly reputable legal argument that slavery was unconstitutional before the passage of the 13th Amendment. That's why the 13th Amendment was necessary. Perhaps for you and other republicans, but for the left policy was more important than the tabloid crap Republicans tended to focus on. On slavery. Slavery isn't in the constitution at all. The constitution considered the importing of people, but not slaves. According to the constitution everyone here was a person. The treatment of Black people was irrefutably unconstitutional. I swear you brought this up a while ago, so I don't know how you wouldn't be aware of an argument you presented to me. What do you mean slavery is not in the Constitution? Surely you have heard of the 3/5 clause, right? What I have argued previously is that the founders get an unduly bad rap for slavery given that they did quite a bit to curtail slavery and limit its influence in the US at the founding and in the years thereafter. For example, radical SJW types like to point at the 3/5 clause as evidence that the founders were a bunch of racists, saying "SEE! They didn't even consider black people to count as whole people!" The point that these folks are missing is that the 3/5 clause was put in expressly to limit the political power of the slave states. The simple reality is that the US probably would not have gained and retained independence and cohesion if the country chose to eliminate slavery at the time of the founding. It simply was not a realistic expectation. But if you look at what actually happened back then, the US had one of the most robust and successful abolitionist movements at the time of its founding. It was just too early to completely resolve the issue. They were racist and thought Black people less than a full person, but the constitution calls them persons not slaves or property. The stripping of their humanity was unconstitutional and all the white guys just agreed to turn a blind eye to it as long as they could. There's no way you can read the constitution and find justification for enslaving people. Otherwise there would have been many more slaves of a variety of ethnicities. There's a reason other groups while working conditions were not much better than slavery they weren't property and had rights. Because the stripping of their humanity was as unconstitutional as it was to do to black people but none of the white men in power gave a shit. Well there is a way to read it as legalizing slavery because the southern states signed it. And that is how it was enforced for a nearly a century. You can say the language implies that black people are full citizens and cannot be deprived of civil liberties. And it does. But that is not how the people who wrote it saw it or enforced it.
That was my original point. Ignoring the constitution is how this country started. SCOTUS, congress, and the executive oversaw the national disregard of the founding document (#civility).
To pretend they will save us now disregards a basic understanding of US history.
|
On June 28 2018 07:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2018 06:48 Plansix wrote:On June 28 2018 06:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 28 2018 06:27 Plansix wrote:On June 28 2018 06:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Hopefully, the next Democratic nominee will be able to overcome this in-fighting. If the upset victory in NYC shows us anything, the establishment democrats can lose with grace. At the end of the day, they want to win too. As long as they can put their guns away after the November, the progressives will do fine in congress. I hope so, although "doing fine" in Congress doesn't really mean much unless there's a Democratic majority. I wouldn't take the rants of some folks online as evidence of some tea party style division in the party. It isn't AS BAD as the Republicans and there is a lot of common ground. But we will have to wait until after November to see what the leadership looks. That is really going to set the tone in congress. Lets all pray it isn't Pelosi. I agree, although my metric for gauging how bad the in-fighting is is whether or not we start to take back branches of government.
Having candidates in every district helps. Even if they are going to lose. Giving up on districts was one of the dumber plan the Democrats hatched in the last 20 years. That and purity tests. But the massive number of women running for office will be a huge boon for them. The one thing that Trump did was allow women to completely take the gloves off in politics. They can get as pissed off and aggressive at the men now.
|
On June 28 2018 07:17 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2018 07:13 Plansix wrote:On June 28 2018 07:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2018 07:02 xDaunt wrote:On June 28 2018 06:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2018 06:43 xDaunt wrote:On June 28 2018 06:17 GreenHorizons wrote:
For you, sure. But that's why her turnout numbers sucked. Did you want to get back to me on the slavery thing? You can do it in PM but I'm genuinely curious under what interpretation you think slavery was constitutional. Hillary's turnout numbers sucked because she was a horrible, lifeless candidate. No one has ever liked Hillary. She has always polled terribly. She was as artificial a politician as there ever has been. Policy was really quite besides the point when it came to her losing. As for slavery and the Constitution, I'm not sure what you're looking for. At the time of ratification, 1) the Constitution did not prohibit slavery, 2) the Constitution expressly contemplated the existence of slavery, and 3) the Constitution reserved issues not expressly addressed in the Constitution to the states. It's really that simple. I don't know any particularly reputable legal argument that slavery was unconstitutional before the passage of the 13th Amendment. That's why the 13th Amendment was necessary. Perhaps for you and other republicans, but for the left policy was more important than the tabloid crap Republicans tended to focus on. On slavery. Slavery isn't in the constitution at all. The constitution considered the importing of people, but not slaves. According to the constitution everyone here was a person. The treatment of Black people was irrefutably unconstitutional. I swear you brought this up a while ago, so I don't know how you wouldn't be aware of an argument you presented to me. What do you mean slavery is not in the Constitution? Surely you have heard of the 3/5 clause, right? What I have argued previously is that the founders get an unduly bad rap for slavery given that they did quite a bit to curtail slavery and limit its influence in the US at the founding and in the years thereafter. For example, radical SJW types like to point at the 3/5 clause as evidence that the founders were a bunch of racists, saying "SEE! They didn't even consider black people to count as whole people!" The point that these folks are missing is that the 3/5 clause was put in expressly to limit the political power of the slave states. The simple reality is that the US probably would not have gained and retained independence and cohesion if the country chose to eliminate slavery at the time of the founding. It simply was not a realistic expectation. But if you look at what actually happened back then, the US had one of the most robust and successful abolitionist movements at the time of its founding. It was just too early to completely resolve the issue. They were racist and thought Black people less than a full person, but the constitution calls them persons not slaves or property. The stripping of their humanity was unconstitutional and all the white guys just agreed to turn a blind eye to it as long as they could. There's no way you can read the constitution and find justification for enslaving people. Otherwise there would have been many more slaves of a variety of ethnicities. There's a reason other groups while working conditions were not much better than slavery they weren't property and had rights. Because the stripping of their humanity was as unconstitutional as it was to do to black people but none of the white men in power gave a shit. Well there is a way to read it as legalizing slavery because the southern states signed it. And that is how it was enforced for a nearly a century. You can say the language implies that black people are full citizens and cannot be deprived of civil liberties. And it does. But that is not how the people who wrote it saw it or enforced it. That was my original point. Ignoring the constitution is how this country started. SCOTUS, congress, and the executive oversaw the national disregard of the founding document. To pretend they will save us now disregards a basic understanding of US history.
My guy, they wrote it together and agreed on the terms and what they meant When you say ignoring, you mean ignoring your modern day interpretation of the language written into the Constitution. The bill of rights was added after directly after and it is the only part of the people's document that addresses individual rights. And article 1, section 9 directly addresses the import of slaves and says congress cannot prohibit it.
SECTION 9
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
You don't import people with rights and you don't tax them upon delivery. Slavery was 100% legal under the Constitution.
|
On June 28 2018 07:25 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2018 07:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2018 07:13 Plansix wrote:On June 28 2018 07:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2018 07:02 xDaunt wrote:On June 28 2018 06:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2018 06:43 xDaunt wrote:On June 28 2018 06:17 GreenHorizons wrote:
For you, sure. But that's why her turnout numbers sucked. Did you want to get back to me on the slavery thing? You can do it in PM but I'm genuinely curious under what interpretation you think slavery was constitutional. Hillary's turnout numbers sucked because she was a horrible, lifeless candidate. No one has ever liked Hillary. She has always polled terribly. She was as artificial a politician as there ever has been. Policy was really quite besides the point when it came to her losing. As for slavery and the Constitution, I'm not sure what you're looking for. At the time of ratification, 1) the Constitution did not prohibit slavery, 2) the Constitution expressly contemplated the existence of slavery, and 3) the Constitution reserved issues not expressly addressed in the Constitution to the states. It's really that simple. I don't know any particularly reputable legal argument that slavery was unconstitutional before the passage of the 13th Amendment. That's why the 13th Amendment was necessary. Perhaps for you and other republicans, but for the left policy was more important than the tabloid crap Republicans tended to focus on. On slavery. Slavery isn't in the constitution at all. The constitution considered the importing of people, but not slaves. According to the constitution everyone here was a person. The treatment of Black people was irrefutably unconstitutional. I swear you brought this up a while ago, so I don't know how you wouldn't be aware of an argument you presented to me. What do you mean slavery is not in the Constitution? Surely you have heard of the 3/5 clause, right? What I have argued previously is that the founders get an unduly bad rap for slavery given that they did quite a bit to curtail slavery and limit its influence in the US at the founding and in the years thereafter. For example, radical SJW types like to point at the 3/5 clause as evidence that the founders were a bunch of racists, saying "SEE! They didn't even consider black people to count as whole people!" The point that these folks are missing is that the 3/5 clause was put in expressly to limit the political power of the slave states. The simple reality is that the US probably would not have gained and retained independence and cohesion if the country chose to eliminate slavery at the time of the founding. It simply was not a realistic expectation. But if you look at what actually happened back then, the US had one of the most robust and successful abolitionist movements at the time of its founding. It was just too early to completely resolve the issue. They were racist and thought Black people less than a full person, but the constitution calls them persons not slaves or property. The stripping of their humanity was unconstitutional and all the white guys just agreed to turn a blind eye to it as long as they could. There's no way you can read the constitution and find justification for enslaving people. Otherwise there would have been many more slaves of a variety of ethnicities. There's a reason other groups while working conditions were not much better than slavery they weren't property and had rights. Because the stripping of their humanity was as unconstitutional as it was to do to black people but none of the white men in power gave a shit. Well there is a way to read it as legalizing slavery because the southern states signed it. And that is how it was enforced for a nearly a century. You can say the language implies that black people are full citizens and cannot be deprived of civil liberties. And it does. But that is not how the people who wrote it saw it or enforced it. That was my original point. Ignoring the constitution is how this country started. SCOTUS, congress, and the executive oversaw the national disregard of the founding document. To pretend they will save us now disregards a basic understanding of US history. My guy, they wrote it together and agreed on the terms and what they meant When you say ignoring, you mean ignoring your modern day interpretation of the language written into the Constitution. The bill of rights was added after directly after and it is the only part of the people's document that addresses individual rights. And article 1, section 9 directly addresses the import of slaves and says congress cannot prohibit it. Show nested quote +SECTION 9
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person. You don't import people with rights and you don't tax them upon delivery. Slavery was 100% legal under the Constitution.
No, not for a textualist. Which you may remember is especially popular on the right. The agreement was that slavery would be unconstitutional, but there would be no way to enforce a penalty.
Not because we didn't have a system capable of such by way of mechanism, but by way of not having enough white guys that thought those words applied to Black people, despite there being no textual/constitutional/moral justification for such a position.
I'm not sure you understand my point as you seem to be making it rather than refuting it and then just adding the contrarian line that "it was constitutional because they said it was, ignore the text of the document in question"
|
On June 28 2018 06:57 ticklishmusic wrote:
democrats, progressives, whatever got complacent. xdaunt posted a article about conservatives and how, essentially, they always lost - the other side of that is the other side won. the other side got complacent in various ways - we started dividing ourselves, instilling purity tests, all the while ceding control of state level governments. and now we are here.
I don't understand how that works. Going back to 1980s, the Presidency runs like this
R (Reagan)
R (H. W. Bush)
D (Bill Clinton)
R (Dubya)
D (Obama)
R (A complete arsehole)
Two Democrat Presidents in nearly FORTY YEARS and this is 'The Republicans always lost'? And one of those Democratic Presidents saw a near-total Republican take over of both branches of government that went on to kneecap him at every turn.
I get the feeling Republicans won't ever feel like winners until it's actually illegal for anyone to vote that isn't a Republican.
|
On June 28 2018 07:33 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2018 06:57 ticklishmusic wrote:
democrats, progressives, whatever got complacent. xdaunt posted a article about conservatives and how, essentially, they always lost - the other side of that is the other side won. the other side got complacent in various ways - we started dividing ourselves, instilling purity tests, all the while ceding control of state level governments. and now we are here. I don't understand how that works. Going back to 1980s, the Presidency runs like this R (Reagan) R (H. W. Bush) D (Bill Clinton) R (Dubya) D (Obama) R (A complete arsehole) Two Democrat Presidents in nearly FORTY YEARS and this is 'The Republicans always lost'?
i suggest you take a look at the bit xdaunt posted which i referred to.
|
On June 28 2018 06:57 ticklishmusic wrote:
democrats, progressives, whatever got complacent. xdaunt posted a article about conservatives and how, essentially, they always lost - the other side of that is the other side won. the other side got complacent in various ways - we started dividing ourselves, instilling purity tests, all the while ceding control of state level governments. and now we are here.
this statement seems odd to me; because iirc the thing is, the conversatives iddn't always lose; that's just a fiction they created in order to get votes.
I'm not sure the issue is complacency so much as unwillingness to be glaringly unethical in order to win.
|
On June 28 2018 07:35 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2018 07:33 iamthedave wrote:On June 28 2018 06:57 ticklishmusic wrote:
democrats, progressives, whatever got complacent. xdaunt posted a article about conservatives and how, essentially, they always lost - the other side of that is the other side won. the other side got complacent in various ways - we started dividing ourselves, instilling purity tests, all the while ceding control of state level governments. and now we are here. I don't understand how that works. Going back to 1980s, the Presidency runs like this R (Reagan) R (H. W. Bush) D (Bill Clinton) R (Dubya) D (Obama) R (A complete arsehole) Two Democrat Presidents in nearly FORTY YEARS and this is 'The Republicans always lost'? i suggest you take a look at the bit xdaunt posted which i referred to.
I suggest you provide a link to said bit if you want me to look at it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
