|
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 06:58 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2018 06:32 zlefin wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
I don't find it commendable at all, and do not think it can qualify as such; since he does it for his own aggrandizement rather than for the purpose of upholding a promise or because they're actually decent ideas.
I think in most other people's cases; they do keep working on it; but because they work reasonably, most of the actual work is in the background and thus less visible as you say. They're also unwilling to damage the republic to get their stuff done like trump is.
I'm also sure there's a bunch of promises he made that he's not upholding at all.
|
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'? 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.
Don’t focus on the presidency so much. It is one of three part of our government and the least likely to make substantive change on its own. Republicans didn’t control the House for +40 years. And that is where all legislation that matters begins. Democrats lost control I. the 1990s and never got a foothold again until 2006. They lost it again in 2010 to the same shit they lost to in the 1990s.
|
On June 28 2018 07:33 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2018 07:25 Plansix wrote: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. 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"
You are completely off base here. The textualist interpretation of the constitution does not support your position. More to the point, there is no serious support for your position.
|
On June 28 2018 07:48 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2018 07:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2018 07:25 Plansix wrote: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. 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" You are completely off base here. The textualist interpretation of the constitution does not support your position. More to the point, there is no serious support for your position.
Surely there is and was in the abolitionist movement.
The very eloquent lecturer at the City Hall doubtless felt some embarrassment from the fact that he had literally to give the Constitution a pro-slavery interpretation; because upon its face it of itself conveys no such meaning, but a very opposite meaning. He thus sums up what he calls the slaveholding provisions of the Constitution. .
www.blackpast.org
and here
We may sum up Spooner's analysis of these three clauses as follows: even if we assume that the framers or ratifiers of the Constitution intended to reference slavery in these three passages, when the framers of the Constitution chose to speak euphemistically rather than making their intentions explicit, they simply failed whether by intention or inadvertence-to effectively incorporate an authorization for slavery into the Constitution. These sections cannot, therefore, prevent other portions of the Constitution such as that. providing for the writ of habeas corpus from being interpreted to render slavery unconstitutional. Even had everyone in the founding generation "known" that certain clauses were "intended" to sanction slavery, the generally accepted meaning of the language chosen to carry out their intentions fell short of the mark. In this respect, Spooner's version of "original meaning" runs contrary to those modem originalists who base interpretation on original intent. It views the framers as teachers who well-understood the scheme
scholarship.law.georgetown.edu
|
On June 28 2018 07:40 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2018 07:35 ticklishmusic wrote: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.
its literally like 2 pages ago, not hard to find. but tl;dr regardless of held offices conservatives were "losing" on abortion, gay rights, healthcare, etc. etc. etc. and generally liberals steadily marched ahead with their agenda in a fashion that began to seem inevitable until it wasn't
|
On June 28 2018 07:57 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2018 07:48 xDaunt wrote:On June 28 2018 07:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2018 07:25 Plansix wrote: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:
[quote]
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. 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" You are completely off base here. The textualist interpretation of the constitution does not support your position. More to the point, there is no serious support for your position. Surely there is and was in the abolitionist movement. Show nested quote +The very eloquent lecturer at the City Hall doubtless felt some embarrassment from the fact that he had literally to give the Constitution a pro-slavery interpretation; because upon its face it of itself conveys no such meaning, but a very opposite meaning. He thus sums up what he calls the slaveholding provisions of the Constitution. . www.blackpast.organd here Show nested quote +We may sum up Spooner's analysis of these three clauses as follows: even if we assume that the framers or ratifiers of the Constitution intended to reference slavery in these three passages, when the framers of the Constitution chose to speak euphemistically rather than making their intentions explicit, they simply failed whether by intention or inadvertence-to effectively incorporate an authorization for slavery into the Constitution. These sections cannot, therefore, prevent other portions of the Constitution such as that. providing for the writ of habeas corpus from being interpreted to render slavery unconstitutional. Even had everyone in the founding generation "known" that certain clauses were "intended" to sanction slavery, the generally accepted meaning of the language chosen to carry out their intentions fell short of the mark. In this respect, Spooner's version of "original meaning" runs contrary to those modem originalists who base interpretation on original intent. It views the framers as teachers who well-understood the scheme scholarship.law.georgetown.edu
You're missing the critical point. The very fact that the Constitution does not expressly prohibit slavery necessarily means that slavery was left to the states. This is civics 101 stuff.
EDIT: And citing to Spooner is ridiculous. His position was a radical outlier.
|
On June 28 2018 08:03 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2018 07:40 iamthedave wrote:On June 28 2018 07:35 ticklishmusic wrote: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. its literally like 2 pages ago, not hard to find. but tl;dr regardless of held offices conservatives were "losing" on abortion, gay rights, healthcare, etc. etc. etc. and generally liberals steadily marched ahead with their agenda in a fashion that began to seem inevitable until it wasn't
Was this that flight 93 nonsense? or is it a different one you're referring to? I don't track xdaunts posting so I can't tell which articles he used just by description.
and at any rate, it's still a selective reading wherein they ignore the cases they won on focus on the places they lost (or even only certain subparts of them) in order to create a false narrative of victimization to justify their unethical actions.
|
Maybe McConnell will wait until 2021 to confirm a new Supreme Court justice on the ground that the presidential campaign season really isn't that far off, and in fact Trump has been going on campaign rallies.
|
United States43232 Posts
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.
If I was founding a state and people told me the only way we could make it work is if we enshrined the institution of slavery I’d probably go off the idea of founding the state. America isn’t so great that making it excuses slavery.
|
On June 28 2018 08:32 KwarK 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. If I was founding a state and people told me the only way we could make it work is if we enshrined the institution of slavery I’d probably go off the idea of founding the state. America isn’t so great that making it excuses slavery.
At the time they needed to create a government that could collect taxes and pay all the people who fought in the war before they revolted and plunged the county into chaos. That meant dealing with the colonies that based their economies on slaves.
|
On June 28 2018 08:32 KwarK 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. If I was founding a state and people told me the only way we could make it work is if we enshrined the institution of slavery I’d probably go off the idea of founding the state. America isn’t so great that making it excuses slavery.
1) Yeah, I bet it's pretty easy for you say this now with your 21st century sensibilities and zero understanding of what the colonists were facing at the time or the circumstances globally.
2) Slavery was still a global institution at the time of the founding. Let's not pretend that there's anything unique about America's founding in this regard.
3) Great Britain still utilized slavery at the time of American independence. Hell, Great Britain was probably the greatest enabler of the slave trade, particularly in the New World.
|
United States24741 Posts
On June 28 2018 08:52 xDaunt wrote:
1) Yeah, I bet it's pretty easy for you say this now with your 21st century sensibilities and zero understanding of what the colonists were facing at the time or the circumstances globally.
A 2008 poll found that 39% of people just like us said that slavery was good. We are not out of the woods yet.
|
Never underestimate capitalism’s ability to rebrand things previous considered terrible and sell them to the public. I expect generational debt to make a push for a comeback through student loans any day now.
|
From the journal of politics courtesy of 538, a survey of what the two parties look like in our heads:
Republicans think 36% of Democrats are atheist/agnostic. In reality, 9%.
Republicans think 46% of Democrats are black. In reality, 24%.
Republicans think 38% of Democrats are LGB. In reality, 6%.
Democrats think 44% of Republicans are 65 and older. In reality, 21%.
Democrats think 44% of Republicans are Evangelicals. In reality, 34%.
Democrats think 44% of Republicans earn $250,000 or more. In reality, 2% do.
538
More discussions and the link (thankfully free) to the journal article are available at 538. Stereotypes are pretty far off to a little off. Some of them are pretty funny.
|
United States43232 Posts
On June 28 2018 08:52 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2018 08:32 KwarK 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. If I was founding a state and people told me the only way we could make it work is if we enshrined the institution of slavery I’d probably go off the idea of founding the state. America isn’t so great that making it excuses slavery. 1) Yeah, I bet it's pretty easy for you say this now with your 21st century sensibilities and zero understanding of what the colonists were facing at the time or the circumstances globally. 2) Slavery was still a global institution at the time of the founding. Let's not pretend that there's anything unique about America's founding in this regard. 3) Great Britain still utilized slavery at the time of American independence. Hell, Great Britain was probably the greatest enabler of the slave trade, particularly in the New World.
There were abolitionists at the time. The idea that you shouldn't own other people isn't an especially new one. It's absurd to argue that America was founded in some time before people knew slavery was wrong. They knew it was wrong, they just also knew that it benefited them personally to engage in it. Abolitionists at the time were telling them it was wrong. If they'd bothered asking any of their slaves the slaves could have told them that slavery wasn't fair. If they were still struggling they had this book about a Jewish guy that explained that basically you should treat other people how you'd like to be treated.
I make no excuses for Great Britain, not sure why you think I would. The British involvement in the slave trade was wrong, as was the American involvement, and two wrongs don't make a right.
My point stands.
|
On June 28 2018 09:13 Danglars wrote:From the journal of politics courtesy of 538, a survey of what the two parties look like in our heads: Show nested quote +
Republicans think 36% of Democrats are atheist/agnostic. In reality, 9%.
Republicans think 46% of Democrats are black. In reality, 24%.
Republicans think 38% of Democrats are LGB. In reality, 6%.
Democrats think 44% of Republicans are 65 and older. In reality, 21%.
Democrats think 44% of Republicans are Evangelicals. In reality, 34%.
Democrats think 44% of Republicans earn $250,000 or more. In reality, 2% do.
538More discussions and the link (thankfully free) to the journal article are available at 538. Stereotypes are pretty far off to a little off. Some of them are pretty funny.
Some of those are indeed hilarious! 38% of Democrats are gay? 44% of Republicans are in the top ~5% of earners?
|
On June 28 2018 09:13 Danglars wrote:From the journal of politics courtesy of 538, a survey of what the two parties look like in our heads: Show nested quote +
Republicans think 36% of Democrats are atheist/agnostic. In reality, 9%.
Republicans think 46% of Democrats are black. In reality, 24%.
Republicans think 38% of Democrats are LGB. In reality, 6%.
Democrats think 44% of Republicans are 65 and older. In reality, 21%.
Democrats think 44% of Republicans are Evangelicals. In reality, 34%.
Democrats think 44% of Republicans earn $250,000 or more. In reality, 2% do.
538More discussions and the link (thankfully free) to the journal article are available at 538. Stereotypes are pretty far off to a little off. Some of them are pretty funny.
Show's just how skewed each side is viewing each other and creating a false image of what the other looks like, probably perpetuated from both popular and news media and just plain ignorance and stereotypes. Though the Dems assuming that 44% of Republicans make $250,000+ is just insane, as is the Republicans making guesses on the black and LGB proportion of the Democrats.
|
On June 28 2018 09:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2018 09:13 Danglars wrote:From the journal of politics courtesy of 538, a survey of what the two parties look like in our heads:
Republicans think 36% of Democrats are atheist/agnostic. In reality, 9%.
Republicans think 46% of Democrats are black. In reality, 24%.
Republicans think 38% of Democrats are LGB. In reality, 6%.
Democrats think 44% of Republicans are 65 and older. In reality, 21%.
Democrats think 44% of Republicans are Evangelicals. In reality, 34%.
Democrats think 44% of Republicans earn $250,000 or more. In reality, 2% do.
538More discussions and the link (thankfully free) to the journal article are available at 538. Stereotypes are pretty far off to a little off. Some of them are pretty funny. Some of those are indeed hilarious! 38% of Democrats are gay? 44% of Republicans are in the top ~5% of earners?
The gay one is my favorite because the logical extension of that is all the deep blue sections of the country with banging economies have to have cloning facilities or something. Or gay people just figured out how to get each other preggers.
But yeah, I blame the broadcast media for this one. They have had zero interest displaying anything but cartoon cut outs of the political parties.
|
On June 28 2018 09:32 PhoenixVoid wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2018 09:13 Danglars wrote:From the journal of politics courtesy of 538, a survey of what the two parties look like in our heads:
Republicans think 36% of Democrats are atheist/agnostic. In reality, 9%.
Republicans think 46% of Democrats are black. In reality, 24%.
Republicans think 38% of Democrats are LGB. In reality, 6%.
Democrats think 44% of Republicans are 65 and older. In reality, 21%.
Democrats think 44% of Republicans are Evangelicals. In reality, 34%.
Democrats think 44% of Republicans earn $250,000 or more. In reality, 2% do.
538More discussions and the link (thankfully free) to the journal article are available at 538. Stereotypes are pretty far off to a little off. Some of them are pretty funny. Show's just how skewed each side is viewing each other and creating a false image of what the other looks like, probably perpetuated from both popular and news media and just plain ignorance and stereotypes. Though the Dems assuming that 44% of Republicans make $250,000+ is just insane, as is the Republicans making guesses on the black and LGB proportion of the Democrats.
some of it is just people being notoriously bad at making estimates. iirc there's a bunch of known errors people make when you ask them to estimate anything. and it's been amply documented that people are uninformed about facts in general.
ofc it gets worse if they're not given any guidelines/guidance and/or have to/choose to come up with the estimates fairly fast. like with a phone poll, where people aren't going to spend that long thinking on each question.
|
Aside from the hilarious out of touch numbers (with things like gays, earnings and retirees), the real numbers do show a fairly massive skewing of several voting demographics.
As far as I can tell, atheists, union workers and 250k+ earners don't seem overwhelmingly in one camp or the other. The rest are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
