The Political Discussion Thread

[Gatefan1976]

yes of course, in counting for how many representatives a state would have, slaves were counted at 3/5ths. and that was for every state (i believe) where slavery was legal, even if grandfathered-like Delaware and New Jersey

So, why did you say it wasn't?
Why did you disparage education and say they teach "it's all about slavery"?

the EC is based on the amount of representatives a state has plus 2 for the senators

Right, but representation is based on population of "voting people", not population.

but that has not been the case for about what? 150 yrs now?

Yes, it still is, hate to burst your bubble.

the EC number of electors for each state is subject to change every 10 years when the federal census is tallied. the amount of people in a state determines how many representatives there are for that state, giving the number of electors in the EC

Correct.

it is a system that does need to be changed

yes, it does. Not because it's bad, or wrong, but because it is not TODAY what it was envisaged to be when it was made.
The EC members were meant to be INDEPENDANT of political party, now they are a rubber stamp for either.
They were MEANT to be the will of the PEOPLE, not the representatives of political parties.
Now, all the EC is, is a rubber stamp with veto powers based on party.

instead of voting for a person or party, we vote for a written set of social political characteristics of a candidate leaving out age, sex and ethnicity.

I can deal with that, it's why I have voted for all major parties here.

so instead of having say 3 ppl on a ballot-dem, gop and libertarian (or however many) instead of party name and candidate name, there would be a narrative written there that states the candidates platform and political goals-- no background on qualifications/experience either--past performance is all too often NOT and indicator of future performance

Besides the ad for superannuation, I agree.

and it could not include campaign buzz words or phrases like 'make america great again'

Like that as well, just not gonna happen.

of course, this would pre suppose that every voter can read and then comprehend and process the info given... not a bad thing

Not bad if you make sure they can.

[Chaka-Z0]

But they were not given the vote.
The EC -could- work, but it is not what the FF wanted.

Absolutely, which is why I pointed out the irony in Annoyed invoking the FF: its original intent was to prevent exactly this type of situation.

My angle was more neutral observer. The FF surely figured slavery would eventually be abolished so they had to word the Constitution carefully, to have it work both ways (whichever side wins).

I can forgive the mistreatment of blacks and women as a product of the time, but we don't live in that time anymore, do we?

Forgive not forget

[Chaka-Z0]

the EC is based on the amount of representatives a state has plus 2 for the senators

but that has not been the case for about what? 150 yrs now?

the EC number of electors for each state is subject to change every 10 years when the federal census is tallied. the amount of people in a state determines how many representatives there are for that state, giving the number of electors in the EC

it is a system that does need to be changed

Yes, this system is unsustainable with the exponentially growing demographics of the 21st century, simple as bacon.

----------------------------------------------------
i say we vote into a algorithm

Isn't that the Australian way?

[magi877]

So, why did you say it wasn't?
Why did you disparage education and say they teach "it's all about slavery"?


Right, but representation is based on population of "voting people", not population.

go to the url i provided and you can see the results of a scientific survey that was released a few days ago. the majority of ppl surveyed gave the "correct (per the way the surveyors frame the responses and the only right answer is 'slavery only was the cause')

american kids are taught that the civil war was fought for the slaves. that slavery was the only issue. the fact is, that even if slavery had already been lade illegal and no longer existed at all, there was much anger between the north and the south over economics and other issues--such as the growing power of the federal govt attempting to over write a state's prerogative

yet another article on how education systems around the country are forced to comply with the myth that slavery was the main cause--they cannot/do not even teach that the slavery issue was not about ending slavery, but about preventing its spread to the american west:

notice how the text belittles the notion--the fact- that there were other reasons. it states "..no serious historian would quibble with..."

texas--- Last week, the Texas Board of Education voted to make a change to the state’s social studies standards that no serious historian would quibble with, but is, nevertheless, controversial in the Lone Star State: to teach that slavery was the central issue of the American Civil War, and not, as previous standards had dictated, a cause eclipsed by states’ rights and sectionalism. Camille Phillips at NPR reports the change is one of several to the curriculum that will be implemented in the 2019-2020 school year.
Read more: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart...hALUGvq9bJ5.99

another education journal article that states that the 'other reasons for civil war' taught in some places need to be 'phased out' so that children are taught it was all about slavery

https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2...s-schools.html

[Gatefan1976]

yes, Lincoln had the Emancipation Proclamation written as a strategic device. The Emancipation Proclamation granted freedom to the slaves in the Confederate States if they did not return to the Union by the beginning of 1863.Which gave them one day to comply since it was dated 1 january 1863.

Of course it was strategic. I don't hold Lincoln up us an emancipator of the slave class, just someone who used them better than most.

And of course it is not taught to children or even college students in the US that freedom would only come to the slaves if the Union won the war.

That's sorta obvious. You can't deliver what you have no power to deliver.

hardly the actions of a President who engaged in civil war to end slavery as his chief goal

He wanted to be president of the ENTIRE USA, Slavery was just an expedient motivator. the US did not care about slavery then, it does not care about it now.

as i said, it had no effect on the status of slaves in the slave state loyal to the union or slave territories loyal to the union. and disregarded completely slaves held in state where slavery was illegal, but a person was still a slave due to 'grandfather clauses' or the place of origin of their slave status (bought in virginia, owner moved to New York.) in fact, Lincoln left this question up to those northern states and would not issues any federal law or proclamation decreeing these person to be freed.

So, once more, he USED them.

I believe --i am not going to look it up-- that only a few states took initiative to actively free these one off and grandfathered slaves of that state's own initiative.

Probably, it would not surprise me.

and any slaves "captured " in federal conquered confederate states' territory--even if those slaves came to union troops on their own--were officially given the status of 'contraband' and treated as any item of "war material" captured from the south.

Yes, but not the escaped or freed slaves.

this only applied to slaves whose former labor aided to the war efforts of the south--so yeah, that covered pretty much everything except house slaves

It covers those who continued working for the south, in any capacity.. I don't think that was right, but it is done now.

and yes, it took 2 years. why? one reason is that the union-wanting to be as conciliatory as possible with the south- gave the southern states the task of outlawing slavery at t he state level! (a action that furthered the cause of 'state's rights!)

Were they wrong?

this was supposedly required as a condition, out of many- for re entry into the union as a political entity

Was it wrong?

the federal govt finally decided to do an constitutional amendment after southern legislatures dragged their feet and made slavery illegal but with conditions that would have ensured basically no change for slaves lives

Was their dragging of feet a good thing, or a bad thing?
Should states have the right to determine weather a PERSON has value?

[magi877]

Right, but representation is based on population of "voting people", not population.

Yes, it still is, hate to burst your bubble.

actually it is total population

here is the formula used--NOTICE "P" is equal to 'a states total population' not 'voting population. the numbers in the EC are based on this

Equal Proportions Method
P - represents a state's total population

n - represents the number of seats a state would have if it gained a seat (because all states automatically received one seat the next seat gained is "seat two," and the next "seat three," and the next "seat four," and so on.)

The multiplier equals:
1 divided by the square root of n(n-1)
[which is called the reciprocal of the geometric mean]. Computing these values is quite easy using a PC and a good spreadsheet package.

Thus the formula for calculating the multiplier for the second seat is:
1 divided by the square root of 2(2-1)
or 1/1.414213562 or 0.70710678

the multiplier for the third seat is:
1 divided by the square root of 3(3-1)
1/2.449489743 or 0.40824829

the multiplier for the fourth seat is:
1 divided by the square root of 4(4-1)
1/3.464101615 or 0.288675134

Continue until an appropriate number of multipliers have been calculated.

Once the "multipliers" have been calculated, the next step is to multiply this figure by the population total for each of the 50 states (the District of Columbia is not included in these calculations).
https://history.house.gov/Institutio...Apportionment/

[magi877]

[QUOTE=Gatefan1976;14670651
Yes, but not the escaped or freed slaves.

It covers those who continued working for the south, in any capacity.. I don't think that was right, but it is done now.


Were they wrong?

Was it wrong?


Was their dragging of feet a good thing, or a bad thing?
Should states have the right to determine weather a PERSON has value?[/QUOTE]

at the time of the emancipation, there were no 'freed slaves'. any slave in territory the union army held in a confederate state, who was either captured or who voluntarily came to union troops--as nearly all slaves who left their plantations had no means to feed or shelter themselves and sought out union soldiers to do so for them-- were held in near prisoner status as 'contraband'

to add insult to their status, most contraband slaves ended up in places called "contraband camps" that were often near union army positions.Many contraband camps were actually former slave pens, meaning they ended up being kept virtual prisoners back in the same cells that had previously held them.

the only way to get any respite from the camps were for men to volunteer for military labor units (at first most blacks were trusted with rifles) or to take themselves and their families back to a plantation in union hands to go to work to produce food for the union army. usually for no pay and only 'in kind' payments of food and clothing given

so, yes, the union absolutely used the slaves a type of war material. a status that recognized them more as things rather then people

and of course it was wrong--is that a serious question? is there any doubt in your mind about this whole period of us history as having many wrongs in it?

[magi877]

[QUOTE=Gatefan1976;14670651

It covers those who continued working for the south, in any capacity.. I don't think that was right, but it is done now.


[/QUOTE]

what do you mean 'it is done now?" cited proof/evidence of this please, not your written narrative

[magi877]

so you all claim your queen has no political power/authority

what would have happened if she said 'no' to old Boris?

Was his going to her for her approval to suspend parliament required by law? If yes, that indicates political power for the queen

these are questions, not statements of fact

a canadian article states this:

What does the Queen have to do with it?
It is ultimately up to the Queen to prorogue parliament.

The suspension of Parliament typically happens a few days before the annual Queen’s Speech.

The Queen’s Speech happens when a new government lays out its plans for the coming year, including priorities and legislation it will seek to pass. The reading marks the beginning of a new parliamentary session.
While she does, in theory, have the power to block laws or pick a new government, it is customary for the monarch to stay out of politics.

Queen Elizabeth II, in particular, has been known for her cautiousness in politics and does not intervene in political matters.

https://globalnews.ca/news/5824920/b...meaning-queen/

to me, this seems to be saying that Boris could not have done this without the Queen, again,an indication of Royal political authority. the article states she has the theoretical power to block laws and pick governments, but that her not doing so in her reign seems to me to be more of it being her choice to stay out of politics and not law. keeping her from doing so.

so what is this 'theory' exactly?

another question--article states he can pick a govt, so in theory, does this mean she could ask the Johnson govt to step down and have the 'shadow govt/cabinet' of Corbin's to accede to legal leadership of the govt?

[Gatefan1976]

Learn something.
The quote function would be a good start.

[magi877]

Learn something.
The quote function would be a good start.

nah, this vbulletin is way too old,why should i regress?

and i did just use a quote function

[Gatefan1976]

nah, this vbulletin is way too old,why should i regress?

So go back to your master.

and i did just use a quote function

Yay for you.

[Annoyed]

yes of course, in counting for how many representatives a state would have, slaves were counted at 3/5ths. and that was for every state (i believe) where slavery was legal, even if grandfathered-like Delaware and New Jersey

the EC is based on the amount of representatives a state has plus 2 for the senators

but that has not been the case for about what? 150 yrs now?

the EC number of electors for each state is subject to change every 10 years when the federal census is tallied. the amount of people in a state determines how many representatives there are for that state, giving the number of electors in the EC

it is a system that does need to be changed

And slavery has absolutely nothing to do with it today. Myself, I don't think it needs to be changed, aside from requiring the electors to vote for the candidate they have pledged to vote for.

Also, bringing it into play at the state level would be a good idea, too.

----------------------------------------------------
i say we vote into a algorithm

instead of voting for a person or party, we vote for a written set of social political characteristics of a candidate leaving out age, sex and ethnicity.

so instead of having say 3 ppl on a ballot-dem, gop and libertarian (or however many) instead of party name and candidate name, there would be a narrative written there that states the candidates platform and political goals-- no background on qualifications/experience either--past performance is all too often NOT and indicator of future performance

and it could not include campaign buzz words or phrases like 'make america great again'

of course, this would pre suppose that every voter can read and then comprehend and process the info given... not a bad thing

That is crazy. Every candidate would claim to have those attributes. Who decides who really does, if any?
And the person/personality is certainly a legitimate factor for a voter to consider, as well as his background.

[Annoyed]

Right, but representation is based on population of "voting people", not population.

No, you're mistaken. It is based on population of the state, including both voters and non-voters, non-citizens, etc.
Why do you think there is such contention about asking immigration status on the census that representation is based on?

Not bad if you make sure they can.

You want an intelligence or other sort of current events test to qualify to vote?

[Annoyed]

nah, this vbulletin is way too old,why should i regress?

I agree, the board's software isn't really conducive to the usage it sees here.

A minor annoyance, far eclipsed by the policy of the board which permits this sort of discussion. We are very lightly moderated/censored around here, and that is a rare thing on internet boards.

I just consider dealing with it to be an intelligence test for discussing things here.