The Political Discussion Thread

[Annoyed]

Leaps with style and sticks the landing.
Oh, they might not be "slaves", even you are that evolved, but they are "lesser", and that's what you say.
You prove it with your next argument.

The EC includes black people only being some 40% "worth" of whites.
Do you stand behind that?
It's a PRIMARY FOUNDATION of the EC, so I guess you do.

Race has nothing to do with the EC. It is purely based on how many people OF ALL FLAVORS live in an area. There is no selection or even mention of race in the law that creates it. It's all based on population level.
Show me where the law says a black person only counts as 40% of the value of a white person.

You did this before, it was the civil war.

The civil war was over STATES attempting to leave the US. These fights are at the state level; for example in NY, large areas of the state (upstate) want to throw NYC & Albany (downstate) out.
Different ballgame altogether.

[magi877]

Race has nothing to do with the EC. It is purely based on how many people OF ALL FLAVORS live in an area. There is no selection or even mention of race in the law that creates it. It's all based on population level.
Show me where the law says a black person only counts as 40% of the value of a white person.


The civil war was over STATES attempting to leave the US. These fights are at the state level; for example in NY, large areas of the state (upstate) want to throw NYC & Albany (downstate) out.
Different ballgame altogether.

isn't amazing how our system of education and info dissemination in general has been edited to make people believe the civil war was 'just about slavery'?

other issues were at hand as well, slavery-or rather NOT SPREADING IT TO WESTERN TERRITORIES BUT NOT ENDING IT where it already existed, was the issue

questions of state's rights to handle their in state affairs-as laid out by the constitution/bor-without federal interference, were the issues. yes, stopping the spread of slavery was at the top, but there were other issues of state sovereignty as well.

other issues exited too. like the economic one of the agricultural south vs the industrial north and the imbalance of industrial centers being mainly in the north. this made the north wealthier and the south less so, especially with their need to export cotton and other goods where profit was reduced by tariffs

NONE OF THIS is me saying that the CW was not about slavery, only that it was not the only cause as so many are taught today.

even Lincoln was not sold on ending slavery--read his papers. and, he 'freed the slaves' in rebel held areas to attempt to weaken the south's ability to produce labor. No slaves in federal held areas were freed by the proclamation.

The slave states that stayed in the Union were West Virginia (created by VA secession),Maryland, Missouri, Delaware, and Kentucky. the Emancipation Proclamation was made in 1863 ,so the Proclamation applied only to the 10 remaining Confederate states. Abolition of slavery also became a condition of the return of local rule in those states that had declared their secession. The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution abolished slavery throughout the United States on December 18, 1865, although the war ended in April. making slavery legal at the federal level in all federally held lands and loyal northern states that still had slaves.

[magi877]

Like I said, here it comes in shades of grey. Socially speaking, I'm firmly in the secular camp, but I don't suffer from obsession to remove all conceivable trappings of religion from public life. Only that which gets in the way of normal life.


Yes, but I also know how to keep the steaks separate from the flies. Even when one attracts the other, you don't have to eat both.


We've been in the business of ignoring that since back when millions and billions of people believed that Jews use baby blood for Passover.


What you are saying, basically, is that your beliefs - the contect that YOU assign to our country - should somehow be my problem. I happen to think that it shouldn't be.

The Vatican is a religious entity that has no nationhood. It's a paper state which isn't home to any Vaticanian people, and as a parallel to Israel it doesn't hold; it only highlights the inadequacy of your understanding. Asgard is a fiction with no real-world relevance. If your understanding of nationhood is on the level of comic books, this discussion will go nowhere.

it is the modern, post statehood perception-the reality of Israeli actions is that as aggressor to its neighbors

yes, there was no 'Palestine' before, the areas was either part of egypt or part of Jordan (and isn't it strange that those are basically the only 2 arab states that official recognize Israel?). so lets get that out of the way

in many ways, Israel is worse then south africa with apartheid ever was- i know i say this as an outsider.

apartheid exists in today's israel and the arab territories it de facto controls. israel IS a european colony, seemingly ultra paranoid in its actions

yes, the holocaust happened, but how long is the nation of israel going to be allowed to use that as an excuse to treat the original inhabitants like they do? especially since these ppl's ancestors were not fascists (yes, i know about the arab/muslim SS units) and not even european. Israel has far better relations today with the nations peoples by the descendants of those who persecuted jews in the past (germany, russia) then they do with their neighbors of today--why is a type of vendetta being applied to these neighbors today on the basis of 'never again' (the holocaust) when these ppl nor their ancestors ever did anything on any scale comparable to the european pogroms and holocaust?

on the contrary,in the past, actual mid eastern (non european) Jews almost always got along with and cooperated with the Arab and Muslim society that it was a part of.

there is just no way around that. the only ways which i have seen, for people to get around those facts- or rather to justify those facts, is for those ppl to invoke religious reasoning

stuff like "israel is the chosen land, peopled by the chosen people"

stating basically, that whatever Israel does to its people or its neighbors is just a-ok cause God said it was so

and israel-again ,from my perspective, does little to nothing officially to denounce or discourage these attitudes of "the CHosen". israel and its government are then, by a lack of negating these statements, saying 'yes, we are the chosen people cause God said it'

this is unacceptable in the world of today

again, Israel is a European colony. there should be nothing wrong with that statement. there are many,many nations that exist today because they were european colonies at their start

[magi877]

I'm not ignoring it Womble, it's about THIS:

It seems that Israel ITSELF has issues with it as well, Are you secular, or are you religious?
Individuals can make up their mind, and you have made up yours, Israel is, for want of a better term a "safe space" for Jews, for you, and I absolutely understand that, I have no beef with that at all.
As an "outsider" however, I see the consequence of that. (usually by people trying to use Israel for something else)
As someone who lives there, you FEEL the consequence of that every day.

Isn't it?
My perception? sure you can ignore it.
Can you ignore millions or billions of people?
Weather you like it or not, that's where you are, and you say as much. You want it to change, GREAT!!
You vote for progressive secularism?
GREAT!!
You want better for your wife and potential kids?
GREAT!!

What you seem to keep missing though is WHY in my arguments I bring up religion. Why not call yourself as a nation, Judeah?
Israel has CONTEXT in a religious sense.
Vatican city has CONTEXT in a religious sense
Asgard has CONTEXT in a religious sense.
If I strip out the notion of religion, what is the context of those names? They are, by definition linked to religion.
Names have power Womble, weather we like it or not, or weather we like what that name is used for. In fact, I would say that my seeming "inability" to unstick Israel from the bible is more your problem than mine, you live there.

hey (taps screen to make sure his PC is actually working right) I agree with pretty much every thing you said GF.

[Gatefan1976]

Race has nothing to do with the EC. It is purely based on how many people OF ALL FLAVORS live in an area. There is no selection or even mention of race in the law that creates it. It's all based on population level.
Show me where the law says a black person only counts as 40% of the value of a white person.

Look up the Virginia plan and the 3/5th compromise.

The civil war was over STATES attempting to leave the US. These fights are at the state level; for example in NY, large areas of the state (upstate) want to throw NYC & Albany (downstate) out.
Different ballgame altogether.

No, it's not.
All it is, is a state ripping itself apart rather than states vs states. It's still an internal (IE CIVIL) war.

[Gatefan1976]

isn't amazing how our system of education and info dissemination in general has been edited to make people believe the civil war was 'just about slavery'?

other issues were at hand as well, slavery-or rather NOT SPREADING IT TO WESTERN TERRITORIES BUT NOT ENDING IT where it already existed, was the issue

questions of state's rights to handle their in state affairs-as laid out by the constitution/bor-without federal interference, were the issues. yes, stopping the spread of slavery was at the top, but there were other issues of state sovereignty as well.

other issues exited too. like the economic one of the agricultural south vs the industrial north and the imbalance of industrial centers being mainly in the north. this made the north wealthier and the south less so, especially with their need to export cotton and other goods where profit was reduced by tariffs

NONE OF THIS is me saying that the CW was not about slavery, only that it was not the only cause as so many are taught today.

even Lincoln was not sold on ending slavery--read his papers. and, he 'freed the slaves' in rebel held areas to attempt to weaken the south's ability to produce labor. No slaves in federal held areas were freed by the proclamation.

The slave states that stayed in the Union were West Virginia (created by VA secession),Maryland, Missouri, Delaware, and Kentucky. the Emancipation Proclamation was made in 1863 ,so the Proclamation applied only to the 10 remaining Confederate states. Abolition of slavery also became a condition of the return of local rule in those states that had declared their secession. The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution abolished slavery throughout the United States on December 18, 1865, although the war ended in April. making slavery legal at the federal level in all federally held lands and loyal northern states that still had slaves.

I wasn't talking about slavery, I was talking about the conditions that created the EC. Weather you like it or not, slavery was a factor in the creation of the EC.

[Annoyed]

I wasn't talking about slavery, I was talking about the conditions that created the EC. Weather you like it or not, slavery was a factor in the creation of the EC.

B.S. Which bubbleheaded bleach blonde did you hear that from?

The only possible connection is that when the Constitution was written, it was legal, and was a common practice. Nothing unusual by the standards of the day.

Or are you going off because anything that happened at that point in history must be discarded?

In Doctor Soran voice: "Good Luck".

[Chaka-Z0]

The founding fathers deliberately wanted the judiciary to be immune from political pressure. In my view, that was a wise choice. Equally wise was the electoral college system, which in practical application guarantees that the smaller regions have a voice in govt. Without it, they would have no voice at all. How would you like to be disenfranchised?

Having done a little bit of research I've found out the Founding Fathers (FF) intended to have a district-by-district mode, not a winner take all mode like it has been since the early 19th century which you are advertising.

And as the electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place.
https://www.constitution.org/fed/federa68.htm

So technically, the FF's vision of the EC was much closer to what we (you know who) would like it to be. More electors, better suited with regional knowledge, would then get to vote for the best Pres possible. The FF wanted the best representation of the sense of the people.

[Chaka-Z0]

I wasn't talking about slavery, I was talking about the conditions that created the EC. Weather you like it or not, slavery was a factor in the creation of the EC.

I totally understand the connection you make with slavery, it is logical. In states where slaves were freed the outcome of the vote would surely change accordingly vs slavery states.

But imo, in that period of history slaves were creatures, merchandise, therefore simply not considered. The og EC would've worked both ways. Slaves don't vote, and if slaves become citizens then its fair game either way. They are citizens, not slaves anymore.

[Gatefan1976]

B.S. Which bubbleheaded bleach blonde did you hear that from?

Look up history you dullard. I even told you where to look.
So, you are either
1:unwilling to look at the facts.
2: too stupid to look at the facts
3: want to be ignorant.
Your choice, not mine.
My guess is option 3.

The only possible connection is that when the Constitution was written, it was legal, and was a common practice. Nothing unusual by the standards of the day.

I didn't say it was illegal, did I dullard?

Or are you going off because anything that happened at that point in history must be discarded?

Nope, that's you.

[Gatefan1976]

I totally understand the connection you make with slavery, it is logical. In states where slaves were freed the outcome of the vote would surely change accordingly vs slavery states.

Slaves, or ex slaves had no right to vote, much like the women of the time.
It's about -population- not the ability to vote.

But imo, in that period of history slaves were creatures, merchandise, therefore simply not considered.

Ah, but they were considered for population, just without rights to vote, or have any say in their treatment or direction.
They were used as a convenience.

The og EC would've worked both ways. Slaves don't vote, and if slaves become citizens then its fair game either way. They are citizens, not slaves anymore.

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

[Gatefan1976]

isn't amazing how our system of education and info dissemination in general has been edited to make people believe the civil war was 'just about slavery'?

It wasn't "just about slavery", but sure, hold on to your ignorance of the education system, and history.

other issues were at hand as well, slavery-or rather NOT SPREADING IT TO WESTERN TERRITORIES BUT NOT ENDING IT where it already existed, was the issue

So.……..
Ending the notion of slavery?
Just in new territories. Right...……….

questions of state's rights to handle their in state affairs-as laid out by the constitution/bor-without federal interference, were the issues. yes, stopping the spread of slavery was at the top, but there were other issues of state sovereignty as well.

I thought you said it wasn't about slavery.
Make up your mind.

other issues exited too. like the economic one of the agricultural south vs the industrial north and the imbalance of industrial centers being mainly in the north. this made the north wealthier and the south less so, especially with their need to export cotton and other goods where profit was reduced by tariffs

So, you treated them like Mexico, or GINA.

NONE OF THIS is me saying that the CW was not about slavery, only that it was not the only cause as so many are taught today.

No one is taught that.
When people bring up slavery, it is used as the first cause, not the only cause. Kids get taught more than you know.

even Lincoln was not sold on ending slavery--read his papers. and, he 'freed the slaves' in rebel held areas to attempt to weaken the south's ability to produce labor. No slaves in federal held areas were freed by the proclamation.

In other words, he used them.
Gee, wonder why people don't like getting used...……..

The slave states that stayed in the Union were West Virginia (created by VA secession),Maryland, Missouri, Delaware, and Kentucky. the Emancipation Proclamation was made in 1863 ,so the Proclamation applied only to the 10 remaining Confederate states. Abolition of slavery also became a condition of the return of local rule in those states that had declared their secession. The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution abolished slavery throughout the United States on December 18, 1865, although the war ended in April. making slavery legal at the federal level in all federally held lands and loyal northern states that still had slaves.

So, it took 2 years for you to get your crap togeather?
You can't even do that now.

[magi877]

I wasn't talking about slavery, I was talking about the conditions that created the EC. Weather you like it or not, slavery was a factor in the creation of the EC.

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
----------------------------------------------------
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

[magi877]

It wasn't "just about slavery", but sure, hold on to your ignorance of the education system, and history.

So.……..
Ending the notion of slavery?
Just in new territories. Right...……….

I thought you said it wasn't about slavery.
Make up your mind.

So, you treated them like Mexico, or GINA.

No one is taught that.
When people bring up slavery, it is used as the first cause, not the only cause. Kids get taught more than you know.

In other words, he used them.
Gee, wonder why people don't like getting used...……..


So, it took 2 years for you to get your crap togeather?
You can't even do that now.

i said it was not JUST about slavery. if you really believe that the majority of americans think that there were other causes than slavery, you are mistaken

here is a report from just a few days ago by the washington post (a left leaning newspaper) giving the results of a survey recently conducted (by the post and an independent research company) including what we are discussing here

you can see by what the surveyors state is the only right answer on the cause of the civil war-- that it was ONLY slavery that caused it- MOST people got it right

this confirms my statement of most American are not taught that there were other issues other than slavery.

even the nature of survey Q&A is dictated to meet the political and historical perspectives of those giving it. this survey for one, is not entirely true to the facts of history

--well ok, go to the url instead , cant paste in table, this format is obsolete---

https://www.washingtonpost.com/educa...?noredirect=on

[magi877]

In other words, he used them.
Gee, wonder why people don't like getting used...……..


So, it took 2 years for you to get your crap togeather?
You can't even do that now.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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


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!)

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

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