Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Saturday, January 05, 2019

Rep. Steve Cohen has proposed two constitutional amendments, one that would abolish the Electoral College and another that would prohibit presidents from pardoning themselves, their families, members of their administration or their campaign staffs. ... Calls to abolish the Electoral College intensified in the aftermath of the 2016 election, when former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton won the popular vote but lost the presidency when Trump won the majority of the Electoral College. Similar calls were made in 2000, when former Vice President Al Gore also won the popular vote but lost the Electoral College to George W. Bush. Both losing candidates were Democrats.

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

In order to take effect, both bills would need to be passed by two-thirds of both houses of Congress and be ratified by three-fourths of the states. The president plays no role in passing constitutional amendments

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

What does the------------------- have to say about the electoral college.

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.
10:45 PM · Nov 6, 2012 ·

#1 | Posted by reinheitsgebot at 2019-01-05 02:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Electoral College was offered to the slave states to get them to ratify the Constitution by giving them more power than their populations actually deserved. I totally support eliminating it or making irrelevant by passing laws in individual states that say the delegates will vote for whoever wins the popular vote.

#2 | Posted by danni at 2019-01-05 02:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 7

"by passing laws in individual states that say the delegates will vote for whoever wins the popular vote."

And what do you think the reactions will be, by the 30 red states, when they're told their delegates would've voted for Hillary?

#3 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-05 02:33 PM | Reply

This is just noise and will go nowhere.

Instead, I hope folks in all of congress bind together and put momentum behind the term limit proposal.

#4 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2019-01-05 02:48 PM | Reply

#2,

Danni, stop with the lying. The Electoral college wasnt racist. Damn, everything isnt about race man..

NO DANNI, THAT WASNT WHY THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE WAS CREATED.

Dammit, stop trying to rewrite history... Educate yourself please..

www.historycentral.com

The Electoral College was created for two reasons. The first purpose was to create a buffer between population and the selection of a President. The second as part of the structure of the government that gave extra power to the smaller states.

The first reason that the founders created the Electoral College is hard to understand today. The founding fathers were afraid of direct election to the Presidency. They feared a tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come to power. Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers:

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief.

#5 | Posted by boaz at 2019-01-05 02:59 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

The original drafters of the Constitution may well have been motivated in part to protect smaller states ( and therefore their citizens ) from the tyranny of the majority, but I have never read anything which suggests that what they had in mind instead was to replace it with a tyranny of the minority. I have no doubt that the founding fathers expected the majority views of citizens to prevail, subject to the checks and balances they built into the system.

The idea that the majority of voters could vote for Congressmen, Senators and a President of one party and yet that party would not have power in any of those branches of government, would probably have been beyond their comprehension.

I am not closed minded, so if someone can explain to me why a tyranny of the minority is more acceptable than the tyranny of the majority, I'd be interested to learn.

#6 | Posted by Foreigner at 2019-01-05 03:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Best-Selling Historian Joseph J. Ellis Explains What the Founding Fathers Got Wrong

time.com

What is the biggest failing of the Founders that still haunts us today?

When the Founders talked about "we the people," they were not talking about black people.

They weren't talking about women, and they weren't talking about Native Americans.

Whenever race enters the question, the Founders are going to end up disappointing you.

Can the constitutional system they created solve our problems?

The Founders would want us to recognize that it's a living Constitution.

So the originalists who want us to go back to the original meaning have it dead wrong. We have to make adaptations.

The Electoral College has got to go.

In the early 1960s, nearly 80% of Americans said they trusted their government. By the mid-1970s, that number had dropped to around 20%, and it's never completely recovered. What happened?

The Vietnam War, which undermined the credibility of the government for a whole generation of Americans.

The second thing was the civil rights movement. That alienated whites in the Confederacy.

The third thing was Roe v. Wade. That alienates all the evangelicals.

What will finally unite Americans?

A great crisis that leaves us no choice but to come together.

When the coastal areas have to be evacuated, when the real implications of climate change begin to hit, we're going to be forced to come together.

In their best moments, the Founders put the public good ahead of the whims of public opinion. Is there any way to recover that sense of virtue?

I would favor mandatory national service.

Now, of course, that has no chance.

But every American woman and man should serve the public for two years.

It doesn't mean military, but it means some form of service.


QFT

#7 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-01-05 03:17 PM | Reply

Foreigner,

I would say both tryanny's are bad.

But I feel our founders sought to protect INDIVIDUAL liberty. They knew mob democracy would affect smaller states and populations. They sought to protect them.

They did right.

It also fosters compromise. It makes it so in order to do something, the mob must ask a smaller state or population to go along with whatever it is they are trying to do. If the smaller population says no, then it doesnt pass. I like that. The mob doesnt always have everyone else's interests at heart.

#8 | Posted by boaz at 2019-01-05 03:18 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Sorry Pinch, You are wrong.

Just plain wrong.

#9 | Posted by boaz at 2019-01-05 03:19 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

In their best moments, the Founders put the public good ahead of the whims of public opinion. Is there any way to recover that sense of virtue?
I would favor mandatory national service.
Now, of course, that has no chance.
But every American woman and man should serve the public for two years.
It doesn't mean military, but it means some form of service.

QFT

#7 | POSTED BY PINCHALOAF AT 2019-01-05 03:17 PM | FLAG:

Slavery in the name of nationalist unity.

Hard pass.

#10 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-01-05 03:20 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

The Founders would want us to recognize that it's a living Constitution.

NO, not this garbage again.

NO, it's not "living". Somethings had to be set in stone, like the 1st and 2nd amendments, because of liberals like YOU wanting to change things. What made our country great didnt need to be "changed".

But you can change the document, it's just VERY hard to and I'm so glad it is.

#11 | Posted by boaz at 2019-01-05 03:22 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Somethings had to be set in stone, like the 1st and 2nd amendments, because of liberals like YOU wanting to change things."

I thought the Second Amendment was so we could change our President whenever we feel like it.
No?

#12 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-05 03:26 PM | Reply

"At the Philadelphia convention, the visionary Pennsylvanian James Wilson proposed direct national election of the president. But the savvy Virginian James Madison responded that such a system would prove unacceptable to the South: "The right of suffrage was much more diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes." In other words, in a direct election system, the North would outnumber the South, whose many slaves (more than half a million in all) of course could not vote. But the Electoral College -- a prototype of which Madison proposed in this same speech -- instead let each southern state count its slaves, albeit with a two-fifths discount, in computing its share of the overall count.

Virginia emerged as the big winner -- the California of the Founding era -- with 12 out of a total of 91 electoral votes allocated by the Philadelphia Constitution, more than a quarter of the 46 needed to win an election in the first round. After the 1800 census, Wilson's free state of Pennsylvania had 10% more free persons than Virginia, but got 20% fewer electoral votes. Perversely, the more slaves Virginia (or any other slave state) bought or bred, the more electoral votes it would receive. Were a slave state to free any blacks who then moved North, the state could actually lose electoral votes.

If the system's pro-slavery tilt was not overwhelmingly obvious when the Constitution was ratified, it quickly became so. For 32 of the Constitution's first 36 years, a white slaveholding Virginian occupied the presidency."

time.com

#13 | Posted by danni at 2019-01-05 03:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Sorry Pinch, You are wrong.

Just plain wrong.

#9 | POSTED BY BOAZ

Because of one authoritarian-minded Trump in the Oval Office, along with gerrymandering, combined with billionaire bought Republicans in Congress representing both minority populations and opinions ...

We have, at this very moment, the tyranny of the minority -- Trump's government shutdown being the prefect example.

#14 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-01-05 03:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

Danny, that's an opinion piece.

#15 | Posted by boaz at 2019-01-05 04:00 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#8 BOAZ

Clearly the rights of individuals were important to the founding fathers and for the most part they embodied them in the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights. The process for electing representatives, senators and the president were all originally embodied in the Constitution itself. The latter is designed to address the governance of the country as a whole and the former to address the individual.

I make this distinction because I believe that the protections afforded to individuals and to groups of individuals are not intended to be the same. I see the intention as being that all individuals, regardless of political views, should have the same rights; however, this equality does not extend to groups, particularly when the groups have significantly different political and policy views. Since you value the individual, I would expect you to support the view that the will of the majority of individual citizens should drive policy, subject to, but not subservient to, the protections afforded through the Constitution to minority views.

The tyranny of the minority seems to me to be almost the exact opposite of the intention of the founders.

#16 | Posted by Foreigner at 2019-01-05 04:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Since you value the individual, I would expect you to support the view that the will of the majority of individual citizens should drive policy, subject to, but not subservient to, the protections afforded through the Constitution to minority views.

I value local views. I wouldnt expect my values to translate to areas where they are not welcome or foreign. And I also wouldnt want their values. I value the individual and their ability to keep what's theirs and what they have earned. I do not believe in the collective. Well, maybe only in certain things. But I certainly dont believe in redistribution by force or virtue.

#17 | Posted by boaz at 2019-01-05 05:03 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Good. Modernizing our electoral process is a good thing.

Well, to those who actually believe in and support our Founder's intentions.

#18 | Posted by jpw at 2019-01-05 05:31 PM | Reply

As the electoral collage is written into the constitution, repealing it will require an amendment. Considering there are many more small state than large ones, good luck with that.

#19 | Posted by docnjo at 2019-01-05 05:34 PM | Reply

The idea that the majority of voters could vote for Congressmen, Senators and a President of one party and yet that party would not have power in any of those branches of government, would probably have been beyond their comprehension.

Exactly.

Righties only blather on about the FFs and the Constitution because they want to mask their authoritarian tendencies in romanticized versions of what they think they understand.

Too bad their situational usage of the FFs and the Constitution belies their actual intent.

#20 | Posted by jpw at 2019-01-05 05:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

It also fosters compromise. It makes it so in order to do something, the mob must ask a smaller state or population to go along with whatever it is they are trying to do. If the smaller population says no, then it doesnt pass. I like that. The mob doesnt always have everyone else's interests at heart.

#8 | Posted by boaz

And that wouldn't change because the EC has nothing to do with Congress.

Congrats, that was your first lesson on how our government works. I'll be here all night to answer any of your questions.

#21 | Posted by jpw at 2019-01-05 05:40 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

We have, at this very moment, the tyranny of the minority -- Trump's government shutdown being the prefect example.

#14 | Posted by PinchALoaf

Yup. But you won't hear Boaz et al complain about that because it's their minority forcing themselves on everyone else.

But hey, we're supposed to believe they understand what the FFs wanted...LOL.

#22 | Posted by jpw at 2019-01-05 05:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 6

I wouldnt expect my values to translate to areas where they are not welcome or foreign.

#17 | Posted by boaz

Yet you cheer Trump's stacking of the courts with "Conservative" loons.

So I'm gonna go ahead and call BS on your assertion here.

#23 | Posted by jpw at 2019-01-05 05:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

#17 - Thanks for the response, which is admittedly very alien to my way of thinking. I don't know whether to mark you down as a rugged individualist or a selfish bastard but I appreciate the exchange.

#24 | Posted by Foreigner at 2019-01-05 05:53 PM | Reply

The only reason Republicans like Boaz support the Electoral College is because it helps their loser second-place candidates win the presidency.

Republicans know they are alienating a majority of Americans with their policies and their bigotry.

#25 | Posted by rcade at 2019-01-05 06:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

#25

Bigotry?

A person disagreeing with you is a bigot? How so?

Here's a prediction, west coast voting drops off as presidental race is decided 3hrs before west coast polls close.

#26 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-01-05 06:57 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Republicans know they are alienating a majority of Americans

Alienating? Liberals are literally dividing the nation up by race and gender.

#27 | Posted by boaz at 2019-01-05 09:50 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

"Liberals are literally dividing the nation up by race and gender." - #27 | Posted by boaz at 2019-01-05 09:50 PM

WTF are you talking about?

You don't believe in the nation.

According to you...

"We are supposed to be a federation of sovereign states. Not one whole centralized country." - #34 | Posted by boaz at 2018-07-20 11:38 AM
So what do you care about dividing up a nation you don't believe exists?

#28 | Posted by Hans at 2019-01-05 10:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

And to follow to the end of the logic here.... we also get rid of Vermont and NH and SD and all the other smalls ...and make just one big nation?

#29 | Posted by ghickey at 2019-01-05 10:23 PM | Reply

#28,

I didnt say divide up the nation, Hans.

I just dont believe in a liberal nation craphole like you want to live in.

#30 | Posted by boaz at 2019-01-05 10:41 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"I didnt say divide up the nation, Hans." - #30 | Posted by boaz at 2019-01-05 10:41 PM

"Liberals are literally dividing the nation up by race and gender." - #27 | Posted by boaz at 2019-01-05 09:50 PM
Apparently, "dividing the nation up" is not the same as "divide up the nation".

Do you ever stop and think before you post?

(Rhetorical question, no response expected.)

#31 | Posted by Hans at 2019-01-05 10:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"I just dont believe in a liberal nation..." - #30 | Posted by boaz at 2019-01-05 10:41 PM

Then Somalia would be your Nirvana.

You can even fellate an AK47 there with no worries.

A "win-win" for you, boaz.

#32 | Posted by Hans at 2019-01-05 10:50 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Bigotry?

A person disagreeing with you is a bigot? How so?

Dude, f--- off with this disingenuous trash.

Damn I'm tired of the right's "who, meeee?" schtick.

You are, for the most part, selfish, greedy, horrible people. Just own it.

#33 | Posted by jpw at 2019-01-05 10:54 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

I just dont believe in a liberal nation craphole like you want to live in.

#30 | Posted by boaz

Exactly. You believe in faux patriotism that's merely a means to the end of forcing your twisted world view on everybody else.

A world view that has failed over and over and over and over and...

#34 | Posted by jpw at 2019-01-05 10:56 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Go ahead and amend it -- should be easy. right?

#35 | Posted by MSgt at 2019-01-05 11:18 PM | Reply

Up until several decades ago, there was another Republic on the other side of the ocean. On paper, all were equal. In reality, there was one Republic that held all the power, while the other republics simply provided the grain, metal, people, and other resources that that the capital needed. Kind of like Panem in the hunger games.

The electoral college helps to ensure that the US doesn't turn out like this. Otherwise, the flyover states would become little more than support activities and dumping grounds for the coastal urban regions. I'm not sure that the people in North Dakota or Wyoming would be comfortable with voters in California or New York making decisions that would drastically affect those states.

#36 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-01-05 11:20 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

The electoral college will never go away.

You'd have to convince 9 states to voluntarily cede power they currently hold. There are too many Constitutional scholars in those states for that to happen.

Also, a close election wouldn't just be a repeat of Florida. It'd be a nightmare scenario where 100,000 "Floridas" were released, since victory might be found in any precinct across America.

#37 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-05 11:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#5 Dear Boaz,

The Electoral College gave extra power to the smaller states. Small in a democracy is a function of population size, not territory. This concession to the South was a response to the concern that there were more blacks in the South than voting Plantation Owners. Electoral votes were assigned based on population size wherein it was specified that every black slave would entitle the slave State to 3/5ths of a person towards the number of electoral votes assigned to each State.

The founding fathers feared a tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come to power. Trump played on the paranoia and fears of the white population to accidentally rise to the Presidency, an office he is entirely unprepared for and uninterested in executing in a manner consistent with the constitutional which he has never read.

Electors do not analyze much of anything. They vote as assigned by their party 99.99% of the time. There have never been less qualified, more incompetent Presidents than BushII and Trump, both elected contrary to the popular vote. Both have destroyed the reputation of the USA as a decent, honest government interested in spreading freedom and democracy throughout the world. Everyone outside the USA knows now that that is a lie. An important decency test is compliance with constitutional mandates against cruel and unusual punishments and torture, which both of these tyrants have embraced. The purpose of torture is to spread fear throughout the general population in order to secure a tyrant's position of power.

#38 | Posted by bayviking at 2019-01-06 08:59 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

I'm not sure that the people in North Dakota or Wyoming would be comfortable with voters in California or New York making decisions that would drastically affect those states.

#36 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

We're all Americans, remember?

An perfect example of the folly of what you're saying is that people in the Dakota's and Wyoming are ALREADY paying, right now, thru their taxes, for excessive healthcare costs (~ $750 billion annually in waste with no benefit to patients) ...

So if people in California and New York insist on doing healthcare better, then people in the Dakota's and Wyoming should happily agree to the change.

But, if we have douche-bag politicians who demagogue the issue to divide Americans and pit them against each other, then, well, that obviously is not good.

And that's just one issue, healthcare.

#39 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-01-06 09:15 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

So if people in California and New York insist on doing healthcare better, then people in the Dakota's and Wyoming should happily agree to the change.

Doing healthcare better? --- California and New York. Who the hell said that? I wouldnt want to live there much less have them making decisions for me.

NO. The answer is NO. THAT is why we have an electoral college.

NO.

#40 | Posted by boaz at 2019-01-06 10:11 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Doing healthcare better? --- California and New York. Who the hell said that? I wouldnt want to live there much less have them making decisions for me.

NO. The answer is NO. THAT is why we have an electoral college.

NO.

#40 | POSTED BY BOAZ

This is America, it is your right to be a effing moron.

Since you don't like science and expertise (healthcare quality experts back up everything I say) ... why don't you move to North Sentinel Island, the natives there will take good care of you.

Doofus

#41 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-01-06 10:26 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Danny, that's an opinion piece."

No Boaz, it's a history lesson. Reject it as you will because you prefer to believe nonsense from Fox News instead of the actual history of the United States. Every fact presented in that article is easily supported by facts, you just don't like the facts. Your entire belief system is based on false history that never happened and when presented with real facts you just claim "fake news" much like your idol.

#42 | Posted by danni at 2019-01-06 10:35 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Doing healthcare better? --- California and New York. Who the hell said that? I wouldnt want to live there much less have them making decisions for me.

NO. The answer is NO. THAT is why we have an electoral college."

You are the perfect example of why we have an Electoral College. The overrule of the majority by the ignorant was the original intention and it still works to this day. Ignorant southern farmers voted with the plantation owners thinking that by doing so they improved their own condition while, in reality, slavery reduced their own incomes by making labor free for plantation owners. They then went along with secession, fought and died in a Civil War, to protect the plantation owners' right to own labor and keep the white southern farmers poor. I laugh when I read posts from those conservatives who pretend to be supporters of free markets, they were actually the most vocal opponents of free markets. Slavery can't and isn't something that can be tolerated in a free market. The word "free" gets in the way.

#43 | Posted by danni at 2019-01-06 10:42 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

The electoral college helps to ensure that the US doesn't turn out like this. Otherwise, the flyover states would become little more than support activities and dumping grounds for the coastal urban regions. I'm not sure that the people in North Dakota or Wyoming would be comfortable with voters in California or New York making decisions that would drastically affect those states.

#36 | Posted by madbomber

Apparently you guys are too busy hyperventilating to remember that the EC only affects one branch of government.

But on the flip side, why should the people of North Dakota or Wyoming have disproportionate power to force their world view on the much larger majority? A majority that largely floats those states economically no less.

#44 | Posted by jpw at 2019-01-06 10:59 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

We know from history that the States cannot be relied upon to protect human rights. This is true even though the little guy has a better chance in most State Courts than he will ever have in Federal Court or prison. This general rule does not apply to Southern States, like Texas, where being black can put you away for life based solely on eye witness allegations.

#45 | Posted by bayviking at 2019-01-06 11:18 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Doing healthcare better? --- California and New York. Who the hell said that? I wouldnt want to live there much less have them making decisions for me. "

So you have any idea of how many former opponents of Obamacare have actually publicy stated that their own lives of the lives of their close relatives were saved by Obamacare? No, because you won't listen to anyone who doesn't repeat the Republican lie. That "for profit" insurance is necessary or beneficial. It's only beneficial to the people who take profits from it.

#46 | Posted by danni at 2019-01-06 11:31 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"So if people in California and New York insist on doing healthcare better, then people in the Dakota's and Wyoming should happily agree to the change."

Sho nuff'

I just don't get the vibe that the residents of those states are in agreement with letting NY/CA run the show. Is your vibe different?

#47 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-01-06 11:48 AM | Reply

Look at the election results. It's hardly that cut and dried in most of the states.

#48 | Posted by jpw at 2019-01-06 11:52 AM | Reply

"Since you don't like science and expertise (healthcare quality experts back up everything I say)"

No Scott, they don't. They say that the healthcare accessible in most other places is more equal regardless of ability to pay than the US...but for those of who have a plan, swapping out would be a downgrade. Which is the crux of the issue. Why should I give up my platinum status so for bronze, so that someone else can get bronze without offering anything in return.

Humans aren't stupid. If I could pay less for the same quality of care...I would. Everyone would. The problem is that it would be paying more for a lower quality of care, or paying way more to maintain the quality I have available to me right now.

#49 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-01-06 11:54 AM | Reply

I just don't get the vibe that the residents of those states are in agreement with letting NY/CA run the show. Is your vibe different?

#47 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

I live in the Midwest ... why would I care about what Nulli's next door neighbor, Lena Dunham, thinks?

We're all Americans.

#50 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-01-06 11:56 AM | Reply

"I just don't get the vibe that the residents of those states are in agreement with letting NY/CA run the show. Is your vibe different?"

We have seen exactly your view play out since the SC ruled on Obamacare. The red states could and did deprive their working poor citizens of expanded Medicaid and sat back and watched many of them die because of it. It's what those states preferred to do. I expect, that with our present SC, the same thing would play out. Right wing conservatives prefer to sacrifice the lives of some of their population rather than agree to any idea ever presented by a liberal.

#51 | Posted by danni at 2019-01-06 11:58 AM | Reply

"But on the flip side, why should the people of North Dakota or Wyoming have disproportionate power to force their world view on the much larger majority? A majority that largely floats those states economically no less."

This is the United States of America. Not the state of America. It's the states that should have equal say, regardless of population. Otherwise, the lowere population states are simply feeders to the capital. Just like the majority of the SSRs in the Soviet Union. And if I were ND, I would seriously wonder why I was part of a union where I was viewed as nothing more than a support mechanism for a culturally disconnected population that resided thousands of miles away.

Or maybe not. Maybe the residents of flyover country would give up sovereignty in favor of rule by those on the coasts. I guess the outcome of this bill will answer that question.

#52 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-01-06 11:59 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"The red states could and did deprive their working poor citizens of expanded Medicaid and sat back and watched many of them die because of it."

Which is how it should be. If the taxpayers don't want to foot that bill, that's their right. If they do want to pay the bill...that's also thier right.

And you're always free to spend your beer money on the working poor...I don't see anyone stopping you.

#53 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-01-06 12:01 PM | Reply

" It's the states that should have equal say, regardless of population. "

Why should the takers decide, and not the makers?

#54 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-06 12:02 PM | Reply

"Humans aren't stupid. If I could pay less for the same quality of care...I would. Everyone would. The problem is that it would be paying more for a lower quality of care, or paying way more to maintain the quality I have available to me right now."

And I can't name many nations who have universal health care with higher averages of life expectancy, lower numbers of infant mortality, etc. while liars like Madbomber try to convice us differently. What a joke.

"This is the United States of America. Not the state of America. It's the states that should have equal say, regardless of population>

Absolute garbage. The people of the nation should make the decisions for the nation not the priveleged few who end up in our state Legislatures. Your recipe brought us the Civil War, which was a war to defend the minority of the population who were slave owners in the south, and the working poor were forced to go fight and die in it. Priveleged children of the rich should not be able to overrule the will of the majority of the people. You can make your arguments otherwise but I can and will destroy them because they are totally b.s.

#55 | Posted by danni at 2019-01-06 12:06 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I'm not sure that the people in North Dakota or Wyoming would be comfortable with voters in California or New York making decisions that would drastically affect those states.

Just as people in California and New York aren't comfortable with voters in redneck states making decisions that would drastically affect them. Why does only one direction of this situation matter to you?

More people getting what they want is better than less people getting what they want.

#56 | Posted by JOE at 2019-01-06 12:08 PM | Reply

Why should the takers decide, and not the makers?

#54 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

You and Madbomber are like to hookers in a cat-fight over a John.

It's all about political will and doing what's right.

Our chicken livered Congress lacks balls to do what's right for all Americans, whether it's healthcare or ensuring fair elections.

You need to wake up and smell the coffee.

#57 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-01-06 12:16 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

This is the United States of America. Not the state of America. It's the states that should have equal say, regardless of population.

LOL I love it how this comes out once your side stands to lose it's undue influence.

And I say it yet again, both houses of Congress won't change a bit if the EC gets done away with.

You guys are acting as if loss of the EC would suddenly make fly over country a political wasteland with zero say in governance.

It's ridiculous hyperbole and caterwauling from a dying world view.

#58 | Posted by jpw at 2019-01-06 12:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Why are the idiots latching on to this issue? Does it really bring in fundraising money from gullible marks? It's certainly not going to help them win electorally.

It looks like the left is being successfully trolled and pwned again.

#59 | Posted by sentinel at 2019-01-06 07:38 PM | Reply

"It looks like the left is being successfully trolled and pwned again." - #59 | Posted by sentinel at 2019-01-06 07:38 PM

🌊 Democrats won control of the US House
🌊 Republicans Suffer Worst House Defeat in U.S. History Based on Popular Vote
🌊 Democrats national lead in raw House votes broke the record for largest vote total in the history of midterm elections
🌊 Democrats earned 53.1 percent of the overall vote in House races while the Republicans earned only 45.2 percent
🌊 Democrat's vote margin bigger than Tea Party's in 2010.
🌊 Democrats received over 61,000,000 votes (Republicans received 45,000,000 in 2010)
🌊 Biggest GOP loss since the Watergate mid-term election in 1974
🌊 Republicans lost 323 state legislative seats (367 since Trump took office)
🌊 Republicans lost 7 governorships, including key 2020 Midwest states in PA, WI and MI.
🌊 6 state legislatures flipped control from GOP to Democratic (7 since Trump took office)
In Orange County, California, what was once known as Reagan Country, there are 6 Congressional Districts:
Before November 6th, the GOP held 4 of the 6
🌊 Now, Democrats hold all 6 seats
In New England, the place where the expression "rock-ribbed Republican" was created:
🌊 Democrats hold all 21 Congressional seats
🌊 11 of 12 US Senate seats are held by Democrats (or independents who caucus with Democrats)
In the races for the US Senate:
Republicans defended 9 seats and lost 2 (a 22% loss rate)
🌊 Democrats defended 26 seats and lost 4 (a 15% loss rate)
Oops.

#60 | Posted by Hans at 2019-01-06 07:41 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"This is the United States of America. Not the state of America."

Exactly. They would have to change the name of the country, and probably stop calling it America too since it doesn't represent either much less both continents.

#61 | Posted by sentinel at 2019-01-06 07:44 PM | Reply

"Doing healthcare better? --- California and New York. Who the hell said that?" - #40 | Posted by boaz at 2019-01-06 10:11 AM

Tell us, boazotoes:

Which is better, California VA health care, or North Carolina VA health care?

#62 | Posted by Hans at 2019-01-06 07:49 PM | Reply

"We have, at this very moment, the tyranny of the minority"

Considering that neither leading candidate won a majority of the popular vote nationwide, you'd still have a "tyranny of the minority" either way.

Those trying to claim the EC allows a tyranny of the minority appear to be at a loss to explain why Obama wasn't defeated both times. Maybe they should be trying to emulate past candidates who won electorally instead of refighting the battles of the sore losers who couldn't.

#63 | Posted by sentinel at 2019-01-06 07:59 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

What's the point of having such a group when they've failed us repeatedly of their ONE job?

#64 | Posted by Tor at 2019-01-06 08:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#53 I would like to see the military funded the same way as healthcare.

Why should I have to pay for poor people's defense. I can defend myself better with my taxes that go to the military. Lets sell off all military equipment to the highest bidder so my taxes are lower. The USS Buffet has a nice ring to it.
I want to defund the VA too, if you want to spend your beer money on worn out grunts, go ahead.

#65 | Posted by bored at 2019-01-06 08:04 PM | Reply

"Maybe they should be trying to emulate past candidates who won electorally instead of refighting the battles of the sore losers who couldn't."

You're glossing over the central point here.
The system is un-democratic and that's why it should be fixed.
The fact that it usually delivers a result that agrees with the popular vote doesn't mean it isn't broken.

#66 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-06 08:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"What's the point of having such a group when they've failed us repeatedly of their ONE job?"

They haven't. If an elector from your state ignored the vote in your state and instead voted for some who won in a minority of other states, you'd have an epileptic fit.

#67 | Posted by sentinel at 2019-01-06 09:10 PM | Reply

Abolish the EC, get election contests as far as the eye can see.

The amendment should be called the FEEL Amendment (Full Employment of Election Lawyers).

#68 | Posted by et_al at 2019-01-06 09:30 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Federalist No. 68

Corruption of an electoral process could most likely arise from the desire of "foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils." To minimize risk of foreign machinations and inducements, the electoral college would have only a "transient existence" and no elector could be a "senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States"; electors would make their choice in a "detached situation", whereas a preexisting body of federal office-holders "might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes".

#69 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2019-01-06 10:29 PM | Reply

"whereas a preexisting body of federal office-holders "might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes"."

Turns out, many states have criminalized faithless electors.

"We have met the enemy and he is us."

#70 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-06 11:33 PM | Reply

D and P, you both have expertise, just in different realms.

#71 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-06 11:34 PM | Reply

The mob doesnt always have everyone else's interests at heart.

#8 | POSTED BY BOAZ AT 2019-01-05 03:18 PM | FLAG: EYE ROLL

You mean like that mob that went looking after WMD's to come up with nothing?

You want to talk about money for nothing!! Go lose another war Boazo.

#72 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2019-01-07 04:16 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Hillary Clinton did not win a minority of the votes, she won a plurality of the votes. Donald Trump won the minority of the votes.

#73 | Posted by danni at 2019-01-07 07:49 AM | Reply

The rest of the country doesnt care how many people in California voted for Hillary. So what a bunch of people in California voted for Hillary? She won..California. Like she was supposed to. But her votes for California do not count toward votes for Nevada, or Texas. They are only for California. Not for any other state. We are a federation of separate states.

#74 | Posted by boaz at 2019-01-07 09:34 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"We are a federation of separate states." - #74 | Posted by boaz at 2019-01-07 09:34 AM

Before the war, it was said "the United States are." Grammatically, it was spoken that way and thought of as a collection of independent states. And after the war, it was always "the United States is," as we say today without being self-conscious at all. And that sums up what the war accomplished. It made us an "is." - Shelby Foote
Oops.

Tell us, boazotoes, which has better VA health care: California or North Carolina?

#75 | Posted by Hans at 2019-01-07 09:40 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#75

Shut up Hans. You are too creepy. Your question has nothing to do with nothing.

#76 | Posted by boaz at 2019-01-07 10:19 AM | Reply

We are a federation of separate states.

#74 | POSTED BY BOAZ

We are a Union trying to become more perfect at Union-ing.

North Carolina? Not so good at Union-ing. Yet.

"Tell us, boazotoes, which has better VA health care: California or North Carolina?

#75 | POSTED BY HANS"

Bozo can't answer that. So I will.

California has better VA health care. And more of it. Better drugs available. better compassion. More resources.

But.

Virginia now has even better. There is not one Homeless Vet in Virginia. Not one. Zero. Zilch. There is a home and care for Every Virginia Vet.

I will be happy when I see all states set and at least try to reach the same goal.

#77 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-01-07 10:28 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"And I can't name many nations who have universal health care with higher averages of life expectancy, lower numbers of infant mortality, etc."

And longer wait times. And less access to specialized care. And lower quality facilities. And when Americans decide that they are willing to pay more for less access and lower quality so that the care that is available is more evenly distributed, it'll happen.

"Absolute garbage. The people of the nation should make the decisions for the nation not the priveleged few who end up in our state Legislatures."

Then convince the states to abandon their sovereignty in favor of outside rule. Pretty simple.

#78 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-01-07 10:59 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Just as people in California and New York aren't comfortable with voters in redneck states making decisions that would drastically affect them. Why does only one direction of this situation matter to you?"

If it's an unhappy marriage, then dissolve it. I don't disagree with you. Danforth has a point about middle America states being net takers. And he's right. But so am I. And it's likely that only if those states would be significantly and irreversable affected by a reduction in outside funding that they would accept outside rule.

"LOL I love it how this comes out once your side stands to lose it's undue influence."

My side? What side is that? It would seem that you skipped civics class, or don't really understand the framework of the country you live in. And I suspect that if Trump had won the popular vote and Hillary won the EC, the tone amongst progressives would be very different. Mine wouldn't.

#79 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-01-07 11:04 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

The rest of the country doesnt care how many people in California voted for Hillary.

Everyone in California is an American. Your desperation to disregard the will of 40 million Americans is akin to me saying "the rest of the country doesn't care how North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Tennessee voted."

See how stupid that is?

#80 | Posted by JOE at 2019-01-07 11:06 AM | Reply

If it's an unhappy marriage, then dissolve it.

Fine by me. I'm tired of sharing a country with people who think an admitted sexual assaulter should be president. How do we get this divorce rolling?

#81 | Posted by JOE at 2019-01-07 11:07 AM | Reply

"The system is un-democratic and that's why it should be fixed."

Its is undemocratic...by design. Otherwise, the majority of the population might have already voted to enslave the minority. That would be democratic.

#82 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-01-07 11:08 AM | Reply

"Fine by me. I'm tired of sharing a country with people who think an admitted sexual assaulter should be president. How do we get this divorce rolling?"

Same as eliminating the electoral college. You start by getting the population of your state to overwhelmingly support it.

#83 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-01-07 11:10 AM | Reply

"Your question has nothing to do with nothing." - #76 | Posted by boaz at 2019-01-07 10:19 AM

No argument.

You are nothing.

Still, which has better VA health care boazotoes: California or North Carolina?

(with a thanks to Donnerboy's #77)

#84 | Posted by Hans at 2019-01-07 11:12 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Your desperation to disregard the will of 40 million Americans

Your desperation to change our system of electing our highest leaders is tiring. The "will" of of those people are reflected in their vote in their state. If 40 million Americans only live in one state, what makes you think their votes should count for the rest of the 49 states where they dont live?

#85 | Posted by boaz at 2019-01-07 11:13 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Otherwise, the majority of the population might have already voted to enslave the minority. That would be democratic." - #82 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-01-07 11:08 AM

We're a constitutional, democratic republic.

Reality.

#86 | Posted by Hans at 2019-01-07 11:13 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"The "will" of of those people are reflected in their vote in their state." - #85 | Posted by boaz at 2019-01-07 11:13 AM

The "will" of the people in North Carolina in 1861 was to keep slaves.

Perhaps you should be calling for the repeal of the 13th Amendment.

#87 | Posted by Hans at 2019-01-07 11:15 AM | Reply

"If 40 million Americans only live in one state, what makes you think their votes should count for the rest of the 49 states where they dont live?" - #85 | Posted by boaz at 2019-01-07 11:13 AM

What makes you think they shouldn't count?

#88 | Posted by Hans at 2019-01-07 11:16 AM | Reply

#80

Consider this. If the states lose power to the Federal Government, then FEDGOV has the ability to make decisions that drastically affect the state or that have little or no support within the state, but are supported by voters in other areas. Land use is a big one. Under Obama, millions of acres of federal land were converted into Wilderness areas. Wilderness areas tend to be most popular with people who don't go in the woods. The locals, those who do, are often very much against it. Without having to be concerned with state-level backlash, what mechanism would there be to slow down a president who's supporters were really looking for him/her to take action that was politically popular with one group, but highly unpopular with those who would be most affected.

#89 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-01-07 11:16 AM | Reply

"We're a constitutional, democratic republic."

The whole point of the constitution is to limit democratic power.

#90 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-01-07 11:17 AM | Reply

"The whole point of the constitution is to limit democratic power." - #90 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-01-07 11:17 AM

So your hypothetical in your #82 was just so much bullschitt.

Thanks for acknowledging that.

#91 | Posted by Hans at 2019-01-07 11:19 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"to take action that was politically popular with one group, but highly unpopular with those who would be most affected."

Sounds exactly like the new tax code.

#92 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-07 11:20 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"If the states lose power to the Federal Government, then FEDGOV has the ability to make decisions that drastically affect the state or that have little or no support within the state..." - #89 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-01-07 11:16 AM

That issue was resolved on April 9, 1865.

Live in the now.

#93 | Posted by Hans at 2019-01-07 11:20 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Still, which has better VA health care boazotoes: California or North Carolina?

You ask me, I'm going to say NC. I dont care about California. The VA care should be the same, as it's a federal entity and not a state one.

#94 | Posted by boaz at 2019-01-07 11:23 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"If 40 million Americans only live in one state, what makes you think their votes should count for the rest of the 49 states where they dont live?"

Well, their money certainly does. You clearly have no problem with Californians paying for more than their share of taxes.

California is a net maker.
North Carolina is a net taker.

www.moneytips.com

#95 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-07 11:24 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

What makes you think they shouldn't count?

I didnt. Their vote did count. For the State of California. You just want them to count more..

#96 | Posted by boaz at 2019-01-07 11:24 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"California is a net maker.
North Carolina is a net taker."

We want your money, not your opinion!
~Boaz

#97 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-07 11:25 AM | Reply

Without having to be concerned with state-level backlash, what mechanism would there be to slow down a president who's supporters were really looking for him/her to take action that was politically popular with one group, but highly unpopular with those who would be most affected?

Especially if that group was a minority? Can someone answer this?

#98 | Posted by boaz at 2019-01-07 11:26 AM | Reply

Well, their money certainly does. You clearly have no problem with Californians paying for more than their share of taxes.
California is a net maker.
North Carolina is a net taker.

California used to be the largest taker in the country, until 21 military bases with over 89,000 personnel were closed between 1989 and 1994. I'm sure California would be happy to have all those bases back and regain its King of the Takers mantle.

Pull the military bases out of the states in the "taker" column and the dynamic shifts dramatically, showing how DRtarded that particular narrative is.

#99 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-01-07 11:31 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

"The VA care should be the same, as it's a federal entity and not a state one." - #94 | Posted by boaz at 2019-01-07 11:23 AM

An excellent argument in favor of Medicare for All.

Thanks!

#100 | Posted by Hans at 2019-01-07 11:32 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"California used to be the largest taker in the country, until 21 military bases with over 89,000 personnel were closed between 1989 and 1994"

Oh...so CA has been a net maker for only the last 25 years. Got it.

#101 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-07 11:35 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

If the states lose power to the Federal Government, then FEDGOV has the ability to make decisions that drastically affect the state or that have little or no support within the state, but are supported by voters in other areas.

That's already true under the current system. Wyoming's 3 electoral votes aren't holding anyone hostage.

#102 | Posted by JOE at 2019-01-07 11:36 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

An excellent argument in favor of Medicare for All.

Thanks!

#100 | Posted by Hans

Hans,

I've already said I was in favor of Single Payer you -------. Funny how you dont remember that..Just how it gets paid is where we dont agree.

#103 | Posted by boaz at 2019-01-07 11:37 AM | Reply

If 40 million Americans only live in one state, what makes you think their votes should count for the rest of the 49 states where they dont live?

Because they are Americans, despite your view to the contrary.

If 40 million Americans live in the deep south, what makes you think their votes should count for the people who don't have anything in common with them?

Why are you such a slave to arbitrary lines that were drawn centuries ago?

#104 | Posted by JOE at 2019-01-07 11:38 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"I've already said I was in favor of Single Payer..." - #103 | Posted by boaz at 2019-01-07 11:37 AM

Well, now, aren't you special.

First I've heard that from you, -------.

#105 | Posted by Hans at 2019-01-07 11:40 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#101

You are missing the point, deliberately I might add.

California fought like a banshee to keep those bases, but because of rising costs, especially off base housing, it was cheaper to move them elsewhere.

Those bases have to be somewhere, if you pull the defense spending just on bases, personnel and dependents out of that equation then the States with the biggest cities suddenly become the takers.

That doesn't fit your narrative, so it is irrelevant to you in any case.

#106 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-01-07 11:40 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

if you pull the defense spending just on bases, personnel and dependents out of that equation then the States with the biggest cities suddenly become the takers.

Citation needed.

Also, so what?

#107 | Posted by JOE at 2019-01-07 11:44 AM | Reply

"You are missing the point, deliberately I might add."

You are missing the bottom line. Deliberately, I might add.

#108 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-07 11:47 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Citation needed.

Bloomberg Government: Impact of Defense Spending: A State-by-State Analysis

If you want the quick answer you need to look at pages 6-7 for state by state impact from a GDP standpoint, total spending figures include aerospace and military contracts and aren't included in the traditional "taker/maker" analysis since those are considered business expenditures.

Also, so what?

#107 | POSTED BY JOE AT 2019-01-07 11:44 AM

You are missing the bottom line. Deliberately, I might add.

#108 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2019-01-07 11:47 AM

I guess I need to repeat myself: That doesn't fit your narrative, so it is irrelevant to you in any case.

#109 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-01-07 12:01 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

"That doesn't fit your narrative"

Oh, by all means, let's talk about a quarter century ago when discussing who are the current makers and who are the current takers.

#110 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-07 12:02 PM | Reply

I've already said I was in favor of Single Payer you -------. Funny how you dont remember that..Just how it gets paid is where we dont agree.

#103 | Posted by boaz

I remember when you "said" it.

And it still does not mean anything. At least not to me. It means Nothing. Say it a hundred times. A thousand times. Still.

Means nothing. Just like when a person named Donald J Trump (who is also a Know Nothing) claims,

"We're going to have insurance for everybody," Trump said in press conference Jan. 11. "We're going to have a healthcare that is far less expensive and far better." Or, as he said in a September 2015 "60 Minutes" interview, "I am going to take care of everybody. Everybody's going to be taken care of much better than they're taken care of now."

Lies and promises from Know Nothings still mean Nothing.

#111 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-01-07 12:16 PM | Reply

"if you pull the defense spending just on bases, personnel and dependents out of that equation then the States with the biggest cities suddenly become the takers."

In related news, if we just get rid of all the blacks, gun violence goes way down.

So why don't we just get rid of all the blacks, RightOCenter? Problem solved.

#112 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-07 12:21 PM | Reply

why should the people of North Dakota or Wyoming have disproportionate power to force their world view on the much larger majority? - #44 | Posted by jpw at 2019-01-06 10:59 AM

Because that was the agreement made with those states when they joined the union. Perhaps you think it appropriate to renege on the agreements made because you now think that they're not 'fair'. That is your prerogative, but why should the states and people of ND or WY give up what they agreed on to join the union? Fair does not enter into the state determining the best choice for its people. You are asking that these states cede the power of themselves and their people. Do you have a bargain chip to offer this loss to those states? If not, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for them to voluntarily do so.

#113 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-01-07 12:27 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

"Perhaps you think it appropriate to renege on the agreements made because you now think that they're not 'fair'."

Damn straight!

Only the President is allowed to do that.

#114 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-07 12:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Perhaps you think it appropriate to renege on the agreements made because you now think that they're not 'fair'"

Considering who is in the White House, that is indeed what the people of North Dakota, Wyoming, and America want.

And you. You want that. You voted for it, remember?

#115 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-07 12:39 PM | Reply

Good Analysis RightOcenter.

#116 | Posted by boaz at 2019-01-07 01:25 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Lies and promises from Know Nothings still mean Nothing.

#111 | Posted by donnerboy

Why such an ------- today Donner? I said I'm for Single payer. Just because I dont believe in your version doesnt mean I'm a liar.

You are the problem with our discourse today.

#117 | Posted by boaz at 2019-01-07 01:28 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

state by state impact from a GDP standpoint

Net taker/maker analysis consists of raw dollars, not adjustments for GDP of each state.

California and Texas are the #2 and #3 recipients of defense dollars, respectively. And yet both are already net makers when it comes to overall federal dollars. So if you take away that spending from their states, they would be even bigger makers.

#118 | Posted by JOE at 2019-01-07 01:28 PM | Reply

Just because I dont believe in your version doesnt mean I'm a liar.

How many versions of single payer are there, and which version do you believe in?

You being unable to articulate these simple things, while thinking they're not a necessary predicate for the conversation, exemplifies the problem with our discourse today.

A mich better example is all the trolls who say Democrats want "open borders" without saying what open borders means.

#119 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-07 01:33 PM | Reply

How many versions of single payer are there, and which version do you believe in?

I dont know. All I know is, I think single payer is fine, as long as everyone pays the same percentage of income. That's all. But liberals dont want that. They want to make it easy on the poor, who no doubt will be the number 1 users of such a system. I dont agree with that. I think everyone should be taxed the same percentage of income so everyone pays. Those with more income pay more. I dont care about how it affects you. You said you wanted it. This is how much it will cost. No deductions. No waivers.

You being unable to articulate these simple things, while thinking they're not a necessary predicate for the conversation, exemplifies the problem with our discourse today.

I can articulate anything I want. You just dont like what I'm saying. Everything doesnt have to be said like you are a Harvard Scholar. And you dont have to talk like you are above people to sound like you know what you are talking about. Just because I might not use the words you would or the words some snooty professor might use doesnt mean I dont know what I'm talking about. You liberals are losing elections because of this..

#120 | Posted by boaz at 2019-01-07 02:01 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Oh I see.

You're "articulating" a flat tax and calling it single payer.

There's a word for that.

That word is lying.

#121 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-07 02:04 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"I think single payer is fine, as long as everyone pays the same percentage of income. That's all. "

Sheldon Adleson on line one for you.
The Walton family on line two.
Every member of Congress on line three.

#122 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-07 02:04 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Why such an ------- today Donner? I said I'm for Single payer. Just because I dont believe in your version doesnt mean I'm a liar.

You are the problem with our discourse today.

#117 | Posted by boaz

The problem with our "discourse" is all the lies. Right now it happen be YOUR lies I am concerned with.

You are lying to yourself.

But, you cannot lie to me. I am not interested in any of your lies anymore.

Anyway.

I am always an ------- when it comes to human rights.

Get over it.

#123 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-01-07 02:07 PM | Reply

What ever. I'm not lying and I havent lied about anything.

#124 | Posted by boaz at 2019-01-07 02:15 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"...I havent lied about anything." - #124 | Posted by boaz at 2019-01-07 02:15 PM

Does being stupidly-wrong count?

"Republicans will win for the next 20 generations." - #2 | Posted by boaz at 2018-07-21 11:01 PM

#125 | Posted by Hans at 2019-01-07 02:17 PM | Reply

More like, you're so dumb you can't even tell you're lying.

Single payer has nothing to do with what percentage people are taxed at, you stupid -------.

#126 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-07 02:18 PM | Reply

I am always an ------- when it comes to human rights.

Human rights do not entail you to someone else's money.

#127 | Posted by boaz at 2019-01-07 02:19 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

WTF are you talking about Hans? I'm getting tired of you. Stop it with your stalking or you are going to become my first and only plonk.

#128 | Posted by boaz at 2019-01-07 02:20 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Human rights do not entail you to someone else's money."

Then what do human rights entail you to, and more importantly, who pays for those things?

#129 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-07 02:27 PM | Reply

"...or you are going to become my first and only plonk." - #128 | Posted by boaz at 2019-01-07 02:20 PM

And miss out on my gems of wisdom? Then you would have never have heard of Duck Donuts.

But, just think, add you and one more person and we'll be tied at 14 plonks each.

#130 | Posted by Hans at 2019-01-07 02:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Then what do human rights entail you to, and more importantly, who pays for those things?

The individual.

#131 | Posted by boaz at 2019-01-07 02:51 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Then there are no rights, there are merely the privileges one can afford.

#132 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-07 02:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Then there are no rights, there are merely the privileges one can afford.

A right isnt something you can buy.

And if you buy something with money you earned, it isnt a privilege.

#133 | Posted by boaz at 2019-01-07 03:04 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Electoral College was offered to the slave states to get them to ratify the Constitution by giving them more power than their populations actually deserved. I totally support eliminating it or making irrelevant by passing laws in individual states that say the delegates will vote for whoever wins the popular vote.

#2 | POSTED BY DANNI

Exactly. The EC is an institution designed to appease slavers. And they doubly cheated by artificially lowering their population (increasing voting power per capita) by counting slaves as less than a person.

We need to eliminate the EC and stop the tyranny of flyover and welfare states over the rest of us.

#134 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-01-07 03:06 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#133 | POSTED BY BOAZ

Boaz, you illiterate goon. Afford does not mean purchase with money in this instance.

#135 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-01-07 03:07 PM | Reply

"A right isnt something you can buy."

Then what is it?
And, who pays for it, whatever it is?

#136 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-07 03:09 PM | Reply

Afford does not mean purchase with money in this instance.

So? You dont have a right to things of value.

I dont have a right to have a Ferrari. I think we should. But I dont because it's a thing of value.

#137 | Posted by boaz at 2019-01-07 03:11 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"And if you buy something with money you earned, it isnt a privilege."

How about if it's money you inherited, doea that make it a privilege?

Why'd you mention "earned," Boaz???

#138 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-07 03:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"You dont have a right to things of value."

Does that mean you don't have a right to life?
Or does it mean your life has no value?

#139 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-07 03:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"You dont have a right to things of value. I dont have a right to have a Ferrari. I think we should. But I dont because it's a thing of value." - #137 | Posted by boaz at 2019-01-07 03:11 PM

Freedom of speech isn't a thing of value?

Or freedom of religion?

Or freedom of assembly?

The right to keep and bear arms isn't a thing of value?

You've got a really screwed up way of looking at the world, boazotoes.

#140 | Posted by Hans at 2019-01-07 03:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Does that mean you don't have a right to life?

Life was given to you by God.

You can be killed by anyone at any time. So no, you dont have a right to life. Quite frankly, you dont have a "right" to anything in this world. Everything can be taken away.

I suppose the only "right" you have is your own ability to protect yourself and to provide for yourself.

#141 | Posted by boaz at 2019-01-07 03:16 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Freedom of speech isn't a thing of value?

Or freedom of religion?

Or freedom of assembly?

The right to keep and bear arms isn't a thing of value?

No, none of those have any monetary value.

And ou can be stopped from doing any of them.

#142 | Posted by boaz at 2019-01-07 03:17 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"A cynic is a man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing."

--Oscar Wilde, describing our boy Boaz and the rest of his band of Merry Deploraboes to a tee.

#143 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-07 03:18 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"And you can be stopped from doing any of them."

How can you be stopped from freedom of religion?

Legally, I mean.

#144 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-07 03:19 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Legally, I mean.

Not in our society, of course, we have decided that you can worship whomever you want. We call it a "right" and I guess it is in our society. But it doesnt cost anything to handle this "right". It doesnt cost me personally if someone else worship's Budda.

#145 | Posted by boaz at 2019-01-07 03:21 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"You can be killed by anyone at any time. So no, you dont have a right to life."

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The Declaration of Independence disagrees with you.

#146 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-07 03:22 PM | Reply

The right to keep and bear arms
#142 | POSTED BY BOAZ

That one is explicitly not a right in the United States per The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

#147 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-01-07 03:23 PM | Reply

"But it doesnt cost anything to handle this "right". "

Nonsense. Your tax dollars are used to subsidize the Buddhist Temple. And the Mosques, the Jewish Synagogues, and the Christian Churches, among others.

#148 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-07 03:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"No, none of those have any monetary value." - #142 | Posted by boaz at 2019-01-07 03:17 PM

Value isn't just determined by money.

If that were the case then the Congressional Medal of Honor is just a worthless piece of junk metal.

Your service in the US military would be just as worthless.

Your marriage would be worthless.

Your children would be less than worthless because they have negative monetary value.

As I said, you've got a really screwed up way of looking at the world, boazotoes.

#149 | Posted by Hans at 2019-01-07 03:25 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Not in our society, of course, we have decided that you can worship whomever you want."

Sounds like a "right" to me.

#150 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-07 03:25 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

(Of course, once inside the Church, its sounds like a "rite".)

#151 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-07 03:26 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Quite frankly, you dont have a "right" to anything in this world. Everything can be taken away.

Good lord you're stupid. Just because something canbe taken from you does not mean it doesn't exist.

#152 | Posted by JOE at 2019-01-07 03:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"I suppose the only "right" you have is your own ability to protect yourself and to provide for yourself"

Some people build mountains. Others dig holes. Generally speaking, its more interesting to watch someone build a mountain than to watch someone dig a hole. Unless the person digging the hole happens to be YOU. And that's probably because, just when it looks as if you might stop, you dig deeper and deeper.

(Apologies-- Will Rogers I am not)

#153 | Posted by NerfHerder at 2019-01-07 03:31 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Sounds like a "right" to me.

Rights I guess are only what the society can give you. If the society ceases, then the right ceases and we go back to nature's laws.

The Declaretion only establishied what our American society considered inviolate. Life, liberty and the pursuit, not the attainment of happiness.

#154 | Posted by boaz at 2019-01-07 03:37 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"you dont have a "right" to anything in this world. Everything can be taken away."

Then why do you believe you have a right to keep the money you earn?

"The Declaretion only establishied what our American society considered inviolate. Life..."

You just said we DON'T have a right to life...make up your mind.

Frankly, I believe we DO have a right to life, since taking it away causes serious consequences...like revoking your right to liberty.

#155 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-07 03:41 PM | Reply

"Rights I guess are only what the society can give you."

Like eligibility for welfare?

#156 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-07 03:43 PM | Reply

If it can be revoked, is it a right?

#157 | Posted by boaz at 2019-01-07 03:43 PM | Reply

"If it can be revoked, is it a right?"

Death penalty much?

#158 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-07 03:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Actually, I agree with what Boaz is TRYING to say.

We do not have RIGHTS we have PRIVILEDGES.

Nothing we have cannot be taken from us by our Government. And has been from the beginning.

Or course, the Constitution starts with the profound words WE THE PEOPLE...

Meaning, our rights, laws, taxes, etc. are what we decide upon.

#159 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-01-07 03:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

If it can be revoked, is it a right?

Considering that a "right" is defined as "a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way," yes, i'd say it can be. Just because you are entitled to something does not mean you will get it.

I could have a right to liberty, but then be mistakenly imprisoned. I would still retain my right, it's just that my right was violated. The right doesn't disappear.

#160 | Posted by JOE at 2019-01-07 03:58 PM | Reply

Rights I guess are only what the society can give you.

Do you mean "allow"?

As in negative rights; to not be subject to an action/burden of another individual; or acts which government must refrain from doing. Or in the case of jury trial a procedural rights to enforce negative right.

Or "give" as in positive rights? entitling an individual to have another do some act for the benefit of the person entitled. (Welfare etc etc)....

The idea of the Constitution and Declaration were to restrict what the government could do to the individual, ie negative rights.

Rights in this form, are not about what Society gives you, but what the government can't do to you.

Regarding Snoofy's "death penalty"

"no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law", (5th and 14th amendment)

Again the government can't kill you (take away rights) without going through due process.

#161 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-01-07 04:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

--As in negative rights;

The distinction between negative and positive liberty is fundamental to understanding the difference between classical Western liberal philosophy and authoritarian left ideology, e.g., Marxism.

#162 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-01-07 04:20 PM | Reply

#162 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

The goal of classical marxism might be leftist ideology but in practice colloquial marxism is just plain old right-wing authoritarianism.

#163 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-01-07 04:35 PM | Reply

is fundamental to understanding the difference between classical Western liberal philosophy and authoritarian left ideology, e.g., Marxism.

Fortune Cookie Lenin's ears just perked up with that dog whistle...

#164 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-01-07 04:35 PM | Reply

In order to achieve the goal of classical Marxism a totalitarian state is required.

#165 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-01-07 04:51 PM | Reply

The distinction between negative and positive liberty is fundamental to understanding the difference between classical Western liberal philosophy and authoritarian left ideology, e.g., Marxism.

So much clap-trap, so little time...

I'll just say our Constitution places both restrictions on government (First, Second, Fourth, Fifth) as well as obligations (Fourth, Fifth, Eighth).

#166 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-07 04:56 PM | Reply

In order to achieve the goal of classical Marxism a totalitarian state is required.

#165 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

At least according to a classical marxist. Democratic Socialists obviously disagree.

#167 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-01-07 05:32 PM | Reply

They [The Founding Fathers] knew mob democracy would affect smaller states and populations.
-Boaz

During the time of the founding fathers, which were the smaller states? Definitely not the Southern ones who were demanding the EC.

I wonder what your point was supposed to be.

#168 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-01-07 05:58 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Definitely not the Southern ones who were demanding the EC.

Plus the slave states got extra say in Gov't because slaves count as 3/5 a person in both the EC and the House.

Country was built on slavery. It's just the way it is.

#169 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-07 06:13 PM | Reply

#168 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

Boaz is fine with mob rule as long as the redneck welfare states are the ruling mob.

#170 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-01-07 06:24 PM | Reply

Fortune Cookie Lenin's ears just perked up with that dog whistle...

#164 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER AT 2019-01-07 04:35 PM | FLAG:

I see I'm still living rent free in Rightostupid's empty little head...

#171 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2019-01-07 06:45 PM | Reply

Fortune Cookie Lenin's ears just perked up with that dog whistle...
#164 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

I see I'm still living rent free in Rightostupid's empty little head...
#171 | POSTED BY DIRKSTRUAN

What's more amazing is he plonked you months ago.

But, he's desperate to communicate with you.

It's weird how narcissism works.

#172 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-01-07 07:10 PM | Reply

And they doubly cheated by artificially lowering their population (increasing voting power per capita) by counting slaves as less than a person. - #134 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-01-07 03:06 PM
You don't understand math, evidently. Counting 1 slave as less than 1 person was the choice of the northern states, not the southern ones. Had each slave counted as a full person, as the southern states wanted, then the southern states would have had a larger total effectve population and thus a larger representation in the government. Your ignorance is showing, Indiana.

#173 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-01-07 08:32 PM | Reply

it was a compromise between the north and the south.

#174 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2019-01-07 08:34 PM | Reply

#173

So the cheating was the other way: the South wanted to count blacks as a whole person for some purposes (I.e. for crass political gain) and not others (giving them any sorts of rights at all). I am not sure how you think that furthers your point.

#175 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2019-01-07 08:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Correct, Alexandrite. The South wanted 1 slave = 1 person, the north didn't want slaves to have representation at all (1 slave = 0 persons).
The compromise was 3/5, as I'm sure you are aware.

#176 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-01-07 08:38 PM | Reply

I am not sure how you think that furthers your point. - #175 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2019-01-07 08:37 PM
My point in helping Indiana overcome their ignorance? I think it was furthered just fine.

#177 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-01-07 08:39 PM | Reply

My point in helping Indiana overcome their ignorance? I think it was furthered just fine.

#177 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE AT 2019-01-07 08:39 PM | FLAG:

Good for you.

But as to the point of the thread.. you know? This thread? This thread you are here posting on? Yeah, you've just proven the more important point that the rural, regressive states are cheaters and have been since the word "go." The Amerikkkan system is hopelessly contaminated by that simple reality. It isn't right, fair, or well intentioned and people are understandably tired of it.

#178 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2019-01-07 08:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The South wanted 1 slave = 1 person,
#176 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

Yep, but slaves couldn't vote.

So, why would slave owners want their slaves counted?

#179 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-01-07 08:50 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

the north didn't want slaves to have representation at all (1 slave = 0 persons).
#176 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

Yep, because slaves couldn't vote.

So, why would slave owners want their slaves counted?

#180 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-01-07 08:51 PM | Reply

Yeah, you've just proven the more important point that the rural, regressive states are cheaters and have been since the word "go." The Amerikkkan system is hopelessly contaminated by that simple reality. It isn't right, fair, or well intentioned and people are understandably tired of it.

#178 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2019-01-07 08:43 PM
Yes, Diskstruan, each state agreeing to and following the rules means the ones you don't like are cheaters...in the minds of complete morons, anyway.

#181 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-01-07 08:51 PM | Reply

Yes, Diskstruan, each state agreeing to and following the rules means the ones you don't like are cheaters...in the minds of complete morons, anyway.

#181 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE AT 2019-01-07 08:51 PM | FLAG:

Cheaters who cheat by rigging the game are still cheaters... indeed, the worst kind.

#182 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2019-01-07 08:55 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Everyone agreeing to the rules isn't rigging the game. Why are you whining about it now? Part of the agreement was the method to change it. Be about it.

#183 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-01-07 08:56 PM | Reply

Counting 1 slave as less than 1 person was the choice of the northern states, not the southern ones.
#173 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

Why do you keep putting up such a disingenuous argument? Got nothing else to offer?

Slaves couldn't vote. By counting them as part of the population the south was getting more representation, but not representation for the slaves. Representation for the slave owners.

Which is why the north didn't want people (slaves) who were being treated as livestock to give additional leverage to the people who were using them as commodities.

Can you be anymore of a disingenuous POS liar?

#184 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-01-07 08:57 PM | Reply

Everyone agreeing to the rules isn't rigging the game.
#183 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE AT 2019-01-07 08:56 PM | FLAG:

Sure it is. Agreement under duress is no agreement at all. Sadly, the cheaters still fought a war when their rigging of the system didn't deliver all the outcomes they wanted, due to the exact sort of backlash we are seeing today.

#185 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2019-01-07 09:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Part of the agreement was the method to change it.

#183 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE AT 2019-01-07 08:56 PM | FLAG:

You must be a child to still believe THAT myth.

#186 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2019-01-07 09:01 PM | Reply

What duress are you pretending that anyone was under that forced them to succumb to entering the union?
Considering that the the method has been used to already to change it, you'd have to still be a complete moron to think it a myth.

#187 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-01-07 09:03 PM | Reply

#184

He knows that very well, of course. But, you know, it was all "agreed to".... except, you know, by the actual population of the country at the time. Sound familiar?

#188 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2019-01-07 09:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"What duress are you pretending that anyone was under that forced them to succumb to entering the union?"

Open a history book, moron.

"Considering that the the method has been used to already to change it,"

Not lately and not often. And isn't it funny how a lot of that came only after the party doing the amending itself cheated (the amendments during reconstruction) or faced some horrific emergency that left no choice?

#189 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2019-01-07 09:08 PM | Reply

More frequently and recently than any myth. Glad you can admit your mistake.

#190 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-01-07 09:10 PM | Reply

What duress are you pretending that anyone was under that forced them to succumb to entering the union?
#187 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

Our Russian friend seems to be quite ignorant of US History.

Avi, you're a fraud.

#191 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-01-07 09:13 PM | Reply

So the cheating was the other way: the South wanted to count blacks as a whole person for some purposes (I.e. for crass political gain) and not others (giving them any sorts of rights at all). I am not sure how you think that furthers your point.
#175 | POSTED BY DIRKSTRUAN

This is correct ....

Today its States that foster Sanctuary Cities, and illegal immigrants (for crass political gain) .... they are the cheaters today.....

But today you are ok with it.....

#192 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-01-07 09:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Crass political gain:

pics.me.me

#193 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-01-07 09:31 PM | Reply

"More frequently and recently than any myth."

But no less unreachable. Here's a free lesson: "a difference that MAKES no difference, IS no difference" you pettifogging little poodle, you.

#194 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2019-01-07 09:32 PM | Reply

#193

That would have a lot more impact had you not lost the popular vote repeatedly over the last decade or so, Dulli.

#195 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2019-01-07 09:33 PM | Reply

"Today its States that foster Sanctuary Cities, and illegal immigrants (for crass political gain) .... they are the cheaters today....."

Oh yeah? Prove it.

#196 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2019-01-07 09:34 PM | Reply

Oh yeah? Prove it.

Isn't Nulli's Newsworthy on Andrea's post enough proof?

#197 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-01-07 09:36 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#173 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

You mathematics illiterate; the racist southerners wanted to count slaves as a whole person for the representation benefit but did not want to grant them the rights of a person. So the slimy bastards tricked the union into the 3/5ths compromise only to betray the United States later on.

Your willful ignorance is showing, Avi.

#198 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-01-07 09:36 PM | Reply

Come on Mackris... how long have you idiots played the same stupid song? So I'm calling you out: prove it. Prove. It.

Show me Trump's millions of illegal votes. Point them out to me. You can do it, surely!

#199 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2019-01-07 09:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Reading everyone beat down avigdore's 300 year old racist arguments is like this.

#200 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-01-07 09:40 PM | Reply

#192 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

Undocumented people, who by definition cannot vote and don't count in our official population numbers, are the same as slaves that explicitly did count toward population? Holy ----, the mental gymnastics you people do is mind scrambling. Which explains so much about your delusions.

#201 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-01-07 09:43 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

the racist southerners wanted to count slaves as a whole person for the representation benefit but did not want to grant them the rights of a person. So the slimy bastards tricked the union into the 3/5ths compromise only to betray the United States later on. - #198 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-01-07 09:36 PM

Thanks for repeating what I said, IJ.:
Counting 1 slave as less than 1 person was the choice of the northern states, not the southern ones. Had each slave counted as a full person, as the southern states wanted, then the southern states would have had a larger total effectve population and thus a larger representation in the government. #173 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-01-07 08:32 PM

Yeah, I corrected your idiotic statement: "And they doubly cheated by artificially lowering their population (increasing voting power per capita) by counting slaves as less than a person. - #134 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-01-07 03:06 PM
^^^ That right there, your "artificially lowering their population" comment...yeah, that's your mathematical ignorance on full display.

I'm happy to see that you've figured out some math tonight.

#202 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-01-07 09:46 PM | Reply

Undocumented people, who by definition cannot vote and don't count in our official population numbers, are the same as slaves that explicitly did count toward population?
#201 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-01-07 09:43 PM

Unlawful immigrants absolutely count in our official population numbers...which is why there is such an issue with the question of citizenship being on the 2020 census.

#203 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-01-07 09:48 PM | Reply

Show me Trump's millions of illegal votes. Point them out to me. You can do it, surely!

#199 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2019-01-07 09:39 PM
You need to work on your reading comprehension.
The political gain in #192 isn't illegal votes, it is increased population and representation in the HoR and EC.

#204 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-01-07 09:52 PM | Reply

which is why there is such an issue with the question of citizenship being on the 2020 census.

#203 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE AT 2019-01-07 09:48 PM | FLAG:

Another example of rightist system rigging! Thanks for that.

#205 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2019-01-07 09:54 PM | Reply

#202 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

Okay you pedantic idiot, they artificially increased it then. Doesn't matter. The point is that they got 3/5ths extra voting benefit per slave without giving any damn voting benefits to the slaves.

Regardless of the math eluding your arrogant and pridefully ignorant ass, you're arguing in favor of naked racism. Even if you could understand the simple math behind how the 3/5ths compromise increased their representation surplus, you'll still look like the dumb ------- ucker you are.

#206 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-01-07 09:55 PM | Reply

The 3/5 compromise LOWERED the representation of Southern states. The southern states wanted each slave to count as a person for representation so that the southern states had more power in government. The northern states did not want to count the slaves as people so that the southern states had less power in government. The compromise, where each slave was counted as only 3/5 of a person, lowered the South's effective population, thus their representation in the HoR and EC. Which I've said 3 times now.

you're arguing in favor of naked racism.
What the hell are you talking about? I haven't argued for anything. I've been trying to show you that you don't understand math by pointing out how the northern and southern states wanted to consider slaves for representation.

#207 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-01-07 10:00 PM | Reply

You need to work on your reading comprehension.
The political gain in #192 isn't illegal votes, it is increased population and representation in the HoR and EC.

#204 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE AT 2019-01-07 09:52 PM | FLAG:

Well, as has been repeatedly observed, the high population states just get less representation, person for person, than the lower population ones, which is precisely the complaint. This is true of the EC and the HOR.

#208 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2019-01-07 10:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Show me Trump's millions of illegal votes."

One episode of Stuff You Should Know talked about a pair of research statisticians who tried to get to the bottom of the 3,000,000 number. The vast majority, of course, were folks who had moved and not canceled their registrations. Next were folks who had the same name, more or less (initials, etc), but the birth dates didn't match. However, after weeding all of those permutations out, there still were 20,000 names of multiple registrations that had the exact same name, and exact same birthday. Had they found the illegal votes?

Deeper investigation turned up something they didn't expect. When they looked at the matches for name and date, an interesting theme emerged:

The most common name/birthdate match was among hispanic females born on March 19, Josefina, after St. Joseph's feast day. In second place were Irish guys born on March 17...with the first name of Patrick. Other matches included Autumn, April, May, June, Holly, and Noel.

That accounted for the final 20,000.

#209 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-07 10:06 PM | Reply

#208 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2019-01-07 10:03 PM
Which is a statement that nobody has disagreed with.
The point of 192 was that you seem to have a problem when the southern states gamed the system over a hundred years ago, but don't seem to have an issue with the gaming of the system perpetrated by states pushing for unlawful immigrants today. Did you have a response for the hypocrisy that AM seems to be pointing out?

#210 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-01-07 10:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"but don't seem to have an issue with the gaming of the system perpetrated by states pushing for unlawful immigrants today."

What gaming of the system? The more people who come in, the worse the problem gets (in terms of an individual vote's worth). The original rigging of the system guarantees that.

#211 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2019-01-07 10:09 PM | Reply

Also, what states are pushing for unlawful immigration?

#212 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2019-01-07 10:11 PM | Reply

Do states with high birth rates "game the system" too?

#213 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2019-01-07 10:14 PM | Reply

#211: The addition of people not authorized to be residing in the country to inflate total state population and therefor representation in the HoR & EC.

#214 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-01-07 10:15 PM | Reply

#221: You'd have to ask AM, it's their argument, but it seems like the indication was states with sanctuary cities. I was just trying to help you see the argument actually being made (population change) and not the one you mistook as being made (unlawful votes made).

#215 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-01-07 10:17 PM | Reply

The South wanted 1 slave = 1 person,
#176 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

Yep, but slaves couldn't vote.
So, why would slave owners want their slaves counted?
#179 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

I see Avi has chosen to ignore this and the following posts, because it destroys his narrative.

#216 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-01-07 10:20 PM | Reply

"The addition of people not authorized to be residing in the country to inflate total state population"

IOW, there are people who have lived here for years, and are currently a large part of the food chain...but society should pretend they, and their needs, don't exist.

#217 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-07 10:25 PM | Reply

211: The addition of people not authorized to be residing in the country to inflate total state population and therefor representation in the HoR & EC.

#214 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE AT 2019-01-07 10:15 PM | FLAG:

Yeah, but the system is weighted against high population states, as you've acknowledged.

#218 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2019-01-07 10:28 PM | Reply

221: You'd have to ask AM, it's their argument, but it seems like the indication was states with sanctuary cities. I was just trying to help you see the argument actually being made (population change) and not the one you mistook as being made (unlawful votes made).

#215 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE AT 2019-01-07 10:17 PM | FLAG:

Well, there is more work to be done to make that case but as you say, it isn't your argument.

#219 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2019-01-07 10:29 PM | Reply

IOW, there are people who have lived here for years, and are currently a large part of the food chain...but society should pretend they, and their needs, don't exist. #217 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-07 10:25 PM
I'm sure that sounds great in your head, but no one has said that but you. What people have said is that those unlawful immigrants, people not authorized to be here, should be returned to where they came from to get in line like every other person that seeks to immigrate here. You know...following the rules instead of gaming the system.

#220 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-01-07 10:29 PM | Reply

The addition of people not authorized to be residing in the country to inflate total state population and therefor representation in the HoR & EC.
#214 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

If they are here illegally, "not authorized to be residing in the country", then they aren't being counted as part of the state population. Therefore, they are not represented in the HoR or the EC.

Any other bullshht to post tonight?

You're on a roll.

#221 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-01-07 10:30 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Avi, let me make this as simple as possible. If slaves are people in your mind, then they lowered their representation in order to deny basic rights to people. If slaves are not people in your mind, then they artificially increased their population. The point is, if someone counts toward the population, they should get to vote. The would-become confederate states, tricking the others, agreed to join a union if and only if they could eat their cake and have it too. Then they betrayed that agreement like the cowards they've always been.

If you have to, reread everyone explaining it all night long. Eventually, or rather; maybe, you'll finally understand this simple reality of history.

#222 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-01-07 10:39 PM | Reply

"following the rules instead of gaming the system."

Their "gaming the system" includes lousy wages, hard work and--more than Americans--following the law.

If all 11 million left en masse, we'd see the largest disruption in the food chain we've ever experienced.

#223 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-07 10:43 PM | Reply

Avi's biggest problem is he isn't familiar with US History.

They don't teach US History in Russia.

#224 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-01-07 10:43 PM | Reply

Slaves were obviously people. Southerners wanted them to count as a full person for representation. Northerners did not want them to count as a person for representation. The result was the 3/5 compromise where the South did not get as much power as if their slaves were counted as full persons.

Lots of people count towards the population who do not, and should not, get to vote. Children and citizens of other countries are still counted as people for population, yet do not partake of the vote. That you think somehow the southern states 'tricked' others is laughable. An agreement between educated and capable people of all the states came to that decision.

I fully understand the situation, and I've been working to help you overcome your faulty ideas "And they doubly cheated by artificially lowering their population (increasing voting power per capita) by counting slaves as less than a person." IJ #134
That you think the south cheated by intentionally LOWERING their population totals (and therefore lowering their representatives in Congress) means that you are ignorant of the realities.
Or perhaps you think it was the NORTH that cheated, because they were the ones who caused the South's population to be lowered through the 3/5 compromise?

#225 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-01-07 10:47 PM | Reply

"he South did not get as much power as if their slaves were counted as full persons."

Nor did the slaves.

#226 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-07 10:49 PM | Reply

If all 11 million left en masse, we'd see the largest disruption in the food chain we've ever experienced.
#223 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Why? Perhaps we would see Teen unemployment drop? Traffic drop, housing become more affordable,

Perhaps we would even see wages increase .... oh my ....

If you want to say the South was a "cheater" wanting slaves to be counted ...

Then Sanctuary states/cities and openborder types, are also "Cheaters" for the same reason.

#227 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-01-07 10:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Nor did the slaves. - #226 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-07 10:49 PM
I understand that you think you've made a point, but the slaves had neither more or less power as a result of the 3/5 compromise.

#228 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-01-07 10:53 PM | Reply

"Why? Perhaps we would see Teen unemployment drop? "

You're nuts. Have you ever driven across the vegetable growing regions of CA? They're vast, and far away from major metropolitan areas. And you're expecting those jobs to be taken by teens? Will they be skipping school for the work? Will they be sleeping in the harvest areas, and migrate with the seasons?!?

#229 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-07 10:59 PM | Reply

#225 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

"Slaves were obviously people."

Oh ----, so they DID cheat, just like Dirk's been telling your dumb ass all day.

"Southerners wanted them to count as a full person for representation."

Without rights.

"Northerners did not want them to count as a person for representation."

Unless they had full voting rights.

"I fully understand the situation"

Your incessant denials regarding the 3/5ths compromise suggest otherwise.

"I've been working to help you overcome your faulty ideas"

Please stop doing that. You'll drive yourself even more insane. You're like a flat earther; you can try all day but you will never convince me that objective reality is false and your alternative histories are real.

Take this. It will help with all that digging.

#230 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-01-07 11:03 PM | Reply

#227 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

If we didn't have to subsidize your economic deficits, maybe we wouldn't need immigrants filling in the labor void. Maybe if all you lazy rednecks worked in the fields and orchards, you wouldn't be so reliant on our subsidies.

#231 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-01-07 11:05 PM | Reply

Or perhaps you think it was the NORTH that cheated, because they were the ones who caused the South's population to be lowered through the 3/5 compromise?

#225 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

I don't know who's more ignorant, you or the mattress Andrea. You've invented a history that only exists inside your warped, addled mind.

The implementation of the Three-Fifths Compromise would greatly increase the representation and political power of slave-owning states. The Southern states, if represented equally, would have accounted for 33 of the seats in the House of Representatives. However, because of the Three-Fifths Compromise, the Southern states accounted for 47 seats in the House of Representatives of the first United States Congress of 1790. This would allow for the South to garner enough power at the political level, giving them control in Presidential elections.

constitution.laws.com

Where did you receive your American history education? I only ask so that I can avoid the black hole where you find the bulk of your fictional musings. Could you possibly waste more time with your convoluted delusions than you have already on this thread?

#232 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-01-07 11:08 PM | Reply

"the slaves had neither more or less power as a result of the 3/5 compromise"

So the slaveowners wanted their bodies to count...just not their opinions.

#233 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-07 11:11 PM | Reply

The slaves were PROPERTY, not citizens with voting rights. The southern states could have easily asked for a compromise based on the number of cotton plants within their borders as they actually did with slaves. Either people (at that time MEN) were allowed to vote or they weren't. Slaves were not treated as persons under the laws (unless they violated one), they were property of the white men who owned them. Any political considerations were a bonus for the south, not a diminishment. I've never seen such a misinformed, ludicrous argument in my life.

#234 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-01-07 11:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You've invented a history that only exists inside your warped, addled mind. #232 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-01-07 11:08 PM

What are you talking about? I haven't invented history. See that question mark? It means it is a question - an attempt to understand what IndianaJones was trying to convey. I asked IJ if that's what he meant when he stated "And they doubly cheated by artificially lowering their population (increasing voting power per capita) by counting slaves as less than a person." IJ #134
Since he used 'their', I couldn't be sure if he was an idiot thinking that the south intentionally lowered their representation or if he thought the north was the ones cheating.
I see your poor reading comprehension and lack of following the conversation rears its ugly head.

OH, and from your link:

For the most part, those who opposed slavery only wanted to consider the free people of a population, while those in favor wanted to include slaves in the population count. This would provide for slave holders to have many more seats in the House of Representatives and more representation in the Electoral College.

Your source uses the phrase "if represented equally" to mean if slaves were accounted for no population. If that were true, then the southern states would have accounted for 33 seats. If the slaves were considered 3/5 of a person, then the southern states would have 47 seats. But if each slave had counted as 1 person ( as the southern states wanted and the northern states did not), the southern states would have accounted MORE THAN 47 seats. The 3/5 compromise brought the southern states DOWN to 47 seats from whatever it would have been had each slave counted as 1 person.

#235 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-01-07 11:27 PM | Reply

#234:
Women, children, and non-citizens also did not have voting rights, but were considered part of the population for apportioning representation.

I've never seen such a misinformed, ludicrous argument in my life. #234 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-01-07 11:26 PM
What is my argument that you feel is misinformed and ludicrous?

#236 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-01-07 11:29 PM | Reply

"Women, children, and non-citizens also did not have voting rights, but were considered part of the population for apportioning representation."

Two major problems here:

1.Non-voting population was considered for representation.
But they only had slaves in Slave states.
Giving slaves states higher representation.
So, all things being equal, slave states were over-represented.

2. This was also at a time when the House was apportioned at one Representative per 30,000 people, not as some share of 435 representatives as it's done today.

It's interstage that you are trying to be this deceptive.
You actually worked in two deceptions there!
Why are you doing that?
Are you deliberately trying to misinform us, or are you truly that ignorant of both statistics and American history?

#237 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-07 11:36 PM | Reply

#235 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

From my perspective, the slaves are people. That's why I say the south cheated by lowering their population. By 2/5ths. Was it that subtraction that messed you up? The double cheating comes from them getting extra representative power + a slave-enhanced economy.

Its easy to gain and retain power when you extra voting rights and making money is like turning on a faucet.

#238 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-01-07 11:39 PM | Reply

those who opposed slavery only wanted to consider the free people of a population, while those in favor wanted to include slaves in the population count. This would provide for slave holders to have many more seats in the House of Representatives and more representation in the Electoral College.

I gotta assume Avi has me plonked, because I've been trying to help this idiot all day.

those who opposed slavery only wanted to consider the free people of a population

Because Slaves didn't have the right to vote. So why count them when all you're doing is giving more power to the slave owners?

those in favor wanted to include slaves in the population count

Because if your slaves counted, your state would have a stronger presence in the House of Representatives. But, it didn't provide any benefits to the actual slaves as they didn't have the right to vote and weren't being represented. (most southern states are still preventing black Americans from voting.)

The 3/5 compromise brought the southern states DOWN to 47 seats from whatever it would have been had each slave counted as 1 person.
#235 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

Whats your point? The north was evil for not giving the slave owners more power in the federal government?

Despite your attempt to rewrite history. Most Americans didn't consider black humans to be people. Your attempt to shame northern citizens is laughable.

You Russians are funny people.

#239 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-01-07 11:43 PM | Reply

#235

The reason it's called a compromise is that a full accounting of slaves was never agreed upon and was voted down. IOW, IT NEVER HAPPENED, WASN'T GOING TO HAPPEN and DID NOT HAPPEN. Your fiction is that such an accounting was even possible, when it wasn't. Why don't we consider the political ramifications of slaves actually voting for themselves? How would that have changed things? Worthless, right? Same as your fiction.

Why use fiction as the basis for changing historical fact?

The south NEVER HAD the extra seats full apportionment would have given them so it remains impossible that they "lost" something that they never possessed. Arguing such is both ludicrous and misinformed of what actually was agreed upon and became the ONLY WAY this unifying deal ever existed!

#240 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-01-07 11:43 PM | Reply

Are you deliberately trying to misinform us, or are you truly that ignorant of both statistics and American history?

Based on all of Avi's posting in this thread. It's clear he/she/it has no familiarity with American History.

#241 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-01-07 11:45 PM | Reply

#238:
The south didn't WANT to lower their effective population. The south WANTED each slave to count as 1 person for the population. That would have given the south more power in the government. It was the north that wanted the south's effective population lowered by not counting slaves as part of the population.
You're still not getting it. Lowering their effective population wasn't an advantage to the south. It was a disadvantage. You don't cheat yourself a disadvantage.

#242 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-01-07 11:46 PM | Reply

The south WANTED each slave to count as 1 person for the population.
#242 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

Perhaps if they had treated their slaves as people they could be counted as 1 person.

Then again, if they treated their slaves like people, they wouldn't be using them as slaves.

They wouldn't be beating them, denying them an education, selling them, selling their children, starving them, forcing them to become Christians, lynching them, forcing them to sleep with the livestock...

You're a real fkkking POS Avi. A real awful human being.

Your attempts to rewrite history are gross. Revolting really.

RCade should ban you. You're clearly ignorant of US History, as most Russians are.

#243 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-01-07 11:56 PM | Reply

--should ban you.

Another repressive leftist afraid of contrary opinions.

#244 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-01-07 11:58 PM | Reply

The south WANTED each slave to count as 1 person for the population.
#242 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

But they didn't want them to count as PEOPLE WITH HABEUS CORPUS. Why should they get to eat their cake and have it too? Why do you so conveniently ignore that aspect of it? You cannot argue that slaves are both not people and the south wanted to increase its population. That would mean you believe slaves are both PEOPLE and NOT PEOPLE. You can't do that at this scale; newtonian physics rule.

It was the north that wanted the south's effective population lowered by not counting slaves as part of the population. Lowering their effective population wasn't an advantage to the south. It was a disadvantage.
#242 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

The North was perfectly willing to let the south count its people in their population; the stipulation being that they grant those people personhood and all the rights that come with personhood as citizens of the United States, including voting. You seem to think the cowardly south gained nothing by eventually choosing to slightly lower their representation (if you subscribe to their inhumane slaves-are-not-people mindset) but when it was all said and done the lazy -------- simply chose their easy economic gains over the representative gains. That was the advantage they favored when they couldn't get both outright. Who cares about representative gains when you're going to attempt succession anyway? The lazy ----- would rather keep their free labor so they can sit on their asses sipping sweet tea, getting fat, and regressing the English language.

#245 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-01-07 11:59 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#240 tonyroma:
True, they never had the apportionment for slaves counting as full people. They also never had the apportionment for slaves not counting at all. I've not argued that at all. I have stated that the north wanted 1 thing, the south wanted 1 thing, the compromise happened.

The north wanted each slave to not count as a person when determining state population. This would have minimized the south's power in government.
The south wanted each slave to count as a full person when determining state population. This would have maximized the south's power in government.
The agreed upon 3/5 compromise gave the south fewer representatives than the south wanted, and more than the north wanted.

Why use fiction as the basis for changing historical fact?
What changing historical fact are you claiming has been made?
According to you, my fiction is that a full accounting of slaves was never agreed upon? Just as a full elimination of the count of slaves from the population was also never agreed upon, however your source goes into some detail about that fictional situation. Why is it ok for you to source something that discusses a fictional situation (225), yet when I discuss the same situation from that author's fiction AND the opposite is an anathema?

#246 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-01-07 11:59 PM | Reply

#245 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-01-07 11:59 PM
I surrender. Your ignorance is too great for me to overcome. You're wrong, but I can only show you reality so many times for you to just continue to ignore it. Have a night.

#247 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-01-08 12:01 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Your ignorance is too great for me to overcome. You're wrong, but I can only show you reality so many times for you to just continue to ignore it. Have a night.
#247 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

You need to look in a mirror and read that to yourself. I really wish Grant had killed the ancestors of your satanic worldview.

#248 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-01-08 12:03 AM | Reply

#246

And again the racist troll ignores the economic side of the equation. That's because deep down in his conscience he believes slaves are not people, so the economic aspect doesn't even cross his confederate mind. That's the only possible way to not think free labor is an economic advantage. That is the only possible way a person can believe the south gained nothing and lost a little in the 3/5ths compromise.

#249 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-01-08 12:07 AM | Reply

I really wish Grant had killed the ancestors of your satanic worldview. - #248 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-01-08 12:03 AM
My satanic worldview that slaves were people or that you are incapable of understanding math?

#250 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-01-08 12:07 AM | Reply

Slaves should have never been considered a part of the south's "population" because they did not have the legal rights of other citizens. There wouldn't have been the term "free" if it didn't directly denote that the "un-free" were treated as property and not human beings with inalienable rights bestowed by the Creator.

It's the height of immorality to simultaneously hold two diametrically opposed truths about slaves: 1) Slaves are the property of the one who purchased them; and 2) As said owner I reclaim my property's humanity for governmental sake to increase my own political power without extending that humanity in any form to the individual I'm claiming it from. A person whose liberty I alone control and whose life I can extinguish any time I want without any societal consequence whatsoever.

Conservapedia shows that echoes of your erroneous reading of history is not a new thing:

Despite the facts, recognizing the historical facts have even gotten people in trouble. E.W. Jackson, a Christian Minister and candidate for Lieutenant Governor of Virginia in 2012 noted that "the 3/5ths clause was an anti-slavery amendment. Its purpose was to limit the voting power of slave holding states."
[26]

www.conservapedia.com


#251 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-01-08 12:09 AM | Reply

RCade should ban you. You're clearly ignorant of US History, as most Russians are.
#243 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

Oh here we go ....

If all 11 million left en masse, we'd see the largest disruption in the food chain we've ever experienced.
#223 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

This is what slave owners used to say about the cotton industry when asked about freeing the slaves...

#252 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-01-08 12:10 AM | Reply

And again the racist troll ignores the economic side of the equation. That's because deep down in his conscience he believes slaves are not people, so the economic aspect doesn't even cross his confederate mind. That's the only possible way to not think free labor is an economic advantage. That is the only possible way a person can believe the south gained nothing and lost a little in the 3/5ths compromise.

#249 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-01-08 12:07 AM
I've ignored nothing. Except for you from here on out because you're ignorant and a liar. I have stated multiple times that I thought the slaves were people, and you feel the need to lie about it. No one but you has claimed that the south gained nothing by the compromise. I won't waste my time by trying to fix your ignorance again. I'll just enjoy going through life knowing you will continue to show your lies and ignorance the world.

#253 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-01-08 12:11 AM | Reply

"My satanic worldview that slaves were people "

Counting slaves as people doesn't empower slaves.
It empowers slavery.

#254 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-08 12:11 AM | Reply

1)... 2) ...

#251 | POSTED BY TONYROMA

Avi, there's the "double cheating" of the south you can't seem to ------- understand. Sorry I rounded up; they only got away with "1 and 3/5ths cheating".

#255 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-01-08 12:12 AM | Reply

Another repressive leftist afraid of contrary opinions.
#244 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

Yet, I seem to enjoy conversing with you, how odd.

#256 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-01-08 12:12 AM | Reply

So yes, your Satainc worldview that slaves were people for purposes of representation in government... translates to support for slavery.

It's seemingly impossible that you can't understated this.

So, again, what are you doing?

#257 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-08 12:13 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#252 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

Oh boohoo! Why not pay fair wages for the labor after they're freed? Oh I guess the south was too inbred to think of that.

#258 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-01-08 12:13 AM | Reply

This is what slave owners used to say about the cotton industry when asked about freeing the slaves...
#252 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

And the cotton industry collapsed after slavery was abolished. Same with our economy.

Can't wait to do that to the food industry.

So only the rich can afford food and everyone else can starve.

#259 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-01-08 12:14 AM | Reply

I have stated multiple times that I thought the slaves were people, and you feel the need to lie about it. No one but you has claimed that the south gained nothing by the compromise.

#253 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

No, you keep insisting slaves are not people but should be considered in the population for representative reasons. ---- your attempts to twist what I've said. I never said the south gained nothing; yet you have argued they lost 2/5ths their slave population worth of voting rights.

I can't tell if you're a ------ troll or so racist to the core that you can't comprehend how atrocious slavery is.

#260 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-01-08 12:16 AM | Reply

#251 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-01-08 12:09 AM
So you have turned a discussion of history into thinking that I have an opinion on how right or wrong each state was in determining if slaves were people or not?
Slavery was horribly. The south was full of horrible people who owned slaves or lived amongst those who did. The north was full of horrible people who accepted slavery as long as the south didn't get too much power. This isn't some discussion of right or wrong in the 3/5 compromise. The whole thing was an abomination. That doesn't change the realities of it. It happened. The whys can be discussed. The South wanted more power, and didn't care about the people they had enslaved. The north wanted the south as part of the union but not overly strong, and wasn't upset about slavery enough to make allowing it into their union a non-starter.

#261 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-01-08 12:17 AM | Reply

#259 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

The difference being that the immigrants come here for the wages while the slaves had zero choice at all. Perhaps cotton wouldn't have collapse if they paid wages that attracted laborers to their work. But economics have never been a strong suit for conservatives.

#262 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-01-08 12:18 AM | Reply

"This is what slave owners used to say about the cotton industry when asked about freeing the slaves...'

What a stupid comparison.

They weren't sending them back to their native country.

#263 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-08 12:21 AM | Reply

"Slavery was horribly[sic]... but we really, really wanted that power and easy money."
#261 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

#264 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-01-08 12:25 AM | Reply

"Otherwise, the majority of the population might have already voted to enslave the minority. That would be democratic.
#82 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER"

That already happened, in our democracy.
And it could still happen again, if 38 states agree to it.
So, what's your point?

#265 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-08 01:28 AM | Reply

"Hillary Clinton did not win a minority of the votes, "

She received a minority of votes in the vast majority of states. Nationwide, the majority voted against her, as they did against her husband twice and once against Bush II, but at least they could win the popular vote in more than 20 states.

#266 | Posted by sentinel at 2019-01-08 12:56 PM | Reply

#266 | POSTED BY SENTINEL

Overt voter suppression destroys that nutty theory.

#267 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-01-08 01:14 PM | Reply

So now empirical facts which no one disputes are labeled "a nutty theory." Republicans don't need to paint their opponents as detached from reality when they're painting themselves as such.

Voter suppression is wrong, but it has little or nothing to do with why Mrs Clinton lost. Keeping banging on about winning the popular vote in a minority of states, and you'll keep losing the Presidency, Senate and Supreme Court unless some major catastrophe happens, at which point we'd all be ------ worse than in 2008.

#268 | Posted by sentinel at 2019-01-08 03:20 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort