Alexandria, The New Direction Of The Democrats

[TakeYouToTasker]

Likely made in Asian and South American sweatshops by children, if I had to guess.

[Nanker]

20 hours ago, B-Man said:

Truly she is a woman of the people. 

Someone obviously gave her those. So they were “free.”  She didn’t buy them. Somebody else made that happen. 

[DC Tom]

6 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

Likely made in Asian and South American sweatshops by children, if I had to guess.

 

And she's showing her support for the workers by wearing them.

 

Kulaks like you who don't understand that will be the first against the wall.

[Keukasmallies]

Really, what difference does it make?

[Foxx]

does the left hand know what the other left hand is doing?

 

 

Edited September 18, 2018 by Foxx

[IDBillzFan]

Righteous path ya got there...

 

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

5 minutes ago, LABillzFan said:

Righteous path ya got there...

 

 

 

I'd love to hear someone articulate the argument that the Electoral College is a "shadow of slavery".

[IDBillzFan]

1 minute ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

I'd love to hear someone articulate the argument that the Electoral College is a "shadow of slavery".

 

Frankly, I'd be curious if Ocasio-Cortez could articulate what she had for breakfast. She may be pretty, but she is dumb as a brick.

 

 

Edited October 9, 2018 by LABillzFan

[LSHMEAB]

9 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

I'd love to hear someone articulate the argument that the Electoral College is a "shadow of slavery".

The shadow of slavery has to do with the 3/5's law and Madison said as much when opposing direct election proposals; “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 retrospect, it doesn't make sense for southern states to have gotten "credit" for slaves since they couldn't vote. As an example, Pennsylvania had 10% more free citizens, but 20% fewer electoral votes than Virginia. 

 

The EC was certainly not built on slavery, but it's hard to say it wasn't a factor. I think the point became moot with abolition, but I also think the entire system became moot with modern technology. I suppose it boils down to whether or not you believe the constitution is a living document. I'm aware that most here do not.

 

It's somewhat noteworthy that all 4 elections decided by the EC tilted in favor of the less progressive candidate.

 

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

4 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said:

The shadow of slavery has to do with the 3/5's law and Madison said as much when opposing direct election proposals; “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 retrospect, it doesn't make sense for southern states to have gotten "credit" for slaves since they couldn't vote. As an example, Pennsylvania had 10% more free citizens, but 20% fewer electoral votes than Virginia. 

 

The EC was certainly not built on slavery, but it's hard to say it wasn't a factor. I think the point became moot with abolition, but I also think the entire system became moot with modern technology. I suppose it boils down to whether or not you believe the constitution is a living document. I'm aware that most here do not.

 

It's somewhat noteworthy that all 4 elections decided by the EC tilted in favor of the less progressive candidate.

 

 

 

 

How has the advance of technology made the backbone of our constitutional republic moot? 

[TakeYouToTasker]

1 minute ago, LSHMEAB said:

The shadow of slavery has to do with the 3/5's law and Madison said as much when opposing direct election proposals; “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 retrospect, it doesn't make sense for southern states to have gotten "credit" for slaves since they couldn't vote. As an example, Pennsylvania had 10% more free citizens, but 20% fewer electoral votes than Virginia. 

 

The EC was certainly not built on slavery, but it's hard to say it wasn't a factor. I think the point became moot with abolition...

 

If it was a factor at all it was a factor that benefited non-slave states.

 

It's not a vestige of slavery, if anything it's a vestige of early abolition movements, and the end of slavery in America.

 

Further, only landed white males could vote.  The overwhelming majority of individuals could not vote, white, free, slave, man, woman, or otherwise.  They were also represented.

 

but I also think the entire system became moot with modern technology. I suppose it boils down to whether or not you believe the constitution is a living document. I'm aware that most here do not.

 

There is ample historical evidence that the meaning of Constitution was intended to be fixed to a point in time, including the inclusion of the Amendment process as a path to formally change the Document, the fact that the 13th Amendment was ratified to end the practice of slavery rather than simply reinterpreting Article I, Section 2, Clause 3; Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3; and Article I, Section 9, Clause 1, and other Amendments were passed to extend the franchise to women and blacks. 

 

There are also the direct words of the Founders:  Washington as the example I'll give, but there are others as well.

 

"The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all."

 

It's not my opinion that the Constitution was not intended as a living document.  It was the opinion of the men who signed it.

 

That it required a Court decision ruled against the man who actually penned the document to give birth to that theory says much.

 

It's somewhat noteworthy that all 4 elections decided by the EC tilted in favor of the less progressive candidate.

 

Every election we're ever had has been decided by the Electoral College.  Every single one.

 

It's how we decide who is President, and a different system would lead to different campaign strategies and different outcomes because political events comport to the system in which they reside.

 

You can't simply change a single variable of a complex equation and demand a specific outcome that works within the confines of a system unchanged.  That makes no sense.

[LSHMEAB]

1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

How has the advance of technology made the backbone of our constitutional republic moot? 

Do you think you could justify the EC in 2018 WITHOUT the constitution? If we just up and started over, do you really believe the same arguments hold true? I realize the question is academic as we HAVE a constitution, but I think it'd be tough to make the same case when you consider how interconnected we've become.

[DC Tom]

18 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said:

Do you think you could justify the EC in 2018 WITHOUT the constitution?

 

No...but that has less to do with slavery than it does state sovereignty.  That's the piece everyone seems to miss in discussions of the country's history: state sovereignty was much stronger historically than it is today.  Even as late as the '30s, it was much stronger.

 

The Senate and the EC were recognition of that sovereignty.  The House represents the sovereignty of the people, the Senate that of the states, the EC a mix of both.  Both the latter serve to insulate the government from the whimsical nature of direct democracy (again: Thucydides.  And even Athenian direct democracy had the boule to rein in the mob - and it was still disastrous.)

 

And again: read the Constitution.  The House - the people - originate laws and spending.  The Senate - the sovereign states - approve the actions of the nation as a sovereign entity.  While the people originate the laws, it's the sovereign nation that nominates the adjudicators of those laws, and the sovereign states that consent to the sovereign nation's nominations.  It's called "checks and balances" - the people, the nation, and the states all get a say, and have to work together.  And that is not a system that has outlived itself.

[keepthefaith]

On 9/16/2018 at 10:53 AM, 3rdnlng said:

Has everyone forgotten about bake sales?

 

Tougher to do with the gluten free rage. 

[Deranged Rhino]

12 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said:

Do you think you could justify the EC in 2018 WITHOUT the constitution? If we just up and started over, do you really believe the same arguments hold true? I realize the question is academic as we HAVE a constitution, but I think it'd be tough to make the same case when you consider how interconnected we've become.

 

I do. That's why I was curious how technology factored into the EC's relevance. The justification for the EC, to me, is the same today as it was then: a check against mob rule. That's what a pure democracy is and why the founders rightfully distrusted such a system of government and gave us a republic. 

 

As to the second part, the academic part (which I'm always down to speculate), I'd suggest the constitution - while important - is not more important than the philosophies and history which birthed it. I'd argue that while you're right we've become more interconnected than every before thanks to technology, that actually makes it more important to have checks against mob rule or pure democracy. Eliminating the EC would mean federal power (and money/energy/attention) would be entirely focused on only the major population centers of the country - what incentive then do the lesser populated states have to remain in such a union? 

 

The reality, I suspect, would be that if we were somehow able to start over without the benefit of knowing history (which is kind of how they train/teach kids today... but I digress) the biggest change would be the removal of states all together. "We're so interconnected anyway, what do states matter?" would go the argument. If you really walk out the "what-if" scenario if we did remove the EC, I think you'd ultimately reach a point where that became the next step: removing state's rights/borders/recognition all together. One country. One person, one vote. 

 

Sounds GREAT if you don't know your history. Sounds terrifying if you do.

7 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

No...but that has less to do with slavery than it does state sovereignty.  That's the piece everyone seems to miss in discussions of the country's history: state sovereignty was much stronger historically than it is today.  Even as late as the '30s, it was much stronger.

 

The Senate and the EC were recognition of that sovereignty.  The House represents the sovereignty of the people, the Senate that of the states, the EC a mix of both.  Both the latter serve to insulate the government from the whimsical nature of direct democracy (again: Thucydides.  And even Athenian direct democracy had the boule to rein in the mob - and it was still disastrous.)

 

And again: read the Constitution.  The House - the people - originate laws and spending.  The Senate - the sovereign states - approve the actions of the nation as a sovereign entity.  While the people originate the laws, it's the sovereign nation that nominates the adjudicators of those laws, and the sovereign states that consent to the sovereign nation's nominations.  It's called "checks and balances" - the people, the nation, and the states all get a say, and have to work together.  And that is not a system that has outlived itself.

 

beat me to it.

[Koko78]

2 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

That it required a Court decision ruled against the man who actually penned the document to give birth to that theory says much.

 

That particular case is quite funny in historical context. The person who !@#$ed up getting the commissions served was the prior Secretary of State - John Marshall. The same John Marshall who became Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and decided the case that started with him !@#$ing up.

[TakeYouToTasker]

@LSHMEAB

 

A follow up to my most recent post in response to you:

 

Which geographic body of states within the 13 Colonies do you believe insisted be encoded into our Founding body of Law that slaves were less than a person, and which do you believe was that slaves were full human beings?

 

Secondarily, which do you think is harder to overcome from a historic perspective as a people?  Slavery of individuals, or the institutional encoding in a governments high body of Law that one is less than a person legally.

[snafu]

3 hours ago, LSHMEAB said:

Do you think you could justify the EC in 2018 WITHOUT the constitution? If we just up and started over, do you really believe the same arguments hold true? I realize the question is academic as we HAVE a constitution, but I think it'd be tough to make the same case when you consider how interconnected we've become.

 

I do, as long as our Federal representation is based on a representative democracy (which is what we are) and not a direct democracy (which is what we are not).  In fact,  the Constitution sets up a representative democracy about as well as can be done.  It is probably the main reason why we have peaceful transitions of power in our country (until 2016).

Edited October 10, 2018 by snafu

[LSHMEAB]

9 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

@LSHMEAB

 

A follow up to my most recent post in response to you:

 

Which geographic body of states within the 13 Colonies do you believe insisted be encoded into our Founding body of Law that slaves were less than a person, and which do you believe was that slaves were full human beings?

 

Secondarily, which do you think is harder to overcome from a historic perspective as a people?  Slavery of individuals, or the institutional encoding in a governments high body of Law that one is less than a person legally.

I believe that James Wilson proposed the 3/5's law but I also understand that to be a compromise. As far as I can tell, Madison was opposed to the 3/5's law because he wanted slaves counted for representation purposes and not because he was "woke."

 

I would say a PERMANENT encoding declaring one less than human would be more oppressive than individual slavery.

 

I don't think you can point to either the north or south circa the late 18th century as ethical champions as it pertains to slavery.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[B-Man]

 

Quote

 

Liz Plank‏Verified account @feministabulous

FollowFollow @feministabulous

Interesting answer from @Ocasio2018 in response to a question about Nancy Pelosi: she asks why no one ever asks her about Chuck Schumer. “Why is it always about her?”

 

 

 

.Uhhhhhhhhhhh....................Because you're running for the House and not the Senate ?

 

 

.