OT: Sore losers hurt my feelings

[MrGrumpy]

I bet your Facebook page has "occupy democrats" propaganda posted all over it.

Yes, every body just hates him! It obviously has nothing to do with all the hateful things he said during the campaign, his arrogant refusal to release his taxes, and the blatant untruths that he and his cohorts kept spewing out and continue to do so. It also has nothing to do with his intent to eliminate Obamacare and replace it with some unknown quantity! Not to mention that his opponent got three-million more popular votes than he did, but he won because of the electoral college which was specifically designed to protect slavery (and for another century protected Jim Crow).

[D.H.]

All BS....Only 50%. That's NOT what the Electoral College was designed for. Without the EC, New York and California would decide who POTUS would be every 4 years.

A three million vote margin should be nullified simply because of geographic distribution! Why does the fact that I live in state a mean something different than if I lived in state b? Of course, if every person in NY and CA voted for Hillary, and everybody in the other 48 states voted for Donald, Donald would have won the popular vote!


Also, where did certain states get off declaring some people to be merely "property," not letting them vote, yet counting them as 3/5th of a person for representation. At least the slaves should have been allowed to cast the 3/5ths vote allotted to them!

[LSAT]

All BS....Only 50%. That's NOT what the Electoral College was designed for. Without the EC, New York and California would decide who POTUS would be every 4 years.

A three million vote margin should be nullified simply because of geographic distribution! Why does the fact that I live in state a mean something different than if I lived in state b? Of course, if every person in NY and CA voted for Hillary, and everybody in the other 48 states voted for Donald, Donald would have won the popular vote!


Also, where did certain states get off declaring some people to be merely "property," not letting them vote, yet counting them as 3/5th of a person for representation. At least the slaves should have been allowed to cast the 3/5ths vote allotted to them!

ABSOLUTELY...Read the constitution

[idamtnboy]

A three million vote margin should be nullified simply because of geographic distribution! Why does the fact that I live in state a mean something different than if I lived in state b? Of course, if every person in NY and CA voted for Hillary, and everybody in the other 48 states voted for Donald, Donald would have won the popular vote!

The founding fathers were just as concerned about minority rights as they were about majority rights. The Congress and EC designs were based upon the premise of "Protecting the rights of the minority, preventing the tyranny of the majority." It's worked pretty damn well for 240 years if you ask me.

[D.H.]

A three million vote margin should be nullified simply because of geographic distribution! Why does the fact that I live in state a mean something different than if I lived in state b? Of course, if every person in NY and CA voted for Hillary, and everybody in the other 48 states voted for Donald, Donald would have won the popular vote!

The founding fathers were just as concerned about minority rights as they were about majority rights. The Congress and EC designs were based upon the premise of "Protecting the rights of the minority, preventing the tyranny of the majority." It's worked pretty damn well for 240 years if you ask me.

As I said, NY and CA can't pick the president even if (s)he is popularly elected. The majority in those states can't overcome a tidal wave in the other states.

Furthermore, the fact is that the real reason for the Electoral College was to implement the 3/5ths compromise. The other stated reasons were made up at the time because even then the 3/5th compromise was problematic and they needed to be politically correct.

If you don't believe that, then just explain how else the 3/5th compromise was supposed to work. Were slaves supposed to vote (it was often illegal for them to learn to read or write)? Were the slave owners supposed to cast votes directly on behalf of their slaves? Of course, neither of those would have been accepted or even workable!

[Chevie]

Furthermore, the fact is that the real reason for the Electoral College was to implement the 3/5ths compromise. The other stated reasons were made up at the time because even then the 3/5th compromise was problematic and they needed to be politically correct.

That's not true. You've been reading #FakeHistory. Read the real stuff.

[idamtnboy]

Furthermore, the fact is that the real reason for the Electoral College was to implement the 3/5ths compromise. The other stated reasons were made up at the time because even then the 3/5th compromise was problematic and they needed to be politically correct.

If you don't believe that, then just explain how else the 3/5th compromise was supposed to work. Were slaves supposed to vote (it was often illegal for them to learn to read or write)? Were the slave owners supposed to cast votes directly on behalf of their slaves? Of course, neither of those would have been accepted or even workable!

You've got it backwards. It was all about power and taxes. The southern states wanted to count slaves in the population count because it give them more representatives in Congress. The right to vote wasn't a consideration because slaves had no right to vote, and had no direct representation on Congress. The Northern states did not want slaves counted in the population because that would give the Southern states more power in Congress. In a sense I suspect the argument was on the order, "You say slaves are property, not people. So then how can you expect to have them counted as people?" The 3/5ths compromise was the final value agreed to to give the southern states Representatives in Congress taking into account the number of slaves in those states. Counting the slaves was solely a power play by the Southern states. Real representation of slaves in Congress wasn't even in the picture. The 3/5ths Compromise had absolutely nothing to do with voting rights, other than the number of votes the Southern states would have in Congress.

Taxes at that time were based on population. I imagine one of the arguments from the North to the South was something on the order of, "If we count slaves as part of the population count then your tax burden will be greater. Go with the 3/5ths number and your taxes will be less." Remember, the North wanted to count slaves as zero, so anything less than 1 was better than 1.

Keep in mind this was done during the time the Constitution was being written and all sorts of compromises, debates, and give and take, were being tossed around in order to get the Constitution ratified. So, instead of the Constitution, and subsequently the EC, being formed to justify the 3/5ths Compromise, the Compromise was designed to assure the acceptance of the Constitution, including the EC part of it.

[D.H.]

Furthermore, the fact is that the real reason for the Electoral College was to implement the 3/5ths compromise. The other stated reasons were made up at the time because even then the 3/5th compromise was problematic and they needed to be politically correct.

If you don't believe that, then just explain how else the 3/5th compromise was supposed to work. Were slaves supposed to vote (it was often illegal for them to learn to read or write)? Were the slave owners supposed to cast votes directly on behalf of their slaves? Of course, neither of those would have been accepted or even workable!

You've got it backwards. It was all about power and taxes. The southern states wanted to count slaves in the population count because it give them more representatives in Congress. The right to vote wasn't a consideration because slaves had no right to vote, and had no direct representation on Congress. The Northern states did not want slaves counted in the population because that would give the Southern states more power in Congress. In a sense I suspect the argument was on the order, "You say slaves are property, not people. So then how can you expect to have them counted as people?" The 3/5ths compromise was the final value agreed to to give the southern states Representatives in Congress taking into account the number of slaves in those states. Counting the slaves was solely a power play by the Southern states. Real representation of slaves in Congress wasn't even in the picture. The 3/5ths Compromise had absolutely nothing to do with voting rights, other than the number of votes the Southern states would have in Congress.

Taxes at that time were based on population. I imagine one of the arguments from the North to the South was something on the order of, "If we count slaves as part of the population count then your tax burden will be greater. Go with the 3/5ths number and your taxes will be less." Remember, the North wanted to count slaves as zero, so anything less than 1 was better than 1.

Keep in mind this was done during the time the Constitution was being written and all sorts of compromises, debates, and give and take, were being tossed around in order to get the Constitution ratified. So, instead of the Constitution, and subsequently the EC, being formed to justify the 3/5ths Compromise, the Compromise was designed to assure the acceptance of the Constitution, including the EC part of it.

The point is how to implement the 3/5th compromise! Very few people would accept the idea of the slave owner casting his own ballot to count as one vote, and then casting as many "colored" (I guess they would literally be "colored") ballots as he owned slaves, each to be counted at 60% of a vote. Absent this, they needed to work something else out, so they put this layer between the voting and the counting. That is the reason for the EC, the rest of the reasons are "windown dressing."

[idamtnboy]

The point is how to implement the 3/5th compromise! Very few people would accept the idea of the slave owner casting his own ballot to count as one vote, and then casting as many "colored" (I guess they would literally be "colored") ballots as he owned slaves, each to be counted at 60% of a vote. Absent this, they needed to work something else out, so they put this layer between the voting and the counting. That is the reason for the EC, the rest of the reasons are "windown dressing."

I think you're trying to read more into what the 3/5ths Compromise was about than is there. There was no implementation of it other than using it as a scale to generate a fictitious number that was called the population figure. It was nothing more than a scheme for southern states to get more Representatives in Congress than what the north wanted to give them. If a state had 100,000 non-slave citizens, men, women, and children, and 20,000 slaves, men, women, and children, when it came time to allocate seats in the House of Representatives that state would be considered as having 112,000 citizens total. Of that, maybe 20,000 were non-slave adult males. So when it came time to elect a Representative only 20,000 votes would be able to be cast. There was no connection between members of the "3/5ths" and the actual permission to vote, just as there was no connection between women and children and the permission to vote. Still today children are not allowed to vote. So do parents of one family cast votes for 3 people, and in another 6 people? Not really. Children are represented in Congress by being counted as part of the population, but they have no say in how the government is run. The slaves were in exactly the same position, albeit only at a 3/5ths level.

The disparity between the number of Representatives and the number of citizens in a state still exists today. Without looking it up some states have as few as 400,000 citizens per Representative while others have 900,000 citizens per Representative. There never has been, and still isn't, a fixed ratio between the number of Representatives and the population. Your desire to allocate a specific number of votes to a slave owner based on the number of slaves he owned, and to tie the 3/5ths number into it, is based on a faulty premise. The EC was established to give the power of electing the President to a group outside of Government that represented the people of the country. And since it had been deemed that the combination of the 2 Senators + a variable number of Representatives based on population per state, was a sound and workable scheme for a representative government, that same scheme was copied over to the EC.

[D.H.]

The point is how to implement the 3/5th compromise! Very few people would accept the idea of the slave owner casting his own ballot to count as one vote, and then casting as many "colored" (I guess they would literally be "colored") ballots as he owned slaves, each to be counted at 60% of a vote. Absent this, they needed to work something else out, so they put this layer between the voting and the counting. That is the reason for the EC, the rest of the reasons are "windown dressing."

I think you're trying to read more into what the 3/5ths Compromise was about than is there. There was no implementation of it other than using it as a scale to generate a fictitious number that was called the population figure. It was nothing more than a scheme for southern states to get more Representatives in Congress than what the north wanted to give them. If a state had 100,000 non-slave citizens, men, women, and children, and 20,000 slaves, men, women, and children, when it came time to allocate seats in the House of Representatives that state would be considered as having 112,000 citizens total. Of that, maybe 20,000 were non-slave adult males. So when it came time to elect a Representative only 20,000 votes would be able to be cast. There was no connection between members of the "3/5ths" and the actual permission to vote, just as there was no connection between women and children and the permission to vote. Still today children are not allowed to vote. So do parents of one family cast votes for 3 people, and in another 6 people? Not really. Children are represented in Congress by being counted as part of the population, but they have no say in how the government is run. The slaves were in exactly the same position, albeit only at a 3/5ths level.

The disparity between the number of Representatives and the number of citizens in a state still exists today. Without looking it up some states have as few as 400,000 citizens per Representative while others have 900,000 citizens per Representative. There never has been, and still isn't, a fixed ratio between the number of Representatives and the population. Your desire to allocate a specific number of votes to a slave owner based on the number of slaves he owned, and to tie the 3/5ths number into it, is based on a faulty premise. The EC was established to give the power of electing the President to a group outside of Government that represented the people of the country. And since it had been deemed that the combination of the 2 Senators + a variable number of Representatives based on population per state, was a sound and workable scheme for a representative government, that same scheme was copied over to the EC.

Assuming the validity of the latest census, the only reason that some representatives would represent many more people than others is because a given state is very small and only gets one rep. The other reason the number of constituents would not be equal (assuming a perfect census), is rounding. That is if a state gets 10.3 reps according to the formula, it gets 10 districts, whereas if a state gets 2.7 districts per the formula, it gets 3 districts.

Again, you ignore the idea that the 3/5ths compromise requires a layer between the voters and the ballot counting. If you still don't believe that, try finding some other way to count 3/5ths of a vote and explain exactly who would cast the fractional votes!

[dlby]

Hmmm
Where does a 4/5 American Indian who became deep in the sex drugs & rock scene of 60s - 70s --- then became a Christian--- then Pastored 35 years then retired & has apnea fit in here?
Grew my hair back out & moved to Florida but no more Drugs!
Just love my country & wish there was more balance.
Both sides are letting us down in many ways.
Im pretty conservative now but I also see quite a bit of faults in us.
So I do see more on both sides than I used to.
But I don't think any of our leaders are that great.
Have to admit when last Vice Pres said to fire off few rounds of buckshot off balcony if they come to hurt your family I was amused.
But they all seem pretty crazy to me now days.
Bla bla bla i think we are screwed either way.
Look at last 30 years


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[D.H.]

Hmmm
Where does a 4/5 American Indian who became deep in the sex drugs & rock scene of 60s - 70s --- then became a Christian--- then Pastored 35 years then retired & has apnea fit in here?
Grew my hair back out & moved to Florida but no more Drugs!
Just love my country & wish there was more balance.
Both sides are letting us down in many ways.
Im pretty conservative now but I also see quite a bit of faults in us.
So I do see more on both sides than I used to.
But I don't think any of our leaders are that great.
Have to admit when last Vice Pres said to fire off few rounds of buckshot off balcony if they come to hurt your family I was amused.
But they all seem pretty crazy to me now days.
Bla bla bla i think we are screwed either way.
Look at last 30 years


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

If you're an indigenous American not living on a reservation, and were born within the borders of the U.S. (including reservations), I believe that you are citizen. If you live on a reservation, your citizenship status depends on the particular treaty affecting your tribe and your reservation.

Note that the 3/5th compromise, to the best of my knowledge, was never applied to the indigenous population.

[D.H.]

Hmmm
Where does a 4/5 American Indian who became deep in the sex drugs & rock scene of 60s - 70s --- then became a Christian--- then Pastored 35 years then retired & has apnea fit in here?
Grew my hair back out & moved to Florida but no more Drugs!
Just love my country & wish there was more balance.
Both sides are letting us down in many ways.
Im pretty conservative now but I also see quite a bit of faults in us.
So I do see more on both sides than I used to.
But I don't think any of our leaders are that great.
Have to admit when last Vice Pres said to fire off few rounds of buckshot off balcony if they come to hurt your family I was amused.
But they all seem pretty crazy to me now days.
Bla bla bla i think we are screwed either way.
Look at last 30 years


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

Now can you be 4/5ths indigenous? The denominator would need to be a power of two!

[Ruby Vee]

I have been so hurt lately. By all of the reverse hatred by all the people who cant stand it that Trump won. I catch it everywhere I go. Hatred. From the left. Oftentimes for some reason its women. Women seem to hate Trump and love the progressive democrat thing. I dont know why though, because most women love money and if you love money, you sure as hell aint gonna vote for a democrat who wants to put your ass on welfare if you give them half a chance.

Ive wondered if the reason so many women seem to hate Trump is his wife, that swanky chic from Slovenia. She's so...fine. I mean chics like that dont work, all they do is lay around the house in their panties all day and watch TV. Maybe work out some, mostly its genetic though. Ive long known since high school some women are jealous of other women who are naturally attractive.

But all the vitriol being spread at me online and offline since Trump got elected and its worsened since Trump got inaugurated. I want to tell these people, "now you know how I felt during obama's time in office, particularly during obama's second term." I spent more time volunteering for the NRA during obama's second term, helping to fight off proposed gun control legislation. Thanks to NRA guys like myself, obama got very little accomplished in his second term regarding his pet project, gun control. Writing our Congressman and Senators, making phone calls to Senators and Congressman, writing letters to the editor on anti-gun control in local papers, going to gun shows and recruiting new NRA members to sign up...man I should have been getting paid for that during obama's second term.

Now, the anti-gunners are being paid back in spades. And they are MADDDDDDD DOGS now.

The reason so many women hate Trump is that he's a misogynist and self-proclaimed "<forum owner removed word against user policy> grabber" who responds to claims from women whom he's assaulted by disparaging their looks and threatening defamation suits. So here's a man who brags about sexually assaulting women, yet denies he's ever done so.

Also the "alternate facts" thing -- LIES -- is a reason to distrust the man.

[ChicagoGranny]

Now can you be 4/5ths indigenous? The denominator would need to be a power of two!

30% of Americans claim to have Native American ancestors. About 4% actually do.