Jump to content
SiouxSports.com Forum

2020 Dumpster Fire (Enter at your own risk)


Recommended Posts

Posted
1 minute ago, UNDBIZ said:

I'm not arguing the 3/5 compromise was about slavery.  You're attempting to conflate that with the electoral college, which was about representation for low population states.  The 3/5 compromise was about additional representation for slave-holding states.

Which, translates to the use of the electoral college. Without it, how would states like Virginia have as many electoral votes at the time? 

This is very basic civics.  Slave states wanted it to give them more power in the electoral college.  Simple math, simple civics.  

Posted
1 hour ago, Hayduke1 said:

Which, translates to the use of the electoral college. Without it, how would states like Virginia have as many electoral votes at the time? 

This is very basic civics.  Slave states wanted it to give them more power in the electoral college.  Simple math, simple civics.  

The 3/5 improved their standing in the electoral college, no doubt.  Eventually acknowledging that black people are whole people helped them even more.

Slave states had lower populations, so yes they wanted the electoral college for more power.  And slave states had a lot of slaves, so the 3/5 compromise gave them even more power in the electoral college. 

  • Upvote 1
Posted

This discussion I find to be a common tactic these days with people on one side trying to have a factual discussion, while people on the other side want to manipulate the facts because two things are related.

Just because the 3/5 compromise is associated with the electoral college doesn't make the electoral college inherently racist. 

Things always need to be looked at in the context of their time period. As disgusting as it is to me that a human being would only be allowed to be considered 3/5 of a human, before that for voting purposes they weren't considered a human at all.

 

Posted
17 minutes ago, Bison06 said:

This discussion I find to be a common tactic these days with people on one side trying to have a factual discussion, while people on the other side want to manipulate the facts because two things are related.

Just because the 3/5 compromise is associated with the electoral college doesn't make the electoral college inherently racist. 

Things always need to be looked at in the context of their time period. As disgusting as it is to me that a human being would only be allowed to be considered 3/5 of a human, before that for voting purposes they weren't considered a human at all.

 

It was an inherently racist decision.  As was slavery. 

It is just a fact.

Posted
2 minutes ago, Hayduke1 said:

It was an inherently racist decision.  As was slavery. 

It is just a fact.

Yeah use today's values for a country trying to form 250 years ago.  

Posted
4 minutes ago, Hayduke1 said:

It was an inherently racist decision.  As was slavery. 

It is just a fact.

It isn't just a fact, repeating it many times doesn't make it more true.

3/5 compromise increased the lower population states' standing in the electoral college, but how does that make the electoral college racist?

Posted
19 hours ago, JohnboyND7 said:

Some of the right-wing groups are looney AF and are not there to be productive. They suck too just in different ways.

They have just as much right to protest as anyone else. They are ones protesting peacefully!

Posted
19 hours ago, Goon said:

You need to have a convention of states to change the constitution. 

2/3 vote of house and senate, then 3/4 of the states have to approve, small states are not going to give up that power

Posted
1 minute ago, Bison06 said:

It isn't just a fact, repeating it many times doesn't make it more true.

3/5 compromise increased the lower population states' standing in the electoral college, but how does that make the electoral college racist?

Also, counting those black slaves as whole people would've been even better for the south in the electoral college.  Both the north and the south counted a lot of people who weren't eligible to vote as people when determining their populations for representative distribution.  But neither the north nor the south really wanted to acknowledge black slaves were whole people at the time.  Not many clean hands around in 1789.

  • Upvote 1
Posted
19 hours ago, UNDlaw80 said:

They're not protesters, they're thugs just like Antifa.....especially as it pertains to Portland.   

My point is, if Trump was truly interested in law and order, he'd hold everybody accountable that's causing this mess and/or adding to it.   Obviously, despite the rhetoric, the Right has no interest in doing as such.  The 'law and order' shtick is just a political tool.  

 

They may be thugs but they are not the same as antifa. Are they shutting down the antifa protests by disrupting them? Are they burning, looting, or destroying Portland? It’s not ok to stand up to Antifa by having their own protest? I guess we should just let Antifa destroy the country and not bat an eye!

  • Upvote 1
Posted
23 minutes ago, Bison06 said:

It isn't just a fact, repeating it many times doesn't make it more true.

3/5 compromise increased the lower population states' standing in the electoral college, but how does that make the electoral college 

look it up. Use your noggin.

I've stated how several times.

Posted
3 minutes ago, Hayduke1 said:

look it up. Use your noggin.

It sounds like you are one of those ashamed of the so called white privilege you think you have and  you really hate this country.  

Posted
6 minutes ago, Bison Dan said:

It sounds like you are one of those ashamed of the so called white privilege you think you have and  you really hate this country.  

You, on the other hand express your disdain for our laws and constitution consistently. As do most of the cult. 

Posted
19 minutes ago, UNDBIZ said:

Also, counting those black slaves as whole people would've been even better for the south in the electoral college.  Both the north and the south counted a lot of people who weren't eligible to vote as people when determining their populations for representative distribution.  But neither the north nor the south really wanted to acknowledge black slaves were whole people at the time.  Not many clean hands around in 1789.

Kind of how we count everyone in the population including illegal immigrants in the census?

Posted
2 minutes ago, Sioux>Bison said:

Kind of how we count everyone in the population including illegal immigrants in the census?

The constitution requires a count of people, not citizens.  Been happening since our founding. 

Posted
19 minutes ago, Hayduke1 said:

look it up. Use your noggin.

I've stated how several times.

I've read thoroughly on the subject, your interpretation of the facts is simply off.

  • Upvote 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, Bison06 said:

Contrary to popular belief, two things can be true at the same time.

1. Covid-19 can kill you

2. The media has absolutely overblown the risk 

3. Herman Cain will tweet from the grave 

you forgot one 

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...