Jump to content

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

But the electoral college has a lot to do with slavery. It's actually written into the Constitution.

No.  You are flat out wrong.  The 3/5 compromise (which was for tax and House seat apportionment) was settled before the Electoral College was even discussed.  During that time it was thought that the president would be chosen by the legislature like a Prime Minister is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, JBJ said:

No.  You are flat out wrong.  The 3/5 compromise (which was for tax and House seat apportionment) was settled before the Electoral College was even discussed.  During that time it was thought that the president would be chosen by the legislature like a Prime Minister is.

Yeah, and the three/fifths compromise increased the political power in Congress of states with larger slave populations by increasing their number of representatives in the House.

Edited by David Dennison

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Yeah, and the three/fifths compromise increased the political power in Congress of states with larger slave populations by increasing their number of representatives in the House.

Decreased.  The original proposal was to count all inhabitants.  It decreased the representation of slave states from about 70% to about 60%.  The effect was that they would not have a supermajority, but would retain a majority.

It also has fuck-all to do with the Electoral College which was decided much later and didn't breakdown along slave-state lines.

Edited by JBJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, JBJ said:

Decreased.  The original proposal was to count all inhabitants.  It decreased the representation of slave states from about 70% to about 60%.  The effect was that they would not have a supermajority, but would retain a majority.

It also has fuck-all to do with the Electoral College which was decided much later and didn't breakdown along slave-state lines.

The three-fifths clause increased slave state representation in Congress compared to their numbers if slaves hadn't been counted. Madison and other slave owners would have preferred to count all slaves when determining congressional representation, but they knew the northern states would never go for that. Hence the compromise, which had a lot to do with the electoral college because the amount of votes that each state has is based on representation in Congress. That number would have been lower for slave states if slaves weren't counted for purposes of congressional representation.

 

Edited by David Dennison

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The original proposal in the Virginia Plan was to count all inhabitants.  Without the compromise slaves would have been counted as whole.

You are contrasting it from what you would have done or from what other delegates proposed.  However, from a historical perspective it decreased the power of slave states from where it was under both the Articles of Confederation and Virginia Plan.

Edited by JBJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Ben Tobin said:

Of course that's your contention. You just got finished reading some Marxian historian, Pete Garrison probably, you’re gonna be convinced of that until next month when you get to James Lemon, then you’re gonna be talking about how the economies of Virginia and Pennsylvania were entrepreneurial and capitalist way back in 1740.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, JBJ said:

The original proposal in the Virginia Plan was to count all inhabitants.  Without the compromise slaves would have been counted as whole.

You are contrasting it from what you would have done or from what other delegates proposed.  However, from a historical perspective it decreased the power of slave states from where it was under both the Articles of Confederation and Virginia Plan.

Without the compromise, there might not have been a ratification of the Constitution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JBJ said:

Of course that's your contention. You just got finished reading some Marxian historian, Pete Garrison probably, you’re gonna be convinced of that until next month when you get to James Lemon, then you’re gonna be talking about how the economies of Virginia and Pennsylvania were entrepreneurial and capitalist way back in 1740.

How 'bout dem apples!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

I quoted your exact fucking words, you simpering sycophant.

Your EXACT.  FUCKING.  WORDS.

Why don't you tell US what they mean, as if the plain English wasn't enough?  It's rather clear, you have ZERO problem with any foreign power doing anything to us and our allies, so long as it serves your goals.  If not, please explain what "It's no myth we meddle in other nations elections as well.  Who's worse ?" means?

 

d8a.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Without the compromise, there might not have been a ratification of the Constitution.

Then the slave states would have had more power under the Articles of Confederation.

Either way, the Electoral College and 3/5ths compromise are different subjects entirely.  You could have had both the 3/5ths compromise and population-based presidential elections.  Or you could have neither.  But crediting/blaming the electoral college on slave states is wholy wrong.

Edited by JBJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/3/2018 at 12:01 PM, Brisketexan said:

That line of reasoning is the most insane fucking thing out there, and I see it over and over again.

By your reasoning, we should not have been upset by or taken any action in response to 9/11.  Because -- and this is an undeniable fact -- we have killed thousands of civilians in the middle east.

So we have no cause or right to hold anyone over there accountable when they do the same to us.

Right?

 

Jesus fucking Christ, you morons are siding with our enemies all so "your team" can grab momentary political power.  If AQ had blown up the offices of the DNC instead on 9/11, killling 3,000 Democrat leaders, you'd be here telling us "hey, we kill middle eastern civilians as well."

What? You think we're so innocent?/ some badass would have earned 2 Medal of Honors but for bonespurs warhero patriot pornstar fucking genius with the best words/people, love your new $15 a month insurance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chief financier of Brexit, Arron Brooks, admits during Nigel Farage's radio show that the Russians may have interfered in Brexit. 

Nigel: was there Russian collusion in the Brexit campaign?

Arron: maybe at a low level. 

 

Banks and Wigmore testified before the House of Commons committee today before abruptly leaving saying they were late for lunch. Collins objected, but they got up and left. Bold strategy Cotton. 

 

DfgPVc5WkAISb79.jpg:large

Edited by Pods

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Brexit was a fraudulent election with massive interference by bad foreign actors 

It's pretty clear the Russians interfered massively in Brexit. There's been a steady drip, drip, drip building to that from the other side of the pond. Banks and Farange were shitting their pants last night on Farange's radio show. 

Banks met with the Russians three times in the lead-up to Brexit. 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jun/09/arron-banks-russia-brexit-meeting

Arron Banks, the millionaire businessman who bankrolled Nigel Farage’s campaign to quit the EU, had multiple meetings with Russian embassy officials in the run-up to the Brexit referendum, documents seen by the Observer suggest.

Banks, who gave £12m of services to the campaign, becoming the biggest donor in UK history, has repeatedly denied any involvement with Russian officials, or that Russian money played any part in the Brexit campaign. The Observer has seen documents which a senior Tory MP says, if correct, raise urgent and troubling questions about his relationship with the Russian government.

The communications suggest:

 Multiple meetings between the leaders of Leave.EU and high-ranking Russian officials, from November 2015 to 2017.

 Two meetings in the week Leave.EU launched its official campaign.

 An introduction to a Russian businessman, by the Russian ambassador, the day after Leave.EU launched its campaign, who reportedly offered Banks a multibillion dollar opportunity to buy Russian goldmines.

 A trip to Moscow in February 2016 to meet key partners and financiers behind a gold project, including a Russian bank.

 Continued extensive contact in the run-up to the US election when Banks, his business partner and Leave.EU spokesman Andy Wigmore, and Nigel Farage campaigned in the US to support Donald Trump’s candidacy.

 

 

Nigel Farage claims he's never met the Russian ambassador, but that's a lie.

 

Farage has at least one suspicious meeting with Julian Assange. British press claims more, but no proof publicly provided yet. 

Edited by Pods

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/2/2018 at 5:26 AM, Onboard 2.0 said:

Oh noes now the Ruskies done and meddled in the Brits elections ??  The blind faith ignorance of some people to believe a myth is staggering here.

This post hasn’t aged well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And can someone explain to me why it is so important to onboard 2.0 that he must dismiss Russian involvement in brexit as a hoax? Is he a former longhorn living in England or something? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JimmyJames said:

And can someone explain to me why it is so important to onboard 2.0 that he must dismiss Russian involvement in brexit as a hoax? Is he a former longhorn living in England or something? 

He's a troll. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What on Earth is going on in the UK? Is May going to end up with vote of no confidence?

Yesterday, Brexit secretary resigns.

Today, Boris Johnson resigns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boris thinks this ends with him as PM.  We'll see if he's right or if public sentiment has turned against Brexit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Js1 said:

What on Earth is going on in the UK? Is May going to end up with vote of no confidence?

Yesterday, Brexit secretary resigns.

Today, Boris Johnson resigns. 

most of the negotiations and internal policy decisions leading to a brexit-lite which we knew would happen.  all the hard core brexiters are getting pissed because so many eu regulatory frameworks will still apply in the current negotiations.  so they're quitting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, David Dennison said:

They should just stop all of this nonsense and stay. 

I certainly wish we could just ignore the election results we don't like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brexit was ratfucked. They should have another vote.

It isn’t uncommon for election results to be tossed out due to malicious actors.

Kenya did a do-over specifically because of Cambridge Analytica 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

I certainly wish we could just ignore the election results we don't like.

I thought the Brexit Referendum was non binding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

I certainly wish we could just ignore the election results we don't like.

Unlike our election of Trump, the brexit vote was a non-binding referendum. It was certainly not an election, and wasn't even binding. Cameron and May made the decision to Brexit based on the referendum, but they were not required to do so.

The brexit vote carried the same weight as Puerto Ricos statehood votes. It was influential only. 

Edited by FondrenRoad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moreover, it was vague as hell. A lot of the Remainers would like another vote once the public actually gets a chance to see what the deal will eventually be. Right now, the ruling party can't even decide whether they want a "hard" or "soft" Brexit; hence, the resignations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Brexit was ratfucked. They should have another vote.

It isn’t uncommon for election results to be tossed out due to malicious actors.

Kenya did a do-over specifically because of Cambridge Analytica 

You don't even need a do-over.  They can let the people vote on the shitshow plan once May finalizes it.  If the people support it, continue Brexit.  If not, cancel it.

Leave no option for impossibilities like keeping only the good EU things because the EU is never going to go for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, FondrenRoad said:

You don't even need a do-over.  They can let the people vote on the shitshow plan once May finalizes it.  If the people support it, continue Brexit.  If not, cancel it.

Leave no option for impossibilities like keeping only the good EU things because the EU is never going to go for that.

Would the EU even let them return to the status quo ante at this point?

The UK seems fucked no matter what.

The Irish border question is fascinating. As it stands now, Europeans would be able to get into the UK without a passport: fly to Dublin, take a bus to Belfast, fly to London. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Would the EU even let them return to the status quo ante at this point?

The UK seems fucked no matter what.

The Irish border question is fascinating. As it stands now, Europeans would be able to get into the UK without a passport: fly to Dublin, take a bus to Belfast, fly to London. 

The EU has indicated that they would let the UK cancel. It's really better for all parties if the UK stays in. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The EU has indicated that they would let the UK cancel. It's really better for all parties if the UK stays in. 

Its the only thing that’s made any sense (in the real world) since the very beginning. Brexit only makes sense if you live in a fantasy world where the the EU just agrees to whatever you want. If you discount the fact that there’s an interested party on the other side, Brexit might make sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brexit has never been about facts, it's been about emotion. That's the playground of Cambridge Analytica and the Russians. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Pods said:

Brexit has never been about facts, it's been about emotion. That's the playground of Cambridge Analytica and the Russians. 

Which just goes to show it's the right that is controlled by emotions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/10/2018 at 1:31 PM, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

So they got fined E500k and some warning letters were sent out.  Really showed them. Clearly righted the ship. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/10/2018 at 1:50 PM, David Dennison said:

Which just goes to show it's the right that is controlled by emotions.

I would replace "controlled" with "enslaved."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brexit is increasingly looking like it'll be an unmitigated disaster for the UK unless they can somehow sort it out in the next six months.

6 Months Before Brexit, Many in U.K. Fear ‘It’s Looking Very Grisly’

LONDON — When Theresa May appears on stage at the Conservative Party’s annual meeting this week, it will take all her determination to drown out the ticking of an invisible clock.

One hundred and eighty days will stand between Britain and an uncontrolled exit from the European Union. Then 179, 178. …

After two years of negotiation, Britain has reached a moment of consequence for the process known as Brexit. The insulating layer of time that had protected the country from a potentially failed divorce from the bloc is thinning. Soon, it will be gone.

What this could mean for ordinary Britons has been seeping into the newspapers, sometimes in leaks from secret government reports: Northern Ireland has only one energy link to the mainland, so a no-deal Brexit could lead to rolling blackouts and steep price rises; and the energy system could collapse, forcing the military to redeploy generators from Afghanistan to the Irish Sea.

With an eye toward the March 29 deadline, the government has appointed a minister to guarantee food supplies. Pharmaceutical companies are planning a six-week stockpile of lifesaving medications like insulin and considering flying planeloads of medicine into the country until imports resume. That’s if planes can still land in Britain — something thrown into doubt after the government admitted that aircraft could, in theory, be grounded by a sudden exit.

In many ways, the country is in the same position it was on the morning after the 2016 referendum: without a clear plan.

More (open in incognito mode to bypass paywall):

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/30/world/europe/uk-brexit-theresa-may.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Yeah, I highly doubt it too. Really, their best option is to have a second referendum and vote to remain. Other they're fucked. And, like our own conservative party, they're all only too happy to wreck their economy to own the libs, globalists, and brown people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, bolverk said:

^ Yeah, I highly doubt it too. Really, their best option is to have a second referendum and vote to remain. Other they're fucked. And, like our own conservative party, they're all only too happy to wreck their economy to own the libs, globalists, and brown people.

This is a no-brainer since there were Russian shenanigans involved.  Vote again and go from there.  May is letting pride get in the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The U.K. cabinet is bitterly divided over Brexit, and the Irish border isn’t the only problem.

It’s tempting to think Prime Minister Theresa May’s only difficulty in the Brexit negotiations is to find a solution to the Irish border conundrum. After all, it’s the only substantial question left to resolve in the U.K.’s divorce treaty, which needs to be finalized within the next few weeks. But the inability to find answers may be a symptom of a wider problem.

As Tim Ross reports today, two factions in May’s cabinet are battling over the issue of how to avoid customs checks at the Irish frontier without tying the U.K. into the European Union’s trade regime forever. The EU says there must be a “backstop” – an insurance policy that will keep the border invisible “unless or until” a better future post-Brexit arrangement is agreed.

The “unless or until” language, first mentioned in the EU’s plan for the Irish border backstop in February, highlights May’s difficulty. The U.K. doesn’t have an agreed clear vision for what it wants its future relationship to look like, and while this remains the case it’s difficult for May to get political buy-in for any version of the backstop. While the government remains divided over how close the U.K. should be to the EU after Brexit, any backup plan for Ireland doesn’t look quite as temporary as it otherwise might.

Negotiators are looking at various ways to help May make the Irish backstop more sellable. Brexit-backers in her cabinet are demanding a legally binding mechanism to pull Britain out. They fear that the U.K. will stay tied in a customs union with the bloc indefinitely, preventing the country from striking new trade deals around the world – a key prize of Brexit for those who campaigned for it.

That’s unlikely to wash with the EU, which says that the backstop can work as an insurance policy only if the “unless or until” language remains. At a summit in Brussels last week, May offered further compromises, pledging to consider extending the U.K.’s post-Brexit transition period and to drop her demand for a strict end-date to the backstop. It still isn’t enough and, as with May losing control over the warring factions within her team, it’s why many EU member states now struggle to see how May can push any reasonable negotiated accord through Parliament.

...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-26/brexit-bulletin-a-bigger-problem

Quote

Sadiq Khan warned the EU to brace for Brexit to be delayed today - as Theresa May put off a Cabinet showdown over her Irish border plan.

The London Mayor told Michel Barnier to be ready to postpone the March deadline as he held talks with the negotiator in Brussels.

He said an extension to the Article 50 process could well be needed while a second referendum or election is held.

The intervention came as Remainers ramped up their campaign to block Brexit as negotiations reach crunch point.
...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6319857/Sadiq-Khan-warns-EU-brace-Brexit-DELAYED.html?ns_mchannel=rss&ito=1490&ns_campaign=1490

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like May pulled out an agreement on Brexit with the EU. Essentially, that agreement is to "punt" and forestall any tangible changes until 2020 by staying within the customs union. Opposition to this deal is coming from all political and ideological corners, and some are threatening to topple her government.

Quote

 

The 400-plus pages of the draft agreement create a standstill transition period. During that time very little would change until the end of 2020, but negotiators would aim to draw up a trade deal.

The withdrawal pact covers three main areas: the financial settlement for the divorce; the rights of British citizens on the Continent and of European Union citizens in Britain; and a mechanism to assure there is no hard border between Ireland, in the bloc, and Northern Ireland, in the United Kingdom.

 

Quote

What the negotiators came up with was a mechanism they called the “swimming pool,” a strange one with only a deep end and a shallow end. In the deep end is Northern Ireland, which would remain part of a European customs union and subject to many of the European Union’s regulatory rules for goods for an extended period. In the shallow part is the rest of the United Kingdom, which will remain in the bloc’s customs union on trade in goods, also for an undetermined time.

An arbitration mechanism would ultimately decide when the border problem had been resolved.

British critics of the deal argue that it represents the worst of all worlds, leaving Britain tied, perhaps in perpetuity, to many European Union rules over which it would have no influence — the direct opposite of the Brexit slogan of the 2016 referendum, which promised to “take back control.”

But Mrs. May will argue that this is the only chance of leaving the bloc without risking economic dislocation from a chaotic exit not accompanied by an agreement with Britain’s biggest trade partner.

Some analysts believe that the deal she has struck was about as good as she could get, given the parameters Mrs. May had set.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/14/world/europe/uk-cabinet-may-brexit.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Some analysts believe that the deal she has struck was about as good as she could get, given the parameters Mrs. May had set.

Really, that's the key.

"Brexit" was sold as a simple plan, kind of like "get the hottest girl in school to go to the prom with you, then after the prom, have a threesome with her and her even hotter sister."  SWEET PLAN!  I APPROVE!

But turns out, EXECUTING that plan, and getting the other necessary parties on board, is a TAD tougher.  So, the final proposal for "Operation Awesome Prom" is just "ask that kinda homely girl who probably doesn't already have a date, and maybe get to touch her boobs," because it turns out, goofy bastard that you are, that's about the best deal you can strike.

Voters voted for an impossible fantasy.  The reality is....quite disappointing.  And it always was going to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mpu


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Recruiting ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Help ... For Sale ... Politics ... Board Discussion
×
×
  • Create New...