Announcement

Collapse

Raptors Republic Android & iOS App

Hey guys and gals,

We're running a, how should I say, pilot or beta version of our new Raptors Republic app. We haven't made it official as we're still trying to work out some bugs while improving the user interface. So, its not the final version so expect to see more changes over the next while.

Anyhow, please feel free to download. Available on both Android & iPhone. It's absolutely free.

Android: https://play.google.com/store/apps/d...rsrepublic.app

iOS: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/the-...6946?ls=1&mt=8

If we could ask a favour though. We're welcoming feedback and suggestions on perhaps things you'd like to see. At the end of the day we're doing this for you guys by making everything here easier available for you the user. Please send your feedback (Regardless if its positive or negative) to raptorsrepublic@gmail.com.

Thanks in advance and we hope you guys enjoy the application.
See more
See less

Politics - The Legend Continues...

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • It is absolutely fucking ridiculous to state that the electoral college exists because of slavery. Amar's peculiar read is as thin as a reed and doesn't bother to provide any context. The objection to direct election of the President was real and came from all sides. A direct vote was only one of many proposals considered, including that Congress or Governors choose the President or even state legislatures. Of all of the proposals, the most popular by far was election by some subset of Congress. The fear was that this would make the President a creature of the legislature, undermining the proposed system. The Electoral College was chosen as an alternative as it allowed for a temporary group that could make a wise choice and disappear thereafter. The 3/5ths a person argument is a non sequitur that had only to do with distribution of the seats in the House, which was rectified by the 14th amendment. The balancing act between House and Senate (whereby States had equal representation in the Senate) was part of the compromise of Congress itself. In any case, today's Electoral College, and the distribution of seats in the House, has nothing to do with slavery or any 3/5ths rule.

    Here's a rebuttal to this absurd half-truth.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/04/op...pgtype=Article

    Comment


    • Bendit wrote: View Post

      The flag was picked up and placed back in pocket. The play was reviewed by the guy upstairs and "no foul". The ref in question not entirely in possession of the facts.


      Sigh. I can deal with hyperbole. It's the facts .. always.

      The point being discussed is the electoral college. As I indicated before I am not one here who is asking for it's elimination simply because in this climate it would be an impossibility. But I am on principle a one person/one vote typer. Just because it's the right & logical way to go. Every single vote must count with similar weight. You wanna give certain regions/states advantages ...the senate does that. The basis for the electoral college no longer exists.

      No one including yourself answered the factual points in my previous writing. Is there another modern democracy which elects a head of state in other than a one person/one vote method?

      You cite "thinking of the day" 250 years ago as a reason not to modernize the rules? Oh I forgot... you are possibly a conservative and conservatives are moribund by the original code (just as Websters shows ). Yet, the US constitution is replete with amendments. I wonder why? The legislators decided at certain points "this is an assinine way of deciding things" on a whole range of issues.

      That you cavalierly sweep the fact that ..that electoral law steeped in a time when blacks were 3/5ths a person and in this case not also allowed to vote at all ...is not worthy of consideration for change? Um. How do the facts/reality of the day relate to the 21st century? No?

      If you care to, the link below holds an essay on the subject by a noted academic on constitutional law. It goes much more in detail on the issue.


      Did you know that Jefferson noted in his personal papers that the constitution be reviewed with a view to revision every generation? How odd?

      But at least you did not expand on the previous hockey analogy. So, marks to you.
      .
      http://time.com/4558510/electoral-co...story-slavery/
      There are two approaches to interpret a constitution...
      The living tree approach .. which we use here in ici Canada. It works for us even though it portends to some interesting judge made law..To hold that in check we have the notwithstanding clause to help keep those keeners in check. See Ford vs Judge Ed Belobaba.

      And Orginalism.. which is how the Great Republic interprets theirs....
      So while its just soooooooooo inconvenient for some who want to move to the living tree doctrine and dump the electoral college and the protections it affords those nasty midwestern, southern and southwestern states who are standing in the way of NewYork and Cali's progressive idealism of yet bigger government.... its just simply a mildly interesting faculty lounge debate put forward by the 1/512 Cherokee mangia cake from the Massachusetts reservation. . .

      In my personal papers I have written that the NHL bylaws should be reviewed and ammended to allow the Toronto Maple Leafs to win the Stanley Cup every 5 years. So far.. no effing luck on that despite the noble nature of the cause. .
      Last edited by Demographic Shift; Thu Apr 11th, 2019, 10:48 PM.

      Comment


      • slaw wrote: View Post
        It is absolutely fucking ridiculous to state that the electoral college exists because of slavery. Amar's peculiar read is as thin as a reed and doesn't bother to provide any context. The objection to direct election of the President was real and came from all sides. A direct vote was only one of many proposals considered, including that Congress or Governors choose the President or even state legislatures. Of all of the proposals, the most popular by far was election by some subset of Congress. The fear was that this would make the President a creature of the legislature, undermining the proposed system. The Electoral College was chosen as an alternative as it allowed for a temporary group that could make a wise choice and disappear thereafter. The 3/5ths a person argument is a non sequitur that had only to do with distribution of the seats in the House, which was rectified by the 14th amendment. The balancing act between House and Senate (whereby States had equal representation in the Senate) was part of the compromise of Congress itself. In any case, today's Electoral College, and the distribution of seats in the House, has nothing to do with slavery or any 3/5ths rule.

        Here's a rebuttal to this absurd half-truth.

        http://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/04/op...pgtype=Article
        Your purity of purpose knows no limits. Even "half truths" are scorned as "absurd". Whoa!

        A rebuttal to your rebuttal ...

        [QUOTE]Many Americans are critical of the Electoral College, an attitude that seems to have intensified since Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election despite losing the popular vote. These critics often make two arguments: first, that electing the president by direct popular vote would be preferable in a democracy; and second, that the Electoral College has disreputable origins, having been put into the Constitution to protect the institution of slavery.

        Defenders of the Electoral College often counter that it was designed not to help maintain slavery but for other reasons, many of them still relevant, such as to balance the power of big states against that of small states. (Even some critics of the Electoral College have made this argument.)

        Both sides are misguided. There are legitimate reasons to keep the Electoral College system, odd and creaky though it may be, but we must accept the fact that it does have deep roots in efforts by the founders to accommodate slavery.
        [
        /QUOTE]

        Again, the bold has been entirely my own argument in all of my posts in the thread. So, an amendment with such beginnings is now tightly embraced by those who while ever increasingly incapable of winning the electoral vote continue to deny the deep roots in the amendment which helps them win the presidency. Spin all you want.

        Even Wilenz acknowledges that... and of course had a view similar to mine/Akil before penning the piece you presented. He offered a lot of twisting rationale and I shall have to digest further. Do check into the first few presidents just "coincidentally" being from Virginia (your Coonman state). Just a coincidence I presume!

        The quote above from:

        https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/06/o...pgtype=Article
        “When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?”

        J.M. Keynes

        Comment


        • wtf is wrong with this woman?

          Comment


          • Julian Assange's charges are a direct assault on press freedom, experts warn
            https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...dom-journalism

            Comment


            • https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/12/alan...nt-burden.html

              Comment


              • Re the Electoral College, no, we do not have to accept the argument that it has its roots in protecting slaveholders and states cause it does not. The distribution of House Seats does, which is only tangentially related to the EC and, in any case, has absolutely nothing to do with the EC since the 14th amendment, did but does not anymore. Tying the EC to slavery isn't about getting history right, it's about creating poisonous arguments to smear an institution you don't like cause it disfavors your team electorally. Reasoned argument having mostly failed, it's time to go back to the progressives ace in the hole: everyone who disagrees with you is a bigot.

                Comment


                • Comment


                  • Everyone on both sides should be concerned by this. If one cannot stand by the actions of the government contained in the documents he published then one cannot stand by the actions the government is taking against him for publishing it. It need not be any more complicated than that. Attacked for telling the truth.

                    Comment


                    • slaw wrote: View Post
                      Re the Electoral College, no, we do not have to accept the argument that it has its roots in protecting slaveholders and states cause it does not. The distribution of House Seats does, which is only tangentially related to the EC and, in any case, has absolutely nothing to do with the EC since the 14th amendment, did but does not anymore. Tying the EC to slavery isn't about getting history right, it's about creating poisonous arguments to smear an institution you don't like cause it disfavors your team electorally. Reasoned argument having mostly failed, it's time to go back to the progressives ace in the hole: everyone who disagrees with you is a bigot.
                      You are ascribing words I did not use in my argument. You do not have to accept any argument but with you it seems even historical facts laid out by academics are irrelevant. You are consistent.

                      I suggest if you believe the EC is not meaningful to the electoral process then get rid of it and lets not "quibble" with it's origins. Why is the simple concept one person/one vote not acceptable? ... as with any other democratic endeavour out there? Are not all votes of equal value? The reason I suspect you are so vehement about the realities as many historians describe them is that the basis for any win where the EC is in play is in fact tainted precisely because of why it was first put in place ... and no longer relevant.

                      Since you are unconvinced of the origins of the electoral college I'll leave you with another historical fact:

                      Southerner Thomas Jefferson, for example, won the election of 1800-01 against Northerner John Adams in a race where the slavery-skew of the electoral college was the decisive margin of victory: without the extra electoral college votes generated by slavery, the mostly southern states that supported Jefferson would not have sufficed to give him a majority. As pointed observers remarked at the time, Thomas Jefferson metaphorically rode into the executive mansion on the backs of slaves.
                      You keep your interpretation. You not only deny the historical reasons of the EC creation but also equivocate about how it now somehow assists in a more vibrant electoral process. Next you will be explaining the plus realities of district gerrymandering and the electoral fraud which resulted in the extra margin of 3.5 million votes cast for the Dems..

                      “When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?”

                      J.M. Keynes

                      Comment


                      • “When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?”

                        J.M. Keynes

                        Comment


                        • And the hits just keep on coming ....

                          Trump says he considered naming his daughter Ivanka to head World Bank
                          “When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?”

                          J.M. Keynes

                          Comment


                          • Meanwhile, Trump's sister resigns as a judge to avoid investigation into their family tax-cheat history.

                            Comment


                            • Apollo wrote: View Post
                              Everyone on both sides should be concerned by this. If one cannot stand by the actions of the government contained in the documents he published then one cannot stand by the actions the government is taking against him for publishing it. It need not be any more complicated than that. Attacked for telling the truth.

                              Comment


                              • rocwell wrote: View Post

                                Oh no not the Russian boogeymen again... And? So now freedom is only granted if you stay away from certain stories, huh?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X