posted
Those links are about the "modern United States". Stuff we are doing now. And if Nazi Germany is fair game, why isn't slavery?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because it has been discussed long enough, and in no way is something that the U.S. would do today.
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:And America does have the longest lasting government in order. Really? So how do you deal with the question of slavery (which in Europe was abolished way before US) and segregation? That simply does not go together with the Democracy, or does it?
Yes, it was much better for them to establish a virtual slavery over much of Africa and some of India in their native country as opposed to removing them to other nations. Britain planted the seeds of slavery in America, then dropped the whole thing when they lost the colonies.
America takes responsibility for what happened after Britain left, but saying that Europe's complicity in slavery ended when they outlawed it in Europe is a JOKE. Europe had nowhere near a sizeable amount of slaves when the trade was eliminated there. So instead they transplanted labor and slavery to Africa proper, where they could force the inhabitants there to do whatever they want, and they did so. Their hands are stained longer than ours are.
And our government is still the longest lasting. It is true that not everyone has always had a place in that government, but we're talking about the stability of the government and the form of it, which has not changed since its inception. That more groups were brougt into the fold is a testament to the will of the American people overcoming the negative traits left to us by the Europeans. It's a disappointment that it took us so long to overcome their evils, but we've tried to fix it since then.
And, the discussion of slavery goes further in my earlier assertion that America never has been and for the forseeable future never will be one unified people on every issue across the board. Everyone talks about American slavery as if we all liked it, until one day just decided to get rid of it. Many of America's founding fathers were against slavery, and made sure to write a provision into the constitution that outlawed the slave trade by 1809.
The abolitionist movement was strong across the Union, and brought thousands to volunteer for the Union army which fought against the south to free the slaves. So whenever anyone starts talking about America's past with slavery, also remember the hundreds of thousands of Americans that died to free those slaves.
Here is my final question for all of you. If the Americans had either lost, or never started the Revolutionary War, and Britain had maintained control over the colonies, when do you think they would have gotten rid of slavery?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nor is the Holocaust something "modern" Germany is going to do today.
Reticulum, you seem to want to direct this discussion so that you get to make your points while disregarding or at least failing to discuss viewpoints contrary to your own.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
No, I think Lyrhawn just ended the discussion of slavery. I just plain don't like it. It was something amazingly disgusting that the only way to defend it(or discuss it), is to put blame on others. So that is why I don't to discuss slavery anymore.
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: Plus, what's with the Rectum thing? Does it make any difference in anyones life? Does it contibute at all to any of your points? I would appreciate it if you guys stopped, please.
Sorry Reticulum. I didn't mean to make you the butt of any jokes.
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: Far after they did in this universe.
No, I think Lyrhawn just ended the discussion of slavery. I just plain don't like it. It was something amazingly disgusting that the only way to defend it(or discuss it), is to put blame on others. So that is why I don't to discuss slavery anymore.
100 years is not really a long time. And if you consider civil rights, our disgrace is even more recent than Germany's.
So don't defend it or put the blame on others. Recognize that we have made mistakes. Recognize that we still make mistakes. Understand it that so you can work to make our country what it should be.
What you continue to do with this thread is to simply dismiss any viewpoint other than your own.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: Far after they did in this universe.
No, I think Lyrhawn just ended the discussion of slavery. I just plain don't like it. It was something amazingly disgusting that the only way to defend it(or discuss it), is to put blame on others. So that is why I don't to discuss slavery anymore.
100 years is not really a long time. And if you consider civil rights, our disgrace is even more recent than Germany's.
So don't defend it or put the blame on others. Recognize that we have made mistakes. Recognize that we still make mistakes. Understand it that so you can work to make our country what it should be.
What you continue to do with this thread is to simply dismiss any viewpoint other than your own.
If you wish to view things that way, it is fine with me. I don't really care, sice that is not what I think. I am trying not to put the blame on others. I am simply saying that is the only way, you can discuss slavery. There is no point to it. Yes, America has made lots of mistakes, and I acknoledge that. Did I wrongfully defend a couple in this thread? I suppose so, it depends on your viewpoint. However, I would greatly appreciate another topic, other then slavery.
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Eh. Lets start a new discussion. What would be a good thing to discuss now? How about something GOOD about America? I think we deserve a LITTLE praise, for something. Maybe? Give other countries praise too?
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So I guess you are going to be a cheerleader rather than a citizen? Making ourselves feel good about America is easy. Doing the hard work and facing the tough problems of keeping the U.S. great is the work of a citizen and a patriot.
By making your choice, you have answered the question you posed at the start of this thread.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
You're going to earn a lot more respect in your threads if you don't ignore issues brought up by people who disagree with you. Slavery and the ills that came with it are a stain on America's history, but they can't be ignored or swept under the carpet. Several times in this thread you've thrown down a gauntlet and have recieved well thought out answers in return, and then you stonewall them and try to move on, just like now.
Everyone here is discussing the greater realm of the question your thread title poses, so stop and let the discussion flow, and participate in it without trying to stifle it.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Alright then, I never thought of that. Thank you Lyrhawn. So, back to slavery. Who'd like to give opening statements? I got nothing.
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No one is saying that the conversation has to be about slavery in particular. I was reacting to the fact that everytime someone wrote, "well what about X ?" you dismissed it rather that discussing it. It seemed that the only responses you are willing to hear are ones that back up your own point of view.
So, do you think we should keep the (renamed) SOA open? Do you think it really has changed? How does something like that impact your ideas about the U.S.?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I strongly disagree with the above statement. True, US was formed as republic - but nothing close to what it is in present. You had so many restrictions on right to vote and right to be elected! So many census imposed on people. And when it comes down to - you still don't vote for your president directly. You are electing the college of electors! Unlike some of the European countries, which vote the president in directly.
Please don't feel like I am hammering down on US or its form of government. What I am trying to do is point out that give America as an ultimate example of democrazy to the rest of the world is rather arogant. Altough you have a right to do so and I won't deny you that right. I just ask to refrain from making calls on Europe that are NOT true!
We can talk about the slavery for a long time - I do no deny that European powers played a leading role in it. As well as you can't deny that US had and to some point still has an issues because of slavery.
And the founding fathers did not have enough guts to outlaw the slavery in Declaration of Independence to begin with. An outstanding document, talking about the freedom of people. Just not ALL the people. Some people were considered to be personal property! Can't deny that!
So, there you have it...
Posts: 102 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, "All men are created equal." They just don't have the same rights.
I too believe the electoral college should be done with. We SHOULD directly elect our president. Al Gore would probably be President right now if we did. I don't know if he would have won reelection, but there is a good chance. Europe indeed has democracy, they just haven't been as prosperous as the United States.
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It had nothing to do with guts. If Adams and Jefferson had their way and an abolition of slavery were included in the Declaration of Independence, there never would have been a Declaration. The Southern colonies wouldn't have gotten on board with it, and any attempt at a Revolution would have failed. Given the choice between continued British domination, and a new country that still had slavery, they chose the lesser of two evils and worked from that moment on to end slavery, which eventually culminated in the Civil War. Your statement shows an incredible amount of assumption and ignorance. If you don't know enough about US history (maybe due to a faulty European education system?), then don't attempt to speak about it with any sense of authority.
I don't know if you were referring to Reticulum or not, but what claims did I make against Europe that were false?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The electoral college needs to be done away with on account that it does not recofnize what the people want. The people chose Al Gore, but instead, George W. Bush became the POTUS.
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The people didn't choose Al Gore. Plus, who's to say that Al Gore and George Bush were the best candidates for Presidency America had?
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: It had nothing to do with guts. If Adams and Jefferson had their way and an abolition of slavery were included in the Declaration of Independence, there never would have been a Declaration. The Southern colonies wouldn't have gotten on board with it, and any attempt at a Revolution would have failed. Given the choice between continued British domination, and a new country that still had slavery, they chose the lesser of two evils and worked from that moment on to end slavery, which eventually culminated in the Civil War.
Jefferson didn't work particularly hard considering that he didn't even free his slaves.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by cheiros do ender: The people didn't choose Al Gore. Plus, who's to say that Al Gore and George Bush were the best candidates for Presidency America had?
The American People said so, and I think we know who we want. And yes, the people DID chose Al Gore. He won the Popular vote.
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, so you can specifically vouch that the required majority of the American people "said so"?
Wow.
I think how the election turned out, the fact that there IS massive support for Dubbya and the Republican party makes a better case than your "The American People said so."
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Okay, so you can specifically vouch that the required majority of the American people "said so"?
Wow.
I think how the election turned out, the fact that there IS massive support for Dubbya and the Republican party makes a better case than your "The American People said so." "
Do you know how Presidential elections take place in the United States? They go by the electoral vote. George Bush Narrowly won the electoral vote, and it is still disputed today. Al Gore won the popular vote; AKA more people voted for him to be President.
Massive support? George W. Bush'd approval ratings are down the tube, and are somewhere below 30%. Look it up anywhere, the American people more so voted for Gore, and because we are a democracy, we chose who govern us.
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Specifically, "In 38 states, the voters are required by law to vote for the candidate who won the popular voter in their state, although all electors usually cast a ballot for the popular vote winner."
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
I'm curious about your reasoning on this issue. Al Gore won a plurality of the popular vote in the 2000 elections. I hadn't heard that this was even controversial. Is your contention that winning more of the popular vote than any other candidate does not constitue being chosen by the people, or are you making some other argument.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The fact is the US is made up of united states. So by popular vote alone Califronia, Texas and New York get more of a say than any other state. Considering the fact that any state has the right to become independant at any time, even wage war on the others, do you really want that?
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by cheiros do ender: Ever think in that particular time and place they would have been better off with him?
i'm not really a part of this discussion, but i just wanted to say that this is one of the most ridiculous things i've ever heard. when would it ever be better for a person to be a slave? wouldn't it be better for them if they were hired labor? or even just released with a pocket full of jerky to find some quaker to help them out? then they would be free. of course i didn't know them, so i don't know for absolute sure, but i can make a reasonable guess that Jefferson's slaves very much wanted to be free.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
You aren't even making sense. You points are invalid. If you are going to discuss our elections, at least bone up first.
But anyways, if we were to go by popular vote, states wouldn't matter all. The only thing that would matter is what the majority of the people want. A states population, would mean nothing. What you just described is the problem with the electoral college.
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But anyways, if we were to go by popular vote, states wouldn't matter all.
But the States do matter. Think for a minute what the long form of the USA is. It's not just a name either.
quote:The only thing that would matter is what the majority of the people want.
Mob rule, you mean?
Just figuratively, say you had the system as your proposing, with only two states. One has 50 people in it. The other has 30. The larger state decides they want to use the popular vote to force upon the 30 people of the other state whatever suits them. Do you think the law will protect those thirty from being unfairly treated. Do you think war won't break out if they are?
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
cheiros, the electoral college is kind of a tricky idea. Each state gets a certain number of votes based on population plus two . This has the effect of giving less populated states more "power" per capita than states with higher populations. A person voting in Wyoming, for example, gets more bang for his vote than someone from California. This is how, even though more people voted for Al Gore, there were more electoral votes for G. Bush.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Considering the fact that any state has the right to become independant at any time, even wage war on the others, do you really want that?
No! That issue was settled conclusively in our civil war. States do not have the right to leave the union or to wage war on other states.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:...because we are a democracy, we chose who govern us.
Lest anyone forget, this isn't exactly true. We're a republic, which is a little different. We each get a voice, but in a true democracy there'd be no electoral college. The popular vote would be the only vote.
We cast our vote for the candidate we want, and our representative in the electoral college almost always casts his vote in our name for the same candidate. But he doesn't necessarily have to.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Exactly. And Cheiros, you are being completely illogical. The states wouldn't matter in Elections, is what I meant. They would matter in eveyrthing else, just not elections, which would be quite fair.
Not mob rule, no. Th thing is, there aren't two states. There are fifty, so that isn't a problem. States are too divided, though most are put into categories, to force rule on others. It would never work. the popular voting system, would be best.
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Just figuratively, say you had the system as your proposing, with only two states. One has 50 people in it. The other has 30. The larger state decides they want to use the popular vote to force upon the 30 people of the other state whatever suits them. Do you think the law will protect those thirty from being unfairly treated. Do you think war won't break out if they are?
Well, they could. Sort of. For example, if a majority of people in the country want something, they could get the House of Representatives to pass a law. Now that power is checked by the Senate, where every state, regardless of size, has the same amount of power.
Then this law would have to get past the President.
But best of all, no matter how much of a majority wanted this law, it still has to get tested against the Constitution. This is what really protects us.
At least that is how it is supposed to work.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:No! That issue was settled conclusively in our civil war. States do not have the right to leave the union or to wage war on other states.
Do you seriously think they wouldn't though, under an extreme enough circumstance? A Blue and Red states seperation under such a system would seem even more likely to me.
quote:Lest anyone forget, this isn't exactly true. We're a republic, which is a little different. We each get a voice, but in a true democracy there'd be no electoral college.
Does that mean there's no such thing as a Democratic Republic?
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That would be BAD! PLus, it would never work. NO president would ever have the guts to declare war on a state for seceeding. And Cheiros, however much you want it to happen, the US won't have a civil war. We may be divided in domestic matters, but as a nation, we are unified.
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
the federal gov't is good for upholding the Constitution and nat'l defense. other than that, it should get it's nose out of me and my states business.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:And Cheiros, however much you want it to happen, the US won't have a civil war. We may be divided in domestic matters, but as a nation, we are unified.
Where on Earth did that come from? I'm talking about what I believe would be much more likely without the Electoral College.
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know, you kind of seemed to be promoting that we break apart. Wouldn't happen. There wouldn't be substantial change. We would just elect our president directly.
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: cheiros, the electoral college is kind of a tricky idea. Each state gets a certain number of votes based on population plus two . This has the effect of giving less populated states more "power" per capita than states with higher populations. A person voting in Wyoming, for example, gets more bang for his vote than someone from California. This is how, even though more people voted for Al Gore, there were more electoral votes for G. Bush.
Its actually more complicated than this because of the winner take all system. If candidate A gets a plurality of the votes in a given state, candidate A gets 100% of the electoral votes for that state. This means that the power of an individual vote in a given state is equal to the number of electoral college votes divided by the margin of victory in that state.
For example both New Mexico and Utah have 5 electoral college votes. In the 2000 elections Gore received 366 more votes in New Mexico than Bush. If 367 voters had changed their minds, Bush would have received 5 more electoral college votes. So we can say that the voting power of an individual in New Mexico in the 2000 presidential election was 5/366. In contrast, Bush won 312,043 more votes than Gore in Utah. Gore would have had to change the minds of 312,044 voters to win Utah's 5 electoral college votes. The power of an individual Utah voter in the 2000 elections was 5/312044. In the 2000 elections, New Mexico voters had 852 times as much value in the election as individual Utah voters.
This is the only legitimate way to look at the value of individual voters in an election because it is the way candidates have to look at voters in an election. One vote in a swing state with a large number of electoral college vote, is simply worth more to a candidate than one vote in a non-swing state whether no matter how many electoral votes that state carries. Everyone knows that a vote for a democratic Presidential candidate in Utah, will have no impact on the election out come.
Big states have more power in the electoral college system not because of their size, but because big states tend to be more diverse. That means that they are more likely to be swing states so swaying a small number of voters in those states is more likely to make a big difference in the election.
The biggest advantage to changing the electoral college system to a direct election system is that it would make every vote count equally. In a direct election system one more vote in Utah would count just as much as one more vote in Florida or California. A direct election system would require candidates to court voters in every state equally. With the current system, candidates focus all their attention on swing states and ignore the rest of the country.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
