192
   

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

 
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Wed 12 Feb, 2020 01:27 am
@InfraBlue,
The great compromise was the establishment of the senate. It had nothing to do with the "chief magistrate." It is apparenly you who have reading comprehension problems.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Wed 12 Feb, 2020 01:42 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
The interest of the slave states was served by the three-fifths compromise.

Thanks for making our point. The three-fifths compromise implies an Electoral College of some sort.
Builder
 
  0  
Wed 12 Feb, 2020 03:33 am
All moot points, at this stage of the game.

Are there no shiny new entrants in the primaries?

Sanders and Biden only? Seriously?
Olivier5
 
  1  
Wed 12 Feb, 2020 05:04 am
@Builder,
Buttigieg.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  3  
Wed 12 Feb, 2020 06:58 am
@Olivier5,
Horseshit . . . you're supposed to be a Frenchman (something I don't believe), and now you suddenly know American history intimately? The three-fifths compromise determined representation in the House. There is no implication of the manner in which the "chief magistrate" would be chosen.
Setanta
 
  2  
Wed 12 Feb, 2020 07:35 am
Here is a fairly reliable account of the five major compromises during the constitutional convention.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Wed 12 Feb, 2020 07:43 am
@Setanta,
From wiki:

Quote:
Constitutional Convention

The Convention had unanimously accepted the principle that representation in the House of Representatives would be in proportion to the relative state populations. However, since slaves could not vote, leaders in slave states would thus have the benefit of increased representation in the House and the Electoral College. Delegates opposed to slavery proposed that only free inhabitants of each state be counted for apportionment purposes, while delegates supportive of slavery, on the other hand, opposed the proposal, wanting slaves to count in their actual numbers.

The proposal to count slaves by a three-fifths ratio was first proposed on June 11, and agreed to by nine states to two with only a brief debate.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Fifths_Compromise
(emphasis added)
izzythepush
 
  2  
Wed 12 Feb, 2020 08:04 am
Quote:
Democratic presidential hopeful Michael Bloomberg said police should focus on minority neighbourhoods "because that's where all the crime is", according to audio from 2015 that has resurfaced.

The former New York City mayor also told a think-tank that male minorities perpetrate "the real crime".

The billionaire last year apologised for backing stop-and frisk policing as he launched his White House campaign.

A new poll places Mr Bloomberg at third place in the crowded Democratic field.

Stop-and-frisk is a practice where the police stop, question and search people on the street to try and find weapons and other illegal items.

In remarks to the Aspen Institute in Colorado on 5 February 2015, Mr Bloomberg is heard saying: "It's controversial, but first thing is, all of your - 95% percent of your murders, murderers and murder victims, fit one M.O. [method of operation]

"You can just take the description, Xerox it and pass out to all the cops. They are male minorities, 15 to 25. That's true in New York.

"It's true in virtually every city. And that's where the real crime is. You've got to get the guns out of the hands of the people that are getting killed."

He added: "Put those cops where the crime is, which is in the minority neighbourhoods. So this is - one of the unintended consequences is, people say, 'Oh my God, you are arresting kids for marijuana that are all minorities.' Yes, that's true. Why?

"Because we put all the cops in the minority neighbourhoods. Yes, that's true. Why do we do it? Because that's where all the crime is."

He continued: "And the way you get the guns out of the kids' hands is to throw them against the wall and frisk them."

According to the Aspen Times newspaper, Mr Bloomberg's aides had asked journalists not to air footage of his remarks.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-51466036
engineer
 
  2  
Wed 12 Feb, 2020 09:07 am
The President has cut the pay raise for federal employees from 2.5% to 1%. Apparently after the large tax cut there is no money for workers.

Quote:
We must maintain efforts to put our Nation on a fiscally sustainable course; Federal agency budgets cannot sustain such increases. Accordingly, I have determined that it is appropriate to exercise my authority to set alternative pay adjustments for 2021 pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 5303(b) and 5 U.S.C. 5304a.

Specifically, I have determined that for 2021 the across-the-board base pay increase will be limited to 1.0 percent and locality pay percentages will remain at their 2020 levels. This alternative pay plan decision will not materially affect our ability to attract and retain a well‑qualified Federal workforce.
georgeob1
 
  0  
Wed 12 Feb, 2020 09:24 am
@engineer,
Federal employees are overpaid, unionized and mostly free of any accountability for the quality of work they do or don't do. Their job security is nearly absolute, without regard to their performance in it. The real estate market in the Washington DC area is one of the most expensive in the country, largely a result of the plethora of overpaid bureaucrats ( and corporate lobbyists) who have expanded this urban area so rapidly. We have, over the past four decades, grown a huge bureaucratic state apparatus that is visibly eroding the democratic processes or legislative effectiveness of our legislature.

Finally, President Trump has little reason to reward this emerging fourth branch of our government, and, with our currently very low inflation rate, there is no economic reason for any raise greater than 1%.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Wed 12 Feb, 2020 09:32 am
@izzythepush,
Meanwhile, rivers of cocaine were getting snorted in and around Wall Street, but New York cops were too busy frisking black kids to notice...
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Wed 12 Feb, 2020 10:09 am
@Olivier5,
Selectively attributed--the three-fifths compromise was proposed in the first half of July, and approved then (July 12, 1787, by your source). The Electoral College was only hammered out and approved in August. The alleged Frenchman is now an expert on the American constitutional convention.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Wed 12 Feb, 2020 10:17 am
@Setanta,
Just because they were approved a few days apart doesn't mean they were never considered as logical and interdependent parts of the same whole.

Which country are you from, honey bunny? One that has forgotten logic?
Setanta
 
  2  
Wed 12 Feb, 2020 10:30 am
@Olivier5,
Quote:
The Convention approved the Committee's Electoral College proposal, with minor modifications, on September 6, 1787.


That's from your preferred source, Wikipedia. July 12th to September 6th is more than a few days--in fact, it's eight weeks. Don't call me names, Phony Frenchman. I really should know better than to engage with an attention whore who can only sustain an argument by running off to google. You are shallow, and possess no deep and wide knowledge of history.

Here, let's pretend that you really are French, and that you really do possess a knowledge of history. How fast can you google up the significance for France of the battle the English call the Glorious First of June. Oh . . . I'm sorry, you'll know that without a google search, right?
Olivier5
 
  1  
Wed 12 Feb, 2020 10:43 am
@Setanta,
I'll call you however I want to call you, honey. Get used to it. You could also learn some manners.

FYI, some of the best specialists of French history are American. Vice versa, some of the best analysts of the American political system have been French. Remember Tocqueville? This may come as a shock, but you don't actually need to be American to study America, nor do you need to be French to know something about France. In historical scolarship, nationalism is often a disadvantage. IOW historians tend to be more objective when speaking of events that their own nation was not involved in, because they don't need to act all defensive, as you do now.


0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Wed 12 Feb, 2020 11:01 am
@Setanta,
That reminds me of the only Royal Navy ship of the line ever to be launched and operated entirely in fresh water ... Wink
oralloy
 
  0  
Wed 12 Feb, 2020 12:07 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:
Thanks for making our point. The three-fifths compromise implies an Electoral College of some sort.

Maybe so, but so what?

It isn't very different from how the Prime Minister of the UK, the Chancellor of Germany, and the the President of the European Commission are chosen.

Clearly it is a workable system. Or are Germany, the UK, and the EU not democracies?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Wed 12 Feb, 2020 12:26 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
That would be the one they built and launched in Canada, just before the end of the War of 1812, I take it?
Setanta
 
  1  
Wed 12 Feb, 2020 12:27 pm
Got that analysis of the Glorious First of June yet, phony Frenchman?
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Wed 12 Feb, 2020 12:44 pm
@Setanta,
Correct, the HMS St Lawrence - but laid down in 1814 (Kingston [might be a totally unknown place for you] Royal Naval Dockyard).
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/07/2025 at 09:25:18