Why doesn't truth matter & middle ground

[Ten oz]

1 minute ago, waitforufo said:

To piss off Democrats.  But you still miss their votes don't you. 

I take that as an acknowledgement that today's Nazi's and White Nationalist are Republicans regardless of what happened 150yrs ago. 

Democrats have won the popular vote in the 6 of the last 7 National Elections. I am not sure what you mean regarding "missing their votes". If white nationalists and Nazi's did start voting Democrat I assume the GOP would actual be able to get respectable numbers from minority groups. 

 

[Phi for All]

6 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

You are inviting a deflection, false equivalent, or total repositioning.

You forgot ignorance.

[waitforufo]

6 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Did you forget this part? Did you think I couldn't find it? Are you going to admit it, retract it, double-down on it?

Yes I admit it.  I

 

8 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Oh, we took responsibility for that one, and gave all the race-hating Democrats to Nixon when he asked for them. That's an historical fact. They've been yours for 50 years, and are especially vocal right about now.

What are the Republicans going to do about them, hmm? 

Oh the southern strategy myth.  Let's look at the the outcome of the 1968 election.  

1968 Election Results

Candidate   Party   Electoral Votes   Popular Votes ✓    Richard M. Nixon   Republican   301   31,710,470      Hubert H. Humphrey   Democratic   191   30,898,055      George C. Wallace   American Independent   46   9,906,473

looks like the racists voted for the former Democratic Governor of Alabama.  Not Nixon.   

Just in case you didn't see the origin of the white supremacy movement in the US.  Let me show you again.

 

[Ten oz]

17 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

 

Oh the southern strategy myth.  

 

The overwhelming majority of Southern States have been voting Republican ever since Wallace. Pretend otherwise isnt worth debate. 

[Phi for All]

29 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

Yes I admit it.  I

Funny. Let me finish that for you. "I..." was crazy to think a party in the present could be responsible for the actions of a party from the past. 

29 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

Just in case you didn't see the origin of the white supremacy movement in the US. 

Article 1 of the US Constitution claims that slaves are 3/5 of a white person. Pretty sure that's the origin of white supremacy in the US, over a hundred years earlier. Truth matters to me.

[waitforufo]

 

21 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Funny. Let me finish that for you. "I..." was crazy to think a party in the present could be responsible for the actions of a party from the past. 

Don't speak for me.  

15 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Article 1 of the US Constitution claims that slaves are 3/5 of a white person. Pretty sure that's the origin of white supremacy in the US, over a hundred years earlier. Truth matters to me.

The 3/5 of a white person rule was an anti-slavery position.  To count slaves as full persons would have given the south more political power by giving them a higher population.  Anti-slavery proponents didn't want slaves to be counted at all.  There argument was that if a slave is simply property like a horse why should they be counted?  Had they gotten there way, slavery would have likely ended sooner.  The 3/5 of a white person rule as a compromise that anti-slavery proponents felt they lost.  

https://americanvision.org/3918/the-original-constitution-and-the-three-fifths-myth/

[Ten oz]

10 hours ago, waitforufo said:

 

Don't speak for me.  

The 3/5 of a white person rule was an anti-slavery position.  To count slaves as full persons would have given the south more political power by giving them a higher population.  Anti-slavery proponents didn't want slaves to be counted at all.  There argument was that if a slave is simply property like a horse why should they be counted?  Had they gotten there way, slavery would have likely ended sooner.  The 3/5 of a white person rule as a compromise that anti-slavery proponents felt they lost.  

https://americanvision.org/3918/the-original-constitution-and-the-three-fifths-myth/

Huh?

[waitforufo]

5 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Huh?

Something about the link I provided that you don't understand?

[Ten oz]

16 hours ago, waitforufo said:

The 3/5 of a white person rule was an anti-slavery position.

It was an anti-slavery position?

16 hours ago, waitforufo said:

The 3/5 of a white person rule as a compromise that anti-slavery proponents felt they lost

It wasn't an anti-slavery position?

39 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

Something about the link I provided that you don't understand?

Your link is an American Vision editorial  written by Gary DeMar. It is pure B.S. propaganda I think you should be embarrassed of yourself  for citing. Gary DeMar and his pro Christian theocracy website aren't constitutional scholars or good constitutional resources. 

From your link:

"American Vision’s mission is to Restore America to its Biblical Foundation—from Genesis to Revelation. American Vision (AV) has been at the heart of worldview study since 1978, providing resources to exhort Christian families and individuals to live by a Biblically based worldview. Whether by making available educational resources about God & Government, or by tackling the formidable issue of eschatology in the Church, AV is on the front lines, circulating material around the globe to Christians passionate to meet God on His terms in every area of life—right now and for generations to come."

Who is Gary Demar:

DeMar states in an article on the American Vision web site, "Darwinism has secularized everything in America, including our understanding of the Constitution".[10]

American Vision promotes the idea "that the world is not ending tomorrow and that Christ’s Kingdom will be victorious on the earth".[11] AV connects the writings of the founders of America with the organization's vision of contemporary America: "In the New England Confederation of 1643, the Pilgrims stated: '[W]e all came to these parts of America, with one and the same end and aim, namely, to advance the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ.'”[12] DeMar is a proponent of partial preterism. The Southern Poverty Law Center has described American Vision as an extremist group and an organization advocating "a complete theocracy governed by Old Testament law." It describes DeMar as "an outspoken anti-gay activist who regularly hosts and speaks at Christian-right events.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_DeMar

[swansont]

16 hours ago, waitforufo said:

 

Don't speak for me.  

The 3/5 of a white person rule was an anti-slavery position.  To count slaves as full persons would have given the south more political power by giving them a higher population.  Anti-slavery proponents didn't want slaves to be counted at all. 

So if the anti-slavery position was zero, how is 3/5 due to the anti-slavery position? It was a compromise, just as you and your link say.

16 hours ago, waitforufo said:

 

There argument was that if a slave is simply property like a horse why should they be counted?  Had they gotten there way, slavery would have likely ended sooner.  The 3/5 of a white person rule as a compromise that anti-slavery proponents felt they lost.  

https://americanvision.org/3918/the-original-constitution-and-the-three-fifths-myth/

 

[DrP]

I still don't see how it is relevant anyway. It has nothing to do with modern politics - only that we can hope we learn from the errors of the past whether they were made be republicans, democrats, independents or whoever.

 

 

[waitforufo]

The anti-slavery faction felt they lost in the 3/5 compromise because they wanted slaves to count for zero.  Any counting of slaves gave slave holding states more power in the federal government.  If slaves had counted for zero, slavery could have easily been contained within the existing slave holding states and then later been abolished through legislation. The 3/5 compromise did in fact limit the power of slave holding states, just not enough. 

[DrP]

which is relevant why/how?  it was so long ago that both political parties would have changed beyond recognition....  and rightly so - you have to change with the times as we progress.

 

Things we decide and make policies and laws about today might be totally irrelevant in 150 years time.

Edited December 1, 2017 by DrP

[Ten oz]

3 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

The anti-slavery faction felt they lost in the 3/5 compromise because they wanted slaves to count for zero.  Any counting of slaves gave slave holding states more power in the federal government.  If slaves had counted for zero, slavery could have easily been contained within the existing slave holding states and then later been abolished through legislation. The 3/5 compromise did in fact limit the power of slave holding states, just not enough. 

You need a citation to support this nonsense that come from someplace other that a pro Christian Theocracy extremists website. You are attempting to make this claim as a historical fact.

1 minute ago, DrP said:

which is relevant why/how?  it was so long ago that both political parties would have changed beyond recognition....  and rightly so - you have to change with the times as we progress.

 

Things we decide and make policies and laws about today might be totally irrelevant in 150 years time.

It is not relevant or even true. 

Edited December 1, 2017 by Ten oz
formatting

[iNow]

It's just another form of Gish Gallop anyway...

[Phi for All]

1 minute ago, iNow said:

It's just another form of Gish Gallop anyway...

Especially when I was using the 3/5 of a vote as evidence against waitforufo's baseless claim that white supremacy started with the Democrats in the 1880s. It's absurdly evident that counting blacks as less than whites is the goddamn definition of white supremacy. And I think he jumped on it to cover up his mistake of claiming that current Democrats are responsible for mistakes made in the past. Democrats are responsible for the holocaust, he said. We may need to atone for Cain being a Democrat in order to satisfy wfu. 

To condemn an entire group based on the actions of a portion of that group, especially a portion from generations ago, is hardly the act of someone interested in a middle ground.

[waitforufo]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

You need a citation to support this nonsense that come from someplace other that a pro Christian Theocracy extremists website. You are attempting to make this claim as a historical fact.

It is not relevant or even true. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Fifths_Compromise

Quote

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, white 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 compromise that was finally agreed upon—of counting "all other persons" as only three-fifths of their actual numbers—reduced the representation of the slave states relative to the original proposals, but improved it over the Northern position.^[2] An inducement for slave states to accept the Compromise was its tie to taxation in the same ratio, so that the burden of taxation on the slave states was also reduced.

It is relevant because the intention was to reduce the political power of slave states. 

[Ten oz]

17 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Fifths_Compromise

It is relevant because the intention was to reduce the political power of slave states. 

Slaves could not vote. Making slaves any portion of a person without an equal portion of a vote increased the voting power of slave owners as they got to vote on behalf of their slaves who counted toward electoral votes. Do the math. 

[John Cuthber]

19 hours ago, waitforufo said:

If you want to know why there is race hatred in the United States, look no further than the Democratic party.  Now I know that upsets you, but that is an historical fact.  

LOL

The democratic party was founded in 1828, but there's plenty of evidence of racism in the USA before that- notably during the war of independence.

So, it's very clearly not an historical fact.
It's another example of you saying things that don't make sense.

 

(It is of course, rather embarrassing, that the democratic party exploited existing racism to get votes.

At least they "grew out of it" when do the Republicans plan to catch up?)

[Outrider]

On 11/28/2017 at 12:00 PM, John Cuthber said:

You do realise that, Under Reagan, unemployment peaked to a level that wasn't seen again until the S*** hit the fan under Bush's administration (leaving Obama to sort it out), don't you?

John you are a smart man and I have a lot of respect for you but unemployment peaked the year Reagan took office and was back down to 5.1 when he left. In fact if you add unemployment to inflation you get what is called the misery index. Using that metric Reagan out performed all recent presidents. Inasmuch as we can give him credit for these things. 

https://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/02/daily-chart-13

 

On 11/30/2017 at 2:21 PM, Ten oz said:

By today's strandards Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford and Bush 41 were all Democrats:

Take a look at the chart above. Do you still want to claim them as democrats? I have told you once before why this is a bad idea. It just causes confusion and upsets some people causing them to dig in their heels. It is counterproductive and flat out false.

 

https://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/02/daily-chart-13

Quote

Indeed, if presidents were ranked purely in terms of unemployment reduction, a stark political divide emerges; Democrats take five of the top six places, and Republicans the bottom five. On inflation reduction, by contrast, Republicans have the top four places. The gap indicates the different priorities of the two parties.

This highlights one of the traditional big riffs between the parties and also highlights why we don't change sides for them after they are gone.

I'll say it one more time. Many of the things you listed are not traditionally partisan issues and it only leads to more confusion when you treat them as such.

[swansont]

11 minutes ago, Outrider said:

John you are a smart man and I have a lot of respect for you but unemployment peaked the year Reagan took office

No, Unemployment peaked in his second year in office, 1982.

https://www.thebalance.com/unemployment-rate-by-year-3305506

[Outrider]

Ok now I stand corrected. 

[swansont]

19 minutes ago, Outrider said:

 In fact if you add unemployment to inflation you get what is called the misery index. Using that metric Reagan out performed all recent presidents. Inasmuch as we can give him credit for these things. 

Clinton and Bush I look to have lower overall (not instantaneous) misery index scores. Possibly Obama, too.

[Outrider]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

Clinton and Bush I look to have lower overall (not instantaneous) misery index scores. 

Overall yes but Reagan's administration had the biggest positive change. He inherited the biggest mess but stiil managed to get it almost as low as the two you mentioned. 

[John Cuthber]

9 hours ago, Outrider said:

Take a look at the chart above. Do you still want to claim them as democrats?

It's not a matter of "claiming them"; that's silly.

It's a matter of pointing out that politics in the US (and elsewhere) has been drifting to the Right since (at a guess) WWII. You may remember that the Right wing were calling Obama a communist, even though he was probably to the Right of plenty of former Republican presidents.

The calling him a communist in either absolute or historically relative terms is one of the lies that the Right are famed for.

 

9 hours ago, Outrider said:

John you are a smart man

IMHO you should have stopped there....