Bear Pit: now the sole domicile of politics at LuLa

[Robert Roaldi]

My reading of the history is that the 3/5 matter was a smaller political point.   Smaller states were just afraid of bigger states and the power they would yield.  The fact is today there is no slavery.  Yet, smaller states are just as afraid of bigger states today.  So much so that they won't vote to do away with the current disproportionate assignment of electoral votes.  It has nothing to do with slavery and all to do with power.

Why are you against one person = one vote?

[John Camp]

I see Croatia had a 6.4 earthquake. Isn't that where Slobodan is located now?

[faberryman]

I see Croatia had a 6.4 earthquake. Isn't that where Slobodan is located now?

I believe Slobodan lives in Belgrade, Serbia, which is on Croatia's eastern border. The earthquake was felt in Serbia, though I don't know if there was any significant damage.

[digitaldog]

As someone who lived through 6.9 and 7.1 earthquakes, 6.4 would barely wake me up. 😂

[faberryman]

So your point is we have lawyers because of slavery?  What an odd thing to say. Glad I'm not one.

Typical strawman. Alan is incapable of posting a comment without at least one logical fallacy or false fact.

[faberryman]

McConnell put the kibosh on Shumer's futile effort to pass the $2000 bill in the Senate by unanimous consent. So it remains to be seen if old Mitch will allow it to come to the floor for a regular vote. All the Democrats will vote for it, so it just needs 12 suck-up kiss-ass Republicans to vote for it for it to pass. Well, really just 10, since the two suck-up kiss-ass Republican candidates in the Georgia run-off said they will support it. Of course they will support it. For an extra $1400, Georgia Republicans will ignore the calls by the Krakettes to boycott the election, even though all the voting machines have been rigged by the dead hand of Hugo Chavez. Money talks, bullshit walks. So they say.

McConnell blocks Schumer’s bid to unanimously pass $2,000 stimulus checks

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/29/covid-stimulus-update-senate-considers-vote-on-2000-stimulus-checks.html

[Alan Klein]

Russia admits to world's third-worst Covid-19 death toll
More than 186,000 Russians have died due to coronavirus, three times more than previously reported
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/28/russia-admits-to-world-third-worst-covid-19-death-toll-underreported

[digitaldog]

Russia admits to world's third-worst Covid-19 death toll

Someone ask Alan if he knows who's first...... 

[TechTalk]

You totally missed my point to make unimportant "gotcha" arguments.

Actually, I addressed your "point" directly. I pointed out a glaring omission in your comments regarding the Presentment Clause (veto power) in the Constitution. Your comments suggest that legislation fails without presidential approval as a check on congressional power. You chose to ignore the balance provided to congress to override a veto. It's a system of checks and balances—you ignored the balance, which made your comments misleading at best.

You seem to have some grasp that there are checks and balances. At one point, you call a presidential veto a check on Congress and in another comment, you call it a balance. In fact, the presidential veto is a check on Congress and the override provision is the balance on that check. This is what you ignored in your "point" and I addressed it directly.

There's nothing dubious about the constitution balancing the power of Congress.  Legislation requires the approval of the president.  Without it, the legislation fails.

 

Madison, Monroe, Jefferson, and the others, set it up Constitutionally so a president can check the power of Congress

Legislation does not require the approval of the president—it seeks it. There is a provision for Congress to override a veto. A president does not have the final say in whether legislation passes or fails. You glossed over that important fact.

You frequently have used the same diversion of saying "You totally missed my point" when attention has been brought to false or misleading comments you've posted. Then you follow that with some additional commentary trying to cleanup what you've written and/or dismissing what you've written as unimportant to the "point" you were making. I'll let you in on a little secret—people notice when you do this repeatedly.

[TechTalk]

Just a typo: fixed.

I deleted that section from my comments and corrected my own error in saying that Monroe supported adoption of the Constitution when he in fact voted against it at the Virginia Ratifying Convention. Your correction prompted me to review what I had written and fix my own mistake. Thanks.

Too bad you didn't notice your own mistakes before criticizing me. 

When Chris said that he had fixed a typo where he wrote Madison when he meant to type Monroe, I deleted the section in my comments that pointed out the error and his original comment. He fixed his mistake and I responded by deleting my comments on it.

In reviewing other comments that I made in that post, I realized a mistake of my own and corrected it. I mentioned that fact to Chris to acknowledge the value of intellectual honesty. We both made an error; we honestly acknowledged them; we corrected our errors and moved on.

If I practice intellectual honesty by acknowledging and correcting my mistakes, I've found that people generally appreciate that course of action as opposed to trying to cover them up. Your experience may differ from my own.

[Alan Klein]

Actually, I addressed your "point" directly. I pointed out a glaring omission in your comments regarding the Presentment Clause (veto power) in the Constitution. Your comments suggest that legislation fails without presidential approval as a check on congressional power. You chose to ignore the balance provided to congress to override a veto. It's a system of checks and balances—you ignored the balance, which made your comments misleading at best.

You seem to have some grasp that there are checks and balances. At one point, you call a presidential veto a check on Congress and in another comment, you call it a balance. In fact, the presidential veto is a check on Congress and the override provision is the balance on that check. This is what you ignored in your "point" and I addressed it directly.
 
You frequently have used the same diversion of saying "You totally missed my point" when attention has been brought to false or misleading comments you've posted. Then you follow that with some additional commentary trying to cleanup what you've written and/or dismissing what you've written as unimportant to the "point" you were making. I'll let you in on a little secret—people notice when you do this repeatedly.

You're playing word games.  My point was clear.

[TechTalk]

You're playing word games.  My point was clear.

Ever the same artful dodger.

[Alan Klein]

Ever the same artful dodger.

I already have three posters on my ignore list for insults and being discourteous to me..  Your call.

[faberryman]

Donald "Whiny Baby" Trump has found something new to whine about. It is the latest renovations to his living quarters at Mar-A-Lago overseen by First Lady Melania Trump, and her interior designer. Apparently, they don't meet his aesthetic sensibilities, which, if his apartment in Trump Tower is any indication, is Versailles Dumpster. Melania probably wanted something a little less tacky.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/29/politics/donald-trump-mar-a-lago-renovations/index.html

[TechTalk]

What's wrong with the USA's electoral process, that it 'needs' lawyers (creating work for fellow lawyers)?

It starts with the convoluted electoral process conceived in the Constitution. The electoral process was a compromise partly due to distrust in direct election by common citizens and to encourage adoption of the Constitution by smaller population states.

The electoral college system was also linked with the three-fifths compromise which counted slaves as three-fifths of a person in determining population of a state. This boosted the number of representatives, and thus the number of presidential electors, assigned to Southern states and was a means to preserve slavery as long as possible.

Its outdated and should be replaced.

So your point is we have lawyers because of slavery?  What an odd thing to say. Glad I'm not one.

My point was made in the first sentence of my reply to Bart's question. I have underlined it above and below to aid in your comprehension.

To make the point simpler for the context deficient... The electoral college generates an excessive number of lawsuits and the accompanying lawyers because it is a convoluted system. The remainder of my commentary was a brief explanation of some of the historical reasons for why this odd system even exists.

I gave three separate historical reasons for its existence. The first two I gave as direct reasons for the electoral college—note the use of the words "due to". The latter I described as "linked" implying a less direct connection. You chose to focus on only the latter. Then for some odd reason, you assert that this was the "point" I was making by connecting that one piece of historical background information to Bart's original question.

Didn't you recently state that attention paid to your erroneous historical background information totally missed your point on veto power? And now, you attempt to single out one piece of historical background information and turn it into my point? Try on some consistency—it might improve your appearance.

Why you would choose to post this kind of odd reading comprehension and inconsistency is a mystery.

[kers]

As someone who lived through 6.9 and 7.1 earthquakes, 6.4 would barely wake me up. 😂

depends how deep the centre is

[Alan Klein]

My point was made in the first sentence of my reply to Bart's question. I have underlined it above and below to aid in your comprehension.

To make the point simpler for the context deficient... The electoral college generates an excessive number of lawsuits and the accompanying lawyers because it is a convoluted system. The remainder of my commentary was a brief explanation of some of the historical reasons for why this odd system even exists.

I gave three separate historical reasons for its existence. The first two I gave as direct reasons for the electoral college—note the use of the words "due to". The latter I described as "linked" implying a less direct connection. You chose to focus on only the latter. Then for some odd reason, you assert that this was the "point" I was making by connecting that one piece of historical background information to Bart's original question.

Didn't you recently state that attention paid to your erroneous historical background information totally missed your point on veto power? And now, you attempt to single out one piece of historical background information and turn it into my point? Try on some consistency—it might improve your appearance.

Why you would choose to post this kind of odd reading comprehension and inconsistency is a mystery.

I followed your thread carefully.  You started with the claim slavery helped cause the electoral system which caused a need for more lawyers to deal with it.  So I said your conclusion means slavery caused more lawyers.  That if it was not for slavery, we would have no electoral system and less lawyers.  The latter sounds odd to me, maybe to others too.  I'd like to hear from lawyers if they think slavery is the reason they're a lawyer.

Regarding vetos, sure that's one of the measures to balance power.  I didn't mention it.  I didn't mention a lot of other things too like the Supreme Court declaring a law unconstitutional even if both Congress and the president okays the bill.  I wasn't about to repeat all the terms in the constitution.  I was making a simple point that the constitution wanted to restrain Congress and did that by giving the president the power to approve their legislation. SO all the insults against Trump about his complaints about the bill are just political.  He's expected to complain if he feels it's appropriate.

 Of course, if he doesn't approve it either with a direct veto or a pocket veto, it doesn't become law.  And certainly, Congress can override his veto.  I didn't need to mention that to make my point about the balance of power.  Go read the constitution. 

[TechTalk]

I already have three posters on my ignore list for insults and being discourteous to me..  Your call.

First you accuse me of missing your point, when in fact I addressed it directly. Then you accuse me of playing "word games" when I point out errors and omissions in your comments. Then you get upset when I point out some of the methods you use to dodge any pushback on your assertions and accusations.

What you choose to read and how you decide to respond is your call.

[Alan Klein]

First you accuse me of missing your point, when in fact I addressed it directly. Then you accuse me of playing "word games" when I point out errors and omissions in your comments. Then you get upset when I point out some of the methods you use to dodge any pushback on your assertions and accusations.

What you choose to read and how you decide to respond is your call.

Errors and ommissions?  What are you an engineer or an architect?  We're posting on a photo forum, not writing a college thesis.  We all talk in general terms; general conversation.  Arguing that I confused "checks" with "balances" is arcane, or better, tortured logic.  If our conversation gets down to that stuff, I'm leaving.  My head would hurt too much. 

[faberryman]

I followed your thread carefully.  You started with the claim slavery helped cause the electoral system which caused a need for more lawyers to deal with it.  So I said your conclusion means slavery caused more lawyers.  That if it was not for slavery, we would have no electoral system and less lawyers.  The latter sounds odd to me, maybe to others too.  I'd like to hear from lawyers if they think slavery is the reason they're a lawyer.

Twaddle.