Trump's statements and promises

Traitorfish and Broken Erika are correct. \

However, the electoral college was not set up to protect small slave states. Virginia was the most populous states; the other slaves states were moderate in sixe. Meanwhile free Rhode Island and Delaware were the smallest states. .

Yeah, but the Constitution specifically prohibited any law ending the transatlantic slave trade until 1808. Much of the South weren't their own states in the early years of the republic. Plus there was the whole matter of slaves counting as 3/5ths of a person for the purpose of determining representation in Congress. The Northeast was already out of territory in which to expand; there was every expectation that new and more slave states would be entering the Union over time, and their political power was greatly increased by the way the electors were apportioned.
 
I don't know. You fudging tell me, expert.
 
Yeah, but the Constitution specifically prohibited any law ending the transatlantic slave trade until 1808. Much of the South weren't their own states in the early years of the republic. Plus there was the whole matter of slaves counting as 3/5ths of a person for the purpose of determining representation in Congress. The Northeast was already out of territory in which to expand; there was every expectation that new and more slave states would be entering the Union over time, and their political power was greatly increased by the way the electors were apportioned.

Look, I don't get why there's any debate at all about this. The electoral college was set up, as James Madison explained at the time, to give slave states more power to choose the President:

James Madison said:
There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections.
 
I don't think you're grasping the "debate." It's well into shitslinging.

So grab a sock, fish one out, and give it a twirl. That's about the quality of the thing.
 
Careful. Your compatriots have a term for such a complainer: "snowflake".
 
So grab a sock, fish one out, and give it a twirl. That's about the quality of the thing.

Yeah I mean quoting primary sources in a discussion of a historical topic
How dare I lower the quality of discussion so
 
Well,

gRc1cidejIlKeLM0RpXYoNbqV8lTckKuIG7lYfVEp-s.jpg
 
Careful. Your compatriots have a term for such a complainer: "snowflake".

I already conceded that one to you years ago. Keep up.

Hating "right" being hating "who" isn't a lesson I'm inclined to learn from you anymore than I was to learn it from them.

Lex: Your source is fine. Your point is made. But it's tangential and I don't think you caught it.
 
Lex: Your source is fine. You point is made. But it's tangential and I don't think you caught it.

Of course it's tangential, "hammering home tangential points" is my middle name, or something.
 
Well, if the real issue is about why Europe so often has grey leaders, France has often had highly charismatic leaders (Hollande is pretty unusual in this regard). It also has a presidential system, which would confirm it's a matter of direct elections.
 
Now that seems more like the point of douchebaggery.
 
Sure, the truth repeated more than once can seem like douchebaggery to those who don't like it. That's what we've been told about using facts in the "post-truth" era.
 
I know I know. Hate who hate who. Again and again.
 
Welcome to the age of the Alt-Right.
 
Back
Top Bottom