Categories
hillary clinton no trolls allowed open thread trump

Ten Days Now: Election, etc Open Thread

Cheeto Jesus
Cheeto Jesus

So it’s ten days until the election now, and I cannot wait until this nightmare is over. Talk about it, or whatever else you want to talk about. No trolls, MRAs, Trumpkins, etc.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

439 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Axecalibur: Middle Name Danger
Axecalibur: Middle Name Danger
3 years ago

@Scildfreja
Ours didn’t used to be (directly) elected either. Only changed ~100 years ago. Understandable goof 🙂

Scildfreja Unnýðnes
Scildfreja Unnýðnes
3 years ago

Why thank you, I try to be an understandable goof. Inscrutable goofs aren’t nearly as fun.

PeeVee the (Noice) Sarcastic
PeeVee the (Noice) Sarcastic
3 years ago

I cannot tell you how I wish the House was going to flip.

Laugher at Bigots
Laugher at Bigots
3 years ago

Old MacDonald had a farm,
Ee eye ee eye oh.
And on that farm he had a Trump,
Ee eye ee eye oh.
With a cuck-cuck here and a cuck-cuck there,
Here a cuck, there a cuck, everywhere a cuck-cuck,
Old MacDonald had a farm,
Ee eye ee eye oh.

joekster (Bearded Beta)
joekster (Bearded Beta)
3 years ago

@Schildfreja: one of the more interesting aspects of US constitutional history is that in the Constitution, the senate was appointed by the state governors.

The basic idea was for the US to have a lower house (the house of representatives) which would be directly beholden to the masses, and an upper house (the senate) which would be insulated from the vagaries of mass politics and be free to take the long-view. Of course, the constitution was written before we in the US developed political parties (and many of it’s writers were convinced that political parties, or ‘factionalism’, as they called it, would be the death of democracy), so there was real concern that our congress would degenerate into something of a popularity contest.

Also, as (most of) the people who wrote the constitution were ex-Englishmen, they were drawing inspiration from the English parliament with it’s house of lords and house of commons. And, they may have been drawing inspiration as well from the Roman Republic, where the Senate was the oligarchical aspect of their government. Of course, in our democracy, it would be inappropriate for senate seats to be inherited, so they decided to have them appointed instead.

I’m not actually sure at what point the Senate became elected, or even why. Anyone else know more?

@Nick G: I’m inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt, but this is the first time I’ve noticed your comments*. When I first started here, I said quite a few things that I had no idea were at all offensive. That is because before I ran across this site, I’d never heard of MGTOWs, MRA’s, the Alt-Right, or any of the other terrible people that David writes about. (I had heard of PUA’s, but I’d always assumed they were a group of sleezebags without any real influence). Therefore, I had no idea just how much the stuff I was saying sounded like the garbage those people spew.

The people here took the effort to educate me (which they didn’t have to do, and I’m grateful for it), and I’ve improved **, which means you can to. But to do that, you have to listen. The first step to knowledge is realizing you don’t already know everything.

On a lighter note, PoM just re-posted instructions for how to work in photos on the other thread. Would anyone be interested in Bearded Dragon pics?

*WWTH indicated above that you’ve posted troubling things before, but I haven’t noticed them. Just too busy.

**I still slip up, and various commentators, such as WWTH, Axecalibur, and Kupo are still willing to bat me on the nose with a rolled-up newspaper when I do (I really do appreciate that, by the way. That’s not meant as a plea for sympathy). I hope I’m improving, but no one is objective about themselves.

Scildfreja Unnýðnes
Scildfreja Unnýðnes
3 years ago

@joekster, that’s sort of how I figured the US Senate evolved. It’s the same idea as our own Senate. There’s an ongoing debate as to whether we should have elected senators right now, actually. Complicated stuff. And, sure, I like dragons!

Though you’re driving me absolutely batty over here, I gotta say. There’s no “h” in my name!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1c2OfAzDTI

:3

joekster (Bearded Beta)
joekster (Bearded Beta)
3 years ago

@Scildfreja: I’m so sorry! I’ve just been seeing it there.

Axecalibur: Middle Name Danger
Axecalibur: Middle Name Danger
3 years ago

@Joek

I’m not actually sure at what point the Senate became elected, or even why. Anyone else know more?

1913, Amendment XVII. It was a result of the corruption of the Gilded Age. Senators were so beholden to corporate interests they were known as ‘The Oil Senator’ or ‘That Rail Senator’. Then (well concurrently actually) the Progressive Era brought much needed political reforms including the truly secret ballot. I’m generally of the opinion that directly electing Senators is, if not a purely bad thing, not the best idea. Very understandable at the time tho

kupo
kupo
3 years ago

@Joekster

I hope I’m improving

You are. 🙂
Edit: bearded dragon pics are welcome, but the other thread is probably best for them. ^o^

Scildfreja Unnýðnes
Scildfreja Unnýðnes
3 years ago

It’s okay, @joekster. My name is a bit of an obstacle course, so when people typo I don’t usually cause a fuss. You seem the sort who wants to be right, though, so I thought it was okay to mention. “Scild” is anglo-saxon for “shield”.

joekster (Bearded Beta)
joekster (Bearded Beta)
3 years ago

Scild… I like it.

Okay, I’m going to post some pics on the other thread. Hope this works.

Dalillama
Dalillama
3 years ago

@Axe

I’m generally of the opinion that directly electing Senators is, if not a purely bad thing, not the best idea.

I’ve never really been sold on the idea that having Senators is a very good idea, myself.

History Nerd
History Nerd
3 years ago

I used to be involved with a pro-Palestinian group. I left because I noticed a huge amount of bias and unwillingness to appreciate the complexity of the problems (on the same level as the racist-as-hell Israeli uber-nationalists). There was a pretty strong consensus that Jewish people needed to give up their cultural identity and assimilate into the “normal” white population in North America and Europe. Plus there were a few “brocialist” types flirting with ideological syntheses of the extreme right and extreme left.

weirwoodtreehugger: communist bonobo

I’d be okay with dropping the senate and only having the house. But only if steps were taken to prevent gerrymandering. If the districts were drawn by a computer program that would set 1/3 Dem, 1/3 GOP and 1/3 swing districts, for example.

joekster (Bearded Beta)
joekster (Bearded Beta)
3 years ago

Personally, I think that the real problem with the US government is that it really wasn’t build with political parties in mind. The people who set it up imagined that every representative would be elected on that representative’s own merits, rather than what faction they belonged to or whose platform they endorsed. Heck, it was originally set up so that the Vice President was the runner up in the Presidential campaign.

I think its a great pity that it didn’t work out that way. It might have been much less polarized.

Axecalibur: Middle Name Danger
Axecalibur: Middle Name Danger
3 years ago

@Dali

I’ve never really been sold on the idea that having Senators is a very good idea, myself

Me either, but it’s tied to anachronistic State system, and that ain’t ever gonna change. Don’t get me wrong, massive booster of devolution and federalism. But who can look at Florida, NY, Cali, Nevada, the Pacific Northwest in general, etc and tell me these lines on the map make any sense?

Anyway, so long as we’re gonna have senators, having them be directly elected just makes them shittier House Reps. And overinflates the power of low pop states (which tend to be more conservative, ain’t that a kick in the nads). Worst part? The Senate is the only chamber the Dems have a chance at retaking this year due to gerrymandering 🙁

@WWTH
Shortest Split Line maybe? Or something more active and deliberate?

Dalillama
Dalillama
3 years ago

@WWTH

But only if steps were taken to prevent gerrymandering. If the districts were drawn by a computer program that would set 1/3 Dem, 1/3 GOP and 1/3 swing districts, for example.

Sounds like a different kind of gerrymandering to me. I’d rather that the computer simply use the shortest split line method or some other mathematical formula, and let the parties worry about getting voters by actually, you know, having policy proposals and such.

@Joekster

I think its a great pity that it didn’t work out that way. It might have been much less polarized.

There was never any chance that it was going to work out that way. The framers were foolishly optimistic on that front because they basically had only the vaguest clue of what they were doing; none of them were political scientists or indeed social scientists of any sort. I mean, to be fair, it’s not like anyone else in the 18th century was any better at it. Which is why I’d prefer a system that owed less to 18th century design. Nobody’d sail a ship built to 18th century spec, and I don’t fully grasp why so many Yanks are so obsessed with the idea that updating it is sacrilege. *

@Axe

And overinflates the power of low pop states (which tend to be more conservative, ain’t that a kick in the nads).

Unfortunately, the Senate system itself does that, regardless of how they’re selected; it’s not like Brownback’s appointments would be any better than the assholes Kansas elected, frex. And if Snyder could appoint Michigan’s Senators, we’d have two more Rs and two less Ds in the Senate already.

*OK, that’s a lie. I know perfectly well why. It’s because they’re bigoted scumfucks, and the original constitution was written to keep down people who are poor, female, and most especially black or native. A considerable portion of white America objects to the changes that’ve made it marginally less bigoted, and really objects to any changes that might significantly impact structural racism, misogyny, and classism.

Shlimazl
Shlimazl
3 years ago

Weirwoodtreehugger: jeez, okay. Goodbye then. I was just wondering.

And no, I’m not very acquainted with all American racist ”dogwhistle” terms. I only know the ”I have a black friend” one, as I don’t live in the USA and don’t regularly debate racists or read their pieces.

Edit: I see now that I have a different name, that is because I forgot I used this one and thought I used ”Margot”.

Margot
Margot
3 years ago

Oh, and I didn’t know that Gert or Nick were (admitted) trolls. I said before that I dislike the name-calling.

joekster (Bearded Beta)
joekster (Bearded Beta)
3 years ago

@Shlimazl/Margot: As I said above, it’s quite understandable that someone who doesn’t swim in these waters might make mistakes.

Mature people learn from their mistakes.

Immature people retaliate when their mistakes are pointed out. Or try to dodge responsibility.

Edit: It’s hard when you see people pointing at issues in posts that you thought were harmless. Believe me, I know. It’s important to be able to move past that.

I think it was Einstein who said, ‘when I was a young man, my mind was a blunt instrument. However, I kept sticking it out at people, and they kept beating on it, until it became as sharp as a razor’.

I’ve always found that little gem helpful. Perhaps it will help you as well.

I would encourage you to stay. This community has much to teach.

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
3 years ago

And no, I’m not very acquainted with all American racist ”dogwhistle” terms.

Then maybe take our word for it that there was racist dogwhistling going on.

weirwoodtreehugger: communist bonobo

Oh, and I didn’t know that Gert or Nick were (admitted) trolls. I said before that I dislike the name-calling.

I didn’t ever say Nick was a troll, just someone I find snide and condescending and someone who has now taken to defending a troll.

Gert, however said right in this thread that he’s now going to troll because he doesn’t like the reception his bullshit gets here. He’s also the one who did the most name calling in this thread. Feel free to go back and read it. He called just about everyone a name. He called me a twat. So why were you scolding us?

I’m not saying you have to leave. I’m just saying that we are not nice to people who say nasty bigoted things. Women, particularly feminist women get a ton of gendered tone policing. We’re expected to be nice to men who hate us all the time. Assuming you’re female based on your username (and sorry if I’ve got that wrong) you’ve probably experienced this too. This is one of the few places where this tone policing doesn’t happen. This is a place where bigotry, including in dogwhistle form is just not tolerated. Troll take downs are part of the culture here and pleas to be nice someone who calls women twats and throws around anti-Semitic dogwhistles are not going to be taken well. I’m really not trying to be mean, but if insulting trolls is offensive to you, you’re better off leaving rather than trying to fight it because it’s just not going to change.

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
3 years ago

Update on the emails: The reports are now saying that the FBI hasn’t even looked at them because they don’t have a warrant yet.

I want to reiterate. Comey interjected himself into an active election process that was 10 days out over something that is probably jack-shit. He actually can’t even say that these emails are ones that Clinton failed to produce during the original investigation, because he doesn’t know what is in them. They could very well be duplicates of emails that Clinton handed over voluntarily months ago.

This is so far beyond a breach of ethics that I don’t even know what to call it. Even a lady on Fox was saying earlier today that the entire way Comey has handled this investigation has been irregular and seemingly calculated to convict Clinton in the court of public opinion since he doesn’t have anything to convict her in a court of law.

Axecalibur: Middle Name Danger
Axecalibur: Middle Name Danger
3 years ago

@Dali

Unfortunately, the Senate system itself does that, regardless of how they’re selected

You’re right 🙂

Also, I like how Brownback is the go to example for Republican, gubernatorial shittery. His is always the 1st name to come outta people’s mouths (or keyboards) in these conversations. He deserves it, but I bet Rick Scott’s glad someone’s taken the heat off him. And Snyder. And Walker. And Christie. And…

@PoM
Dems hate him for investigating her, Rs hate him for letting her off. He made an executive decision to try and tilt the election, assuming that he’d keep his job if he gave Trump the win. That’s my working theory anyway. Probably entirely wrong, but whatever

Margot
Margot
3 years ago

I’m not saying you have to leave.

Okay 🙂

I’m just saying that we are not nice to people who say nasty bigoted things. Women, particularly feminist women get a ton of gendered tone policing. We’re expected to be nice to men who hate us all the time. Assuming you’re female based on your username (and sorry if I’ve got that wrong) you’ve probably experienced this too.

Plenty, yes. While I don’t debate racists, I do tend to debate a lot of sexists/misogynists/people I really don’t agree with and who lean to the manosphere. (or are full-on manospherian) They often have their own ways of trying to excuse saying bizarre or hateful things.

This is one of the few places where this tone policing doesn’t happen. This is a place where bigotry, including in dogwhistle form is just not tolerated.

I think I can understand that, certain places need heavy moderation to keep a certain level of… ”quality” (otherwise you get a shit-ton of the same tired old very poor arguments, I’ve seen it happen before). On the other hand, I fear that it becomes too ”strict” for well-meaning people who haven’t read enough on it before or who lack the ability to really spot people’s ”undertones”. (in an American context, certain stuff is lost on me as I realise now. I tend to spot these things in my own language very well) But oh well, I said it before, I’m new here, so whatever.

Troll take downs are part of the culture here and pleas to be nice someone who calls women twats and throws around anti-Semitic dogwhistles are not going to be taken well. I’m really not trying to be mean, but if insulting trolls is offensive to you, you’re better off leaving rather than trying to fight it because it’s just not going to change.

No, I’m fine with people who mistreat others meeting consequences. There’re plenty of places online where they can go to insult people in racist or sexist ways. It just ”appeared” to me as though disagreeing people on certain subjects (aside from the bad behaviour) would be seen as trolls, per definition, which in some cases they are but in some cases they may not be. (as in: Clinton not being the Best Person Ever etc)

Thank you for replying to me, I hope I cleared up some stuff.

EJ (The Orphic Lizard)

@Policy of Madness:

I’ve heard it theorised that this is a hail mary by Comey to try to rescue his career. Based on his earlier actions, it’s a pretty solid bet that Clinton will fire him when she becomes President, so he has no incentive not to risk everything to stop her.

The question then becomes, how on earth did such an asshole reach high rank in the first place?

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
3 years ago

It just ”appeared” to me as though disagreeing people on certain subjects (aside from the bad behaviour) would be seen as trolls, per definition, which in some cases they are but in some cases they may not be. (as in: Clinton not being the Best Person Ever etc)

Clinton is not the Best Person Ever, but she doesn’t have to be. To borrow an analogy from Ill Doctrine, in electing a President we are doing the equivalent of hiring a plumber. Sometimes a plumber has to stick their hands into a backed-up toilet, and that’s gross to see and think about, but that’s just how it is. Sometimes politicians have to do things that we, as ordinary people, find distasteful, and that’s just how it is.

The fact that Clinton is expected to be either the Best Person Ever or just flat-out disqualified is an example of the double-bind in which women routinely find themselves. She is playing the politics game on a pro level, but playing the politics game on a pro level is incompatible with the stereotype of women being the keepers of morals and domestic tranquility. She is in a position where she is susceptible to criticism for both any error on the political stage, and for any error on the feminine morality stage. Since it’s impossible to do both, there is no happy medium where she can satisfy everyone.

The fact that Trump is as close to the Presidency as he is given that he is a grossly immoral and grossly unqualified candidate is a lesson in misogyny. He is not being held to the same impossible standard as Clinton. Yes, we can say that people are criticizing him, and in fact I just did it, but something like 40% of America would rather have a serial sexual assaulter and thin skinned reactionary than a highly-qualified woman who isn’t quite perfect.

Many of the criticisms of Clinton are just concern trolling, or tone policing, or gender policing, and the ones that aren’t one of those categories need some explanation. Why do we need to talk about how Clinton is imperfect because of her ties to Wall Street, but not talk about how terrifying it would be to have Trump with his finger on the button? Clinton isn’t perfect, but she doesn’t have to be. She only needs to be better than Trump.

joekster (Bearded Beta)
joekster (Bearded Beta)
3 years ago

@PoM: And then there’s the fact that, as has been mentioned above, Trump quite literally is one of the people on Wall Street.

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
3 years ago

@EJ

I guess that could be the case? But the FBI director is on a 10-year term, and they are not routinely removed from office when a new President comes in. Clinton could technically remove him at will, but it would look weird and vindictive if she did it, so I don’t think she will. AFAIK only one FBI director has ever been removed prior to the end of the term, and I doubt Clinton would make Comey the second one.

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
3 years ago

Just heard a report with two jaw-dropping bits of info:

1. A complaint against Comey for violation of the Hatch Act has been filed.

2. The FBI knew about these emails weeks ago. In other words, this wasn’t breaking news for Comey.

weirwoodtreehugger: communist bonobo

Just to refresh everyone’s memory, here’s Gert’s 1st post in the thread in response to Kat. A post he later claimed was polite.

That said, I’m hopeful that we can vote Hillary in — and insist that she stick with the progressive agenda that Bernie pretty much made her adopt.

Yup. That’s sooooooo going to happen, after the DNC ruined any chances of Bernie Sanders becoming the nominee!

I pity the American electorate for having nothing more than a choice between two evils: a misogynistic clown and a super hawkish establishmentarian!

Good luck with that…

Based on his past asshattery (anti-Semitism, ableism and general pomposity) and snide tone of this post, IP told him to fuck off and I said it was finally time to get on the same page and brand Gert a troll once and for all. For whatever reason, he ignored IP and focused his ire on me. Perhaps because he perceived IP as male and knew I was a woman? Idk.

This was his response to me.

@weirdfucker:

You mean, anytime someone here expresses an opinion that deviates from the Clinton orthodoxy by a nanometer has to be branded a ‘troll’?

This ‘community’ hardly surpasses the level of “debate” found at Wonkette, but hey, at least it has weirdfucker as a safeguard.

Brand me a troll, treat me as one and I’ll start behaving like one.
You twit…

That’s when he admitted his intent to troll. He also turned my name into an insult and called me a twit. I didn’t notice before, but it’s interesting that he chose Wonkette as his example of poor debate. I don’t know much about the site, but I believe it’s feminist or at least take a female focused view of politics. I’m thinking he acted like a mansplaining douche and got his ass handed to him there before he decided to inflict his presence on us.

After pointing out that he’s been trollish from the start he responded this way.

@weirdfucker:

Listen “sweetie” (you condescending twat), go complain to David and do your worst.

Meanwhile I’ll continue to prick the illusory balloons of a few here, re. your wretched election and Murrica’s place in the world.

I’m honestly baffled as to how anyone could have come to the conclusion that Gert simply made a mild criticism of Hillary Clinton or US policies and all of us mean meanies bullied him away.

Axecalibur: Middle Name Danger
Axecalibur: Middle Name Danger
3 years ago

@Margot

On the other hand, I fear that it becomes too “strict” for well-meaning people who haven’t read enough on it before or who lack the ability to really spot people’s ”undertones”

Well meaning people often don’t know things. That’s more than fine, and an encyclopedic knowledge is never expected. It wasn’t for me when I was learning the ropes. But well meaning people, by definition, are willing to listen and learn when they don’t know something. You’re cool, so I wouldn’t worry too much about us being too strict. We all get it sometimes, but, if ya keep responding to criticism like this (and definitely not like Gert), you’ll do fine 🙂

weirwoodtreehugger: communist bonobo

If mild mannered and wishy washy Harry Reid is on the warpath over this, you know Comey fucked up. Here’s a Guardian article on it
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/30/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-fbi-director-comey-emails

I keep seeing headlines asking if Clinton is going to lose over this even though there’s no evidence it’s hurt her yet. It’s kind of pissing me off. Media outlets won’t get as many eyeballs over an election where Clinton sails to victory, so they have to use headlines to whip the public up into a frenzy and tighten up the election. That’s an incredibly irresponsible thing to do when we’re risking a Trump presidency.

History Nerd
History Nerd
3 years ago

It’s almost unheard of for the FBI to talk about a white-collar investigation before someone is actually arrested. FBI investigations often go on for years. You can file a Privacy Act request and ask if you were the subject of an FBI investigation in a certain time frame, but that information is only released to you.

JS
JS
3 years ago

Yep, this is the old political trick of getting your opponents investigated multiple times for various things. If you’ve managed to get enough investigations going…

1. They might actually find something illegal, and get your opponent jailed or taken off the ballot. This is one of the best outcomes for the person starting the investigations. Call this 7 points.

2. They don’t find anything actually illegal, but there was something suspicious. This counts as, say, 3 points.

3. They don’t find anything at all, but the investigation makes the news cycle. 1 point (partisan only, maybe).

4. Investigation fizzles, news reports ignore it completely. 0 points.

Theory is, since most of the results of the investigations are positive for the person calling for them, it makes sense to ask for official investigations of anything that might possibly be suspicious.

Fortunately it doesn’t work on all people, especially those who see through the rhetorical trick of “Candidate has been investigated 30 times, there must be something actually illegal there!” coming around these days.

I believe Gingrich was one of the earlier proponents of official investigation requests as campaign tactic. It’s been around far longer than that.

Laugher at Bigots
Laugher at Bigots
3 years ago

@JS

So it’s just the old “throw everything at the wall and see what sticks”?

joekster (Bearded Beta)
joekster (Bearded Beta)
3 years ago

@JS: I don’t know. I see a lot of people on MSNBC comments spouting the ‘if there’s smoke, there’s fire’ line. I know it’s utter bull, but they seem to find it convincing.

joekster (Bearded Beta)
joekster (Bearded Beta)
3 years ago

Honest word though? This might be a good thing. It may scare Hillary supporters who may have been getting complacent enough to stay home election day.

JS
JS
3 years ago

Yep, unfortunately a current standard political tactic in various places. “If we keep investigating, I know we’ll find something!”

joekster (Bearded Beta)
joekster (Bearded Beta)
3 years ago

@Dalilama: I passed over this before:

The framers were foolishly optimistic on that front because they basically had only the vaguest clue of what they were doing; none of them were political scientists or indeed social scientists of any sort.

And, I have to agree. The framers were woefully optimistic about quite a few things. Ultimately, they were overly-optimistic about the ability of people to pull together for the common good all on their own.

Turns out, when you set people free to pursue their own interests, they mostly decide their own interests rely on taking advantage of each other.

On another note, I was digging through links in old threads, and I ran across a reference to something called ‘TTIP’ from October of last year. Did this actually happen? I rather hope not…

Ooglyboggles
3 years ago

@joekster (Bearded Beta)
Currently TTIP alongside TTP is currently in the “shadow cabal” stage of planning, nothing passed just blueprints and groundwork. That’s not a joke, most of the stuff here is things behind closed doors away from public view and criticism.

joekster (Bearded Beta)
joekster (Bearded Beta)
3 years ago

@Ooglyboggles: that’s scary. Thank you for updating me. It was an old post, so I was hoping it had fallen by the wayside. Especially the bit about private corporations being allowed to sue national governments for ‘lost profits’.

Dalillama
Dalillama
3 years ago

@Axe

Also, I like how Brownback is the go to example for Republican, gubernatorial shittery. His is always the 1st name to come outta people’s mouths (or keyboards) in these conversations.

His name’s easier for me to remember. I just use the mnemonic ‘Sam Brownshirt’ and it pops right up.

@Joekster

Turns out, when you set people free to pursue their own interests, they mostly decide their own interests rely on taking advantage of each other.

To my knowledge, none of the founders was very big on setting people free to pursue their own interests. Exactly the opposite, in fact.

Ultimately, they were overly-optimistic about the ability of people to pull together for the common good all on their own.

You seem to have a very rosy view of them; I find this isn’t uncommon among certain demographics, but I still find it damned annoying. The whole point of things like the electoral college and the requirement of owning property to vote (and being white and male) is to make sure that the peons didn’t get a say, because the wealthy aristocrats who were writing the Constitution knew some of the things the plebs said about them. Letting people pull together for the common good is totally antithetical to what they were trying to achieve (and to a great extent did, although it’s been worn down some over the years).

joekster (Bearded Beta)
joekster (Bearded Beta)
3 years ago

@Dalilama: you’re right, of course. Most of the rebels in our War of Independence were among the most wealthy. George Washington, for example, was one of the richest people on the continent, thanks to his marriage to Martha.
I recall a line from ‘1776’, where he describes how, when the Hessians landed in the colonies, they couldn’t understand how people with so much wealth would even bother rebelling against their lawful sovereign.

However, there is another side to it, and there were (at least a few) among the founders who seem to have truly believed in the ‘better angels’ of humanity. It’s possible to argue that they were using that as a justification for darker motives, and maybe some of them were. Maybe even most of them.

They’ve all been dead for over two hundred years, so it’s not like they can defend themselves. Or, for that matter, be cross-examined.

I probably shouldn’t have started making assumptions about their motivations in the first place. My apologies. What matters is the government they created, which, as you’ve said, seems designed to keep the plebeians out of politics as much as possible. In the age of partial literacy, that may have been reasonable. However, now that universal education is a thing (even if it’s a very flawed and weakened thing), it isn’t, and it needs to change. And at the same time, we really, truly need to strengthen public education as much as possible, as you’ve said on other threads.

Dalillama
Dalillama
3 years ago

@Joekster

George Washington, for example, was one of the richest people on the continent, thanks to his marriage to Martha. the unremitting backbreaking labour of hundreds of enslaved African Americans.

Who were most certainly not ‘free to pursue their own interests’.

However, there is another side to it, and there were (at least a few) among the founders who seem to have truly believed in the ‘better angels’ of humanity.

Bully for them. I don’t care. I’m looking at what they actually did, and for that matter wrote, and I’m less than impressed.

seems is explicitly designed to keep the plebeians out of politics as much as possible.

I am not actually making assumptions here, I am going by the stated purpose and desire of the founders of this country. E.g., from a letter by John Adams to James Sullivan:

But let us first suppose, that the whole community of every age, rank, sex, and condition, has a right to vote. This community, is assembled—a motion is made and carried by a majority of one voice. The minority will not agree to this. Whence arises the right of the majority to govern, and the obligation of the minority to obey? from necessity, you will say, because there can be no other rule. But why exclude women? You will say, because their delicacy renders them unfit for practice and experience, in the great business of life, and the hardy enterprises of war, as well as the arduous cares of state. Besides, their attention is so much engaged with the necessary nurture of their children, that nature has made them fittest for domestic cares. And children have not judgment or will of their own. True. But will not these reasons apply to others? Is it not equally true, that men in general in every society, who are wholly destitute of property, are also too little acquainted with public affairs to form a right judgment, and too dependent upon other men to have a will of their own? If this is a fact, if you give to every man, who has no property, a vote, will you not make a fine encouraging provision for corruption by your fundamental law? Such is the frailty of the human heart, that very few men, who have no property, have any judgment of their own. They talk and vote as they are directed by some man of property, who has attached their minds to his interest…

I trust I don’t need to provide quotes to attest to their reluctance to have Black or Native people participate in government?

Kat
Kat
3 years ago

This kinda cheered me up:

Comey’s own troops up in arms over Hillary letter

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/10/29/1588513/-Comey-s-own-troops-up-in-arms-over-Hillary-letter?detail=email&link_id=1&can_id=5ada9ec1194129cebf09c977fd894b4d&source=email-comeys-own-troops-up-in-arms-over-hillary-letter&email_referrer=comeys-own-troops-up-in-arms-over-hillary-letter&email_subject=comeys-own-troops-up-in-arms-over-hillary-letter

And to think that a few days ago I couldn’t have told you who the director of the FBI was!

After J. Edgar Hoover, they all blur to me. Well, except for Efrem Zimbalist Jr. Oh wait, he played Inspector Lewis Erskine on the TV show The FBI. Hoover loved that show!

Ooglyboggles
3 years ago

@Kat
This feels like a comedy sketch.

Kat
Kat
3 years ago

@OoglyBoggles
Or reality TV?

Whatever else I think about Trump — racist, sexist, end-stage-capitalist terrorist who could wipe out humanity — I have to admit that he puts on a helluva show!

Arctic Ape
Arctic Ape
3 years ago

This feels like a comedy sketch.

I’ve been hesitating this joke for a long time because it’s kinda obscure but…

Years ago, Finnish radio comedy group Alivaltiosihteeri made a sketch on “Email of Lönneberga”, from Astrid Lindgren’s Emil of Lönneberga. It wasn’t related to anything political, just word play.

Lately I’ve imagined the American Conservative as Emil’s father, the angry middle-aged white guy yelling:

“EEEEEEEEEEMAIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

Kat
Kat
3 years ago

@Arctic Ape

“Where did my white privilege GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!” 🙁