This type of argument illustrates what I believe is a type of argument which hurls accusations of racism or bigotry with clearly no support.
You realize that the Electoral College was formed in 1787 when blacks could not vote at all, right? Since blacks could not vote, the particular method of selecting a president clearly had no racial motivation.
The EC was followed during the entire time when some states began allowing free blacks to vote, and the abolition of slavery, and universal male suffrage. Even after universal male suffrage, the EC survived when male blacks were effectively denied the right to vote. Clearly the EC did not concern itself with suppressing black votes.
Even when blacks were effectively given the right to vote, most voted Republican. It has only been since the 1960s that blacks are largely congregated in urban areas and vote largely Democratic.
However, according to you, any argument for keeping the over 200 year old method of selecting the President is obviously, stated as a fact without support, a racist and bigoted argument.
I forgot to go back and spell out nuance. I thought italics was enough.
I said what the Electoral College does - as in the effect it had as of last election - and showed some mathematics demonstrating that. You’re arguing about what it may or may not have been intended for which is a different matter entirely.
I seem to recall something else happening in the 60s, something that affected the racial demographics in regards to who was democrat or republican. Can you help me out?
Because it was an offhanded remark meant to simply add to and emphasize my statement, but wasn’t necesary to what I had to say. You can remove the statement completely and my argument still stands.
I didn’t know it was controversial. I read it in the Guardian, and they’re pretty reputable. It was only after it was challenged that I learned that it was controversial. Have you never made a similar inconsequential mistake?
No, in fact, I was not. When challenged on it I tried to substantiate it, and when I realized it was controversial I just said forget about it.
You can remove the offending words from what I said and the meaning of the statement does not change. He’s still worth hating because he started a war that massively damaged the reputation of the United States, cost us in blood and treasure, and killed and displaced a whole bunch of Iraqis. The religious nutjobbery isn’t necesary to make my point.
What about Karl Rove? Who’s your Tu Quoque for him, Bricker? Or is he still your GOP hero; the fact the Democrats don’t have their own Karl Rove is why the Dems are inferior?
I think the difference is that the proliferation of new media channels gave the right wing a voice it didn’t have before. To some degree, you could argue that it provided a way of balancing the coverage, which is not unreasonable in and of itself. But it has evolved over time into a propaganda machine that distorts reality intentionally.
My side is working for the good of the country. Your side is trying to tear it down. Anything bad my side does is insignificant and irrelevant. Anything bad your side does shows your basic evil.
My side was taken out of context. Your side lied deliberately. The media on your side is biased and deliberately deceptive. The media on my side is objectively honest. None of the extremists on my side can be fairly associated with my side - they are a fringe element. All the extremists on your side represent the heart of your values, desires and tactics.
My side is right. Your side is wrong. They are not equal.
Uh, Rhode Island was 76% non-Latino white, and 81% white overall, not “97%”. And that was in 2010 so I’d guess the figures are lower now. They’re also a reliable Democratic state although less so in 2016 than in the past.
You’re not entirely wrong overall but RI is a weird example.
I think it’s pretty obvious both sides were responsible for the violence. The extremes of both sides are hate groups in their own way. Yes the alt-right group brought deplorable ideas with them and invaded a peaceful little city, but too many of the counter-protesters came looking to obstruct free speech and fight. As soon as you resort to physical violence, you have stooped to your opponent’s level.
I agree. It’s pretty obvious to anyone who is objective about it and Trump was simply speaking the truth. You are not allowed to do that anymore.
If I know that a guy is beating his wife, and I invade his home and lynch him from a tree in the backyard for being a wife beater, is there a way to condemn my actions without appearing like you support domestic battery?
