• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Public schools aren't teaching Critical Race Theory.

Generation55 said:
Elixir said:
Gen55 said:
She pushed Russia collusion for 4 years and people on the left wouldn't shut up about how Trump stole it by colluding with Russia.
Click to expand...

In fairness, that's because Trump is a career criminal who has cheated in every single endeavor of his life., including welcoming Russian interference on his behalf in the 2016 and 2020 elections.


Click to expand...

But the Russia collusion was all a hoax. The Steele dossier was one big lie made up Clinton and her Russian allies to make the public think Trump was dirty.
Click to expand...
You do know that the Steele dossier was originally being compiled at the request of Republicans, right?
 
Politesse said:
I have not advocated for abolishing tte electoral college... I merely observed that the centers of material prosperity in this nation are nearly all in solidly Democratic districts, so your claim that "the facts" show great poverty to correlate with the DNC is simply not true. You even admit that property values are much lower in conservative regions, even if you prefer to call that "low cost of living" (generally found in poverty-stricken regions all around the world, in fact). You can live on a few dollars a week in Somalia and avoid almost any taxes, but that doesn't make it a good place to live start a business.
Click to expand...

Yup -- low cost of living strongly correlates with a lack of value in living there.
 
Generation55 said:
Loren Pechtel said:
Generation55 said:
Republican regions are not falling to pieces. They have lower cost of living and lower taxes. The United States also has a majority of its states vote Republican. Democrats don't have very many states overall. In recent election cycles Republicans usually have between 30-35 states and Democrats usually have between 15-20 states. It is a very good thing that the founding fathers founded the electoral college because they didn't want small states to get outvoted by majority rule. It wouldn't be fair if Democrats won every election just because Democrat states tend to be more populated. The founding fathers knew this and everyone fighting against the electoral college needs a good history lesson, or they just don't care.
Click to expand...

And why do lines on a map get a vote? People should vote--and that would mean the Democrats controlling all three branches.
Click to expand...
We are not a pure democracy. Founding fathers knew this. They knew democracy=majority rule=mob rule. It's not good. Like I said, Republicans control a steady 30-35 states every election cycle. Democrats only get around 15-20 states. Imagine if the population of the U.S. was only 100 million people. Let's assume 50 million live in California, 10 million live in NY, and 40 million people are scattered around the other 48 states. Would it be fair to let California and NY decide every election? Absolutely not. This is why the Founding fathers were not morons.
Click to expand...

That does not answer my question at all. Why should drawing a state boundary around something create a vote?

What if the big cities of America were to make themselves states? The Senate would go hard blue even though nobody's vote changed. If you can draw a line like that and make big changes to the system there's something wrong with it.

And note that it wasn't the founding fathers being smart, but politics that drove the 2 senators per state bit. It has definitely been abused in the past--North and South Dakota were specifically to get two more votes.
 
Generation55 said:

I know a lot of wealthy states are also Democrat, but this is due to people gravitating toward the states because they are nicer. Example, people grvitate to Florida because of the weather mostly. Maybe some people go there screaming about a Republican Heaven, but I would say a majority go there because of the weather. Same with California, same with Texas. Florida is also about freedom because there is no income tax there. Same with Texas. Imagine if NY and California went income tax free? WOW! I don't think many people say to themselves, "I'm going to California because it's Democrat!
Click to expand...

Texas, weather? I hear only bad things about Texas weather. And I've seen multiple people contemplating relocation categorically rule out Texas and Florida for political reasons.
 
ZiprHead said:
Thom Hartmann famously asks Republican callers to name any Republican led legislation in recent times designed to help the little people. They have a great deal of difficulty naming anything and usually deflect as G55 has done above.
Click to expand...

They don't trot out SB8?
 
Generation55 said:
Republican regions are not falling to pieces. They have lower cost of living and lower taxes.
Click to expand...
And it's hard to find good-paying jobs in them. Public services are awful; the streets aren't exactly paved with gold.
The United States also has a majority of its states vote Republican. Democrats don't have very many states overall. In recent election cycles Republicans usually have between 30-35 states and Democrats usually have between 15-20 states.
Click to expand...
That's because of demographics. Democrats tend to be concentrated in high-density areas and Republicans in low-density areas.
It is a very good thing that the founding fathers founded the electoral college because they didn't want small states to get outvoted by majority rule. It wouldn't be fair if Democrats won every election just because Democrat states tend to be more populated. The founding fathers knew this and everyone fighting against the electoral college needs a good history lesson, or they just don't care.
Click to expand...
It's people that count, not arbitrary political boundaries.

The Founders weren't unified on very much, and they show it by what they put into the Constitution. They didn't see eye-to-eye on slavery, for instance, and that led to the 3/5 compromise of counting "other persons". Yes, that's the wording that they used. They also didn't see eye to eye on how the legislature was to be composed. Small-state delegations preferred by-state representation, the "New Jersey plan", while large-state delegations preferred by-population representation, the "Virginia plan". What they adopted was a compromise, the "Connecticut compromise".

The Electoral College was an afterthought, from being unable to decide how to elect the President. Congress? The states' governors? Southern delegations didn't like a popular-vote election because they didn't have many qualified citizens. The North was much better. They were also concerned about lots of regional favorites being candidates. So they decided on the Electoral College.

Some EC defenders portray it as some committee of political experts and wise people, but it isn't. It soon turned into what it has been for most of its history, a half-assed system of aggregated and weighted popular votes.

I must note that one thing that they seemed to agree on is dislike for political parties. The Constitution ignores them, and some Founders wernt on record as deploring them. But once the US Gov't went into action, the politicians started dividing up into parties. So much for that bit of idealism.
 
lpetrich said:
Generation55 said:
Republican regions are not falling to pieces. They have lower cost of living and lower taxes.
Click to expand...
And it's hard to find good-paying jobs in them. Public services are awful; the streets aren't exactly paved with gold.
The United States also has a majority of its states vote Republican. Democrats don't have very many states overall. In recent election cycles Republicans usually have between 30-35 states and Democrats usually have between 15-20 states.
Click to expand...
That's because of demographics. Democrats tend to be concentrated in high-density areas and Republicans in low-density areas.
It is a very good thing that the founding fathers founded the electoral college because they didn't want small states to get outvoted by majority rule. It wouldn't be fair if Democrats won every election just because Democrat states tend to be more populated. The founding fathers knew this and everyone fighting against the electoral college needs a good history lesson, or they just don't care.
Click to expand...
It's people that count, not arbitrary political boundaries.

The Founders weren't unified on very much, and they show it by what they put into the Constitution. They didn't see eye-to-eye on slavery, for instance, and that led to the 3/5 compromise of counting "other persons". Yes, that's the wording that they used. They also didn't see eye to eye on how the legislature was to be composed. Small-state delegations preferred by-state representation, the "New Jersey plan", while large-state delegations preferred by-population representation, the "Virginia plan". What they adopted was a compromise, the "Connecticut compromise".

The Electoral College was an afterthought, from being unable to decide how to elect the President. Congress? The states' governors? Southern delegations didn't like a popular-vote election because they didn't have many qualified citizens. The North was much better. They were also concerned about lots of regional favorites being candidates. So they decided on the Electoral College.

Some EC defenders portray it as some committee of political experts and wise people, but it isn't. It soon turned into what it has been for most of its history, a half-assed system of aggregated and weighted popular votes.

I must note that one thing that they seemed to agree on is dislike for political parties. The Constitution ignores them, and some Founders wernt on record as deploring them. But once the US Gov't went into action, the politicians started dividing up into parties. So much for that bit of idealism.
Click to expand...

Three-fifths Compromise - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
The Three-fifths Compromise was an agreement reached during the 1787 United States Constitutional Convention over the counting of slaves in determining a state's total population. This count would determine the number of seats in the House of Representatives and how much each state would pay in taxes. "The compromise counted three-fifths of each state's slave population toward that state's total population for the purpose of apportioning the House of Representatives."

You have been fed propaganda about the 3/5 compromise. Whatever the slave population of a state was, they counted 3/5 of that number. It did not mean that they saw slaves as 3/5 of a person. South said slaves shouldn't be counted as population numbers because they are property. North wanted to count the slaves as population numbers so they compromised on 3/5.

If a state had 1,000 free people and 1,000 slaves, South wanted to say the population of the state was 1,000. North wanted to say it was 2,000 people. The 3/5 compromise made them say that the population was 1,600 people. (just using easy numbers to illustrate it). Doesn't sound like the propaganda you heard, does it?
 
Last edited:
Generation55 said:
You have been fed propaganda about the 3/5 compromise. Whatever the slave population of a state was, they counted 3/5 of that number. It did not mean that they saw slaves as 3/5 of a person. South said slaves shouldn't be counted as population numbers because they are property. North wanted to count the slaves as population numbers so they compromised on 3/5.

If a state had 1,000 free people and 1,000 slaves, South wanted to say the population of the state was 1,000. North wanted to say it was 2,000 people. The 3/5 compromise made them say that the population was 1,600 people. (just using easy numbers to illustrate it). Doesn't sound like the propaganda you heard, does it?
Click to expand...
Rewrite of history. Joseph Stalin would be proud. It's the other way around. The southern-state delegations wanted all the states' populations counted, while the northern-state delegations wanted only free people counted. They compromised on 3/5 of "other persons" -- the enslaved ones.
 
lpetrich said:
Rewrite of history. Joseph Stalin would be proud. It's the other way around. The southern-state delegations wanted all the states' populations counted, while the northern-state delegations wanted only free people counted. They compromised on 3/5 of "other persons" -- the enslaved ones.
Click to expand...
Yes. Similarly, today states count their prison populations as citizens, but they don't get to vote. Which means that the free people get more representation in the House, and more control over that representation. it's the same math they figureed out with the 3/5 compromise.
 
Keith&Co. said:
lpetrich said:
Rewrite of history. Joseph Stalin would be proud. It's the other way around. The southern-state delegations wanted all the states' populations counted, while the northern-state delegations wanted only free people counted. They compromised on 3/5 of "other persons" -- the enslaved ones.
Click to expand...
Yes. Similarly, today states count their prison populations as citizens, but they don't get to vote. Which means that the free people get more representation in the House, and more control over that representation. it's the same math they figureed out with the 3/5 compromise.
Click to expand...
To the considerable advantage of certain states that have invested heavily in the prison industry, and/or anyone who wants to gerrymander a voting district.

Unsurprisingly, prisons are also the only institutions formally allowed to waive the Constitutional prohibition on slave labor. The interests of the propertied classes in this country never change all that much.
 
Wisconsin Assembly passes bills banning 'critical race theory' in schools, government training

Banned terms

In testimony before a joint meeting of the Assembly and Senate education committees in August, Rep. Chuck Wichgers, R-Muskego, one of the co-authors of the bill to ban the teaching of critical race theory, outlined a list of additional terms and concepts that he said violate the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution and would be prohibited subjects in the classroom under the bill:

Critical Race Theory (CRT)

Action Civics

Social Emotional Learning (SEL)

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)

Culturally responsive teaching

Abolitionist teaching

Affinity groups

Anti-racism

Anti-bias training

Anti-blackness

Anti-meritocracy

Obtuse meritocracy

Centering or de-centering

Collective guilt

Colorism

Conscious and unconscious bias

Critical ethnic studies

Critical pedagogy

Critical self-awareness

Critical self-reflection

Cultural appropriation/misappropriation

Cultural awareness

Cultural competence

Cultural proficiency

Cultural relevance

Cultural responsiveness

Culturally responsive practices

De-centering whiteness

Deconstruct knowledges

Diversity focused

Diversity training

Dominant discourses

Educational justice

Equitable

Equity

Examine “systems"

Free radical therapy

Free radical self/collective care

Hegemony

Identity deconstruction

Implicit/Explicit bias

Inclusivity education

Institutional bias

Institutional oppression

Internalized racial superiority

Internalized racism

Internalized white supremacy

Interrupting racism

Intersection

Intersectionality

Intersectional identities

Intersectional studies

Land acknowledgment

Marginalized identities

Marginalized/Minoritized/Under-represented communities

Microaggressions

Multiculturalism

Neo-segregation

Normativity

Oppressor vs. oppressed

Patriarchy

Protect vulnerable identities

Race essentialism

Racial healing

Racialized identity

Racial justice

Racial prejudice

Racial sensitivity training

Racial supremacy

Reflective exercises

Representation and inclusion

Restorative justice

Restorative practices

Social justice

Spirit murdering

Structural bias

Structural inequity

Structural racism

Systemic bias

Systemic oppression

Systemic racism

Systems of power and oppression

Unconscious bias

White fragility

White privilege

White social capital

White supremacy

Whiteness

Woke
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom