I want a rather simple life of my own as well. Least I’m doing something. The gov’t is the one with all the power lol. So bizarre.
This is great to hear and absolutely works towards what you’re talking about. Proud to hear it.
This does nothing whatsoever to enact actual change and, unless your employer strictly adheres to building green and sustainable, it potentially works against your previous argument railing against capitalist greed or whatever that rant was about.
Thoroughly incorrect. I suggest you consider the concept of “Think globally, act locally.”
1 Like
I work for a small local firm. The construction is all local.
I’ve heard similar arguments but never followed the math on that. My understanding of how it worked antebellum is this (very simplistic example):
- There are 100 citizens, 30 of whom exist in slaveholding states
- Each citizen has 1 vote
- There are 20 slaves in the slaveholding states who have no voting rights
- Slaveholding states should have 30% representation based on citizen population
- The 3/5s math: (30+20x3/5)/(100+20x3/5) = ~38%
- The slaveholding states would then receive 38 of the 100 available votes despite only having 30 citizens
This of course glosses over several nuances but I think it works for illustrative purposes. I’m not sure how, in this example, one would assert that the slaveholding states are underrepresented unless they also accept the morality of withholding one’s right to vote while not actually representing them.
Edit: changed the form of multiplication sign so it wouldn’t look like a zero . . .
Tone is tough to interpret here - are you saying that sarcastically or in earnest?
Local doesn’t necessarily mean something good. Did you read Chris’ post?
Yeah I agree, I just don’t think it’s right to hide behind delay of game when you (US govt) were the one causing the delay
I think repairing a road in a small town is pretty good. I also think sediment and erosion control at a park is good. It’s nice to keep sediment from seeping into a bodies of water that act as the state’s water supply. Chris is correct though.
@jshaving Anyway that’s all I could find on that speech. If Stanford having the speech documented isn’t enough for you to believe it then idk what will.
I am not sure I follow this. Did you mean over represented?
I’m completely serious. If you care to search, you can probably find how many times that compromise has been referenced as evidence that people didn’t think blacks were fully human back then.
I clicked on that and was brought here.
It says it’s from a speech called Which Way Its Soul Shall Go. I can’t find that.
It lowered the representation from what more-heavily-slave states wanted, and gave them more representation than the fewer-slave states wanted.
No. @jshaving mentioned that he had seen something claiming that 3/5s somehow underrepresented the slaveholding part of the country. I’m saying that logic isn’t evident based on the example I wrote out, unless you accept that slaves should have been counted towards the representative population (at 100% value) while simultaneously being denied the right to vote.
Slavery did that.
This is wrong. By counting slaves it made the South’s population greater, thus giving them more congressmen. However, those slaves who were counted were not able to vote for the very representatives who would supposedly represent them in congress (because if they could vote they would probably vote for someone who would free them, i.e., someone who truly represented them). The South wanted slaves to be counted as a whole person because it would give them more representatives. 3/5ths was a compromise.
It was a sham perpetrated by slave owners. Again, a state gets representatives based on population and slaves were people (to a limited extent) however, the idea is that representatives represent the people in their districts and anyone who thinks those representatives represented slaves is lying to themselves. Any argument to the contrary is simply Southern/slavery apologists trying to be clever because they are ashamed to admit that slavery was an abomination, an abomination that reflects upon those who championed it.
Again, slavery…
Or be free.
Right, but then that would have been true representation instead of under or over.
They had to get that money by what? working ? building a business? How do you know they have enough money in the first place?
What power do they have over your life?
How is America greedy? Hell, we given more money away than any country on this planet.
Unless you are born with generational wealth, everyone worries about money.
You and Bernie are kindred souls.
Also, you didn’t answer my question: How are you a corporate slave and what do they make you do?
1 Like
I am not a corporate slave. Other people are