The options are either personally fix our entire country or shut up and follow orders? This unwillingness to accept criticism of the Democratic Party is exactly why people like me feel unrepresented by it. We see a party working against our interests and a fan base frothing at the mouth anytime anyone dares speak against them.
Have you ever complained about the Republicans? If so, why don’t you stop complaining about it and personally fix the country?
Wow, all two of them? Get a higher bar. I’m not even young.
All three Democratic presidents I’ve been alive for have been pretty bad too. Turns out I’m not represented very well in our plutocracy, and it’s pretty tiring to hear the endless defense of the wealthy elite that actively work against all of us.
You can call it whatever you want, as long as it equals 1/2 it’s the same number.
So yes, multiplying by 2/2 to make it more intuitively obvious is perfectly valid and a good way to think about it. Most arithmetic tricks are ultimately multiplying by 1 or adding 0 just to make the problem easier to handle.
Seriously, why is basic arithmetic worthy of so much discussion?
Just… do the math. It’s not complicated math.
Choosing not to prop Trump up as a pied piper during the primaries would also have been a good step. And putting anyone but one of the most unelectable politicians against him would also have been a good idea.
Sure doesn’t help that the billionaires win no matter the outcome.
If you click through to it, the actual study uses Celsius. The Fahrenheit is just the journalist converting.
If this is real and in the US, I would love to see a Gen Xer or elder Millennial apply, make sure to mention their generation, and then get this dumbass owner to say in writing that they aren’t hiring them because they aren’t a Boomer.
IANAL, but that seems like a slam dunk age discrimination case as long as the applicant is at least 40.
I’m becoming increasingly interested in doing this as well. What all needs to be put in place for it to happen?
The more positive spin version is that they test freedom of (and from) religion to ensure it is being applied broadly and not solely for Christianity and, to a lesser extent, Judaism.
You’re being downvoted but I agree. None of this has anything to do with religion. A weird fiction that invokes “[the Christian] God provided the vaccine” is irrelevant and disrespectful to the humans that worked hard to create a vaccine.
It’s a pretty bad idea in general to bring up a supposedly omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent “God” in the context of children dying of diseases anyway. What kind of God would allow children to die of cancer? Or any number of other currently incurable diseases?
Look, I don’t think we disagree about racism in this country or how bad slavery is or that Thomas Jefferson was a slaver jackass. But I am tired of people refusing to learn more about the context of that clause and arguing in favor of the slavers, even inadvertantly.
Counting slaves when they couldn’t vote was bad for slaves while being good for slavers. The South took your stance, that they should count in full. The North took the opposite, largely for political benefit but they happened to also be backing the morally correct position, that slaves shouldn’t count for representation in the House if they can’t vote because it only inflates the power of slavers.
The North first tried to take the stance that if the South wanted slaves to contribute to their House representation, they also counted towards counts for taxation. This clause was the compromise of the South taking on the tax burden of 3/5 of slaves in exchange for 3/5 of the political representation of slaves.
You really shouldn’t be arguing semantics when your first comment is just deadass wrong. The clause doesn’t mention race, period. Frederick Douglass points out very clearly why that is ultimately a benefit for the oppressed black population, giving greater power to states that had free black people. Maybe you shouldn’t be taking a stance against a man who himself escaped slavery. I think he knows what he’s talking about.
You realize you’re taking his side on this argument, right? He argued against this clause since it hurt the South, he wanted slaves to count in full so it would bolster the political power of slave owners. Accepting it was his compromise in order to also lower the tax burden of slave states.
Yeah, because the clause doesn’t distinguish based on race like you said it did. It was on freedom. And it served to limit the political power of slavers.
Everyone always brings it up as if the clause was some evil thing when it was in fact a fight against the evil of slavery.
I think you should read it again. He’s saying even taking the worst possible interpretation, the clause promotes freedom for slaves.
I’m not. I’m objecting to your saying the clause was racist when its very purpose was anti-slavery. Slavery is the thing that is racist.
I think a Civil War era leader on abolitionism and civil rights would know what he’s talking about when he describes the clause as supporting his cause.
Because it’s not the clause that invokes racism, it’s the practice of slavery. The clause, as Douglass points out, promotes freedom.
That one is a lot more nuanced. It distinguishes based on freedom not race. Obviously the US itself was extraordinarily racist and the practice of chattel slavery abhorrent. But that isn’t what that clause says.
I always liked Frederick Douglass’s take on the clause:
But giving the provisions the very worse construction, what does it amount to? I answer—It is a downright disability laid upon the slaveholding States; one which deprives those States of two-fifths of their natural basis of representation. A black man in a free State is worth just two-fifths more than a black man in a slave State, as a basis of political power under the Constitution. Therefore, instead of encouraging slavery, the Constitution encourages freedom by giving an increase of “two-fifths” of political power to free over slave States. So much for the three-fifths clause; taking it at its worst, it still leans to freedom, not slavery; for, be it remembered that the Constitution nowhere forbids a coloured man to vote.
Yeah, overreaction there. Like the other commenter said I wasn’t correcting grammar or spelling, BSG 2004 is set in the past not the future.
The difference is that it’s the same “you have to make the safe choice now and you’ll get to make things better later” every single cycle. Many of us see it all as a facade that will never end, and watch the Democratic Party actively work against our interests in the meantime.
But we can’t ever dare express discontent online without vitriol from people who can’t seem to handle the fact that others might not be convinced by “I’m not a Republican” anymore.