• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Do You Believe In Secession?

Steve

Well-known member
Silver said:
The insult was completely warranted. Thomas Jefferson was a believer in manifest destiny and had been pushing for an invasion of Canada for some time, when he wrote the quote you are in a dither about is irrelevant to my point. The fact is to me he is if not a invader, he definitely was a proponent for some time before war broke out. I won't even get into his other character flaws. Therefore my opinion of him is low.
You have had a habit on this forum of attempting to suppress any opinion that does not directly align with your own. That is what makes you an idiot. There is another FACT for you to chew on.


you made the "quote" the basis for your claim,

You backed that up with another flawed (wrong) claim..

and then when you were shown your claim and the basis for your claim was flawed, you resorted to insults..

AND NOW you "claim" my intent was to suppress your opinion.

REALLY?

Chew on that for a bit and think about who is doing what here.. in my book that would not make me an idiot, factually or otherwise.
I just disagreed with you and presented facts to show you that maybe your opinion was flawed..

So, Really?
 

Silver

Well-known member
You're still at it Steve.
The date of the quote is really immaterial, but it is very good example of Jefferson's convictions. But you know that. If you are half the history buff you claim to be you'd know Jefferson was stumping for a Canadian invasion for some time.
Your claim that he only felt this way was because of an attack on an american position is juvenile at best. No surprise here. And it's FALSE
YOU continue to ignore my other statement that I disagree with Jefferson's belief in Manifest Destiny. Completely ignore. Why? Because you can't argue with that.
IDIOT in this case is not so much an insult as a very apt description..... in my opinion ;)
And yes, here you are again trying to suppress an opinion that doesn't align with yours.

....So yes, Really
 

Steve

Well-known member
YOU continue to ignore my other statement that I disagree with Jefferson's belief in Manifest Destiny. Completely ignore. Why? Because you can't argue with that.


well, not to get technical.. but the "term" Manifest Destiny was coined around 1845..

With the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, which doubled the size of the United States, Thomas Jefferson set the stage for the continental expansion of the United States. Many began to see this as the beginning of a new providential mission: If the United States was successful as a "shining city upon a hill", people in other countries would seek to establish their own democratic republics.

one part of your claim is that you dislike Jefferson due to his support of westward migration and land ownership.

that begs another question.. Do you support your own countries settlers who must have had the same view on westward immigration and settlement?

Canada was "settled" in a very similar way as the United States was.. by colonial settlers moving westward. it is easy to cast stones but the FACT is, most Canadians are not natives. So at one time or another someone moved west and someone decided it was a great idea to become their own nation..

Manifest Destiny is a term for the attitude prevalent during the 19th century period of American expansion that the United States not only could, but was destined to, stretch from coast to coast. This attitude helped fuel western settlement

how is that for an "argument" ?

or do my facts stifle your opinions?
 

Steve

Well-known member
The date of the quote is really immaterial,

yep probably is immaterial as facts do not seem to bother your opinions.

You made claims based on it and I simply disputed the claims you made.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Your claim that he only felt this way was because of an attack on an American position is juvenile at best. No surprise here. And it's FALSE

here is my claim. (actually it was a question)


Considering the War of 1812 and Canada taking a US fort, wouldn't his desire to drive England from our shores be warranted?.

no use of the term only... not even a claim,.. just a question.

but getting back to the quote.. and actual history.. Jefferson wanted to drive "Brittan" for our shores.

he also according to many historians felt the Canadians would side with us.. he did feel the (former Americans) that fled to Canada after the revolution would side again with the Brits.. but honestly felt most Canadians wanted rid of the English as well..

and the final expulsion of England from the American continent." — Thomas Jefferson (August 4, 1812)

He was wrong, apparently the Canadians back then were happy to be under English rule.

Facts are not juvenile, neither is asking a probing question suppressing your opinion.

I had hoped by asking a simple question that it might temper your hatred for Jefferson.. but clearly facts and circumstances do not seem to matter to you.

I am sorry that you took that as more then what it was..
 

Silver

Well-known member
Also, I do not hate Jefferson. Having no use for is a little different I think. Once again facts prove themselves of little consequence to you. I just don't hold him in nearly as high of regard as you apparently do.
 

Brad S

Well-known member
I gotta call bs on this entire thread derailment. So, assume the worst about Jefferson, the reasoning cited in his quote is insightful and sound. The source, good or bad has nothing to do with the soundness of the reason. So, the use of the ad hominem attack looks to me like Canadian ankle biting. Deriding an American hero. Yawn - I've seen enough Canadian ankle biting to know it when i see it. There's probably a good case to make that Jefferson advanced global liberty more than the sum of all Canadians. Furthermore, morality from the 21st century shouldn't be the prism used to view the 17th century. But we get the point, Canada is good and America is bad. Yawn yawn yawn. Problem is, when biting about the ankles, sometimes you end up with a mouthful of feces.


As to the original thread: yes I understand the the U.S. was a colony prior to sescession. That wouldn't exactly justify secession from a democratic republic by analogy. I still think there might be justification for secession somewhere sometime. The tenth amendment fundamentally reduces the need for secession, well if the tenth amendment weren't ignored. I get it, the commie lefties hate about everything about me. The tenth amendment lets us live somewhat harmoniously under the same federal government. Not so sure one thousand refugees a day fleeing the failed commie state of California into Texas is a good thing. If we can resuscitate our constitution, I think there is neither the need or justification for secession. Obama spent eight years attacking the constitution; I'm not optimistic it can be resurrected. The statists want the flexibility to mob rule without a constitution, and this makes secession mandatory. I guess I'd answer the question with a question: if we are living in a post constitutional era (we are), from what would secession be possible. The statist feebs don't understand what they support.

As for southern secession, what I understand about northern advances into southern liberty (with norelevance to slavery) hell yes the south should have seceded.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Brad S said:
I gotta call bs on this entire thread derailment. So, assume the worst about Jefferson, I still think there might be justification for secession somewhere sometime.

I think we need a solid Constitutional method for states to break up from the cities.. It is becoming very clear many rural areas have lost any real representation. allowing states (and counties and cities to realign from time to time might be in all of our best interest..

Before this election, I felt the electoral collage was all but defunct. Now i can see the wise reasoning it had then and why it was so badly needed now.






Sorry for the tread derailment,.. but it did keep it up at the top for awhile.. :oops:
 

Steve

Well-known member
Urban areas, where 80 percent of Americans live, are grossly misrepresented in a traditional election map. In fact, only 160 of the 3,000 counties nationwide were responsible for half of the votes cast

Election maps are telling you big lies about small things

For example, nearly 900,000 people in Los Angeles County voted for Mitt Romney. That enormous number of votes amounts to just under 28 percent of vote there, and it’s a detail that’s glossed over when that county and the rest of the state are painted blue.

election-2016-county-map.png



This one is FLIPPED color wise..
BLUE is Republicans but it shows an important example
ge2013NJ_Town.png



state from state succession may be all that saves our union.
 

Mike

Well-known member
One of the huge problems in voting is that the courts allow Gerrymandering of districts to favor minority votes. The districts change every ten years after the census is taken.

If a district can't be drawn to favor the minorities, they all ow "Cumulative" voting which allows voters more than one vote.

Yes, you read that right. At one time the black voters in Clanton, Al were allowed 7 votes. (A solution provided by Lani Guinier, an idiot Bill Clinton recommended for U.S. Attorney General..........)

That in itself was plenty enough reason for secession.
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
Mike said:
One of the huge problems in voting is that the courts allow Gerrymandering of districts to favor minority votes. The districts change every ten years after the census is taken.

If a district can't be drawn to favor the minorities, they all ow "Cumulative" voting which allows voters more than one vote.

Yes, you read that right. At one time the black voters in Clanton, Al were allowed 7 votes. (A solution provided by Lani Guinier, an idiot Bill Clinton recommended for U.S. Attorney General..........)

That in itself was plenty enough reason for secession.
That was one of her ideas but since she was never appointed never happened. :disagree: Don't think it would have made much difference as Clanton is supposedly almost 80% republican.
 

Mike

Well-known member
TexasBred said:
Mike said:
One of the huge problems in voting is that the courts allow Gerrymandering of districts to favor minority votes. The districts change every ten years after the census is taken.

If a district can't be drawn to favor the minorities, they all ow "Cumulative" voting which allows voters more than one vote.

Yes, you read that right. At one time the black voters in Clanton, Al were allowed 7 votes. (A solution provided by Lani Guinier, an idiot Bill Clinton recommended for U.S. Attorney General..........)

That in itself was plenty enough reason for secession.
That was one of her ideas but since she was never appointed never happened. :disagree: Don't think it would have made much difference as Clanton is supposedly almost 80% republican.

You could NOT be more wrong:

The Chilton County Experience

Minority voters have elected candidates of choice using cumulative voting on a number of occasions. Further illustration is provided by the November 1992 election for the seven seats on the Chilton County Commission in Alabama.

Chilton County adopted cumulative voting in 1988 as part of the settlement of a vote dilution lawsuit brought against its previous election system. According to the 1990 Census, African Americans constitute only 9.9% of the county's voting age population. No African American had been elected to the county commission this century until the first cumulative voting election, held in 1988. That commissioner, Bobby Agee, was reelected the second cumulative voting election in 1992.

An exit poll taken during the November 1992 general election in Chilton County reveals that Agee's reelection was a function of African American voters taking advantage of their option to cumulate votes on his behalf. Given the small percentage of African Americans in the county, the exit poll deliberately over-sampled African American voters. A total of 702 voters, of whom 142 (20.3%) were African American, reported how they cast their votes in this commission election.

With the exception of Agee, the percentage of vote received by each of the candidates in the poll was within two percentage points of the percentage they received in the actual vote. Agee did better in the poll than in the actual count; whereas he finished second among the fourteen candidates in the actual vote, with 9.69% of the votes cast, he finished first in the exit poll with 15.73%. This no doubt reflects the over-sampling of African American voters. If the vote is adjusted to reflect the over-sampling, Agee's percentage drops to 10.47%, very close to his actual percentage.

Despite being one of the seven Democratic candidates in the general election, Agee received very little support from the county's non-African American voters. Among the non-African American voters in the exit poll (97.0% of whom identified themselves as white), Agee finished twelfth -- ahead of the only other African American candidate, also a Democratic nominee, and one white Republican candidate. Only 13.4% of these voters cast even a single vote for Agee.

Agee was by far the choice of the African American voters, however. He received a vote from 67.1% of the African Americans who reported their vote in the exit poll, and 85.4% of these voters said they cast all seven of their votes for him. On average Agee received 6.28 votes from each of his African American supporters. (The other African American candidate received at least one vote from 32.9% of the African American voters, and 78.7% of these voters cast all seven of their votes for the candidate.) Agee was clearly the most preferred candidate among the African American voters, and the ability to express the intensity of their preference was critical to his electoral success.

The Chilton County experience with cumulative voting is not unique. African American voters in other settings have also been able to elect candidates of their choice through this system, as have Hispanic and Native American voters. As these experiences demonstrate, the representation of politically cohesive minority groups do not have to be dependent on where the group's voters happen to live.

A new shape threshold for election districts, if that is what Shaw requires, should not be allowed to become a convenient excuse for systematically diluting the votes of minority voters. If majority minority districts that are sufficiently attractive to the courts cannot be created, then other types of democratic election systems that do not have dilutive consequences, like cumulative voting, should be adopted.

Jason F. Kirksey is a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Political Science at the University of New Orleans, where voting rights expert Richard L. Engstrom is a research professor. Edward Still is a civil rights attorney in Birmingham, Alabama. This article first appeared in the Voting Rights Review of the Southern Regional Council, which can be contacted at: 134 Peachtree Street, Suite 1900, Atlanta, GA 30303.
 

Mike

Well-known member
TexasBred said:
Where does Lani Guinier and Bill Clinton come into this?? Clinton was not President and Guinier was not attorney general.

She was a U.S. Attorney that proposed the settlement to Federal Court and they accepted. Bill had her on the short list to appoint her to the US Attorney General office. Thankfully, the Senate refused to confirm her.

Last time I checked, Bill Clinton was president.....................maybe not in the time frame you are wanting, but he was Pres.

Nomination for Assistant Attorney General[edit]
Guinier is probably best known as President Bill Clinton's nominee for Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights in April 1993.[7][8][9]

President Clinton withdrew his nomination in June 1993, following a wave of negative press that was brought on by her controversial writings, some of which even Clinton himself called "anti-democratic" and "very difficult to defend".[10]

Conservative journalists, as well as Republican Senators, mounted a campaign against Guinier's nomination. Guinier was infamously dubbed a "quota queen," a phrase first used in a Wall Street Journal op-ed by Clint Bolick, a Reagan-era Justice Department official.[11] The term was perceived by some to be racially loaded, combining the "welfare queen" stereotype with "quota," a buzzword used to challenge affirmative action.[12] In fact, Guinier was an opponent of racial quotas.[13]

Some journalists also alleged that Guinier's writings indicated that she supported the shaping of electoral districts to ensure a black majority, a process known as "race-conscious districting." One New York Times opinion piece claimed that Guinier was in favor of "segregating black voters in black-majority districts." Guinier was portrayed as a racial polarizer who believed—in the words of George Will—that "only blacks can represent blacks."

In the face of the negative media attention, many Democratic Senators, including David Pryor of Arkansas, Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, and Carol Moseley-Braun of Illinois (the only African-American serving in the Senate at that time)[14] informed President Clinton that her interviews with senators were going poorly and urged him to withdraw Guinier's nomination.[15]

President Clinton took the senators' advice and withdrew Guinier's nomination on June 4, 1993. He stated that Guinier's writings "clearly lend themselves to interpretations that do not represent the views I expressed on civil rights during the [presidential] campaign."[16] Guinier, for her part, acknowledged that her writings were often "unclear and subject to vastly different interpretations," but believed that the political attacks had distorted and caricatured her academic philosophies.[16] William T. Coleman Jr., who had served as Secretary of Transportation under President Gerald Ford, wrote that the withdrawal was "a grave [loss], both for President Clinton and the country. The President's yanking of the nomination, caving in to shrill, unsubstantiated attacks, was not only unfair, but some would say political cowardice."[17]

Civil rights theories[edit]
Alternative voting systems[edit]
In her publications, Guinier has suggested various ideas to strengthen minority groups' voting power, and rectify what she characterizes as an unfair voting system, not just for racial minorities, but for all numerical minority groups, including fundamentalist Christians, the Amish, or in states such as Alabama, Democrats. Guinier has also stated that she does not advocate any single procedural rule, but rather that all alternatives be considered in the context of litigation "after the court finds a legal violation."[18]

Some of the ideas she considers are:

cumulative voting, a system in which each voter has "the same number of votes as there are seats or options to vote for, and they can then distribute their votes in any combination to reflect their preferences"--a system often used on corporate boards in 30 states, as well as by school boards and county commissions
multi-member "superdistricts", a strategy which "modifies winner-take-all majority rule to require that something more than a bare majority of voters must approve or concur before action is taken."
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
Mike said:
TexasBred said:
Where does Lani Guinier and Bill Clinton come into this?? Clinton was not President and Guinier was not attorney general.

She was a U.S. Attorney that proposed the settlement to Federal Court and they accepted. Bill had her on the short list to appoint her to the US Attorney General office. Thankfully, the Senate refused to confirm her.

Last time I checked, Bill Clinton was president.....................maybe not in the time frame you are wanting, but he was Pres.

She was never Attorney General but was nominated as assistant attorney general. The senate never voted on her as Clinton withdrew her nomination.... And yes Bill Clinton eventually became president for whatever that is worth.k
 

Latest posts

Top