Anonymous wrote:Ok...just a minute here. Slaves were counted as 3/5ths for purposes of representation in the House. They didn't vote then. Women didn't vote then either. So this reparation idea, which is essentially to change the outcomes of elections, is asinine. What's next? Oh, you're here illegally but you paid some taxes so we will give you half a vote?

Well Mr. Johnson, while I appreciate your service to our nation did you live through the fifties and sixties? After repairing the injustices and inequities of the past, Jim Crow anyone, we are now going to create a new form of injustice? Again, asinine. One person, one vote.

Anonymous wrote:Of course it's crazy. It offends the most basic principle of democracy: one person, one vote.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok...just a minute here. Slaves were counted as 3/5ths for purposes of representation in the House. They didn't vote then. Women didn't vote then either. So this reparation idea, which is essentially to change the outcomes of elections, is asinine. What's next? Oh, you're here illegally but you paid some taxes so we will give you half a vote?

Well Mr. Johnson, while I appreciate your service to our nation did you live through the fifties and sixties? After repairing the injustices and inequities of the past, Jim Crow anyone, we are now going to create a new form of injustice? Again, asinine. One person, one vote.

Damn, Black women weren't allowed to vote until the passage of the 1964 voting rights. Shafted again.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course it's crazy. It offends the most basic principle of democracy: one person, one vote.

So does the Senate, which gives people from small states far more representation than those from large states. Abolish it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course it's crazy. It offends the most basic principle of democracy: one person, one vote.

So does the Senate, which gives people from small states far more representation than those from large states. Abolish it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course it's crazy. It offends the most basic principle of democracy: one person, one vote.

So does the Senate, which gives people from small states far more representation than those from large states. Abolish it.

No, that's designed as a balance of power which is a focal point of the founding fathers. That's also why those in the House are called Representatives.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course it's crazy. It offends the most basic principle of democracy: one person, one vote.

So does the Senate, which gives people from small states far more representation than those from large states. Abolish it.

No, that's designed as a balance of power which is a focal point of the founding fathers. That's also why those in the House are called Representatives.

There's no good reason to give people from Wyoming nearly 70 times more representation than people from California. That's an imbalance that was not contemplated when the Senate was established.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course it's crazy. It offends the most basic principle of democracy: one person, one vote.

So does the Senate, which gives people from small states far more representation than those from large states. Abolish it.

No, that's designed as a balance of power which is a focal point of the founding fathers. That's also why those in the House are called Representatives.

There's no good reason to give people from Wyoming nearly 70 times more representation than people from California. That's an imbalance that was not contemplated when the Senate was established.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course it's crazy. It offends the most basic principle of democracy: one person, one vote.

So does the Senate, which gives people from small states far more representation than those from large states. Abolish it.

No, that's designed as a balance of power which is a focal point of the founding fathers. That's also why those in the House are called Representatives.

There's no good reason to give people from Wyoming nearly 70 times more representation than people from California. That's an imbalance that was not contemplated when the Senate was established.

Anonymous wrote:
How about the descendants of people who did not own land? Indentured servants? Many were disenfranchised.

You cannot make up for past injustices. You just can't. The past is gone. It was wrong and those people suffered and they are dead and gone now. You can only do what is right and move forward.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
How about the descendants of people who did not own land? Indentured servants? Many were disenfranchised.

You cannot make up for past injustices. You just can't. The past is gone. It was wrong and those people suffered and they are dead and gone now. You can only do what is right and move forward.

At this point there are also many African-Americans who came here or whose families came here in recent decades, long after slavery and in many cases even after Jim Crow. They may be black, but what "reparations" are they entitled to? The same as any other African-American? Why? There are also African-Americans descended from slave holders. Not all slave owners were white, and not all whites were slave owners. And what about whites who came here long after slavery and Jim Crow ended? Why should they be punished for something that they did not take part in, and which they didn't benefit from?

"Reparations" simply cannot be implemented in any fair or reasonable way at this point. There are simply too many complexities that nobody wants to address in any meaningful way. The only proposals out there have been far too simplistic and completely fail to take fairness into account.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
How about the descendants of people who did not own land? Indentured servants? Many were disenfranchised.

You cannot make up for past injustices. You just can't. The past is gone. It was wrong and those people suffered and they are dead and gone now. You can only do what is right and move forward.

At this point there are also many African-Americans who came here or whose families came here in recent decades, long after slavery and in many cases even after Jim Crow. They may be black, but what "reparations" are they entitled to? The same as any other African-American? Why? There are also African-Americans descended from slave holders. Not all slave owners were white, and not all whites were slave owners. And what about whites who came here long after slavery and Jim Crow ended? Why should they be punished for something that they did not take part in, and which they didn't benefit from?

"Reparations" simply cannot be implemented in any fair or reasonable way at this point. There are simply too many complexities that nobody wants to address in any meaningful way. The only proposals out there have been far too simplistic and completely fail to take fairness into account.

Fairness?
Lol - that's funny.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
How about the descendants of people who did not own land? Indentured servants? Many were disenfranchised.

You cannot make up for past injustices. You just can't. The past is gone. It was wrong and those people suffered and they are dead and gone now. You can only do what is right and move forward.

At this point there are also many African-Americans who came here or whose families came here in recent decades, long after slavery and in many cases even after Jim Crow. They may be black, but what "reparations" are they entitled to? The same as any other African-American? Why? There are also African-Americans descended from slave holders. Not all slave owners were white, and not all whites were slave owners. And what about whites who came here long after slavery and Jim Crow ended? Why should they be punished for something that they did not take part in, and which they didn't benefit from?

"Reparations" simply cannot be implemented in any fair or reasonable way at this point. There are simply too many complexities that nobody wants to address in any meaningful way. The only proposals out there have been far too simplistic and completely fail to take fairness into account.

Fairness?
Lol - that's funny.