Are Electors still relevant?

[Rich2018]

I said that reduction via attrition is an alternative to reduction by layoffs.

In the same way that an unplanned course of action is an alternative to a planned course of action.

 

[Rich2018]

We do. The problem is there are too many people who want to come here. Shall we take in a few 100 million from China, a few 100 million from India, and 1/2 billion from the rest of the world. Get a grip on reality.

So it was OK to allow your parents in, but not any more ?

 

[george48]

america, unlike other countries, was founded upon a bunch of nations....it is id unlike france or germany... there are many statues..and of course, many states

 

[george48]

unlike most nations the USA was formed as an expreiment by those who where fed up with uk rule

 

[Rich2018]

america, unlike other countries, was founded upon a bunch of nations....it is id unlike france or germany... there are many statues..and of course, many states

How exactly were the "nations" in the USA (bearing in mind that Indians didn't have citizenship or suffrage) more numerous than those of England ?

 

[george48]

as jefferson said... he weeped on slavery...he nevery lived up to that...but the first amendent....coming out of the virginia statue of religious freedom---

 

[george48]

How exactly were the "nations" in the USA (bearing in mind that Indians didn't have citizenship or suffrage) more numerous than those of England ?

you just revel in historic revisionism...the idea that america was founded on slavery, on the the destrution of first nations people...this is simpley not true...where inhuman atrocitiess commited..xes...BUT...Jefferson, and washington, and madison are remembered because theyy formed the us...not because they held our brothers and sisters of the black community hostage.. The juxterposition is the following: the us was founded on equality of all...but often never lived up to that

 

[george48]

How exactly were the "nations" in the USA (bearing in mind that Indians didn't have citizenship or suffrage) more numerous than those of England ?

and, ihope, you wont be soley referring to it, but the reason it was so was because most americans, those who conquered, nm, where mostly from europe...hence they had their own preconceptions on the new world...their own racism

 

[Samwise]

In the same way that an unplanned course of action is an alternative to a planned course of action.

Hm, you'll need to explain the simile you're attempting.

 

[Rich2018]

you just revel in historic revisionism...the idea that america was founded on slavery, on the the destrution of first nations people...this is simpley not true...where inhuman atrocitiess commited..xes...BUT...Jefferson, and washington, and madison are remembered because they formed the us...not because they held our brothers and sisters of the black community hostage.. The juxterposition is the following: the us was founded on equality of all...but often never lived up to that

Never said the USA was founded upon slavery, though the economy of the Southern states was based upon that vile institution

Never mentioned the destruction of the American Indian either, though the holocaust that drove them to near extinction was real enough

And how can you say, with a straight face, that the USA was founded on equality when slavery was legal and only about 6% of the people could vote ?

and, ihope, you wont be soley referring to it, but the reason it was so was because most americans, those who conquered, nm, where mostly from europe...hence they had their own preconceptions on the new world...their own racism

If you say so.

 

[Rich2018]

Hm, you'll need to explain the simile you're attempting.

An unplanned action takes no account of the likely consequences.

 

[Samwise]

An unplanned action takes no account of the likely consequences.

Failure to plan means planning to fail.

 

[Rich2018]

Failure to plan means planning to fail.

Like allowing natural wastage reduce staff numbers to a desired level.

 

[Samwise]

Like allowing natural wastage reduce staff numbers to a desired level.

Natural wastage? What even is that?

What I said was that organization often choose to reduce staff levels via attrition rather than laying people off. People retire every year. That reduces headcount.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

So it was OK to allow your parents in, but not any more ?

You are clueless. It was my great grandfather and his children who came here back when the coal barons were advertising in other countries to find people to exploit in the mines. They came through Ellis Island legally. They did not sneak in illegally like the criminals today. At that time the rich and powerful needed someone to exploit and replace the slaves. So they advertised in some of the poorest places in Europe to bring people here that could not afford to return. Not when they worked until they literally died just to keep from starving. Same thing we are doing today. Except now they are bringing people here illegally to exploit. We won't be able to afford a tomato unless the left exploit illegals out in CA. We won't be able to afford clothes without the slaves picking cotton. Same lie different generations. Same party different lie.

 

[Rich2018]

Natural wastage? What even is that?

How am I surprised how you don't even know ?

Natural wastage definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

What I said was that organization often choose to reduce staff levels via attrition rather than laying people off. People retire every year. That reduces headcount.

Through natural wastage

ie: unplanned

Yes you can do that in a dept with 10, 20 staff with fairly homogeneous skill, but a government department ?
Hmm....I think you'd want to downsize the transfer of functions to somewhere else (eg: state level) via a planned process rather than random retirement


You obviously know knowing about closing an organization/transferring the work elsewhere, and no companies or state organizations don''t use natural wastage to do this - ever.

 

[Rich2018]

You are clueless. It was my great grandfather and his children who came here back when the coal barons were advertising in other countries to find people to exploit in the mines.

So what ?

They came through Ellis Island legally.

Where does it matter what the port on entry is so long as they're granted citizenship as your father was
You don't have a clue do you ?

They did not sneak in illegally like the criminals today.

So, if the US government were to grant them citizenship, and not treat them as criminals, they wouldn't have to "sneak in" would they ?
Your ancestors would have sneaked in if they were viewed as unwanted criminals

They came for a better life...why do you dismiss the same motivation of illegal immigrants today ?
You are simply clueless

At that time the rich and powerful needed someone to exploit and replace the slaves.

And illegal immigrants don't get jobs ?

Are you saying that all the immigrants of the 19th century went to former slave states to pick cotton ?
Well they didn't
Explain how the Poles, Irish, Italians etc settled in places like New York and Chicago to do the work of former slaves
You have absolutely no clue about this

So they advertised in some of the poorest places in Europe to bring people here that could not afford to return.

Like Mexico & Central/South America are "poor" places today ?

Same thing we are doing today. Except now they are bringing people here illegally to exploit.

So legalize them and make them citizens ?

Are are you saying your ancestors were good enough but immigrants today are not good enough for the USA ?

We won't be able to afford a tomato unless the left exploit illegals out in CA. We won't be able to afford clothes without the slaves picking cotton. Same lie different generations. Same party different lie.

Yes same lies

Lies that claim immigrants are bad

If your ancestors were good enough to come here for more money, so are immigrants good enough today.

 

[Vadinho]

Without electors the big blue cities and states would determine the outcome of all national elections and voters in less populous states would be completely marginalized.

So? Why should a vote there be more important then a vote here? Is there a value or benefit that these powerful votes bring to our nation that is so critical we must preserve it? Why should a vote in the sixth largest economy in the world not mean more then one in Wyoming? There is a compelling argument that a voter in TX, NY and CA should have more power since these three states alone drive most of the national economy and have world class institutions. Or how about Mass or IL or WA? All three have extraordinary economies, more world class universities and yet somehow a rancher in Wyoming is more valuable to us. This makes no sense at all. Since comparing states is a lesson in futility, why even bother with debating it and just go to one man, one vote? That way, we are all equal under the law.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

Where does it matter what the port on entry is so long as they're granted citizenship as your father was
You don't have a clue do you ?

It is not the port of entry it is the fact that it was a legal entry not some underhanded criminal trying to cut in line when millions of law abiding people have been waiting years to come here legally. You have real problem understanding the difference between legal and illegal. My great grandfather was granted immigration status and never became a citizen because he died in the mines before he had the chance. My great grandmother became a citizen as well as my grandfather who was born here. His older brothers came from Europe. You have no understanding of the process clearly. I have helped several friends and family members become legal immigrants and eventually citizens of this country.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

So, if the US government were to grant them citizenship, and not treat them as criminals, they wouldn't have to "sneak in" would they ?
Your ancestors would have sneaked in if they were viewed as unwanted criminals

No they would not have snuck in. They never had any intention of breaking our laws or sneaking in. They were law abiding people not criminals with no respect for our laws. They would not have even come had they known that the advertisement was a lie. But after they sold everything they had to come here they had no choice. There is this obstacle called the Atlantic Ocean that kept them from leaving. They barely made enough money to eat with no hope of ever having enough money for the return voyage. Then when my great grandfather was killed in the mines the children were forced to work in the mines just to eat. You have no clue what you are arguing about.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

So, if the US government were to grant them citizenship, and not treat them as criminals, they wouldn't have to "sneak in" would they

First off my ancestors were not granted citizenship but immigrant status. Once again no clue. They are treated like criminals because that is the way people are treated who break our laws. They are criminals.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

Are you saying that all the immigrants of the 19th century went to former slave states to pick cotton ?
Well they didn't
Explain how the Poles, Irish, Italians etc settled in places like New York and Chicago to do the work of former slaves
You have absolutely no clue about this

They went to work everywhere in this country where the rich needed to exploit people. The coal mines, sweat shops, farms, railroad, and anywhere the rich and powerful needed cheap labor that the people already here refused to do because of the pay or the danger. Oh the coal mines were not in the cotton belt. The reason the people who immigrated went to work primarily in the North is because the South had no industry and too many people not working already. The North is where they entered this country and when you are on foot as your only means of transportation you go to work close to where you are. A lot of the immigrants were brought to the areas that needed cheap labor by the rich and powerful. Again you are the one who is clueless.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

So legalize them and make them citizens ?

We do allow on average a million people to legally enter our country every year.

Are are you saying your ancestors were good enough but immigrants today are not good enough for the USA ?

No. That is just your clueless view. I support legal immigration. I have helped people immigrate. The legal immigrants today are every bit as good as the legal immigrant of the past. Once again you seem confused about the difference between legal and illegal.

 

[Rich2018]

It is not the port of entry it is the fact that it was a legal entry not some underhanded criminal trying to cut in line ...

Then why have a line - a process taking months and for many prohibitively expensive

My great grandfather was granted immigration status and never became a citizen because he died in the mines before he had the chance...

BS, he was allowed to work legally and in the 19th century, there was no bureaucratic immigration system

You just came here and basically just got it. There were no immigration laws until 1882:

"The regulations behind both entering the country and becoming a citizen underwent constant change during the late 19th century when the Eldridge Street Synagogue was established. This was a period of mass migration when more than 26 million newcomers, including 2.5 million Eastern European Jewish immigrants, came to the United States. The first major piece of “modern” immigration legislation was the 1882 Immigration Act, which compelled new arrivals to pay a $.50 tax and denied entry to “convicts, lunatics, idiots and persons likely to become public charges.”

Becoming a Citizen in the Late 19th and Early 20th Centuries - Museum at Eldridge Street


The first quotas of immigrants was not until 1924 and only applied to Eastern and Southern European immigrants


So your claims that your great-grandfather was denied citizenship are utter BS (unless he was denied entry because he was an idiot, lunatic or convict - did any of those fit?)

No they would not have snuck in. They never had any intention of breaking our laws or sneaking in.

Because they didn't have to

They were law abiding people not criminals with no respect for our laws....

Like immigrants today - or would be if the only barrier was the 1882 $0.50 charge

They would not have even come had they known that the advertisement was a lie....

How do you know ?
Millions of immigrants came here for the promise of a better life - just as is the case now

There is this obstacle called the Atlantic Ocean that kept them from leaving....

And there were ships that crossed it - the infamous Titanic had a cargo of immigrants - few if any were turned away. Unlike the border crossing today.

They barely made enough money to eat with no hope of ever having enough money for the return voyage. Then when my great grandfather was killed in the mines the children were forced to work in the mines just to eat....

:violin

Compared to the life of luxury of immigrants today


But they were happy


YouTube

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

Yes same lies

Lies that claim immigrants are bad

If your ancestors were good enough to come here for more money, so are immigrants good enough today.

Immigrants are not bad. Criminals who have no respect for our laws are bad. Again I support legal immigration. I don't understand your inability to comprehend the difference.