the_steve posted:

Derek Chauvin’s Attorney Files Motion For New Trial

Not that this should be a surprise, lawyer's gotta do their job, but hey, we get to hopefully watch known murderer Derek Chauvin fail all over again for the murder he did.

Sax Mortar posted:

I mean who doesn't believe a former republican who ran as an independent because he wasn't republican enough, than then lost that race and switched to the democratic party and is barely winning in what should be a solid district is a good candidate?

GoutPatrol posted:

Crist is the first Dem to win that seat in 40 years. That ain't a solid D district.

FlamingLiberal posted:

Yeah it's gotten worse every year for Dems. Part of it is the Trump effect, where the rural areas of the state have become more mobilized than they ever used to be, but the FL Dems always have bad candidates. Gillum was a very good candidate and by far the best chance we've had to win the governorship, and he couldn't pull it out in a wave year. At this point I'm pretty much accepting of the fact that we're going to have GOP rule until this state sinks into the ocean.

oh and it should also be pointed out that in 2016, the Dem candidate for Senate vs Marco Rubio was also an ex-Republican.

Mooseontheloose posted:

This was over a decade ago since I worked down there but the Florida dems were not focused at all on building any sort of apparatus and were content to raise money and not do anything else.

WAR CRIME GIGOLO posted:

wait has trump ever worn a wedding ring?

VorpalBunny posted:

So, has any of these cities/counties/states desperate for workers realized they killed off a few hundred thousand folks over the past year? And that might be why they can't find a cashier for their local grocery store?

VorpalBunny posted:

So, has any of these cities/counties/states desperate for workers realized they killed off a few hundred thousand folks over the past year? And that might be why they can't find a cashier for their local grocery store?

zoux posted:

Sedisp posted:

*Glances at Number*

Number up. Nothing wrong.

Ghost Leviathan posted:

Except of course, if it's wages.

Employers literally can't, or more likely refuse to, understand the concept of that people will be more eager to work for them if they're paid higher wages. They only want scabs and slave labour.

VorpalBunny posted:

So, has any of these cities/counties/states desperate for workers realized they killed off a few hundred thousand folks over the past year? And that might be why they can't find a cashier for their local grocery store?

the_steve posted:

They all bought into the bullshit notion that people should just be grateful to have a job at all, and so offering poo poo wages with poo poo hours and no benefits is cool and good to do since people should just be happy for the privilege of working.

Alkydere posted:

Because it's not supposed to be a living wage! It's a kid's job! Why are you darn kids so darn lazy working 3 underpaying jobs to pay off your school loans and taking those jobs from highschool kids who should get off their phones be learning a talent (but not a real talent) for flipping my burgers and not buying houses and supporting the cruise and golf and other expensive luxury industries?

[continues to rant for a minimum of five minutes about poo poo that hasn't been true since the 90's at the latest]

the_steve posted:

They all bought into the bullshit notion that people should just be grateful to have a job at all, and so offering poo poo wages with poo poo hours and no benefits is cool and good to do since people should just be happy for the privilege of working.

Mooseontheloose posted:

This was over a decade ago since I worked down there but the Florida dems were not focused at all on building any sort of apparatus and were content to raise money and not do anything else.

No Safe Word posted:

Not only am I concerned about popularity contests to elect fake "monarchs" I am concerned of the genitalia of said monarchs.

Edgar Allen Ho posted:

I'm all the high school kids working the lunch rush on a wednesday, or the 6am seniors hangout at every McDonald's in the country.

(unironically these people would love taking their lunch hour + some class time to put kids in the retail and burger mines to learn about the real world wouldn't they?)

Cheesus posted:

Kudos to your restraint at leaving out "under-age" before genitalia.

Grouchio posted:

Facebook's decision on Trump will be announced in 15 minutes.

Antifa Turkeesian posted:

I don’t think they’d say that they were making an announcement if their decision were to keep him banned.

Aren’t boomers facebook’s main audience now? They definitely want to be the exclusive source of trump posts.

punishedkissinger posted:

look he promised he won't try to overthrow demoracy again what more do you want

Grouchio posted:

Facebook's decision on Trump will be announced in 15 minutes.

quote:

Republican lawmakers across the country are moving to restrict teaching about systemic racism in our education system, targeting critical race theory. But in the course of doing so, some are attempting to rewrite a very pertinent part of that history.

Twice in recent weeks, Republican state lawmakers have defended the infamous “Three-Fifths Compromise” — the constitutional agreement by which enslaved people would count as three-fifths of a person for representation purposes — by arguing that it was actually somehow anti-slavery.

“The Three-Fifths compromise was a direct effort to ensure that Southern states never got the population necessary to continue the practice of slavery everywhere else in the country,” Tennessee state Rep. Justin Lafferty (R) claimed Tuesday.

Lafferty added: “By limiting the number of population in the count, they specifically limited the number of representatives that would be available in the slaveholding states, and they did it for the purpose of ending slavery — well before Abraham Lincoln, well before Civil War. Do we talk about that? I don’t hear that anywhere in this conversation across the country.”

The Three-Fifths Compromise, reached during the 1787 Constitutional Convention, is a complex topic. It put states that permitted slavery in the position of arguing that enslaved people should count for more than three-fifths, because they wanted the representation that came with that (albeit without letting enslaved people be free or actually vote for that representation). States that did not permit slavery argued for less, because they feared such representation would make the South too powerful. The compromise eventually landed upon three-fifths.

But generally speaking, historians don’t count this as anything amounting to anti-slavery. Indeed, the historian Staughton Lynd wrote that the compromise “sanctioned slavery more decidedly than any previous action at a national level” because, while not technically codifying slavery into law, it acknowledged a difference between free people and “other Persons.”

In addition, while the result of a compromise, historians generally agree it was a good one for the South and the institution of slavery. Historians including Lynd and others have posited that the South got more from the Three-Fifths Compromise, while Northern states that did not permit slavery got a prohibition on slavery in what was then the Northwestern Territory during separate debates.

Was it everything the South wanted? Of course not. The South wanted enslaved people to count the same as other people for population purposes, even as it regarded them as property. But just because it wanted more doesn’t mean the compromise wasn’t favorable for it. Indeed, contemporary writings from northern founders suggested they were worried that the Southern states might abandon the process without favorable terms on slavery in the existing states.

This is hardly a new claim, particularly in conservative circles. Glenn Beck promoted the idea in 2010, and it has cropped up from time to time over the years. Given the Three-Fifths Compromise is frequently cited as the original constitutional sin when it comes to institutionalized or systemic racism, it would make sense that it’s something opponents of teaching that would seek to call into question. It was quite literally something that was built into our system of government from its founding.

Slavery was eventually outlawed, but not until Northern states gained in population to counteract the advantage the Three-Fifths Compromise had given Southern states and not until a war had to be fought over the matter. There is basically nothing in the historical record to suggest this was somehow a deft maneuver by Northern states to pave the way for that 80 years later — even if that was somehow a viable and foreseeable plan — nor was it pitched as such at the time.

Roluth posted:

Result of the Facebook board review: ban upheld, but Facebook itself must review the ban within 6 months. What a way to worm out of a final decision.

Antifa Turkeesian posted:

Has facebook ever turned a profit?

Roluth posted:

Result of the Facebook board review: ban upheld, but Facebook itself must review the ban within 6 months. What a way to worm out of a final decision.