LanDroid wrote: If you're attempting to contrast explicitly declared rights versus what was clearly allowed under the constitution, that made no difference whatsoever to the millions of slaves in America and I'm not too interested in nit-picking about that.

The 3/5ths clause, the way I am reading it was a necessary but evil compromise, not for a declared or implied right of slave ownership, but simply an ends to a means, ratification of the document for starters, how to deal with representation, and taxes was part of it as well, The slave holding states would have had a representative advantage without the compromise, was it right to do so? it certainly would have been interesting to see what would have come about without it. Standing firm on ending slavery before a constitution existed would require an even deeper historical revision. Amendments came after ratification, I get it, and no I'm not interested in nit-pickery either. The 3/5ths compromise tabled an issue that came to a head in the civil war just as you have said.

Standing firm on ending slavery before a constitution existed would require an even deeper historical revision.

As you imply, the bottom line is the slave owning states would never have ratified the Constitution if they weren't fully satisfied their "peculiar institution" would continue with few restrictions. This renders your point (and Bork's) irrelevant, that there was no right to own slaves in the Constitution. And circling back to original intent - although that is worth considering, we are not bound by certain ghastly values held at that time.

While still hopeful that Mr. Rubio might prevail, Mr. McConnell has begun preparing senators for the prospect of a Trump nomination, assuring them that, if it threatened to harm them in the general election, they could run negative ads about Mr. Trump to create space between him and Republican senators seeking re-election. Mr. McConnell has raised the possibility of treating Mr. Trump’s loss as a given and describing a Republican Senate to voters as a necessary check on a President Hillary Clinton, according to senators at the lunches.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/us/po ... party.html

That is pretty amazing. If Trump is the GOP nominee, Mitch McConnell gives up, assumes Hillary will win, and instructs vulnerable Senators to attack Trump so the GOP maintains control of the Senate as the only check against the new President. Can't recall where that happened before, but perhaps it did. If this happens, we know exactly what McConnell will say on 1/20/17:

My number one priority is making sure President Obama Clinton is a one-term president.

LanDroid wrote: If Trump is the GOP nominee, Mitch McConnell gives up, assumes Hillary will win, and instructs vulnerable Senators to attack Trump so the GOP maintains control of the Senate as the only check against the new President.

Its so bizarre and far-fetched that its bound to happen.

Its freakish.

Trump may be the first nominee/candidate bumped off by his own party.

So the latest thing about Trump is the violence at his rallies and speeches. All the more disturbing as we watch the man edge closer and closer to winning the nomination. Never in my years of watching American politics did I ever see a candidate endorse violence and attempt to use the unbridled rage and stupid aggressiveness of his idiot fan base to strong arm himself into the nomination. In case you missed it, he has now pretty much promised riots if he doesn't get the nomination. He is a true demagogue--one of the best I've seen. He doesn't tell his audience to commit violence if he is denied the nomination, he simply mentions its likelihood and his fan base gets the message--they will riot if he doesn't get the nod.

Usually when a candidate or president is compared to Hitler, it's hyperbole, mostly due to that idiot Glenn Beck who would compare your puppy-dog to Hitler if he thought it would get him anywhere. Even as much of a dictator as George W. Bush was, I never compared him to Hitler. He was too stupid for one thing. But Trump truly is approaching the Hitleresque the deeper into this race we go. It's all there--the egocentricity, the jingoistic bullshit, the scapegoating of imaginary enemies, the fervent nationalism, the cult of personality, the clubbing down of hecklers, the reactionary intolerance towards even mild criticism and the total willingness to use violence as a means to his ends, the rewarding of violence committed in his name. It's all there. Criminal behavior is okay with Trump just so long as you practice it for him.

Trump has not only destroyed the republican party, he has created a fascist party in its place. And he will be stopped because he can't get elected but that isn't going to be the end, it's only the beginning. In his wake, new demagogues are going to be groomed to blabber out the same line of crap but they'll be more polished, younger, handsomer, have more aplomb. And the masses will go for one of them. Sooner or later one of them will sweep the public off its collective feet. He'll be everything this country is looking for--mark my words.

We may well be witnessing the beginning of the end of America as we know it. That end has been a long time coming but we closed our eyes, our minds and our hearts and pretended it wasn't there. You can't run from what's inside you. America is coming to an end because, ultimately, we wanted it to end. If we didn't, none of this would be happening. It could have only happened with our approval and participation--or maybe our apathy. But, either way, we allowed it.

"Do you rape only white women or do you also rape your daughter?"
Some hillbilly screamed this at a Mexican family attending a Trump rally here in Cincinnati. Sweet moments like that don't rise to the level of media attention, but I expect they're becoming more frequent.

Now Trump supporters are trying to track and disrupt protesters.
http://www.advocate.com/politics/transg ... g-survival
http://lionsoftrump.net/ <=Their motto is from Mussolini...

Since they joined "Lions of Trump" into one word, I mistakenly read it as "Lion soft rump."

Lion Soft Rump could be an excellent parody site!

It is somewhat hypocritical to sit in the 21st century and smugly look down on the era of slavery in the US. Indeed, one of the major broadsides which atheists use against Christians is slavery. But, just what moral highground does one possess when one benefits from what is essentially hidden slavery? Some of the most ostensibly progressive companies sell products which are made by what are essentially slaves. I have linked to an article claiming that if iPhones were made in the US, they would cost $2,000.


iPhone made in USA would cost $2,000

The Donald will bring us $2000. I-Phones! What a great campaign slogan!

'Tis true, Americans benefit from quasi-slave wages from 'round the world. But that in no way excuses the actual slavery or the religious rhetoric that justified it in our own history.