Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Recently Flagged Comments

Recently flagged comments from all news stories on this site. Users must follow the site's moderation policy. Personal attacks, profanity, abusive conduct and expressions of prejudice are not allowed. If you want to retrieve a comment of yours that was recently deleted, visit your user page and click the Moderation link.

Survey Says:

Redial is way off base

A related op-ed...

Mike Pompeo: Last in His Class at West Point in Integrity

... It seems like every story you read about Secretary of State Mike Pompeo always includes the sentence that he graduated "first in his class" from West Point. That is not a small achievement. But it is even more impressive in Pompeo's case when you consider that he finished No. 1 even though he must have flunked all his courses on ethics and leadership. I guess he was really good in math.

I say that because Pompeo has just violated one of the cardinal rules of American military ethics and command: You look out for your soldiers, you don't leave your wounded on the battlefield and you certainly don't stand mute when you know a junior officer is being railroaded by a more senior commander, if not outright shot in her back.

The classes on ethics and leadership at West Point would have taught all of that. I can only assume Pompeo failed or skipped them all when you observe his cowardly, slimy behavior as the leader of the State Department. I would never, ever, ever want to be in a trench with that man. Attention all U.S. diplomats: Watch your own backs, because Pompeo won't....

Here's the order.

House response to cert. petition due Nov. 21.

Here's a good article on the bi-partisan history of naming donors to ambassadorships:

Donors to the Trump inaugural committee got ambassador nominations. But are they qualified?

"Trump's picks are less qualified than prior presidents'," said a law professor at Marquette who has looked at the qualifications of nearly 2,000 nominees.

Some points that seem relevant to this thread's discussion:

When President Donald Trump's pick for ambassador to the Bahamas testified before Congress to make the case for his nomination, he incorrectly stated that the island nation was part of the U.S. It is an independent country.

An NBC News review of those who donated to the Trump inauguration found at least 14 major contributors to its inaugural fund who were later nominees to become ambassadors, donating an average of slightly over $350,000 apiece. Though the Trump administration says the business acumen of these nominees qualifies them to represent the U.S. abroad, six of the 14 nominations have languished for months in the Republican-controlled Senate. One nomination has stalled for about two years.

While it is not unusual for a president to offer plum posts to wealthy donors, the Trump administration is nominating a greater number of political appointees to top-level slots, and is seeing a larger share stall in the Senate, according to two diplomatic experts and a senior Senate staffer.


I think Jeff was trying to say that the slave states representation was lessened than it would have been had slaves been counted fully equal to non-slave citizens, though he stated it awkwardly. But as usual, your points are dead on.

Why are Republicans who defend the EC such ------- liars?

Because they refuse to understand that the 3/5ths compromise was SOLELY based on using the physical existence of (then) indentured non-citizen slaves to bolster the political power and influence of slaveholding states, nee slaveholders themselves.

States have manufactured boundaries, and if a future day arises where like-minded citizens support such, there is nothing to keep certain liberal-dominated states from dividing themselves into more smaller states - each with at least one congressional representative and two Senators. Californians flirted with such an amendment to create 7 states out of one, with 5 likely being consistently blue. How long do you think it would take Humtake to change his tune if all of a sudden there were say 60 US states and Democrats dominated the EC?

The very reason that this is even a constitutionally legal consideration underscores that the EC is not a democratic construct, it's exactly the opposite. It over-empowers some citizens - while diminishing others' - simple because of where imaginary lines are drawn on paper maps. The EC exists because of the unique proportional status (albeit immoral) its compromise creation afforded slaves to augment the power of slave states. Slavery is no longer legal. Neither should the EC be.

For centuries, white votes have gotten undue weight, as a result of innovations such as poll taxes and voter-ID laws and outright violence to discourage racial minorities from voting. (The point was obvious to anyone paying attention: As William F. Buckley argued in his essay "Why the South Must Prevail," white Americans are "entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally," anywhere they are outnumbered because they are part of "the advanced race.") But America's institutions boosted white political power in less obvious ways, too, and the nation's oldest structural racial entitlement program is one of its most consequential: the Electoral College.

The populations in the North and South were approximately equal, but roughly one-third of those living in the South were held in -------. Because of its considerable, nonvoting slave population, that region would have less clout under a popular-vote system. The ultimate solution was an indirect method of choosing the president, one that could leverage the three-fifths compromise, the Faustian bargain they'd already made to determine how congressional seats would be apportioned. With about 93 percent of the country's slaves toiling in just five southern states, that region was the undoubted beneficiary of the compromise, increasing the size of the South's congressional delegation by 42 percent. When the time came to agree on a system for choosing the president, it was all too easy for the delegates to resort to the three-fifths compromise as the foundation. The peculiar system that emerged was the Electoral College.

What's clear is that, more than two centuries after it was designed to empower southern whites, the Electoral College continues to do just that. The current system has a distinct, adverse impact on black voters, diluting their political power. Because the concentration of black people is highest in the South, their preferred presidential candidate is virtually assured to lose their home states' electoral votes. Despite black voting patterns to the contrary, five of the six states whose populations are 25 percent or more black have been reliably red in recent presidential elections. Three of those states have not voted for a Democrat in more than four decades. Under the Electoral College, black votes are submerged. It's the precise reason for the success of the southern strategy. It's precisely how, as Buckley might say, the South has prevailed.

Kinda hard to argue with historical records, facts and empirical data, but I'm sure that won't stop critics from attacking each and every one of them. The article is replete with examples most of us are probably ignorant of showing how the voting power of slaves tilted electoral results in favor of their slaveholders while the same dynamics are still in play in today's southern states.


Drudge Retort

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable