4 ms·

> regular people You're skipping over the fact that only property owning white men were initially allowed to vote. That was the group which expected to gain p

> regular people You're skipping over the fact that only property owning white men were initially allowed to vote. That was the group which expected to gain political power from the Declaration and Constitution - that was the target audience. Defining "regular people" has a fraught history in the USA.

IncRnd 5y ago
People committed evil actions 100 years ago, 1,000 years ago, 10,000 years ago, and people unfortunately commit evil actions today. None of that changes who should be able to understand and engage in politics. In fact that is an argument that politics should be accessible to all. That way we can guard against an evil cabal of a ruling class that oppresess everyone but themselves. You've changed the discussion from the intended simplicity of politics to an argument about who was allowed to vote. In some ways, this type of strawman is similar to the types of arguments that create difficulties and barriers with present day politics.
- confidantlake 5y ago
  The point is that you are trying to claim that they wanted to keep politics accessible to all but somehow despite their best efforts a political class emerged. Yet they didn't provide for direct democracy, enfranchised only part of the population, took the highest political offices for themselves, ect. Look at the first 5 presidents, Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe. These were not some common guys off the street. These were the political elites of Colonial England and then early America.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- teachingassist 5y ago
  > You've changed the discussion from the intended simplicity of politics to an argument about who was allowed to vote. I was disagreeing directly with your point that this was intended to be simple, or for "regular people". I contend that it wasn't any of this - it was intended to enrich a room-full of people with the support of wealthy elites. The immediate effect was to shift power only slightly, and not in the direction of regular people. How is that a strawman, please? From Wikipedia: "The language of the concluding endorsement... was made intentionally ambiguous in hopes of winning over the votes of dissenting delegates" - the exact opposite of your claim. > this type of strawman is similar to the types of arguments that create difficulties and barriers with present day politics. Ironic.
  - IncRnd 5y ago
    > From Wikipedia: "The language of the concluding endorsement... was made intentionally ambiguous in hopes of winning over the votes of dissenting delegates" - the exact opposite of your claim. You are pretending that the endorsement actually had anything to do with the text of the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. I assume the endorsement you are plucking a reference to is, "Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present". You didn't mention it, so your statement isn't clear. Thanks for your time, but I have no interest in discussing side arguments further and further from my point about politics being simple, where anyone can be involved.
ttonkytonk 5y ago
It probably has a fraught history everywhere.

IncRnd 5y ago

People committed evil actions 100 years ago, 1,000 years ago, 10,000 years ago, and people unfortunately commit evil actions today. None of that changes who should be able to understand and engage in politics. In fact that is an argument that politics should be accessible to all. That way we can guard against an evil cabal of a ruling class that oppresess everyone but themselves. You've changed the discussion from the intended simplicity of politics to an argument about who was allowed to vote. In some ways, this type of strawman is similar to the types of arguments that create difficulties and barriers with present day politics.

confidantlake 5y ago
The point is that you are trying to claim that they wanted to keep politics accessible to all but somehow despite their best efforts a political class emerged. Yet they didn't provide for direct democracy, enfranchised only part of the population, took the highest political offices for themselves, ect. Look at the first 5 presidents, Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe. These were not some common guys off the street. These were the political elites of Colonial England and then early America.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
teachingassist 5y ago
> You've changed the discussion from the intended simplicity of politics to an argument about who was allowed to vote. I was disagreeing directly with your point that this was intended to be simple, or for "regular people". I contend that it wasn't any of this - it was intended to enrich a room-full of people with the support of wealthy elites. The immediate effect was to shift power only slightly, and not in the direction of regular people. How is that a strawman, please? From Wikipedia: "The language of the concluding endorsement... was made intentionally ambiguous in hopes of winning over the votes of dissenting delegates" - the exact opposite of your claim. > this type of strawman is similar to the types of arguments that create difficulties and barriers with present day politics. Ironic.
- IncRnd 5y ago
  > From Wikipedia: "The language of the concluding endorsement... was made intentionally ambiguous in hopes of winning over the votes of dissenting delegates" - the exact opposite of your claim. You are pretending that the endorsement actually had anything to do with the text of the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. I assume the endorsement you are plucking a reference to is, "Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present". You didn't mention it, so your statement isn't clear. Thanks for your time, but I have no interest in discussing side arguments further and further from my point about politics being simple, where anyone can be involved.

ttonkytonk 5y ago

It probably has a fraught history everywhere.