3 ms·

> 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 poi

> 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.