To the Republic


Off-Topic Discussions

51 to 100 of 472 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

CBDunkerson wrote:
Treppa wrote:
This is a nice summary article about how the Electoral College helps protect against a sudden populist movement - kind of a circuit breaker for tyranny.
Didn't work.

This wasn't a sudden populist movement, though, but a long-simmering one . . . remember Perot in '92 and '96?

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
WormysQueue wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
The Republican party knows that the electoral college system favors them. Both of the last two GOP presidents have first been elected despite losing the popular vote.
As I'm not in the know, are you sure about that? because when I look at California for example, the republicans would actually have a lot to win, if the electorates would be split according to the vote, much more probably when there would be no electoral college system at all just because of the numbers of voters living there. This may be countered by the republican losing votes in their natural homestates, but a short calculation with splitted electorate for the four biggest states (California, Texas, New York and Florida) showed me that actually not much might change at all regarding the end result.

Yes, I am sure that the electoral college (EC) favors Republicans. Here's the math;

Each state gets one EC vote per member of congress. There are 100 senators (2 per state) and 435 members of the house of representatives. Each house member is supposed to represent roughly the same number of people, BUT every state gets at least one regardless of how low their population is. So;

Wyoming population = 582,658 / 3 EC votes = 1 vote per 194,219
California population = 38,332,521 / 55 EV votes = 1 vote per 696,955

Effectively, each person in Wyoming has the same impact on the electoral college as 3.5 people in California. Small population states are over-represented in the EC... and most of the small population states are rural areas that skew heavily republican.

Replace the electoral college with the popular vote and there never would have been a president George W. Bush... or president elect Trump.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Berik wrote:

I was perplexed that the Electoral College system didn't get scrapped after Bush / Gore, and I remain confused by the desire to keep it around without some changes. As it stands if you're a republican in California or New York then your vote for president is simply irrelevant. Equally if you're a democrat in Arkansas or Wyoming. Why would this be a desirable thing?

The areas dominated by a certain party dilute the vote of the supporters too. Once you already know a state is going to go a certain way then more votes for either candidate mean nothing.

Surely every individual vote should have as much ability to affect the race as every other individual vote does. It feels like that should be a key feature of a democracy and it isn't like it's something that would be very difficult to change in practice either. Make it a straight popular vote or allocate the seats for each state in the proportion of the votes received. Then each candidate would need to care about everywhere and not focus on 'paths to victory' which ignore large chunks of the country.

Look, when the electoral college was formed I'm sure it was a practical solution for the country as it was then. But the world has moved on, it isn't insulting the past to suggest we have the ability to institute a more fair system now.

Much as I didn't like the results of the last election it shows why the electoral college is still needed.

You can view it as a popular vs. land type of idea. A majority of the US voted for Trump if you view it land wise. The majority of the landmass of the US, or those in the US voted in their majority to have Donald Trump. A small section of the US, but one that has the majority of the population voted for Clinton.

If it were a popular vote, you would have exactly WHAT the founding fathers feared, where a small portion of the nation (land wise) is dictating everything to the rest of the nation. As they would dominate every election (California and the North East would always dictate to the rest of the nation what they wanted) there would be no representation in elections for anyone else.

This happened before (though there wasn't elections) when Great Britain dictated everything to the colonies. Even if there had been a popular vote, Great Britain would still have dictated everything to the colonies, as it had the greater population. The result was that people felt there was no representation for them.

That, along with other items created a situation that caused the colonies to break away from Great Britain. The electoral college is put in place to try to prevent this from happening (and yes, in 1860 the US did have a civil war.)

A simple popular vote at one time was on the verge of being selected and the electoral college done away with (I believe, ironically that this time the push was by the Republican party though). It was shown that under the electoral college, in general, an individual can have their vote have a bigger impact than under a simple popular vote.

If we went to a popular vote, how long until a vast majority of the nation got angry with California and most of the North East because they dictate everything?

The Electoral college is a way of still retaining that balance which the founding fathers knew would always be a problem, where the Large states want something with population to be included (which, if you observe, California STILL has more electoral votes than many others, as well as other large population states) but at the same time small population states (but some with a lot of land, like Wyoming, which would be VERY upset if Californians simply could dictate what would happen with that land) can still feel like they have enough representation to actually have their vote heard during an election.

Of course the small states prefer the electoral college (and probably the Senate) for the same reasons that the small population states preferred the equal representation of states back when our Founding Father's created the Constitution.

I think it's a brilliant solution for the US, one that addresses the issue that I think is still one in regards to representation both in government and National elections.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Has anyone talked to Betts? Is he ok?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

It was a brilliant solution at the time of the Founding Fathers

Which was more than 200 years ago

Granted if you can give me Ben Franklin's email adress, I am sure he will assuage our doubts


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kryzbyn wrote:
Has anyone talked to Betts? Is he ok?

That's a good question. It looks like it's been awhile since he's been on the forums.

I haven't heard anything.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
CBDunkerson wrote:
Yes, I am sure that the electoral college (EC) favors Republicans. Here's the math;

Thanks for clearing this up for me.


GreyWolfLord wrote:

Much as I didn't like the results of the last election it shows why the electoral college is still needed.

You can view it as a popular vs. land type of idea. A majority of the US voted for Trump if you view it land wise. The majority of the landmass of the US, or those in the US voted in their majority to have Donald Trump. A small section of the US, but one that has the majority of the population voted for Clinton.

If it were a popular vote, you would have exactly WHAT the founding fathers feared, where a small portion of the nation (land wise) is dictating everything to the rest of the nation. As they would dominate every election (California and the North East would always dictate to the rest of the nation what they wanted) there would be no representation in elections for anyone else.

Seriously? Land size? Shall we give Alaska the most votes? Who cares how much representation empty land has?

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
thejeff wrote:
Seriously? Land size? Shall we give Alaska the most votes? Who cares how much representation empty land has?

Hey man!

If corporations can be people, why not rocks, trees, and empty fields?

Equal representation for plants and inanimate objects!


5 people marked this as a favorite.

"Hello, I'd like to register my pack to vote

"Your political action comity?

"no, the other one...

*growl*


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:

Much as I didn't like the results of the last election it shows why the electoral college is still needed.

You can view it as a popular vs. land type of idea. A majority of the US voted for Trump if you view it land wise. The majority of the landmass of the US, or those in the US voted in their majority to have Donald Trump. A small section of the US, but one that has the majority of the population voted for Clinton.

If it were a popular vote, you would have exactly WHAT the founding fathers feared, where a small portion of the nation (land wise) is dictating everything to the rest of the nation. As they would dominate every election (California and the North East would always dictate to the rest of the nation what they wanted) there would be no representation in elections for anyone else.

Seriously? Land size? Shall we give Alaska the most votes? Who cares how much representation empty land has?

No, but if you look at the history of the Constitution and how it came up with the compromise, the smaller states in population wanted to have equal representation with the larger population states.

AKA...as per the Senate, every state gets two votes regardless of population.

Larger states felt this was VERY UNFAIR. They thought that population should dictate the will of the people (sound familiar). They felt that the government should be decided by direct representation where votes and congressmen were determined by how large a population was. It would be directly linked to the size of the population.

Smaller states would not agree to this idea. They argued that such an idea would mean that states like Virginia and Pennsylvania would dictate everything to states like New Hampshire and Georgia.

In fact, three States, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Massachusetts would effectively be able to dictate their ideas and rules to the rest of the nation with representation based upon population.

On the otherhand, those same states along with North Carolina and Connecticut didn't feel comfortable (those with the larger populations of the states) giving complete equal representation based on simply two votes for each states to those like Rhode Island, Georgia, and Delaware.

The solution was to give each side of this debate what they wanted...which still gave larger states a greater number of electoral votes in elections, but at the same time evened it out a little with the smaller state electoral votes.

At the same time, the smaller states had their idea enshrined in the Senate, while the larger states(population wise) had their ideas enshrined in the House.

That this idea where states with larger populations want a direct population representative government while others want a more area/state representative government is still going on shows the genius of our Founding Fathers in finding a compromise that allowed a nation to remain unified to this day...despite the disagreement of both sides still continuing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

You don't need the electoral college to protect the interests of smaller/less populous states as long as you don't change apportionment in the Senate.

The smallest 25 states represent 16% of the population of the US, but account for 28% of the electoral college and 50% of the Senate. Let the president be elected by majority vote and he's still held in check by the Senate, which significantly over represents rural areas.


12 people marked this as a favorite.

EDIT: Ninja'd.

But I'll leave this here anyway.

Peace. :D

Tyranny of the Majority is one reason for the Electoral Collage - the hope is that a diversification of social and political pressures prevents a few specific centers from dominating minorities.

It has nothing to do with rocks and grass. I'm pretty sure everyone knows that.

Obviously those who were not pleased with the current outcome may feel it's a weak argument, but it is, in fact, a strong reason for the early adoption of such a concept.

Even today, even among those who would not willingly do wrong to minorities, a plethora of studies show that such "tyranny" that harmes whatever minority is often unconscious and can even be accidental.

It is up to the nation to decide if we find this acceptable or not - or if the current form represents our nation in a way that protects all interests the best. I, personally, do not have a strong opinion on the Electoral College - either for or against.

I can't say, and won't presume to speak for anyone, but did want to point that out to otherwise entirely understandable frustration.

It is definitively imperfect, and I am interested in how the future plays itself out - I pray our current president-elect continues in the tone of his acceptance speech for his term, rather than that established on the campaign trail.

And with that, I'll probably quit the thread. It's quickly looking angry, and, though I've followed it until now, I'm not particularly interested in spending time in such conversations.

Whether you found what you hoped for or were disappointed by the results, I sincerely urge everyone who is here and who chooses to participate in the discussion to be at peace with their fellow Paizonians, do not mock them, and do not ignore what they have to say - even if you disagree with it, seek to understand their point of view as much as possible. Find common ground, and, even if you maintain your disagreement thereafter, I urge discussion in a manner that isn't mocking or degrading, but honest and understanding.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:
thejeff wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:

Much as I didn't like the results of the last election it shows why the electoral college is still needed.

You can view it as a popular vs. land type of idea. A majority of the US voted for Trump if you view it land wise. The majority of the landmass of the US, or those in the US voted in their majority to have Donald Trump. A small section of the US, but one that has the majority of the population voted for Clinton.

If it were a popular vote, you would have exactly WHAT the founding fathers feared, where a small portion of the nation (land wise) is dictating everything to the rest of the nation. As they would dominate every election (California and the North East would always dictate to the rest of the nation what they wanted) there would be no representation in elections for anyone else.

Seriously? Land size? Shall we give Alaska the most votes? Who cares how much representation empty land has?

No, but if you look at the history of the Constitution and how it came up with the compromise, the smaller states in population wanted to have equal representation with the larger population states.

AKA...as per the Senate, every state gets two votes regardless of population.

Larger states felt this was VERY UNFAIR. They thought that population should dictate the will of the people (sound familiar). They felt that the government should be decided by direct representation where votes and congressmen were determined by how large a population was. It would be directly linked to the size of the population.

Smaller states would not agree to this idea. They argued that such an idea would mean that states like Virginia and Pennsylvania would dictate everything to states like New Hampshire and Georgia.

In fact, three States, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Massachusetts would effectively be able to dictate their ideas and rules to the rest of the nation with representation based upon population.

On the otherhand, those same states along with...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_Compromise for thems that want to read more into what GreyWolfLord summed up nicely here.


I'm well aware of everything in GWL's little historical lecture. None of it had anything to do with the land area he brought up. Looking at a political map of the US and seeing all the red may be impressive, but political power doesn't and shouldn't correspond to geographical size. That's completely irrelevant.

None of the sides in the original compromise cared about physical size. The fight was between equal representation by state and proportional representation by population.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

I'm well aware of everything in GWL's little historical lecture. None of it had anything to do with the land area he brought up. Looking at a political map of the US and seeing all the red may be impressive, but political power doesn't and shouldn't correspond to geographical size. That's completely irrelevant.

None of the sides in the original compromise cared about physical size. The fight was between equal representation by state and proportional representation by population.

Really? I'm trying to decide if you are being intentionally obtuse. Lower population density is directly tied to agrarian-metropolitan divide. Which is exactly the onus behind "we don't want to give them equal representation" / we don't want to give them majority representation."


I know. Why don't we cut up a few states so that population numbers aren't so skewed. That would solve everything. The only downside is the need for a new flag with more stars on it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Snowblind wrote:
I know. Why don't we cut up a few states so that population numbers aren't so skewed. That would solve everything. The only downside is the need for a new flag with more stars on it.

Naw, you can do it with 50 still


Clever...


The Electoral College requires a candidate to have a wide breadth of support, not just deep support in a few highly-dense locations. Also, as the states are Constitutionally co-sovereign with the federal government (which is also why we have a federal government, not a national one), the states play a part in the election of the president.

As the states have a part to play in the make-up of the Senate (just not as much since the 17th Amendment), the House (drawing district lines), and the passing of Amendments.


BigDTBone wrote:
Snowblind wrote:
I know. Why don't we cut up a few states so that population numbers aren't so skewed. That would solve everything. The only downside is the need for a new flag with more stars on it.
Naw, you can do it with 50 still

I wonder how the election would look on this map.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This map would be even more red than the current map. Regarding the popular vote you have to remember that in California with millions of people who vote conservatively but know that their vote won't really count probably didn't bother... even 1% or 2% of those voting... just in California would change the popular vote difference. It is interesting that when ones candidate loses suddenly a 200+ Year old system is broken....


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
*Thelith wrote:
It is interesting that when ones candidate loses suddenly a 200+ Year old system is broken....

When one candidate complains that the system is rigged... and then it becomes an apparent explanation to folks that haven't paid attention to other causal factors when that candidate wins, it sort of supports itself.


*Thelith wrote:
This map would be even more red than the current map. Regarding the popular vote you have to remember that in California with millions of people who vote conservatively but know that their vote won't really count probably didn't bother... even 1% or 2% of those voting... just in California would change the popular vote difference. It is interesting that when ones candidate loses suddenly a 200+ Year old system is broken....

when election results would have been profoundly different under a rather mundane system of counting that is arguably more democratic with each vote counting for one person, you have to really look askance at the one that consistently results in upsets(gore vs Bush, Clinton vs Trump) even though it is touted as fair by the side that won.

Which would have been fixed and rigged if they lost, of course.

Moreover, I think we would have different election results in general in this map because the votes, while not being 1 for 1, would be a better indication of population, and so people who would have stayed home in the inverse of the situation you note(blue folk in red states) would also vote to balance the apparent unfairness of the standard situation.


BigDTBone wrote:
thejeff wrote:

I'm well aware of everything in GWL's little historical lecture. None of it had anything to do with the land area he brought up. Looking at a political map of the US and seeing all the red may be impressive, but political power doesn't and shouldn't correspond to geographical size. That's completely irrelevant.

None of the sides in the original compromise cared about physical size. The fight was between equal representation by state and proportional representation by population.

Really? I'm trying to decide if you are being intentionally obtuse. Lower population density is directly tied to agrarian-metropolitan divide. Which is exactly the onus behind "we don't want to give them equal representation" / we don't want to give them majority representation."

Urban-rural divide is not the same as "land area". It's partially a semantic point, but it's not an insignificant one. It's not the LAND that gets the congressman, it's the PEOPLE that live on it that get represented. The size and shape of a district has nothing to do square miles. The geography that dictates a district is wrapped up in how that geography impacts the population living there.


BigDTBone wrote:
thejeff wrote:

I'm well aware of everything in GWL's little historical lecture. None of it had anything to do with the land area he brought up. Looking at a political map of the US and seeing all the red may be impressive, but political power doesn't and shouldn't correspond to geographical size. That's completely irrelevant.

None of the sides in the original compromise cared about physical size. The fight was between equal representation by state and proportional representation by population.

Really? I'm trying to decide if you are being intentionally obtuse. Lower population density is directly tied to agrarian-metropolitan divide. Which is exactly the onus behind "we don't want to give them equal representation" / we don't want to give them majority representation."

Perhaps, but I don't think so.

"You can view it as a popular vs. land type of idea. A majority of the US voted for Trump if you view it land wise. The majority of the landmass of the US, or those in the US voted in their majority to have Donald Trump."

I read that as going beyond even the "states should have equal representation regardless of population" approach of the smaller original states to "physically larger states should have more representation, ignoring population entirely".
The original Constitutional compromise was based entirely around population size - some of the lowest populated states at the time were physically large (Kentucky) and some were small (Delaware). Similarly among the high population states, which included Massachusetts.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
Naw, you can do it with 50 still

I like how my city is its own state!


thejeff wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
thejeff wrote:

I'm well aware of everything in GWL's little historical lecture. None of it had anything to do with the land area he brought up. Looking at a political map of the US and seeing all the red may be impressive, but political power doesn't and shouldn't correspond to geographical size. That's completely irrelevant.

None of the sides in the original compromise cared about physical size. The fight was between equal representation by state and proportional representation by population.

Really? I'm trying to decide if you are being intentionally obtuse. Lower population density is directly tied to agrarian-metropolitan divide. Which is exactly the onus behind "we don't want to give them equal representation" / we don't want to give them majority representation."

Perhaps, but I don't think so.

"You can view it as a popular vs. land type of idea. A majority of the US voted for Trump if you view it land wise. The majority of the landmass of the US, or those in the US voted in their majority to have Donald Trump."

I read that as going beyond even the "states should have equal representation regardless of population" approach of the smaller original states to "physically larger states should have more representation, ignoring population entirely".
The original Constitutional compromise was based entirely around population size - some of the lowest populated states at the time were physically large (Kentucky) and some were small (Delaware). Similarly among the high population states, which included Massachusetts.

I think I expressly commented that this is about the Republic and how it has the compromise in regards to the electoral college.

it is all about representation, but how it is representation based upon land (or if you want, the political lines of states) vs. that of population based representation.


state

not land

state

stop saying land


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:

state

not land

state

stop saying land

You may be right in trying to explain it. I am using the land as a visual, but perhaps the visual is making it harder for some to understand the why and how the compromise was and remains important.

Land is inherently connected to the State representation vs. the population representation.

For example, in the original compromise, three states would have controlled everyone else politically. Looking at a political map it means a very small amount of the area of the US at the time would control the majority of the land.

In other words, the more urban and areas focused more on population, would control a majority of the rest of the nation.

It's similar to the idea that a strong central area controls everything else...aka...Great Britain (though that is from an Imperial standpoint rather than a population standpoint).

One of the best VISUALS for this is to reference landmass.

IT is true, the argument then (and now) isn't in regards to how much land a state has, it is in regards to the representation for each independent state government entity vs. that of a population based vote.

However, the visual of WHY AND HOW this goes into effect sometimes is best shown by the visual of the land as a whole.

Another example could be that of the State of Georgia. Population wise, half of the population (or more) live in Atlanta Georgia. In a purely population derived vote, everything then would be decided purely on what people in Atlanta Georgia think should happen.

Valdosta Georgia on the border of Georgia and Florida has a very different culture in some ways, and different thought processes.

The people in Atlanta Georgia don't want nuclear waste from the Nuclear plant anywhere close to them, so they put it in Valdosta Georgia.

The people in Atlanta Georgia feel they don't want to have a dump in their city, but will cart it all to Valdosta Georgia.

The people in Atlanta Georgia feel that they need more food and so mandate no food gets shipped to Valdosta Georgia but everything to Atlanta Georgia. Those in Valdosta can starve.

Is this fair in anyway to those in Valdosta?

A majority of the population is represented and are getting their way.

Meanwhile those in other areas of Georgia don't get to have any say because no matter what, the population that controls the politics are always in Atlanta Georgia.

However, you could do this via a population map, or you could show this via a landmap. A political Landmap would show, though large, Atlanta is a smaller part of the landmass of Georgia than the rest of the state.

A population map would show the same thing, but normally people are more familiar with the land, or a political landmap...than a population map.

Hence the visual of looking at how much of the land is covered...even though the discussion deals with populations vs. that of a government entity in representation via the vote.


GreyWolfLord wrote:
thejeff wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
thejeff wrote:

I'm well aware of everything in GWL's little historical lecture. None of it had anything to do with the land area he brought up. Looking at a political map of the US and seeing all the red may be impressive, but political power doesn't and shouldn't correspond to geographical size. That's completely irrelevant.

None of the sides in the original compromise cared about physical size. The fight was between equal representation by state and proportional representation by population.

Really? I'm trying to decide if you are being intentionally obtuse. Lower population density is directly tied to agrarian-metropolitan divide. Which is exactly the onus behind "we don't want to give them equal representation" / we don't want to give them majority representation."

Perhaps, but I don't think so.

"You can view it as a popular vs. land type of idea. A majority of the US voted for Trump if you view it land wise. The majority of the landmass of the US, or those in the US voted in their majority to have Donald Trump."

I read that as going beyond even the "states should have equal representation regardless of population" approach of the smaller original states to "physically larger states should have more representation, ignoring population entirely".
The original Constitutional compromise was based entirely around population size - some of the lowest populated states at the time were physically large (Kentucky) and some were small (Delaware). Similarly among the high population states, which included Massachusetts.

I think I expressly commented that this is about the Republic and how it has the compromise in regards to the electoral college.

it is all about representation, but how it is representation based upon land (or if you want, the political lines of states) vs. that of population based representation.

As Irontruth says, stop using "land" then. It makes what you're saying very unclear.

If it was representation based on land, Alaska would have ~17% of the representatives.
If it was representation based on state lines, Alaska would get 2%. (Senate!)
If it was representation based on population, Alaska would get 0.23% of the representatives (rounded up to 1 for the House.)

There are maps floating around the internet that show the US divided into red & blue based purely on population and based on actual political representation (electoral college votes), both distorting the physical geography to reflect population or electoral votes. The population one is much bluer than the electoral college one, but both are far more blue than the normal geographical one.


We get what you're trying to say. We disagree with how you're saying it.

It's why some people looking at the data of elections are starting to use maps that look like this, because it visually represents the electoral significance of each state.


Irontruth wrote:

We get what you're trying to say. We disagree with how you're saying it.

It's why some people looking at the data of elections are starting to use maps that look like this, because it visually represents the electoral significance of each state.

That's a really good map for this conversation!

It's for 2012, but still good in regards to what we are discussing.


GreyWolfLord wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

We get what you're trying to say. We disagree with how you're saying it.

It's why some people looking at the data of elections are starting to use maps that look like this, because it visually represents the electoral significance of each state.

That's a really good map for this conversation!

It's for 2012, but still good in regards to what we are discussing.

Here's a page that gives a number of different views.

Both by population and by electoral significance. Still 2012, but a good example.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

When one candidate complains that the system is rigged...

Both candidates claimed the election was rigged.

They just couldn't agree on who was rigging it and in whose favor.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

This link leads to tweets about Day 1 in Trump's America
Link

Read this. This is now. This is real. This has always been there, and we knew it in our hearts, but damn did we hope we were wrong. But we weren't.


You do realize he doesn't have any power right now.

Obama is still president.

Interestingly enough, most of what I read there, happened yesterday, happened the day before that, happened a week before that...etc. I've faced some types of discrimination over the past five years that puts most of what was written down there to shame. I think some may be trying to sensationalize it at this point, but as Trump has NO POWER at this point, even if he is the president elect (meaning he is NOT the president yet) it really reflects more on those locations those people live and the atmosphere there than whether Trump has done something, or whether Obama has any control over it either.

It probably is a GOOD thing that such actions are FINALLY being acknowledged that they are occurring...when they weren't acknowledged when they happened a week ago or two weeks ago as much...

But it has LITTLE to do with whether we live in a Republic or why the Republic is a good thing.

One of the things about our Republic is that it is built around checks and balances. That is true for the electoral votes and Congress, but is also true of our government itself.

One of those issues was LGBT in which we got to see how a pure population representation would go, and how a republic works.

In California we have a classic example of popular democracy in action when they voted to not allow Gay Marriage at the ballot (In California which is one of the liberal bastions nationally speaking...of all places).

If left only to popular democracy and popular representation...it would be a very different place today.

However, in the US government we have those who enact the laws (Congress) those who enforce and enact the laws (the Executive) and those who determine the constitutionality and legality of those laws, or interpret the law/constitution (the judicial).

Most States are also based around this check and balance system in their government.

California has the judicial...and many should be VERY thankful for this type of checks and balances. It protects those who otherwise would have no voice.

In this case, it protected those who were a minority, and enabled them to obtain rights that had been refused by the majority vote.

In that way, I think it also represents the Republic (or more precisely, OUR republic as there are republics that do NOT operate as ours does) and why we should be grateful (even if the right thing happening in CA was delayed from when it should have occurred) that we have the government we do instead of one that is a pure democracy.

Ironically, while many will argue for one part of the Republic, they will argue against another aspect...on both sides of the line.

However, at the end of the day, we are all one people (or so we should hope) in the US, and as such, we are all Americans that hope the best for our nation and our people (or at least, the hopeful aspect of me wants to believe that).


I still reserve the right to kidnap Elon Musk and get him to build me a spaceship to go to Mars.

Also want to thank all of you that quoted me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Seitz wrote:

I still reserve the right to kidnap Elon Musk and get him to build me a spaceship to go to Mars.

Also want to thank all of you that quoted me.

If you properly stock it and have a way to survive on Mars...mind if I hop on the ship with you after it's built?


Grey,

Depends. I'm not sure you'll like the fact I won't have much in the way of beer. I plan on keeping the oats and barley for feed, not food or beer. I will have oreos and kit kats though!


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Thomas Seitz wrote:

Grey,

Depends. I'm not sure you'll like the fact I won't have much in the way of beer. I plan on keeping the oats and barley for feed, not food or beer. I will have oreos and kit kats though!

You lost me at Oreos.

They have a really nasty sugar in them that'd make me violently ill, or I'd be signing up for the 'Elon Musk GTFOE' Plan with Grey.

Time for Plan C:

"Hey, at least the Cubs won the World Series."


Thomas Seitz wrote:

Grey,

Depends. I'm not sure you'll like the fact I won't have much in the way of beer. I plan on keeping the oats and barley for feed, not food or beer. I will have oreos and kit kats though!

That's fine with me. I can live without Beer. That's probably better anyways in my case.

I like KitKats, and Oreos are decent (though I prefer Oatmeal raisin), so, I'm game.


MannyGoblin wrote:

This link leads to tweets about Day 1 in Trump's America

Link

Read this. This is now. This is real. This has always been there, and we knew it in our hearts, but damn did we hope we were wrong. But we weren't.

~closes my eyes for a minute and mumbles a curse word~ Oh hell.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MannyGoblin wrote:

This link leads to tweets about Day 1 in Trump's America

Link

Read this. This is now. This is real. This has always been there, and we knew it in our hearts, but damn did we hope we were wrong. But we weren't.

I think there is going to be a real challenge for me to see this stuff and not hit a breaking point where I want to give them worse then they are giving others.

I'm actually shaking with anger reading these. Had to stop. Live in the south too so I know i'm gonna see it. *sigh*

A decent man would already be on the news right tell telling these "people" that think their doing what he wants That their not.
If this is in fact what he wants then this election might well result in a civil war.

Sorry for writing something so dark its not like me just to much.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
MannyGoblin wrote:

This link leads to tweets about Day 1 in Trump's America

Link

Read this. This is now. This is real. This has always been there, and we knew it in our hearts, but damn did we hope we were wrong. But we weren't.

I think there is going to be a real challenge for me to see this stuff and not hit a breaking point where I want to give them worse then they are giving others.

I'm actually shaking with anger reading these. Had to stop. Live in the south too so I know i'm gonna see it. *sigh*

A decent man would already be on the news right tell telling these "people" that think their doing what he wants That their not.
If this is in fact what he wants then this election might well result in a civil war.

Sorry for writing something so dark its not like me just to much.

Yea. I live in Georgia so I see it all the time. How do you fight such ingrained hatred and vileness?


Sharoth wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
MannyGoblin wrote:

This link leads to tweets about Day 1 in Trump's America

Link

Read this. This is now. This is real. This has always been there, and we knew it in our hearts, but damn did we hope we were wrong. But we weren't.

I think there is going to be a real challenge for me to see this stuff and not hit a breaking point where I want to give them worse then they are giving others.

I'm actually shaking with anger reading these. Had to stop. Live in the south too so I know i'm gonna see it. *sigh*

A decent man would already be on the news right tell telling these "people" that think their doing what he wants That their not.
If this is in fact what he wants then this election might well result in a civil war.

Sorry for writing something so dark its not like me just to much.

Yea. I live in Georgia so I see it all the time. How do you fight such ingrained hatred and vileness?

I wish I knew a good answer for that or at least a good answer that was legal.


I think one of the things that helped me have a more grounded perspective is that we moved around every few years (don't lie on your resume kids as my Dad did) and we lived in Venezuela in the early '80s. It was an eye opener. That is also when I started to really read, especially science and history. Plus we lived in different parts of the US.


can you give more details on how it opened your eyes?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Different country means different culture. The abject poverty. The city mayor's house taking up a whole block with watch towers on each corner and glass in the top of the walls. The police carrying sub machine guns with them. Learning Spanish and talking to other kids. Lots of other things as well. Maracaibo, Venezuela to be exact. I go to go to Colombia for a weekend while I was there, but I was too young to appreciate it. I probably missed a lot because of being so young and going to an English speaking school.

Edit - It was over 30 years ago so I do not remember as much as I would like to. This was also when I started to bury my head in the books to start escaping reality.


I just hope we do not have a repeat of this.

Edit - IMHO it should be required reading. ~sighs~ Time to pull it out and reread it.

51 to 100 of 472 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / To the Republic All Messageboards