RIP USA
The Blind Eternities forum
Posted on Nov. 9, 2016, 11:54 a.m. by greyninja
It makes me gag to say his name; but Donald Trump has won the presidential race. NOT by popular vote, but by electoral votes. THIS IS NOT A GOOD THING. We are not being accurately represented and we will pay the consiquences.
I would like all of our foreign mtg friends to know that the majority of the country did not vote for this man. Many of us are scared of what the future will bring.
Feel free to discuss
VampireArmy No of course not. I don't expect Trump to do much mischief during his 4 years, he has the congress to filter out a holocaust, lol. In seriousness tho, here in Europe Trump winning is a serious security risk since we have good relations with US that Trump has promised to break. Now he has won and we are waiting on literally (in my neighbour countries) if he will retract support since US support is the only safeline they have. Russia is the wolf and US is the herd. Understand that countries in Europe are worried (even tho it doesn't affect you)
November 10, 2016 6:44 p.m.
ThinkJank But the people should be able to gain the power. I do respect you and I do understand your ways. I love your country by my heart. I lived in your country for a year while studying. The best year of my life, so many interesting people and friends i still keep touch with. I see your country as a paradise, and it is. With Trump i worry..
When i studied in Cali for a year i befriended a guy from Bahli and a guy from Somalia. The guy from Somalia teached me to love life. We had awesome discussions while the apartment was turned upside down by parties. Really, that guy was amazing to discuss with, to see the world from one who escapes the misery of somalia, and to discuss this while the apartment was swinging to "I kissed a girl" by Katie perry was illuminating. He could not go home because his passport was hand written. I love that guy. Really. One of the most interesting persons in my life. Then Miley cyrus crashed through a wall all naked...
November 10, 2016 7:31 p.m.
smackjack, believe me, I'm all for the people gaining the power to change fundamental aspects of government. It's also nice to hear that people like you love our country so much. However, most of the people here (in my experience, at least) are perfectly content with the republic we have now. And a lot of the people who want to see a change (myself included) are under 18 and therefore are not in a position to make said changes.
It's good to hear that you had such a positive experience in California. I've been there myself and it's a very nice place, as well as one of the most diverse locations in the 50 states. And while I understand your concerns about Trump, I don't think it's as worrisome as people think it is. Government is slow to move, and I imagine he won't be able to make as much "progress" as he intends to.
November 10, 2016 8:16 p.m.
ThinkJank: you come off as someone well over 18 to me, cudos to you in my experience people under 18 cant handle a discussion like that :).
I hope Trump was alot of talk during the campaign. From what ive heard from him after the election he has actually been sympatic and "real" unlike his pussygrabbing wallbuilding hatred self that he was during the campaign. I give up my doubt and I hope for a more humane president now once he got his attention. If not, there is always a new election in 4 years :) Worst case he fucks up the states and therefore the world, but wtf right now i just want to forget all pussygrabbing minority hating bullshit :)
November 10, 2016 9:24 p.m.
To be honest I really wasn't for Trump, just against Hillary, but seeing that within the first two days he's been elected he's already gotten offers from Russia and Canada for better public relations, he's already coming through. He might not actually be able to do anything until January but this douche bag might actually be able to help our country in great ways.
November 10, 2016 10:23 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #7
Here's hoping.
Anyway, I wanted to address something from earlier in the discussion, particularly pertaining to the electoral college.
The EC exists to prevent certain regions of the country from controlling the entirety of the election. The popular vote still has geographic implications. Think about how disastrous it would be if California and New York alone could vote in anyone they wanted based purely on population.
November 11, 2016 9:15 a.m.
I have to disagree. I think the electoral college needlessly chops up the country in such a way that it wipes out huge chucks of votes. Mainly for one reason: you win a state you get all of its votes. You can win a state 51%/49% get all of its EC votes. That is ridiculous.
Take my home state of FL, please :). Anyway, Trump won 49/48. That means he got all the states EC votes when around 4.5 million people, almost 1/2 its population, didn't vote for him! Thats ~4.5 million votes that that dont matter once this single province, this single slice of the American pie, is done voting.
Add in the fact that voting within states is counted gerrymandered district by gerrymandered district and the votes dissappear even more. If you vote GOP in Miami you might as well stay home because that district votes solid democrat (it is designed to). The same is true for Democrats in the more rural area of central and north FL thst vote solid GOP (they are designed to as well). Since EC voting chops up the country into bits, which are than chopped into even smaller bits, it is literally engineered to dilute the vote.
November 11, 2016 10:28 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #9
I'm not saying that the EC is correctly designed and fairly implemented. I'm merely defending the idea of the EC over the idea of a strict popular vote. If anything, a popular vote would amplify the problems of the EC from the local level to the interstate and national levels.
There is much that can be improved.
November 11, 2016 10:37 a.m.
You're overlooking the states that Hillary just barely won, it's not like it works one way. Besides I'm sure you would be rejoicing if Hillary had won Florida by one point, most (if not all) of the complaints I've heard about the EC are from Hillary supporters who are just trying to come up with reasons she lost. Same with people who say "she would have won if people just didn't vote third party. No, not everyone who didn't vote for trump was pro Hillary, there most likely would have been an equal split in those votes and it wouldn't have made a difference.
November 11, 2016 12:36 p.m.
smackjack Brown was shot because he attacked a police officer, after having robbed a convenience store. He also was trying to grab the officer's gun from his belt, which over here is a threat on the officer's life. Honestly, he had the right to shoot the criminal. Back to the current situation, officers last night in Oregon pleaded with vandalists to leave the area for hours. They refused and continued looting, burning and shooting innocents. Look what Hillary has caused.
November 11, 2016 6 p.m.
I was merely using an example to make a point, Livingham. You are assuming something about me that i never stated.
I could also assume you support trump b/c you misunderstood my statement, likely only reading up to the word trump, and then attempted argue a counterpoint based solely on your own assumption, which again was not my actual point. But i dont like jumping to... lets call it baseless conclusions.
Epochalyptik, i, obviously, prefer a national vote. Artificially dividing up the country when the person we are voting for is going to govern the whole thing makes zero sense to me. We are needlessly grouping votes.
The EC system seems, to me, to be another example of the founding fathers speaking out of both sides of their mouth. By placing electors between the people and the highest office in the land, they were clearing saying, "well, you see, when said 'all people are equal' we left of the 'like us' part."
I know that currently EC votes are tied to the popular vote in that state, but since that is the case do we even need the EC anymore? At the very least it is a waste of time.
November 11, 2016 6:21 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #13
You still haven't addressed the issues I've raised with the popular vote. The division is meant to better represent the interests of the nation rather than the interests of the few most densely populated areas.
November 12, 2016 8:38 a.m.
I do not see the problem, honestly. One could argue the current system has a " tyranny of the minority" character to it.
If an issue/candidate is supported by voters in high population areas it should win. Purely b/c of that support. It is silly to zone off millions of votes in a city as a single district and then give similar clout to another district with only thousands of votes.
The great comprise that created our bicameral congress gives the low population, tiny states plenty of influence on the national scale.
November 12, 2016 9:55 a.m.
...mumbles something about Al Gore and a necromancer...
Nothing to see here. Move along.
November 14, 2016 12:17 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #16
And I think it's important that those such areas have a voice.
The federal government represents the interests of the people, but, beyond that, it represents also the interests of the states. The government should not presume to act solely on the whims of large, centralized populations; it is beholden to all states and to the citizenry as a whole.
This is part of why the EC exists; it serves to represent the interests of the nation in a more proportionate manner than the popular vote alone would allow.
Do you also have problems with the fact that every state, regardless of size, gets exactly two senators?
November 14, 2016 12:47 p.m.
I find that having a bicameral congress makes up for the extra influence the senate gives small states.
But the executive branch does not have such a structure. One prez for one nation. Therefore the one person the majority votes for should be the leader. No needless sectioning off of millions of votes to let a few thousand matter.
The US's cities contain almost 70% of the population (exact number is closer to ~68% i think). Should roughly 30% of the population have the same, or similar, clout as almost 70%?
As a little historical tangent, the last time we, as a nation, left the rural, backwards parts of the country alone we got jim crow laws and legal lynch mobs. Even now, many of their decedents still hold those horrible views. I want to minimize such influence as much as possible.
November 14, 2016 5:20 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #18
So your contention is that the influence of American citizens inhabiting a significant geographical subsection of the country should be minimized (1) on the basis that their ancestors held unsavory views and (2) on the currently-unsubstantiated conjecture that they themselves must in large part retain those same views?
Sounds like a terrible argument, to be frank. You avoid provincialism and foster unity through inclusion. You are unapologetically advocating that the way to deal with our "backwards" mentality is to illegitimize its voice in the national discourse. And censorship has never been an effective means of changing people's minds.
One president for one country should indicate that the individual who gets chosen should be acutely aware of Americans' diverse needs. Pandering to the major cities (which are, by and large, blue; a phenomenon I don't believe is lost on you) to the exclusion of those inhabiting the vast remainder of the nation is exactly the kind of preferential treatment for which you denounced the Electoral College.
The EC, by the way, grants each state a number of electoral votes equal to its total representation in Congress and, therefore, proportional to its population. If anything, it's a fairer representation of the interests of the nation.
November 14, 2016 5:51 p.m.
well he did say that it was just a tangent. i think you have weaved it together into some kind of supportive dialog but i don't know that's what he meant.
the only difference between the two proposals seems to be whether the end result is from the actual majority of all citizens or from the sum of all local state majorities. at this point it seems ambiguous which one really provides a fair result (or do both? or neither?).
i see people bring up territory a lot, it seems like they are even implying that because they take up more acres they should have a little extra power in their vote than people in cities who take up less (starts to seem pretty silly when you describe it like that). but what if we were living in a world where all the populations of cities doubled? does that change the calculus? what if they halved?
November 14, 2016 6:13 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #20
Maybe I'm biased toward the EC system because it's based on a system that ensures every state has a voice in government. Though not necessarily as purely democratic as popular vote, it's a better system for our country given our federal-state duality.
November 14, 2016 9:17 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #21
Though that presupposes that the more appropriate division is not state-oriented representation in Congress and a unified public in the President. Which I suppose is more rather his point. I'm open to discussion about that.
November 14, 2016 9:47 p.m.
Since the executive branch covers the country as a whole the country's "pulse" as a whole should be taken into account when choosing him. Not piecemeal.
It is not a matter preferential treatment, but of the majority. Red or blue, almost 70% of the US population lives in cities. 70%. The remaining ~30% should not have a stranglehold on such a large majority. Their voices get heard in the legislative branch
ThinkJank says... #1
smackjack, being a republic instead of a democracy does not mean we are below Poland in terms of human rights. The biggest difference between the two systems is that a republic does not allow for the will of the masses to change everything - there are certain inalienable rights that cannot be touched, even by majority vote. One is not superior to the other - they are different systems, each with pros and cons.
http://www.diffen.com/difference/Democracy_vs_Republic
November 10, 2016 6:27 p.m.