• Log in or sign up for an account here: https://www.sythe.org/login

Since Trump was elected:

Status
Not open for further replies.
LOL. You're really going to quote me from "Faces of Sythe" :') That's classic bro. That must have really upset you because it was a joke man.
I didn't upset me, I just found it hilarious. All I did was point out the irony in you criticising ad-hominem attacks when you do the same exact thing.

Just because 1/2 of the population votes doesn't make the sample inaccurate. If that 1/2 proportionally votes a certain way, statistically speaking we would call that a very sound sample. Really, a representative sample is usually WAY smaller than that.
You continue to go in the loop of "hey, we wanted it this way" rather than directly attacking what you think is wrong with the electoral college.

What American has ever said, "We should have stayed out of WWI and WWII"....?
I never implied that we should've stayed out of those wars, I was just stating the precedent that Washington had stated (it wasn't just a precedent for the US to follow, rather for the entire world to follow). You have yet to elaborate on what you think should change about the electoral college. You've also failed to elaborate/argue against my point as to why the electoral college was set in place.
 
I didn't upset me, I just found it hilarious. All I did was point out the irony in you criticising ad-hominem attacks when you do the same exact thing.


You continue to go in the loop of "hey, we wanted it this way" rather than directly attacking what you think is wrong with the electoral college.


I never implied that we should've stayed out of those wars, I was just stating the precedent that Washington had stated (it wasn't just a precedent for the US to follow, rather for the entire world to follow). You have yet to elaborate on what you think should change about the electoral college. You've also failed to elaborate/argue against my point as to why the electoral college was set in place.

A) Yes you did imply that George Washington was right in telling us to stay out of foreign affairs, and yes you did use the WW's as an example of that.

B) I did tell him that he was wrong and explained that the popular vote should be the end all be all. I didn't just attack what he said; I elaborated on my position that the electoral vote and thus the vote of politicians should NEVER override the vote of the people they represent. That is NOT what the college was setup to do, it was setup to get an accurate count of the people's votes.
 
A) Yes you did imply that George Washington was right in telling us to stay out of foreign affairs, and yes you did use the WW's as an example of that.
Of course he's right, if every country of every area did not get involved in affairs there would not have been a WWI or WWII. That's the precedent he wanted to set, not just for the US but for the world as a whole.
B) I did tell him that he was wrong and explained that the popular vote should be the end all be all. I didn't just attack what he said; I elaborated on my position that the electoral vote and thus the vote of politicians should NEVER override the vote of the people they represent. That is NOT what the college was setup to do, it was setup to get an accurate count of the people's votes.
This is always the problem with the left. When the electoral college is in their favor, they're completely fine with it. However, now that Trump won due to the electoral college (he even managed to flip 4 states) there's a huge issue with the electoral college, with people like yourself arguing that it should not even exist (basically what you're saying).
 
Of course he's right, if every country of every area did not get involved in affairs there would not have been a WWI or WWII. That's the precedent he wanted to set, not just for the US but for the world as a whole.

This is always the problem with the left. When the electoral college is in their favor, they're completely fine with it. However, now that Trump won due to the electoral college (he even managed to flip 4 states) there's a huge issue with the electoral college, with people like yourself arguing that it should not even exist (basically what you're saying).

If you can explain to me why it is logical that <50% of the population wants a different person as present, and yet Trump is going to be president, than I will accept defeat in this argument.

I already have issues with US politics; the fact that it was Hillary vs. Trump instead of Bernie vs. Trump is a major issue. Insider politics IS an issue. The electoral college IS an issue.

These aren't things that people are just now saying.
 
This honestly made me laugh so hard I had side pains.

Whenever someone starts off with this I can tell i'm only going to need to use 35% of my brain to bury someone. Yawn.

When you shave away the complexity of the electoral college system you get to a core framework devoid of logic.

Sure, when you shave away the "complexity" of something that was specifically designed to avoid the tyranny of the majority i'm sure it does make sense to people who are historically uneducated, which i'll explain later on.

If 53% of the country votes for X to be president, and 47% of the country votes for Y to be president: X becomes president in a fair constitutional republic, not Y.

You quite literally in a single sentence made it very clear you don't understand what a republic is, or the reasoning as to WHY we function as such. We are not a PURE DEMOCRACY, get that through your thick skull.

The founding fathers couldn't have laid out a voting system to take into account the hundreds of districts that exist today, much less the 300 million person population.

The core mechanic of the electoral college still operates as intended. The number of districts and our population is entirely irrelevant.

What's comedic is that you really do believe that the founding fathers had some kind of future-sight to know what the US population would look like 300 years in the future. It's the same argument we see time and time again about the second amendment. No, I'm sorry you little Trump Youth member- they did not.

You actually haven't said why it only 'worked' back during the 18th century and somehow fails to achieve its goal in the 21'st. Also, false comparison between "b-b-but they didn't know we'd have M4's back then!" entirely irrelevant argument, again, two entirely different topics with a multitude of factors that share zero analogous talking-points.

Every other advanced nation on Earth uses a system that ENSURES the candidate who is supported by the majority of the population wins.

Name a historic democratic nation that didn't have a destructive end due to 'tyranny of the majority.' Pure democracies fail, and always have. I'll show you below why you aren't historically educated on the topic.

I will counter your pathetic argument with this: please explain to me the logic of a candidate assuming the highest office in the land without the support of the MAJORITY of the population.

Gladly.


P.S. I love when people start name calling on the internet because it lets me know they're under 16 years old; although your profile name pretty much gives that away immediately. Good game

I also love it when people close their 'argument' with automatically assuming authority without actually having stated any legitimate defense lol watch and learn.

Our founders were some of the smartest men that have ever existed, they chose a constitutional republic over a pure democracy for a few simple reasons. Pure democracies have always failed, and have always lead to what is known as "tyranny of the majority." One ruling class will rise, gain majority power, and seek to subject the minority, always leading to tyranny.

The Electoral College: Enlightened Democracy
Tocqueville: Book I Chapter 15

Contrary to modern perceptions, the founding generation did not intend to create a direct democracy. To the contrary, the Founders deliberately created a republic -- or, arguably, a republican democracy -- that would incorporate a spirit of compromise and deliberation into decision-making. Such a form of government, the Founders believed, would allow them to achieve two potentially conflicting objectives: avoiding the "tyranny of the majority" inherent in pure democratic systems, while allowing the "sense of the people" to be reflected in the new American government.27 Moreover, a republican government, organized on federalist principles, would allow the delegates to achieve the most difficult of their tasks: enabling large and small sovereign states to live peacefully alongside each other.

From James Madison...

[In a pure democracy], [a] common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert results from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.

You asked specifically why, here is something very detailed by men who have seen the failures of pure democracies and made the effort to escape them.

Alexis de Tocqueville

It frequently happens that the members of the community promote the influence of the central power without intending to. Democratic eras are periods of experiment, innovation, and adventure. There is always a multitude of men engaged in difficult or novel undertakings, which they follow by themselves without shackling themselves to their fellows. Such persons will admit, as a general principle, that the public authority ought not to interfere in private concerns; but, by an exception to that rule, each of them craves its assistance in the particular concern on which he is engaged and seeks to draw upon the influence of the government for his own benefit, although he would restrict it on all other occasions. If a large number of men applies this particular exception to a great variety of different purposes, the sphere of the central power extends itself imperceptibly in all directions, although everyone wishes it to be circumscribed. (Volume 2, Section 4: Chapter III, That the Sentiments of Democratic Nations Accord with Their Opinions in Leading Them to Concentrate Political Power [in] America)

... These powers accumulate there with astonishing rapidity, and the state instantly attains the utmost limits of its strength, while private persons allow themselves to sink as suddenly to the lowest degree of weakness. ...

Hence the concentration of power and the subjection of individuals will increase among democratic nations, not only in the same proportion as their equality, but in the same proportion as their ignorance. ... (Volume 2, Section 4: Chapter IV, Of Certain Peculiar and Accidental Causes Which Either Lead a People to Complete the Centralization of Government or Divert Them From It)

Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances: what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?

Thus it every day renders the exercise of the free agency of man less useful and less frequent; it circumscribes the will within a narrower range and gradually robs a man of all the uses of himself. The principle of equality has prepared men for these things; it has predisposed men to endure them and often to look on them as benefits.

After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd. (Volume 2, Section 4: Chapter VI,
What Sort of Despotism Democratic Nations Have to Fear.)

If you can't bother to read thus far, don't even bother replying.

I am therefore of the opinion that social power superior to all others must always be placed somewhere; but I think that liberty is endangered when this power finds no obstacle which can retard its course and give it time to moderate its own vehemence.

Unlimited power is in itself a bad and dangerous thing. Human beings are not competent to exercise it with discretion. God alone can be omnipotent, because his wisdom and his justice are always equal to his power. There is no power on earth so worthy of honor in itself or clothed with rights so sacred that I would admit its uncontrolled and all-predominant authority. When I see that the right and the means of absolute command are conferred on any power whatever, be it called a people or a king, an aristocracy or a democracy, a monarchy or a republic, I say there is the germ of tyranny, and I seek to live elsewhere, under other laws.
If ever the free institutions of America are destroyed, that event may be attributed to the omnipotence of the majority, which may at some future time urge the minorities to desperation and oblige them to have recourse to physical force. Anarchy will then be the result, but it will have been brought about by despotism.

Mr. Madison expresses the same opinion in The Federalist, No. 51. "It is of great importance in a republic, not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been, and ever will be, pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. In a society, under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger: and as, in the latter state, even the stronger individuals are prompted by the uncertainty of their condition to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves, so, in the former state, will the more powerful factions be gradually induced by a like motive to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful. It can be little doubted, that, if the State of Rhode Island was separated from the Confederacy and left to itself, the insecurity of right under the popular form of government within such narrow limits would be displayed by such reiterated oppressions of the factious majorities, that some power altogether independent of the people would soon be called for by the voice of the very factions whose misrule had proved the necessity of it.¯

Jefferson also said: "The executive power in our government is not the only, perhaps not even the principal, object of my solicitude. The tyranny of the legislature is really the danger most to be feared, and will continue to be so for many years to come. The tyranny of the executive power will come in its turn, but at a more distant period." 7

I am glad to cite the opinion of Jefferson upon this subject rather than that of any other, because I consider him the most powerful advocate democracy has ever had.

This is why we have the electoral college, to circumvent the rise of to-be tyrants and as stated before the "tyranny of the majority." Something subtle to mention that reflects the tyranny of the majority is the media, seeing as the majority of media is left-leaning and extremely violent against those that oppose its ideals.

Also from Tocqueville

In America the majority raises formidable barriers around the liberty of opinion; within these barriers an author may write what he pleases, but woe to him if he goes beyond them. Not that he is in danger of an auto-da-f‚, but he is exposed to continued obloquy and persecution. His political career is closed forever, since he has offended the only authority that is able to open it. Every sort of compensation, even that of celebrity, is refused to him. Before making public his opinions he thought he had sympathizers; now it seems to him that he has none any more since he has revealed himself to everyone; then those who blame him criticize loudly and those who think as he does keep quiet and move away without courage. He yields at length, overcome by the daily effort which he has to make, and subsides into silence, as if he felt remorse for having spoken the truth.

Understand now? Majority vote in a constitutional republic comes secondary. If we operated as a pure democracy, CA and NY would be deciding the fate of the entire nation, enforcing their wills upon all other states irregardless of how they voted as a majority. We are a republic of individual self-governing states, if you understood that important dynamic, perhaps you would realize the genius behind our form of government.

E: Should probably also mention that the outcome of this election is probably one of the greatest examples as to how our electoral college avoided a corrupt politician from gaining power. If you disagree with the label of "corrupt" i'll gladly start pasting evidences from the email leaks and point out specific moments in the Veritas videos that proved she broke federal laws.

E2: I'd also like you to defend the reasoning behind giving all power to only a few states rather than including the will of the smaller states within our republic. What you're arguing in favor of is essentially a stateless country with one-party rule. AKA: A tyrannical government.
 
Last edited:
Verified Hardcore
Spam Forum Participant
Sythe Awards 2017 Winner
Twitter
Writing Competition Winner
Community Participant
Paper Trading Competition Participant
Detective
Facebook Promoter
In Memory of Jon
Le Kingdoms Player
Christmas 2020
Christmas 2023
Easter 2024
HamSanta
March Madness
May the 4th Be With You
PHP Shit Show 2k26
St. Patrick's Day 2024
Sythe's 20th Anniversary
@Wintastical
Please update the list on the OP, Trump has put some more of his plans in action.

I think Trump is great.
 
Last edited:
More people are wanting him to fail then him to achieve. I don't get it.
 
I'm LAAAAAAAME
People are idiots. Even Canadians are protesting it lol. There is a "Rally Against Trump" event on facebook for the 19th that already has over 1300 marked as going...

The Tea Party bitched and moaned for eight years straight non-stop, now liberals are doing the same thing. Trump is an asshole but I'm not protesting, he will dig his own grave. Any person who owns a casino is literally the closest thing legally you can be to just taking money from the less fortunate. Guy is a complete joke, drank from mommy's golden nipple his whole life.
 
This whole thing is a complete fucking shitshow and people just need to realize that Trump is OUR President now and we need to hope for the best out of him as its our futures and our childrens futures at risk here.
 
If you can explain to me why it is logical that <50% of the population wants a different person as present, and yet Trump is going to be president, than I will accept defeat in this argument.

I already have issues with US politics; the fact that it was Hillary vs. Trump instead of Bernie vs. Trump is a major issue. Insider politics IS an issue. The electoral college IS an issue.

These aren't things that people are just now saying.

The <50% live in big metro areas. Places like California, Florida, and New York.. Without the electoral college in place, those major metropolitan areas would have sole control over who gets elected because they just outweigh the general population of "rural" America. Now I do feel the electoral college should be revisited to allow the points attached to each state to be split according to votes. You get 48% of the votes you get 48% of that states' points. It would be a more accurate representation of how the entire country votes.
 
The <50% live in big metro areas. Places like California, Florida, and New York.. Without the electoral college in place, those major metropolitan areas would have sole control over who gets elected because they just outweigh the general population of "rural" America. Now I do feel the electoral college should be revisited to allow the points attached to each state to be split according to votes. You get 48% of the votes you get 48% of that states' points. It would be a more accurate representation of how the entire country votes.
you would be surprised at how little of a difference that would make. I assuming this is because of Florida and how much of an impact it would have had. The electoral points would off set in cases of swing states that get distributed indirectly. I will say the system isn't perfect but changing for that reason is not the most sound approach.
 
you would be surprised at how little of a difference that would make. I assuming this is because of Florida and how much of an impact it would have had. The electoral points would off set in cases of swing states that get distributed indirectly. I will say the system isn't perfect but changing for that reason is not the most sound approach.

Rhode island has a population of 1.1 million people.. Florida has a population of 19.3 million people. Just saying, who has more vote power?
 
I would say that it has something to do with him bragging about groping women. He's a married man; there's a bit of a moral issue there

I understand that sentiment. However, he got elected... so wanting POTUS to fail is like saying you want all of United States to fail
 
Last edited:
I understand that sentiment. However, he got elected... so wanting POTUS to fail is like saying you want all of United States to fail

That's completely untrue. I wanted Bush and Cheney impeached for the unlawful war in Iraq- doesn't mean I hate the United States. That kind of thinking is extremely, extremely dangerous.
 
All he's done since he became president is persecute the weak. The immigrants, Muslims, transgender, smokers, and environment.
If there's a new health care bill many young people will probably lose coverage. Currently covers to 26 previously 21. This helped me when I got out of college at 23.

If you're white, christian, straight, not in chronic pain, and born here good for you, bad for others. If he wanted to go after some people how about the millions of people who have no intention on working, live off the government, have babies, and we pay their rent. We even give them free sell phones. I understand disability or temporary aid, but there's to many competent people doing nothing.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Runescape Gamblingrunescape gambling
Back
Top