Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
PRESIDENT TRUMP
Posts
harmonic
View playlists
Closeauthor=Link_2112
How is it not bait if it's coming out of nowhere, not a direct response to anybody, seemingly addresses everybody "you", and is bringing up a previous post? Which previous post? Was that previous post negative? It clearly got a negative response from people. How could you not realize it might cause a problem. It totally comes off as douchey, moreso without context. If you have no intention of bickering, why post such a pointless and provocative thing? Considering how this thread has been going it doesn't seem like you are trying to avoid conflict. It seems like you know the climate here and said it on purpose to get a rise out of people. If it was meant as a joke, it's not a good one. I have no bias towards you and I don't care about the actual topic of this thread, I'm just saying how it looks to an outsider on neither side of this debate.
And now your shields are up, so I'm probably wasting my time.
Okay friends, I'm going to answer his questions. See his questions? Going to answer them objectively. They were asked in a guilty until proven innocent way, which makes this difficult, so please consider that. I am entitled to defend myself against these accusations and it will not involve baiting or bickering.
No, it was not bait. Why would I do that at this point? I'm under the microscope now.
No, it's not coming out of no where. I made a post earlier about the various ways elements of the left (no, not everyone on the left...okay?) trying to overturn the election.
Said post was not negative. It was on topic. You may disagree with it, but that doesn't make it negative.
No, it wasn't a dig at anyone. Why would I do that at this point? I'm under the microscope now.
No, it didn't get a "negative response" it got an opposed response which is fine.
No, it didn't "cause a problem." It caused disagreement, which is fine.
How is "licking your chops" provocative? Don't you think saying "I'm probably wasting my time" is provocative?
No, I'm not "trying to get a rise out of people." Why would I do that at this point? I'm under the microscope now.
In summary, literally every assertion and assumption in your post was inaccurate and unfair.
There. Answered his questions.
Now for my question.
Why, after everything that's happened, do you feel the need to do yet another public call out directed at me? This thread is not called the Harmonic call out thread. I brought up a legitimate topic about the FBI thing today, you ignored that, and came after me. The public call out thing has been warned against several times in this topic, yet, it continues.
Okay, I just got an email asking me to sign a petition to tell electors to revolt.
I've got to say this somewhere, because I can't respond to the email, and this is basically where I spend most of my time:
I despise Trump. I have personal experience with the man. It isn't much, but there are two times I actually breathed the same air as the man (once at a business lecture, and once when I was doing work as a piano technician in one of his Miami buildings), and I think he's the sorriest excuse of a human being ever to walk the Earth. Now, through this election, the DNC has been sore losers. It's not entirely unwarranted: this is exactly how the RNC acted (and act to this very moment, including passing a vote to block all of Obama's actions in the past few weeks) when Obama was elected. Effigies of Obama were hung and burned. Racist bumper stickers were sold.
That said, I would have to say that trying to undermine the electoral process by trying to coerce electors to follow popular vote instead of the college vote is the worst idea in the history of bad ideas.
Trump is president. Live with it. It's not a job he's supposed to have alone. We're stuck with him, so work to make him a good president.
I've got to say this somewhere, because I can't respond to the email, and this is basically where I spend most of my time:
I despise Trump. I have personal experience with the man. It isn't much, but there are two times I actually breathed the same air as the man (once at a business lecture, and once when I was doing work as a piano technician in one of his Miami buildings), and I think he's the sorriest excuse of a human being ever to walk the Earth. Now, through this election, the DNC has been sore losers. It's not entirely unwarranted: this is exactly how the RNC acted (and act to this very moment, including passing a vote to block all of Obama's actions in the past few weeks) when Obama was elected. Effigies of Obama were hung and burned. Racist bumper stickers were sold.
That said, I would have to say that trying to undermine the electoral process by trying to coerce electors to follow popular vote instead of the college vote is the worst idea in the history of bad ideas.
Trump is president. Live with it. It's not a job he's supposed to have alone. We're stuck with him, so work to make him a good president.
Dyhalto
7536
author=pianotm
That said, I would have to say that trying to undermine the electoral process by trying to coerce electors to follow popular vote instead of the college vote is the worst idea in the history of bad ideas.
This'll probably be the most prominent argument used against it, and has merit on an ideological basis, but you and I and everyone else have to contend with objective reality.
Hillary won the popular vote by almost 3 million votes, and that doesn't include everything wasted on Jill Stein and Gary Johnson who acted more as waste baskets for Not-Trump-AND-Not-Hillary. This petition is also being spurred on by independent bottom-up democratic action, as opposed to reactionary hurt feelings or some PAC's desperate gamble. The electors turning around and putting Hillary in the White House wouldn't be a bad thing for the course of human history at all. Future generations would understand.
But America's political spectrum is heavily ideologized, so it won't happen. The Right with it's Free Market kookery, and the Left with their fanatical obsession with identity politics. Both parties like to steer away from real issues because then people might start taking an active interest in politics and begin holding them to account.
Donald Trump is going to be president. At this point, a recording of a phone call between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin could be released by the CIA, where in exchange for the DNC emails to be leaked to the press Trump promises that America will not act if Russia invades Estonia. And then Trump could confirm 'yes, that was a real conversation that happened.' and Putin could confirm 'Yes, that was a real conversation that happened.' And even then, Trump would still be inaugurated.
I know some people are still holding out hope that Obama incinerates Trump with his heat vision or something but it's not gonna happen.
I know some people are still holding out hope that Obama incinerates Trump with his heat vision or something but it's not gonna happen.
So, i just learned a bit about the Electoral College - dang, I just assumed you guys had, like, Members-of-parliament analogs. I figured, each vote was kinda like an MP for a party, so a state was cut up into sections, and each of those section aggregates came together as a vote.
No, apparently you... vote, and then some rando takes those votes and... votes how he wants on your behalf? Is that right? Am I missing something here?
If that's true, it's like online currency abstraction - putting as many obfuscating layers between the actual thing in question and it's application that it looses all meaning.
No, apparently you... vote, and then some rando takes those votes and... votes how he wants on your behalf? Is that right? Am I missing something here?
If that's true, it's like online currency abstraction - putting as many obfuscating layers between the actual thing in question and it's application that it looses all meaning.
Well... yeah pretty much? In theory, the reps CAN vote how they want. In practice, they vote for whoever won the state they rep (and people probably wouldn't be happy if they did otherwise). More populated states have more reps so those states are more valuable in elections. It's how we get presidents that win the electoral college but not the popular vote.
What candidates do is they win states with a lot of representatives and then all of that state's representatives vote for that candidate. But, there are people in that large state who voted for the opposite candidate and their votes are pretty much overridden at that point since it's actually the electoral vote that counts toward the president.
Basically, we're voting for where we want our electoral college votes to go - not the president. It's not as if it's devoid of democracy altogether, but I agree that it seems a bit counter intuitive. (Popular vote has its issues too though so welp)
What candidates do is they win states with a lot of representatives and then all of that state's representatives vote for that candidate. But, there are people in that large state who voted for the opposite candidate and their votes are pretty much overridden at that point since it's actually the electoral vote that counts toward the president.
Basically, we're voting for where we want our electoral college votes to go - not the president. It's not as if it's devoid of democracy altogether, but I agree that it seems a bit counter intuitive. (Popular vote has its issues too though so welp)
author=Sated
A popular vote would work fine for selecting the President, to be honest.
Hey rural areas matter too!
...unless you dislike eating.
Hey, we don't need rural areas anymore! We've got ADM and Monsanto! Haven't you heard? All our food comes from chemistry labs.
Rural areas are definitely frequently ignored, and very often by liberals. It's way too easy to be dismissive of them, call the people hicks, rednecks, uneducated racists, etc. but the situation isn't simple. Entire towns center around a single industry. While the dream would be less tenuous employment, the immediate reality is that losing your job is a huge threat to your family, and not everyone has the ability to just pick up & move. And it's easy to make snap judgements, but not everyone has the same access to information that people in urban areas do - slower or nonexistent internet access, etc.
SO, I can see the argument for the electoral college. For me, that's not the frustrating part of this election. The frustrating part is that a huge group of people voted for Trump - some were worried about the immediate threat to their jobs, some were misinformed, many felt ignored by the Democratic Party. It's way too easy to swing at people for being "uneducated" and "unworldly" without asking ourselves how that came about, without considering their livelihood and their priorities, and without realizing how much we might be taking for granted.
SO, I can see the argument for the electoral college. For me, that's not the frustrating part of this election. The frustrating part is that a huge group of people voted for Trump - some were worried about the immediate threat to their jobs, some were misinformed, many felt ignored by the Democratic Party. It's way too easy to swing at people for being "uneducated" and "unworldly" without asking ourselves how that came about, without considering their livelihood and their priorities, and without realizing how much we might be taking for granted.
I would definitely want rural areas to have some say in the country.
This is always a fun one to watch if you haven't~
That said, I do think Slash has a point in that it's actually more alarming that a bunch of people felt disenfranchised enough to vote in DT. >.<
This is always a fun one to watch if you haven't~
That said, I do think Slash has a point in that it's actually more alarming that a bunch of people felt disenfranchised enough to vote in DT. >.<
The problem with the popular vote, (problem or purpose depending on your outlook) is that California would then rule the entire country. In this case, Trump lost California by over 4 million votes. He could have lost it by just 100 votes and the electoral college result would be the same. But if you take away California, Trump actually won the popular vote by about 2 million votes.
My question is why have the electoral college as it exists at all? Why not have drawn districts that have aggregated votes? It's the same thing, only without an actual person there to get in the way?
The President represents all of the country. If most of the country happens to be vast empty stretches of prairie, then it should have most of the decision.
The other branches of Government represent the people.
The other branches of Government represent the people.
Hexatona
My question is why have the electoral college as it exists at all? Why not have drawn districts that have aggregated votes? It's the same thing, only without an actual person there to get in the way?
Because districts constantly change as populations climb and decline. Aggregating a vote is easier to keep track of if you have assigned people to each area keeping track of them.
Technically, that's exactly what the electoral college is supposed to be. Their opinion's aren't supposed to matter. They're just supposed to tally the votes from their region and then vote accordingly. They've never gone against the popular vote, even though there's no law saying they have to follow it.
Right, like - California is a part of the country (a huge part, both landmass & population). And they get plenty of representation in Congress. But without the way we split representatives (the House & Senate) then the rural states would get very, very little representation (one or two votes per state) and would be even more likely to be ignored.
On a side-note, both our First-Past-The-Post system and our constant gerrymandering leads to highly skewed elects. Those are both systems that we should absolutely consider revising if we want candidates that represent us.
On a side-note, both our First-Past-The-Post system and our constant gerrymandering leads to highly skewed elects. Those are both systems that we should absolutely consider revising if we want candidates that represent us.
Altered
196
*slides in on a barely related note* it's pretty easy to see who most likely voted for trump in my area because the people who don't normally decorate for the holidays did and one of my neighbors has a confederate flag too :P (I'm not even in the south ._.) *slides away*
