Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[TheBiggerFish]

Kill, people, burn homes and businesses, destroy lives, cause a fucking civil war, the list goes on and on.

I doubt a civil war is likely, and even if they do that, they will be punished for it.

Why would they want to destroy their livelihoods again?

[Yoink]

Trump won the electoral college, no amount of petitioning will change that fact, if they do not vote as they have been elected to, then there are going to a hell of a lot more angry people out there than there have ever been before, and they will want blood.

Let them come.

Says the Liberal, who probably isn't even the owner of a gun, much less armed to the teeth like any sensible American.    


More seriously, though, how likely does it really seem for shit to go down over this election?
And I don't mean dweebs just "protesting" (rioting) and amusing themselves by causing a ruckus for nebulous reasons, that's been going on for long enough already.

[Blaze]

If the electoral college didn't vote as their states voted on (regardless of the fact that the electoral college accomplishes the exact opposite of what it was meant to do), it would only assert that the people's vote isn't just diminished, but entirely meaningless.

[Sirus]

Can we get back to the mildly amusing Republic of California thought experiment now?

[NullForceOmega]

TBF I don't think you understand, the last time there was this severe of a divide in the US there was a civil war that killed a massive number of people, this time the violence isn't going to be split on geographic lines, just ideological, that means people two houses down wanting to kill you because you voted 'x' instead of 'y'.  There are already huge protests, now throw equally large opposed protests, then watch as the two collide and turn into a general riot, observe as extreme measures are enacted to 'restore order' which both sides will view as being attacked for their beliefs, behold as simmering anger becomes boiling violence.

[Criptfeind]

Kill, people, burn homes and businesses, destroy lives, cause a fucking civil war, the list goes on and on.

I doubt a civil war is likely, and even if they do that, they will be punished for it.

Why would they want to destroy their livelihoods again?

You're very confident that... What. Right? Or at least what you define as right would win. Also that the millions* of deaths in a civil war would be worth it. That's a somewhat scary amount of confidence. What makes you think that you're side would win anyway?

If the electoral college didn't vote as their states voted on (regardless of the fact that the electoral college accomplishes the exact opposite of what it was meant to do), it would only assert that the people's vote isn't just diminished, but entirely meaningless.

Well, to be fair, if they voted along with the popular vote it would diminish some votes in exchange for... Enlarging? The opposite of diminishing a slightly larger amount of other votes.

*There's an interesting armchair general question, in the event of a relatively equal civil war in the USA, how many would die?

[Wolfhunter107]

Trump won the electoral college, no amount of petitioning will change that fact, if they do not vote as they have been elected to, then there are going to a hell of a lot more angry people out there than there have ever been before, and they will want blood.

Let them come.

Says the Liberal, who probably isn't even the owner of a gun, much less armed to the teeth like any sensible American.    


More seriously, though, how likely does it really seem for shit to go down over this election?
And I don't mean dweebs just "protesting" (rioting) and amusing themselves by causing a ruckus for nebulous reasons, that's been going on for long enough already.

Very unlikely. We have a 43/44 record of peaceful transfers of power between presidents, and there's no reason to believe that this one will be any different. Even this set of protests is probably going to die down within a week or two. There'll almost certainly be more, once he does something worth of it, but it'll never go beyond that.

[Blaze]

The majority of the protesters will go back to their regular lives once reality kicks in and they have to get back to their day jobs.

Can we get back to the mildly amusing Republic of California thought experiment now?

How about throwing Texas in there? Texas, being a strong supporter of state rights, would probably be more than willing to establish mutual trade with California; so long as each of their state policies ended at their own borders.

Provided that the US doesn't roflstomp them both of course.

[Zanzetkuken The Great]

TBF, if the electoral college does not vote in good faith, the nation will burn.

And it wouldn't be doing so?

Because it would mean an estimated thirty-seven electors voted faithlessly.  Sure there are occasional faithless, but that large of a number would set a precedent the electors are not beholden to their state.  That is not a world we want.

[Sirus]

Can we get back to the mildly amusing Republic of California thought experiment now?

How about throwing Texas in there? Texas, being a strong supporter of state rights, would probably be more than willing to establish mutual trade with California; so long as each of their state policies ended at their own borders.

Provided that the US doesn't roflstomp them both of course.

Maybe, but the two states are pretty much entirely unconnected. No water routes except by going all the way down to the Panama Canal, overland routes controlled by the USA. Flight would be the only way to get any real trade going between the two nation-states and planes just can't handle the volume needed.

[TheBiggerFish]

TBF, if the electoral college does not vote in good faith, the nation will burn.

And it wouldn't be doing so?

Because it would mean an estimated thirty-seven electors voted faithlessly.  Sure there are occasional faithless, but that large of a number would set a precedent the electors are not beholden to their state.  That is not a world we want.

They never were beholden to their state unless the state said so.

[NullForceOmega]

They are beholden to the votes, and making them wildcards is long-term breaking the system that has run this nation for over two hundred years to avoid eight years of a bad president.

[Blaze]

It'd still be possible to establish trade overland by making the US and Mexico compete over tariffs. Mexico - provided don't want to regain the land they lost via the Mexican-American War and the Texas Revolution through military conquest - would be more than happy to charge less rather than see that money go to the 46 states.

[Wolfhunter107]

TBF, if the electoral college does not vote in good faith, the nation will burn.

And it wouldn't be doing so?

Because it would mean an estimated thirty-seven electors voted faithlessly.  Sure there are occasional faithless, but that large of a number would set a precedent the electors are not beholden to their state.  That is not a world we want.

They never were beholden to their state unless the state said so.

You're missing the point. For the last 240-something years, people have voted under the assumption that their states electors will vote for whoever won the state. This would basically be setting the precedent that people's votes don't matter at all.

[TheBiggerFish]

They are beholden to the votes, and making them wildcards is long-term breaking the system that has run this nation for over two hundred years to avoid eight years of a bad president.

Then maybe if the system breaks down over 30 people it should be changed.

@Wolfhunter:The President is not supposed to be a state-level position.  Hillary is winning the national vote.