A Republic, as promised?

Lmao! Yeah that's it..political forum? Weak! But wasn't holding all that much hope given the posts. Y'all play tit for tat like a bunch of kids being played by a couple bullies. Buying whatever narrative suits factious allegiances currently held.
But yeah...im the troll!
Define or offer an opinion on, Republican form? In an open public forum where I have no obligation to engage..or?

"nah easier to call someone names, and run away"
Buh bye ;)~
Thanks for all the fish!

You are just another troll...

I'm out...

I certainly didn't claim or profess, what the most important thing to be learned in college, was. I posed a query, hopeful that someone might offer their opinion on what Article IV Sec.4 promises...

So far? Personal critiques/attacks for style, condescension, and closed mindedness reigning supreme, typical for the majority of college graduates I've engaged with. So, not unexpected.
Surprise me, i dare ya!?

Lmao i know you are, but what am i! Hahaha!
You can do better, I'm sure..c'mon!
I haven't even been trying..
I'm sure you've been holding back, and when compared to ea, you've been pretty civil.

Present the evidence, and i would be likely to own..Rarely is it my intention to condescend, but i am fallible.

It's fun to see which nuggets y'all choose to righteously condemn, and how determined individuals are to avoid any effort to elevate a discourse.
What else ya got?

"You sure would be graduates don't get a final course, before graduation, in condescension?"

I am sure that if they gave degrees in condescension you would have a doctorate...

Hmmm...well..seems i missed that one, by...this much...'But I've NOT been concerned with "knowing"...'

@tbr
Lol. And it shows!
You sure would be graduates don't get a final course, before graduation, in condescension?

I went, and most important thing i learned in college, was the fundamental laws of thermodynamics, and the pervasive impact of ethnocentrism. But I've been concerned with "knowing" anything, given that there's less than a couple hundred actual "laws" of science, and most of those are subject to specific conditions, I've remained thirsty for the learning.
Would love to gather some here, but y'all seem to be more focused on shooting down a messenger, but should you offer anything of substance, I'll be on the lookout!

Just the courts fool, here.. Not my place to decide, requires a will of the people to rectify, and don't sell yourself short! You already have participated, and i thank you for doing so!

I am quite confident that it will be addressed, mostly because it was done, already. Just a matter of time before the forest is reclaimed. Presently the fixation on the orange shiny object, has the zealous a bit fixated. Given four more yrs., and it'll be another brilliant tree..my $0.47 is on a transgender Asian.

@FLIP

As I mentioned in the post, "Highway of Death." It is easily looked up so that you can find out about it and determine your own thoughts on it.

@Uncommon

Good luck on your crusade. As you have already decided the outcome, there is no need for me to participate.

"Harder to edify those that have graduated college."

LOL...

Do you know what the most important thing one learns in college?

How much one does not know...

Your bush references are wasted on me, as i care little for modern politics, but the input sheds a little light on why this has been such a strain for you. Thanks for that insight, as well.

And the bonus, predictions of my "crash and burning"...nice touch, and Just the motivation i needed!..lol!

Harder to edify those that have graduated college. So, i completely understand your difficulties now, thanks for the clarity on that.

The parties have been named, several times, and resources provided. Founders archives .gov.

Given the short history here, on this thread..i don't hold much hope for your visiting it, but if you try a little more condecension, I'm sure things will improve.

i never heard that highway story before but i love it if its true.

Again,

Difficult to follow and please heed the advice. I am bringing the other comments on this topic back into this thread. Why I am even bothering . . . well . . . that's an issue I need to figure out.

Again, assume people are 10 years old. I am not going to play 20 questions with you. You are doing the same shit over and over. "Reading the advice from the first secretary of state, to the first president, is somewhat critical to the discussion" Really? And where should I read that from? Is it too difficult to state names? Why are you afraid of naming people when you write? What are you trying to prove?

Then it gets better . . . "As is the approval letter of John Tyler, on 06/25/1842" Uhh. Ok. And how am I supposed to find this approval letter that you vaguely describe? Am I supposed to go to UCSB and hang out in their library and research the paper? Sorry, I graduated from college a while ago, I am not doing a research paper anymore.

But wait . . . you should respond . . . "You have a search engine you can use." Ok, try typing in John Tyler and that date and see what shitshow you get.

If you want to engage people, engage them. If you want to discuss, discuss. If you want to be a professor, go get hired to teach. But if you want to discuss, don't be vague.

Here, let's try this as an example:

Bush, Jr. is a war criminal. (There, see, that is an opinion. Now watch.)

Bush, Jr. through his agencies fabricated lies to convince congress to vote to retaliate against Iraq. (Supporting the premise)

Bush, Sr. continued what his father dead on the highway of death. The highway of death was a road that the Iraq army used to retreat from Kuwait after the war was over. The USAF decided to blow up the road behind them and then in front of them. The USAF then murdered them like shooting fish in a barrel. (More supporting facts that can be easily retrieved.)

Now you can have a discussion.

If you want to try it this way with YOUR topic, fine, I'll play along. If you want to keep playing 20 questions, I will say good luck.

You will wind up crashing and burning just like the previous person who tried to 'educate' the masses on the creation of money.

"difficult to follow" now that's a considerable improvement! And i couldn't be more encouraged, by your pivot to civility, well done!

I'm fine with that, and have read my posts..all good for me, personal writing style, "attacks" or critiques? aside. I've offered direct evidence supporting my assertions, and if anyone were to check or read them, I'd credit their replies accordingly. When others resort to personal criticism before addressing evidence, it speaks volumes to how informed a position they're determined to hold. This isn't rocket science, and i can only point out where the trough is. If individuals aren't thirsty, i don't take offense. Typically those that dismiss this without reading the history, are too factious, apathetic, or zealous to be reached. I've engaged with enough personally to satisfy my confidence in the issue, and it's relevance. I do appreciate the advice on interpersonal communication though and will certainly reflect upon, that which is applicable.

"Was there anything besides my inclination to abbreviate TJ, GW, and founders names? That you took offense with?"

Offense? Wrong word. I was not offended by your writing style. I found your writing style to be difficult to follow. It comes across as borderline cryptic and disjointed is all. Again, that is not a personal attack, that is comment on your writing style.

And to answer your question regarding the form, of course, no one is compelled to reply, read or participate in any manner. But just like in real life, if you put yourself out there, you will be judged. Running into that theater and screaming fire and expecting everyone to sit down and still watch the movie is not a reality that will occur.

May I make a simple suggestion . . . again, this is worth what you are paying for it. Before you hit the submit button, read your post aloud and slowly. That may help you see the disjointed parts.

My daughter started talking to me about marketing. I said she was not good at copy but OK on the fly with things. She looked at me strange. I stated that marketing lingo and english structure are not the same! They share common things, but to think that marketing verbiage is the same as a novel or same as a business proposal or the same as a legal document is incorrect. I told her that most people in the US read and write at the 8th grade level. And for marketing, you need to write at a 10 year old level. When you write at a 10 year old level, you tend to not leave out steps. You assume the person on the other end will not take that jump from one of your thoughts, through a massive chasm, and land where you took them with the next thought. Because of this, you will stop those leaps of thoughts and then string together the steps that you went from point A to point F. Suddenly the reader will know what point B, C, D and E are. That clarity will help a lot.

"As promised" is a reference to Article IV sec 4, and the Republican form promised, and while I'm happy to address the supreme court cases regarding that, the query was seriously intended to see if anyone had an interest in offering their opinion on what Republican form is, or would look like?Obviously having my own idea of when n where it got lost, no gotcha motives, why would i care to? This is an open forum, right? Were not obligated to read or reply, are we?

@ea
Oh, i went to college...was just a little too busy having fun to finish.
And much appreciate the considerate reply. The Wyoming rule would be the easiest move, and more specifically the least populace. I'd prefer something closer to the global average, or at least lower than Mexico. Taking into consideration the length of terms and Great Compromise, 1/3rd the least populated state would be quite reasonable. This doesn't require much education to wrap ones head around, thankfully! I'm not that smart. But i can read, and was willing to use the dictionary, and resources mentioned previously, and have been challenged by many well educated to laymen. The more confirmed knowledge the harder it is to get..its too simple, and sadly those same typically refuse to read for themselves.

Don't take my word for it:
"The application of one ratio is intelligible to them, and will therefore be approved.." Thomas Jefferson..lol

Was there anything besides my inclination to abbreviate TJ, GW, and founders names? That you took offense with?

So here is your answer.

As promised is a false premise. The premise that you are making is that what we were promised during the forming of the constitution is (a) what we should have gotten then and (b) what we should have now. At best, the constitution is a guide. It is not the literal, absolute truth. It is a guide in principals. When you guide in principals, it makes a lot of things really simple to understand. As an example, a principle could be, do not take what is not yours. Now, laws can be written through time that adheres to that principle. Why did I mention time? Because I do not think that in the 1200s they ever thought of digital assets or intellectual property. So the laws evolve and morph over time to fit the timeframe in which we live. The constitution is this type of document.

We have modified the constitution through the history of our country. Sometimes to clean things up, sometimes to clean things up that we fucked up in the first round of cleaning things up, and sometimes for clarity.

So while article 1, section 2, paragraph 3 mentions 'not to exceed one for ever thirty thousand' that would not work in a country that is roughly 100 times the size of when the document was drafted. There has to be a change. Now, do you want to argue that it is not an absolute? Yup. You would be correct. It is not an absolute. Math can have fractions. We can not have fractions of humans.

Now back to the principal concept. If you notice the constitution states that it is 'not to exceed.' That means if a state had 10 people, there would be one rep. If a state had 20,000 people, they would have one rep. If a state had 36,000 people chances are they would have one rep. Of course, this is with the 3/5ths of a person as well.

So how do you want to do the math? Do you want to set wyoming as the base with their roughly 600k people? Do you want to take the roughly 350mm people in the US and divide it by 50 and use that as the baseline? Does that mean that it's one rep up to 7mm people? Something tells me that my fellow citizens in California would be a little pissed that we now have 5 reps. So if we use the 600k people as the baseline, aka, the new 35k, California would have roughly 66 reps. Well, we have 51 now. So I think the other states, would get pissed. Hell, Texas would love it as well, they would pick up 11 reps.

But we are heading into 2020. It's time for another census. Then the balance will be adjusted. It will never meet the 35k citizens per rep. Having 10,000 representatives does not work logistically.

In one of your previous posts, you claimed that you are self taught. I am all for that. I will also state that the problem with being self taught is there is no competing thoughts in your head to question if what you think is right is right. While college may give you an answer to a problem, it also gives you an opportunity to defend your position and possibly change it based upon a perspective your self learning didn't take into consideration.

You are being childish.

I am not personally attacking you.

I am stating that deciphering your writing style is difficult as fuck. That is not attacking your person. That is commenting on your writing style.

I stated that your premise was that of a 10 year old who has an answer and wants to play a game of gotcha. So again, if you have something that you want say, just say it. Then debate. The pounce method is very immature.

Of course ya did a little better in the "unhinged" thread! Well done, ea!

Coherence aside, nice that you at least managed to get a slight if not a little off, clue. Your #s and stayed are a bit off, and while i could correct, pretty sure it wouldn't matter to someone so dedicated to personal attacks.

I do appreciate the effort tho, thx for playing along. If you actually have an opinion on what a Republic is or the principles proscribed, feel free to add! Or just continue with personal attacks as ya see fit, cause I'm sure its rewarding you somehow.

Cheers!

Lmao @ ea
That was fun! But would read better as "unhinged"..

Simple query, you take it as you wish. No one asked you to personally respond, and i would gain little from any attack, which is why I've thanked everyone including you. Not sure where the difficulties lie, re: My writing? Have no clue what your issue is there, or what kinda text you referenced, nor was i too concerned with any award for engaging in lame discourse over the yrs with those unwilling to reciprocate in efforts, it's easily explained.

I could go on but clearly your more concerned with shooting a msgr. Fire away. Don't strain yourself by looking into any of the resources quoted..i wouldn't want to stress your capacities further..lol

Fun stuff! And thx again for playing..

No.

You don't get it.

You are writing in something akin to l33t, text and morse code. You are NOT charged by the character here. Do not be afraid to use a complete word and/or a complete sentence. Reading what you write is liking having to pull out a decoder to translate it.

I really don't give a fuck if you have been debating for 20 years. Would you like a medal or some award for that? That doesn't give your arguments any credence. It only means you have been debating for 20 years.

Now if you want to have a debate, have a debate. Don't come in like a fucking pansy ass 12 year old, asking a question, that you think you know the answer to, to just then pounce and attack the respondents. That shows that you have no confidence in your position. You are afraid to state it. Just state it. I am not a 12 year old and going to play the game where I have to chase you to get your opinion.

@ea, for the last of em..re: "we have the electoral college why?"

The EC is another magnificent compromise, sadly maligned for the neglect of a Basic Divisor..
EC is combination of house and Senate, intended to balance the power between small vs. large states, but when the apportionment of Our house is lost, the functionality of EC was corrupted, and exponentially so..over time, betrayed for Our neglect.

Note, re: did founders anticipate; we have Art. The First, which was he first Art, for amendment. It's intended purpose was to provide a "ceiling" to Our Representative ratio, with the floor established in Art I, sec 3, @ no more than one for every 30k. The ceiling was to be no greater than one for every 50k, obviously a HUGE difference from where We sit today. How does it get reconciled? We the People, and the States are where power is vested according to COTUS..
So, if a will of the people, and unity of purpose are EVER mustered, than We employ a basic Divisor and restore the form!

@ea
In response to the direct query..did the founders anticipate the expansion?

Yes, they did..see: Louisiana purchase
They provided a process by which the document could be adapted to suit, but structurally the principles for, representative Republican form were specifically established, and reinforced by the first veto, and subsequent precedent. This was betrayed in 1842, and we have suffered an exponential loss of representation since..no basic divisor = no Republican form, and loss of the thing! See: art IV, sec.4