Law School Discussion

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Alecto

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 19
Should a candidate be allowed to ignore Wyomings needs and desires merely because fewer people live there? Without the electoral college, this is exactly the problem.
More aptly put, California, Texas, and New York would have the power to swing elections against the will of the rest of the country, making this less of a democracy than we have as is.  What we don't need, as a nation, is to put the power of the more populace states above the responsibility that the President has to the entire nation.

I think you're underestimating the similarities of people across the nation.  We all need basically the same things: financial security, physical security, opportunities for a good education, affordable access to healthcare, an environment that won't be detrimental to our health . . . .  Whether a person lives in rural Wyoming or NYC, he's still going to need a job to support himself, government services for things like roads and police, schools for his kids, etc.  Now, I know the nature of a person's needs might differ based on whether that person lives in a rural environment or a city, however, I think there are enough rural people throughout the nation that (if they vote) the voice of Wyoming won't be drowned out.  There are enough city-dwellers and suburbanites that if they hall vote, their various blocs will be heard.  My point is that I think the farmer in Wyoming has more in common with the farmer in Indiana than with the whole state of Wyoming.  The city-dweller in NYC probably has more in common with the city-dweller in Chicago than he does with the dairy-farmer in up-state New York.  The federal government (and president) need to look out for the nation as a whole.  I personally don't feel that the electoral college system achieves that purpose. 

The whole process is very confusing (pre-engagement -> engagement -> marriage) from a symbolic standpoint. I don't mean, 'what does this symbolize?', but when do the symbols get normally discussed (if at all), etc. I need a damn FAQ!

I will marry the girl I am with now and I do not know when I am going to propose. Neither of us are ready to tie the knot, though we do easily talk about marriage and both see it as where we are headed relatively soon. I don't know if it's faux-pas to discuss a ring before, or shop for it before, or what. To me it makes sense to surprise her at some point with a cracker jack ring and then, once she says yes, to go and shop for a ring. The hell if I know if this makes any sense. Hell, why does it even have to make sense?

Ok, I'll take pity on you.  First of all, from my experience, promise ring = kiss of death.  Just don't go there.  As far as actually popping the question goes, if you know you're headed towards marriage in the relatively near future, you might as well just go for it.  Honestly, do you know how long it takes to plan a wedding these days?  Most brides book everything up a year in advance!  With regard to the actual logistics, it entirely depends on her personality.  Is she a very traditional, surprise-proposal-at-a-fancy-restaurant kind of girl?  Would she want something more private?  And then, there are ring issues.  If a ring is really important to her, her friends and female family members will know.  They'll also know how big it should be, what cut it should be, whether she wants yellow gold, white gold, or platinum, and the general style.  If a ring is not really important to her (and a lot of women would rather you saved the money for a downpayment on a house) her friends will probably know that as well.  If she wants a little ring or a less traditional ring, I would say you're better off proposing either empty-handed or with a goofy stand-in (onion ring anyone?) and then picking one out together.  Good luck!


As far as I can tell, the electoral college still works as designed.  Why should states with higher populations have a vastly larger share of voting power?

Wait, maybe it's because I haven't had my coffee yet, but doesn't the electoral vote actually encourage weighting by state?  If you go with the popular vote, then each person's vote carries the same weight, right?  Like, being from Indiana I would always get discouraged during elections b/c our state is usually one of the first to declare (republican).  If we went with the popular vote, then my ballot would actually matter.

General Off-Topic Board / Re: K-12: Public or Private School?
« on: May 28, 2008, 03:25:48 PM »
oh man that really blows my mind

sorry, I think my brain has decided to quit work early today. 

with the most electoral votes and the VP coming from the guy who 'lost'.

what about deciding via the popular vote?

Popular vote is only good when deciding issues like Gay Marriage.  It should never be used to pick a president.

what are your reasons for that opinion?

with the most electoral votes and the VP coming from the guy who 'lost'.

what about deciding via the popular vote?

wait, a correction to wrhssaxensemble's post: it's in case anyone else is interested
and it is an interesting site


The fact of the matter is both sides are at each others throats and while I wish they weren't, I dont see this going away anytime soon, especially with the current candidates.

Obama is pretty far to the left and while Mccain is not so far to the right, he will have to move out there to garner much support from the GOP and will probably have to pick someone far to the right for VP.

Unfortunately, the nation is too divided and I don't know how to fix it

Unfortunately, I think this is far too misleading.  I'm really looking forward to having time this summer to really look at the political issues and the candidates' stances.  Democrats can be just as stubborn about their ideology in some ways as Republicans, and that doesn't help anyone.

Denying it is a problem is sure to fix it though, right?

and I didn't deny that it's a problem when it occurs, but I don't think it's as wide-spread as you seem to believe.  if you had read my post, you would have seen that I think people like the one mentioned in your anecdote should be dealt with very harshly by the school (whether they have tenure or not).

Actually, it is pretty widespread... you just don't feel it since you are not a conservative student in an overwhelmingly liberal atmosphere

and schools seldom, if ever help to alleviate the problem

check out sometime--- not even a conservative group but usually ends up helping conservative groups and conservative students more than others because of this problem

I'm not black, but I am pretty sure that if there were such public instances of racism as you claim there are of political persecution, then I would notice (and try to do something about it).  Just because a person isn't the target of some sort of discrimination doesn't mean that person will never see it or hear about it.   Again, I say that if people are upset with liberal bent in academia, more conservatives need to join the ranks and even the balance.  I would not have a problem with this.  And if you're not off protesting somewhere or wearing party-affiliated paraphenelia, I don't see how anyone is going to know.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 19