The Basics of Government

Originally Posted by Lord Styphon

Electoral votes are assigned by state, based on a state's congressional delegation, not by congressional district (strictly speaking, there is no provision for congressional districts, but that's a different issue). Each state has an electoral vote for everyone it sends to Congress, with a minimum of three, as every state has at least one representative in the House of Representatives and two Senators.

Maine and Nebraska do their electing in more or less the same fashion I am referring to. It's a fairer (read: more representative) method than just throwing everyone's vote the way the majority of the state did. Why this country still clings to that method is beyond me and frustratingly so.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Lord Styphon

You and Sass both need to actually read the Constitution before you try to tell anyone what it says or how it works.

Whoa whoa whoa why are you dragging me into this.

I was under the impression that historical texts (which the Constitution happens to be) is constantly being interpreted. Which means that there's not always one concrete answer.

I was actually ripping off text from a school book I have here in the other thread. I didn't make that up. There's a reason we have the judicial branch, you know. ;_;

Seriously. Please stop being so goddamned critical. It's no way to carry on a conversation, Styphon. SADFACE.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

When sections of the Constitution are vague on points, the judicial branch can be asked to determine what they're saying. Just what they say can be interpreted different ways as society changes, as when the Court that handed down Brown v. Board of Education read the Constitution differently than the Court that handed down Plessy v. Ferguson.

However, when the Constitution is crystal clear on a point, there isn't (or rather, shouldn't be) any need for interpretation. The Constitutional requirements for overturning a presidential veto are there, and are clear enough, as are the Constitution's rules for assigning electoral votes.

Someone who'd read the Constitution would know that, and if not, finding it would be a simple enough exercise of Just Fucking Googling It.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Lord Styphon

When sections of the Constitution are vague on points, the judicial branch can be asked to determine what they're saying. Just what they say can be interpreted different ways as society changes, as when the Court that handed down Brown v. Board of Education read the Constitution differently than the Court that handed down Plessy v. Ferguson.

However, when the Constitution is crystal clear on a point, there isn't (or rather, shouldn't be) any need for interpretation. The Constitutional requirements for overturning a presidential veto are there, and are clear enough, as are the Constitution's rules for assigning electoral votes.

Someone who'd read the Constitution would know that, and if not, finding it would be a simple enough exercise of Just Fucking Googling It.

Look, man. I figured a text book would be a reliable source, since, you know, they teach students that shit. But they also teach students a lot of other bullshit, so.

I apologized for the inaccuracy and I only express that I wish you were a little more hospitable regarding conversations of controversial nature. =/

How ya doing, buddy?

So... Anyone want to try to explain to me in VERY SIMPLE TERMS what's going on with Israel? I hear about the Middle East so much, but whenever I ask someone, all I get is a, "Well, it's hard to explain..."

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by pb & spanglish

So... Anyone want to try to explain to me in VERY SIMPLE TERMS what's going on with Israel? I hear about the Middle East so much, but whenever I ask someone, all I get is a, "Well, it's hard to explain..."

Jews and Arabs like to kill each other. For the last 60 years or so, Jews have been better at killing Arabs than Arabs have been at killing Jews. Arabs are not happy about this, so they use suicide bombers to kill more Jews. This only serves to give Jews an excuse to use tanks and F-16s to kill more Arabs.

FELIPE NO

Arabs from...?

And what's that whole thing about Lebanon wanting to be recognized or something?

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

It doesn't matter where the Arabs are from. Arabs are Arabs.

Lebanon is already recognized. What Lebanon would really like is for Israel to stop destroying their country when they feel like it. It's bad for tourism.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by pb & spanglish

Arabs from...?

Pretty much anywhere you find 'em, Israel would like to kill 'em and vice-versa. I'd say the 'destroy Israel' sentiment is rather less prevalent in people of Arab descent who live in Western countries, but it's not entirely absent in those people either.

The short answer is "Arabs from..." mainly the places near to Israel. They don't get on with their neighbors, for the reasons described below. To an extent, this has the effect of uniting the otherwise divided Arab world. Not entirely, but enough to make it a pretty big problem.

Quote:

And what's that whole thing about Lebanon wanting to be recognized or something?

Perhaps you mean Palestine? There's a whole big dispute over which land belongs to which people, and basically... it has been going on forever. The modern version can be traced back to 1948 when the State of Israel was first established.

It was still going on prior to that, of course. Just in a different form, since there was no official State of Israel. After the fall of the Ottoman Empire, Jews began to migrate to what they believed was their 'promised land, which set the stage for the current conflict.

It would be wrong to think that even that migration was the root of the conflict though. I think it could be stated with some justification that the dispute over territory goes all the way back to Biblical times.

I apologise that my understanding is not sufficient to give any more detailed of an answer.

Most amazing jew boots

Yeah, I totally meant Palestine (whoops). So are Israel and Palestine fighting like whoa?

Basically my friends tell me just to assume that everyone in the middle east is fighting with everyone...

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by pb & spanglish

Yeah, I totally meant Palestine (whoops). So are Israel and Palestine fighting like whoa?

Well, it's not like you would normally imagine a war. It's more like constant conflict of a more low-key nature, with innocent people getting cought in the middle most of the time. They both claim the right to the same land, so you have people from both sides trying to occupy that same territory a lot of the time.

You shouldn't think of it as two armies marching to war. It's not that simple at all. It's something that I think I'm not qualified to really discuss. I can't really claim to understand it entirely myself, so I won't presume to try and explain it any further.

Quote:

Basically my friends tell me just to assume that everyone in the middle east is fighting with everyone...

It's not exactly quite that bad, but the thing about these conflicts is that they never really stop. They just form part of everyday life in some of the worst areas. In some cases, the roots of the conflict go back for hundreds of years, so it's hard to imagine the problem will ever go away.

I'm sure there are relatively peaceful areas in the more prosperous countries. It's not constant warfare all through the region. It just happens to be the case that there are several trouble-spots which have very prominent, well-known problems. I've never been there myself, but I imagine there are places where you'd never know anything about any conflicts.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Soluzar

You shouldn't think of it as two armies marching to war. It's not that simple at all. It's something that I think I'm not qualified to really discuss. I can't really claim to understand it entirely myself, so I won't presume to try and explain it any further.

That is totally what everyone tells me. NO ONE REALLY KNOWS! Sounds like a giant conspiracy to me. A giant, Middle Eastern conspiracy.

Thanks for your thoughts, though. I can totally follow what you're saying. I'm just one of those annoying people who has to understand all the little details before being able to grasp the big picture, and that doesn't tend to work very well with politics...

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by pb & spanglish

Thanks for your thoughts, though. I can totally follow what you're saying. I'm just one of those annoying people who has to understand all the little details before being able to grasp the big picture, and that doesn't tend to work very well with politics...

I guess that a moderately decent starting point would be Wikipedia's Israeli-Palestine conflict page, but remember that it is Wikipedia. Consider it a basis for further study, rather than a source of facts. You'll learn the names of some of the major players from reading that page.

You'll drive yourself insane before you learn all about this conflict though. There are just so many small, but important details. So many groups, so many agendas and so many things happening. It's fascinating, but I don't think I'd ever understand it well enough to try explaining it to others.

I'm just hoping I didn't make any glaringly obvious mistakes in what I did tell you, as basic as it is.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by pb & spanglish

Yeah, I totally meant Palestine (whoops). So are Israel and Palestine fighting like whoa?

Basically my friends tell me just to assume that everyone in the middle east is fighting with everyone...

Almost. The Muslims (most Arabs are Muslim, but not all) have two main factions: Sunnis and Shiites. The difference there is basically that one group didn't like the way the first few heads of Islam operated, and one group did. They're at odds with each other, 'cause well, religion does that to people. Kill everyone who isn't part of your religion, or convert them.

The Arab/Jewish conflict has already been covered.

There's one more group of people, the Kurds, who occupy Northern Iraq, but they're at war with the Arabs 'cause they're a different ethnicity (i.e. they look different).

It's the same sort of problems you see everywhere. You don't believe in my. God the same way I do, so I'm going to kill you, and You don't look like me, so I'm going to kill you.

Humans. *sigh*.

FELIPE NO

Ooh, that helped ramoth.

So 3 basic areas of conflict:
Arab/Jewish (is that more religion-based, territory-based, or race-based?)
Muslim Arabs: Sunnis vs. Shiites (I've heard a little bit about this... Isn't one of those factions particularly radical?)
Kurds vs. Arabs (race conflict)

So "Arabs." At the risk of sounding very ignorant... Is this a really broad term of what? To whom does it refer, exactly?

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by pb & spanglish

Arab/Jewish (is that more religion-based, territory-based, or race-based?)

The territory that is in dispute happens to be sacred to both religions involved, as far as I know. That makes it at least both of the first two, and I think you could say it has evolved to become both.

Quote:

So "Arabs." At the risk of sounding very ignorant... Is this a really broad term of what? To whom does it refer, exactly?

It identifies an ethnic group that you will find spread out across the whole of the Middle East. They share the common language of Arabic, and the predominant religion is Islam, of one type or another.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_world

The most functional definition would be to describe it as an ethnicity, equivalent in that regard to Caucasian, or Afro-Carribean.

How ya doing, buddy?

Thank you so much! That helps a lot.

Though of course, I always struggle with the difference between race and ethnicity and all that.

And I get confused about such things as, are white and Caucasian the same? Are Asians white? But they aren't Caucasian, clearly. So there must be a distinction... Etc.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by pb & spanglish

Though of course, I always struggle with the difference between race and ethnicity and all that.

As far as I know, the term "race" refers to things which are identifiably different between groups of people originating from different parts of the world, such as dark skin in Africans, while "ethnicity" refers to a more specific subset, which incorporates aspects of both race and culture. As such, I believe that the term Arab is an Ethnicity, since it is strongly tied to a culture, rather than just a genetic heritage.

Quote:

And I get confused about such things as, are white and Caucasian the same? Are Asians white? But they aren't Caucasian, clearly. So there must be a distinction... Etc.

You mean East Asians, such as Chinese? There's more than one kind of people native to East Asia, and not all of them look white. Some of them have quite dark skin. I believe they are sometimes called "Asiatic", or just "Asian", when referred to as a group.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Caucasian refers to people who originated near the geographic center of Eurasia, sometimes called Caucasia (for its proximity to the Caucasus mountains)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasu...phic_region%29

It's where most Europeans originated from, back in da day. In general, if you're unusure about a term, look for it on Wikipedia. There's a lot of knowledge to be had there. Just remember to take it with a grain of salt and look at the footnotes they provide.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?