Message to republicans

Well, maybe...maybe not. We cannot choose to need food, water, and shelter from the elements...every resource we exploit beyond that involves choice. If I buy a bottle of water, it costs me $1.50. Someone set up a company that bottles water: that means they have machines that mold plastic bottles, fill them, and print labels. It means that they have facilities that purify water, and facilities that ship the finished product. It means from collection, to marketing, to distribution...they employ people who have to be paid, provided with benefits, etc...etc. Each cent of that $1.50 goes towards paying for all of the above (including taxes, licensing, etc.), plus a margin of profit. It there were no profit, the bottle of water wouldn't exist, and all of the people involved in producing it would not get paid. No one "forces" me to buy the water... but it's very convenient, and arguably BETTER for my fellow citizens for me to do so.

Corporations logically pay money to political candidates to gain some influence over the things that either increase, or limit their profit. If it costs $.50 to produce a $1.50 bottle of water in Mexico vs. Michigan...the bottling company may donate funds to a candidate who will make it easier to do business out of the country by reducing tariffs. If a candidate backs policies that would reduce the cost of producing a bottle of water in the USA to $.40 by stripping regulations, then they back them instead. Democratic candidates "tend" to back policies that force business away from the country...while Republican candidates "tend" to back policies that make it more attractive to produce goods within the country. Which is ultimately "better" for the average American? Naturally, the people making the most profit out of either arrangement will be those at the top of the pyramid.

Socialism offers a third alternative; give everyone a bottle of water for free. Most people understand this doesn't work...so they try and re-cast Socialism as "fairness", suggesting that what people pay for the bottle of water should always fit their economic means. The problem with this suggestion is that everyone will value a bottle of water differently. Someone living in an area with access to clean well or tap water, may consider that value much lower than someone living somewhere water quality is very low. If the people who value something highest get to determine how much it should cost, then profits for producing it will always be low.

Hence, the Electoral College.

Substitute "Gun Control", "Abortion", or "Same Sex Marriage" for a bottle of water...and things like "freedom", "faith", or "franchise" for profit...and it makes sense that 500,000 people in New York should not immediately have a majority vote that determines the fates of 50,000 people in Tennessee. Regardless of the prevailing political issue(s) of the period it was established, the EC ultimately ensures a balance between the often competing interests of a very diverse population.

Trump was elected for one reason, and one reason only-Americans living in less dense population centers feared being controlled by majority opinions in more densely populated areas. As an "outsider", it was hoped he would act free of influence of the Washington "machine"...and so far, it would seem he's done exactly that. It was hoped he would bring his identity as a businessman to bear on economic policy...it seems he has. By comparison, it would seem that the leading Democratic candidates are only offering things that cater to more regulation, increased taxation, and most importantly...reject the values of an entire section of the population.

Message to dumba@@es that want to try and explain Republicanism to Republicans: STFU !

"Undemocratic electoral college that was created by slaveholders." How does that blue pill taste?