Don't blame me, I voted for the other guy. (Politics General)

ÄrkÿNóîd
Perfect Pony Plot Provider - Uploader of 10+ images with 350 upvotes or more (Questionable/Explicit)
Birthday Cake - Celebrated MLP's 7th birthday
Magical Inkwell - Wrote MLP fanfiction consisting of at least around 1.5k words, and has a verified link to the platform of their choice
Not a Llama - Happy April Fools Day!

Question stuff and enjoy
Wouldn’t some war breaking out be convenient to get people’s minds off the net neutrality quandary? Don’t blink for too long lol.
AaronMk
Tree of Harmony - Drew someone's OC for the 2022 Community Collab
Elements of Harmony - Had an OC in the 2022 Community Collab
Non-Fungible Trixie -
Verified Pegasus - Show us your gorgeous wings!
Preenhub - We all know what you were up to this evening~
Philomena - For helping others attend the 2021 community collab
Twinkling Balloon - Took part in the 2021 community collab.
My Little Pony - 1992 Edition
The Magic of Friendship Grows - For helping others attend the 2020 Community Collab
Friendship, Art, and Magic (2020) - Took part in the 2020 Community Collab

Don'think ighly o'Sicily
@Commune
What are you complaining about? You actually have net neutrality.
 
He may have it but it doesn’t make the situation in America totally irrelevant to him. On a purely numbers side the vast majority of internet traffic passes through American servers. Not knowing the current rules there’s a possible implication that foreign traffic could be inadvertently affected. Or at the least the re-prioritizing of traffic away from sites such as Netflix, Steam, or what have you would have consequences in other parts of the globe by damaging their bottom lines and thus the quality of their service elsewhere; Netflix may begin charging more over all, and people from his area more for what is an American problem because slower traffic and an ISP-enforced paywall to have full speed for services like Netflix would cut the potential number of consumers for Netflix, and affect their bottom line. They will likely see the need to make up for that.
 
Aside from China, which is a pretty insulated internet as it has an economy, the United States is perhaps one of the largest base of internet users and limiting them would send out ripples.
 
On an almost philosophical bases is it not bad to worry about other people elsewhere?
Scrabbleman
Duck - He literally asked for this
Wallet After Summer Sale -
Friendship, Art, and Magic (2018) - Celebrated Derpibooru's six year anniversary with friends.
Artist -
Birthday Cake - Celebrated MLP's 7th birthday
Friendship, Art, and Magic (2017) - Celebrated Derpibooru's five year anniversary with friends.
The End wasn't The End - Found a new home after the great exodus of 2012

[screams in German]
@AaronMk  
Nah, it’s a good quality to worry about people elsewhere. It’s just also a quality I don’t have a lot of so while I do respect people who do, I have a hard time understanding.
AaronMk
Tree of Harmony - Drew someone's OC for the 2022 Community Collab
Elements of Harmony - Had an OC in the 2022 Community Collab
Non-Fungible Trixie -
Verified Pegasus - Show us your gorgeous wings!
Preenhub - We all know what you were up to this evening~
Philomena - For helping others attend the 2021 community collab
Twinkling Balloon - Took part in the 2021 community collab.
My Little Pony - 1992 Edition
The Magic of Friendship Grows - For helping others attend the 2020 Community Collab
Friendship, Art, and Magic (2020) - Took part in the 2020 Community Collab

Don'think ighly o'Sicily
@HJSDGCE
 
We share a big blue planet together. And if globalization has done anything it’s interweave economies and networks together so thoroughly a crime spree in Mexico that closes down a factory for a week out of fear for the employees safety can affect the regions where that product is sold. I had on hand experience with this when working my dad’s store and had to explain to a few customers looking for push brooms that we couldn’t get any for a while because the factory was shut down for a while because of local gang violence and to check in after a couple months.
 
It could be said policy makers don’t exactly understand the full impact of something like repealing Net Neutrality, which has the potential of affecting more than just the national user base. Whether it be for money or for the lulz of BTFO’ing “da liberuls” there’s the potentiality of high collateral in anything the US does.
AaronMk
Tree of Harmony - Drew someone's OC for the 2022 Community Collab
Elements of Harmony - Had an OC in the 2022 Community Collab
Non-Fungible Trixie -
Verified Pegasus - Show us your gorgeous wings!
Preenhub - We all know what you were up to this evening~
Philomena - For helping others attend the 2021 community collab
Twinkling Balloon - Took part in the 2021 community collab.
My Little Pony - 1992 Edition
The Magic of Friendship Grows - For helping others attend the 2020 Community Collab
Friendship, Art, and Magic (2020) - Took part in the 2020 Community Collab

Don'think ighly o'Sicily
@AaronMk
Makes sense. Also, man, you just made globalization sound like a bad thing.
 
I’m going to throw a phrase out HabitantUnholyCity used once with me to describe it: Capitalist deterritorialization (SP? Maybe he’ll come back to correct it).
 
While I won’t deny globalization has done some cool shit. Like bringing Sushi to the American market or giving me the ability to communicate with folk in Russia, Europe, or Oceania with ease, and making us more dependent on one another as a broader community it does mean that from a conservative nationalist standpoint it blurs borders as economic and social activity can be carried out indifferent of them, if you penalize something enough somewhere it moves to where its less penalized. It means someone from outside can move in and take advantage of a crappy situation to make cheap money, so individuals who would have otherwise had healthy control of their own economy leave to somewhere more rewarding because they’re not receiving the full due for their work back home; we get economic migration. The demand for cheap commodities back home inspires conflict for resources abroad, exacerbating political strife or warfare to create conditions for a someone, or a section of the market to infiltrate and develop those resources for themselves.
 
Globalization in the sense of economic development is the same sort of notion that drove the scramble for Africa, and that is the expansion of markets across geographic space. Once you’ve filled in everything back home and become addicted to growth no matter the outcome you seek new markets. Once all new markets are seized the process must begin to enter old markets, or for old markets to slowly merge and transcend national borders, everyone else be damned. Abandoned land can be bought and owned by real-estate firms in Italy who’ll hold onto them until they can make money, the quality of life and housing the homeless be damned in Detroit.
 
It implies we lost control, as democratic citizens.
ÄrkÿNóîd
Perfect Pony Plot Provider - Uploader of 10+ images with 350 upvotes or more (Questionable/Explicit)
Birthday Cake - Celebrated MLP's 7th birthday
Magical Inkwell - Wrote MLP fanfiction consisting of at least around 1.5k words, and has a verified link to the platform of their choice
Not a Llama - Happy April Fools Day!

Question stuff and enjoy
@HJSDGCE
 
It’s both a good and bad thing. It often seems presented as only the former. Science, technology, and commodities get shared across international lines and that’s generally a positive thing. Poverty, terrorism, and diseases also are shared. These are but a few examples both ways, with no fingers pointed.
Professor Fluttershy
Wallet After Summer Sale -

The Naturalist
Sir, if the people have it in their option, to elect their most meritorious men; is this to be considered as an objection? Shall the constitution oppose their wishes, and abridge their most invaluable privilege? While property continues to be pretty equally divided, and a considerable share of information pervades the community; the tendency of the people’s suffrages, will be to elevate merit even from obscurity. As riches increase and accumulate in few hands; as luxury prevails in society; virtue will be in a greater degree considered as only a graceful appendage of wealth, and the tendency of things will be to depart from the republican standard. This is the real disposition of human nature: It is what, neither the honorable member nor myself can correct. It is a common misfortune, that awaits our state constitution, as well as all others.  
–Alexander Hamilton, New York Ratifying Convention, First Speech of June 21
Professor Fluttershy
Wallet After Summer Sale -

The Naturalist
But the safety of the people of America against dangers from FOREIGN force depends not only on their forbearing to give JUST causes of war to other nations, but also on their placing and continuing themselves in such a situation as not to INVITE hostility or insult; for it need not be observed that there are PRETENDED as well as just causes of war.
 
It is too true, however disgraceful it may be to human nature, that nations in general will make war whenever they have a prospect of getting anything by it; nay, absolute monarchs will often make war when their nations are to get nothing by it, but for the purposes and objects merely personal, such as thirst for military glory, revenge for personal affronts, ambition, or private compacts to aggrandize or support their particular families or partisans. These and a variety of other motives, which affect only the mind of the sovereign, often lead him to engage in wars not sanctified by justice or the voice and interests of his people. But, independent of these inducements to war, which are more prevalent in absolute monarchies, but which well deserve our attention, there are others which affect nations as often as kings; and some of them will on examination be found to grow out of our relative situation and circumstances.
 

 
But whatever may be our situation, whether firmly united under one national government, or split into a number of confederacies, certain it is, that foreign nations will know and view it exactly as it is; and they will act toward us accordingly. If they see that our national government is efficient and well administered, our trade prudently regulated, our militia properly organized and disciplined, our resources and finances discreetly managed, our credit re-established, our people free, contented, and united, they will be much more disposed to cultivate our friendship than provoke our resentment. If, on the other hand, they find us either destitute of an effectual government (each State doing right or wrong, as to its rulers may seem convenient), or split into three or four independent and probably discordant republics or confederacies, one inclining to Britain, another to France, and a third to Spain, and perhaps played off against each other by the three, what a poor, pitiful figure will America make in their eyes! How liable would she become not only to their contempt but to their outrage, and how soon would dear-bought experience proclaim that when a people or family so divide, it never fails to be against themselves.  
–John Jay, The Federalist Papers No. 4
Professor Fluttershy
Wallet After Summer Sale -

The Naturalist
They who well consider the history of similar divisions and confederacies will find abundant reason to apprehend that [confederacies] would in no other sense be neighbors than as they would be borderers; that they would neither love nor trust one another, but on the contrary would be a prey to discord, jealousy, and mutual injuries; in short, that they would place us exactly in the situations in which some nations doubtless wish to see us, viz., FORMIDABLE ONLY TO EACH OTHER.
 

 
When did the independent states, into which Britain and Spain were formerly divided, combine in such alliance, or unite their forces against a foreign enemy? The proposed confederacies will be DISTINCT NATIONS. Each of them would have its commerce with foreigners to regulate by distinct treaties; and as their productions and commodities are different and proper for different markets, so would those treaties be essentially different. Different commercial concerns must create different interests, and of course different degrees of political attachment to and connection with different foreign nations. Hence it might and probably would happen that the foreign nation with whom the SOUTHERN confederacy might be at war would be the one with whom the NORTHERN confederacy would be the most desirous of preserving peace and friendship. An alliance so contrary to their immediate interest would not therefore be easy to form, nor, if formed, would it be observed and fulfilled with perfect good faith.
 
Nay, it is far more probable that in America, as in Europe, neighboring nations, acting under the impulse of opposite interests and unfriendly passions, would frequently be found taking different sides. Considering our distance from Europe, it would be more natural for these confederacies to apprehend danger from one another than from distant nations, and therefore that each of them should be more desirous to guard against the others by the aid of foreign alliances, than to guard against foreign dangers by alliances between themselves. And here let us not forget how much more easy it is to receive foreign fleets into our ports, and foreign armies into our country, than it is to persuade or compel them to depart. How many conquests did the Romans and others make in the characters of allies, and what innovations did they under the same character introduce into the governments of those whom they pretended to protect.  
–John Jay, The Federalist Papers No. 5
Professor Fluttershy
Wallet After Summer Sale -

The Naturalist
The causes of hostility among nations are innumerable. There are some which have a general and almost constant operation upon the collective bodies of society. Of this description are the love of power or the desire of pre-eminence and dominion–the jealousy of power, or the desire of equality and safety. There are others which have a more circumscribed though an equally operative influence within their spheres. Such are the rivalships and competitions of commerce between commercial nations. And there are others, not less numerous than either of the former, which take their origin entirely in private passions; in the attachments, enmities, interests, hopes, and fears of leading individuals in the communities of which they are members. Men of this class, whether the favorites of a king or of a people, have in too many instances abused the confidence they possessed; and assuming the pretext of some public motive, have not scrupled to sacrifice the national tranquillity to personal advantage or personal gratification.
 

 
But notwithstanding the concurring testimony of experience, in this particular, there are still to be found visionary or designing men, who stand ready to advocate the paradox of perpetual peace between the States, though dismembered and alienated from each other. The genius of republics (say they) is pacific; the spirit of commerce has a tendency to soften the manners of men, and to extinguish those inflammable humors which have so often kindled into wars. Commercial republics, like ours, will never be disposed to waste themselves in ruinous contentions with each other. They will be governed by mutual interest, and will cultivate a spirit of mutual amity and concord.
 
Is it not (we may ask these projectors in politics) the true interest of all nations to cultivate the same benevolent and philosophic spirit? If this be their true interest, have they in fact pursued it? Has it not, on the contrary, invariably been found that momentary passions, and immediate interest, have a more active and imperious control over human conduct than general or remote considerations of policy, utility or justice? Have republics in practice been less addicted to war than monarchies? Are not the former administered by MEN as well as the latter? Are there not aversions, predilections, rivalships, and desires of unjust acquisitions, that affect nations as well as kings? Are not popular assemblies frequently subject to the impulses of rage, resentment, jealousy, avarice, and of other irregular and violent propensities? Is it not well known that their determinations are often governed by a few individuals in whom they place confidence, and are, of course, liable to be tinctured by the passions and views of those individuals? Has commerce hitherto done anything more than change the objects of war? Is not the love of wealth as domineering and enterprising a passion as that of power or glory? Have there not been as many wars founded upon commercial motives since that has become the prevailing system of nations, as were before occasioned by the cupidity of territory or dominion? Has not the spirit of commerce, in many instances, administered new incentives to the appetite, both for the one and for the other? Let experience, the least fallible guide of human opinions, be appealed to for an answer to these inquiries.
 

 
There have been, if I may so express it, almost as many popular as royal wars. The cries of the nation and the importunities of their representatives have, upon various occasions, dragged their monarchs into war, or continued them in it, contrary to their inclinations, and sometimes contrary to the real interests of the State. In that memorable struggle for superiority between the rival houses of AUSTRIA and BOURBON, which so long kept Europe in a flame, it is well known that the antipathies of the English against the French, seconding the ambition, or rather the avarice, of a favorite leader, protracted the war beyond the limits marked out by sound policy, and for a considerable time in opposition to the views of the court.
 
The wars of these two last-mentioned nations have in a great measure grown out of commercial considerations,–the desire of supplanting and the fear of being supplanted, either in particular branches of traffic or in the general advantages of trade and navigation.
 

 
So far is the general sense of mankind from corresponding with the tenets of those who endeavor to lull asleep our apprehensions of discord and hostility between the States, in the event of disunion, that it has from long observation of the progress of society become a sort of axiom in politics, that vicinity or nearness of situation, constitutes nations natural enemies. An intelligent writer expresses himself on this subject to this effect: “NEIGHBORING NATIONS (says he) are naturally enemies of each other unless their common weakness forces them to league in a CONFEDERATE REPUBLIC, and their constitution prevents the differences that neighborhood occasions, extinguishing that secret jealousy which disposes all states to aggrandize themselves at the expense of their neighbors.” This passage, at the same time, points out the EVIL and suggests the REMEDY.  
–Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers No. 6
Professor Fluttershy
Wallet After Summer Sale -

The Naturalist
Territorial disputes have at all times been found one of the most fertile sources of hostility among nations. Perhaps the greatest proportion of wars that have desolated the earth have sprung from this origin. This cause would exist among us in full force. We have a vast tract of unsettled territory within the boundaries of the United States. There still are discordant and undecided claims between several of them, and the dissolution of the Union would lay a foundation for similar claims between them all. It is well known that they have heretofore had serious and animated discussion concerning the rights to the lands which were ungranted at the time of the Revolution, and which usually went under the name of crown lands. The States within the limits of whose colonial governments they were comprised have claimed them as their property, the others have contended that the rights of the crown in this article devolved upon the Union; especially as to all that part of the Western territory which, either by actual possession, or through the submission of the Indian proprietors, was subjected to the jurisdiction of the king of Great Britain, till it was relinquished in the treaty of peace. This, it has been said, was at all events an acquisition to the Confederacy by compact with a foreign power. It has been the prudent policy of Congress to appease this controversy, by prevailing upon the States to make cessions to the United States for the benefit of the whole. This has been so far accomplished as, under a continuation of the Union, to afford a decided prospect of an amicable termination of the dispute. A dismemberment of the Confederacy, however, would revive this dispute, and would create others on the same subject. At present, a large part of the vacant Western territory is, by cession at least, if not by any anterior right, the common property of the Union. If that were at an end, the States which made the cession, on a principle of federal compromise, would be apt when the motive of the grant had ceased, to reclaim the lands as a reversion. The other States would no doubt insist on a proportion, by right of representation. Their argument would be, that a grant, once made, could not be revoked; and that the justice of participating in territory acquired or secured by the joint efforts of the Confederacy, remained undiminished. If, contrary to probability, it should be admitted by all the States, that each had a right to a share of this common stock, there would still be a difficulty to be surmounted, as to a proper rule of apportionment. Different principles would be set up by different States for this purpose; and as they would affect the opposite interests of the parties, they might not easily be susceptible of a pacific adjustment.
 

 
The competitions of commerce would be another fruitful source of contention. The States less favorably circumstanced would be desirous of escaping from the disadvantages of local situation, and of sharing in the advantages of their more fortunate neighbors. Each State, or separate confederacy, would pursue a system of commercial policy peculiar to itself. This would occasion distinctions, preferences, and exclusions, which would beget discontent. The habits of intercourse, on the basis of equal privileges, to which we have been accustomed since the earliest settlement of the country, would give a keener edge to those causes of discontent than they would naturally have independent of this circumstance. WE SHOULD BE READY TO DENOMINATE INJURIES THOSE THINGS WHICH WERE IN REALITY THE JUSTIFIABLE ACTS OF INDEPENDENT SOVEREIGNTIES CONSULTING A DISTINCT INTEREST. The spirit of enterprise, which characterizes the commercial part of America, has left no occasion of displaying itself unimproved. It is not at all probable that this unbridled spirit would pay much respect to those regulations of trade by which particular States might endeavor to secure exclusive benefits to their own citizens. The infractions of these regulations, on one side, the efforts to prevent and repel them, on the other, would naturally lead to outrages, and these to reprisals and wars.
 

 
The public debt of the Union would be a further cause of collision between the separate States or confederacies. The apportionment, in the first instance, and the progressive extinguishment afterward, would be alike productive of ill-humor and animosity. How would it be possible to agree upon a rule of apportionment satisfactory to all? There is scarcely any that can be proposed which is entirely free from real objections. These, as usual, would be exaggerated by the adverse interest of the parties. There are even dissimilar views among the States as to the general principle of discharging the public debt. Some of them, either less impressed with the importance of national credit, or because their citizens have little, if any, immediate interest in the question, feel an indifference, if not a repugnance, to the payment of the domestic debt at any rate. These would be inclined to magnify the difficulties of a distribution. Others of them, a numerous body of whose citizens are creditors to the public beyond proportion of the State in the total amount of the national debt, would be strenuous for some equitable and effective provision. The procrastinations of the former would excite the resentments of the latter. The settlement of a rule would, in the meantime, be postponed by real differences of opinion and affected delays. The citizens of the States interested would clamour; foreign powers would urge for the satisfaction of their just demands, and the peace of the States would be hazarded to the double contingency of external invasion and internal contention.
 
Suppose the difficulties of agreeing upon a rule surmounted, and the apportionment made. Still there is great room to suppose that the rule agreed upon would, upon experiment, be found to bear harder upon some States than upon others. Those which were sufferers by it would naturally seek for a mitigation of the burden. The others would as naturally be disinclined to a revision, which was likely to end in an increase of their own incumbrances. Their refusal would be too plausible a pretext to the complaining States to withhold their contributions, not to be embraced with avidity; and the non-compliance of these States with their engagements would be a ground of bitter discussion and altercation. If even the rule adopted should in practice justify the equality of its principle, still delinquencies in payments on the part of some of the States would result from a diversity of other causes–the real deficiency of resources; the mismanagement of their finances; accidental disorders in the management of the government; and, in addition to the rest, the reluctance with which men commonly part with money for purposes that have outlived the exigencies which produced them, and interfere with the supply of immediate wants. Delinquencies, from whatever causes, would be productive of complaints, recriminations, and quarrels. There is, perhaps, nothing more likely to disturb the tranquillity of nations than their being bound to mutual contributions for any common object that does not yield an equal and coincident benefit. For it is an observation, as true as it is trite, that there is nothing men differ so readily about as the payment of money.
 
Laws in violation of private contracts, as they amount to aggressions on the rights of those States whose citizens are injured by them, may be considered as another probable source of hostility. We are not authorized to expect that a more liberal or more equitable spirit would preside over the legislations of the individual States hereafter, if unrestrained by any additional checks, than we have heretofore seen in too many instances disgracing their several codes. We have observed the disposition to retaliation excited in Connecticut in consequence of the enormities perpetrated by the Legislature of Rhode Island; and we reasonably infer that, in similar cases, under other circumstances, a war, not of PARCHMENT, but of the sword, would chastise such atrocious breaches of moral obligation and social justice.
 
The probability of incompatible alliances between the different States or confederacies and different foreign nations, and the effects of this situation upon the peace of the whole, have been sufficiently unfolded in some preceding papers. From the view they have exhibited of this part of the subject, this conclusion is to be drawn, that America, if not connected at all, or only by the feeble tie of a simple league, offensive and defensive, would, by the operation of such jarring alliances, be gradually entangled in all the pernicious labyrinths of European politics and wars; and by the destructive contentions of the parts into which she was divided, would be likely to become a prey to the artifices and machinations of powers equally the enemies of them all. Divide et impera must be the motto of every nation that either hates or fears us.  
– Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers No. 7
Zincy
Non-Fungible Trixie -
Friendship, Art, and Magic (2020) - Took part in the 2020 Community Collab
Wallet After Summer Sale -
The End wasn't The End - Found a new home after the great exodus of 2012

Part-time Pizza Cat
So, 147 voters from a heavily democrat Virginia district were “misaligned” into a neighboring district, giving the Republican candidate in that district an unfair advantage. The race is still being recounted, with the rep leading the dem by 87 votes, well within the margin of the “misaligned” votes that were shunted out of the district.
 
I call hacks. You want to talk about stolen votes and election fraud, that’s election fraud right there.
Professor Fluttershy
Wallet After Summer Sale -

The Naturalist
Assuming it therefore as an established truth that the several States, in case of disunion, or such combinations of them as might happen to be formed out of the wreck of the general Confederacy, would be subject to those vicissitudes of peace and war, of friendship and enmity, with each other, which have fallen to the lot of all neighboring nations not united under one government, let us enter into a concise detail of some of the consequences that would attend such a situation.
 
In this country […, t]he jealousy of military establishments would postpone [campaigns] as long as possible. The want of fortifications, leaving the frontiers of one state open to another, would facilitate inroads. The populous States would, with little difficulty, overrun their less populous neighbors. Conquests would be as easy to be made as difficult to be retained. War, therefore, would be desultory and predatory. PLUNDER and devastation ever march in the train of irregulars. The calamities of individuals would make the principal figure in the events which would characterize our military exploits.
 
This picture is not too highly wrought; though, I confess, it would not long remain a just one. Safety from external danger is the most powerful director of national conduct. Even the ardent love of liberty will, after a time, give way to its dictates. The violent destruction of life and property incident to war, the continual effort and alarm attendant on a state of continual danger, will compel nations the most attached to liberty to resort for repose and security to institutions which have a tendency to destroy their civil and political rights. To be more safe, they at length become willing to run the risk of being less free.
 
The institutions chiefly alluded to are STANDING ARMIES and the correspondent appendages of military establishments. Standing armies, it is said, are not provided against in the new Constitution; and it is therefore inferred that they may exist under it. Their existence, however, from the very terms of the proposition, is, at most, problematical and uncertain. But standing armies, it may be replied, must inevitably result from a dissolution of the Confederacy. Frequent war and constant apprehension, which require a state of as constant preparation, will infallibly produce them. The weaker States or confederacies would first have recourse to them, to put themselves upon an equality with their more potent neighbors. They would endeavor to supply the inferiority of population and resources by a more regular and effective system of defense, by disciplined troops, and by fortifications. They would, at the same time, be necessitated to strengthen the executive arm of government, in doing which their constitutions would acquire a progressive direction toward monarchy. It is of the nature of war to increase the executive at the expense of the legislative authority.
 

 
In [this] country […, t]he perpetual menacings of danger oblige the government to be always prepared to repel it; its armies must be numerous enough for instant defense. The continual necessity for their services enhances the importance of the soldier, and proportionably degrades the condition of the citizen. The military state becomes elevated above the civil. The inhabitants of territories, often the theatre of war, are unavoidably subjected to frequent infringements on their rights, which serve to weaken their sense of those rights; and by degrees the people are brought to consider the soldiery not only as their protectors, but as their superiors. The transition from this disposition to that of considering them masters, is neither remote nor difficult; but it is very difficult to prevail upon a people under such impressions, to make a bold or effectual resistance to usurpations supported by the military power.
 

 
If we are wise enough to preserve the Union we may for ages enjoy an advantage similar to that of an insulated situation. Europe is at a great distance from us. Her colonies in our vicinity will be likely to continue too much disproportioned in strength to be able to give us any dangerous annoyance. Extensive military establishments cannot, in this position, be necessary to our security. But if we should be disunited, and the integral parts should either remain separated, or, which is most probable, should be thrown together into two or three confederacies, we should be, in a short course of time, in the predicament of the continental powers of Europe–our liberties would be a prey to the means of defending ourselves against the ambition and jealousy of each other.
 
This is an idea not superficial or futile, but solid and weighty. It deserves the most serious and mature consideration of every prudent and honest man of whatever party. If such men will make a firm and solemn pause, and meditate dispassionately on the importance of this interesting idea; if they will contemplate it in all its attitudes, and trace it to all its consequences, they will not hesitate to part with trivial objections to a Constitution, the rejection of which would in all probability put a final period to the Union. The airy phantoms that flit before the distempered imaginations of some of its adversaries would quickly give place to the more substantial forms of dangers, real, certain, and formidable.  
–Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers No. 8
Professor Fluttershy
Wallet After Summer Sale -

The Naturalist
From an article about what Zincy is referring to:
 
The Department of Elections conclusions were developed by manually checking addresses of voters, which identified at least 384 registered voters wrongly assigned to either the 28th or 88th district, then comparing those names against voter rolls from Nov. 7.
 
Of the 384 voters, 110 were wrongly assigned to the 88th District but should be in the 28th; 207 were wrongly assigned to the 28th but should be in the 88th; and 67 were wrongly assigned to the 28th but should be in a third neighboring district, the 2nd.
 
The analysis concludes 125 voters incorrectly voted in the 28th District, where the State Board of Elections is due to certify results Monday that show Republican Bob Thomas leading Democrat Joshua Cole by 82 votes.
 
It finds 22 voters wrongly cast ballots in the 88th House of Delegates District, where Republican Mark Cole won re-election by 4,104 votes. There is no way for elections officials to know which candidate any of these voters cast ballots for.
LeoNero
Elements of Harmony - Had an OC in the 2022 Community Collab
Non-Fungible Trixie -
Preenhub - We all know what you were up to this evening~
Twinkling Balloon - Took part in the 2021 community collab.
My Little Pony - 1992 Edition
Friendship, Art, and Magic (2020) - Took part in the 2020 Community Collab
Friendship, Art, and Magic (2019) - Celebrated Derpibooru's seventh year anniversary with friends
A Tale For The Ages - Celebrated MLP's 35th Anniversary and FiM's 8th Anniversary
Equality - In our state, we do not stand out.

Shine On U Crazy Diamond
@Commune  
Considering there’s another “Adpocolapse” going on on Youtube at the moment because of the rumors of some kind of pedophilia ring going on the site and more advertisers are pulling out of Youtube. I think it’s ok to say that Amos Yee is one of the reasons why this is going on.
Professor Fluttershy
Wallet After Summer Sale -

The Naturalist
Can you not spam this entire thread with giant quotes from the Federalist Papers
It’s cool and all but it’s not really doing much plus
No one is going to read all of that
 
I was bored and thought it best to remind Americans about their Founding Fathers’ philosophies. I’ll stop at this point, though I make no promises.
Cyborg_pony
My Little Pony - 1992 Edition
Thread Starter - Started a thread with over 100 pages

@LeoNero  
I think Omnipolitics started it more, Not to mention all those YT channels aimed at children to teach them about sex before they even learn basic math. But it is kind of fucked at what he’s doing.
 
Hell, there was a site that closed because it couldn’t make parody of feminism anymore. It’s gotten that bad it’s gotten.
Interested in advertising on Derpibooru? Click here for information!
Ministry of Image - Fanfiction Printing

Derpibooru costs over $25 a day to operate - help support us financially!

Syntax quick reference: **bold** *italic* ||hide text|| `code` __underline__ ~~strike~~ ^sup^ %sub%

Detailed syntax guide