Is Trump going to make president?

Page 13 of 66 < 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 >

jamiemartin721 Reading 13 Jan 17 9.37am
Originally posted by matt_himself The reason there is collegiate system in the US is to give a democratic voice to the places that are less populated. If it was a straight 'first past post' or majority wins system, something you yourself have criticised primarily because the Brexit referendum didn't provide the result you wanted, then the US election would only be about New York, Chicago and LA. Is that democracy? However, once again, it tells me more about your sensibilities which are you want democracy but democracy on your terms, that produce the result you want. Er yes, representation of the people, by the will of the people. The people in less populated states would still have a voice, what wouldn't happen is that they wouldn't have more of a voice than other people do. Also the people of New York are not all of one belief by a number of political opinions - Should individuals in New York have less say in a democracy, because their views are more popular? Each vote in a democracy should carry the same weight and influence as any other vote. Otherwise you're stacking the deck in certain interests favour. The same applies here. I might not like or support UKIP but getting nearly twice the vote of the Liberal Democrats, and 1/8th the influence in parliament, sums up entirely how we've taken the idea of democracy, and elicited as freedom, whilst removing any real power from the people. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 13 Jan 17 9.37am

Originally posted by matt_himself

The reason there is collegiate system in the US is to give a democratic voice to the places that are less populated. If it was a straight 'first past post' or majority wins system, something you yourself have criticised primarily because the Brexit referendum didn't provide the result you wanted, then the US election would only be about New York, Chicago and LA. Is that democracy?

However, once again, it tells me more about your sensibilities which are you want democracy but democracy on your terms, that produce the result you want.

Er yes, representation of the people, by the will of the people. The people in less populated states would still have a voice, what wouldn't happen is that they wouldn't have more of a voice than other people do.

Also the people of New York are not all of one belief by a number of political opinions - Should individuals in New York have less say in a democracy, because their views are more popular?

Each vote in a democracy should carry the same weight and influence as any other vote. Otherwise you're stacking the deck in certain interests favour.

The same applies here. I might not like or support UKIP but getting nearly twice the vote of the Liberal Democrats, and 1/8th the influence in parliament, sums up entirely how we've taken the idea of democracy, and elicited as freedom, whilst removing any real power from the people.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

steeleye20 Online Croydon 13 Jan 17 10.27am
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 Surely if each vote is equal, then Clinton won, by getting more votes. The US system, like the UK system, is designed to limit the capacity of other parties to compete, and to restrict government to parties with the financial capability to stand enough candidates in enough different constituencies. The electorial college works to ensure that states have 'more equal power influence' not people. I had completely missed that Clinton got more votes. Now I understand why Trump is up the pole (I would win by more now).
Alert a moderator to this post

steeleye20 Online

Croydon 13 Jan 17 10.27am

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

Surely if each vote is equal, then Clinton won, by getting more votes. The US system, like the UK system, is designed to limit the capacity of other parties to compete, and to restrict government to parties with the financial capability to stand enough candidates in enough different constituencies.

The electorial college works to ensure that states have 'more equal power influence' not people.

I had completely missed that Clinton got more votes.

Now I understand why Trump is up the pole (I would win by more now).

Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8 Hevon 13 Jan 17 11.03am
Originally posted by matt_himself The reason there is collegiate system in the US is to give a democratic voice to the places that are less populated. If it was a straight 'first past post' or majority wins system, something you yourself have criticised primarily because the Brexit referendum didn't provide the result you wanted, then the US election would only be about New York, Chicago and LA. Is that democracy? However, once again, it tells me more about your sensibilities which are you want democracy but democracy on your terms, that produce the result you want. You are entitled to have your opinion, and I respect the fact that you don't believe in a democratically fair one-man one-vote system re: US voting, even though I strongly disagree with you. Big chest and massive boobs [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8

Hevon 13 Jan 17 11.03am

Originally posted by matt_himself

However, once again, it tells me more about your sensibilities which are you want democracy but democracy on your terms, that produce the result you want.

You are entitled to have your opinion, and I respect the fact that you don't believe in a democratically fair one-man one-vote system re: US voting, even though I strongly disagree with you.

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

.TUX. 13 Jan 17 11.04am
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 They have powerful influence, I don't think they really have control, or really too much interest in controlling world events, beyond financial stability. Boom bust boom bust boom bust is 'financial stability'? Market crashes in the '70's, 80's, 90's, 01, 08 and we're primed for another. That's hardly a lack of ''control'' or ''stable'' bud. Central Banks (The Fed, Bank of England etc etc) have complete control over the money supply and despite what many believe, they are PRIVATE institutions, NOT Govt owned. Every dollar/pound etc printed from thin-air comes with a debt, interest, that WE have to pay to these people through our taxes. How the fook did this ever happen! The more they print (from thin-air) the more they earn which is why THEY pushed for the end of Bretton Woods in 1971. Coupling a currency to gold restricted the amount they could print (from thin-air) therefore the amount they earnt, and a quick google shows that after '71, money printing (from thin-air) and the earnings of these parasites as well as OUR debt burden has absolutely rocketed. Their shackles were off! Aside than the vast vast profits they make at OUR expense and the control it brings them, other consequences are that the more they print (from thin-air) the more it devalues the currency that already exists, hence the huge rises in inflation since the 70's. Ever wondered why everything is so expensive these days? Ever asked yourself what happened to one 'average wage' being enough to support one 'average family' in such a relatively short space of time? It's nothing to do with whatever political party happen to be in power at any given time as things rarely change for 99% of us, it's the people sitting in the biggest buildings in town that run the show. They're caants, but they're clever caants. Buy Litecoin.
Alert a moderator to this post

.TUX.

13 Jan 17 11.04am

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

They have powerful influence, I don't think they really have control, or really too much interest in controlling world events, beyond financial stability.

Boom bust boom bust boom bust is 'financial stability'? Market crashes in the '70's, 80's, 90's, 01, 08 and we're primed for another. That's hardly a lack of ''control'' or ''stable'' bud.

Central Banks (The Fed, Bank of England etc etc) have complete control over the money supply and despite what many believe, they are PRIVATE institutions, NOT Govt owned.
Every dollar/pound etc printed from thin-air comes with a debt, interest, that WE have to pay to these people through our taxes. How the fook did this ever happen!
The more they print (from thin-air) the more they earn which is why THEY pushed for the end of Bretton Woods in 1971. Coupling a currency to gold restricted the amount they could print (from thin-air) therefore the amount they earnt, and a quick google shows that after '71, money printing (from thin-air) and the earnings of these parasites as well as OUR debt burden has absolutely rocketed. Their shackles were off!
Aside than the vast vast profits they make at OUR expense and the control it brings them, other consequences are that the more they print (from thin-air) the more it devalues the currency that already exists, hence the huge rises in inflation since the 70's. Ever wondered why everything is so expensive these days? Ever asked yourself what happened to one 'average wage' being enough to support one 'average family' in such a relatively short space of time? It's nothing to do with whatever political party happen to be in power at any given time as things rarely change for 99% of us, it's the people sitting in the biggest buildings in town that run the show.

They're caants, but they're clever caants.

Buy Litecoin.

Alert a moderator to this post

matt_himself Matataland 13 Jan 17 11.14am
Originally posted by Kermit8 You are entitled to have your opinion, and I respect the fact that you don't believe in a democratically fair one-man one-vote system re: US voting, even though I strongly disagree with you. In other words you are implying that I am fascist again. You are a pathetic blowhard, Michael. "That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02
Alert a moderator to this post

matt_himself

Matataland 13 Jan 17 11.14am

Originally posted by Kermit8

You are entitled to have your opinion, and I respect the fact that you don't believe in a democratically fair one-man one-vote system re: US voting, even though I strongly disagree with you.

In other words you are implying that I am fascist again.

You are a pathetic blowhard, Michael.

"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02

Alert a moderator to this post

Sedlescombe Sedlescombe 13 Jan 17 11.18am
Originally posted by .TUX. Boom bust boom bust boom bust is 'financial stability'? Market crashes in the '70's, 80's, 90's, 01, 08 and we're primed for another. That's hardly a lack of ''control'' or ''stable'' bud. Central Banks (The Fed, Bank of England etc etc) have complete control over the money supply and despite what many believe, they are PRIVATE institutions, NOT Govt owned. Every dollar/pound etc printed from thin-air comes with a debt, interest, that WE have to pay to these people through our taxes. How the fook did this ever happen! The more they print (from thin-air) the more they earn which is why THEY pushed for the end of Bretton Woods in 1971. Coupling a currency to gold restricted the amount they could print (from thin-air) therefore the amount they earnt, and a quick google shows that after '71, money printing (from thin-air) and the earnings of these parasites as well as OUR debt burden has absolutely rocketed. Their shackles were off! Aside than the vast vast profits they make at OUR expense and the control it brings them, other consequences are that the more they print (from thin-air) the more it devalues the currency that already exists, hence the huge rises in inflation since the 70's. Ever wondered why everything is so expensive these days? Ever asked yourself what happened to one 'average wage' being enough to support one 'average family' in such a relatively short space of time? It's nothing to do with whatever political party happen to be in power at any given time as things rarely change for 99% of us, it's the people sitting in the biggest buildings in town that run the show. They're caants, but they're clever caants. Bank of England was nationalised in 1946 and is wholly owned by the Treasury Solicitor on behalf of the government
Alert a moderator to this post

Sedlescombe

Sedlescombe 13 Jan 17 11.18am

Originally posted by .TUX.

Boom bust boom bust boom bust is 'financial stability'? Market crashes in the '70's, 80's, 90's, 01, 08 and we're primed for another. That's hardly a lack of ''control'' or ''stable'' bud.

Central Banks (The Fed, Bank of England etc etc) have complete control over the money supply and despite what many believe, they are PRIVATE institutions, NOT Govt owned.
Every dollar/pound etc printed from thin-air comes with a debt, interest, that WE have to pay to these people through our taxes. How the fook did this ever happen!
The more they print (from thin-air) the more they earn which is why THEY pushed for the end of Bretton Woods in 1971. Coupling a currency to gold restricted the amount they could print (from thin-air) therefore the amount they earnt, and a quick google shows that after '71, money printing (from thin-air) and the earnings of these parasites as well as OUR debt burden has absolutely rocketed. Their shackles were off!
Aside than the vast vast profits they make at OUR expense and the control it brings them, other consequences are that the more they print (from thin-air) the more it devalues the currency that already exists, hence the huge rises in inflation since the 70's. Ever wondered why everything is so expensive these days? Ever asked yourself what happened to one 'average wage' being enough to support one 'average family' in such a relatively short space of time? It's nothing to do with whatever political party happen to be in power at any given time as things rarely change for 99% of us, it's the people sitting in the biggest buildings in town that run the show.

They're caants, but they're clever caants.

Bank of England was nationalised in 1946 and is wholly owned by the Treasury Solicitor on behalf of the government

Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8 Hevon 13 Jan 17 11.18am
Originally posted by matt_himself In other words you are implying that I am fascist again. You are a pathetic blowhard, Michael. Not at all. You would be a fascist's bitch. Nothing more. Big chest and massive boobs [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8

Hevon 13 Jan 17 11.18am

Originally posted by matt_himself

In other words you are implying that I am fascist again.

You are a pathetic blowhard, Michael.

Not at all. You would be a fascist's bitch. Nothing more.

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 13 Jan 17 11.38am
Originally posted by steeleye20 Opponents of the USA election college will disagree as you are placing a value on a vote whereas each vote should be equal regardless. IMO whether you live in New York or Kentucky one man one vote is better. Still its their system and goes back in history don't see any real complaints from USA politicians. And its been in disarray since they claimed their 'Independence' "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 13 Jan 17 11.38am

Originally posted by steeleye20

Opponents of the USA election college will disagree as you are placing a value on a vote whereas each vote should be equal regardless.

IMO whether you live in New York or Kentucky one man one vote is better.

Still its their system and goes back in history don't see any real complaints from USA politicians.

And its been in disarray since they claimed their 'Independence'

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 13 Jan 17 11.43am
Originally posted by matt_himself In other words you are implying that I am fascist again. You are a pathetic blowhard, Michael. I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with being a fascist per se, or at least not anything that is inherently worse than being a socialist or communist. It doesn't automatically have to entail being racist violent prick. There are many flavours of far right politics, that are anti-capitalist, that don't necessarily require racism, death squads and murder as policy The problem really tends to be more with the idiot fringe attracted to such movements because of their love of hate and violence. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 13 Jan 17 11.43am

Originally posted by matt_himself

In other words you are implying that I am fascist again.

You are a pathetic blowhard, Michael.

I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with being a fascist per se, or at least not anything that is inherently worse than being a socialist or communist.

It doesn't automatically have to entail being racist violent prick. There are many flavours of far right politics, that are anti-capitalist, that don't necessarily require racism, death squads and murder as policy

The problem really tends to be more with the idiot fringe attracted to such movements because of their love of hate and violence.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Sedlescombe Sedlescombe 13 Jan 17 11.45am
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 Surely if each vote is equal, then Clinton won, by getting more votes. The US system, like the UK system, is designed to limit the capacity of other parties to compete, and to restrict government to parties with the financial capability to stand enough candidates in enough different constituencies. The electorial college works to ensure that states have 'more equal power influence' not people. The electoral college works to require presidents to have broader appeal nationally than a simple popular vote would mean. I am as horrified by Trump's election as anyone but you cant argue that the outcome was undemocratic. Now the UK system really is anti democratic......
Alert a moderator to this post

Sedlescombe

Sedlescombe 13 Jan 17 11.45am

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

The electorial college works to ensure that states have 'more equal power influence' not people.

The electoral college works to require presidents to have broader appeal nationally than a simple popular vote would mean. I am as horrified by Trump's election as anyone but you cant argue that the outcome was undemocratic.

Now the UK system really is anti democratic......

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 13 Jan 17 11.51am
Originally posted by leifandersonshair Perhaps doing a Boris- an intelligent man pretending to be a buffoon. Although for both Boris and Trump, it now appears a more surreal 'idiot pretending to be an intelligent man pretending to be a buffoon.' If he wasn't about to have genuine power at his fingertips, this would be fantastic comedy rather than terrifying madness. Boris isn't pretending, he's a very intelligent man but socially a bit awkward and had poor oratory skills - more given to conversational communication than public speaking per se. He'd make a s**t prime minister though. Like Trump his popularity and public profile is more based on his public persona of being 'everyday' garnered from TV entertainment - a very different forum than politics. Both also had something of a straight talker, but that's more about their inexperience in public speaking for politics, than anything else. Trump isn't stupid, or dim, but he's not notably intelligent either. He's an average man. Most people are. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 13 Jan 17 11.51am

Originally posted by leifandersonshair

Perhaps doing a Boris- an intelligent man pretending to be a buffoon. Although for both Boris and Trump, it now appears a more surreal 'idiot pretending to be an intelligent man pretending to be a buffoon.'

If he wasn't about to have genuine power at his fingertips, this would be fantastic comedy rather than terrifying madness.

Boris isn't pretending, he's a very intelligent man but socially a bit awkward and had poor oratory skills - more given to conversational communication than public speaking per se.

He'd make a s**t prime minister though. Like Trump his popularity and public profile is more based on his public persona of being 'everyday' garnered from TV entertainment - a very different forum than politics.

Both also had something of a straight talker, but that's more about their inexperience in public speaking for politics, than anything else.

Trump isn't stupid, or dim, but he's not notably intelligent either. He's an average man. Most people are.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

matt_himself Matataland 13 Jan 17 11.58am
Originally posted by Kermit8 Not at all. You would be a fascist's bitch. Nothing more. Says the man who has chosen to live in what is effectively a white gated community, whose experience of immigrants is only as pleasant workers performing menial tasks for paltry money. "That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02
Alert a moderator to this post

matt_himself

Matataland 13 Jan 17 11.58am

Originally posted by Kermit8

Not at all. You would be a fascist's bitch. Nothing more.

Says the man who has chosen to live in what is effectively a white gated community, whose experience of immigrants is only as pleasant workers performing menial tasks for paltry money.

"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 13 of 66 < 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Is Trump going to make president?

Site Map

Sponsors