invergowrie arab Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 31 minutes ago, Granny Danger said: It is the same. The Tories have a majority in Westminster on what, 38% of the vote? (That figure might be out as I can't be arsed checking it) It's not the same at all. In general elections we elect a parliament. Even if we had PR it still wouldn't be fullproof. In presidential elections in this day and age there is no reason not to just have a straight out popular vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invergowrie arab Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 1 hour ago, Poo said: How do you know? Not only will he be the face of America, his party will dominate the senate and the house of representatives. If he says "all muslims must go", that's exactly what will happen. If he wants to force Mexico to build a wall and pay for it, that's exactly what will happen. They will be too afraid to ignore him. More than any other president in living memory, perhaps ever, he doesn't lead a party. He was their presidential nominee but there is clear ideological water between Trump and his legislators. It's not as hostile as Corbyn and the PLP but it's that kind of thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HTG Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 Still catching up on this thread. There was a woman on C4 news last night I think who was fuckin delighted Trump had won. Tea Party type I suppose. Anyway, her view was that the country needed to get back to God, faith and country. I daresay she was far from alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fotbawmad Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 If you cannot conceive how the reasonable everyday person could vote for Trump or Brexit, then you really are in big trouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 30 minutes ago, invergowrie arab said: It's not the same at all. In general elections we elect a parliament. Even if we had PR it still wouldn't be fullproof. In presidential elections in this day and age there is no reason not to just have a straight out popular vote. There is a reason. The reason is there is those in power in the respective countries don't want to change things. BTW it's 'foolproof'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmothecat Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 If you cannot conceive how the reasonable everyday person could vote for Trump or Brexit, then you really are in big trouble. I really can't. I've been trying to work it out but I actually can't. He is racist, sexist, egotistical and offensive. He is representative of the worst of society, his policies are ill-thought out, unworkable or illiberal. He is unfit for the job, inexperienced for the job and has broken basically every rule of politics. I cannot understand how any reasonable person could vote for Trump and my only answer to this conundrum is that there aren't any. That there are simply far more unreasonable people than I had realised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandarilla Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 I really can't. I've been trying to work it out but I actually can't. He is racist, sexist, egotistical and offensive. He is representative of the worst of society, his policies are ill-thought out, unworkable or illiberal. He is unfit for the job, inexperienced for the job and has broken basically every rule of politics. I cannot understand how any reasonable person could vote for Trump and my only answer to this conundrum is that there aren't any. That there are simply far more unreasonable people than I had realised. I can absolutely understand the brexit vote. As far as trump, I understand the reasons for wanting to change the record in American politics - but he was never the answer to any reasonable question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 9 minutes ago, Fotbawmad said: If you cannot conceive how the reasonable everyday person could vote for Trump or Brexit, then you really are in big trouble. There is nothing reasonable about voting for Trump. Nor being an apologist for those who did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invergowrie arab Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 10 minutes ago, Granny Danger said: There is a reason. The reason is there is those in power in the respective countries don't want to change things. BTW it's 'foolproof'. I think that stigmatises people of low intelligence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fotbawmad Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 5 minutes ago, Granny Danger said: There is nothing reasonable about voting for Trump. Nor being an apologist for those who did. You're basically admitting that you either don't know or don't care why people voted for him. I don't like Trump either, but not for the reasons that people commonly bring in this thread or MSM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 4 minutes ago, invergowrie arab said: I think that stigmatises people of low intelligence You think that only folk with low intelligence can be foolish? That's a foolish proposition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 1 hour ago, Paco said: I have no idea where your ethics are if you're condemning deliberately going after the family of suspected terrorists, but deliberately killing people in the vicinity of a suspected terrorist is just "often wrong". (I think much of this is a moot point as laws are laws in the US domestically, abroad they don't follow them anyway so what does it matter who the President is). Glad we've cleared up that he isn't a "fascist dictator" though. Trump has about a billion flaws but exaggerated hyperbole is one of the major reasons he's been elected President. It puts rational people who normally wouldn't consider him on his side. I think "hyperbole" would have done on its own, without the "exaggerated". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 3 minutes ago, Fotbawmad said: You're basically admitting that you either don't know or don't care why people voted for him. I don't like Trump either, but not for the reasons that people commonly bring in this thread or MSM. I am admitting nothing of the sort. I can understand U.S. Citizens thinking that there are many problems in their country; I cannot understand how they can possibly see Trump as being the solution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Cort's Hamstring Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 1 hour ago, Paco said: I have no idea where your ethics are if you're condemning deliberately going after the family of suspected terrorists, but deliberately killing people in the vicinity of a suspected terrorist is just "often wrong". (I think much of this is a moot point as laws are laws in the US domestically, abroad they don't follow them anyway so what does it matter who the President is). Glad we've cleared up that he isn't a "fascist dictator" though. Trump has about a billion flaws but exaggerated hyperbole is one of the major reasons he's been elected President. It puts rational people who normally wouldn't consider him on his side. I'm comfortable with my ethics, and I've said that I don't agree with either way of doing things. I also think that there is a clear moral distinction between blowing accidentally killing civilians and deliberately and actively killing civilians. An analogy: The undercover units the army used in NI acted like virtual death squads and killed civilians by mistake. This was obviously bad and wrong. What would have been even worse is if they had burst into Martin McGuinness' Mum's house during Sunday lunch and killed everyone because they were related to a terrorist. Which is the kind of thing that Trump was advocating. I'm also comfortable calling Trump a fascist. I don't know how else to label someone who publicly claimed that a federal judge wasn't impartial because of his 'Mexican heritage'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 7 minutes ago, Granny Danger said: I am admitting nothing of the sort. I can understand U.S. Citizens thinking that there are many problems in their country; I cannot understand how they can possibly see Trump as being the solution. Possibly because at the end up the only other option was Clinton? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invergowrie arab Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 From article I read earlier "I've explained this experience a few times in recent months, and my interpretation has remained consistent: those people wanted Sanders to fix their broken country but, robbed of that opportunity, might resort to simply burning it down instead. " There's something in that. It's not reasonable and not what I would advocate bbut the story checks out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dorlomin Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 2 minutes ago, invergowrie arab said: From article I read earlier "I've explained this experience a few times in recent months, and my interpretation has remained consistent: those people wanted Sanders to fix their broken country but, robbed of that opportunity, might resort to simply burning it down instead. " There's something in that. It's not reasonable and not what I would advocate bbut the story checks out. About 6 million less people voted for Clinton as Obama. Yet Obama approval is roughly the same or slightly better than when he was re-elected. That suggests voters stayed home. But the down side is that as a much more outspoke "leftist" more stay at home Republicans could have come out or people switching votes. After an election everyone but the losing candidate tends to believe that it in some way vindicates their view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 2 hours ago, williemillersmoustache said: Yeah bollocks son, here's a comprehensive report into all the shit we don't know, but should and is a disgrace that we don't. But you're quite happy to plow on blind, dumb and apparently deaf because you think you've won, something. One assumes for the first time? http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7761 Right you are. After your frantic googling to turn up some document that shows all the uncertainties you come up with this. Now lets see what the summary of the full reports states (emphasis mine): Quote The biggest ‘unknown’ is what the withdrawal agreement and any other agreements linked to Brexit will contain. Almost all policy questions depend on the outcome of the exit negotiations and the kind of agreement(s) reached. Most Brexit ‘unknowns’ are therefore predicated on this main ‘unknown’. We don’t know how long the process will take or even when it will start. We can’t really calculate the economic impact or say for sure how the Devolved Nations will be affected. We don’t know what the withdrawal agreement will look like or what other agreements the UK will negotiate with the EU to settle future relations. Perhaps you could have taken the time to read the actual document rather than just the summary. It appears to be confirmation of what was in the my last post. As for winning, I am sure that we won the Scottish Week Cup by beating Aberdeen once. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaffenThinMint Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 1 minute ago, jmothecat said: I really can't. I've been trying to work it out but I actually can't. He is racist, sexist, egotistical and offensive. He is representative of the worst of society, his policies are ill-thought out, unworkable or illiberal. He is unfit for the job, inexperienced for the job and has broken basically every rule of politics. I cannot understand how any reasonable person could vote for Trump and my only answer to this conundrum is that there aren't any. That there are simply far more unreasonable people than I had realised. The answer is simple. Not the Mexico wall, Muslim baiting or any of the other offensive stuff which you could hear from any bore in any American dive bar coast to coast: he went to the rust belt & said to them over & over "what do you have to lose?" - THAT was the killer punch. For far too many, the answer was nothing - a quarter of all Hispanic voters gave their cross to Trump FFS! What was Hillary offering? Vague platitudes to people that had been expected to live on a diet of vague platitudes from both Democrats & Republicans for two decades, people whose lives, hopes & aspirations had slowly been melting away all this time with no sign of matters getting better. Even Obamacare seemed little more a table scrap tossed from the masters' tables. The only thing she was promising for certain - because her actions as part of the Obama administration have proven them to be true - was more foreign wars, which Americans have finally - and long overdue - grown sick of. The easy ego trips from "our boys" blowing up a few "ragheads" soured as the years have gone by, the endless line of soldiers coming home dead or maimed, & nothing appearing to have been solved. Finally Obama did get them out (sort of), & Americans got the feeling it had all been for nothing when ISIS took over from where Al Quida had left off. It was the Vietnam effect all over again - wars aren't so fun when you haven't won. Yet Hillary appeared fixated with the US sticking their nose into Syria, as if the tragedy in Libya she played a strong part in causing wasn't enough of a sour taste - especially so shortly after yet another hurricane season in the US where people have been left destitute and yet again central government seemed more interested in matters abroad than at home. The fact is Michael Moore & all the other ones who warned that Bernie Saunders was the only chance the Democrats had of stopping a Trump candidature were spot on. He was calling what was wrong with the USA and stating practical solutions (whether you agreed with them or not). Yet somehow Hillary beat him to the nomination "just because", and wouldn't even consider him for a running mate, which might - just might - have made the difference (especially after her bout of ill health during the campaign may have made some think - "hey maybe she'll not last the course if she does win, maybe she'll be forced to step down in Saunders' favour after a year?"). Yes, the USA and the rest of the world are probably going to rue the day Trump ever got into the Oval office. But it will now be a very, very long time indeed before America's politicians ever take their electorate - and democracy - for granted again, that at least is one crumb of comfort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williemillersmoustache Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 Fucking hell the horror has a website now https://www.greatagain.gov/policy/energy-independence.html Bye bye trees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.