This morning...

[Alex DeLarge]

12 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Nope. Democracy can be defined and operated in a number of different ways. 

Including the one I suggested then.

12 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

By the measure of democracy the USA uses, Clinton lost, fair and square. Wishing it operated a different system doesn't change the loss into a win.

By the system of US Democracy, Roe v Wade passed fair and square. Wishing it operated a different system doesn't change the pass to a rejection.

12 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

'The majority' isn't necessarily the same as the winner in a democracy (see above).

No, but they should represent the views of the country regardless. Most Americans disagree with repealing Roe V Wade.

12 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

And parties having policy platforms which it's unlikely that many of their supporters support in full is one of the weaker aspects of representative politics, but it's how it goes. If a majority couldn't bring themselves to vote for Clinton with that at risk then it's a pretty fair conclusion that the chunk who voted for Trump were happy with the trade-off they got with other policy positions

But I thought Trump supporters knew that he didn't mean most of what he said and just wanted to  fight the politician establishment?The majority of voters DID vote for Hillary Clinton, Trump retracted his anti-abortion rhetoric, yet now he has been elected is enforcing it once again.

[Alex DeLarge]

17 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I was pointing out that there's those calling Trump a fascist who are suggesting that democracy be rejected to remove Trump. It's not big and it's not clever.

I never asked for Trump to be removed. I noted I was worried about women loosing their right to an abortion.

[Hugh Jass]

26 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I'm starting to realise that there's a lot of people about who've never really felt like they've been on the losing side of an election before.

 

In the last 7 years I think Sadiq Khan is the only winner I've actually voted for. Every other time I've voted I've been on the losing side.

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, Alex DeLarge said:

Including the one I suggested then.

Yep. But it wasn't, so it doesn't count as a win for Clinton. Clinton recognises that.

Not all of the UK think there should be a winner-takes-all system for the UK. The SNP keep saying that Scotland should have a veto over UK decisions no matter about the majority (which is, to an extent, what the US's electoral college system does). Like I say, you pick a system and work to it.

What you don't do is call the result under that system unfair if it didn't deliver your preferred result. The thing to do is campaign for the system to change for the next contest.

 

2 minutes ago, Alex DeLarge said:

By the system of US Democracy, Roe v Wade passed fair and square. Wishing it operated a different system doesn't change the pass to a rejection.

That was a court ruling, and not of democracy. A court ruling is only a ruling until such time as it might be revised.

I don't like the American system for stuff like this, but it is what it is.

 

10 minutes ago, Alex DeLarge said:

No, but they should represent the views of the country regardless. Most Americans disagree with repealing Roe V Wade

In a UK context of representing the views of the majority, Scotland can get to fuck about their dislike of the EUref result, and we bring back the death sentence next week.

I don't know how you regard the Scotland issue, but I'm guessing you're not in favour of the death sentence?

This is why I said they're all flawed. They'll all bring you a result you don't like for reasons you can give - and which will conflict with what another system might have brought you, also with things you dislike.

But whatever, the US fought that election under those rules, so they're the rules that count.

 

16 minutes ago, Alex DeLarge said:

But I thought Trump supporters knew that he didn't mean most of what he said and just wanted to  fight the politician establishment?The majority of voters DID vote for Hillary Clinton, Trump retracted his anti-abortion rhetoric, yet now he has been elected is enforcing it once again.

Trump has to 'buy off' people in the Repub. Party with policy positions just as much as he has to 'buy off' the electorate by delivering on some of what he said.

All political supporters focus on the bits they like and pay less attention to the parts they don't like. People voted for trump for many different reasons, including promises of jobs and investment.

And did Trump pull back from anti-abortion stuff? I thought he'd made appointments to the Supreme Court as one of his biggies, which would have always been primarily about Roe vs Wade, cos that's what all Supreme Court appointments have been about for decades.

 

[eFestivals]

6 minutes ago, Hugh Jass said:

In the last 7 years I think Sadiq Khan is the only winner I've actually voted for. Every other time I've voted I've been on the losing side.

I got my first person elected in the last Euros, in over 30 years of voting. I'm on a roll, cos that was followed up by another in 2015.

(Really it's just about the consistency I moved into .... which the boundary review is taking me back out of )

 

[eFestivals]

21 minutes ago, Alex DeLarge said:

I never asked for Trump to be removed. I noted I was worried about women loosing their right to an abortion.

There is no such thing as 'rights', there is merely current thinking.

And a democracy has a bigger right over removing that 'right' if they wish to. 

There's normally some bigger requirements of democracy in removing 'special rights' (that the deemed to be permantant-ish) - via the use of a super-majority, normally.

Roe vs Wade is the cop-out that's existed in America where a right to abortion hasn't been written into law, but that 'right' has been acquired thru the back-door of other laws. The democrats are just as guilty of leaving that door open for 45 years as the Republicans.

[eFestivals]

Ps: shifting positions on the electoral college....

“The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.” – Donald J. Trump, November 7, 2012

"The Electoral College is actually genius in that it brings all states, including the smaller ones, into play. Campaigning is much different!" Donald J. Trump, 1:40 PM - 15 Nov 2016

[waterfalls212434]

appointing the fucking editor of breitbart as his chief of policy is an attack on ANY group of people in the us who aren`t white conservatives males basically mate. Appointing a man like pence as his vice president is an attack on anyone who believes in equality and fair treatment for homosexuals....and so on!

You are denying basic logic, why would be surround himself with people he doesn't share the views of? let alone give them such crucial roles in his administration?  the fact hes choosing these people to assist him and represent him says that he accepts and has no issue with their viewpoints. Again simple logic! Actions speak far louder then words in this case! His actions in appointing these assholes denote that he aggrees with their views! because if he didnt he wouldnt appoint them to his team....see how that works? 

Anyway why you are trying so hard to dismiss attacks on this man is beyond me! Fucks sake if you want to expend energy defending someone I can think of far more deserving people then the bigot with the shit toupe now residing in the white house! 

 

Edited November 15, 2016 by waterfalls212434

[The Nal]

15 minutes ago, waterfalls212434 said:

Anyway why you are trying so hard to dismiss attacks on this man is beyond me! Fucks sake if you want to expend energy defending someone I can think of far more deserving people then the bigot with the shit toupe now residing in the white house! 

[eFestivals]

18 minutes ago, waterfalls212434 said:

appointing the fucking editor of breitbart as his chief of policy is an attack on ANY group of people in the us who aren`t white conservatives males basically mate. Appointing a man like pence as his vice president is an attack on anyone who believes in equality and fair treatment for homosexuals....and so on!

You are denying basic logic, why would be surround himself with people he doesn't share the views of? let alone give them such crucial roles in his administration?  the fact hes choosing these people to assist him and represent him says that he accepts and has no issue with their viewpoints. Again simple logic! Actions speak far louder then words in this case! His actions in appointing these assholes denote that he aggrees with their views! because if he didnt he wouldnt appoint them to his team....see how that works? 

Anyway why you are trying so hard to dismiss attacks on this man is beyond me! Fucks sake if you want to expend energy defending someone I can think of far more deserving people then the bigot with the shit toupe now residing in the white house! 

 

Some people don't have the nicest views. 

That's Trump and his sidekicks, but they're really very little different in what they say to many Republicans.

I'm not trying to pretend there's anything good about it - there rarely is with republican presidents -  but it's not going to be the apocolyptical thing some suggest or even too much different.

I think it's counter-productive to attack Trump being president-elect, which is the only thing there currently is to attack. It ends up looking like an attack on democracy, and it insults each and every person who voted for Trump (plenty of them deserve it, i'm sure, but it's no more justified than calling all Muslims terrorists).

I think it's now better held back to be unleashed about specific policies that he might try and implement, and where the numbers might be swelled and politically diversified by some 'I voted for Trump but i didn't vote for that' types, that's harder to brush off simply as people who don't like him and don't wish to allow him to be president.

Ensuring the views remain just as hardened and polarised isn't the fix to Trump.

Edited November 15, 2016 by eFestivals

[Alex DeLarge]

After being accused of being a fascist I think I'll give up on this thread with the message that Trump has started to talk about what he'll do as President now and it isn't pretty. If he tries to repeal abortion rights which most certinaly do and should exist in a country that prides itself on freedom, people have every right to protest.

 

Edited November 15, 2016 by Alex DeLarge
Autocorrect

[eFestivals]

9 minutes ago, Alex DeLarge said:

After being accused of being a fascist I think I'll give up on this thread with the message that Trump has started to talk about what he'll do as President now and it isn't pretty. If he tries to repeal abortion rights which most certinaly do and should exist in a country that prides itself on freedom, people have every right to protest.

 

I wasn't accusing you of being a fascist. 

I was pointing out that what happens in any place will be down to a more-local democracy, and that the alternative to the democratic processes they've adopted for themselves is the undemocratic imposition of things onto them.

I'm not trying to claim that gives perfection, but if there was perfection to be had we wouldn't need democratic processes in the first place.

[zahidf]

This mirrors my worries

 

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, zahidf said:

This mirrors my worries

 

Without meaning to downplay anything, i'd say the Jews were the best positioned of America's minorities, as they play a significant roil within 'the establishment'.

Care to say what form the "terrifying anti-Semitism' they face will take?

Or will it just be pieces like this put in people's faces to scare them by more than Trump will do?

[zahidf]

8 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Without meaning to downplay anything, i'd say the Jews were the best positioned of America's minorities, as they play a significant roil within 'the establishment'.

Care to say what form the "terrifying anti-Semitism' they face will take?

Or will it just be pieces like this put in people's faces to scare them by more than Trump will do?

Um, i think 5 mins reading breitbart and some of trumps guys opinions will tell you why Jews are terrified.

 

Also, again, Trumps last campaign video was condemmned for being anti-semitic by jewish orginisations. 

[The Nal]

5 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Also, again, Trumps last campaign video was condemmned for being anti-semitic by jewish orginisations. 

Which was, frankly, ridiculous. 

[zahidf]

3 minutes ago, The Nal said:

Which was, frankly, ridiculous. 

Because of course you have a deeper understanding of anti-semitism than a jewish organisation which has fought against it for decades.

[zahidf]

 

 

How easy it is for things to degenerate. Look at Turkey

 

 

Edited November 15, 2016 by zahidf

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Um, i think 5 mins reading breitbart and some of trumps guys opinions will tell you why Jews are terrified.

 

Also, again, Trumps last campaign video was condemmned for being anti-semitic by jewish orginisations. 

saying "Jews raise their children to be "whiny brats"" is deemed anti-semitic, tho I'm not sure there's anything terrifying about it.

Meanwhile at breitbart, there's just one story on its frontpage right now with 'jew' in the wording, and it's titled "Stephen K. Bannon: Friend of the Jewish People, Defender of Israel", written (it says) by a Jew, and containing nothing terrifying.

And I guess if breitbart is read by jew-haters,. it's just committed commercial suicide.

Mind you, as breitbart was a jew, as was another founder, I'm a little confused.

 

[zahidf]

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

saying "Jews raise their children to be "whiny brats"" is deemed anti-semitic, tho I'm not sure there's anything terrifying about it.

Meanwhile at breitbart, there's just one story on its frontpage right now with 'jew' in the wording, and it's titled "Stephen K. Bannon: Friend of the Jewish People, Defender of Israel", written (it says) by a Jew, and containing nothing terrifying.

And I guess if breitbart is read by jew-haters,. it's just committed commercial suicide.

Mind you, as breitbart was a jew, as was another founder, I'm a little confused.

 

http://www.salon.com/2016/11/14/steve-bannon-runs-an-anti-semitic-website-is-a-misogynist-and-will-be-one-of-donald-trumps-senior-advisors/

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, zahidf said:

 

 

How easy it is for things to degenerate. Look at Turkey

it's not degeneration in Turkey, it's more reverted to the norm. 

C'mon, the political histories are hugely different.

Dumbing down like you are only works if I'm stupid, and I'm not.

[The Nal]

6 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Because of course you have a deeper understanding of anti-semitism than a jewish organisation which has fought against it for decades.

Did you see the ad? 

[eFestivals]

Just now, zahidf said:

http://www.salon.com/2016/11/14/steve-bannon-runs-an-anti-semitic-website-is-a-misogynist-and-will-be-one-of-donald-trumps-senior-advisors/

you said I could read the "terrifying" anti-semitic stuff at breitbart, so why the fuck are you sending me somewhere else that's merely an echo chamber of you?

C'mon, a breitbart link please.

Or are you full of shit?

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, The Nal said:

Did you see the ad? 

I didn't, but was it "terrifying" if you were Jewish?

Or was there merely something within it which someone might take some offence about (and was, just possibly, anti-semitic) and which wasn't the nicest thing anyone's ever said, but which wasn't "terrifying"?

[eFestivals]

19 minutes ago, zahidf said:

i think 5 mins reading breitbart

19 minutes later... :lol

Zilch.