Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Donít fear Trump

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Gixxer86g
    replied
    Originally posted by ljadw View Post
    She did not : 47 ,8 % is not the majority of the people .

    50 % + 1 is the majority of the people .

    Bill became president with a majority of the EV and a minority of the PV, why should Donald not have this right ?
    He doesn't understand the difference between voters and the people.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gixxer86g
    replied
    Originally posted by andrewza View Post
    I wonder if 100% of Americans agree with you, I wonder if 100% of Americans realize that the democratic state is not democratic. All you can say is you like the system you don't speak for the people
    We know many disagree. We are watching their temper tantrums on the news.

    And it will change nothing!

    Leave a comment:


  • Gixxer86g
    replied
    Originally posted by Acheron View Post
    No, the only thing irrelevant are the non-voters. Those that not vote, despite being capable to, have to expect any result of the vote done by their betters, that is, voters.
    Wrong. The people consist of voters and non-voters.

    Leave a comment:


  • TactiKill J.
    replied
    Originally posted by andrewza View Post
    I wonder if 100% of Americans agree with you, I wonder if 100% of Americans realize that the democratic state is not democratic. All you can say is you like the system you don't speak for the people
    As undemocratic as it is, it will never change. What we need to focus on is getting more than two candidates in the Presidential debates. Our only true anti-establishment picks would have to come from a third party, which is why they're not allowed on the stage.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by Bwaha View Post
    There's a easy to do fix for the EC. The states stop with the winner take all and their electors are split up proportionally.
    That'd be great! The Democrats could never win a national election...

    Leave a comment:


  • Bwaha
    replied
    There's a easy to do fix for the EC. The states stop with the winner take all and their electors are split up proportionally.

    Leave a comment:


  • Arnold J Rimmer
    replied
    Originally posted by andrewza View Post
    I wonder if 100% of Americans agree with you, I wonder if 100% of Americans realize that the democratic state is not democratic. All you can say is you like the system you don't speak for the people
    Neither do you.

    100% of any group doesn't agree. However, since the foundation of the nation 224+ years ago there hasn't been any determined mass effort to change it.

    100% of Americas do not follow pro football, but there isn't any chance that the NFL would switch over to something as stupid as cricket.

    It has been explained to you over and over. Deal with it. I'm done.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trung Si
    replied
    Originally posted by andrewza View Post
    I can see local being different there are probably Dem run places in Texas

    Leave a comment:


  • Cambronnne
    replied
    Originally posted by andrewza View Post
    And I know that. Do all Americans know that though? Do they agree with that?

    Again, this very question shows me you have no idea what you are talking about.
    Given that this happened in 2000 and the law remains unchanged we can assume Americans approve. Particularly the ones who understand what they are talking about

    Leave a comment:


  • Reimnitz
    replied
    How will president-elect Trump deal with NATO? Secretary-General Jens Stoltenbergís staff drafted proposals to deal with the worst-case scenario in case he orders US troops to withdraw from Europe.



    If Trump is serious about reducing the number of US troops stationed in Europe, large NATO countries like Germany have little to offer, Spiegel said. Even major member statesí militaries lack units able to replace the Americans, which in turn may trigger debate on strengthening NATOís nuclear arm, a sensitive issue in most European countries for domestic reasons.

    Leave a comment:


  • ljadw
    replied
    Originally posted by Skoblin View Post
    The American system is not all that singular. In Canada, the government is formed by the party which wins the most number of parliamentary seats or ridings - not which party wins the greatest number of votes. Has pretty much always been that way. Still, it does not prevent supporters of Party A claiming Party B does not have an actual mandate, when it fails to win a majority of votes despite winning a majority of seats - an argument which Party B, naturally, rejects. And it does not prevent supporters of Party B making the same argument, when they end up on the losing number of seats.
    It's the same in Britain : in 1951 Churchill got a majority in the Commons ,but Labour had the majority of the PV .

    Since 1935, Britain is governed by minotiry Prime Ministers ( no one complains ) and in three occasions, the winning party had less PV than the opposition party :
    1929, 1951, february 1974 ( no one complained )
    Last edited by ljadw; 13 Nov 16, 12:24.

    Leave a comment:


  • Skoblin
    replied
    Originally posted by ljadw View Post
    She did not : 47 ,8 % is not the majority of the people .

    50 % + 1 is the majority of the people .

    Bill became president with a majority of the EV and a minority of the PV, why should Donald not have this right ?
    Because it was Hillary's time...

    Leave a comment:


  • ljadw
    replied
    Originally posted by Metryll View Post
    You argued that "No : the majority of the people did not vote for Hillary, thus it did vote against Hillary ."

    Clinton won the popular vote that is majority of the people. Andrewza is correct on this point.
    She did not : 47 ,8 % is not the majority of the people .

    50 % + 1 is the majority of the people .

    Bill became president with a majority of the EV and a minority of the PV, why should Donald not have this right ?

    Leave a comment:


  • Skoblin
    replied
    Originally posted by Trung Si View Post
    Exactly!
    What I don't understand is why people abroad and here are so upset at our constituted process of electing a President which has worked successfully for 228 years, my guess is that they want the rules of the game changed because they don't like the final score.
    The American system is not all that singular. In Canada, the government is formed by the party which wins the most number of parliamentary seats or ridings - not which party wins the greatest number of votes. Has pretty much always been that way. Still, it does not prevent supporters of Party A claiming Party B does not have an actual mandate, when it fails to win a majority of votes despite winning a majority of seats - an argument which Party B, naturally, rejects. And it does not prevent supporters of Party B making the same argument, when they end up on the losing number of seats.

    Leave a comment:


  • andrewza
    replied
    Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
    Again, you have been told numerous times that we are NOT a democracy, we are a Republic. Are you just trolling, or do you genuinely don't understand the difference?
    And I know that. Do all Americans know that though? Do they agree with that?

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X