Democracy, overrated!
Discussion
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-3794623...
So is this same democracy that the west are pushing onto other countries?
So is this same democracy that the west are pushing onto other countries?
AndStilliRise said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-3794623...
So is this same democracy that the west are pushing onto other countries?
No those are anti democratic forces trying to overturn a democratically expressed free(ish) will of the people. In fact one might say this is importation of tin pot dictatorship behaviour from around the world. Where a change of govt is ONLY possible by non peaceful means.So is this same democracy that the west are pushing onto other countries?
And before anyone trots out first amendment freedom of speech and assembly that's fine, right up until it's no longer peaceful and in contravention of the law of the land, which upholding is again another sign of a democracy.
These people don't know how lucky they are to be living in a democracy (where there is a peaceful transition of power) although they appear to be trying to usurp the democratic process.
Don't whine, Vote!
Not enough votes? Then convince people of your case, with argument.
Still not enough votes? Accept you lost the argument. You don't govern.
Northern Munkee said:
No those are anti democratic forces trying to overturn a democratically expressed free(ish) will of the people. In fact one might say this is importation of tin pot dictatorship behaviour from around the world. Where a change of govt is ONLY possible by non peaceful means.
Wasn't Christopher Hitchens the one who said the point of democracy isn't to stop revolution, it just ensures it's peaceful.Interesting times, and in politics "interesting" is not a good thing. Though, probably not as bad as "the left" make out. Though equally, as said elsewhere, I can't work out how "the people for government interference in a market at the expense of trade" are "the right", and those against it "the left".
paranoid airbag said:
Northern Munkee said:
No those are anti democratic forces trying to overturn a democratically expressed free(ish) will of the people. In fact one might say this is importation of tin pot dictatorship behaviour from around the world. Where a change of govt is ONLY possible by non peaceful means.
Wasn't Christopher Hitchens the one who said the point of democracy isn't to stop revolution, it just ensures it's peaceful.Interesting times, and in politics "interesting" is not a good thing. Though, probably not as bad as "the left" make out. Though equally, as said elsewhere, I can't work out how "the people for government interference in a market at the expense of trade" are "the right", and those against it "the left".
ETA that said I can't see him being a supporter of Trump. It we'll never know. shame. We need his voice more than ever.
paranoid airbag said:
Though equally, as said elsewhere, I can't work out how "the people for government interference in a market at the expense of trade" are "the right", and those against it "the left".
Something doesn't add up when people who are pro-freedom don't want freedom of movement. So their freedom has very strict borders. Randy Winkman said:
paranoid airbag said:
Though equally, as said elsewhere, I can't work out how "the people for government interference in a market at the expense of trade" are "the right", and those against it "the left".
Something doesn't add up when people who are pro-freedom don't want freedom of movement. So their freedom has very strict borders. Well you can have freedom not to do one thing, and freedom to do something else, can't you ?
Trabi601 said:
Isn't this what happens when you use an antiquated electoral system to give a country a president that didn't have majority support?
Clinton actually only won significantly in a couple of places, so why should the vast majority not get the president they voted for - Trump?Vote for vote over the whole country it was 50/50 within error/fraud limits anyway - and the Clinton vote fraud was a big operation.
Mr GrimNasty said:
Trabi601 said:
Isn't this what happens when you use an antiquated electoral system to give a country a president that didn't have majority support?
Clinton actually only won significantly in a couple of places, so why should the vast majority not get the president they voted for - Trump?Vote for vote over the whole country it was 50/50 within error/fraud limits anyway - and the Clinton vote fraud was a big operation.
The 'popular vote' was won by Clinton.
Some people are (rightly, maybe? - I'm split as our FPTP system often does the same)not happy about this.
I'm also not convinced by the foil-hat theories coming from the Trump camp.
Trabi601 said:
The electoral college system delivered the victory.
The 'popular vote' was won by Clinton.
Some people are (rightly, maybe? - I'm split as our FPTP system often does the same)not happy about this.
I'm also not convinced by the foil-hat theories coming from the Trump camp.
Why the fThe 'popular vote' was won by Clinton.
Some people are (rightly, maybe? - I'm split as our FPTP system often does the same)not happy about this.
I'm also not convinced by the foil-hat theories coming from the Trump camp.
k did they not demonstrate against the process before taking part in it then?Northern Munkee said:
Just finished Hitch22 his autobiography, I highly recommend it. He relates his time at Oxford and meeting Bill Clinton and he has no time for the Clintons. There is also an interesting journey for an International Socialist to a supporter of GWBush's War on Terror. He also no time for the virtue signalling, and the modern left, I'm now working through more of his writings. It's even better listening to it as an audio book in his own voice. A must listen for long motorway drives.
ETA that said I can't see him being a supporter of Trump. It we'll never know. shame. We need his voice more than ever.
ETA that said I can't see him being a supporter of Trump. It we'll never know. shame. We need his voice more than ever.
Christopher Hitchens said:
Donald Trump – a ludicrous figure, but at least he’s lived it up a bit in the real world and at least he’s worked out how to cover 90 per cent of his skull with 30 per cent of his hair.
darker grapefruit said:
Randy Winkman said:
paranoid airbag said:
Though equally, as said elsewhere, I can't work out how "the people for government interference in a market at the expense of trade" are "the right", and those against it "the left".
Something doesn't add up when people who are pro-freedom don't want freedom of movement. So their freedom has very strict borders. Well you can have freedom not to do one thing, and freedom to do something else, can't you ?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff