Strokes Posted 29 January 2017 Share Posted 29 January 2017 1 minute ago, Thracian said: So millions of Americans vote for "a twat". Just as millions of Brits voted for Brexit. Is everyone "a twat" who disagrees with you? Sometimes, even people who agree with me are twats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facecloth Posted 29 January 2017 Share Posted 29 January 2017 1 minute ago, Thracian said: So millions of Americans vote for "a twat". Just as millions of Brits voted for Brexit. Is everyone "a twat" who disagrees with you? Well you're not disproving the theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 29 January 2017 Share Posted 29 January 2017 27 minutes ago, leicsmac said: That this ban has nothing to do with national security and everything to do with giving the facade of national security and throwing a bone to...certain areas of support while making sure personal business interests of those in the new administration aren't pissed off? Won't you calling for a vote of "no confidence?" Why would the millions who voted for Trump suddenly have "no confidence" so soon into his administration because he did exactly what he said he'd do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jattdogg Posted 29 January 2017 Share Posted 29 January 2017 Just now, Thracian said: So millions of Americans vote for "a twat". Just as millions of Brits voted for Brexit. Is everyone "a twat" who disagrees with you? I didnt say everyone was a twat. I said trump was. But if it makes you sleep better thinking that i apply that to all trump supporters than go ahead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 29 January 2017 Share Posted 29 January 2017 Just now, Facecloth said: Well you're not disproving the theory. A wouldn't have the arrogance to say they're right or wrong. Time will presumably provide the answer to that. But I'm still waiting for answers concerning the credence of democracy given the apparent contempt for it on here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bovril Posted 29 January 2017 Share Posted 29 January 2017 'Contempt for democracy' seems to be the new buzzword for shutting down criticism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facecloth Posted 29 January 2017 Share Posted 29 January 2017 11 minutes ago, Thracian said: A wouldn't have the arrogance to say they're right or wrong. Time will presumably provide the answer to that. But I'm still waiting for answers concerning the credence of democracy given the apparent contempt for it on here. Well you seem to be arguing quite strongly that anyone saying Trump is acting badly is wrong. Anyway what's wrong with people calling him out for what they see as poor policies and dangerous actions. It'd be boring if we just sat there letting things happen around us without an opinion and only voice concern and opposition when things turn to shit. You're right in the sense we don't know how it'll turn out, you're wrong if you think people can't criticise him. As for contempt for democracy. Again, can't people voice concerns. Just because one side wins, doesn't mean people can't discuss their worries over the winning sides direction. PMQ's and Question time would be a bit shit if after every general election we just left the government to it for 5 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 29 January 2017 Share Posted 29 January 2017 1 minute ago, Facecloth said: Well you seem to be arguing quite strongly that anyone saying Trump is acting badly is wrong. Anyway what's wrong with people calling him out for what they see as poor policies and dangerous actions. It'd be boring if we just sat there letting things happen around us without an opinion and only voice concern and opposition when things turn to shit. You're right in the sense we don't know how it'll turn out, you're wrong if you think people can't criticise him. As for contempt for democracy. Again, can't people voice concerns. Just because one side wins, doesn't mean people can't discuss their worries over the winning sides direction. PMQ's and Question time would be a bit shot if after every general election we just left the government to it for 5 years. I've not argued his case one way or another. As for "criticism" there's a difference between criticism and people working to prevent implementation of policies the elected leader has been given a mandate for. In the latter case it's not democracy in action but a minority trying to force their views on others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Oxlong Posted 29 January 2017 Share Posted 29 January 2017 25 minutes ago, Thracian said: You may be right or wrong, but it doesn't address my question. I wasn't intending to The clue was that I didn't quote your earlier post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 29 January 2017 Share Posted 29 January 2017 11 minutes ago, bovril said: 'Contempt for democracy' seems to be the new buzzword for shutting down criticism. If people who are democratically elected cannot implement policies they openly outline before being voted into power then, to me, democracy is undermined. As mentioned earlier "criticism" is not a problem but seeking to prevent policy implement is...and basically politics according to the most vocal gang. My aim is not to judge the policies but to ask if democracy is defensible if that's going to be the case. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 29 January 2017 Share Posted 29 January 2017 17 minutes ago, bovril said: 'Contempt for democracy' seems to be the new buzzword for shutting down criticism. Or perhaps having a different political system. Because looking at the world today I can easily see "democracy" going very wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facecloth Posted 29 January 2017 Share Posted 29 January 2017 8 minutes ago, Thracian said: I've not argued his case one way or another. As for "criticism" there's a difference between criticism and people working to prevent implementation of policies the elected leader has been given a mandate for. In the latter case it's not democracy in action but a minority trying to force their views on others. Im not sure Leicmac complaining and Rincy posting a few stats can be considered trying to prevent an elected leader performing his mandate. And people have always protested against what they don't believe in, why should trump and Brexit be special and any different? If at the next general election the winning party said they'd kill all people called David, would you not expect everyone called David and their loved ones to protest against that, despite there being a mandate for it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Oxlong Posted 29 January 2017 Share Posted 29 January 2017 19 minutes ago, Thracian said: A wouldn't have the arrogance to say they're right or wrong. Time will presumably provide the answer to that. But I'm still waiting for answers concerning the credence of democracy given the apparent contempt for it on here. Surely democracy in its purest form would have seen Hillary win the election as she took the popular vote by a margin of just under 3 million. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 29 January 2017 Share Posted 29 January 2017 Just now, Facecloth said: Im not sure Leicmac complaining and Rincy posting a few stats can be considered trying to prevent an elected leader performing his mandate. And people have always protested against what they don't believe in, why should trump and Brexit be special and any different? If at the next general election the winning party said they'd kill all people called David, would you not expect everyone called David and their loved ones to protest against that, despite there being a mandate for it? a) The efforts to curb political actions are there to be seen in the daily news. b) The "David" proposal would be illegal and would therefore never be voted on but even if it was, I'd expect the electorate to vote against. So there's no chance of a mandate therefore your example is pointless. There are much better, perfectly legal, potential policies that might produce a really tight vote and then, in a democracy, it's the winner who claims the day, not the loser. Otherwise you don't have democracy at all. So, once again, why all the flag-flying for democracy when people won't accept it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 29 January 2017 Share Posted 29 January 2017 7 minutes ago, Mike Oxlong said: Surely democracy in its purest form would have seen Hillary win the election as she took the popular vote by a margin of just under 3 million. So why don't people campaign to change the rules? I don't recall too many complaining on those grounds when Obama took office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facecloth Posted 29 January 2017 Share Posted 29 January 2017 1 minute ago, Thracian said: a) The efforts to curb political actions are there to be seen in the daily news. b) The "David" proposal would be illegal and would therefore never be voted on but even if it was, I'd expect the electorate to vote against. So there's no chance of a mandate therefore your example is pointless. There are much better, perfectly legal, potential policies that might produce a really tight vote and then, in a democracy, it's the winner who claims the day, not the loser. Otherwise you don't have democracy at all. So, once again, why all the flag-flying for democracy when people won't accept it. I always think the inability to understand a hypothetical situation used to explain a point shows a lack of intelligence. Kingfox is the same, he can't do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 29 January 2017 Share Posted 29 January 2017 36 minutes ago, Thracian said: Won't you calling for a vote of "no confidence?" Why would the millions who voted for Trump suddenly have "no confidence" so soon into his administration because he did exactly what he said he'd do? I'm not sure what this ad hominem has to do with you asking a question and me answering it, but I'll respond. I have no power to call for whatever no confidence procedure there is over here, and like others on this thread I am baffled at the idea that criticism of this administration is somehow subverting democracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl the Llama Posted 29 January 2017 Share Posted 29 January 2017 7 hours ago, Voll Blau said: Really classy and dignified response to this shit from Mo Farah. Mo's a British passport holder though so I have no idea why he's worried that he can't travel to the country. Am I missing something here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Oxlong Posted 29 January 2017 Share Posted 29 January 2017 Just now, Thracian said: So why don't people campaign to change the rules? I don't recall too many complaining on those grounds when Obama took office. I'm not talking about the too many. I'm expressing my own view that a system where some votes carry a greater value than others isn't a true democracy. I also struggle with the notion that the vanquished should accept the decisions of the victor. Surely any healthy democracy must consist of an effective opposition, to question, to challenge and to provide a viable alternative come the next occasion when the electorate decide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl the Llama Posted 29 January 2017 Share Posted 29 January 2017 3 hours ago, leicsmac said: UK petition regarding Trump being allowed to visit the UK but not making a state visit to the Queen @ 350k signatures and rising. https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/171928 Wonder what Parliament will make of it? ...Why? What purpose would doing that even serve? It's all a bit pointlessly antagonistic if you ask me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 29 January 2017 Share Posted 29 January 2017 2 minutes ago, leicsmac said: I'm not sure what this ad hominem has to do with you asking a question and me answering it, but I'll respond. I have no power to call for whatever no confidence procedure there is over here, and like others on this thread I am baffled at the idea that criticism of this administration is somehow subverting democracy. The "criticism" of Trump was widely promoted by his opponents before the election. But they lost. So to my mind Trump has a cast iron mandate to implement the policies he declared to the nation before the election and is simply putting into being, whether they prove right or wrong. If not, do we have a presidency where no policies are implemented and, if so, what does that say for the electoral majority? It says to me - as it does already - that the system is badly flawed and I'd be keen to fix the reasons for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 29 January 2017 Share Posted 29 January 2017 13 minutes ago, Facecloth said: I always think the inability to understand a hypothetical situation used to explain a point shows a lack of intelligence. Kingfox is the same, he can't do it. ......or you could have presented a realistic "hypothetical situation" if only out of deference to the "less intelligent" you seek to belittle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facecloth Posted 29 January 2017 Share Posted 29 January 2017 1 minute ago, Thracian said: ......or you could have presented a realistic "hypothetical situation" if only out of deference to the "less intelligent" you seek to belittle. I shouldn't have to stoop to your level to help you understand things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Oxlong Posted 29 January 2017 Share Posted 29 January 2017 21 minutes ago, Thracian said: So why don't people campaign to change the rules? I don't recall too many complaining on those grounds when Obama took office. Not surprising as Obama won the popular vote by 9.5 million in 2008 and just under 5 million when reelected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 29 January 2017 Share Posted 29 January 2017 Apparently British nationals are not banned from entering unless they're travelling directly from one of the seven states mentioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.