Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: STEMO on 06 January 2021, 19:14:44
-
Trump should be indicted for encouraging these scenes, it's like something from a banana republic.
-
I just spotted Gollum waving a flag on the balcony ;D
-
Teyve gone berserk apparently and stormed the building. Cops fired loads of tear gas and shot a woman in the chest ! :o
-
Teyve gone berserk apparently and stormed the building. Cops fired loads of tear gas and shot a woman in the chest ! :o
Apparently? You don't possess a television?
-
If it wasn't so serious you could make a sitcom out of it all! Meanwhile I see someone has somehow got onto the air traffic control frequency and a digitized voice has broadcast a message saying an aircraft will be crashed into the Capitol building although it seems not much credibility is being given to the "threat" the hunt is on for who did this.
-
If it wasn't so serious you could make a sitcom out of it all! Meanwhile I see someone has somehow got onto the air traffic control frequency and a digitized voice has broadcast a message saying an aircraft will be crashed into the Capitol building although it seems not much credibility is being given to the "threat" the hunt is on for who did this.
What about the fella sitting in Nancy Pelosi's office writing her a note? ;D
-
I'll bet Vlad and Xi are glued to the telly. ::)
-
Time to stop the experiment. Hand all guns in at the same time.
-
The Republican nomination primaries before the next election should be fun! Can't wait! :y ;D
-
Could spawn a film , insurrection ? Wait already been one.
-
This shouldn't be what anyone wanted to happen, but I'm (cautiously) hopeful it may cause most republicans to come to their senses and realise the damage Trump is doing. Which probably includes losing them control of the senate.
The tweet he made about an hour ago is, for the most part, disgraceful.
-
Trumps patriot army have God on their side :-X
-
The cops didn`t disperse the BLM protests, they were portrayed as the bad guys then ::)
-
If we nominate Trump, we will get destroyed.......and we will deserve it.
- Lindsey Graham (May 23 2016)
-
Although its all completely disgraceful there was a lot of hypocritical nonsense from the Liberal left in the U.S. tonight.
One of them speaking about how heart breaking it was to know the world was watching protests about the Presidential election being rigged in the worlds greatest Democracy.
All true, but it would have had some authenticity if they hadnt spent the last 4 years trying to convince the whole world that the only reason Trump was in the Whitehouse was because Putin rigged the election for him. ::)
They and the left wing media would not accept the result of the election throughout the last 4 years.
Now we have a smallish group of redneck nutters who wont accept this one, but they are a tad more violent by the look of things. ::)
I predict Bidens Presidency will be a disaster, but a quieter disaster than Trumps. The Democrats have moved much further to the left than I ever thought a U.S. party could or would.
He will dance to every loony left tune they play to him, and I doubt he will do the UK any favours.
And if he keels over and the V.P. takes the reins, God help America.
-
“You’re very special”
" Stay strong"
"This is insurrection "
-
I'm a bit disappointed waking up this morning to this. I half expected the National Guard to have shot a lot of the rioters and Trump to have been hanged for treason. Never mind.
At least arsebook and twotter shut him up for a while.
-
Disgraceful , but the world has gone totally bonkers.
-
Apparently there are 4 dead as a result of this.On the other hand you've got to love the enterprise of the person/people who set up a concession stand there selling fries etc :D
-
Wouldn't you think that with the events planned for yesterday at Capital Hill, both inside and outside the Capital Building that the authorities would have planned for any event and security organised accordingly? ??? Apparently not. ::)
The woman who was shot inside the Capital Building and later died from her injury, was attempting to climb through a window so presented no immediate threat to Police Officers and security. There seems to have been a collective shrug from the worlds media, but I wonder what the reaction would have been if it was a BLM crowd who stormed the Capital Building and she was an apparently unarmed black woman. :-X
Her name was Ashli Babbitt, she was 35 and a USAF veteran.
-
Wouldn't you think that with the events planned for yesterday at Capital Hill, both inside and outside the Capital Building that the authorities would have planned for any event and security organised accordingly? ??? Apparently not. ::)
The woman who was shot inside the Capital Building and later died from her injury, was attempting to climb through a window so presented no immediate threat to Police Officers and security. There seems to have been a collective shrug from the worlds media, but I wonder what the reaction would have been if it was a BLM crowd who stormed the Capital Building and she was an apparently unarmed black woman. :-X
Her name was Ashli Babbitt, she was 35 and a USAF veteran.
I would have thought a lot more would have been shot, can't understand how they were allowed to get inside. Those films I've been watching must have it all wrong.
-
Wouldn't you think that with the events planned for yesterday at Capital Hill, both inside and outside the Capital Building that the authorities would have planned for any event and security organised accordingly? ??? Apparently not. ::)
The woman who was shot inside the Capital Building and later died from her injury, was attempting to climb through a window so presented no immediate threat to Police Officers and security. There seems to have been a collective shrug from the worlds media, but I wonder what the reaction would have been if it was a BLM crowd who stormed the Capital Building and she was an apparently unarmed black woman. :-X
Her name was Ashli Babbitt, she was 35 and a USAF veteran.
Second person in was a man called Thomas Moretti (iirc). He didn't know her but explained exactly what happened during an improptu interview with a PBS reporter love streaming from the press area on the main forecourt. Apparently they had used aome scaffolding at the rear of the building to gain entry and used flashbangs to clear a path in and when they arrived at a locked interior door near the Senate chamber, they forced it open. She was the first one through it and was shot in the neck. At this point the Capitol Police pushed them back and at this point, the evacuated the Senate Chamber and locked down the building from the inside.
Congress was about 25 minutes into hearing arguments for and against rejecting Arizona when it happened, and they recessed for about five minutes before continuing with a presentation. Once that presentation had finished, they too evacuated.
-
Time to stop the experiment. Hand all guns in at the same time.
You do understand that the only shooting was done by the police ???
Arguably justified, however tragic.
If they had wanted to storm it and stage some sort of coup, they could easily have done so. What took place was the epitome of a peaceful protest and, whilst completely and utterly inappropriate, amounted to little more than the occupattion of a publicly funded building by some of the people who pay for it...
Had they been BLM or Greenpeace there would have been less outrage and more damage. You'll note that apart from a couple of doors and windows, the building wasn't trashed or burned and the crowd was largely compliant. :-X
-
Wouldn't you think that with the events planned for yesterday at Capital Hill, both inside and outside the Capital Building that the authorities would have planned for any event and security organised accordingly? ??? Apparently not. ::)
The woman who was shot inside the Capital Building and later died from her injury, was attempting to climb through a window so presented no immediate threat to Police Officers and security. There seems to have been a collective shrug from the worlds media, but I wonder what the reaction would have been if it was a BLM crowd who stormed the Capital Building and she was an apparently unarmed black woman. :-X
Her name was Ashli Babbitt, she was 35 and a USAF veteran.
Second person in was a man called Thomas Moretti (iirc). He didn't know her but explained exactly what happened during an improptu interview with a PBS reporter love streaming from the press area on the main forecourt. Apparently they had used aome scaffolding at the rear of the building to gain entry and used flashbangs to clear a path in and when they arrived at a locked interior door near the Senate chamber, they forced it open. She was the first one through it and was shot in the neck. At this point the Capitol Police pushed them back and at this point, the evacuated the Senate Chamber and locked down the building from the inside.
Congress was about 25 minutes into hearing arguments for and against rejecting Arizona when it happened, and they recessed for about five minutes before continuing with a presentation. Once that presentation had finished, they too evacuated.
Not my definition of a "peaceful protest"
I'm absolutely amazed and disgusted that the white, right wing "protestors" were simply allowed to do what they wanted .. if this had been the BLM movement then they would have been shot out-of-hand..... total hypocrisy from the so called "law enforcement" bodies who actively appear to support Trump and his ideals
-
Also, whilst Trump's statement was woefully inadequate and the blame can be laid squarely at his door, those people had every right to be there and heard and fair play to them for showing up.
However, of all the Senators who vowed to object in support of Congress objections, only two actually stood up to be counted whereas those in Congress all stood symbolically side by side even without support. All those Senators who withdrew their support did so in light of yesterday's events, effectively snubbing those that they pretend to serve.
And the objections weren't about Trump not being President, but rather the affront to the Constution...
Pennsylvania alone should have had its votes tossed, not to elect Trump (the votes would simply have been removed from counting and not switched as the media would have you believe), but to serve as a formal reminder to State officials that they cannot alter or ignore the Constitution on a whim.
This wasn't done, and that sadly sets a precedent.
Yesterday was indeed a dark day for the United States, but perhaps not for the reasons that the left and the media portray, but because someone died standing for something that they believed in and that has been largely unrecognised.
-
NURSE.......he's out of bed again ;D
-
Wouldn't you think that with the events planned for yesterday at Capital Hill, both inside and outside the Capital Building that the authorities would have planned for any event and security organised accordingly? ??? Apparently not. ::)
The woman who was shot inside the Capital Building and later died from her injury, was attempting to climb through a window so presented no immediate threat to Police Officers and security. There seems to have been a collective shrug from the worlds media, but I wonder what the reaction would have been if it was a BLM crowd who stormed the Capital Building and she was an apparently unarmed black woman. :-X
Her name was Ashli Babbitt, she was 35 and a USAF veteran.
Second person in was a man called Thomas Moretti (iirc). He didn't know her but explained exactly what happened during an improptu interview with a PBS reporter love streaming from the press area on the main forecourt. Apparently they had used aome scaffolding at the rear of the building to gain entry and used flashbangs to clear a path in and when they arrived at a locked interior door near the Senate chamber, they forced it open. She was the first one through it and was shot in the neck. At this point the Capitol Police pushed them back and at this point, the evacuated the Senate Chamber and locked down the building from the inside.
Congress was about 25 minutes into hearing arguments for and against rejecting Arizona when it happened, and they recessed for about five minutes before continuing with a presentation. Once that presentation had finished, they too evacuated.
Not my definition of a "peaceful protest"
I'm absolutely amazed and disgusted that the white, right wing "protestors" were simply allowed to do what they wanted .. if this had been the BLM movement then they would have been shot out-of-hand..... total hypocrisy from the so called "law enforcement" bodies who actively appear to support Trump and his ideals
Really ???
Did you not see any of the looting, burning, murdering and unimpeded violence that has been occuring almost continuously across various parts of the US since George Floyd got arrested?
Apparently the BBC missed all that :-X
-
I'd have shot the 'A bit of how's yer father'in lot of them, black, white or green with orange stripes.
-
Then I'd have run just down the road and shot Trump.
-
All in the interests of patriotism, you understand.
-
I'm absolutely amazed and disgusted that the white, right wing "protestors" were simply allowed to do what they wanted .. if this had been the BLM movement then they would have been shot out-of-hand..... total hypocrisy from the so called "law enforcement" bodies who actively appear to support Trump and his ideals
I completely disagree. If it had been BLM, law enforcement would have stood aside and let them get on with it. If they weren't down on their knee of course! :-X
-
I'm absolutely amazed and disgusted that the white, right wing "protestors" were simply allowed to do what they wanted .. if this had been the BLM movement then they would have been shot out-of-hand..... total hypocrisy from the so called "law enforcement" bodies who actively appear to support Trump and his ideals
I completely disagree. If it had been BLM, law enforcement would have stood aside and let them get on with it. If they weren't down on their knee of course! :-X
As they did last night, minus the knee.
-
I'm absolutely amazed and disgusted that the white, right wing "protestors" were simply allowed to do what they wanted .. if this had been the BLM movement then they would have been shot out-of-hand..... total hypocrisy from the so called "law enforcement" bodies who actively appear to support Trump and his ideals
I completely disagree. If it had been BLM, law enforcement would have stood aside and let them get on with it. If they weren't down on their knee of course! :-X
As they did last night, minus the knee.
True. It's all very inclusive. :y
-
Only one rioter shot, by a hero security operative who was the only one with the guts to carry out his duty in protecting government personnel. He should be given a medal and the rest of them sacked.
-
NURSE.......he's out of bed again ;D
Not for long, but again, there is so much ill-informed nonsense going around, that having watched the entire Joint Session, I had to say something :-X
-
Only one rioter shot, by a hero security operative who was the only one with the guts to carry out his duty in protecting government personnel. He should be given a medal and the rest of them sacked.
I think shooting an unarmed woman climbing through a window, who was not presenting any sort of immediate threat to anyone, was the act of a coward rather than a hero. ::)
-
NURSE.......he's out of bed again ;D
Not for long, but again, there is so much ill-informed nonsense going around, that having watched the entire Joint Session, I had to say something :-X
You're right, and most of us know where it's coming from.
How did the flowers go down? ;D
-
NURSE.......he's out of bed again ;D
Not for long, but again, there is so much ill-informed nonsense going around, that having watched the entire Joint Session, I had to say something :-X
You're right, and most of us know where it's coming from.
How did the flowers go down up? ;D
FTFY Uncle STEMO! ;D
-
Only one rioter shot, by a hero security operative who was the only one with the guts to carry out his duty in protecting government personnel. He should be given a medal and the rest of them sacked.
I think shooting an unarmed woman climbing through a window, who was not presenting any sort of immediate threat to anyone, was the act of a coward rather than a hero. ::)
Yeah, I'm sure he had the time to check that it was both a female and unarmed. Don't start with the Al eyes. ;D
-
NURSE.......he's out of bed again ;D
Not for long, but again, there is so much ill-informed nonsense going around, that having watched the entire Joint Session, I had to say something :-X
You're right, and most of us know where it's coming from.
How did the flowers go down up? ;D
FTFY Uncle STEMO! ;D
You are awful.....but I like you ;D
-
NURSE.......he's out of bed again ;D
Not for long, but again, there is so much ill-informed nonsense going around, that having watched the entire Joint Session, I had to say something :-X
So I take it that you actively agree with these two statements then ??
Rudy Giuliani, the president's personal lawyer, said the election disputes should be resolved through "trial by combat".
Donald Trump Jr, the president's oldest son, had a message to members of his party who would not "fight" for their president.
"This isn't their Republican Party anymore," he said. "This is Donald Trump's Republican Party."
making the latest definition of "democracy" not "government by the people, for the people" .... but now ... "he who lies longest and loudest wins".... ???
-
NURSE.......he's out of bed again ;D
Not for long, but again, there is so much ill-informed nonsense going around, that having watched the entire Joint Session, I had to say something :-X
So I take it that you actively agree with these two statements then ??
Rudy Giuliani, the president's personal lawyer, said the election disputes should be resolved through "trial by combat".
Donald Trump Jr, the president's oldest son, had a message to members of his party who would not "fight" for their president.
"This isn't their Republican Party anymore," he said. "This is Donald Trump's Republican Party."
making the latest definition of "democracy" not "government by the people, for the people" .... but now ... "he who lies longest and loudest wins".... ???
.....or not.
-
They definitely need to cut Donald's Twitter off, that would make his eyes water.
-
Time to stop the experiment. Hand all guns in at the same time.
You do understand that the only shooting was done by the police ???
Arguably justified, however tragic.
If they had wanted to storm it and stage some sort of coup, they could easily have done so. What took place was the epitome of a peaceful protest and, whilst completely and utterly inappropriate, amounted to little more than the occupattion of a publicly funded building by some of the people who pay for it...
Had they been BLM or Greenpeace there would have been less outrage and more damage. You'll note that apart from a couple of doors and windows, the building wasn't trashed or burned and the crowd was largely compliant. :-X
dream world still ... one day you might actually face, understand, and accept... the actual truth not your own delusions ...
Photos show damage inside the ransacked Capitol
If you want to get a sense of some of the physical damage that rioters caused when they broke into Congress, have a look at this video from a CNN reporter of the inside of a senate official's office.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/election-us-2020-55558355?ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter&ns_campaign=bbc_live&ns_linkname=5ff6e78b1c994e02e348cec0%26Photos%20show%20damage%20inside%20the%20ransacked%20Capitol%262021-01-07T11%3A43%3A13.395Z&ns_fee=0&pinned_post_locator=urn:asset:87547b5b-f043-4b60-a467-2d562624be90&pinned_post_asset_id=5ff6e78b1c994e02e348cec0&pinned_post_type=share
s.
-
Guiliani is paid to say whatever his client tells him to, however illadvised.
Trump Jr, is no different to Joe Biden saying that he's proud of Hunters actions. He's family, and I would expect nothing else.
Anyhoo, I'm not going any further down this rabbit hole :-X
-
Only one rioter shot, by a hero security operative who was the only one with the guts to carry out his duty in protecting government personnel. He should be given a medal and the rest of them sacked.
I think shooting an unarmed woman climbing through a window, who was not presenting any sort of immediate threat to anyone, was the act of a coward rather than a hero. ::)
Yeah, I'm sure he had the time to check that it was both a female and unarmed. Don't start with the Al eyes. ;D
I've seen the footage of Ashli Babbitt getting shot. She was struggling to get through a broken internal window and presented no threat to anyone. Two blokes could have grabbed her, dragged her through and cuffed her. There were also plenty of Police Officers/Security on the other side behind her as well, so there could easily have been a 'blue on blue' incident. ::)
I get that in the heat of the moment people act in ways that they wouldn't normally, and at the end of the day if Ashli Babbitt hadn't been there she'd be alive today, but.... :(
-
Some bloke on Jeremy Whine claiming that had the protestors been BLM they'd have been mowed down by helicopter gunships.
Whine didn't dispute this....
-
They definitely need to cut Donald's Twitter off, that would make his eyes water.
Trump is obviously going to piss a lot of people off. He is deluded and he is mentally unstable.
This said, he is still the sitting POTUS for another couple of weeks, and to cut him off like this is disrespectful.
I thought Twitter and Facebook where supposed to allow free speech regardless of who it offends. Instead they are playing God.
-
Some bloke on Jeremy Whine claiming that had the protestors been BLM they'd have been mowed down by helicopter gunships.
Whine didn't dispute this....
Criticism of BLM is not allowed at the BBC, so Vine will always nod along in utter obedience to the BLM mantra. Emily Maitlis acted exactly the same on BBC Newsnight where representatives of BLM told her all white people are irredeemably racist. She didn't even attempt to put an opposing view.
CBBC are also teaching (indoctrinating) our children with CRT (Critical race theory) and white privilege. Kemi Badenoch, the minister for women and equalities, has already stated this to be illegal.
-
They definitely need to cut Donald's Twitter off, that would make his eyes water.
Trump is obviously going to piss a lot of people off. He is deluded and he is mentally unstable.
This said, he is still the sitting POTUS for another couple of weeks, and to cut him off like this is disrespectful.
I thought Twitter and Facebook where supposed to allow free speech regardless of who it offends. Instead they are playing God.
If they had stamped down on him earlier he may not have thought he could break all their rules regardless.
With freedom comes responsibility, Trump has shown he has none, he therefore forfeits his self-proclaimed "rights"
-
Some bloke on Jeremy Whine claiming that had the protestors been BLM they'd have been mowed down by helicopter gunships.
Whine didn't dispute this....
......I think the caller meant to say 'offered tea and muffins and an apology for being born white'
-
They definitely need to cut Donald's Twitter off, that would make his eyes water.
Trump is obviously going to piss a lot of people off. He is deluded and he is mentally unstable.
This said, he is still the sitting POTUS for another couple of weeks, and to cut him off like this is disrespectful.
I thought Twitter and Facebook where supposed to allow free speech regardless of who it offends. Instead they are playing God.
If they had stamped down on him earlier he may not have thought he could break all their rules regardless.
With freedom comes responsibility, Trump has shown he has none, he therefore forfeits his self-proclaimed "rights"
My point is I have no idea who 'exactly they are'......I suppose it comes down to one unknown person in the end. One person who has total control over what the POTUS thinks and writes. I think this is a concern.
-
They definitely need to cut Donald's Twitter off, that would make his eyes water.
Trump is obviously going to piss a lot of people off. He is deluded and he is mentally unstable.
This said, he is still the sitting POTUS for another couple of weeks, and to cut him off like this is disrespectful.
I thought Twitter and Facebook where supposed to allow free speech regardless of who it offends. Instead they are playing God.
If they had stamped down on him earlier he may not have thought he could break all their rules regardless.
With freedom comes responsibility, Trump has shown he has none, he therefore forfeits his self-proclaimed "rights"
My point is I have no idea who 'exactly they are'......I suppose it comes down to one unknown person in the end. One person who has total control over what the POTUS thinks and writes. I think this is a concern.
Nope, not just one person ... a whole raft of them .... and a little research would find the truth easily ....
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-55571291
-
They definitely need to cut Donald's Twitter off, that would make his eyes water.
Trump is obviously going to piss a lot of people off. He is deluded and he is mentally unstable.
This said, he is still the sitting POTUS for another couple of weeks, and to cut him off like this is disrespectful.
I thought Twitter and Facebook where supposed to allow free speech regardless of who it offends. Instead they are playing God.
If they had stamped down on him earlier he may not have thought he could break all their rules regardless.
With freedom comes responsibility, Trump has shown he has none, he therefore forfeits his self-proclaimed "rights"
They should also include the politicians who allowed him to continually publicise his fantasy of winning the election. That would have dramatically reduced the flag and gun waving.
If his health and money survive, Trump will be more effective as a 'wronged' opposition figure than he ever could have been as an elected president. He'll also be increasingly susceptible to even more bizarre and incompetent advisors than he has been for the last four years. The lack of good advice and his own non-existent grasp of strategy are what made yesterday's - for want of a better word - demonstrations fail. Anyone competent would have salted the crowd with experienced leaders to aim it a real target and prepared scapegoat.
-
It looks like Trump has 88.7 million followers yet only received 75 million votes......... Perhaps Mr Gollum has a point. ;) ;) :)
Seriously though. Trump was essentially banned because his political views didn't align with the people behind twitter and Facebook.
Looks like they are deleting all 88.7 millions followers as well.
-
Trumps biggest error was to not concede the 2020 election quickly and with some dignity. I imagine him too 'self important' to consider this.
He lost. No if or buts.
I just worry about any democracy that wants to control what it's democratically elected president has to say. If Trump had posted endlessly about how great BLM are, and how badly black people are treated in the USA, both Facebook and Twitter would have lapped it up.
-
BLM don't bother me at all, just another protest group.
-
Yes a protest group that is focused on bringing our hero’s and culture down.
-
Yes a protest group that is focused on bringing our hero’s and culture down.
They have powerful backers.
The BBC
The Labour party.
Big Football clubs
Amazon
Google.
Sainsbury
Woke people
Education in our schools
-
Yes a protest group that is focused on bringing our hero’s and culture down.
They have powerful backers.
The BBC
The Labour party.
Big Football clubs
Amazon
Google.
Sainsbury
Woke people
Education in our schools
Still doesn't bother me. Other people can live their lives any way they want to, and I'll live mine the way I want to. I won't go out of my way to hurt a black person, but I won't go out of my way to help one, either.
-
If you get all riled up, they have obviously got what they want. Ignoring them is much better.
-
Only one rioter shot, by a hero security operative who was the only one with the guts to carry out his duty in protecting government personnel. He should be given a medal and the rest of them sacked.
I think shooting an unarmed woman climbing through a window, who was not presenting any sort of immediate threat to anyone, was the act of a coward rather than a hero. ::)
Yeah, I'm sure he had the time to check that it was both a female and unarmed. Don't start with the Al eyes. ;D
I've seen the footage of Ashli Babbitt getting shot. She was struggling to get through a broken internal window and presented no threat to anyone. Two blokes could have grabbed her, dragged her through and cuffed her. There were also plenty of Police Officers/Security on the other side behind her as well, so there could easily have been a 'blue on blue' incident. ::)
I get that in the heat of the moment people act in ways that they wouldn't normally, and at the end of the day if Ashli Babbitt hadn't been there she'd be alive today, but.... :(
"Markwayne Mullin, a Republican lawmaker from Oklahoma, said the woman had been among a crowd of people trying to enter the House of Representatives chamber.
"The mob was going to come through the door, there was a lot of members and staff that were in danger at the time,” he said.
One of the plainclothes Capitol Police officers in the chamber fired his service weapon as “multiple individuals” tried to get into the room, he said.
“When he [drew] his weapon, that's a decision that's very hard for anyone to make and, once you draw your weapon like that, you have to defend yourself with deadly force."
The woman who was shot was taken to hospital, where she was later declared dead. She has not been officially named, but local media identified her as San Diego-area US Air Force veteran and Trump supporter Ashli Babbit.
Mullin said the shooting did result in the departure of the crowd from the doors of the chamber.
“[The officer's] actions may be judged in a lot of different ways moving forward,” Mullin said, “but his actions I believe saved people's lives even more. Unfortunately, it did take one though."
-
From the bbc
Photos and video footage later show a female protester being shot as she tries to break through the barricaded doors of the Speakers' Lobby.
-
Make your own mind up don't just believe what the BBC says. ::) Here's (https://twitter.com/dancohen3000/status/1347076676342185984?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1347076676342185984%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fpolitical%2Fexact-moment-ashli-babbitt-was-shot-while-storming-capitol) the footage of Ashli Babbitt getting shot. :o
Note that on the side of the doors that they were trying to get through there appears to have been nearly as many heavily armed police officers as protestors, who appear to be mostly armed with mobile phones.
WARNING GRAPHIC FOOTAGE IN THE LINK. Well... it's not that graphic really. A crowd of police officers and protestors on one side of the doors, someone pointing a gun on the other. The gun is fired and a person falls backwards into the crowd and to the floor and that's it really, no blood, no guts or gore. But if you don't fancy seeing a fellow human being getting shot, don't click the link. ;)
None of us was there so we're all just armchair pundits and keyboard warriors, but I can't see any justification for the use of lethal force in that situation. :(
-
Make your own mind up don't just believe what the BBC says. ::) Here's (https://twitter.com/dancohen3000/status/1347076676342185984?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1347076676342185984%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fpolitical%2Fexact-moment-ashli-babbitt-was-shot-while-storming-capitol) the footage of Ashli Babbitt getting shot. :o
Note that on the side of the doors that they were trying to get through there appears to have been nearly as many heavily armed police officers as protestors, who appear to be mostly armed with mobile phones.
WARNING GRAPHIC FOOTAGE IN THE LINK. Well... it's not that graphic really. A crowd of police officers and protestors on one side of the doors, someone pointing a gun on the other. The gun is fired and a person falls backwards into the crowd and to the floor and that's it really, no blood, no guts or gore. But if you don't fancy seeing a fellow human being getting shot, don't click the link. ;)
None of us was there so we're all just armchair pundits and keyboard warriors, but I can't see any justification for the use of lethal force in that situation. :(
Where's the link? ;D
-
Make your own mind up don't just believe what the BBC says. ::) the footage of Ashli Babbitt getting shot. :o
Note that on the side of the doors that they were trying to get through there appears to have been nearly as many heavily armed police officers as protestors, who appear to be mostly armed with mobile phones.
WARNING GRAPHIC FOOTAGE IN THE LINK. Well... it's not that graphic really. A crowd of police officers and protestors on one side of the doors, someone pointing a gun on the other. The gun is fired and a person falls backwards into the crowd and to the floor and that's it really, no blood, no guts or gore. But if you don't fancy seeing a fellow human being getting shot, don't click the link. ;)
None of us was there so we're all just armchair pundits and keyboard warriors, but I can't see any justification for the use of lethal force in that situation. :(
(https://twitter.com/dancohen3000/status/1347076676342185984?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1347076676342185984%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fpolitical%2Fexact-moment-ashli-babbitt-was-shot-while-storming-capitol/url)
Fixed the link for you. She deserved what she got.
-
Make your own mind up don't just believe what the BBC says. ::) Here's (https://twitter.com/dancohen3000/status/1347076676342185984?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1347076676342185984%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fpolitical%2Fexact-moment-ashli-babbitt-was-shot-while-storming-capitol) the footage of Ashli Babbitt getting shot. :o
Note that on the side of the doors that they were trying to get through there appears to have been nearly as many heavily armed police officers as protestors, who appear to be mostly armed with mobile phones.
WARNING GRAPHIC FOOTAGE IN THE LINK. Well... it's not that graphic really. A crowd of police officers and protestors on one side of the doors, someone pointing a gun on the other. The gun is fired and a person falls backwards into the crowd and to the floor and that's it really, no blood, no guts or gore. But if you don't fancy seeing a fellow human being getting shot, don't click the link. ;)
None of us was there so we're all just armchair pundits and keyboard warriors, but I can't see any justification for the use of lethal force in that situation. :(
Where's the link? ;D
Works fine for me. :-\ ::) :P
-
Quote your first post, you've split the link with the word 'here's'
-
Quote your first post, you've split the link with the word 'here's'
Nope. Still works for me. ::)
Never mind it might be a bit too much for you at your age anyway, so it's probably best you stick to the BBC! :P ;D
-
Quote your first post, you've split the link with the word 'here's'
Nope. Still works for me. ::)
Never mind it might be a bit too much for you at your age anyway, so it's probably best you stick to the BBC! :P ;D
It works because it'll be in your cache, and you've probably got an account with the fickin thing as well.
-
And she still deserved it :-*
-
Quote your first post, you've split the link with the word 'here's'
Nope. Still works for me. ::)
Never mind it might be a bit too much for you at your age anyway, so it's probably best you stick to the BBC! :P ;D
Are you suggesting your great uncle is 'past it' :)
-
Quote your first post, you've split the link with the word 'here's'
Nope. Still works for me. ::)
Never mind it might be a bit too much for you at your age anyway, so it's probably best you stick to the BBC! :P ;D
Are you suggesting your great uncle is 'past it' :)
You might think that M'Lud, but I couldn't possibly comment. :)
-
Quote your first post, you've split the link with the word 'here's'
Nope. Still works for me. ::)
Never mind it might be a bit too much for you at your age anyway, so it's probably best you stick to the BBC! :P ;D
Are you suggesting your great uncle is 'past it' :)
You might think that M'Lud, but I couldn't possibly comment. :)
You'd need to ask his wife/carer. She'd know. :)
-
Quote your first post, you've split the link with the word 'here's'
Nope. Still works for me. ::)
Never mind it might be a bit too much for you at your age anyway, so it's probably best you stick to the BBC! :P ;D
Are you suggesting your great uncle is 'past it' :)
Fixed your corsa yet, Mechanical Mick? ;D
-
Quote your first post, you've split the link with the word 'here's'
Nope. Still works for me. ::)
Never mind it might be a bit too much for you at your age anyway, so it's probably best you stick to the BBC! :P ;D
Are you suggesting your great uncle is 'past it' :)
Fixed your corsa yet, Mechanical Mick? ;D
Too dark and too cold. I have plenty of room to just leave it and let it gather moss.
I will sort it though. Thank you for your concern. :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-*
-
Hmmmmm....dead rioters to your ancient
sigmund corsa, that doesn't usually happen.
-
Make your own mind up don't just believe what the BBC says. ::) Here's (https://twitter.com/dancohen3000/status/1347076676342185984?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1347076676342185984%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fpolitical%2Fexact-moment-ashli-babbitt-was-shot-while-storming-capitol) the footage of Ashli Babbitt getting shot. :o
Note that on the side of the doors that they were trying to get through there appears to have been nearly as many heavily armed police officers as protestors, who appear to be mostly armed with mobile phones.
WARNING GRAPHIC FOOTAGE IN THE LINK. Well... it's not that graphic really. A crowd of police officers and protestors on one side of the doors, someone pointing a gun on the other. The gun is fired and a person falls backwards into the crowd and to the floor and that's it really, no blood, no guts or gore. But if you don't fancy seeing a fellow human being getting shot, don't click the link. ;)
None of us was there so we're all just armchair pundits and keyboard warriors, but I can't see any justification for the use of lethal force in that situation. :(
Me neither. Not even a warning.
-
Coward with a gun
-
Hero with a gun. It would have been more than one if it was me.
-
I've not really followed the story but...
America ,so someone trespasses you shoot em
they soon learn NOT TOO when they are dead :-\ ;D ::) :o
-
Nonsense, should have at least been a warning shot first.
-
I don't think the woman should have have been shot dead, but......
If a person of authority is pointing a gun at you because you are doing something naughty...... surely you stop doing the naughty thing?
Warning shot? Why? The warning is the loaded lethal weapon pointed at your bonce! Unless you are a completely braindead frickin idiot?
-
To some I guess she will appear as a martyr to their cause ; what ever that might be ???
-
FWIW, my take
- don't see impeachment happening, although the GOP might want to think about removing Trump as a purgative
- excusing the wrongdoings of others via police failure tastes bad. Most of the protestors were grown adults who should have known better. There is such as thing as personal responsibility.
- quite liked Mitt Romney's take
https://youtu.be/MFj2Br8nxoc
-
Then again, it looks like the Donald just jumped before he was pushed...
-
https://youtu.be/dtlKl_-bk1E
NWS.
As for Impeaching Trump, nothing but noise. As Lindsay Graham points out... https://youtu.be/blCEE283FA0 It would take longer than two weeks, at which point it becomes moot.
-
Then again, it looks like the Donald just jumped before he was pushed...
.
Got to agree with that, the phrase used last night "President gone rogue" sums this whole ridiculous episode up entirely.
-
Then again, it looks like the Donald just jumped before he was pushed...
.
Got to agree with that, the phrase used last night "President gone rogue" sums this whole ridiculous episode up entirely.
It seems like President's gone limp is now the case. .
Perhaps he has somehow acquired a competent lawyer
-
A young country whose lifespan so far is a mere 250 years, and during those short years they've had a genocide, a civil war, a couple of wars with the neighbours, four assassinated presidents, 3 impeached presidents and one president who resigned before he was impeached. ::)
Sounds like a latin american banana republic? No it's that supposedly beacon of democracy that the media have been talking about the last couple of days, the United States of America!
So it's just business as usual really! ;D
-
We arent really in a position to lecture them on Democracy though are we ? ::)
Anyone remember Gordon McRuin refusing to leave Downing street for quite some time after clearly losing the general election by 2 million votes and 60 seats ?
Whats more, the good old BBC (and plenty more in the MSM) presented his case for him as though it was the most reasonable course of action in the world.
That was nothing though. After the biggest vote in the history of the country in 2016, most of the media, half of Parliament (lead by the speaker no less) and most of the unelected Lords, refused point blank to allow the outcome of the vote to be implemented. They were unrelenting until Boris (despite his many faults) won a huge majority, with a mandate to crack on with it.
And in the U.S. itself, all those in Washington, along with their friends in the media who are currently outraged, are the same people who still havent accepted the result of the previous election, and have tried every dirty trick in the book to overturn it during the least 4 years.
People in glass houses........ ::)
-
We arent really in a position to lecture them on Democracy though are we ? ::)
Anyone remember Gordon McRuin refusing to leave Downing street for quite some time after clearly losing the general election by 2 million votes and 60 seats ?
Whats more, the good old BBC (and plenty more in the MSM) presented his case for him as though it was the most reasonable course of action in the world.
That was nothing though. After the biggest vote in the history of the country in 2016, most of the media, half of Parliament (lead by the speaker no less) and most of the unelected Lords, refused point blank to allow the outcome of the vote to be implemented. They were unrelenting until Boris (despite his many faults) won a huge majority, with a mandate to crack on with it.
And in the U.S. itself, all those in Washington, along with their friends in the media who are currently outraged, are the same people who still havent accepted the result of the previous election, and have tried every dirty trick in the book to overturn it during the least 4 years.
People in glass houses........ ::)
Sounds to me that it's you that don't understand Democracy. ::)
There is no single correct interpretation of "Democracy", and conflating the systems between any two countries is at best unwise, and at worst extremely foolish. The dictionary definition is "a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives" .
The UK has a Parliamentary democracy under which Parliament is sovereign, not the People. The Democratic Republic of Korea has something a bit different, and the USA is different again.
-
We arent really in a position to lecture them on Democracy though are we ? ::)
Anyone remember Gordon McRuin refusing to leave Downing street for quite some time after clearly losing the general election by 2 million votes and 60 seats ?
Whats more, the good old BBC (and plenty more in the MSM) presented his case for him as though it was the most reasonable course of action in the world.
That was nothing though. After the biggest vote in the history of the country in 2016, most of the media, half of Parliament (lead by the speaker no less) and most of the unelected Lords, refused point blank to allow the outcome of the vote to be implemented. They were unrelenting until Boris (despite his many faults) won a huge majority, with a mandate to crack on with it.
And in the U.S. itself, all those in Washington, along with their friends in the media who are currently outraged, are the same people who still havent accepted the result of the previous election, and have tried every dirty trick in the book to overturn it during the least 4 years.
People in glass houses........ ::)
Sounds to me that it's you that don't understand Democracy. ::)
There is no single correct interpretation of "Democracy", and conflating the systems between any two countries is at best unwise, and at worst extremely foolish. The dictionary definition is "a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives" .
The UK has a Parliamentary democracy under which Parliament is sovereign, not the People. The Democratic Republic of Korea has something a bit different, and the USA is different again.
That may be so but the results of the 2019 General Election shows were ultimate democracy lies . And quite rightly so .
-
A young country whose lifespan so far is a mere 250 years, and during those short years they've had a genocide, a civil war, a couple of wars with the neighbours, four assassinated presidents, 3 impeached presidents and one president who resigned before he was impeached. ::)
Sounds like a latin american banana republic? No it's that supposedly beacon of democracy that the media have been talking about the last couple of days, the United States of America!
So it's just business as usual really! ;D
.
Excellent, that's it in a nutshell really, couldn't have expressed it better myself..👌
-
A young country whose lifespan so far is a mere 250 years, and during those short years they've had a genocide, a civil war, a couple of wars with the neighbours, four assassinated presidents, 3 impeached presidents and one president who resigned before he was impeached. ::)
Sounds like a latin american banana republic? No it's that supposedly beacon of democracy that the media have been talking about the last couple of days, the United States of America!
So it's just business as usual really! ;D
Other, long established countries were just practice for the premier performance ;D
-
Hero with a gun. It would have been more than one if it was me.
Hero with a gun or coward with a gun just be grateful the deceased was not 'dark of skin'. ::)
Can you imagine the amount of wide screen TV that would go missing in the name of reparation.
-
Sounds to me that it's you that don't understand Democracy. ::)
There is no single correct interpretation of "Democracy", and conflating the systems between any two countries is at best unwise, and at worst extremely foolish. The dictionary definition is "a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives" .
The UK has a Parliamentary democracy under which Parliament is sovereign, not the People. The Democratic Republic of Korea has something a bit different, and the USA is different again.
That may be so but the results of the 2019 General Election shows were ultimate democracy lies . And quite rightly so .
The result of EVERY UK election shows where democracy lies - in Parliament. Only Parliament decides when a vote will be. Only Parliament decides who can vote. Under 18's can't and nor can prisoners. It wasn't long ago that under 21's couldn't vote, and before that Women couldn't, and before that only the landed gentry could vote. In the UK Parliament decides the rules, not the people.
-
A fair bit is being made of the woman being[rightly or wrongly]shot little is mentioned of the police officer who also died there while doing his duty.
A woman[Trump supporter] who owns a candy store[as the Americans call them]near the Capitol building was seen going to see a priest[she took no part in the "protest" and someone has said her shop should be boycotted over this while another says he is willing to "open a dialogue" with her!!
-
Sounds to me that it's you that don't understand Democracy. ::)
There is no single correct interpretation of "Democracy", and conflating the systems between any two countries is at best unwise, and at worst extremely foolish. The dictionary definition is "a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives" .
The UK has a Parliamentary democracy under which Parliament is sovereign, not the People. The Democratic Republic of Korea has something a bit different, and the USA is different again.
That may be so but the results of the 2019 General Election shows were ultimate democracy lies . And quite rightly so .
The result of EVERY UK election shows where democracy lies - in Parliament. Only Parliament decides when a vote will be. Only Parliament decides who can vote. Under 18's can't and nor can prisoners. It wasn't long ago that under 21's couldn't vote, and before that Women couldn't, and before that only the landed gentry could vote. In the UK Parliament decides the rules, not the people.
Which is exactly how a representative democracy is supposed to work. The elected representative is supposed to vote according to their manifesto, but they don't have to.
-
Sounds to me that it's you that don't understand Democracy. ::)
There is no single correct interpretation of "Democracy", and conflating the systems between any two countries is at best unwise, and at worst extremely foolish. The dictionary definition is "a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives" .
The UK has a Parliamentary democracy under which Parliament is sovereign, not the People. The Democratic Republic of Korea has something a bit different, and the USA is different again.
That may be so but the results of the 2019 General Election shows were ultimate democracy lies . And quite rightly so .
The result of EVERY UK election shows where democracy lies - in Parliament. Only Parliament decides when a vote will be. Only Parliament decides who can vote. Under 18's can't and nor can prisoners. It wasn't long ago that under 21's couldn't vote, and before that Women couldn't, and before that only the landed gentry could vote. In the UK Parliament decides the rules, not the people.
Which is exactly how a representative democracy is supposed to work. The elected representative is supposed to vote according to their manifesto, but they don't have to.
Translation: Politicians are lying bastards who will say anything to get elected.
-
This years award for stating the bleeding obvious goes to........ ::)
-
Sounds to me that it's you that don't understand Democracy. ::)
There is no single correct interpretation of "Democracy", and conflating the systems between any two countries is at best unwise, and at worst extremely foolish. The dictionary definition is "a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives" .
The UK has a Parliamentary democracy under which Parliament is sovereign, not the People. The Democratic Republic of Korea has something a bit different, and the USA is different again.
That may be so but the results of the 2019 General Election shows were ultimate democracy lies . And quite rightly so .
The result of EVERY UK election shows where democracy lies - in Parliament. Only Parliament decides when a vote will be. Only Parliament decides who can vote. Under 18's can't and nor can prisoners. It wasn't long ago that under 21's couldn't vote, and before that Women couldn't, and before that only the landed gentry could vote. In the UK Parliament decides the rules, not the people.
Which is exactly how a representative democracy is supposed to work. The elected representative is supposed to vote according to their manifesto, but they don't have to.
Agree. Which is why it's pointless comparing democracies in different countries. In the US they vote for Congressmen in the lower house, Senators in the upper house, and the President (currently in the loony house). Thankfully here we only have to vote for one lot of crooks - in the Lower House (House of Commons). The Upper House (the Lords) is appointed by the Govt, and the Queen is the Queen. We don't get to vote for the Queen, or the Prime minister at all.
-
Its not pointless at all. The basic principle of the various forms of Democracy is, that the majority win.
So if you lose by 60 seats / 2 million votes then try to play the system to stay in office that isnt being democratic.
If you state categorically you will abide by the result of a Referendum (as all our Parliamentarians did) then try every trick known to man to do the opposite, when the voters give the wrong result, that isnt being Democratic.
When a President wins by a clear majority, then his opponents claim Putin fiddled the election so he could win. The try to impeach him. Try to prove him a criminal, and all the other tricks pulled in the last 4 years. That isnt Democratic.
When your favourite candidate loses the Presidential election and you storm the Capitol building. That isnt being democratic.
I think most adults understand the basics of the Constitutional arrangements of the systems in their own countries, but they also understand the basic principles of Democracy being undermined when its happening on their TV screens.
In my view, most Politicians only believe in Democracy when it suits them.
-
Its not pointless at all. The basic principle of the various forms of Democracy is, that the majority win.
So if you lose by 60 seats / 2 million votes then try to play the system to stay in office that isnt being democratic.
If you state categorically you will abide by the result of a Referendum (as all our Parliamentarians did) then try every trick known to man to do the opposite, when the voters give the wrong result, that isnt being Democratic.
When a President wins by a clear majority, then his opponents claim Putin fiddled the election so he could win. The try to impeach him. Try to prove him a criminal, and all the other tricks pulled in the last 4 years. That isnt Democratic.
When your favourite candidate loses the Presidential election and you storm the Capitol building. That isnt being democratic.
I think most adults understand the basics of the Constitutional arrangements of the systems in their own countries, but they also understand the basic principles of Democracy being undermined when its happening on their TV screens.
In my view, most Politicians only believe in Democracy when it suits them.
Care to provide any proof of this statement?
-
David Camerons resignation for a start.
-
Sounds to me that it's you that don't understand Democracy. ::)
There is no single correct interpretation of "Democracy", and conflating the systems between any two countries is at best unwise, and at worst extremely foolish. The dictionary definition is "a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives" .
The UK has a Parliamentary democracy under which Parliament is sovereign, not the People. The Democratic Republic of Korea has something a bit different, and the USA is different again.
That may be so but the results of the 2019 General Election shows were ultimate democracy lies . And quite rightly so .
The result of EVERY UK election shows where democracy lies - in Parliament. Only Parliament decides when a vote will be. Only Parliament decides who can vote. Under 18's can't and nor can prisoners. It wasn't long ago that under 21's couldn't vote, and before that Women couldn't, and before that only the landed gentry could vote. In the UK Parliament decides the rules, not the people.
No , you describe who makes the rules not the outcome.
The voting public ,beit whom, where or what they are, is where democracy lies.
-
When your favourite candidate loses the Presidential election and you storm stroll into the Capitol building. That isnt being democratic.
Judging by some of the videos that I've seen this is more accurate. Police opened gates and doors and stood by while the crowd wandered in. ::)
Insurrection? Domestic terrorists? ;D
-
Its not pointless at all. The basic principle of the various forms of Democracy is, that the majority win.
That is not a principle of democracies. It rarely happens when proportional representation is used to elect the council. Nor is it guaranteed in our first-past-the-post system.
The principle of a democracy is that the population(UK 63million) elects a small (UK 650MPs) group - we call ours Parliament - to govern it. The hope is that that members of Parliament, by having varied backgrounds, will do a satisfactory job for most of the population. Frequent, regularly spaced elections provide a feedback loop for both groups.
Exactly how they're elected is different for each country, but most have similarities: two houses that are selected differently, with the head of state and head of government as two separate positions.
Anyone who expects their elected representative, whether that's individually or collectively, to do exactly what they want is a fantasist. Unfortunately, the world has a lot of those.
-
David Camerons resignation for a start.
That's one. Only 649 more MP's to find that "categorically stated they would abide by the result of a Referendum (as all our Parliamentarians did)"
-
Sounds to me that it's you that don't understand Democracy. ::)
There is no single correct interpretation of "Democracy", and conflating the systems between any two countries is at best unwise, and at worst extremely foolish. The dictionary definition is "a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives" .
The UK has a Parliamentary democracy under which Parliament is sovereign, not the People. The Democratic Republic of Korea has something a bit different, and the USA is different again.
That may be so but the results of the 2019 General Election shows were ultimate democracy lies . And quite rightly so .
The result of EVERY UK election shows where democracy lies - in Parliament. Only Parliament decides when a vote will be. Only Parliament decides who can vote. Under 18's can't and nor can prisoners. It wasn't long ago that under 21's couldn't vote, and before that Women couldn't, and before that only the landed gentry could vote. In the UK Parliament decides the rules, not the people.
No , you describe who makes the rules not the outcome.
The voting public ,beit whom, where or what they are, is where democracy lies.
I don't like the word democracy when it's used like that because it means nothing, or perhaps means different things to different people. There is no precise definition of what democracy means, which is why so many countries have such differing views of what democracy means, and how to implement it.
I accept your view of 'where democracy lies' is a valid opinion, but it's just not the only opinion, and in the context of the UK is incorrect.
-
Apologies. I should have said almost all / overhwelming majority or something similar, rather than all.
The Illiberal Undemocrats (all 9 of them) and a few Labour MP,s (David Lammy springs to mind) said the result should be ignored.
Otherwise the Labour and the Tory parties said they would implement the result, even though many of them didnt mean it and intended to do the complete opposite.
You really are dancing on the head of a pin though, trying to prove something or other.
The basis of Democracy should be the majority (or at least largest group) wins.
Anything which strays far from that isnt Democratic, even if it has Democrat in its title, like the ludicrous Libdems do.
-
Apologies. I should have said almost all / overhwelming majority or something similar, rather than all.
The Illiberal Undemocrats (all 9 of them) and a few Labour MP,s (David Lammy springs to mind) said the result should be ignored.
Otherwise the Labour and the Tory parties said they would implement the result, even though many of them didnt mean it and intended to do the complete opposite.
You really are dancing on the head of a pin though, trying to prove something or other.
The basis of Democracy should be the majority (or at least largest group) wins.
Anything which strays far from that isnt Democratic, even if it has Democrat in its title, like the ludicrous Libdems do.
The largest group of what though? People, People who are eligible to vote, or MP's.
In the UK it's MP's. You get a say in precicely one MP (assuming Parliament has included you in the group of people who are allowed to vote), at an interval decided by Parliament (currently 5 years, but can be changed by Parliament).
And in 1974 Harold Wilson was elected with 37.2% of the vote, but 301 seats against Heath's 37.9% of the vote but only 297 seats. So even in the UK it's possible, though unusual, to lose an election even though you garnered more public votes than the next largest party.
-
Apologies. I should have said almost all / overhwelming majority or something similar, rather than all.
The Illiberal Undemocrats (all 9 of them) and a few Labour MP,s (David Lammy springs to mind) said the result should be ignored.
Otherwise the Labour and the Tory parties said they would implement the result, even though many of them didnt mean it and intended to do the complete opposite.
You really are dancing on the head of a pin though, trying to prove something or other.
The basis of Democracy should be the majority (or at least largest group) wins.
Anything which strays far from that isnt Democratic, even if it has Democrat in its title, like the ludicrous Libdems do.
The largest group of what though? People, People who are eligible to vote, or MP's.
In the UK it's MP's. You get a say in precicely one MP (assuming Parliament has included you in the group of people who are allowed to vote), at an interval decided by Parliament (currently 5 years, but can be changed by Parliament).
And in 1974 Harold Wilson was elected with 37.2% of the vote, but 301 seats against Heath's 37.9% of the vote but only 297 seats. So even in the UK it's possible, though unusual, to lose an election even though you garnered more public votes than the next largest party.
Voters who voted for a particular option.
-
The basis of Democracy should be the majority (or at least largest group) wins.
The only way that could even come close to working is if the final council/parliament/senate/whatever only contained members of the winning group. Which is completely contrary to representative politics - just look at the Brexit Referendum results, where the winning 52% majority was actually 37% of the electorate.
No party capable of winning an election is a consistent, homogenous group. Look at the the current Conservative party, which is led by a man whose record makes him better suited to being a Libdem.
-
Voters who voted for a particular option.
But in reality you're voting for a political party, which is more of a direction than an option. That is important because nobody knows what they might have to decide over their five year term.
-
Your over complicating the issue. The majority, or the largest group, vote for a particular option, whether its voting for a party to govern the country or a choice of two options in a referendum, or President of a country.
Of course this doesnt produce pure unadulterated Democracy. Nothings perfect. The examples I was giving in my earlier post were examples of people either perverting the system for their own ends, and trashing Democracy in the process, or in the case of the last Parliament, just ignoring the result of the referendum altogether, and again trashing the most basic principles of democracy altogether.
In the case of the referendum Parliament voted to have it, on the understanding that the result would be implemented, and then many of them tried everything they could think of to stop that from happening, while pretending they were doing nothing of the sort.
By any reasonable measure, that isnt Democracy, any more than Trump supporters trying to convince everyone that the Presidential election should be rerun because they dont like the result.
-
Voters who voted for a particular option.
But in reality you're voting for a political party, which is more of a direction than an option. That is important because nobody knows what they might have to decide over their five year term.
Not always, I sometime vote for an independent individual, but for the majority your right. People tend to vote for a party which agrees more with their preferred direction of travel than the others. Its an imperfect system, but no-one sems to have come up with a better workable alternative yet.
Not really connected to the original point I was making though. That was about the hypocrisy of the media and Politicians who got hysterical about what happened in Washington, while ignoring various other events which have been anti democratic, in principle.
-
Your over complicating the issue. The majority, or the largest group, vote for a particular option, whether its voting for a party to govern the country or a choice of two options in a referendum, or President of a country.
Of course this doesnt produce pure unadulterated Democracy. Nothings perfect. The examples I was giving in my earlier post were examples of people either perverting the system for their own ends, and trashing Democracy in the process, or in the case of the last Parliament, just ignoring the result of the referendum altogether, and again trashing the most basic principles of democracy altogether.
In the case of the referendum Parliament voted to have it, on the understanding that the result would be implemented, and then many of them tried everything they could think of to stop that from happening, while pretending they were doing nothing of the sort.
By any reasonable measure, that isnt Democracy, any more than Trump supporters trying to convince everyone that the Presidential election should be rerun because they dont like the result.
Do you not see the irony in you/anyone trying to define what democracy is/should be, and then trying to impose that view on the rest of us, many of whom may not agree with your view?
-
Im not imposing anything on anyone. Im merely taking part in a discussion. ::)
-
Im not imposing anything on anyone. Im merely taking part in a discussion. ::)
Ok, I will re-phrase.
Do you not see the irony in you/anyone trying to define what democracy is/should be, and then judging others as undemocratic based on those views, when many of others may not agree with those views?
-
If you want to defend those in the examples I used, and explain how they adhere to a genuine definition of basic principles of Democracy, crack on. :y
-
David Camerons resignation for a start.
That's one. Only 649 more MP's to find that "categorically stated they would abide by the result of a Referendum (as all our Parliamentarians did)"
Being a two horse race it can be argued the Brexit vote was more democratic than any general election I can remember.
Even three time election winners Thatcher and Blair still represented a government that the majority of the people who voted, didn't vote for. :)
-
If you want to defend those in the examples I used, and explain how they adhere to a genuine definition of basic principles of Democracy, crack on. :y
You're missing the point. There is no "genuine definition of basic principles of Democracy". Democracy is an abstract idea which means different things to different people, and is implemented differently in every country which claims to be democratic. Governments sometimes have to implement things which are against the wishes of the majority of their electorate (tax rises are a good example) - but that doesn't make them undemocratic.
In the UK, the public only have those rights which are granted to them by Parliament. Parliament can add or remove any of those rights at any time. That's what Parliament is sovereign really means. What Parliament did or didn't do during the 2016-2019 period was not undemocratic under the UK implementation of democracy. The fact that this implementation of democracy doesn't agree with your views on what democracy should be is neither here nor there.
As for Trump - in 2016 he was elected with more electoral college votes than Clinton, but a lower number of actual public votes. Is that democratic? Under the US implementation of democracy - yes - but it's easy for people to complain it's not democratic because fewer people actually voted for him than Clinton. All the senators and congressmen were also elected (AFAIK) under whatever system passes for democracy in the US, and therefore they have that authority to vote any which way they choose.
-
If you want to defend those in the examples I used, and explain how they adhere to a genuine definition of basic principles of Democracy, crack on. :y
You're missing the point. There is no "genuine definition of basic principles of Democracy". Democracy is an abstract idea which means different things to different people, and is implemented differently in every country which claims to be democratic. Governments sometimes have to implement things which are against the wishes of the majority of their electorate (tax rises are a good example) - but that doesn't make them undemocratic.
In the UK, the public only have those rights which are granted to them by Parliament. Parliament can add or remove any of those rights at any time. That's what Parliament is sovereign really means. What Parliament did or didn't do during the 2016-2019 period was not undemocratic under the UK implementation of democracy. The fact that this implementation of democracy doesn't agree with your views on what democracy should be is neither here nor there.
As for Trump - in 2016 he was elected with more electoral college votes than Clinton, but a lower number of actual public votes. Is that democratic? Under the US implementation of democracy - yes - but it's easy for people to complain it's not democratic because fewer people actually voted for him than Clinton. All the senators and congressmen were also elected (AFAIK) under whatever system passes for democracy in the US, and therefore they have that authority to vote any which way they choose.
Yes.
-
I think its you who is missing the point. The whole discussion has been about peoples perception of right and wrong, but your talking about legal niceties and Constitutional nuances. ;)
-
I think its you who is missing the point. The whole discussion has been about peoples perception of right and wrong, but your talking about legal niceties and Constitutional nuances. ;)
No the discussion was about politics, which is entirely about legal niceties and constitutional nuances. Now you're trying to make it about ethics and morality.
-
No , since reply 91 the subject that Albs has been discussing has been democracy .
I've just revisited this thread and quite simply no salad of words will ever suggest that democracy is anything other than ,
" control of an organization or group by the majority of its members." ( see , I can search google and copy and paste too ...)
Now you can introduce all sorts of whitabootery but in every democratic system , whatever it's guise , in the free world where a decision has to be made ultimately it comes down to a count , and the largest number within that count carries the motion .
So no matter the many ways that you believe that Parliament can bump it's head on heavens ceiling it's the actual voting populace that ultimately decide what direction it travels and no better example of this can be cited than the debacle that was witnessed from June 2016 to Dec 2019.
Democracy and therefore the direction of a Country ,lies with the people .
-
As long as they deign to offer the vote to the people they claim to serve.
In the US, that is reversed slightly in so far as the government does so at the request of the people... Or in other words that by voting they are choosing who the are giving permission to be governed by.
-
No , since reply 91 the subject that Albs has been discussing has been democracy .
I've just revisited this thread and quite simply no salad of words will ever suggest that democracy is anything other than ,
" control of an organization or group by the majority of its members." ( see , I can search google and copy and paste too ...)
Now you can introduce all sorts of whitabootery but in every democratic system , whatever it's guise , in the free world where a decision has to be made ultimately it comes down to a count , and the largest number within that count carries the motion .
So no matter the many ways that you believe that Parliament can bump it's head on heavens ceiling it's the actual voting populace that ultimately decide what direction it travels and no better example of this can be cited than the debacle that was witnessed from June 2016 to Dec 2019.
Democracy and therefore the direction of a Country ,lies with the people .
No. In the UK democracy, the 'voting populace' you refer to is the MP's and Parliament - not the people.
The only say the people have is to select who whey want to be their MP. After that it's all down to what the MP's want - not the public.
-
In the US, that is reversed slightly in so far as the government does so at the request of the people... Or in other words that by voting they are choosing who the are giving permission to be governed by.
In the US, basically no-one is sovereign. The top layer of 'rules' is their constitution. The president cannot change the constitution, Congress cannot change the constitution. and the Senate cannot change the constitution. It takes the agreement of all these, plus the agreement of a large majority of all the states to amend the constitution. This is good in some ways in that it leads to stable rules that are very difficult to change by any one group of nutters. On the other hand it also makes it very difficult to change rules which become out of date by most western standards - like the gun laws.
Individual states can pass their own laws, and Congress/the Senate can pass federal laws, but if they are found to violate the Constitution then they are stricken down.
Contrast that with the UK system. Here nothing is set in stone, and parliament can repeal/amend any law. If they really want to the House of Commons can force through legislation it wants even if the House of Lords vote it down, by virtue of the Parliament Act. So you could perhaps argue that collectively MP's are sovereign. Arguing that the people is just wrong though (I realise you haven't said that).
And by sovereign I mean has the absolute last say - not that you have a King/Queen/Emperor/etc.
-
No , since reply 91 the subject that Albs has been discussing has been democracy .
I've just revisited this thread and quite simply no salad of words will ever suggest that democracy is anything other than ,
" control of an organization or group by the majority of its members." ( see , I can search google and copy and paste too ...)
Now you can introduce all sorts of whitabootery but in every democratic system , whatever it's guise , in the free world where a decision has to be made ultimately it comes down to a count , and the largest number within that count carries the motion .
So no matter the many ways that you believe that Parliament can bump it's head on heavens ceiling it's the actual voting populace that ultimately decide what direction it travels and no better example of this can be cited than the debacle that was witnessed from June 2016 to Dec 2019.
Democracy and therefore the direction of a Country ,lies with the people .
You've picked one of 4/5 definitions of the word Democracy from the OED. The full definition is :
Democracy
1 A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.
1.1 A state governed under a system of democracy.
1.2 Control of an organization or group by the majority of its members.
1.3 The practice or principles of social equality.
Other definitions are no doubt available. Lets examine those.
1.1 Doesn't help much because it's a circular definition.
1.3 Doesn't help much either.
1.2 is what you're relying on. Firstly I'd argue that a country/state is neither an organisation nor a group. It's referring to things like Mutual Building societies, Clubs with AGM's, Public Limited companies etc. Secondly, even if you can argue that a state is an organisation, what constitutes it's 'members'? All the people, some of the people, some selected sub group of the people?
1 can be split into two possible sections by vitue of the 'or' in the middle - so I'll call them 1a and 1b.
1a : A system of government by the whole population, typically through elected representatives.
This self evidently doesn't apply to the UK (or any other country I can think of) - several groups are excluded from voting, under 18's and prisoners at least. Therefore not the whole population.
1b : A system of government by all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives..
IMV this is as close as we're going to get wrt UK democracy, but still leaves the question of who/what constitutes an "eligible member of a state". In the UK, parliament decides who is eligible to vote in an election. It allows most UK citizens aged 18 and above who aren't in jail to vote for MP's. Parliament then allows MP's & Peers to vote on everything else.