British Politics

Debate about anything going on in the world.
Please remember everyone has their own opinion

Re: British Politics

Postby Pat Rice in Short Shorts » Sun Mar 08, 2020 12:41 am

Until the US changes it's 19th century electoral system they are stuck with two party politics right v a bit less right ...


It is the best system ever devised and still works wonderfully for most Americans despite the left getting their knickers twisted because they wish CA and NY could dictate to other sovereign states (to which Californians are moving to in great numbers). The US is a republic, which is lost on far too many people these days. When the average university graduate cannot even accurately describe our system of governance nor what the core drivers of the Founding Fathers were, and thus have no idea Constitution really means and how well it has protected them...well it is beyond sad.

The US Constitution has a so many checks and balances built in, so many protections of individual rights and avoids the parliamentary chaos of trying to but a coalition of diverse parties together such as is the case in Israel now. Governance is never at it's best when decisions are made and laws passed rashly or for solely political reasons without proper consideration. That is why Americans often opt for split governments.

I really wish the UK/Europe had a similar system which protected the minority better. When someone can be arrested for Tweeting and everyone is so PC and falls right into line it does border on fascism at times. I am no big fan of Assange for instance, but the man is basically a political prisoner. Trump has indicated he might well pardon him if his extradition is made final.
What would Nasri do? Never mind.
What would Eboue do? Fall off the stretcher.
What would Auba do? Just f***ing score.
Pat Rice in Short Shorts
Charlie George
Charlie George
 
Posts: 610
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 4:05 pm
Location: Montana USA by way of Lewisham/Bromley UK

Re: British Politics

Postby UFGN » Sun Mar 08, 2020 1:52 am

Pat Rice in Short Shorts wrote:
Until the US changes it's 19th century electoral system they are stuck with two party politics right v a bit less right ...


It is the best system ever devised and still works wonderfully for most Americans despite the left getting their knickers twisted because they wish CA and NY could dictate to other sovereign states (to which Californians are moving to in great numbers). The US is a republic, which is lost on far too many people these days. When the average university graduate cannot even accurately describe our system of governance nor what the core drivers of the Founding Fathers were, and thus have no idea Constitution really means and how well it has protected them...well it is beyond sad.

The US Constitution has a so many checks and balances built in, so many protections of individual rights and avoids the parliamentary chaos of trying to but a coalition of diverse parties together such as is the case in Israel now. Governance is never at it's best when decisions are made and laws passed rashly or for solely political reasons without proper consideration. That is why Americans often opt for split governments.

I really wish the UK/Europe had a similar system which protected the minority better. When someone can be arrested for Tweeting and everyone is so PC and falls right into line it does border on fascism at times. I am no big fan of Assange for instance, but the man is basically a political prisoner. Trump has indicated he might well pardon him if his extradition is made final.


Its funny how you, someone on the right of politics, supports a system which benefits you. Whoda thunk it?

Your constitution is bullshit. Its like God. Used by people to disingenuously justify the unjustifiable

You do realise that Asange hid in that embassy because he feared your judicial system right? You realise it had nothing to do with the whole Swedish thing...... he feared deportation to America. What does that say about your country?

How well are minorities protected in America? Seems to me theyre treated fine unless theyre being shot by the police for being black, or denied employment or service because theyre gay
Image
User avatar
UFGN
Member of the Year 2014, 19
Member of the Year 2014, 19
 
Posts: 19764
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 1:46 pm
Location: London, init

Re: British Politics

Postby EliteKiller » Sun Mar 08, 2020 3:14 am

UFGN wrote:Its funny how you, someone on the right of politics, supports a system which benefits you. Whoda thunk it?

Your constitution is bullshit. Its like God. Used by people to disingenuously justify the unjustifiable

You do realise that Asange hid in that embassy because he feared your judicial system right? You realise it had nothing to do with the whole Swedish thing...... he feared deportation to America. What does that say about your country?

How well are minorities protected in America? Seems to me theyre treated fine unless theyre being shot by the police for being black, or denied employment or service because theyre gay


A rare post where UFGN's though still unable to resist political bias is completely correct, whilst I obviously don't agree with his left v right take, who would? The "your constitution is bullshit" rings true, an 18th century document designed to keep the powerful in power is still doing just that.

Minorities have been just as abused under extreme left wing regimes as they have under extreme right - to argue one is somehow 'better' than the other is patently absurd, sorry UFGN they are both equally wrong ...

The issue with the US system is that in today's social media driven environment where lack of basic education has become endemic and where huge swathes of the population are educated by the Kardashians, Ellen, Oprah, Eilish and a whole host of actor Luvvies, you just end up with two diametrically opposed factions constantly at war .... there is no middle ground, even with a very scary pandemic on the horizon the sad fecks instead of pulling together are busy trying to blame each other .... apparently some Dems are praying it gets worse so Trump gets the blame, I kid you not.

Look where the US's 18th century constitution and 19th century political system have got you - the choice of Trump / Biden / Bernie three septuagenarians who will all leave you up shit creek without a paddle. Best in the world? are you serious.
EliteKiller
Tony Adams
Tony Adams
 
Posts: 3937
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2016 11:48 pm

Re: British Politics

Postby UFGN » Sun Mar 08, 2020 3:27 am

EliteKiller wrote:
UFGN wrote:Its funny how you, someone on the right of politics, supports a system which benefits you. Whoda thunk it?

Your constitution is bullshit. Its like God. Used by people to disingenuously justify the unjustifiable

You do realise that Asange hid in that embassy because he feared your judicial system right? You realise it had nothing to do with the whole Swedish thing...... he feared deportation to America. What does that say about your country?

How well are minorities protected in America? Seems to me theyre treated fine unless theyre being shot by the police for being black, or denied employment or service because theyre gay


A rare post where UFGN's though still unable to resist political bias is completely correct, whilst I obviously don't agree with his left v right take, who would? The "your constitution is bullshit" rings true, an 18th century document designed to keep the powerful in power is still doing just that.

Minorities have been just as abused under extreme left wing regimes as they have under extreme right - to argue one is somehow 'better' than the other is patently absurd, sorry UFGN they are both equally wrong ...

The issue with the US system is that in today's social media driven environment where lack of basic education has become endemic and where huge swathes of the population are educated by the Kardashians, Ellen, Oprah, Eilish and a whole host of actor Luvvies, you just end up with two diametrically opposed factions constantly at war .... there is no middle ground, even with a very scary pandemic on the horizon the sad fecks instead of pulling together are busy trying to blame each other .... apparently some Dems are praying it gets worse so Trump gets the blame, I kid you not.

Look where the US's 18th century constitution and 19th century political system have got you - the choice of Trump / Biden / Bernie three septuagenarians who will all leave you up shit creek without a paddle. Best in the world? are you serious.


Why do you keep referencing my posts when you have been expressly told not to by this sites moderators?
Image
User avatar
UFGN
Member of the Year 2014, 19
Member of the Year 2014, 19
 
Posts: 19764
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 1:46 pm
Location: London, init

Re: British Politics

Postby LMAO » Sun Mar 08, 2020 5:35 am

Pat Rice in Short Shorts wrote:
Until the US changes it's 19th century electoral system they are stuck with two party politics right v a bit less right ...


It is the best system ever devised and still works wonderfully for most Americans despite the left getting their knickers twisted because they wish CA and NY could dictate to other sovereign states (to which Californians are moving to in great numbers). The US is a republic, which is lost on far too many people these days. When the average university graduate cannot even accurately describe our system of governance nor what the core drivers of the Founding Fathers were, and thus have no idea Constitution really means and how well it has protected them...well it is beyond sad.

The US Constitution has a so many checks and balances built in, so many protections of individual rights and avoids the parliamentary chaos of trying to but a coalition of diverse parties together such as is the case in Israel now. Governance is never at it's best when decisions are made and laws passed rashly or for solely political reasons without proper consideration. That is why Americans often opt for split governments.

I really wish the UK/Europe had a similar system which protected the minority better. When someone can be arrested for Tweeting and everyone is so PC and falls right into line it does border on fascism at times. I am no big fan of Assange for instance, but the man is basically a political prisoner. Trump has indicated he might well pardon him if his extradition is made final.


I see American propaganda has worked wonders on you.

The Constitution isn't some infallible document—even Thomas Jefferson thought so. Excerpt from https://jeffersonpapers.princeton.edu/selected-documents/thomas-jefferson-james-madison:
On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished then in their natural course with those who gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right.—It may be said that the succeeding generation exercising in fact the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law had been expressly limited to 19 years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might be indeed if every form of government were so perfectly contrived that the will of the majority could always be obtained fairly and without impediment. But this is true of no form. The people cannot assemble themselves. Their representation is unequal and vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils. Bribery corrupts them. Personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents: and other impediments arise so as to prove to every practical man that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal.
Image
User avatar
LMAO
Member of the Year 2019
Member of the Year 2019
 
Posts: 7795
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 10:53 pm

Re: British Politics

Postby UFGN » Sun Mar 08, 2020 8:46 am

Im always suspicious when an American gets overly defensive about their constitution...... tbh aside from sport I don't like patriotism at all very much, especially when it isn't justified

It shouldn't be viewed as anything other than a servant and tool to be used by the people. It shouldn't be revered. Far too often it seems to me to be used by bullies to torment their victims, or used by the establishment as an excuse to do nothing
Image
User avatar
UFGN
Member of the Year 2014, 19
Member of the Year 2014, 19
 
Posts: 19764
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 1:46 pm
Location: London, init

Re: British Politics

Postby DiamondGooner » Sun Mar 08, 2020 4:25 pm

LMAO wrote:
Pat Rice in Short Shorts wrote:
Until the US changes it's 19th century electoral system they are stuck with two party politics right v a bit less right ...


It is the best system ever devised and still works wonderfully for most Americans despite the left getting their knickers twisted because they wish CA and NY could dictate to other sovereign states (to which Californians are moving to in great numbers). The US is a republic, which is lost on far too many people these days. When the average university graduate cannot even accurately describe our system of governance nor what the core drivers of the Founding Fathers were, and thus have no idea Constitution really means and how well it has protected them...well it is beyond sad.

The US Constitution has a so many checks and balances built in, so many protections of individual rights and avoids the parliamentary chaos of trying to but a coalition of diverse parties together such as is the case in Israel now. Governance is never at it's best when decisions are made and laws passed rashly or for solely political reasons without proper consideration. That is why Americans often opt for split governments.

I really wish the UK/Europe had a similar system which protected the minority better. When someone can be arrested for Tweeting and everyone is so PC and falls right into line it does border on fascism at times. I am no big fan of Assange for instance, but the man is basically a political prisoner. Trump has indicated he might well pardon him if his extradition is made final.


I see American propaganda has worked wonders on you.

The Constitution isn't some infallible document—even Thomas Jefferson thought so. Excerpt from https://jeffersonpapers.princeton.edu/selected-documents/thomas-jefferson-james-madison:
On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished then in their natural course with those who gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right.—It may be said that the succeeding generation exercising in fact the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law had been expressly limited to 19 years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might be indeed if every form of government were so perfectly contrived that the will of the majority could always be obtained fairly and without impediment. But this is true of no form. The people cannot assemble themselves. Their representation is unequal and vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils. Bribery corrupts them. Personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents: and other impediments arise so as to prove to every practical man that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal.


Tbf he is right though.

America was established as a State republic, it is not one ruled country as per its inception like England is, England was a Kingdom, America never was, it was governed state to state so when they made the United "states" of America each state had an equal say in how the country is ruled.

The set up of America was never supposed to be ruled by the popular vote.

What you need is get American's in each state to realise the benefits of what your political agenda is.
Image
User avatar
DiamondGooner
Member of the Year 2018
Member of the Year 2018
 
Posts: 21219
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2012 11:35 am
Location: At the Gucci store

Re: British Politics

Postby LMAO » Sun Mar 08, 2020 6:03 pm

DiamondGooner wrote:
LMAO wrote:
Pat Rice in Short Shorts wrote:
Until the US changes it's 19th century electoral system they are stuck with two party politics right v a bit less right ...


It is the best system ever devised and still works wonderfully for most Americans despite the left getting their knickers twisted because they wish CA and NY could dictate to other sovereign states (to which Californians are moving to in great numbers). The US is a republic, which is lost on far too many people these days. When the average university graduate cannot even accurately describe our system of governance nor what the core drivers of the Founding Fathers were, and thus have no idea Constitution really means and how well it has protected them...well it is beyond sad.

The US Constitution has a so many checks and balances built in, so many protections of individual rights and avoids the parliamentary chaos of trying to but a coalition of diverse parties together such as is the case in Israel now. Governance is never at it's best when decisions are made and laws passed rashly or for solely political reasons without proper consideration. That is why Americans often opt for split governments.

I really wish the UK/Europe had a similar system which protected the minority better. When someone can be arrested for Tweeting and everyone is so PC and falls right into line it does border on fascism at times. I am no big fan of Assange for instance, but the man is basically a political prisoner. Trump has indicated he might well pardon him if his extradition is made final.


I see American propaganda has worked wonders on you.

The Constitution isn't some infallible document—even Thomas Jefferson thought so. Excerpt from https://jeffersonpapers.princeton.edu/selected-documents/thomas-jefferson-james-madison:
On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished then in their natural course with those who gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right.—It may be said that the succeeding generation exercising in fact the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law had been expressly limited to 19 years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might be indeed if every form of government were so perfectly contrived that the will of the majority could always be obtained fairly and without impediment. But this is true of no form. The people cannot assemble themselves. Their representation is unequal and vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils. Bribery corrupts them. Personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents: and other impediments arise so as to prove to every practical man that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal.


Tbf he is right though.

America was established as a State republic, it is not one ruled country as per its inception like England is, England was a Kingdom, America never was, it was governed state to state so when they made the United "states" of America each state had an equal say in how the country is ruled.

The set up of America was never supposed to be ruled by the popular vote.

What you need is get American's in each state to realise the benefits of what your political agenda is.


I'm not disagreeing with him about us continuing as a federation. In fact, I love that we're a federation and not a unitary state like China or England.

I simply think the Constitution is outdated and needs to be rewritten to reflect life in the 21st century.

As for electing presidents via popular vote, we may finally be doing so within the next 20 years. https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/written-explanation It's perfectly fair game because the Constitution gives the states the right to award their respective electoral votes how they so choose.
Last edited by LMAO on Sun Mar 08, 2020 6:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
LMAO
Member of the Year 2019
Member of the Year 2019
 
Posts: 7795
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 10:53 pm

Re: British Politics

Postby Pat Rice in Short Shorts » Sun Mar 08, 2020 6:03 pm

I see American propaganda has worked wonders on you.


LMAO, that sort of gratuitous insult is below your normal debating ability. When you have to accuse others of not thinking for themselves, nor crediting that person for a lifetime of political and social awareness (on which my opinions and observations are based ) is simply intellectually vacant. You can do better. Others may not, but you seem to have the ability to express opinions (which is what we both do with justification and reason for the most part), and I suggest you do so consistently rather than engaging in useless pissing matches.


The Constitution isn't some infallible document—even Thomas Jefferson thought so. Excerpt from https://jeffersonpapers.princeton.edu/selected-documents/thomas-jefferson-james-madison:
On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished then in their natural course with those who gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right.—It may be said that the succeeding generation exercising in fact the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law had been expressly limited to 19 years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might be indeed if every form of government were so perfectly contrived that the will of the majority could always be obtained fairly and without impediment. But this is true of no form. The people cannot assemble themselves. Their representation is unequal and vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils. Bribery corrupts them. Personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents: and other impediments arise so as to prove to every practical man that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal.


That is obvious, and that concern is addressed by the amendment process of which we have ratified 27 amendments. Nobody who understands the Constitution claims it is a perpetual document. I really think your generation takes the benefits, protections and freedoms that it has provided us for granted. But I am glad you are reading and quoting Jefferson. The Federalist Papers are also a great resource to understand the underlying reasoning and intent. Nowhere do the Founders lobby for a perpetual document. Even the Constitution has checks and balances on itself.

So if you reject the Constitution what system would you prefer? Can you point to a country that has a better system?

Yes I expect you to say Denmark or Sweden. Denmark's Social Democratic Party is nothing like the DSA platform, and far from Bernie's. They have safety nets justa s we do, but also tax their folks who happily pay 50% as is their want. In terms of creating opportunity for the less well to do they fully understand that mass migration hurts their economy and their citizens and as such they have indeed closed their borders to unregulated and unvetted immigration. Frederiksen has constantly been against migration and globalization. Substitute the name Frederiksen with Boris or Trump and he would be called a racists and xenophobe, as would the electorate who agrees with his party platform.

India? A theocracy in the making and in reality sadly under Moti. Islamic nations which implement religious law as actual law? Perhaps Russia where Putin can cut and paste the constitution to remain in power? China? Canada which has a huge issue with divergent political views between the English speakers, the French speakers, the western ranchers and the Vancouver uber liberals. Brazil?

Mexico which is a privilege oriented, racist, corrupt mess and has been for generations who's constitution sounds great but is not enforced except for one article which explicitly states that Mexican citizens have employment and constitutional rights not extended to foreigners or immigrants, even naturalized citizens? Mexico first eh?

The point to ponder and understand is that we do have the best system ever devised, so why would anyone want to deconstruct the system? Tweaking it through the process as it is laid out works. Utopianism as the Anarchists promote? Or the very slippery slope of a socialist economy (as Sanders and the DSA does promote and always has done) which always, in every case it has been tried resulted in forced compliance by the "masses" and the elite remain fat cats. You can deny the reality all you want but we should all learn the lessons of history.

This nonsense of Bernie being a moderate is simply a Trojan Horse, as is Bernie pretending to be a Democrat. Bernie himself cannot help but to slip into referring to the 'revolution' and 'fundamentally changing' America. That will not fly with the vast majority of Americans.
Last edited by Pat Rice in Short Shorts on Sun Mar 08, 2020 6:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
What would Nasri do? Never mind.
What would Eboue do? Fall off the stretcher.
What would Auba do? Just f***ing score.
Pat Rice in Short Shorts
Charlie George
Charlie George
 
Posts: 610
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 4:05 pm
Location: Montana USA by way of Lewisham/Bromley UK

Re: British Politics

Postby Pat Rice in Short Shorts » Sun Mar 08, 2020 6:20 pm

I'm not disagreeing with him about us continuing as a federation. In fact, I love that we're a federation and not a unitary state like China or England.


That is good, but does not jive with your arguments.

I simply think the Constitution is outdated and needs to be rewritten to reflect life in the 21st century.


Could you provide examples of what you want changing other than the popular vote issue?

As for electing presidents via popular vote, we may finally be doing so within the next 20 years. https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/written-explanation It's perfectly fair game because the Constitution gives the states the right to award their respective electoral votes how they so choose.


You know fully well that these bills are simply based in political expediency, exactly what the Founders guarded against. Should they get serious consideration in states such a CO. well there is a movement to introduce an amendment to protect the Constitution against such an intrusion. Such bills are seen as a threat to states rights by a political party, which they are. These politically motivated niblings at the Constitution are like pulling a thread on a sweater. There would be massive unintended consequences which I think you and others might regret down the road.

I really would like to hear your take on why tyranny of the majority is a good thing? If we had your way and the political winds switch as they always do, such shallow expediency would bite you politically (just as Harry Reid's nuclear option in the Senate ensures that Trump can get any nominee through the confirmation process and the left is reduced to trying to personally destroy nominees).
What would Nasri do? Never mind.
What would Eboue do? Fall off the stretcher.
What would Auba do? Just f***ing score.
Pat Rice in Short Shorts
Charlie George
Charlie George
 
Posts: 610
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 4:05 pm
Location: Montana USA by way of Lewisham/Bromley UK

Re: British Politics

Postby Pat Rice in Short Shorts » Sun Mar 08, 2020 6:42 pm

UFGN wrote:Im always suspicious when an American gets overly defensive about their constitution...... tbh aside from sport I don't like patriotism at all very much, especially when it isn't justified

It shouldn't be viewed as anything other than a servant and tool to be used by the people. It shouldn't be revered. Far too often it seems to me to be used by bullies to torment their victims, or used by the establishment as an excuse to do nothing



This sir, exposes your ignorance of American governance. The exact opposite is the case, especially in terms of protections of civil rights.

Nobody is getting defensive about anything, you are projecting yet again. I at least. am trying to inform people like you who have some pretty wild assumptions about the subject without understanding the system, the people nor the culture yet would impose your intransigent views on 100s of millions who reject what you are selling.

Here is some homework. No need for an A or O Level essay but actually reading and studying the documents in question and then being able to make cogent observations of how the Constitution and Bill of Rights does reflect the will of most Americans . :1970_two_smileys_drinking_beer_together.gif:

https://constitutioncenter.org/media/fi ... tution.pdf

https://www.archives.gov/files/legislat ... dout-3.pdf

http://files.libertyfund.org/files/788/0084_LFeBk.pdf
What would Nasri do? Never mind.
What would Eboue do? Fall off the stretcher.
What would Auba do? Just f***ing score.
Pat Rice in Short Shorts
Charlie George
Charlie George
 
Posts: 610
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 4:05 pm
Location: Montana USA by way of Lewisham/Bromley UK

Re: British Politics

Postby UFGN » Sun Mar 08, 2020 7:05 pm

PRISS I will read your post later, but I want to raise some specific issues. Please google the cases, its not hard to find them

Please address them directly in your answer

1 A young boy aged about 11, with a toy gun in a park. Shot dead immediately by a cop with live bullets. No effort whatsoever made to warn him or use non lethal force

2 A gay couple turned away from a restaurant by the manager, because they dont serve fags. To the best of my knowledge, no legal redress

3 A man sacked by child welfare services because hes gay

4 A Noahs Arc exhibition paid for with public money, advertising that they dont employ gays

5 Baptist Church areseholes screaming in the face of the families of dead soldiers, provoking them and threatening to sue them if they retaliate

Im not interested in you shrugging your shoulders and coming out with generalisations. HOW EXACTLY IS YOUR CONSTITUTION WORKING OUT FOR THE CITIZENS IN THOSE EXAMPLES?

And how EXACTLY is what I said about your constitution in my post above inacurate, given those examples?
Image
User avatar
UFGN
Member of the Year 2014, 19
Member of the Year 2014, 19
 
Posts: 19764
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 1:46 pm
Location: London, init

Re: British Politics

Postby LMAO » Sun Mar 08, 2020 8:33 pm

Pat Rice in Short Shorts wrote:
I'm not disagreeing with him about us continuing as a federation. In fact, I love that we're a federation and not a unitary state like China or England.


That is good, but does not jive with your arguments.

I simply think the Constitution is outdated and needs to be rewritten to reflect life in the 21st century.


Could you provide examples of what you want changing other than the popular vote issue?


• digital bill of rights
• equal rights for all citizens and permanent residents (include free healthcare as a right)
• no term limits for presidents (elections serve as term limits)
• recall election for a president if petition to do so reaches 40% of all eligible voters (we vote for the president, so we should have the power to remove them)
• federal government controls federal elections & state governments control state elections
• ban gerrymandering & independent commission to prevent gerrymandering of House districts
• ranked choice voting for federal elections
• Wyoming Rule to set minimum number of seats in the House
• lower age requirement for president and senator to 25
• if no budget bill is passed (or able to be passed after a presidential veto), instead of shutting the government down, dissolve Congress and call new elections for every member of Congress
• automatic voter registration at 18
• compulsory voting (mail-in ballots guaranteed)
• election day is a national holiday
• publicly financed elections (privately financed and donations banned)
• money isn’t speech & corporations aren't people
• Supreme Court justices approved by bipartisan commission instead of Senate
• make DOJ its own independent body instead of serving under the executive branch
• financial disclosure of every federal public office holder and Supreme Court justice
• federal living wage tied to inflation
• rolling 20-year Constitution (can be renewed or rewritten)

Pat Rice in Short Shorts wrote:
As for electing presidents via popular vote, we may finally be doing so within the next 20 years. https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/written-explanation It's perfectly fair game because the Constitution gives the states the right to award their respective electoral votes how they so choose.


You know fully well that these bills are simply based in political expediency, exactly what the Founders guarded against. Should they get serious consideration in states such a CO. well there is a movement to introduce an amendment to protect the Constitution against such an intrusion. Such bills are seen as a threat to states rights by a political party, which they are. These politically motivated niblings at the Constitution are like pulling a thread on a sweater. There would be massive unintended consequences which I think you and others might regret down the road.

I really would like to hear your take on why tyranny of the majority is a good thing? If we had your way and the political winds switch as they always do, such shallow expediency would bite you politically (just as Harry Reid's nuclear option in the Senate ensures that Trump can get any nominee through the confirmation process and the left is reduced to trying to personally destroy nominees).


Well right now, we have tyranny of the minority, so not sure how that's better.
Image
User avatar
LMAO
Member of the Year 2019
Member of the Year 2019
 
Posts: 7795
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 10:53 pm

Re: British Politics

Postby Pat Rice in Short Shorts » Sun Mar 08, 2020 10:13 pm

LMAO wrote:
Pat Rice in Short Shorts wrote:
I'm not disagreeing with him about us continuing as a federation. In fact, I love that we're a federation and not a unitary state like China or England.


That is good, but does not jive with your arguments.

I simply think the Constitution is outdated and needs to be rewritten to reflect life in the 21st century.


Could you provide examples of what you want changing other than the popular vote issue?


• digital bill of rights
• equal rights for all citizens and permanent residents (include free healthcare as a right)
• no term limits for presidents (elections serve as term limits)
• recall election for a president if petition to do so reaches 40% of all eligible voters (we vote for the president, so we should have the power to remove them)
• federal government controls federal elections & state governments control state elections
• ban gerrymandering & independent commission to prevent gerrymandering of House districts
• ranked choice voting for federal elections
• Wyoming Rule to set minimum number of seats in the House
• lower age requirement for president and senator to 25
• if no budget bill is passed (or able to be passed after a presidential veto), instead of shutting the government down, dissolve Congress and call new elections for every member of Congress
• automatic voter registration at 18
• compulsory voting (mail-in ballots guaranteed)
• election day is a national holiday
• publicly financed elections (privately financed and donations banned)
• money isn’t speech & corporations aren't people
• Supreme Court justices approved by bipartisan commission instead of Senate
• make DOJ its own independent body instead of serving under the executive branch
• financial disclosure of every federal public office holder and Supreme Court justice
• federal living wage tied to inflation
• rolling 20-year Constitution (can be renewed or rewritten)

Pat Rice in Short Shorts wrote:
As for electing presidents via popular vote, we may finally be doing so within the next 20 years. https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/written-explanation It's perfectly fair game because the Constitution gives the states the right to award their respective electoral votes how they so choose.


You know fully well that these bills are simply based in political expediency, exactly what the Founders guarded against. Should they get serious consideration in states such a CO. well there is a movement to introduce an amendment to protect the Constitution against such an intrusion. Such bills are seen as a threat to states rights by a political party, which they are. These politically motivated niblings at the Constitution are like pulling a thread on a sweater. There would be massive unintended consequences which I think you and others might regret down the road.

I really would like to hear your take on why tyranny of the majority is a good thing? If we had your way and the political winds switch as they always do, such shallow expediency would bite you politically (just as Harry Reid's nuclear option in the Senate ensures that Trump can get any nominee through the confirmation process and the left is reduced to trying to personally destroy nominees).


Well right now, we have tyranny of the minority, so not sure how that's better.



You are confusing policy with Constitutionality in most of your thinking.

• digital bill of rights

Nobody is excluded from internet access.

• equal rights for all citizens and permanent residents (include free healthcare as a right)

Equal rights are the basic tenant of the Constitution already.

• no term limits for presidents (elections serve as term limits)

Think about that for a bit in context of say Putin.

• recall election for a president if petition to do so reaches 40% of all eligible voters (we vote for the president, so we should have the power to remove them)

Impeachment is the reasonable remedy. What you are calling for is simply chaos.

• federal government controls federal elections & state governments control state elections

Ever heard of the office of Sec of State?

• ban gerrymandering & independent commission to prevent gerrymandering of House districts

Independent? Who would appoint such a commision? States have the right to set districts and courts can call BS if they are overstepping as both parties do.

• ranked choice voting for federal elections

Insanity.


• Wyoming Rule to set minimum number of seats in the House

Tyranny of the majority, and a key part of a totalitarian system.

• lower age requirement for president and senator to 25

Oh my...

• if no budget bill is passed (or able to be passed after a presidential veto), instead of shutting the government down, dissolve Congress and call new elections for every member of Congress

WTF?????

• automatic voter registration at 18

What if someone does not want to be "registered" for voting?

• compulsory voting (mail-in ballots guaranteed)

Ah the budding young totalitarian again.

• election day is a national holiday

Ok...but there is no reason to do so as "election day" is spread out over weeks.

• publicly financed elections (privately financed and donations banned)

No election is funded privately, Or did you mean campaigns? If so I don't want my tax dollars going to Bernie and you don't want yours going to Trump.

• money isn’t speech & corporations aren't people

Corporations are what then if not owned by, conceived by and run by people?

• Supreme Court justices approved by bipartisan commission instead of Senate

Talk about a can of worms. You and your "independent commissions".

• make DOJ its own independent body instead of serving under the executive branch

Why? You wish to remove checks and balances?

• financial disclosure of every federal public office holder and Supreme Court justice

Why? The basis of good governance is our citizen legislator paradigm. We need more successful people who are not professional politicians and weaponizing tax returns and the like is simply a political ploy. I trust the voters to elect someone and they can vote them out just as well.

• federal living wage tied to inflation

So you want government to try to trump market forces. Yup, socialism does just that but the results are the exact opposite of what you think would happen.

• rolling 20-year Constitution (can be renewed or rewritten)

Ya, that's the ticket. Lets let the politics of the hour determine which laws are valid and which are not.

You have not exactly thought all of this through. But I know exactly where the ideas originated. I think you would sorely miss the liberties you enjoy now but reject in favor of political expediency. That is why life experience does count.
What would Nasri do? Never mind.
What would Eboue do? Fall off the stretcher.
What would Auba do? Just f***ing score.
Pat Rice in Short Shorts
Charlie George
Charlie George
 
Posts: 610
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 4:05 pm
Location: Montana USA by way of Lewisham/Bromley UK

Re: British Politics

Postby UFGN » Sun Mar 08, 2020 10:15 pm

Equal rights are the basic tenant of the Constitution already.

ORLY?
Image
User avatar
UFGN
Member of the Year 2014, 19
Member of the Year 2014, 19
 
Posts: 19764
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 1:46 pm
Location: London, init

PreviousNext

Return to The Big Debate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot] and 0 guests