[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Jack_

And? One person's 'sour grapes' (Jesus ****ing Christ this is people's livelihoods not the X Factor) is another person's concerns about the way their lives are or are about to be governed. It is absolutely irrelevant whether or not an election has taken place, just because one side has won it doesn't mean all dissenting opinions must be silenced, because then taken to its logical conclusion what exactly is the point in having an official opposition to scrutinise policies - why not ban that and let the government have free reign as a dictatorship for the duration of the administration? That's not democracy and this really is a moronic notion that needs to be culled.

Whoever won the other side would have had concerns about how the way their lives were about to be governed. Taking to the streets on mass is attention seeking nonsense by those intent on making waves - put simply throwing a tantrum.

Ms Miller threw a gigantic tantrum via the courts, others are doing the same albeit by a different method. Pathetic really. A moronic notion that needs to be culled!

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

Whoever won the other side would have had concerns about how the way their lives were about to be governed. Taking to the streets on mass is attention seeking nonsense by those intent on making waves - put simply throwing a tantrum.

Ms Miller threw a gigantic tantrum via the courts, others are doing the same albeit by a different method. Pathetic really. A moronic notion that needs to be culled!

So what do you suggest, that all dissenting opinion from now until the next election cycle is banned? They must bow down to the other half of the electorate who voted for Trump, they must succumb to his administration and not dare step out of line by critiquing his proposals and policies, the Democrats and other parties must retreat until 2019 and allow the Republicans to do whatever they like - coz that's democracy innit!

Protesting is a democratic right that isn't revoked just because an election has taken place, or else that's what we call a dictatorship. It is pretty laughable that you lambast it for being 'attention seeking' when...err...that's kind of the point of a protest, to draw attention to an issue? This kind of attitude is a complete ****stain on the legacies of people who fought for our right not only to vote, but to be allowed to assemble and express dissenting opinions - and in all honesty you should be ashamed of yourself. And for all peoples criticisms of the media's role in this election, this attitude is ironically born and bread by the media itself.

On a separate note - why do I get the feeling I've spoken to you before?

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by arista

Feck Off Jack


LEFT WING MEDIA
gets in my way
they are Pathetic

That is extremely rude, really.

Anyway, how odd it is despite systems in elections that are not the best system there could be, such as ours here in the UK, that inflicts govts on us who get a very small level of support from the whole electorate.

However what often does get held up is who gets more votes, in the EU referendum it doesn't matter that 2 Nations of the UK voted heavily against leaving.
All that matters in that case is overall there was a very small 3.8% majority to leave as to votes.
Of course that is right, there was, however as Ammi has stated, that leaves just about almost a 50/50 split and passions and will of course still run high.

However we keep getting the vote was all that matters and we should, shut up and get on with it.

However I can understand the dismay in the USA at this election, to me there seems a lot wrong wit their system too as with ours.
The States and the numbers that go to the electoral college have in 2 elections already since 2000 not totally reflected the actual votes cast.

Albeit with the tiniest majority, Clinton got more votes in this election that Trump, however was soundly beaten in the electoral college system.
Twice that has happened in just 4 elections, in 2000 and now 2016.

So as Ammi is indicating there is another almost 50/50 split.
Also understanding the anger, it amazes me that people who advocate they support democracy, then condemn the democratic right of protest against something if they do not support being against a decision.

Many Nations of the World get condemned as to their leaders for people not being able to demonstrate against this or that.
Reforms and voting right in the UK were fought for and won by demonstrations and protests.
It is part of a true democratic right to do so.

So why condemn those in the States now exercising that democratic right to do so now after this extremely divisive and nasty tones election.
Also in light of something like an 82 majority for Trump in the electoral college but Clinton having actually, just, got more votes than him across the whole of the USA.

That system along with our outdated and now totally unrepresentative first past the post electoral system here, I think needs changing and looking at.
It should never be anywhere that actual votes can be 50/50 split in any elections but one part/individual can then get such a distorted level of power from that.

In such distortions of votes, anger and frustration is bound to surface as Ammi is saying.
It should not matter whether we support or do not support particular candidates or issues, what should be the case in my view, is that the democratic right to protest, in any real democracy that is, is upheld completely and not condemned just when it doesn't fit our own stance or opinion..

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Jack_

So what do you suggest, that all dissenting opinion from now until the next election cycle is banned? They must bow down to the other half of the electorate who voted for Trump, they must succumb to his administration and not dare step out of line by critiquing his proposals and policies, the Democrats and other parties must retreat until 2019 and allow the Republicans to do whatever they like - coz that's democracy innit!

Protesting is a democratic right that isn't revoked just because an election has taken place, or else that's what we call a dictatorship. It is pretty laughable that you lambast it for being 'attention seeking' when...err...that's kind of the point of a protest, to draw attention to an issue? This kind of attitude is a complete ****stain on the legacies of people who fought for our right not only to vote, but to be allowed to assemble and express dissenting opinions - and in all honesty you should be ashamed of yourself. And for all peoples criticisms of the media's role in this election, this attitude is ironically born and bread by the media itself.

On a separate note - why do I get the feeling I've spoken to you before?

I am not against protest in principle, but this was an election - there will always be a large number of dissenting opinions. Taking to the streets the next day is futile unless they actually believe it will somehow change the outcome or interfere with the policies of the side that won. The reason Trump won is clearly because the majority preferred his policies to those of Clinton. Their opinions do not superseed those of the side that won.

No doubt Cinton supporters wouldn't have been too impressed if it was the other way round.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

That is extremely rude, really.

Anyway, how odd it is despite systems in elections that are not the best system there could be, such as ours here in the UK, that inflicts govts on us who get a very small level of support from the whole electorate.

However what often does get held up is who gets more votes, in the EU referendum it doesn't matter that 2 Nations of the UK voted heavily against leaving.
All that matters in that case is overall there was a very small 3.8% majority to leave as to votes.
Of course that is right, there was, however as Ammi has stated, that leaves just about almost a 50/50 split and passions and will of course still run high.

However we keep getting the vote was all that matters and we should, shut up and get on with it.

However I can understand the dismay in the USA at this election, to me there seems a lot wrong wit their system too as with ours.
The States and the numbers that go to the electoral college have in 2 elections already since 2000 not totally reflected the actual votes cast.

Albeit with the tiniest majority, Clinton got more votes in this election that Trump, however was soundly beaten in the electoral college system.
Twice that has happened in just 4 elections, in 2000 and now 2016.

So as Ammi is indicating there is another almost 50/50 split.
Also understanding the anger, it amazes me that people who advocate they support democracy, then condemn the democratic right of protest against something if they do not support being against a decision.

Many Nations of the World get condemned as to their leaders for people not being able to demonstrate against this or that.
Reforms and voting right in the UK were fought for and won by demonstrations and protests.
It is part of a true democratic right to do so.

So why condemn those in the States now exercising that democratic right to do so now after this extremely divisive and nasty tones election.
Also in light of something like an 82 majority for Trump in the electoral college but Clinton having actually, just, got more votes than him across the whole of the USA.

That system along with our outdated and now totally unrepresentative first past the post electoral system here, I think needs changing and looking at.
It should never be anywhere that actual votes can be 50/50 split in any elections but one part/individual can then get such a distorted level of power from that.

In such distortions of votes, anger and frustration is bound to surface as Ammi is saying.
It should not matter whether we support or do not suupport particular candidates or issues, what should be the case in my view, is that the democratic right to protest, in any real democracy that is, is upheld completely and not condemned just when it doesn't fit our own stance or opinion..

The system is the system - quibbling about exact numbers is irrelevant and pointless. 50% of the electorate do not trust Clinton! Simple as.

[Cherie]

I don't really see the correlation between these marches and marching against Brexit, the US will get a chance in 4 years to vote again and a chance to change Trump if he is useless, and the ballot was binding, unlike the UK referendum, by all means they are allowed a voice, like Kirk said they should have marched before the election and demanded new candidates, they should have learned from Brexit, and that Polls are more often a poor reflection of what is actually going on.

[arista]

FECK Sake

Ref : LBC LIVE Nic

Some Punk Parked a Car in LA that's at 11:40AM(their time -- not even midnight)
these demos are sets ups sure there is a Latino
or a Muslim going on camera saying "scared of trump" Loads with MASKS (I would Ban them)
No one died on this FAKE demo

He is Now President
Elect/ on Jan 29th 2017
so some of those off the cuff remarks,
are no longer on his new teleprompter



So All is Good AMMI
and JACK

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by arista

FECK Sake

Ref : LBC LIVE Nic

Some Punk Parked a Car in LA that at 11:40AM
these demos are sets ups sure there is a Latino
or a Muslim going on camera saying "scared of trump" Loads with MASKS (I would Ban them)
No one died on this FAKE demo

He is Now President
Elect/ on Jan 29th 2017
so some of those off the cuff remarks,
are no longer on his new teleprompter



So All is Good AMMI
and JACK

Exactly, he is now president - deal with it! That is what elections are all about.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

The system is the system - quibbling about exact numbers is irrelevant and pointless. 50% of the electorate do not trust Clinton! Simple as.

Simple as, since she got marginally more votes across the USA than he did clearly more did not trust him and a few more actually would have trusted her more than him.
Be as selective as you like, but that is a fact too since she got more votes overall.

I hate our electoral system in the UK and will now, if necessary join anything that works to help one day get rid of it.
It worked well in the past but it is failing the whole of the UK now and badly so, especially in the multi party system here.

It also seems now to me that the USA electoral college system needs looking at, as it is now not representing the actual votes cast in their elections too.
Little wonder, even with unpopular candidates and strong passions, people get frustrated when in reality democracy, rather than satisfying them. lets them down badly via election results.

The fact is in both so called major democracies, the UK and the USA,they have systems that fail the voters.
In the UK, a govt; can get full power with nearly two thirds of the voters actually voting against and rejecting their whole programme.

In the USA, in half the elections now since 2000, the candidate who actually got the most votes across the whole of the USA, was soundly beaten for power by the seemingly distorted electoral college system.

Yes, they may well be the system in place, that however neither makes them right for the times,or diminishes democratic rights to protest at election outcomes, no matter which way they go.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

Simple as, since she got marginally more votes across the USA than he did clearly more did not trust him and a few more actually would have trusted her more than him.
Be as selective as you like, but that is a fact too since she got more votes overall.

I hate our electoral system in the UK and will now, if necessary join anything that works to help one day get rid of it.
It worked well in the past but it is failing the whole of the UK now and badly so, especially in the multi party system here.

It also seems now to me that the USA electoral college system needs looking at, as it is now not representing the actual votes cast in their elections too.
Little wonder, even with unpopular candidates and strong passions, people get frustrated when in reality democracy, rather than satisfying them. lets them down badly via election results.

The fact is in both so called major democracies, the UK and the USA,they have systems that fail the voters.
In the UK, a govt; can get full power with nearly two thirds of the voters actually voting against and rejecting their whole programme.

In the USA, in half the elections now since 2000, the candidate who actually got the most votes across the whole of the USA, was soundly beaten for power by the seemingly distorted electoral college system.

Yes, they may well be the system in place, that however neither makes them right for the times,or diminishes democratic rights to protest at election outcomes, no matter which way they go.

I see, so both electoral systems need an overhaul because in both cases the vote did not go your way. Sorry, but that sounds like a very sore loser to me.

[LeatherTrumpet]

Instead of going on about the voting system perhaps address the 0ver 100 million who did not even BOTHER to vote in the latest election

[Shaun]

Got to love the hypocrisy of those preaching about the democratic process being brilliant and fair and yet telling everyone who's unhappy with the outcome to shut up and get over it.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

I see, so both electoral systems need an overhaul because in both cases the vote did not go your way. Sorry, but that sounds like a very sore loser to me.

How offensive.

I said in my post whichever the way elections go,I do not like systems anywhere that do not properly represent votes cast by people taking the time to vote..

We have had in the UK elections in the last 3 elections where 2 gave power absolute power to one party, one Labour and one Conservative.
I object equally to both so don't just brand people who believe if fairness in elections as sore losers.

I am Labour supporter in the UK and I know full well that a PR system here would remove absolute power from both major parties in elections and government.
I however believe that to be right and fair that elections represent votes cast more accurately and fairly as to representation.

In the USA I wanted Clinton over Trump and she got the most votes across the whole USA.
If however you are happy with a system that can dismiss that closeness of votes and allow someone who got fewer votes to take full power with a larger mandate due to the electoral college system, then sorry that kind of democracy is not for me.
In fact to me it is dubious as to whether that is in fact real democracy.

The USA has elections to the Senate and House of Representatives from all States,why on earth cannot it just have a President elected by all the people via the actual votes cast across the whole USA as a total.
I say that as to whoever would have or could have won.

It puzzles me still why those who believe in democracy moan at people who are protesting against something when it is their full legitimate right to do so.
In a real democracy that is.

[LeatherTrumpet]

Originally Posted by Shaun

Got to love the hypocrisy of those preaching about the democratic process being brilliant and fair and yet telling everyone who's unhappy with the outcome to shut up and get over it.

Isnt that why we have voting? To decide and move forward?

[LeatherTrumpet]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

How offensive.

I said in my post whichever the way elections go,I do not like systems anywhere that do not properly represent votes cast by people taking the time to vote..

We have had in the UK elections in the last 3 elections where 2 gave power absolute power to one party, one Labour and one Conservative.
I object equally to both so don't just brand people who believe if fairness in elections as sore losers.

I am Labour supporter in the UK and I know full well that a PR system here would remove absolute power from both major parties in elections and government.
I however believe that to be right and fair that elections represent votes cast more accurately and fairly as to representation.

In the USA I wanted Clinton over Trump and she got the most votes across the whole USA.
If however you are happy with a system that can dismiss that closeness of votes and allow someone who got fewer votes to take full power with a larger mandate due to the electoral college system, then sorry that kind of democracy is not for me.
In fact to me it is dubious as to whether that is in fact real democracy.

The USA has elections to the Senate and House of Representatives from all States,why on earth cannot it just have a President elected by all the people via the actual votes cast across the whole USA as a total.
I say that as to whoever would have or could have won.

It puzzles me still why those who believe in democracy moan at people who are protesting against something when it is their full legitimate right to do so.
In a real democracy that is.

What about the rights of citizens to get to work on time and operate their businesses

or did you forget about them?

[Livia]

If the election had gone the other way, Trump voters would be marching and Hillary voters would be telling them to suck it up and get over it.

A democratic election has taken place and a result called. Resistance. Is. Futile.

[Northern Monkey]

I don't think you can ever get the voting system perfect.If you had it just on the total number of votes then you would always get one party in power every election without any chance for changing it.When you have huge states like NY and Cali with massive populations all loyally voting mainly one way then it wouldn't give the smaller states with smaller populations a chance.All these states have different issues which are'nt all addressed by one party and then there are those states who could go either way.No way to get it perfect but it needs to be a method that gives everyone atleast a hope of winning.
As for the protests.Well we live in a democracy and it's their right aslong as it's peaceful and it's understandable given the choice that the American people were given.It's like a double kick in the nuts for Democrats.Even their own candidate was terrible.
There should be some rules imo which stops the protesters blocking roads etc and disrupting infrastructure.Maybe do it in pedestrian areas etc where their voice can be heard but it doesn't stop everyone else getting on with life.Blocking the general public from going about their business just stirs up more anger in people who don't want to be part of it.

[Shaun]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

Isnt that why we have voting? To decide and move forward?

It's why we have debate and forums.

[Niamh.]

[smudgie]

We vote, we know we have to accept it, however we also have the right to let our feelings be known, in a peaceful orderly fashion.
When you end up with people playing silly beggars, causing grief and damage then charge them for breaking the law.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Back when his hair looked relatively normal.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Livia

Back when his hair looked relatively normal.

relatively

[Alf]

Lock this scum up!

Warning! this is a violent attack

Youtube video

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Alf

Lock this scum up!

Warning! this is a violent attack

Youtube video

Shameful - one for the cause eh, total idiots. Violent morons could have killed him. The women were just as bad.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Alf

Lock this scum up!

Warning! this is a violent attack

Youtube video

I notice that it's 'One On One' as usual. The cowardly bullying little bastards.