Yorkshire Air Ambulance .Associated With...
Quizzes & Puzzles4 mins ago
Anti-Trump Protests Across Us
//Demonstrations are being held in cities throughout America, with some protesters burning flags and refusing to accept the result.//
http://
What do they hope to achieve? What CAN they achieve?
http://
What do they hope to achieve? What CAN they achieve?
Answers
God give him a chance, he's not even sworn in yet !
17:22 Thu 10th Nov 2016
The US election result demonstrates how deeply divided the country is.
Clinton actually polled more votes than Trump, so there is little wonder that half the nation feels robbed - they have been.
Trump was right about one thing, the system is rigged, except on this occasion, it was Trumped that benefited.
Clinton actually polled more votes than Trump, so there is little wonder that half the nation feels robbed - they have been.
Trump was right about one thing, the system is rigged, except on this occasion, it was Trumped that benefited.
Gromit, //Clinton actually polled more votes than Trump, so there is little wonder that half the nation feels robbed - they have been. //
It's the way the system works and it doesn't work by counting individual votes. UKIP polled more votes in our general election than the LibDems and ended up with one seat to their eight.
It's the way the system works and it doesn't work by counting individual votes. UKIP polled more votes in our general election than the LibDems and ended up with one seat to their eight.
Naomi - //andy-hughes at 10:50, like you, if I wish to respond to a post I shall. Your appreciation isn’t sought so please don’t presume to tell me what I may or may not say. I think these people are plebs.//
I did not 'presume to tell you what you may or may not say'.
What I did do was ask - and I said please, so that makes it courteous in my view - you not to take a quote from my post out of context, and use it inaccurately to back up your opinion.
You can of course say what you wish, what you cannot do is take what I say and twist it into something else to make your own point.
That is what I asked - and that is a very long way from dictating what you may or may not say.
Freedom to say what you want is not freedom to quote me out of context posting on another point entirely.
I did not 'presume to tell you what you may or may not say'.
What I did do was ask - and I said please, so that makes it courteous in my view - you not to take a quote from my post out of context, and use it inaccurately to back up your opinion.
You can of course say what you wish, what you cannot do is take what I say and twist it into something else to make your own point.
That is what I asked - and that is a very long way from dictating what you may or may not say.
Freedom to say what you want is not freedom to quote me out of context posting on another point entirely.
I don't see how saying "it's the way the system works" is any answer. The whole point is that it *shouldn't* work that way. In the UK, as we have realistic third parties, things become even more complex and it's perhaps more subtle to define how a system "should" work. At the moment in the US, though, and throughout its history, this has been in practice a two-horse race at every single election (other than perhaps 1992, when Ross Perot gave Bill Clinton and George Bush Sr. a fright). I would have thought you, off all people on AB, Naomi, would appreciate that in a two-horse race, the guy who comes first should win. Instead, this is the fifth time in US history that the winning candidate lost the popular vote, and the second in living memory (the other being Gore v. Bush 2000).
It's only because the vote shares are fairly close that this gets overlooked by many, but in fact the US system allows for someone to become president even with only 24% of the popular vote, to the other candidate's 76%. For that to happen is no system of democracy.
Actually the college is even more broken still: in the event of a tied electoral college, Trump would have won (as the Republican-controlled houses would have obviously preferred him to Clinton) -- but that means that the decision is not in the hands of the people. There was, for a time, a plausible and even more outrageous scenario, too. Clinton and Trump might have both missed the 270 target, the two houses of Congress might be split between Republican and Democrat, and Trump might have lost Utah to the one-state candidate Evan McMullin. In such an event, McMullin would have had a decent chance of becoming president as a compromise candidate, despite 49/50 states and DC rejecting him, or never even having the opportunity to vote for him.
But of course, there's no point complaining about all this, because that's how the broken system works, and why should anyone try to change it?
It's only because the vote shares are fairly close that this gets overlooked by many, but in fact the US system allows for someone to become president even with only 24% of the popular vote, to the other candidate's 76%. For that to happen is no system of democracy.
Actually the college is even more broken still: in the event of a tied electoral college, Trump would have won (as the Republican-controlled houses would have obviously preferred him to Clinton) -- but that means that the decision is not in the hands of the people. There was, for a time, a plausible and even more outrageous scenario, too. Clinton and Trump might have both missed the 270 target, the two houses of Congress might be split between Republican and Democrat, and Trump might have lost Utah to the one-state candidate Evan McMullin. In such an event, McMullin would have had a decent chance of becoming president as a compromise candidate, despite 49/50 states and DC rejecting him, or never even having the opportunity to vote for him.
But of course, there's no point complaining about all this, because that's how the broken system works, and why should anyone try to change it?
Jim, I don't see how saying "it's the way the system works" is any answer. The whole point is that it *shouldn't* work that way. In the UK, as we have realistic third parties, things become even more complex and it's perhaps more subtle to define how a system "should" work.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. That a system in one country that doesn't count individual votes is wrong, but in another country is right?
I'm not sure what you're saying here. That a system in one country that doesn't count individual votes is wrong, but in another country is right?
Naomi,
// It's the way the system works //
If it works badly, then people are going to complain, and rightly so.
The problem is, no President is going to fix a broken system that got them elected.
To counter that the UK system is also unfair is hardly a defence. I have referenced UKIPs 4 million votes to get just one seat many times. It is dangerous for politicians to ignore a large proportion of the electorate, as they found out on 24th of June, when all the main parties were themselves ignored by voters.
// It's the way the system works //
If it works badly, then people are going to complain, and rightly so.
The problem is, no President is going to fix a broken system that got them elected.
To counter that the UK system is also unfair is hardly a defence. I have referenced UKIPs 4 million votes to get just one seat many times. It is dangerous for politicians to ignore a large proportion of the electorate, as they found out on 24th of June, when all the main parties were themselves ignored by voters.
I can barely believe some of what I read on here. For the UK system has been acknowledged as being deeply unfair and skewed to disadvantage the Conservative party for decades. Indeed it was agreed that it must be changed. This was cross party(in the main) agreement. What did our very own very own Liberal Democrats do when this wrong was addressed as agreed/ Why of course rescinded on promise made to put right this wrong. This treachery was of course roundly applauded and celebrated by our democracy "loving" left wing as a triumph that kept the British people from having fair and balanced election results. Now, with no trace of irony, the very same hand clappers, are hand wringing about an election result in America where similar conditions appear to have gone against their fervent hopes. Mehh.
Latest Posts
'They' Is Irritating Me Immensely
ChatterBank9 mins ago
Labour Pledges To Reinstate 2030 Ban On...
News13 mins ago
Film, Media & TV17 mins ago
Brexit Comeuppance For The Tories
News23 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.