Chach
-
Posts
1,294 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Blogs
Forums
Gallery
Events
Posts posted by Chach
-
-
3 minutes ago, MikeO said:
Trump would need to know the nationality of the people before making the decision; if the one was American and the five were from "shithole nations" he'd let the thing run.
Unless the one person was a woman who doesn't take care of her appearance, then the five shitholeans would live.
-
9 hours ago, pete0 said:
Obama said he liked the TV show Homeland, which is sadistic if you consider what he was authorising at the time. He's just as bad as any murderous bastard in my eyes.
There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track. You have two options:
Do nothing and allow the trolley to kill the five people on the main track.
Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person.
Which is the more ethical option? Or, more simply: What is the right thing to do?
-
6 minutes ago, MikeO said:
Thanks, but I think this should really be here with all the posts saying he'd never come and never sell his shares to Kroenke LD
-
On 04/01/2020 at 03:43, Shukes said:
The USM theatre of science?
Lets just call it The Laboratory
-
-
On 03/01/2020 at 02:46, MikeO said:
True enough it wasn't PR as I'd like it but it was electoral reform of a sort, which we desperately need (IMO) so that our elections aren't decided by how people vote in the minority number of constituencies that are "marginals".
No reason you couldn't have reform with PR in a new democratically elected House of Lords but I think you need local members representing their constituencies in the lower house so preference voting is the way to go there I reckon.
In my experience with an upper house thats PR you often get the minor parties/cross benchers in the balance of power so they often block bad legislation or get the needed amendments, not perfect but works pretty well.
-
On 03/01/2020 at 01:28, Palfy said:
Your PMs blown his chances at the next election, whilst the country burns he’s holidaying apparently
I wouldn't go off the hysteria in the media, he just won a GE and will win the next one. Same situation as the UK, there's no opposition.
-
Here's an example from a recent by-election in the ousted Oz PM's seat, in FPTP the conservative would have won handily with 43% of total vote, but with no one on 50%+ preferences flowed to the independent who won a majority.
-
On 15/12/2019 at 05:43, johnh said:
Before PR (which has been rejected by the electorate) we need to sort out the anomalies in FPTP. Rationalising constituencies. Scotland is a huge anomaly but the main objection comes from Labour who benefit from the current situation.
On 15/12/2019 at 05:57, MikeO said:An extremely watered down version of PR was voted down by the electorate with both major parties campaigning against it so no great surprise; as I keep saying, turkeys don't vote for Christmas. You've still not answered my earlier question to you though John (and I quote), "do you really think it's a fair and equitable system when that the Tories got an MP for every 38,000 votes cast and the LibDems got one for every 332,500 votes?" You can add to that the Greens getting one MP when 865,697 voted for them.
Googling suggests the current boundaries give Labour about an extra 15 seats, a very minor amount in comparison to the changes PR would bring. We don't need to sort out anomalies in FPTP, we need to bin it.
There has been no vote on PR watered down or otherwise, the vote was whether to introduce an Alternative Voting system where voter preferences are taken into account.
In the proposed system voters rank their candidate numerically and where no candidate has been able to get 50% + 1vote in first preference votes then voters second preference votes come into play and so on until a candidate has an actual majority.
Theres plenty of good arguments against PR but that people would vote against a system where a candidate is actually required to get 50% + 1 vote to win office is absurd in the extreme.
-
17 hours ago, markjazzbassist said:
In classic trump move he called the publication “far left, liberal and progressive”. It was founded by billy graham a die hard evengelical pastor and was the bastion of the right for decades. One article denouncing trump and it’s far left. Sadly his minions just lap it up and believe it. They are sheep and he is their shepherd. No critical thinking, no thinking for themselves, no questioning authority. Just blind obedience.
At least some Christian leaders are taking a principled stand though which I am sure is important for the sanity of thoughtful Christians who aren't blind to the immorality of Trump.
-
On 19/12/2019 at 01:11, markjazzbassist said:
great question mike and this part is important. as evangelicals they believe their faith is above all else, government included. so by Trump saying he's a christian, they give him carte blanche because they believe he's "doing the will of the lord". he basically gets a free pass, the Bush family did the same thing. i remember people at church saying "he prays every morning, what a guy" and i'm like he's killing tons of people illegally in iraq doesn't that bother you? who cares if he prays! well, i don't it question him, "the lord works in mysterious ways...". they just accept that whatever he does is ok. only half analogy i can give is a hard core party voter, like your family is Labour all your life and you just vote labour regardless and go with whatever they say policy wise, or if it changes, then contradicts, it doesn't matter, you're labour and that's that. thick and thin, labour.
sucks for people of the christian faith like myself who aren't nutjobs and aren't evangelicals because it gives us a bad name and reputation.
Surprised this hasn't been posted given the way Trump has been frothing at the mouth over it (he froths so much though), such an excellent piece from what I imagine is a very authoritative source?
https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2019/december-web-only/trump-should-be-removed-from-office.html
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/12/christianity-today-trump-removal/603952/
-
(Sorry for the late response I have neglected to login for a while)
On 18/09/2019 at 06:43, Cornish Steve said:I’m a big fan of AOC, too. She’s one smart cookie and should go far. As for others in the squad, I worry about their antiSemitism.
She will almost certainly be President in the future, whip smart and an (ostensible) authenticity that seems to be lacking in politics at the moment.
On 18/09/2019 at 02:33, StevO said:I see your politicians are mostly old white men, I see you population as being all kinds of mixed races. I believe your government should represent its people, and from the outside looking it it doesn’t look that way. I may be very very wrong, but I’m saying what I see.
Just not true mate, the US congress is 22% BAME. African Amercians are proportionally represented. Yes, racism is a stain in most western countries but they are now demonstrably the least racist countries in the world due to their diversity.
On 16/09/2019 at 14:31, Palfy said:But who you are does represent your political view, as does your colour religion sexuality and your location, that does make it more diverse if we didn’t use those factors there would be less diversity, I fail to understand your argument, the last power house who tried to take away those factors that made us diverse and different were the Germans when they wanted to create the arian state where everyone was the same.
You have certainly failed to understand my argument, the Nazi's engaging in white identity politics was exactly the type of idpol I was referring to in the post you responded to, see below.
-
14 hours ago, StevO said:
I completely disagree, I think you’re looking for that negative view in what he says, all I hear from Trump is if you are white, represent what white people want, if you’re straight represent what straight people want. If you’re rich represent what rich people want.
Would you rather everyone just represent the same old white ideas that have ruled the government since day one?How do we feel about the bolded now?
We haven't made the progress we have made using this kind of divisive language, you look at the great civil rights leaders and they used language that appealed to our sense of common humanity., this language is a backwards step in my opinion specially from a politician elected to represent a fairly diverse constituency.
ps Regarding the italics, I really have to know what do you mean by "white ideas?"
-
-
13 hours ago, StevO said:
I don’t see the issue with it. In a country that is riddled with racism, to have a voice for different people is a good thing. A country with a massively mixed population should have a massively mixed government, not just he represented by wealthy old white men surely?
She's not saying there should be more diversity in government, she's saying that a persons politics should be determined by their skin colour/sexuality/religion. Politics based on "group identity" is not something we should be aspiring to, we've plenty of example in history of how that has lead to less cohesive societies.
-
5 hours ago, RPG said:
Well, that is always going to be the argument from someone who doesn't have a counter argument to put against the article - no matter which newspaper it was published in.
Perhaps we should look at the message rather than the messenger.
haha listen to the Brexitcast they are quote mining this propaganda from, this is just terrible and should be seen for what it is, even by people who get sexually aroused by Nigel Farage.
-
17 hours ago, johnh said:
Steve, you say 'give me the status quo and get back to how things were a few years ago'. That's the problem with the EU Steve, there is no 'status quo'. It is a continuously evolving body. The real problem is that they never produce a manifesto. All the decisions are behind closed doors by the unelected elite in Brussels. Just one example: If your 'status quo' is the date of the referendum, the EU were lying through their teeth that there were plans for an EU Army. Even Britain's Deputy Prime Minister was saying an EU Army was a 'fantasy'. We all know different now.
Steve, rather than concentrate on the status quo, tell me where you think the continuously evolving EU will be in 5 years time?
-
15 hours ago, Ghoat said:
The point of all that was that you were shocked that "The Squad" are considered "progressive" or even "liberal" in our political arena. So I did a lot of digging trying to understand why you had that viewpoint that seemed absurd. I'll be damned, but there is pretty good reasons for you to think that. I simply compared the different road taken to arrive at a similar place in time.
And nah, we stole both ideas. Like a hip-hop artist mashing a couple things up. Both Greece and the Adam Smith estate tried to file for copyright infringement, but neither filed the proper paperwork with the EU.
If you go back I actually said I was surprised that things like universal healthcare and anthropogenic global warming were considered leftwing or liberal issues in the states. I think you can make a good conservative argument for universal healthcare and not polluting the planet.
I've come to see that in reality conservatives and progressives need each other, its a symbiotic relationship that is useful to the group in general, both sides over reach and you can see demonstrated in the world how problematic that has been when one side has had too much power and become authoritarian.
The squad are great but I get the feeling a couple of them would over reach if they got the opportunity, AOC and Pressley in particular.
I'm not a fan of this kind of identity politics
-
I have a horrible feeling Ghoat thinks America invented democracy and capitalism.
@Ghoat, please advise.
-
8 hours ago, johnh said:
This response is so poor on so many levels that it is not worth a response. Just a tip, the use of the term Strawman is so pathetic that I would think 99% of the people on here gag when they see it.
Just as I expected, weak as piss.
-
5 hours ago, Ghoat said:
@Chach that statement stuck in my craw a good bit. It struck me as very arrogant "elitist-type" comment.
Psychologists refer to this feeling as "cognitive dissonance"
-
2 minutes ago, johnh said:
I have just checked. The Treasuries 'Project Fear' forecast that Brexit would reduce employment by 820,000.. Today, the Office for National Statistics said that in the 3 months to July we have added another 31,000 jobs to send unemployment back down to a 45 year low of 3.8pc. Great news eh.
Brexit hasn't happened yet John.
-
19 minutes ago, johnh said:
1)Chac, no one voted for a deal or a no deal. It was Leave or Remain. 2) Out of your 50 million (which I assume includes those who voted remain?) why do you assume that the balance who didn't vote would have voted remain? 3)I have already pointed out that the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced to Parliament, prior to the referendum, that the alternative to not securing deal was to leave automatically. Though I guess that was before they thought up project fear.
1) Your argument surely can't be so lacking in nuance that you wont accept that a number of leavers also wanted to stay in the single market and customs union, you don't have to point out something that has already been pointed out specifically by me many times like its a new argument three years and 82 pages down the track
2) Strawman, where did I state that? I said the Parliament still has to represent the interests of the entire population.
3) That video is a statement of the obvious, it's actually very prescient and honest and is not helping you.
-
22 hours ago, RPG said:
Try to play the ball
22 hours ago, RPG said:I think it is you who miss the point. Parliament acknowledged the sovereignty of the people by initially doing as directed and invoking Article 50 by a massive majority.
Have a look at the submissions made today in the Belfast High Court to see how no deal is declared as the outcome of Article 50 if no agreement is reached.
Take your own advice, you're still just replying to strawmen arguments.
Of course Parliament invoked article 50, that's how you get to the next stage of negotiating the withdrawal agreement, that is the only part with no grey area.
Keep on ignoring the fact that the referendum was not pre-legislative and the Parliament still has an obligation to the other 50 million people who live in the UK and didn't vote for either a deal or no deal Brexit.
US Politics/Biden Presidency (Trump-free zone)
in Off Topic Discussion
Posted
Meanwhile, two authoritarian dictators carve up North Syria.