FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


We voted Nazi?





lagoon
So, the North West and North East, so basically the North of England, has voted two MEPs into the European Parliament.

They are from the British National Party and advocate the 'voluntary repatriation' of non-caucasian people. They consider non-caucasian people to not be British.

Why did we elect Nazis to represent us?
truespeed
There is a lot of racism in the UK,most of it is underlying,very few people are openly racist,in fact some would go out of their way to say they are not,but in the same breath they would tell you they are just off to the "paki" shop,or to the "chinkys" (Fish and chip shop).

On the net, UK people are more openly racist,i have been surprised how many actually are,the net gives them anonymity,and so does the ballot box. So its no surprise to me really that two of the BNP euro MP's have been elected.
deanhills
truespeed wrote:
There is a lot of racism in the UK,most of it is underlying,very few people are openly racist,in fact some would go out of their way to say they are not,but in the same breath they would tell you they are just off to the "paki" shop,or to the "chinkys" (Fish and chip shop).

On the net, UK people are more openly racist,i have been surprised how many actually are,the net gives them anonymity,and so does the ballot box. So its no surprise to me really that two of the BNP euro MP's have been elected.
Agreed. I found the same in Australia as well. But not in Canada or New Zealand as much. I wonder why there is this difference? It is amazing how very strongly the British protest against racism, and I truly believe that those who protest are sincere in their protests, but in overall people do tend to be passionate racists as well. Also plenty of double standards similar to Germany with its Turkish guest workers.
handfleisch
lagoon wrote:
So, the North West and North East, so basically the North of England, has voted two MEPs into the European Parliament.

They are from the British National Party and advocate the 'voluntary repatriation' of non-caucasian people. They consider non-caucasian people to not be British.

Why did we elect Nazis to represent us?


Neo-Nazism is on the rise in Europe. In Italy it is getting really bad. Northern England has voted fascist in, as you note. The active fascist party in the Czech Republic has received enough votes to qualify for taxpayer funding -- which means they now have a lot of money to use to further their cause.

Why? That's a big question hard to answer. Apathy among decent people, silent collusion among not so decent people, endemic racism, government passivity/collusion, societal disintegration and unjust economic systems.
deanhills
lagoon wrote:
So, the North West and North East, so basically the North of England, has voted two MEPs into the European Parliament.

They are from the British National Party and advocate the 'voluntary repatriation' of non-caucasian people. They consider non-caucasian people to not be British.

Why did we elect Nazis to represent us?
Well indirectly Obama is advocating the same thing. Stop outsourcing, buy US. So maybe this is the same in that the MPs would like UK jobs to be reserved for UK citizens? I would rather call it "nationalism" though than Neo-Nazi. That is possibly exaggerating it quite a bit.
handfleisch
deanhills wrote:
lagoon wrote:
So, the North West and North East, so basically the North of England, has voted two MEPs into the European Parliament.

They are from the British National Party and advocate the 'voluntary repatriation' of non-caucasian people. They consider non-caucasian people to not be British.

Why did we elect Nazis to represent us?
Well indirectly Obama is advocating the same thing. Stop outsourcing, buy US. So maybe this is the same in that the MPs would like UK jobs to be reserved for UK citizens? I would rather call it "nationalism" though than Neo-Nazi. That is possibly exaggerating it quite a bit.

Exaggerating? You obviously don't know anything about the BNP. They are holocaust deniers, skinheads and National Front fascists. You might want to take the time to learn about who you are defending.
lagoon
So people think that a lot of the people that voted for the BNP are not inherently racist, but have simply been duped?
medesignz
the general belief is that people voted for BNP as a protest vote... Sad thing is, a couple of ****s from the party are now representing us in the EU.
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
deanhills wrote:
lagoon wrote:
So, the North West and North East, so basically the North of England, has voted two MEPs into the European Parliament.

They are from the British National Party and advocate the 'voluntary repatriation' of non-caucasian people. They consider non-caucasian people to not be British.

Why did we elect Nazis to represent us?
Well indirectly Obama is advocating the same thing. Stop outsourcing, buy US. So maybe this is the same in that the MPs would like UK jobs to be reserved for UK citizens? I would rather call it "nationalism" though than Neo-Nazi. That is possibly exaggerating it quite a bit.

Exaggerating? You obviously don't know anything about the BNP. They are holocaust deniers, skinheads and National Front fascists. You might want to take the time to learn about who you are defending.
If you look at the photos of the MPs they are in suits. I did not see any skinheads among them. I also can't equate the conservative of the UK with holocaust. I would have thought about it if it had been in Germany, but UK even in its most conservative form is totally against Nazism, fascism and holocaust.

Think this is about the closest to the truth for me too. Brown is not doing very well right now and people want him to know about it:
medesignz wrote:
the general belief is that people voted for BNP as a protest vote...
truespeed
BNP website

I haven't looked through it but i doubt you will find anything on there about denying the holocaust.

All their policies are on there including immigration,which may have gotten them a lot of votes as there is a fear in this country,perhaps media inspired,that the "ethnic minorities",will at some point in the near future (60 years according to the BNP) out number the white population.
handfleisch
Don't have time to do your homework for you, but here's a hint: Google is your friend, sometimes even Wikipedia is. The BNP is not "conservative", they Holocaust Deniers, National Front skinheads and fascists.
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
Don't have time to do your homework for you, but here's a hint: Google is your friend, sometimes even Wikipedia is. The BNP is not "conservative", they Holocaust Deniers, National Front skinheads and fascists.
Truespeed is from the UK. I'm a keen traveller as well and am originally from one of the UK's ex-colonies. It really is an exaggeration to call them Nazis, although this seems to be the popular thing to do as people are obviously not completely happy that they got elected MPs.

Agreed that there is a move towards the left, but then that is common sense and predictable because of the economy is bad, people usually become extreme in their political views. Extreme in the UK however is mild in comparison with extreme in Europe.

There is an article in the New York Times that compares Brown's unpopularity with Bush and that Brown may go the same direction as Bush did:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/08/opinion/08krugman.html
handfleisch
BNP pelted with eggs

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8091727.stm
liljp617
deanhills wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
Don't have time to do your homework for you, but here's a hint: Google is your friend, sometimes even Wikipedia is. The BNP is not "conservative", they Holocaust Deniers, National Front skinheads and fascists.
Truespeed is from the UK. I'm a keen traveller as well and am originally from one of the UK's ex-colonies. It really is an exaggeration to call them Nazis, although this seems to be the popular thing to do as people are obviously not completely happy that they got elected MPs.

Agreed that there is a move towards the left, but then that is common sense and predictable because of the economy is bad, people usually become extreme in their political views. Extreme in the UK however is mild in comparison with extreme in Europe.

There is an article in the New York Times that compares Brown's unpopularity with Bush and that Brown may go the same direction as Bush did:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/08/opinion/08krugman.html


I'm not going to pretend to be an expert by any means, but a few minutes of looking at Nick Griffin's background shows his attitudes aren't exactly much different from many neo-Nazi groups...

Quote:
In issue 12 of the BNP publication The Rune (see 1998 public order conviction) he called the Holocaust "the Holohoax" and criticised the Holocaust denier David Irving for admitting in an interview that up to four million Jews might have died in the Holocaust. Griffin wrote: "True Revisionists will not be fooled by this new twist to the sorry tale of the Hoax of the Twentieth Century." Griffin was eventually prosecuted for his articles in The Rune (see below).

In 1997 he told an undercover journalist that he had updated Richard Verrall's Holocaust denial book Did Six Million Really Die?. On an edition of The Cook Report, Griffin was shown at a meeting recorded clandestinely, describing his former MP, Alex Carlile, QC, as "this bloody Jew... whose only claim is that his grandparents died in the Holocaust." Carlile had reported The Rune to the police.

In his defence during his 1998 prosecution, Griffin said: "I am well aware that the orthodox opinion is that six million Jews were gassed and cremated and turned into lampshades. Orthodox opinion also once held that the world is flat ... I have reached the conclusion that the 'extermination' tale is a mixture of Allied wartime propaganda, extremely profitable lie, and latter witch-hysteria."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Griffin#Anti-Semitism_and_Holocaust_denial

Along with his long involvement and leadership roles in the National Front and ITP.

Obviously those quotes are many years old, but I would find it extremely hard to believe he's had a big "change of heart" when it comes to Anti-Semitism and immigrants/minorities in general.

Frankly, I don't see it being that huge of an exaggeration to compare him to a neo-Nazi. The attitude that whites are inherently superior for whatever reason and the amount of Anti-Semitism present in his past is enough for me not to care if people refer to him as a neo-Nazi.
deanhills
liljp617 wrote:
deanhills wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
Don't have time to do your homework for you, but here's a hint: Google is your friend, sometimes even Wikipedia is. The BNP is not "conservative", they Holocaust Deniers, National Front skinheads and fascists.
Truespeed is from the UK. I'm a keen traveller as well and am originally from one of the UK's ex-colonies. It really is an exaggeration to call them Nazis, although this seems to be the popular thing to do as people are obviously not completely happy that they got elected MPs.

Agreed that there is a move towards the left, but then that is common sense and predictable because of the economy is bad, people usually become extreme in their political views. Extreme in the UK however is mild in comparison with extreme in Europe.

There is an article in the New York Times that compares Brown's unpopularity with Bush and that Brown may go the same direction as Bush did:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/08/opinion/08krugman.html


I'm not going to pretend to be an expert by any means, but a few minutes of looking at Nick Griffin's background shows his attitudes aren't exactly much different from many neo-Nazi groups...

Quote:
In issue 12 of the BNP publication The Rune (see 1998 public order conviction) he called the Holocaust "the Holohoax" and criticised the Holocaust denier David Irving for admitting in an interview that up to four million Jews might have died in the Holocaust. Griffin wrote: "True Revisionists will not be fooled by this new twist to the sorry tale of the Hoax of the Twentieth Century." Griffin was eventually prosecuted for his articles in The Rune (see below).

In 1997 he told an undercover journalist that he had updated Richard Verrall's Holocaust denial book Did Six Million Really Die?. On an edition of The Cook Report, Griffin was shown at a meeting recorded clandestinely, describing his former MP, Alex Carlile, QC, as "this bloody Jew... whose only claim is that his grandparents died in the Holocaust." Carlile had reported The Rune to the police.

In his defence during his 1998 prosecution, Griffin said: "I am well aware that the orthodox opinion is that six million Jews were gassed and cremated and turned into lampshades. Orthodox opinion also once held that the world is flat ... I have reached the conclusion that the 'extermination' tale is a mixture of Allied wartime propaganda, extremely profitable lie, and latter witch-hysteria."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Griffin#Anti-Semitism_and_Holocaust_denial

Along with his long involvement and leadership roles in the National Front and ITP.

Obviously those quotes are many years old, but I would find it extremely hard to believe he's had a big "change of heart" when it comes to Anti-Semitism and immigrants/minorities in general.

Frankly, I don't see it being that huge of an exaggeration to compare him to a neo-Nazi. The attitude that whites are inherently superior for whatever reason and the amount of Anti-Semitism present in his past is enough for me not to care if people refer to him as a neo-Nazi.
Agreed that Nick Griffin has a not so good background in anti-semitism. If I were in his constituency I would have hated it if he had been voted in, and moved completely away, maybe even out of the country Embarassed I stand corrected. He has been trying to loose the neo-Nazi background but to me he looks like a leopard with very definable black spots. Amazing he got voted in, must have been an enormous and hopefully one-off mistake. In a way it is good for Brown, as people must be quite horrified and even if they don't like Brown will try and make sure that there will be no more Nick Griffins elected as MPs. His face and slicked back hair look as though it would have matched a brown shirt and shorts outfit. Can't see him as KKK however. A little too mild for that. Evil or Very Mad
lagoon
He has a left glass eye. HE MUST BE BAD...

Laughing
Arnie
What handfleisch is trying to say is that the BNP is the sort of party you cannot possibly agree with. They Holocaust Deniers, National Front skinheads and fascists - and you too if you don't agree that that is indecent.
medesignz
Prescott got pelted with eggs and he attacked back? Why didnt Griffin?
deanhills
lagoon wrote:
He has a left glass eye. HE MUST BE BAD...

Laughing
Add a black eye patch to the brown shirt and shorts outfit! The pink tie says it all as well ... Rolling Eyes Laughing Twisted Evil


medesignz wrote:
Prescott got pelted with eggs and he attacked back? Why didnt Griffin?
That's why I think he won't be good enough for the KKK Twisted Evil

Seriously though, how did this guy get elected? Shocked
tingkagol
Slightly OT:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-06-10-shooter_N.htm
lagoon
The guy got elected because there was a massive drop in the number of votes for he other parties, and also a smaller drop in votes for his party. Less people voted for him in this election than in the last one.
ocalhoun
lagoon wrote:
The guy got elected because there was a massive drop in the number of votes for he other parties, and also a smaller drop in votes for his party. Less people voted for him in this election than in the last one.

So, yes, he's a Nazi, but the competition's even worse!
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
lagoon wrote:
The guy got elected because there was a massive drop in the number of votes for he other parties, and also a smaller drop in votes for his party. Less people voted for him in this election than in the last one.

So, yes, he's a Nazi, but the competition's even worse!
Well said Ocalhoun. A very sober and spot on statement. For me the Presidential election was almost the same. The candidates were so poor that the most inexperienced and unknown one became the most attractive one. Where are the good leaders of the world? Looks as though the political systems of all the big countries have grown so out of whack with the real world that it cannot deliver good candidates any longer.
handfleisch
lagoon wrote:
The guy got elected because there was a massive drop in the number of votes for he other parties, and also a smaller drop in votes for his party. Less people voted for him in this election than in the last one.


Fascinating. So the BNP actually got less votes than last time, which means there isn't necessarily any increase in their popularity. It's just a fluke of low turnout and general disenchantment.

Isn't voting mandatory in some countries, like Australia?
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
lagoon wrote:
The guy got elected because there was a massive drop in the number of votes for he other parties, and also a smaller drop in votes for his party. Less people voted for him in this election than in the last one.


Fascinating. So the BNP actually got less votes than last time, which means there isn't necessarily any increase in their popularity. It's just a fluke of low turnout and general disenchantment.

Isn't voting mandatory in some countries, like Australia?
Right. It is interesting. Scary too. I doubt voting is mandatory in any country. Not voting is a vote in its own right, a choice not to vote. For example it may be carefully thought through that there were no candidates that the voters wanted to vote for. So their "no vote" is a vote of a kind.
Arnie
I'm quite sure most non-voters don't vote because they just don't care. That's what I did, anyway.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
lagoon wrote:
The guy got elected because there was a massive drop in the number of votes for he other parties, and also a smaller drop in votes for his party. Less people voted for him in this election than in the last one.


Fascinating. So the BNP actually got less votes than last time, which means there isn't necessarily any increase in their popularity. It's just a fluke of low turnout and general disenchantment.

Isn't voting mandatory in some countries, like Australia?
Right. It is interesting. Scary too. I doubt voting is mandatory in any country. Not voting is a vote in its own right, a choice not to vote. For example it may be carefully thought through that there were no candidates that the voters wanted to vote for. So their "no vote" is a vote of a kind.

If you are forced to vote, there should be a 'none of the above' option.
truespeed
If they allowed voting over the net,everyone would vote (well almost) all it would require is to login with an your email address which you would have confirmed with the the electoral register,and vote.

Mostly people don't vote because its inconvenient,i remember last years US elections and the queues to vote were long,very long,sometimes people would be waiting hours.
handfleisch
It's a pipe dream, but maybe the US will actually make the obvious-to-a-bonehead change someday of having election day on the weekend, all weekend.
deanhills
Arnie wrote:
I'm quite sure most non-voters don't vote because they just don't care. That's what I did, anyway.
I do care and it has happened a few times that I voted because there were no candidates or parties that I agreed with. Lately I have changed in that I look at it differently, i.e. what would happen if I did not vote, and as a result I voted in a strategic way.

But I agree. There are quite a number of people who just do not care. Probably in the current financial climate where people are battling to survive, they are giving the thumbs down to everything, including and especially their Governments.
liljp617
truespeed wrote:
If they allowed voting over the net,everyone would vote (well almost) all it would require is to login with an your email address which you would have confirmed with the the electoral register,and vote.


I can assure you it wouldn't be this simple.
deanhills
liljp617 wrote:
truespeed wrote:
If they allowed voting over the net,everyone would vote (well almost) all it would require is to login with an your email address which you would have confirmed with the the electoral register,and vote.


I can assure you it wouldn't be this simple.
I wish it were that simple. And it can be that simple. Truespeed is so right. I'm almost certain the voting percentages would go through the roof. With today's technology there has to be a way. Have they investigated it yet?
Bikerman
The UK tried out large scale postal voting in the last council and EEC elections (2004). There was a general feeling that fraud increased dramatically. Landlords would collect voting papers from their tenants and fill them in, for example. Also there were a large number of bogus applications for voting papers.
Now, if postal voting was subject to such abuse can you imagine the problems with internet voting?
No thanks.....
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
The UK tried out large scale postal voting in the last council and EEC elections (2004). There was a general feeling that fraud increased dramatically. Landlords would collect voting papers from their tenants and fill them in, for example. Also there were a large number of bogus applications for voting papers.
Now, if postal voting was subject to such abuse can you imagine the problems with internet voting?
No thanks.....
Perhaps one day a new company can develop new software that is corruption proof .... Pray It will also be the same software that is hack-proof, bug proof ..... a new generation Gates with a total new and original approach. So simple, people will wonder how they could have missed it all the time .... Laughing
liljp617
deanhills wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
truespeed wrote:
If they allowed voting over the net,everyone would vote (well almost) all it would require is to login with an your email address which you would have confirmed with the the electoral register,and vote.


I can assure you it wouldn't be this simple.
I wish it were that simple. And it can be that simple. Truespeed is so right. I'm almost certain the voting percentages would go through the roof. With today's technology there has to be a way. Have they investigated it yet?


It's not about voting percentages =/ It's about voting accuracy. The number of votes coming in would almost certainly increase exponentially...that doesn't mean they'd be legitimate votes. Hell, people here were concerned about fraud and hacking with the electronic voting machines INSIDE the polling stations. I'm afraid it would cause more problems than it would solve. I don't care how many people vote, as long as they're legitimate votes.

There is no infinitely secure system on the Internet, not with current technology. People could easily find ways to cheat the system if this were implemented (not to say they don't already cheat the system, as they likely do).
deanhills
liljp617 wrote:
deanhills wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
truespeed wrote:
If they allowed voting over the net,everyone would vote (well almost) all it would require is to login with an your email address which you would have confirmed with the the electoral register,and vote.


I can assure you it wouldn't be this simple.
I wish it were that simple. And it can be that simple. Truespeed is so right. I'm almost certain the voting percentages would go through the roof. With today's technology there has to be a way. Have they investigated it yet?
There is no infinitely secure system on the Internet, not with current technology.
Exactly, so I was saying I'm hoping for a completely new technology to arrive on the scene. I am almost certain it is there, it just needs to be discovered. Will make someone quite rich ... perhaps in a decade or so? Smile
liljp617
deanhills wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
deanhills wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
truespeed wrote:
If they allowed voting over the net,everyone would vote (well almost) all it would require is to login with an your email address which you would have confirmed with the the electoral register,and vote.


I can assure you it wouldn't be this simple.
I wish it were that simple. And it can be that simple. Truespeed is so right. I'm almost certain the voting percentages would go through the roof. With today's technology there has to be a way. Have they investigated it yet?
There is no infinitely secure system on the Internet, not with current technology.
Exactly, so I was saying I'm hoping for a completely new technology to arrive on the scene. I am almost certain it is there, it just needs to be discovered. Will make someone quite rich ... perhaps in a decade or so? Smile


I'm still pretty skeptical of the idea. You're asking human beings to write/create some programming code that is impenetrable to other human beings. You may be correct, but I'm not so sure it's possible.
Bannik
liljp617 wrote:
deanhills wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
deanhills wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
truespeed wrote:
If they allowed voting over the net,everyone would vote (well almost) all it would require is to login with an your email address which you would have confirmed with the the electoral register,and vote.


I can assure you it wouldn't be this simple.
I wish it were that simple. And it can be that simple. Truespeed is so right. I'm almost certain the voting percentages would go through the roof. With today's technology there has to be a way. Have they investigated it yet?
There is no infinitely secure system on the Internet, not with current technology.
Exactly, so I was saying I'm hoping for a completely new technology to arrive on the scene. I am almost certain it is there, it just needs to be discovered. Will make someone quite rich ... perhaps in a decade or so? Smile


I'm still pretty skeptical of the idea. You're asking human beings to write/create some programming code that is impenetrable to other human beings. You may be correct, but I'm not so sure it's possible.


why not just have a longer voting period...lets say 1 months, that way anyone who can vote gets every opportunity too vote, seriously if you cant find 1 day of a month too go and vote you have issues...
Stubru Freak
I'm pro online voting... I don't get why you would send your credit card information over the internet, but not your vote. If you can choose between influencing the election or hacking a few thousand credit cards, I know what I'd pick.
ocalhoun
Stubru Freak wrote:
If you can choose between influencing the election or hacking a few thousand credit cards, I know what I'd pick.

Exclamation Idea Exclamation Why not both?

Voting fraud is prevalent enough (on both sides) without anonymity and the absence of paper records involved. Internet voting would put the whole outcome into question on every vote.

We are incapable of verifying identification and right to vote in person 100% of the time... How could we possibly do so over an open network?
Solon_Poledourus
*AHEM*

We already have voting processes that leave no paper trail. I'm not advocating internet voting, but those electronic voting machines that we already have are really not a great deal better, security wise.
deanhills
Stubru Freak wrote:
I'm pro online voting... I don't get why you would send your credit card information over the internet, but not your vote. If you can choose between influencing the election or hacking a few thousand credit cards, I know what I'd pick.
Laughing Good point! Perhaps fraud will be less than what it is right now anyway. For beginners, we would no longer have to worry how the voting options are displayed. There would be limitless space, and it will save quite a number of trees as well.
lagoon
I will leave you with this:

"The people who cast the votes don't decide an election, the people who count them do" - Josef Stalin

Perhaps internet voting would only exacerbate the unaccountability of counting votes, instead of the current situation where candidates can watch votes being counted?
handfleisch
lagoon wrote:
I will leave you with this:

"The people who cast the votes don't decide an election, the people who count them do" - Josef Stalin


Good quote. Reminds me of this:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dV67u370Pg
Quote:
New York Representative Peter King in a candid moment admits that the 2004 elections are "already over--the election's over, we won." When the camera woman asks "How do you know that?" Congressman King replies, "it's all over but the counting, and we'll take care care of the counting."
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
lagoon wrote:
I will leave you with this:

"The people who cast the votes don't decide an election, the people who count them do" - Josef Stalin


Good quote. Reminds me of this:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dV67u370Pg
Quote:
New York Representative Peter King in a candid moment admits that the 2004 elections are "already over--the election's over, we won." When the camera woman asks "How do you know that?" Congressman King replies, "it's all over but the counting, and we'll take care care of the counting."
The worst part is that nobody did anything about it, except be in shock. And moaning and groaning about it.
lagoon
deanhills wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
lagoon wrote:
I will leave you with this:

"The people who cast the votes don't decide an election, the people who count them do" - Josef Stalin


Good quote. Reminds me of this:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dV67u370Pg
Quote:
New York Representative Peter King in a candid moment admits that the 2004 elections are "already over--the election's over, we won." When the camera woman asks "How do you know that?" Congressman King replies, "it's all over but the counting, and we'll take care care of the counting."
The worst part is that nobody did anything about it, except be in shock. And moaning and groaning about it.


Like Bush/Gore 2000, but they couldn't do anything about it because of your ridiculous Supreme Court system.
deanhills
lagoon wrote:

Like Bush/Gore 2000, but they couldn't do anything about it because of your ridiculous Supreme Court system.
What do you mean with rediculous Supreme Court system? Not sure that I understand what you are saying here Question
lagoon
Well, it is easy for the incumbent President to pack it with his cronies, and their decision cannot be disputed, leaving the incumbent president with an obvious advantage in any decisions.
deanhills
lagoon wrote:
Well, it is easy for the incumbent President to pack it with his cronies, and their decision cannot be disputed, leaving the incumbent president with an obvious advantage in any decisions.
OK. I now understand. I saw a TB show about this too in "Boston Legal" with Alan Shore (a lawyer character in this series) addressing the Supreme Court and blaming them of basing their decisions on politics. He really did it very well, and this is much along the lines that you described.
medesignz
deanhills wrote:
Not voting is a vote in its own right, a choice not to vote. For example it may be carefully thought through that there were no candidates that the voters wanted to vote for. So their "no vote" is a vote of a kind.


How is not voting a vote? To show a non vote you should go to the poll and invalidate your paper! Thats showing your opinion... Not showing up is not voting for anything but your laziness, tv and your computer! BOOOO!
deanhills
medesignz wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Not voting is a vote in its own right, a choice not to vote. For example it may be carefully thought through that there were no candidates that the voters wanted to vote for. So their "no vote" is a vote of a kind.


How is not voting a vote? To show a non vote you should go to the poll and invalidate your paper! Thats showing your opinion... Not showing up is not voting for anything but your laziness, tv and your computer! BOOOO!
Come off it .... Laughing Either you vote for the candidates or you do not vote. And the only way to show that you do not support the candidates is not to vote. There is no provision on the ballot for protesting the candidates. It's an either or, like when you are in the court and you can only answer "yes" or "no".

Yes, you can invalidate the paper, but that is really a waste of time isn't it? Why go to all the trouble of going to the voting poll and invalidating a piece of paper that will come under a stat of rejected ballot. Much more dignified to be counted in the percentage of those who did not vote. As that usually tells a story.
handfleisch
medesignz wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Not voting is a vote in its own right, a choice not to vote. For example it may be carefully thought through that there were no candidates that the voters wanted to vote for. So their "no vote" is a vote of a kind.


How is not voting a vote? To show a non vote you should go to the poll and invalidate your paper! Thats showing your opinion...


This would make sense if there were minimum turnout quotas in elections. Less than X% invalidates the election. Then people could stay home and protest-vote. But otherwise it doesn't work and it leads to what just happened in UK with the BNP fascists winning despite getting less votes than the previous election.
medesignz
If you tell yourself you're going to go to the polls and invalidating, you may actually take a second more to actually think about what you're doing. Therefore you may actually end up voting in the end.

Voting against someone will lead to votes for the parties we really dont want in charge, so its just a case of VOTE or DONT VOTE... if you dont vote... SHUT UP!

Thats the gripe of it all, people not voting and still moaning... MENTAL!
lagoon
That is the one thing I can't abide by. People complaining even though they didn't vote. Its as if they don't even have a right to complain, in my honest opinion.
deanhills
medesignz wrote:
If you tell yourself you're going to go to the polls and invalidating, you may actually take a second more to actually think about what you're doing. Therefore you may actually end up voting in the end.

Voting against someone will lead to votes for the parties we really dont want in charge, so its just a case of VOTE or DONT VOTE... if you dont vote... SHUT UP!

Thats the gripe of it all, people not voting and still moaning... MENTAL!
Everyone is different of course, but thinking about voting for me does not start on the day of the voting. But long before. During that period there is usually lots of information that has made its way to me, in order to make my decision. On the day of voting one cannot help but be inundated with materials either. Perhaps what you say can be true for you and similar minded voters, but not for me and possibly others thinking like me. In addition to you and me there are of course those who just do not care, or who may change their minds if you should drive them to a voting poll and they have a look at their choices for the first time. They may then vote in the end.
lagoon
We spend more time choosing which mobile package to go with than who to vote for.

Is this wrong?
ocalhoun
lagoon wrote:
We spend more time choosing which mobile package to go with than who to vote for.

Only because you vote for who you're told to vote for.

If you had grown up your whole life hearing how Verizon was the best one, you'd pick it... or perhaps you'd rebel and pick Alltel instead. Either way, you wouldn't give it much thought.
deanhills
lagoon wrote:
We spend more time choosing which mobile package to go with than who to vote for.

Is this wrong?
Very good point. And usually people are very alert to the fact that every mobile company has its own agenda, more critical and looking at objective reviews. If people can apply that kind of thinking to the election process, it would make a great difference, but perhaps there is so much energy in the media and candidate presentations part, that there is hardly any space left for doing that kind of objective analyses. The election process also does not do much to motivate people to think for themselves, being geared to manipulate and convince.
lagoon
The election process is geared around the media, which will always end up with media control of political appearances, and therefore elections. In the UK, for example, the printed media is always either extremely biased to the left or to the right, and so there is never a middle ground which looks at the situation subjectively.
deanhills
lagoon wrote:
The election process is geared around the media, which will always end up with media control of political appearances, and therefore elections. In the UK, for example, the printed media is always either extremely biased to the left or to the right, and so there is never a middle ground which looks at the situation subjectively.
I wonder whether this could also be that there is more drama and sensationalism to be found in right and left, rather than in the middle ground. Usually the political characters in the right and the left can also be more interesting and colourful. Smile
Afaceinthematrix
I agree with what someone above said. I think there should just be a longer voting period. I didn't get to vote in the last presidential election in the U.S. because of the fact that the voting took place in a day. Granted I could have, but it would have been difficult. That day I was at UCR (my school) which is in Riverside, California. I am registered to vote in the city that I live in, about 20 miles away. That day I started school at 8 AM and finished at 9 PM. Granted I did have a four hour gap between two of my classes, but I didn't want to drive 40 miles round trip (I never want to make the drive twice in a day; that's a waste of fuel) when I was almost certain that Obama was going to take California... However, if the voting process would have lasted several days I could have voted on a day where I am not at school for that long of a time period (I could have voted on the way to school or on the way home).
lagoon
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
I agree with what someone above said. I think there should just be a longer voting period. I didn't get to vote in the last presidential election in the U.S. because of the fact that the voting took place in a day. Granted I could have, but it would have been difficult. That day I was at UCR (my school) which is in Riverside, California. I am registered to vote in the city that I live in, about 20 miles away. That day I started school at 8 AM and finished at 9 PM. Granted I did have a four hour gap between two of my classes, but I didn't want to drive 40 miles round trip (I never want to make the drive twice in a day; that's a waste of fuel) when I was almost certain that Obama was going to take California... However, if the voting process would have lasted several days I could have voted on a day where I am not at school for that long of a time period (I could have voted on the way to school or on the way home).


Couldn't you have voted by proxy?
Related topics
[OFFICIAL] What are you currently reading?
Eliminate California from USA?
NY Times: A perfect example of lieberals spreading...
see who voted for what
Can Angelina Jolie be voted the most beautiful women???
FOOD a topic about food finally
How often do you check mails.
IBM profiting from the Nazi in 2nd world war
Alcohol and parties, Your opinion.
Israel Palestine war?
Things only a Republican could believe
USA Republican Tea Party Candidate Dresses as Nazi
Lie about your faith (or lack of) for huge advantages?
Help out my cousin
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.