Jump to content

Today...


Leoo
 Share

Recommended Posts

The sad thing is that I probably know more texting abbreviations that British politics acornyms, despite my distaste for the former! :(

"Fight for what you believe in, and believe in what you're fighting for." Can games be art?

---

 

 

cWCZMZO.png

l1M6sfb.png

My blog here if you want to check out my Times articles and other writings! I always appreciate comments/feedback.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

American politics. Two parties, two people. You vote for one or the other based upon which party they represent and their values because of that. One with most votes wins.

 

Beyond that I can only say that each state has nearly as much power within it as the federal system does upon the country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

American politics is worse than you'd care to know. Rich people champion politicians who grovel as said rich people's feet, get their laws passed regardless of what the general population wants or votes for, repeat. After politicians 'retire,' they end up on boards or otherwise are benefited by said rich people. Parties don't exist except on wedge issues (abortion, gay marriage, drugs). Also, rich people is not limited to those with blood. Personhood applies to corporations.

 

Have a nice day.

ozXHe7P.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personhood applies to corporations.

 

That's indeed true, because according to our laws, campaign contributions count as political free speech :v.

"Fight for what you believe in, and believe in what you're fighting for." Can games be art?

---

 

 

cWCZMZO.png

l1M6sfb.png

My blog here if you want to check out my Times articles and other writings! I always appreciate comments/feedback.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's indeed true, because according to our laws, campaign contributions count as political free speech :v.

And are apparently A Good Thingtm

 

Also as an addendum: our parties' relationships can best be described as a series of temper tantrums where none of the people involved know what they're actually supposed to be working on. The important thing to remember is that none of it is your party's fault.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have a problem with corporations counting as people. Like idk what the downside of that even is

The downside is that corporations could care less about global warming or whatever issue you may take to heart. A corporation exists solely for the purpose of making money for its shareholders, which are actually more than likely another corporation.

 

Going back to the global warming thought here, a corporation making a donation as a 'person' to a politician means that they are now 'owed' by the politician. So sometime down the line due to this debt the corporation will get away with dumping toxic waste in a stream, or polluting the air more than allowed. Even more so say a recession hits, all of a sudden GM gets billions in bailouts so it can stay afloat.

 

Good RL example that isn't hypothetical would the the BP oil spill. If I am thinking correctly that had something along the lines of a billion dollars in environmental damage and clean up fees reduced down to something negligible. This is due to corporations counting as 'people' and being able to lobby politicians.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to mention that BP lied to us about the amount of oil leaking from that spill. But hey, they had all those commercials and they kind of sort of looked sincere so maybe we should just write it off. Right?

"Fight for what you believe in, and believe in what you're fighting for." Can games be art?

---

 

 

cWCZMZO.png

l1M6sfb.png

My blog here if you want to check out my Times articles and other writings! I always appreciate comments/feedback.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was playing Dark Souls 2 earlier and uhhh... i got a bit frustrated which ended up in me punching my couch. Now my hand hurts... I feel like i've become very short tempered since i stopped smoking. I'm generally a lot happier than i previously was, I sleep better, etc. but it takes very little for me to snap.

 

Oh and they put up speed bumps (more like a hill though, if you ask me) on the road behind my house recently (probably within the last day or two). They haven't put up any road-signs or painted them yet. So last night on my way to a friend's house i caught one of them at about 50kmph and that shit sent me flying. Car got pretty banged up since it's only about 5 or 6 inches off the ground. I generally have a hard time going over a bump driving <10kmph, so doing 50 really isn't desirable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have a problem with corporations counting as people. Like idk what the downside of that even is

1. Corporations are often multinational which makes their motivations not in line with people in that country. A person can lobby/vote as an American/Australian etc in their own country but a corporation that operates in other countries has a conflict of interest straight up.

 

2. A corporation owes their shareholders profits and everybody else nothing. They lobby for their own interests and cannot have political beliefs because they represent purely the interests of the company. A person can support legislation that benefits other people.

 

3. Corporations = people contributes to money = free speech

 

4. Corporations have legal and monetary benefits that people don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

FPTP is not a sham, people just don't understand the principle behind it. The media focus on party leaders obscures the fact that we're not voting for a party leader or even necessarily a party, but each constituency sends someone to Parliament and it is Parliament which chooses the PM by expressing the confidence of the house in a certain individual. So how the vote falls within a constituency is, theoretically and realistically, far more important than the national picture. 

 

Meanwhile, what a perfect outcome: Conservative majority which, though narrow, will be bolstered by the de facto collaboration of the DUP and UUP from N Ireland (8 and 2 seats respectively), plus losses for Labour and Ukip and status quo ante for the god awful Greens. Meanwhile, the tribalism of the SNP has only produced a Tory government they were powerless to stop.  =D>

 

Even under your premise that the riding matters more than the country as a whole, FPTP is still a failure. If a candidate can win a riding with >30% of the vote, over 70% of the voters in that riding are not represented at all in parliament. I'm a supporter of a form of listless MMP that I could expand on, but STV also achieves representation within a riding and semi-proportional results too (albeit in a far more complicated manner).

 

 

To be pedantic, in Britain it's a constituency, not a riding, which in Britain is an archaic term for how Yorkshire used to be divided into 3 ridings. 

 

As for the whole "candidate can get 30% and win", it's true, but then any parliamentary system with more than 2 parties has the same problem, even in a country like Germany where PR is used - in 2009 Merkel returned as Chancellor with 34% of the vote. Only in Presidential runoffs like US or France does someone always get at least 50% by definition. And in practice, there are many seats where the winner gets more than 50%. My local Tory has just been returned to Parliament with close to 60% of the vote. Very few win with below 30%, they have to be ultra-marginal seats. 

 

And, truth be told, FPTP is good at shutting out extremist parties. UKIP is a fringe right party of morons who took almost 4 million votes but 1 MP, and the Green Party are a far left fringe which took a million votes and one MP. In any other system, these would be very powerful parties. 

  • Like 1


"Imagine yourself surrounded by the most horrible cripples and maniacs it is possible to conceive, and you may understand a little of my feelings with these grotesque caricatures of humanity about me."

- H.G. Wells, The Island of Doctor Moreau

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually the US doesn't require popular vote to win for president - it's much more complicated and is determined through the Electoral college system, whereby you win delegates for the popular vote in each specific state. You then need a fraction (slightly more than half) of those delegates to win. Neither Clinton (both terms) nor George W. Bush (the first term) received 50% of the vote. If no one reaches 270 then I believe the House votes on it, and whoever got the most out of that would win, in theory anyway.

"Fight for what you believe in, and believe in what you're fighting for." Can games be art?

---

 

 

cWCZMZO.png

l1M6sfb.png

My blog here if you want to check out my Times articles and other writings! I always appreciate comments/feedback.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

FPTP is not a sham, people just don't understand the principle behind it. The media focus on party leaders obscures the fact that we're not voting for a party leader or even necessarily a party, but each constituency sends someone to Parliament and it is Parliament which chooses the PM by expressing the confidence of the house in a certain individual. So how the vote falls within a constituency is, theoretically and realistically, far more important than the national picture. 

 

Meanwhile, what a perfect outcome: Conservative majority which, though narrow, will be bolstered by the de facto collaboration of the DUP and UUP from N Ireland (8 and 2 seats respectively), plus losses for Labour and Ukip and status quo ante for the god awful Greens. Meanwhile, the tribalism of the SNP has only produced a Tory government they were powerless to stop.  =D>

 

Even under your premise that the riding matters more than the country as a whole, FPTP is still a failure. If a candidate can win a riding with >30% of the vote, over 70% of the voters in that riding are not represented at all in parliament. I'm a supporter of a form of listless MMP that I could expand on, but STV also achieves representation within a riding and semi-proportional results too (albeit in a far more complicated manner).

 

 

To be pedantic, in Britain it's a constituency, not a riding, which in Britain is an archaic term for how Yorkshire used to be divided into 3 ridings. 

 

As for the whole "candidate can get 30% and win", it's true, but then any parliamentary system with more than 2 parties has the same problem, even in a country like Germany where PR is used - in 2009 Merkel returned as Chancellor with 34% of the vote. Only in Presidential runoffs like US or France does someone always get at least 50% by definition. And in practice, there are many seats where the winner gets more than 50%. My local Tory has just been returned to Parliament with close to 60% of the vote. Very few win with below 30%, they have to be ultra-marginal seats. 

 

And, truth be told, FPTP is good at shutting out extremist parties. UKIP is a fringe right party of morons who took almost 4 million votes but 1 MP, and the Green Party are a far left fringe which took a million votes and one MP. In any other system, these would be very powerful parties. 

 

 

In my constituency, Labour won by a landslide. I was surprised that a UKIP person was even running in my area.

The "Cannabis Is Safer Than Alcohol" party did alright where I'm from as well. :ph34r:  :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a corporation is a person, why cant i marry it?

  • Like 1
Quote

 

Quote

Anyone who likes tacos is incapable of logic.

Anyone who likes logic is incapable of tacos.

 

PSA: SaqPrets is an Estonian Dude

Steam: NippleBeardTM

Origin: Brand_New_iPwn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a corporation is a person, why cant i marry it?

 

 

Because the corporation turned you down.

19509_s.gif

 

“I had a feeling we weren’t coming back from this fight when it began.”

“Do you have any regrets?”

“I don’t. It seems surprising, I know, but I wouldn’t change a thing. This is how it was meant to be.”

“Huh, you never really notice how lovely the day is until you realize you’ll never see it again.”

“Mmmhmm.”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be pedantic, in Britain it's a constituency, not a riding, which in Britain is an archaic term for how Yorkshire used to be divided into 3 ridings. 

 

As for the whole "candidate can get 30% and win", it's true, but then any parliamentary system with more than 2 parties has the same problem, even in a country like Germany where PR is used - in 2009 Merkel returned as Chancellor with 34% of the vote. Only in Presidential runoffs like US or France does someone always get at least 50% by definition. And in practice, there are many seats where the winner gets more than 50%. My local Tory has just been returned to Parliament with close to 60% of the vote. Very few win with below 30%, they have to be ultra-marginal seats. 

 

And, truth be told, FPTP is good at shutting out extremist parties. UKIP is a fringe right party of morons who took almost 4 million votes but 1 MP, and the Green Party are a far left fringe which took a million votes and one MP. In any other system, these would be very powerful parties.

I'm aware, constituency is an awful word though. In North American English, people tend to pronounce the second and third syllables as some bastardisation of stitch and chew, and it sounds awful.

 

FPTP may work now to keep out 'extremist' parties, but it also could allow them in with far less than the majority of the vote. And I'd consider SNP a more extremist party than UKIP. UKIP is not too far to the right of the Tories, which makes it amusing you'd call them a party of morons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

To be pedantic, in Britain it's a constituency, not a riding, which in Britain is an archaic term for how Yorkshire used to be divided into 3 ridings.

 

As for the whole "candidate can get 30% and win", it's true, but then any parliamentary system with more than 2 parties has the same problem, even in a country like Germany where PR is used - in 2009 Merkel returned as Chancellor with 34% of the vote. Only in Presidential runoffs like US or France does someone always get at least 50% by definition. And in practice, there are many seats where the winner gets more than 50%. My local Tory has just been returned to Parliament with close to 60% of the vote. Very few win with below 30%, they have to be ultra-marginal seats.

 

And, truth be told, FPTP is good at shutting out extremist parties. UKIP is a fringe right party of morons who took almost 4 million votes but 1 MP, and the Green Party are a far left fringe which took a million votes and one MP. In any other system, these would be very powerful parties.

I'm aware, constituency is an awful word though. In North American English, people tend to pronounce the second and third syllables as some bastardisation of stitch and chew, and it sounds awful.

 

FPTP may work now to keep out 'extremist' parties, but it also could allow them in with far less than the majority of the vote. And I'd consider SNP a more extremist party than UKIP. UKIP is not too far to the right of the Tories, which makes it amusing you'd call them a party of morons.

The closer something is to your own beliefs the easier it is to ridicule it and pick out major differences from the small ones which exist.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

To be pedantic, in Britain it's a constituency, not a riding, which in Britain is an archaic term for how Yorkshire used to be divided into 3 ridings. 

 

As for the whole "candidate can get 30% and win", it's true, but then any parliamentary system with more than 2 parties has the same problem, even in a country like Germany where PR is used - in 2009 Merkel returned as Chancellor with 34% of the vote. Only in Presidential runoffs like US or France does someone always get at least 50% by definition. And in practice, there are many seats where the winner gets more than 50%. My local Tory has just been returned to Parliament with close to 60% of the vote. Very few win with below 30%, they have to be ultra-marginal seats. 

 

And, truth be told, FPTP is good at shutting out extremist parties. UKIP is a fringe right party of morons who took almost 4 million votes but 1 MP, and the Green Party are a far left fringe which took a million votes and one MP. In any other system, these would be very powerful parties.

I'm aware, constituency is an awful word though. In North American English, people tend to pronounce the second and third syllables as some bastardisation of stitch and chew, and it sounds awful.

 

FPTP may work now to keep out 'extremist' parties, but it also could allow them in with far less than the majority of the vote. And I'd consider SNP a more extremist party than UKIP. UKIP is not too far to the right of the Tories, which makes it amusing you'd call them a party of morons.

 

 

Lol, there are a fair few morons in the UKIP party to be fair.

So many members have said awful things but they are disposed of pretty pronto to be fair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.