Escadrille Ecosse Posted February 4 Posted February 4 1 hour ago, JohnD said: Speaking of sycophants, why does the BBC or any other media, ever interview Farage? He is the absentee 'leader' of five MPs, less than 1% of the total. His opinions are worthless, yet he 'appeared' on this morning's Today programme. A hostile interview, but why waste our time ad that of the BBC? because it is important that the BBC and other national UK news outlets manage to annoy everyone. It shows they are doing a passable job.
Nick Jones Posted February 4 Posted February 4 49 minutes ago, Escadrille Ecosse said: shows they are doing a passable job. Not really, it falsely legitimises fringe interests and gives them airtime and traction they are not worthy of!
JohnD Posted February 20 Posted February 20 Is anyone getting depressed by the Trumpery? Suggest you go to the BBC iPlayer, Comedy and search for Red Dwarf. Then go to Series 12, and the episode called "Mechocracy". Uncanny (no, not that rubbish) as this series was made in 2016, nearly ten years ago! John
JohnD Posted February 21 Posted February 21 This could be "interesting " Hockey : The Pub (Off Topic) : The Triumph Experience In ice hockey, the USA and Canada have made it to the finals, to be played in Boston, TONIGHT! In the semi-final game, where USA beat Canada (The Canucks beat Finland to get to the Final), the crowd booed both flags and both national anthems and there were fist fights on the pitch and in the audience. What a good thing the Americans don't play cricket or football! Oh? They do? John
Escadrille Ecosse Posted February 21 Posted February 21 31 minutes ago, JohnD said: What a good thing the Americans don't play cricket or football! Oh? They do? Not so as you'd notice though. Whilst I don't really approve of all that nonsense, go Cannucks
JohnD Posted February 21 Posted February 21 Here's the match! I know nothing about this impossibly fast and inherently violent game, but the teams seemed to be on best behaviour, and if there were any demonstrations in the crown they have been edited out. I record without comment that the score, in extra time, was Canada 3, US 2. John
Wolfrace. Posted February 21 Posted February 21 On 2/2/2025 at 10:21 PM, mpbarrett said: , basically it means the end of democracy in the USA. America is not a democracy, it’s a representative Republic. the Founding Fathers explicitly rejected ‘democracy’ - or as they called it, ‘the tyranny of the masses’.
PaulAA Posted February 21 Posted February 21 17 minutes ago, Wolfrace. said: America is not a democracy, it’s a representative Republic. the Founding Fathers explicitly rejected ‘democracy’ - or as they called it, ‘the tyranny of the masses’. The distinction is academic. The Declaration of Independence states that governments should be established “deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Which is a pretty good definition of a democracy. 1
Wolfrace. Posted February 21 Posted February 21 25 minutes ago, PaulAA said: The distinction is academic. The Declaration of Independence states that governments should be established “deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Which is a pretty good definition of a democracy. it’s very much not academic. the US has two houses, Congress (the peoples house - day to day domestic matters) and the Senate (the States house - national legislative matters and policy), and then the Office of the President, who has independent legislative power, all overseen by the Supreme Court that sits with very real teeth to protect the Constitution and the people from legislative over reach and malfeasance by the three of them. It’s a fundamentally different system from a ‘democracy’. The President is not elected by the party to legislate in their name - they endorse him, but he is his own person and may legislative as he wishes. Starmer cannot sign an order banning gingers, but Trump could - although the Supreme Court Justices may strike it down. As they say over there - ‘we’re not a democracy, we’re a cheerocracy’
Escadrille Ecosse Posted February 21 Posted February 21 43 minutes ago, Wolfrace. said: it’s very much not academic. Very true
PaulAA Posted February 22 Posted February 22 12 hours ago, Wolfrace. said: it’s very much not academic Only because of an attempt to limit the definition od 'democracy' by James Madison, subsequently contradicted by Alexis de Tocqueville. 12 hours ago, Wolfrace. said: the US has two houses, Congress (the peoples house - day to day domestic matters) and the Senate (the States house - national legislative matters and policy), and then the Office of the President, who has independent legislative power, all overseen by the Supreme Court that sits with very real teeth to protect the Constitution and the people from legislative over reach and malfeasance by the three of them. Thanks. I didn't know. 12 hours ago, Wolfrace. said: It’s a fundamentally different system from a ‘democracy’. The President is not elected by the party to legislate in their name - they endorse him, but he is his own person and may legislative as he wishes. Democracy is not defined by whether the supreme leader is elected directly or indirectly. The US is a representative democracy, but it still falls within the definition of universal sufferage 'of the people, by the people, for the people' Just my opinion, of course, and happy to be corrected.
Wolfrace. Posted February 22 Posted February 22 Meanwhile in ‘democratic’ Britain, Starmer has demanded a de facto end of end to end encryption in the UK, something that would be deemed unconstitutional in the US. J D Vance was right.
PaulAA Posted February 22 Posted February 22 4 minutes ago, Wolfrace. said: something that would be deemed unconstitutional in the US You may have missed recent events in the US and the full access to key Govt databases by unqualified staff authorised by the Supreme Leader. JD Vance needs to keep his nose out of other countres' business. 6
Escadrille Ecosse Posted February 22 Posted February 22 5 hours ago, PaulAA said: The US is a representative democracy, but it still falls within the definition of universal sufferage 'of the people, by the people, for the people' One of the 'issues' regarding the definition of democracy in this case is that (in most US states) the population vote for an electoral college rather than for the candidate directly and it is then the individual states college that 'elect' the president. (and note that the election of the US president is not the same as the selection of the prime minister in a parlamentary system) One could argue that this is distinction without a difference but then how many angels to YOU think can dance on the head of a pin . 4 hours ago, PaulAA said: JD Vance needs to keep his nose out of other countres' business. Quite. Although that probably won't happen
PaulAA Posted February 22 Posted February 22 2 hours ago, Escadrille Ecosse said: One of the 'issues' regarding the definition of democracy in this case is that (in most US states) the population vote for an electoral college rather than for the candidate directly and it is then the individual states college that 'elect' the president. (and note that the election of the US president is not the same as the selection of the prime minister in a parlamentary system) One could argue that this is distinction without a difference but then how many angels to YOU think can dance on the head of a pin . Quite. Although that probably won't happen It has been argued (by John Stuart Mills amongst others) that had the Constitution been written just two generations later, the solid virtues of a Parliamentary system would likely have been adopted by the US, but fresh from victory over the British, the original framers believed they had a better system. But is there any practical difference in the indirect election of the supreme leader between a democracy and a constitutional republic? Neither completely satisfies the absolute choice of the electorate… 1
Escadrille Ecosse Posted February 22 Posted February 22 (edited) 31 minutes ago, PaulAA said: But is there any practical difference in the indirect election of the supreme leader between a democracy and a constitutional republic? Neither completely satisfies the absolute choice of the electorate… Depends on what is meant by difference. In a presidential system the 'supreme leader' generally has significantly wider and greater powers than that of a parlimentary system. UK Orders in Council are much more restrictive and restricted than US presidential Executive Orders. At least to date anyway. And whilst the UK Cabinet system of elected MPs is more or less one of collective responsibility (depending on the personality of Prime Minister and their relative strength), the US presidential cabinet system of personal appointees is far more magisterial. And certainly far more divorced from the legislature, Congress and Senate. Ironically the US president is far more like the absolute monarch they claim to disavow than the British PM and even more so the King. There are also far more routes available from outside Parliament, within Parliament and from within the party to remove a Prime Minister. A general election, even possibly a by-election, a simple majority of the House in a no confidence vote or even a significant minority of their own MPs will do it. As has been demonstrated many times over. The President on the other hand is effectively separate from his party and the legislature and can only be removed by impeachment which requires a super-majority that has never been achieved in US history because it is just too difficult. The party has no meaningful way to remove a president they don't like and the only way the US voter can remove the president, other than waiting for the term to expire, is to shoot the b####d. Which they seem to attempt with remarkable frequency. Edited February 22 by Escadrille Ecosse
Toronto Tim Posted February 28 Posted February 28 On 2/21/2025 at 1:36 PM, JohnD said: Here's the match! I know nothing about this impossibly fast and inherently violent game, but the teams seemed to be on best behaviour, and if there were any demonstrations in the crown they have been edited out. I record without comment that the score, in extra time, was Canada 3, US 2. John GO CANADA!!!! Apologies for the delay in reacting but I've been celebrating ever since and have only just sobered up 1 1
Nick Jones Posted February 28 Posted February 28 2 hours ago, Toronto Tim said: GO CANADA!!!! Oh yes, makes me happy. But watch out, the orange emperor, curse his rotten empty soul, will add this to his list of grievances…… 2 hours ago, Toronto Tim said: In other news: Trump and Zelensky today. WTF See above. Never was anyone less fit for office, especially high office. I’m not talking about Zelenskyy who is the very antithesis of the American bully boys. Europe, UK included needs to grow a pair and tell them to f-off! Appeasement cannot end well. Starmer’s brown-nosing and the state visit business turn my stomach! 2
JohnD Posted March 5 Posted March 5 What should have happened at the White House: https://www.tr-register.co.uk/forums/uploads/monthly_2025_03/VIDEO-2025-03-01-15-56-19.mp4.f9edd3bbbb87133a2712fa387266b99e.mp4 John 3
JohnD Posted March 26 Posted March 26 I'm reading a book that collects the "Letters from America" of that great expositor of them to us, Alistair Cooke. His letter of 24/11/1963 was on the Assassination of President Kennedy. He quotes Kennedy's Inaugural Address, in which he said, "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill,that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty." While Trumpism rules, so I believe does Kennedy's view still exist among Americans. They did, and will again another day, have such a generous view of their role in the world. John 2
Toronto Tim Posted March 28 Posted March 28 We here in Canada are looking forward to welcoming back that type of American leadership - assuming we survive this one. There are plenty of Americans who share this view, just not enough of them at the recent election... In the meantime, it seems worse than our wildest imaginings. Hopefully their incompetence offsets some of the meanness. Tim 1
Nick Jones Posted March 28 Posted March 28 12 hours ago, Toronto Tim said: Hopefully their incompetence offsets some of the meanness. Wondering how long it will be before the American public realise who it actually is that pays these tariffs….. (It’s mostly you, dickheads!) They certainly are a nasty bunch and Americans should be under no illusions that being American (even white, moderately affluent Americans) will insulate them from the fall-out of this nastiness.
Hamish Posted March 28 Posted March 28 But I fear that by then the damage will be catastrophically done and the pockets not only lined but bulging after 4 years of this. then Vance can have 2 terms 🤯 2
Nick Jones Posted April 29 Posted April 29 https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/apr/29/musks-companies-got-billions-from-the-government-now-hes-pulling-up-the-ladder-behind-him
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now