International News Donald Trump 🍊🇺🇸

SteMerritt said:
Referenda result in people who don't have all of the relevant data being asked to make complex decisions that have been boiled down to Yes/No, In/Out, Option A/Option B binary decisions. They are a terrible way to make big decisions. We elect governments to do this on our behalf. The way we elect our governments however...
Click to expand...
I can definitely have my mind changed on this bit
 
MustardYellow said:
This only works if the politicians don't act on self interest, which we all know they do. We also know they make decisions despite there being evidence it's a bad idea/won't work. The issue is also that MP's rarely change their mind on things because they know they've been voted in based on their views, even if the evidence suggests that view is counterproductive.

On your second point, I'm not really sure what that solves? People are always going to vote primarily for what is best for them and their family. If there is a party that better protects you and your family, you'll probably vote for them. I think you get into dangerous territory when specified groups have their votes weighted over others.
Click to expand...
I dont think all politicians act on self-interest. It's an absolutely grotty job but many people do it because they believe in helping the local community. Of course there is a decent proportion who are self serving.

On your second point, I definitely dont think specified groups should have their votes weighted more. Definitely not (so don't worry there). I just want minority rights to come into the equation when decisions are made which I think is more likely under a representative system rather than direct democracy. For example, disability groups can lobby individual MPs to put their view across. In a direct democracy governed by referenda that is more difficult.

Anyway, I've taken us down a rabbit hole here and gone off topic.

To get us back on topic: Donald Trump is a massive orange t**t.
 
Eric Blair said:
I dont think all politicians act on self-interest. It's an absolutely grotty job but many people do it because they believe in helping the local community. Of course there is a decent proportion who are self serving.

On your second point, I definitely dont think specified groups should have their votes weighted more. Definitely not (so don't worry there). I just want minority rights to come into the equation when decisions are made which I think is more likely under a representative system rather than direct democracy. For example, disability groups can lobby individual MPs to put their view across. In a direct democracy governed by referenda that is more difficult.

Anyway, I've taken us down a rabbit hole here and gone off topic.

To get us back on topic: Donald Trump is a massive orange t**t.
Click to expand...
I've not seen much evidence in my lifetime that politicians give much of a s*** about anything other than self preservation (granted I'm fairly young). They'll do and say anything for votes.

It's an interesting topic because I think it's one about perspective. There's a fairly large portion of society that would probably already say minorities are already considered when decisions are made, and another portion that would believe they're 'over-considered'. Those with a disabled family member may say the opposite. That's partly what makes a representative system difficult though, is you always run the risk of it turning hostile between groups. People will still be lobbying mainly for what's best for them, and that may often be to the detriment of another group. The practicalities of actually making decisions when everyone is lobbying for different things for the benefit of their own groups seem difficult to say the least!
 
MustardYellow said:
I've not seen much evidence in my lifetime that politicians give much of a s*** about anything other than self preservation (granted I'm fairly young). They'll do and say anything for votes.

It's an interesting topic because I think it's one about perspective. There's a fairly large portion of society that would probably already say minorities are already considered when decisions are made, and another portion that would believe they're 'over-considered'. Those with a disabled family member may say the opposite. That's partly what makes a representative system difficult though, is you always run the risk of it turning hostile between groups. People will still be lobbying mainly for what's best for them, and that may often be to the detriment of another group. The practicalities of actually making decisions when everyone is lobbying for different things for the benefit of their own groups seem difficult to say the least!
Click to expand...
All your points are fair. I think we're probably in the realm now where we have two fair honest opinions but we just slightly disagree based on instinct and differing experiences.

I dont know where you live but our East Oxford MP Annelise Dodds is alright. I think she could earn more money and have less hassle doing another job but I get the sense she does give a monkeys. Others may disagree which is fine and might be based on their own experiences.

On your second point, where referenda get really problematic is on technical legislation - like debating clauses on funding green banks and financial instruments. You cant really put that to a national vote so in the absence of that there will need to be some sort of representation.

Ultimately though I like representative democracy and you prefer direct democracy on big issues. As you rightly say, differing perspectives.
 
Eric Blair said:
That is a good question. One of the nerdy things about me is I am a US president geek. The two term limit is an amendment in the US constitution (the twenty second) which was brought in by the early 1950s (after FDR won four elections). Before that the two term thing was a convention only. It takes a huge amount to overturn a constitutional amendment (this is where I get sketchy without looking it up) but I think it is two thirds of congress and then a majority of US states.
Click to expand...

It's actually worse than that - it's two thirds of both houses of congress, and then needs to be ratified by 75% of all states.

I believe an amendment has only ever been revoked once, and that was the 18th, which was prohibition.

The chance of Trump changing the constitution to allow himself to serve beyond 2028 is literally zero in the current climate

Here's the language of the 22nd amendment, by the way. It's fairly unequivocal:

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.
 
Last edited:
SteMerritt said:
Not sure what is amusing you so much?
Click to expand...
It's just Essex, trying to be "edgy" (again :ROFLMAO: ).

Mind you looking at the horses he's backed up to the hilt on here it is plain to see he's a terrible judge of leader:)

Remember that time he said he wouldn't see another Labour government in his lifetime . . . . :unsure:
 
Sheik djibouti said:
It's just Essex, trying to be "edgy" (again :ROFLMAO: ).

Mind you looking at the horses he's backed up to the hilt on here it is plain to see he's a terrible judge of leader:)

Remember that time he said he wouldn't see another Labour government in his lifetime . . . . :unsure:
Click to expand...

We shall see.................... at this precise moment Starmer isn`t pulling up tree`s and is seemingly reliant on the other team getting self inflicted injuries.

Today he`s prattling on about banning the sale of "ninja swords & zombie knives".............. newsflash you can kill someone with a kitchen knife.

Stop & search would be more effective, and if it is racially profiled then so be it.......... it reflects reality.
 
Eric Blair said:
All your points are fair. I think we're probably in the realm now where we have two fair honest opinions but we just slightly disagree based on instinct and differing experiences.

I dont know where you live but our East Oxford MP Annelise Dodds is alright. I think she could earn more money and have less hassle doing another job but I get the sense she does give a monkeys. Others may disagree which is fine and might be based on their own experiences.

On your second point, where referenda get really problematic is on technical legislation - like debating clauses on funding green banks and financial instruments. You cant really put that to a national vote so in the absence of that there will need to be some sort of representation.

Ultimately though I like representative democracy and you prefer direct democracy on big issues. As you rightly say, differing perspectives.
Click to expand...

She pays no attention to her voters when it comes to the LTN's
 
Coffin dodger said:
She pays no attention to her voters when it comes to the LTN's
Click to expand...
That's a fair point. I dont think it's good enough to say "it's a city or county council thing and therefore not to do with me" (I am assuming this is what she says by the way - I could be wrong!!). As our senior representative she should have a view one way or the other.
 
Eric Blair said:
I still disagree a bit @MustardYellow . It feels a bit of a cop out to say they are all awful and that's it. Maybe I am a naïve dreamer
Click to expand...
As I say, do we have much evidence available that they're not all awful? Feels like every day there's more decisions being made by politicians that'll f*** us up. Where are the decisions being made that actually help us?
 
Wallop said:
Genuine question for any US Constitution experts out there - if Trump gets elected, is there a potential route to him attempting to install himself as President for Life? I can see him trying it but don't know if there is any method by which he could try.
Click to expand...

I guess that would only be true if some extremist assassinated him during his 2nd term.
 
Eric Blair said:
Ha! Don't worry - it's not "I don't like people thicker than I am having an opinion". That would be outrageous and is not where I'm coming from. I also dont consider myself cleverer than the average.

I think there there are two reasons why it's more flawed:

1. The world is insanely complex. To make good decisions you need access to lots of information, lots of time to understand and speak to people and to basically live and breathe a variety of issues. You need to make sure you talk to people outside your bubble and be willing to engage on all sides of the argument. I dont have time to do that and nor do most people which is why I prefer representative democracy i.e. voting for someone who can represent my views in parliament and who has the time to study everything.

2. And the second point is the tyranny of the majority issue. We need a democratic system that protects minorities who would always be outvoted by the majority through no fault of their own (just because they are a smaller group). So, for example, my son is disabled. I want his rights protected despite the fact he is in a minority and I dont want a majority just thinking about themselves and just their taxes (not saying you are like this by the way!!).

FPTP not perfect at all but I think (but can definitely be persuaded) that it is better than proportional representation and definitely better than a series of referenda on major issues.
Click to expand...
I think we just have a fundamental disagreement on how much we trust politicians to make honest decisions on behalf of the people.

I believe in the wisdom of the crowd theory. I trust the normal, working British public to make more sensible decisions than 650 largely self-interested MPs most of which have never grafted a day in their life and don't live in the type of areas we do.

On your second point, tyranny of the majority is what democracy basically is. Is it perfect? no. Is it way better than tyranny of the minority? yes. I am a huge supporter of referendums and I wish we had more and they were a more common part of our political life.

Give more power to the public, to communities to manage themselves, and less to self-interested and self-serving elites. Hyperbole maybe but that's just my worldview.
 
Wandering Yellow said:
I think we just have a fundamental disagreement on how much we trust politicians to make honest decisions on behalf of the people.

I believe in the wisdom of the crowd theory. I trust the normal, working British public to make more sensible decisions than 650 largely self-interested MPs most of which have never grafted a day in their life and don't live in the type of areas we do.

On your second point, tyranny of the majority is what democracy basically is. Is it perfect? no. Is it way better than tyranny of the minority? yes. I am a huge supporter of referendums and I wish we had more and they were a more common part of our political life.

Give more power to the public, to communities to manage themselves, and less to self-interested and self-serving elites. Hyperbole maybe but that's just my worldview.
Click to expand...
You're an interesting guy @Wandering Yellow and you make your points well. I fundamentally disagree with you but that doesn't make me right. There is a kernel of truth in what you say but many MPs do live in areas like ours (again I point to Anneliese Dodds who lives in Rose Hill and when I lived in London I was two streets away from Ed Davey (who I dont support but who I think is by and large a good guy) and it wasnt a posh area.

On the tyranny of the majority point I dont think the only alternative is that minorities govern everything (that would be wrong and lead to lots of anger). My point is that with too many referenda a) it's not a good way of dealing with complexity and we all know the world is complex at the moment and b) it can become a popularity contest which isnt what democracy is for me. Sometimes political dedicsions need to be made that arent popular for the good of the country (and take into account minority views).

Where I agree with you 100% is that more power should be devolved for communities to manage themselves.

It's so important for the good of society that people debate this stuff which is why it's good that you and I are discussing it and disagreeing agreeably.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Gary Baldi
The Donald Is Coming To Town
2 3
Replies
49
Views
11K
Gary Baldi
Gary Baldi
M
International News Trump NFTs
Replies
9
Views
2K
Wallop
W
Sarge
International News Trump impeached
2 3 4
Replies
65
Views
8K
Gary Baldi
Gary Baldi
Back
Top Bottom