Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
In Australia voting is compulsory and people get fined if they don't vote. Pretty democratic don't ya think. As you say Mark many are incapable of holding a pen or making a tick, so our donkey vote is huge.
GT40s.com Paddock Politics Thread
- Thread starter Big-Foot
- Start date
- Status
That true Pete? I never knew that..Doesn't sound right to me, in fact it sounds rather authoritarian..and, er, non democratic.
My opinion of democracy took a huge hit when the Interweb became established, giving ordinary people the right to reply, comment, be heard generally by airing their feelings in public under a general blanket of anonymity.
As of this moment, I would remove the right-to-vote for over 25% of the population - maybe more.
By the way, there have been times when I openly include myself in the above comment but I think I have learned to seek out truth and not fall for every rabble rouser and fact bender out there. Curiously, it is the Interweb and interaction with others that led me onto the path of righteousness.
All one needs perhaps, is an open mind. Who teaches that in this day & age of fast track instant propaganda?
My opinion of democracy took a huge hit when the Interweb became established, giving ordinary people the right to reply, comment, be heard generally by airing their feelings in public under a general blanket of anonymity.
As of this moment, I would remove the right-to-vote for over 25% of the population - maybe more.
By the way, there have been times when I openly include myself in the above comment but I think I have learned to seek out truth and not fall for every rabble rouser and fact bender out there. Curiously, it is the Interweb and interaction with others that led me onto the path of righteousness.
All one needs perhaps, is an open mind. Who teaches that in this day & age of fast track instant propaganda?
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
I agree with almost all of this.
One question -- in the UK, there is support for Drumpf (his real last name by the way)? I've only been to the Nordics this year and they were visibly afraid of a US led by that lunatic. In the UK that's not the case? Didn't your PM get in a row with him recently?
Aye, and there's the rub!
Many might consider that getting into a row with our beleaguered PM scores many brownie points.
Never has the old adage "My enemy's enemy is my friend" been truer..
I would hazard a guess that UK opinion on "Dumpf" would be fairly even to be honest - too close to call, much like the EU Referendum and the Scottish Independence affair.
People's mind will like as not only be made up when actually faced with the ballot paper..
Many might consider that getting into a row with our beleaguered PM scores many brownie points.
Never has the old adage "My enemy's enemy is my friend" been truer..
I would hazard a guess that UK opinion on "Dumpf" would be fairly even to be honest - too close to call, much like the EU Referendum and the Scottish Independence affair.
People's mind will like as not only be made up when actually faced with the ballot paper..
Although you and I will likely never agree on politics (which is fine by me), you may recall that many foreign leaders were also afraid of Ronald Reagan.. He was called Ronald RAYGUN by many of the jokesters of the day. Also pictures of Ronnie with his finger on "the button" were drawn by many of he political cartoonists of the day. But very important, in my opinion, was that Gorbachev had great respect for him and his strengths when it came to his unwavering support of the American way and American interests..
So maybe being perceived as just a little eccentric is not necessarily a bad thing...
The possibility of Hillary getting away with murder really sticks in my craw and I would never cast a vote for her...
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
Sure. And George Bush. Didn't like him either. Most of Europe is center or center left and the American right scares them.
Drumpf is something all together different. Reagan wasn't racist. Or misogynist. He didn't think free speech protections should be eliminated to allow him to sue his detractors for libel more easily. He didn't think person of a particular religion should be banned from entry into the US. He had a reasonable plan for allowing immigrants into the country. Reagan didn't openly brag about the size of his dick during a presidential debate. Reagan didn't make a joke about a female reporter' menstrual period during a presidential debate.
And so. Equating Reagan and Drumpf is nuts.
And Hillary getting away with murder? Please don't tell me you are one of those lunatics who think Hillary and Bill killed Vince Foster? Or are you talking about BENGHAZ!? You know, the attack on an embassy that the House Republican acknowledged in their official report that no one could have prevented.
A vote for anything but Clinton, even a grudging one, is a vote that help Drumpf and that is therefore in support of racism, misogyny, anti-free speech, anti-freedom of religion, pro-ignorance, pro-crassness, pro-bully, pro-ugly Americanism and so on. We really have a choice of character to make here this election.
I can tell you with 100% assurance if it were Drumpf v. Dole, or Bush I or II, or McCain, or Romney, I'd vote for the Republican in a heartbeat.
Drumpf is something all together different. Reagan wasn't racist. Or misogynist. He didn't think free speech protections should be eliminated to allow him to sue his detractors for libel more easily. He didn't think person of a particular religion should be banned from entry into the US. He had a reasonable plan for allowing immigrants into the country. Reagan didn't openly brag about the size of his dick during a presidential debate. Reagan didn't make a joke about a female reporter' menstrual period during a presidential debate.
And so. Equating Reagan and Drumpf is nuts.
And Hillary getting away with murder? Please don't tell me you are one of those lunatics who think Hillary and Bill killed Vince Foster? Or are you talking about BENGHAZ!? You know, the attack on an embassy that the House Republican acknowledged in their official report that no one could have prevented.
A vote for anything but Clinton, even a grudging one, is a vote that help Drumpf and that is therefore in support of racism, misogyny, anti-free speech, anti-freedom of religion, pro-ignorance, pro-crassness, pro-bully, pro-ugly Americanism and so on. We really have a choice of character to make here this election.
I can tell you with 100% assurance if it were Drumpf v. Dole, or Bush I or II, or McCain, or Romney, I'd vote for the Republican in a heartbeat.
Not long ago a citizen of the USA petitioned the courts to change his name to "...None of the Above"
The courts saw through that one and refused to honor the request.
I, too, wish there were some manner of protest vote...many times I have voted for Pat Paulsen as a write-in...fruitless, I know, but my own form of "...protest vote".
Cheers!!
Doug
The courts saw through that one and refused to honor the request.
I, too, wish there were some manner of protest vote...many times I have voted for Pat Paulsen as a write-in...fruitless, I know, but my own form of "...protest vote".
Cheers!!
Doug
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
Good points Jeff but perhaps you have to break stuff before it gets fixed proper and Dumpf may be just the man to do it comprehensively for you...
Buckle up, it may be a rough ride..
I hear you but the problem is that the guy who may break stuff, has access to teh nuclear codes, has alarge role in keeping the free world free, and has more influence over the wolrd economy than any other single elected political leader.
A Drumpf melt down could screw us all.
Ian Anderson
Lifetime Supporter
I guess you will soon find out who actually runs the country, the President or the "minions" in elected and paid salaries beneath him
Many on the "left" over here (from the president and the lefty talking heads on down) are all but going completely insane over the fact Trump just clinched the GOP nomination today. They're getting ALL bent out of shape! I watched a couple of them almost have a meltdown during T.V. interviews today.
Yesterday, Obama the-all-knowing said world leaders are "rattled" about the prospect of a Trump presidency (bear in mind he also said we could keep our doctors). If that's true - GOOD. Unlike Obama, Trump will not be 'telegraphing' every single move the USA may make in any given situation - military moves or whatever else - and things will NOT be "business as usual"...and it's about darned time.
I actually laughed out loud when I heard Obama's 'critique' on Trump...his "unsuitability"(?) for the office...his "ignorance about world affairs"...his "bad judgment" - AND the 'fact'(?) he's "cavalier"! Obama said someone ELSE is unsuitable for the office...'has "bad judgment"...is "ignorant"...and is "cavalier"! Obama said that! He should have looked in the nearest mirror first. (Obama himself admitted [a short while before he decided to run for the presidency] he wasn't experienced enough to run for the office...and yet he decided to run anyway, 'got elected, and then proceeded to prove just how accurate his self-assessment had been.)
Trump couldn't possibly prove to be as bad or worse than Obama - or Billary or Bernie either for that matter. THOSE TWO want to provide "free stuff" to everyone who has his hand out while destroying our fossil fuel industry and our economy in the process via EPA edicts, "executive orders", and never-ending departmental rules and regulations. We'd become Venezuela by the end of the 1st term of either one. We're knocking on that door already.
But, God forbid we elect a businessman President instead of an "establishment" politician. Oh, HECK no - 'better not do that! After all, his influence over the world economy (to whatever extent that may be the case) would undoubtedly prove to be a total disaster - if only because Trump cannot possibly know squat about world markets, nor does he know a single soul in foreign governments. Besides, just look at how swell the world's economy is/has been under 'establishment" control. We wouldn't want to 'risk' screwing that up, would we...
(Sarcasm...^the whole paragraph^.)
Yesterday, Obama the-all-knowing said world leaders are "rattled" about the prospect of a Trump presidency (bear in mind he also said we could keep our doctors). If that's true - GOOD. Unlike Obama, Trump will not be 'telegraphing' every single move the USA may make in any given situation - military moves or whatever else - and things will NOT be "business as usual"...and it's about darned time.
I actually laughed out loud when I heard Obama's 'critique' on Trump...his "unsuitability"(?) for the office...his "ignorance about world affairs"...his "bad judgment" - AND the 'fact'(?) he's "cavalier"! Obama said someone ELSE is unsuitable for the office...'has "bad judgment"...is "ignorant"...and is "cavalier"! Obama said that! He should have looked in the nearest mirror first. (Obama himself admitted [a short while before he decided to run for the presidency] he wasn't experienced enough to run for the office...and yet he decided to run anyway, 'got elected, and then proceeded to prove just how accurate his self-assessment had been.)
Trump couldn't possibly prove to be as bad or worse than Obama - or Billary or Bernie either for that matter. THOSE TWO want to provide "free stuff" to everyone who has his hand out while destroying our fossil fuel industry and our economy in the process via EPA edicts, "executive orders", and never-ending departmental rules and regulations. We'd become Venezuela by the end of the 1st term of either one. We're knocking on that door already.
But, God forbid we elect a businessman President instead of an "establishment" politician. Oh, HECK no - 'better not do that! After all, his influence over the world economy (to whatever extent that may be the case) would undoubtedly prove to be a total disaster - if only because Trump cannot possibly know squat about world markets, nor does he know a single soul in foreign governments. Besides, just look at how swell the world's economy is/has been under 'establishment" control. We wouldn't want to 'risk' screwing that up, would we...
(Sarcasm...^the whole paragraph^.)
If Drumph is elected the USA will be the laughing stock of the whole world...except for a few of the south Pacific islands, where the tribal chief is appointed because he has the biggest dick in the village.
...it will be a sad state of affairs, indeed :thumbsdown:
...it will be a sad state of affairs, indeed :thumbsdown:
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
And Larry. Larry loves the guy. He waves his dick around and says what he thinks about black folks and immigrants and the Chinese. Hell yeah, tell it like it is Drumpf!
C'mon, Jeff....Larry is well-meaning, just misguided. He drank too much of the conservative kool-aid...he'll detox once the general election is over and we have another Clinton in office...although I really think we could have MUCH MORE fun with Larry if the next POTUS is named Sanders :thumbsup:
I almost hope Drumpf is elected...what a train wreck!! But...just think of the FUN we can have here on this thread as Drumpf tries to "unsign" all those executive orders...HA-ha!
epper:
...and that is just the tip of the iceberg....we'll have SO MUCH fun making fun of our f'ed up POTUS fumbling around, trying to figure out how to be something he just can't be.
Cheers!!
Doug
I almost hope Drumpf is elected...what a train wreck!! But...just think of the FUN we can have here on this thread as Drumpf tries to "unsign" all those executive orders...HA-ha!
epper:...and that is just the tip of the iceberg....we'll have SO MUCH fun making fun of our f'ed up POTUS fumbling around, trying to figure out how to be something he just can't be.
Cheers!!
Doug
We already ARE. Obama's seen to that. Heads of state don't even bother to meet him at the airport. (Cuba, Saudis, Viet Nam)
Contrary to Goebbels' famous claim, repeating b.s. ad nauseam will not make it true.
G'night...
Well, well, well...Drumph is afraid to debate Hillary...says he will debate Sanders, instead.
What a cowardly act...refuse to debate the opposition's predicted candidate...and this coming from the Republican Party's PRESUMPTIVE candidate.
Drumph knows that Hillary will quite simply eviscerate him in any debate.
Do we really want such a blatant coward to be POTUS?
What a cowardly act...refuse to debate the opposition's predicted candidate...and this coming from the Republican Party's PRESUMPTIVE candidate.
Drumph knows that Hillary will quite simply eviscerate him in any debate.
Do we really want such a blatant coward to be POTUS?
I never equated them - merely pointed out that both were considered eccentric...
You must enjoy changing people's words around on them.... Have you ever considered becoming a lawyer? :lipsrsealed:
'Priceless...
But...but...but Billary has refused to debate Sanders before the Cali primary...and she's the Democrat's "presumptive" nominee, is she not? So...following your logic, since Trump has said he would debate Sanders, that makes Billary even more "cowardly" than Trump...right?
I thin' I'm gunna take a 'vaycay' from this thread for a little while... :mellow:
'Bye for now...keep your powder dry...
Don't do that Larry, this is what you wanted: A political zone in the Paddock. Please don't tell me Randy and I wasted our time lobbying robustly on your behalf only to see you wander off just when it was getting interesting?
C'mon mate....Stick with it. I wanna hear more about Frump.. :thumbsup:
C'mon mate....Stick with it. I wanna hear more about Frump.. :thumbsup:
- Status
