Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
slavery
Oct 25, 2016 19:41:38 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2016 19:41:38 GMT -5
That's okay - spread the wealth. Kronks can probably keep track of it easier here. That made me laugh. Kronks will find it funny, too.
|
|
|
slavery
Oct 26, 2016 3:51:52 GMT -5
Post by mouse on Oct 26, 2016 3:51:52 GMT -5
absolutely agree...but equally why deny these crimes are rampant in our society.... Oh and all those rotten mortgages the banks packaged up and sold off etc.... Astonishing sums of money which brought down the whole financial system, I'd rather more scrutiny in those area, but there isn't of course because if the politicians crack down on the banks they will stop giving them bribes. just one small point ..during the banks scandal..there were crys of let the banks go to the wall...especially in the case of one bank which the tax payer saved had that bank been allowed to go bust it wouldn't have been the rich and wealthy who would have suffered..it would have been the middle and lower savers/users who would have gone bust..lost savings and homes ..NOT the big savers or investors...and that is why it was bailed...it would serve no purpose to see small savers go to the wall or lose their homes ...some times the greater good has to take precedence over punishing a few and in that period of time that is what happened I agree that those banking proffesionals should have been ousted[some but very few were]along with the mortgage black dealers.....and city boys who played the markets to the cost of others its all about ....where you draw the line ..... and certainly is not as simple as some times its portrayed and yet again what is the definition of rich..wealthy...or are we then to pick and choose who deserves to lose their monies take three cases of so called wealth...an imaginary sum of just over 1million pounds..[hardly vast wealth...so well off rather than rich]....which one deserves to lose all their monies ...but all would have been hit if the banks collapsed 1/the person who has been awarded compensation for medical negligence 2/the person who has inherited from parents property 3/the person who has worked and saved..and bought their home which has risen in price
|
|
|
Post by kronks on Oct 26, 2016 5:06:45 GMT -5
Anyhow it is all really confusing that is all I can deduce at the moment lol. Here's an electoral college primer. www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/about.htmlYou already know more about the election than most Americans. Once you get a handle on the electoral college, you will understand why Trump won't win. But, I have to say, I'm really impressed with how you have kept up with our election. It has been great entertainment for me!! Best show on the telly!! M:D I have followed or rather heard on the news about US presidential elections before but I have never followed it in the way I have followed this one. I followed Obama's first election quite a bit too as it was on the news a lot what with him being a black man and great speaker. I can't remember much about the last campaign though, (2012?) seem to be a bit dull in comparison, not even sure who was running against Obama, until I just looked him up (Romney) did Obama still have to run for Democratic nominee? I guess he would have to? I kind of have an idea about the electoral college now but not in a detailed way or how the votes are spread. but yea it has been great entertainment, you could not make this sort of stuff up could you, Trump etc.... M:D It does look game over for Trump though.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
slavery
Oct 26, 2016 8:53:11 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2016 8:53:11 GMT -5
Here's an electoral college primer. www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/about.htmlYou already know more about the election than most Americans. Once you get a handle on the electoral college, you will understand why Trump won't win. But, I have to say, I'm really impressed with how you have kept up with our election. It has been great entertainment for me!! Best show on the telly!! M:D I have followed or rather heard on the news about US presidential elections before but I have never followed it in the way I have followed this one. I followed Obama's first election quite a bit too as it was on the news a lot what with him being a black man and great speaker. I can't remember much about the last campaign though, (2012?) seem to be a bit dull in comparison, not even sure who was running against Obama, until I just looked him up (Romney) did Obama still have to run for Democratic nominee? I guess he would have to? I kind of have an idea about the electoral college now but not in a detailed way or how the votes are spread. but yea it has been great entertainment, you could not make this sort of stuff up could you, Trump etc.... M:D It does look game over for Trump though. For a "hater of the U.S." you are doing a fine job! As I said, I wish that most Americans followed the election as you do. No, President Obama did not have to compete to be the Democratic nominee. That does not mean that it could not be withdrawn if the President proved to be incompetent. BTW, the electoral college was set up in the spirit of putting the brakes on an absolute majority democracy (mob rule.) It mirrors the legislative branch of our government (the Senate and the House of Representatives.) It has come into question at certain times; Bush v. Gore is a great example.
|
|
|
slavery
Oct 26, 2016 11:06:24 GMT -5
Post by men an tol on Oct 26, 2016 11:06:24 GMT -5
Ariel offered to Kronks about 9:00 a – “ . . . For a "hater of the U.S." you are doing a fine job! . . . . . . . As I said, I wish that most Americans followed the election as you do. . . . . . No, President Obama did not had to compete to be the Democratic nominee. That does not mean that it could not be withdrawn if the President proved to be incompetent. . . . . . . . BTW, the electoral college was set up in the spirit of putting the brakes on an absolute majority democracy (mob rule.) It mirrors the legislative branch of our government (the Senate and the House of Representatives.) It has come into question at certain times; Bush v. Gore is a great example. . . . “ Each presidential election cycle all those wishing to run for president must declare and meet the various requirements to become a candidate. For incumbent presidents is pretty easy. However, if they are a candidate representing a political party they must go through the nominating process of that party. IN 2012 then President Obama made it known that he would seek the Democratic nomination for president. He was elected as the party nominee unanimously from the floor of the convention, however, he was not the only one seeking that nomination in 2012 there were quite a few: At the following address: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_candidates,_2012 there are listed nearly 50 such candidates.
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Oct 26, 2016 11:14:41 GMT -5
Some may wonder if an incumbent President has ever been denied the nomination to run for reelection.
It only happened once to an elected president. That was Franklin Pierce, the 14th president, who was elected as a Democrat in 1852. His pro-Southern sentiments and his policy of failing to lead on the divisive issue of slavery badly hurt his standing with the voters. Especially damaging was his support for the pro-slavery Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, which backfired on him as Kansas was overrun by pro-slavery forces, mostly from the slave state of Missouri. The events angered Northerners everywhere and helped lead to the creation of the Republican Party. When Democratic delegates gathered in Cincinnati for their convention in 1856, it was clear that they had had enough of Pierce. James Buchanan, who had been defeated by Pierce for the nomination four years earlier, won the nomination on the 17th ballot.
Four other presidents were denied the nomination of their party, but none of these were elected in their own right. They were:
John Tyler, Whig, 1844. Tyler became president in 1841 following the death of William Henry Harrison. Tyler, a conservative Southerner, was out of step with many in the Whig Party, which instead nominated Henry Clay for president.
Millard Fillmore, Whig, 1852. Fillmore also ascended to the presidency following the death of the incumbent. In this case it was Zachary Taylor, who died in 1850. Taylor's death left the Whigs in disarray, and the party convention chose Gen. Winfield Scott over Fillmore and Daniel Webster.
Andrew Johnson, Democrat, 1868. Johnson, a Southerner and a Democrat, was chosen to be part of a Republican unity ticket led by President Abraham Lincoln in 1864. Following Lincoln's assassination the following year, Johnson tried in vain to win the support of the late president's allies; in fact, he was impeached and nearly convicted by a GOP Congress. The Democratic nomination went to Horatio Seymour.
Chester Arthur, Republican, 1884. Arthur was picked for VP by James Garfield in 1880 in order to help the GOP carry New York. Following Garfield's assassination in 1881, Arthur alienated his erstwhile allies by attacking the patronage system that had helped his career until that point. Arthur lost the GOP nomination to James Blaine.
|
|
|
slavery
Oct 26, 2016 13:08:05 GMT -5
Post by kronks on Oct 26, 2016 13:08:05 GMT -5
It has been great entertainment for me!! Best show on the telly!! M:D I have followed or rather heard on the news about US presidential elections before but I have never followed it in the way I have followed this one. I followed Obama's first election quite a bit too as it was on the news a lot what with him being a black man and great speaker. I can't remember much about the last campaign though, (2012?) seem to be a bit dull in comparison, not even sure who was running against Obama, until I just looked him up (Romney) did Obama still have to run for Democratic nominee? I guess he would have to? I kind of have an idea about the electoral college now but not in a detailed way or how the votes are spread. but yea it has been great entertainment, you could not make this sort of stuff up could you, Trump etc.... M:D It does look game over for Trump though. For a "hater of the U.S." you are doing a fine job! As I said, I wish that most Americans followed the election as you do. No, President Obama did not have to compete to be the Democratic nominee. That does not mean that it could not be withdrawn if the President proved to be incompetent. BTW, the electoral college was set up in the spirit of putting the brakes on an absolute majority democracy (mob rule.) It mirrors the legislative branch of our government (the Senate and the House of Representatives.) It has come into question at certain times; Bush v. Gore is a great example. I guess every electoral system has it's problems. I think with the USA being formed from states each state would need to feel there were represented. Problem is for a lot of people their vote does not really count unless they are in one of the swing states. Same in the UK though, my vote does not really count the seat has not changed hands since 1983, it is a pretty safe labour seat. I do like following political voting I follow the Brexit too and that didn't go as expected the last election also was at odds the polls too, indeed quite a few elections seem to be at odds with the polls. I am not sure what the reason is, it maybe some are reluctant to admit the who they are going to vote for, that is usually some not wanting to admit they will be voting for a right wing candidate, but I think it might be better to say the more politically incorrect candidate, that seems to have been the for the last two British elections. I think Brexit got it wrong by about 5% ie Trump could be 5% behind and still for example. Another odd thing was that apparently online polls were more accurate than telephone polls, the opposite of what I would have expected. www.google.co.uk/search?q=brexit+result&ie=UTF-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=ZO8QWJKIKIvPgAbJu5CIAgSo maybe people are more honest online due to being more anonymous? I thought they might be more effective by vote rigging and multiple voting, however not too much point doing that if is a poll.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Oct 27, 2016 5:20:26 GMT -5
"""I do like following political voting I follow the Brexit too and that didn't go as expected the last election also was at odds the polls too, indeed quite a few elections seem to be at odds with the polls"""
I am one who thinks political polls are intrusive and actually should be stopped ... and I will always give an anwer which is at odds with what I intend to vote ..regardless of whether it general..local or European elections and almost every one I know now does the same ....it gives me pleasure to see the smiles wiped off faces of politos and of course losses at the bookies by those who have relied on the polls I will never forget the look on the face of the conservative candidate who Stephen Twigg ousted and the same shattered look on the face of Mandelson when he was not re-elected to his safe seat it was sublime moments or politics in the raw a neighbour of ours went to collect his winning on both the election where to polls had indicated a result and the reality was the polls were wrong.....he was over the moon and £ more in his pocket
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Oct 27, 2016 7:04:30 GMT -5
You are so right Mouse, I wouldn't tell a poll taken truth if I even decided to talk to one of them. Of course the famous one here in the U.S. in 1948 when all the smart people said that Thomas Dewey would win and the New York Times printed in big letters on the front page that he had won before the election was closed and then the next day there was the picture of Harry Truman holding up the paper with the headline saying Dewey had won but Harry Truman had won the election.
The news media has spent more time talking about the polls (aas if they were the word from God) than talking about the issues. The people taking the polls and the news media people are so ignorant that they don't even learn from their mistakes.
|
|