POLITICS Theresa May out as PM.

I really don't understand you. You post that Johnson and, presumably, Trump are part of a weird trend where people elected by a minority are holding office in the western world.

I point out that this statement is both not very well thought out and dishonestly misleading. I also point out the blatant hypocrisy in trying to make this point while ignoring the popular referendum for which this very topic was started.

In retaliation, youclaim to be living rent-free in my head.

do you think anybody really buys this sort of nonsensical b******* you continually post? Do you think the bumper sticker and run approach really convinces anything or inspires thought? Do you really think you can avoid the idiocy and dishonesty of your posts by saying that you live rent-free in my head?

You are a liar and a fool, IP. you and the left-wing lunatics of the democratic party have refused to admit that your ideas lost in some very meaningful ways, so you are trying to pretend that the game was rigged. It wasn't.

 

oh, okay. I disagree with much of what you assert and what you attribute to me.

 

It would be better if you considered what I assert instead. That is, I believe, beyond your capabilities, though.

 

So you like picking on people you believe unable or incapable. I wouldn't brag about that, but what do I know?

 

I don't pick on you. When you say something dumb, I say it's dumb. When you lie, I say it's a lie. Because you say these things all the time, I say you are a liar who is dumb.

You don't have to be either, you know. I think in your case, it is a choice.

edit: I should have included "sometimes" above. I don't always identify your unsound thinking it falsehoods. It would be too exhausting.

 

To illustrate the above point, let's take this example. Uk parliament is currently composed of 649 members if 11 parties. If these, 311 members are of the conservative party, more than the second place liberal party by 74 seats. The remaining members are spread between little parties, none of which have more than 35 seats, that generally align w either conservative s or liberals. Boris Johnson, like his predecessor May, is a conservative. He was chosen by the ruling conservative party and their majority coalition to replace her bc she could not deliver brexit as mandated by the popular referendum and he categirize promised to do so.

To categorize him as "being elected by a minority of the vote" is, at best, misleading, and, more accurately, [uck fay]ing retarded.

There are more dishonest and illogical inferences burried in your post, but that's a start.

 

Johnson, Trump and others were voted in according to the metrics set up by the governments of their respective countries (Setting aside any endless argument about Russian interference or whatever). So, there isn't an argument, as I see it here, as to the legality of them taking office. However, I think there is some merit to question if the "will of the people" has been served in the case of both Johnson and Trump.

Johnson, for example, was a member of the ruling conservative party, but the voters didn't vote for him, necessarily, as the 2017 elections were with May as the leader of the Conservative Party. So, Johnson was voted in charge without a clear mandate the people wanted him to be in charge. Of course, Britain's system is a bit different , so it's not a perfect representation as it would be for the U.S. I would think Johnson would be wise to strengthen his position and call for a general election soon, as May did in 2017.

 

Johnson’s singular aim is, and should be, to deliver Brexit. And I agree with many, including even the most resistant Remainders, who believe that he will.

And if not with a deal with the EU then hopefully, with the US, and sooner rather than later. I certainly believe that Johnson has the best chance of getting the most help from Trump, and who unlike May, will be smart enough to accept it.

 

it isn't misleading to state a fact: he was elected by a minority of the vote. he is leading a minority government. these are facts. one can't tell the truth by stating he was elected by a majority. he was not.

my entire post was one sentence. Are you arguing the definition of "the minority" meaning less than half of a group? That the UK is not a NATO power? That the US is not a NATO power? Or that my opinion that it is "weird" is in fact not what I think?"

because that is all there is for you to go on, so the number of inferences you believe are buried there have everything to do with you and your thoughts and little to do with my post.

Minority means less than half of a group. If it doesn't in your book, let me restate it as "Johnson leads a party which was elected by less than half of the voters in the UK, and makes up less than half of the legislature." I.e., 311 is less than half of 649. that's math.

calling this misleading is a call for an actual lie or a lie of omission to substitute it. it is a minority government. Personally attacking me won't change that. 311 < 338.

 

your post does not conflict with my single sentence post. you have "inferred" incorrectly. except for the part about categorizing him being elected by the minority of the vote, which conflicts with what you said in the paragraph above.

 

Are you so blinded by your positioning that you don't understand your own fallacies. He was elected by the majority coalition to lead the government. It isn't "weird." It isn't disturbing. It isn't illegitimate. And the only reason you think so, and the only reason you posted that it was, is because you are a partisan radical who engages in no thought, only propaganda.

But that's the thing about liars and fools, IP. The things they say are lies and foolishness.

 

May was in an almost impossible position. She was a compromise candidate, and the EU, and her own party on the right, took advantage of that. She had neither the will or the support to take a hard line which is necessary in negotiating any kind of deal Brexit. Boris' first tactic is the best and only move; announce "We are leaving on 10/31. I hope we make a deal before then, but we are leaving." And he has the credibility to make it work. It is very Trumpian (Trumpesque?) and it's straight out of any decent negotiating playbook.

I taught a class on negotiations and drafting as an adjunct at VLS and Owen Business School for a couple of years, and there was a case study we used to illustrate a similar point. Harvard hosted a bunch of UN delegations in a negotiations seminar. Each country's delegation was given a fact set and told their goals of negotiations, then sent to go work out a deal with everyone else and return the next day with a written agreement by a 10pm deadline. Everybody scattered to go to work, but 10 minutes later the Israeli's came back in the room and asked, for the purposes of the exercise, what would happen if they were 30 minutes late. Controlling the timeframe is huge negotiating leverage.

 

I never called it illegitimate. You make a salient point regarding liars and lies, even if it doesn't apply as you think it does.

It seems like you think if you keep narrating who you think I am and what I think, I'm going to just agree to take on the mantle. I'm not interested. Find someone else to be your strawman or villain.

 

Johnson has the same mandate as any other British PM has ever had. As for Trump:



You can debate the wisdom of the electoral college, I guess. It's a system designed to give outsized influence to less populated areas to make sure they cannot be ruled by a few more populous urban centers. But a majority of voters in 30 states and a whopping 2,626 of 3,100 counties voted for him, and the system did exactly what it was designed to do.

That picture looks like a mandate to me.

 

You called it "weird." Know what's weird? Showing yourself to be fantastically wrong over and over again but never changing course.

If you are comfortable being a liar and fool, continue it. I will choose my villain where I find him.

 

At the risk of starting a digression, land doesn't vote. The picture is immaterial. What difference does it make if a bunch of large land areas in Wyoming have a few thousand voters scattered in each of their counties when it's a fraction of the population in a much smaller land area in NYC, Chicago, LA, etc.? People vote and this should be reflected in the election results.

And, I know the electoral college was, among other reasons, given to "protect" rural voters, but I don't see why they would be the only group of people given this benefit simply for being a minority group. No other small group of voters gets this benefit, designed or otherwise. It's an antiquated system, only done because this is the way we've always done it, and not because it is the best system. One man, one vote should always be the arrangement and I don't see any argument, yet, holding water which discourages this idea.

As for Johnson, I still think he would be wise to call elections in order to solidify his hold on leadership and reflect the electorate's approval of his ascension, as May did and argued in 2017,

 

It isn't land; those counties are political places. And the people in those places sometimes have different ideas than those in NYC, Chicago, LA, etc. It is exactly the reason why the framers from rural states demanded the system.

The system may be antiquated. It certainly is not immaterial. It is a graphic representation of why Trump is President.

 

So a minority of voters can determine the winner. I know it upsets you to read it written plainly.

 

A lot of people have different ideas and don't get a value added to their vote simply by where they live in the US. I'm not particularly sure why having a different idea so, therefore, you deserve a system to reflect this is a good reason the system should be in place. There's absolutely no reason for my vote not to count more or less than anyone else simply based upon my address.

Plus, the origins of the system were from smaller states, not rural areas, as most of America was rural at the time. Not to mention, the number of people who could actually vote was limited and the Electoral College was about having electors vote for president, not the people, necessarily. These electors were even supposed to protect against an uninformed or corrupt voting process and this has dramatically changed, as well. Slavery played a part, too, as there were concerns an "overbearing" northern vote would affect the southern institution. Rural vs urban voting wasn't a major consideration.

 

Anyone else wtf with this thread and subdiscussions?