Runboard.com
Слава Україні!

runboard.com       Sign up (learn about it) | Sign in (lost password?)

Page:  1  2  3  4  5 

 
mais oui Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 5097
Karma: 25 (+31/-6)
Reply | Quote
Senate vote


In the recent senate midterms Democrat candidates polled 12 million votes over the Republican candidates.

This is largely because the system favours rural states over more populous urban ones

never confuse America with a democracy

---
HAPPINESS, THE IGNOBLE LIFE GOAL OF THE ILLITERATE
11/8/2018, 11:41 pm Link to this post PM mais oui Blog
 
katie5445 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Administrator

Registered: 10-2016
Posts: 7485
Karma: 47 (+62/-15)
Reply | Quote
Re: Senate vote


We don't or if you do you shouldn't as we aren't nor is that a title we claim. It worked in the. 1800's and conservatives still love it as in many urban cities and their burbs is where most us liberals live.
11/9/2018, 2:40 am Link to this post PM katie5445 Blog
 
mais oui Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 5097
Karma: 25 (+31/-6)
Reply | Quote
Re: Senate vote


and yet America has fought wars killing millions trying to impose democracy - a system it rejects for itself - on others!

---
HAPPINESS, THE IGNOBLE LIFE GOAL OF THE ILLITERATE
11/9/2018, 10:51 am Link to this post PM mais oui Blog
 
gopqed Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 1347
Karma: 10 (+13/-3)
Reply | Quote
Re: Senate vote


You're out to lunch, mais oui. The Democrats held 25 or 26 of the 35 seats up for election this year, so they had a distinct advantage in terms of the number of Democratic Party strongholds at stake. Republicans were excluded from the ballot in California, due out ridiculous primary system, which means that all of the nearly 7 million votes in the state went to Democrats. Finally, Republicans won over 41% of the votes for the US Senate this year, but only won about 33% of the seats at stake.

And we don't have your House of Lords as a legislative body, so I don't think you and your parliamentary system have any room to criticize our system. We're fortunate we don't have the albatross of the U.K. dragging us into the obscurity of the U.K.
11/9/2018, 7:38 pm Link to this post PM gopqed Blog
 
mais oui Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 5097
Karma: 25 (+31/-6)
Reply | Quote
Re: Senate vote


You're out to lunch

my figures were accurate when I posted them - dems ghas 12million more votes than reps.

Democrats led Republicans by more than 12 million votes in Senate races, and yet still suffered losses on the night and failed to win a majority of seats in the chamber.

this was actually in the British Guardian newspaper but used NYT figures

The House of Lords scrutinises bills that have been approved by the House of Commons. It regularly reviews and amends Bills from the Commons. While it is unable to prevent Bills passing into law, except in certain limited circumstances, it can delay Bills and force the Commons to reconsider their decisions. In this capacity, the House of Lords acts as a check on the House of Commons that is independent from the electoral process.

Of course you are in no position to mock as although it is true that no one voted for the lords who ever voted for
 Mike Pompeo?
Jim Matis?
Steven Mnuchin?
Matthew Whitaker?
Wilbur Ross?
Alex Azar?
Ben Carson?
and of course as you know the list goes on - not one of the admirable gentlement above has ever had a single vote cast for them!

---
HAPPINESS, THE IGNOBLE LIFE GOAL OF THE ILLITERATE
11/9/2018, 8:22 pm Link to this post PM mais oui Blog
 
gopqed Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 1347
Karma: 10 (+13/-3)
Reply | Quote
Re: Senate vote


You're out to lunch again. Watch it or you'll gain a lot of weight.

Mike Pompeo was a congressman from Kansas, elected 4 times, receiving about 584,000 general election votes over that time, plus a considerable number of primary election votes. So you're wrong about him never receiving a single vote. He also was confirmed to his appointed positions twice, receiving a majority of votes in the Senate both times.

I won't repeat that process for the rest of the people you named, but I will remind you that they are serving now in appointed, not elected positions.
11/9/2018, 8:34 pm Link to this post PM gopqed Blog
 
mais oui Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 5097
Karma: 25 (+31/-6)
Reply | Quote
Re: Senate vote


For California to elect a Democrats took 3,513,239 votes

For N. Dakota to elect a Republican took just 178,876 votes

for NY to elect a Democrat took 3,729,964 votes

for Wyoming to elect a republican took just 136,329 votes

S Dakota just 202,673 votes elected a Republican but in Maryland it took 1,363,259 votes to elect a Democrat


thats about 9 000 000 to elect 3 Democrats and only 500 000 to elect 3 Republicans

those numbers soon add up and very easily satisfy my claim

---
HAPPINESS, THE IGNOBLE LIFE GOAL OF THE ILLITERATE
11/9/2018, 8:38 pm Link to this post PM mais oui Blog
 
gopqed Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 1347
Karma: 10 (+13/-3)
Reply | Quote
Re: Senate vote


In Montana it took 246,000 to elect a Democrat. Senate seat are not apportioned ion the basis of population. Stay in the U.K. If you don't like our system. It has worked very well for well over 200 years.

Last edited by gopqed, 11/9/2018, 11:12 pm
11/9/2018, 8:52 pm Link to this post PM gopqed Blog
 
crogin Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info



Registered: 01-2009
Posts: 1840
Karma: 6 (+7/-1)
Reply | Quote
OK kids, settle down!


quote:

and yet America has fought wars killing millions trying to impose democracy - a system it rejects for itself - on others!



We have a representative democracy or, if you prefer, a democratic republic. Democracy is a very misused term. I don't think there has been a real democracy since ancient Greece.

BTW: We sacrificed millions of people (military and civilians (on cargo ships - ever hear of Lend Lease?) keeping the UK armed and feed even before our entry into WW II. Most Britons at the time were very glad when this happened and the educated class still are. So mais non, mais oui, you are largely full of hot air!


Image


---
Don't try to tell me the only way left is up.
There's always more down!

11/9/2018, 8:59 pm Link to this post PM crogin
 
crogin Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info



Registered: 01-2009
Posts: 1840
Karma: 6 (+7/-1)
Reply | Quote
The Amritsar Massacre - What the British Empire Stood For:


White Christian supremacy and the British Master Race! This is a prime example of what you stood for in the last 300 or 400 years!


https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/the-amritsar-massacre

There are plenty of similar examples of atrocities during the American Revolution. Ever hear of Gen. Banastre Tarleton?

https://www.thoughtco.com/american-revolution-banastre-tarleton-2360691

Perhaps we should delve into the origin of the concept of the Concentration Camp? Did you know that Hitler got the idea from the British treatment of civilians in the Boer War?

We all have skeletons in our national closets, dear!



emphasis added


quote:

1919


In Amritsar, India’s holy city of the Sikh religion, British and Gurkha troops massacre at least 379 unarmed demonstrators meeting at the Jallianwala Bagh, a city park. Most of those killed were Indian nationalists meeting to protest the British government’s forced conscription of Indian soldiers and the heavy war tax imposed against the Indian people.

A few days earlier, in reaction to a recent escalation in protests, Amritsar was placed under martial law and handed over to British Brigadier General Reginald Dyer, who banned all meetings and gatherings in the city. On April 13, the day of the Sikh Baisakhi festival, tens of thousands of people came to Amritsar from surrounding villages to attend the city’s traditional fairs. Thousands of these people, many unaware of Dyer’s recent ban on public assemblies, convened at Jallianwala Bagh, where a nationalist demonstration was being held. Dyer’s troops surrounded the park and without warning opened fire on the crowd, killing several hundred and wounding more than a thousand. Dyer, who in a subsequent investigation admitted to ordering the attack for its “moral effect” on the people of the region, had his troops continue the murderous barrage until all their artillery was exhausted. British authorities later removed him from his post.

{But not punished for this mass murder}

The massacre stirred nationalist feelings across India and had a profound effect on one of the movement’s leaders, Mohandas Gandhi. During World War I, Gandhi had actively supported the British in the hope of winning partial autonomy for India, but after the Amritsar Massacre he became convinced that India should accept nothing less than full independence. To achieve this end, Gandhi began organizing his first campaign of mass civil disobedience against Britain’s oppressive rule.


Citation Information

Article Title
The Amritsar Massacre

Author
History.com Editors

Website Name
HISTORY

URL
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/the-amritsar-massacre

Access Date
November 9, 2018

Publisher
A&E Television Networks

Last Updated
August 21, 2018

Original Published Date
March 3, 2010

TAGS INDIA
BY HISTORY.COM EDITORS




---
Don't try to tell me the only way left is up.
There's always more down!

11/9/2018, 10:17 pm Link to this post PM crogin
 


Add a reply

Page:  1  2  3  4  5 





You are not logged in (login)