[JohnRawls]

That's not a counterargument.

You don't really have a counterargument available to you. The system isn't stable. After the Civil War, we got the KKK and the Jim Crow era, and now it's coming back.

The disenfranchisement of the American people will continue. Sure, it starts with minorities, but the guys pulling your strings have no intention of stopping.

You will name everything not an argument lets be honest here. While you do not present any arguments at all.

[late]

You will name everything not an argument lets be honest here. While you do not present any arguments at all.

Still no counterargument...

That's because you don't have one.

Democrats in many, many elections get more votes and lose. And that's ignoring voter suppression, and a wide variety of other dirty tricks.

You know what's happening, and why.

You want minority rule.

[JohnRawls]

Still no counterargument...

That's because you don't have one.

Democrats in many, many elections get more votes and lose. And that's ignoring voter suppression, and a wide variety of other dirty tricks.

You know what's happening, and why.

You want minority rule.

Sorry but your behaviour is stupid. I presented many arguments by now which you all ignored. That is it what can i say. There is no difference between you and a super ardent Trump supporter. Both of you are literally the same.

[late]

Sorry but your behaviour is stupid.

I presented many arguments by now which you all ignored.

You mean you have no response to the facts I presented.

You said things are fine. We are headed to a point where the loser wins the election every time (and by larger numbers every time).

That's not even sane.

[Patrickov]

Still no counterargument...

That's because you don't have one.

Democrats in many, many elections get more votes and lose. And that's ignoring voter suppression, and a wide variety of other dirty tricks.

You know what's happening, and why.

You want minority rule.

He merely pointed out that some systems enabled (temporary) minority rule for a reason. Why do these system, or justification of them, "obliterate democracy" (post #15063643)?

Seriously, simple plurality somewhat forces people to geographically and ideologically as one, which IMHO is not very democratic either.

Democracy is not only about majority. It also has to address minority needs to some extent. Otherwise it is tyranny of the majority.

[Patrickov]

Sorry but your behaviour is stupid. I presented many arguments by now which you all ignored. That is it what can i say. There is no difference between you and a super ardent Trump supporter. Both of you are literally the same.

As a matter of fact, I am recently accused of ignoring arguments / answers by the person who is accused of the very same thing above.

[late]

Otherwise it is tyranny of the majority.

What we are headed for is tyranny of the White minority.

[JohnRawls]

What we are headed for is tyranny of the White minority.

First of all, calling out whites is racist because you somehow blame them for everything although they voted for both D and Rs. 2nd Whites are a majority. I don't know what to say about your arguments, they are just stupid.

[late]

First of all, calling out whites is racist

because you somehow blame them for everything although they voted for both D and Rs.

2nd Whites are a majority.

I don't know what to say about your arguments, they are just stupid.

Don't be a snowflake.

I blame the Right for what they do.

Without cheating, the Republican party would lose most elections, they'd be a shadow of what they are today. Which is a result of massive amounts of cheating, aside from the EC.

My facts and my arguments don't fit inside of the way you look at the world. But facts are stubborn things, the problem here is you need to learn how this really works to get to the point where you can form a new paradigm.

[JohnRawls]

Don't be a snowflake.

I blame the Right for what they do.

Without cheating, the Republican party would lose most elections, they'd be a shadow of what they are today. Which is a result of massive amounts of cheating, aside from the EC.

My facts and my arguments don't fit inside of the way you look at the world. But facts are stubborn things, the problem here is you need to learn how this really works to get to the point where you can form a new paradigm.

Yes, me who has degrees in separate fields including law needs to learn why and how political systems appeared and set up

You didn't even try to dispute why the american system exists and why it is fine as it is besides saying that, at its core, it is not 1 to 1 correlation for a "point" in every state. Saying its unfair is pointless without understanding the historic reason for this or the argumentation. Argument that the US had a civil war because of this system is dishonesty. So in a system with 1 to 1 vote the southern states would seceed even faster. People forget that the situation in the US at that time was complicated and the federal government tried to compromise and please the southern states for a long time while the Northern states were against this. It also misses the point that before the civil war the Southern States saved the Northern states from bankrupcy. Its a long story. Considering that South had less population and a large part of it were slaves, the civil war would have started faster, a lot faster. Same goes for other issues that might have happened along the way that didn't turn in to a civil war.

Rs didn't cheat. They played within the limitations of the US political system. Breaking the system because you lost 1 election is treason.

[Atlantis]

Brexit Britain descending into the dark ages of hate, intolerance and xenophobia.

One could laugh if it wasn't so sad.

[late]

Rs didn't cheat.

They played within the limitations of the US political system. Breaking the system because you lost 1 election is treason.

We got the Voting Rights Act because they can't stop cheating. Check the documentation, there's hundreds of pages, and doesn't cover every type of cheating.

Not one election. I should have expected fiction.

[Nonsense]

Patrick Minford was the leader of the Economists for Brexit Group and his forecasts were rubbished years ago.

The American journalist who authored Nonsense's article must be using out of date information

What you really mean is, you don't like the message, so you want to shoot the messenger, some folks might interpret that as being true to type.

Whilst MINFORD's forecast are probably incorrect, simply because they are forecast, so too are other projections on either side of the debate, including my own & the only facts are the actual figures for any particular period projected.

Obviously, any 'forecaster' could equally be correct, or incorrect, either by design or accident coupled with luck.

[Nonsense]

Brexit Britain descending into the dark ages of hate, intolerance and xenophobia.

One could laugh if it wasn't so sad.

Probably propaganda by some psychotic left-winger, of which there are many which Brexit has exposed & planted on the doors to denigrate people the poster disagrees with- such as patriots celebrating the 31 St January....just thinking.

[Nonsense]

@Nonsense

Your source begins with a question and answers with "it could". With Brexit you have to deal with facts. Our economy is tied with Europe. Globally trade is mainly locally based. 8% of our GDP relies on the EU. I am not suggesting to expect an 8% loss in GDP - or even to expect the BoE estimate of a 5.5% loss which seems very pessimistic. But perhaps 2-3% decline over a sustained period of time is most plausible. There certainly will be no bonanza or has there been any evidence suggesting there could be. Quoting an opinion piece we can expect 8-4% growth is frankly laughable. And scary if you think it has legs or relying on it as a possibility.

I understand why, when project fear has flagged the possibility that we will lose out by leaving the E.U, but, at the current rate of growth, even your own projection of a 2-3% sustained loss, implies a recession lasting for that sustained period.

Clearly, that cannot be correct, however, a 2-3% loss over a decade say, would imply a 0.2-0.3% loss per annum in economic activity, but which would probably be more than offset by increased activity arising from our ability to trade freely elsewhere without encumbrance to E.U rules.

A sustained recession would never be contemplated by the government, indeed, the tools to avert that situation are already being deployed to that effect, that is that public spending is increasing beyond the net growth rate as a proportion of national income & adding to the national debt.

Any government would 'cover' that debt with the narrative that it is an 'investment', well, if it results in a negative return over the period, then, an investment it is not.

[Cookie Monster]

Congratulations to all Brits on leaving the EU, may your path ahead be a prosperous one and may the relations between the continent and the isles forever be in friendly and cooperative spirit.

[Patrickov]

What we are headed for is tyranny of the White minority.

White is not minority in the United States. I guess the intended denotation is White-supremacist minority?

Effectively we are talking about the alleged solution to the quoted situation (although some people dispute that as well), so there is no need to remind me about the supposed question.

[redcarpet]

Probably propaganda by some psychotic left-winger, of which there are many which Brexit has exposed & planted on the doors to denigrate people the poster disagrees with- such as patriots celebrating the 31 St January....just thinking.

It's not. Have you payed any attention to what Brexiters want/expect?

[snapdragon]

What you really mean is, you don't like the message, so you want to shoot the messenger, some folks might interpret that as being true to type.

No, I meant what I said. It's you that seems to have the problem accepting it as being true.

Whilst MINFORD's forecast are probably incorrect, simply because they are forecast, so too are other projections on either side of the debate, including my own & the only facts are the actual figures for any particular period projected.

They're incorrect because they're not based reality. Not then and certainly not now.

Obviously, any 'forecaster' could equally be correct, or incorrect, either by design or accident coupled with luck.

Patrick Minford headed the only economic forecast to show benefits from Brexit.

It made too many bizarre assumptions. Unicorns were going to turn up in the shape of the EU waving all standards on imports from the UK.

[snapdragon]

No, I meant what I said. It's you that seems to have the problem accepting it as being true.



They're incorrect because they're not based on reality. Not then and certainly not now.



Patrick Minford headed the only economic forecast to show benefits from Brexit.

It made too many bizarre assumptions. Unicorns were going to turn up in the shape of the EU waving all standards on imports from the UK.

Edit: I see Knobhead is solemnly promising to keep the NHS out of Trumps sticky, fat fingers…..but what about NICE?