The disgusting witch hunt against Prince Andrew - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in Europe's nation states, the E.U. & Russia.

Moderator: PoFo Europe Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum, so please post in English only.
#15055047
blackjack21 wrote:He he he! :lol: Maduro has ruled by decree since 2015. Adolf Hitler also democratically elected in a very fair election.

:eek:

OUCH !

Everything in your statement is wrong, and most obviously so.

You cant prove that a person is a dictator by pointing out they got elected democratically. DUH !!! Why do I have to actually point that out ?!?!?!? :eek:

You cannot vote a dictator democratically. A dictator cannot be at the head of a democracy. If a country is a democracy, the head of state is not a dictator. If you vote someone into office and they want to be dictator, they have to make a coup. Just like somebody who wasnt get elected.

You cannot prove that somebody is like Hitler by pointing out that they are in some way like Hitler. Hitler also breathed air. All people breathe air. According to your "logic", thus all people are like Adolf Hitler.

And just for completeness, Hitler was also NOT voted democratically. His party only got 40% in the last democratic votes. Not a majority. In a regular democracy, he would have needed another party in order to rule. Hitler got a majority in the parliament by getting rid of the communists, and then also getting rid of the social democrats. It was a coup.

Hitler was chancellor before that point, but to this day germans do not vote the chancellor. They vote parties and then the partys decide who is chancellor. So actually NOBODY voted for Hitler, not even as chancelor, and certainly not as dictator. Too many voted for his party, though.

I mean, this sets some kind of record for most wrong statement ever. Um. Congrats, I suppose ?



Finfinder wrote:You mean the liberal left don't you? The ones that run the media, Hollywood, and Democrat politicians.

Meh, those arent politically left people. The political left is supposed to care for the common good, but these people only care for the interest of the rich. They are deeply corrupt and it is easy to prove that they are lying, because they never intentionally invite people who have a different opinion, as a person would do if they are actually convinced of something and try to convince others. Instead they act as if other opinions wouldnt even exist. Thus they know they're not telling the truth, which is called lying.



late wrote:The sheer amount of projection boiling off the far Right is amazing.

Sorry, I don't have sex with unicorns.

Wtf I am more leftwing than many people here, but I saw no problem in this statement.

The female Clinton for example clearly is above the law. If the law actually applied to all people equally, she would be in jail. Instead they excuse her.



foxdemon wrote:The rule of law is simply the principle that the same law applies to everyone, including the sovereign.

The sovereign in a democracy IS the people.

An monarchs have always had special priviledges, at least in UK. For example, until recently, they didnt even pay taxes.

foxdemon wrote:The stuff you mention, innocent until proven guilty, is really English common law.

It is law in any civilized country. Its part of human rights, too.

https://www.un.org/en/universal-declara ... an-rights/
Article 11.

(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.




snapdragon wrote:The evidence is very thin, however.

The facts you mention in your posting alone already prove the opposite.



Zionist Nationalist wrote:Why we still have monarchs in the 21st century? fuck those royal cunts send them home and take their property

No idea. Tradition, bad habit, nostalgia ... ?

They dont really serve a real purpose and they have a really odd life.



Potemkin wrote:He had the opportunity, during that car crash interview he gave. And don't these people have advisers? Did he just not listen to them or something? :eh:

Its possible he didnt bother to get one.



Rich wrote:[...] Calling for the death of the British Royals exposes the moral bankruptcy of the left, when Jeremy Corbyn hasn't even refused to take the oath of allegiance. [...]

I disagree with so many things in this post, answering this would take a really long time.

But you DO realize that Corbyn IS a left politician, do you ? You cant really argue that the lefts is morally bankrupt if you believe Corbyn isnt.



Truth To Power wrote:The victim was underage at the time; often such people don't think of themselves as victims until they grow up and understand what was going on.

Exactly.

Love your user name, by the way.
#15055052
blackjack21 wrote: Adolf Hitler also democratically elected in a very fair election.
.


Not quite true. Hitler won the most seats, but not enough to control the Reichstag, he came to power through backroom deals. He then passed the enabling act though the Reichstag, with storm troopers in the chamber. The legiltly and Nazi rule *IS* questionable and not entirely legal and certainly was not elected as such.
#15055127
Negotiator wrote:Everything in your statement is wrong, and most obviously so.

Hitler tried before to overthrow the government during the Beer Hall Putsch, failed and ended up in prison. When the Nazis took power, they won the election democratically. I would only amend saying that the Nazis won democratically. Hitler actually lost his presidential election.

Negotiator wrote:You cant prove that a person is a dictator by pointing out they got elected democratically.

I never said as much. I'm pointing out that this occurred AFTER they got elected. People also like to yammer on about Mohammed Mossadeq, who at the time he was removed by the Shah was also acting as a dictator.

Negotiator wrote:If a country is a democracy, the head of state is not a dictator.

He is if the legislature/parliament makes him so. The term "dictator" wasn't even a bad word until Hitler.

Negotiator wrote:His party only got 40% in the last democratic votes.

In March 1933, they got 43.9% of the votes. It's true that Paul von Hindenberg beat Hitler for president of Germany--which incidentally was the last democratic presidential election in Germany.

Negotiator wrote:Hitler got a majority in the parliament by getting rid of the communists, and then also getting rid of the social democrats. It was a coup.

It wasn't a coup, because he was already in power. It was oppression of his opponents to be sure.

Negotiator wrote:Hitler was chancellor before that point, but to this day germans do not vote the chancellor. They vote parties and then the partys decide who is chancellor. So actually NOBODY voted for Hitler, not even as chancelor, and certainly not as dictator.

They did vote for him as president, but he lost to Paul von Hindenberg--the last democratic presidential election in Germany.

Negotiator wrote:I mean, this sets some kind of record for most wrong statement ever. Um. Congrats, I suppose ?

:roll: The most wrong? Not really. Hitler's Nazi party won democratically and formed a governing coalition. Hitler lost his election, but it proved meaningless because of the Reichstag fire and the Enabling Act, effectively giving him the chancellorship of Germany.

pugsville wrote:Not quite true. Hitler won the most seats, but not enough to control the Reichstag, he came to power through backroom deals.

Right. No different from Teresa May after her failed election or Boris Johnson before his very successful election. It was the enabling act that made Hitler a dictator, and that took a supermajority in the Reichstag, which he also won 444 to 94--all the Social Democrats opposed it. He used that to consolidate power, crushing the communists and later the social democrats. It was to last 4 years unless Reichstag re-enabled it, which they did twice.

pugsville wrote:The legiltly and Nazi rule *IS* questionable and not entirely legal and certainly was not elected as such.

Neither is Maduro's rule at present, or Mossadeq's when he was removed. I'm not saying that what they did with their dictatorship was ethically or morally acceptable by any stretch of the imagination. I'm just saying they had some political popularity before they took absolute power. That's generally true of dictatorships of any stripe.
#15055136
Coup d'état
A coup d'état, also known by its German name putsch, or simply as a coup, is the overthrow of an existing government by non-democratic means; typically, it is an illegal, unconstitutional seizure of power by a dictator, the military, or a political faction.
More at Wikipedia

So address a lack of political accountability wit[…]

This is fucking disgusting. Hard times bring out […]

Jacinda vs ScoMo

I agree with Ardern. Traditionally Australia and N[…]

There's definitely a difference between austerity […]