OtinPattaya Posted June 9, 2019 Share Posted June 9, 2019 I'm not sure which is worse. We Americans have a pseudo-celebrity blowhard for a president who actually cares about our country and its citizenry, and you Brits have a much more refined, studious, and politic immigrant who says all the right things and could care less about Britain or its citizenry. If you believe this London politico cares about Britain then I'd suggest you join the Merkel fan club, which I don't think exists anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MRTELLYOUSTRAIGHT Posted June 9, 2019 Share Posted June 9, 2019 (edited) Edited June 9, 2019 by MRTELLYOUSTRAIGHT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thakkar Posted June 9, 2019 Share Posted June 9, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, MRTELLYOUSTRAIGHT said: At the 3:45 mark, is the deer sniffing the man’s butt? In this allegorical film, the man represents the narrator and the deer represents Cognizance. Cognizance smells something awful and confirms it’s emanating from the man’s rear end. Edited June 9, 2019 by Thakkar 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7by7 Posted June 9, 2019 Share Posted June 9, 2019 13 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said: Isn't that a percentage of the votes cast, not a percentage of the number of people entitled to vote? Of course it is; for both Khan and Trump. Doesn't change the fact that Khan received over 50% of votes cast, whereas not only did Trump receive less than 50% he also received less than his opponent! 13 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said: Most politicians are elected by less than a majority of the eligible voters, except in countries where voting is compulsory and have a first past the post system. Personally, I am against making voting compulsory. I firmly believe that the right to vote includes the right not to vote. However, if one doesn't vote then one can't really complain about the result. 13 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said: Proportional voting will probably never get an actual majority for any candidate. Depends on the system. The electoral college system used for the US Presidential elections meant that even though he received fewer votes, Trump won. The electoral system used for London mayor elections is the supplementary vote, where voters express a first and second choice of candidate. If no candidate receives an absolute majority of first choice votes, all but the two leading candidates are eliminated and the votes of those eliminated redistributed according to their second choice votes to determine the winner. Khan received most votes, 44.2%, in the first round and the second place candidate, Goldsmith, 35.0%. After the second choice votes were allocated, Khan had 56.8% and Goldsmith 43.2%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7by7 Posted June 9, 2019 Share Posted June 9, 2019 13 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said: That was a baiting question, so of course I didn't answer it. I lived in Saudi, and apart from the religious aspect, which ruined it for me, I preferred there to where I am, or the UK. This is off topic, so that's it for me on this deflection. It was you who brought the number of churches in Riyadh into the topic! On 6/7/2019 at 7:16 AM, thaibeachlovers said: Mosques in London- 460 Churches in Riyadh- 0 Need I say more? The question was not baiting, it was asking you to clarify your comment. Your refusal to do so speaks volumes. Now you've painted yourself into a corner, you are calling it an off topic deflection! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7by7 Posted June 9, 2019 Share Posted June 9, 2019 8 hours ago, OtinPattaya said: I'm not sure which is worse. We Americans have a pseudo-celebrity blowhard for a president who actually cares about our country and its citizenry, and you Brits have a much more refined, studious, and politic immigrant who says all the right things and could care less about Britain or its citizenry. If you believe this London politico cares about Britain then I'd suggest you join the Merkel fan club, which I don't think exists anymore. Two points. Firstly, Khan is not an immigrant, he was born in Tooting. Tooting is a district of the London Borough of Wandsworth. The London Borough of Wandsworth is, as it's name suggests, a borough within London. London is in England. England is part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Got it? Perhaps you are calling him an immigrant because of his ancestry? Well, all four of Trump's grandparents were immigrants to the USA, as was his mother. So if Khan is an immigrant because of his ancestry, so is Trump. Secondly, you are claiming Khan does not care about Britain nor his fellow citizens. What is your evidence to support this claim? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thakkar Posted June 9, 2019 Share Posted June 9, 2019 13 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said: That was a baiting question, so of course I didn't answer it. I lived in Saudi, and apart from the religious aspect, which ruined it for me, I preferred there to where I am, or the UK. This is off topic, so that's it for me on this deflection. You initiated the comparison, I questioned whether you agreed with its logical conclusion. To your credit, you (albeit, belatedly) saw the absurdity of that comparison. I think you pretty much baited yourself. But kudos for refusing to take your own bait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7by7 Posted June 9, 2019 Share Posted June 9, 2019 3 hours ago, MRTELLYOUSTRAIGHT said: I'm shocked, it's taken 17 pages for someone to bring the convicted violent thug and fraudster Stephen Yaxley-Lennon into the topic! Albeit via a year old video. BTW, the maker of that video needs to be reminded of the debt we owe to the soldiers of the Indian Army and from the Caribbean and other colonies who fought and died on the battlefields of Europe for this country in both world wars. Yaxley-Lennon is a man who claims to be concerned with protecting children from paedophiles. The truth is very different. The majority of paedophiles in the UK are white of Christian backgrounds; indeed many are Christian priests in charge of children's homes. What does Yaxley-Lennon say about them? Nothing. Does he protest about them? No. Does he try and film them when they are entering court for their trial? No. Yaxley-Lennon is only interested when the perpetrators of this vile crime are Muslim. He uses the suffering of the victims to advance his own agenda and solicit monetary contributions via his website. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Hanaguma Posted June 9, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted June 9, 2019 45 minutes ago, 7by7 said: Doesn't change the fact that Khan received over 50% of votes cast, whereas not only did Trump receive less than 50% he also received less than his opponent! The electoral college system used for the US Presidential elections meant that even though he received fewer votes, Trump won. Got news for you: very few national leaders are chosen by popular vote. Presidents aren't. British and Canadian and Japanese Prime Ministers aren't, Nor is the German Chancellor. It is irrelevant. And all candidates are fully aware of the electoral rules before beginning their campaigns- no excuse for crying about it afterwards. As for the Trump/Khan thing, all I know is this. Mayor Khan was the first to start it by insinuating that Trump was a fascist and a global threat. What did he expect would happen? Trump rarely starts fights, but he often finishes them. Besides, Khan should be grateful to the Trumps. London enjoyed a multi million pound boost in tourist revenue thanks to the Americans coming to visit. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7by7 Posted June 9, 2019 Share Posted June 9, 2019 4 minutes ago, Hanaguma said: Got news for you: very few national leaders are chosen by popular vote. Presidents aren't. British and Canadian and Japanese Prime Ministers aren't, Nor is the German Chancellor. It is irrelevant. And all candidates are fully aware of the electoral rules before beginning their campaigns- no excuse for crying about it afterwards. Not crying about anything; merely responding to posters who claimed Trump has more support in the US than Khan has in London. 8 minutes ago, Hanaguma said: As for the Trump/Khan thing, all I know is this. Mayor Khan was the first to start it by insinuating that Trump was a fascist and a global threat. What did he expect would happen? Trump rarely starts fights, but he often finishes them. Ah, the old "He started it!" cry! Yes, both men have voiced their opinion; as is their right. But many posters here seem to think Khan is not allowed to express his. 11 minutes ago, Hanaguma said: Besides, Khan should be grateful to the Trumps. London enjoyed a multi million pound boost in tourist revenue thanks to the Americans coming to visit. Did it? What about the £40 million cost of providing the motorcade, police escorts and other security for his visit? Not to mention the £18million cost of his visit last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MRTELLYOUSTRAIGHT Posted June 9, 2019 Share Posted June 9, 2019 The facts about Tommy Robinson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaibeachlovers Posted June 9, 2019 Share Posted June 9, 2019 18 hours ago, Jingthing said: His approval rating is about 42 percent. Perhaps you don't understand the U.S. election system. Yes he could be reelected again with 42 percent or even less of the vote. Arguably and tragically that's even likely. It's called the electoral college. He was elected the first time while losing the popular vote. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/ He was elected the first time while losing the popular vote. While more people voted for HRC than Trump, it does not mean she was voted for by a majority of eligible voters, hence not necessarily "popular". Re the OP, the protest against Trump is only by a tiny proportion of the UK population. Most probably don't care, as they have more important things to do, like working. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaibeachlovers Posted June 9, 2019 Share Posted June 9, 2019 8 hours ago, 7by7 said: Not crying about anything; merely responding to posters who claimed Trump has more support in the US than Khan has in London. Ah, the old "He started it!" cry! Yes, both men have voiced their opinion; as is their right. But many posters here seem to think Khan is not allowed to express his. Did it? What about the £40 million cost of providing the motorcade, police escorts and other security for his visit? Not to mention the £18million cost of his visit last year. All the police would have been paid anyway. The only extra costs would be for specific London related things, like perhaps putting on meals, accommodation and transport for out of town security personnel. Personally, I don't agree with motorcades, as they are a pain in the <deleted> for ordinary people trying to make a living and paying taxes for all the BS of a state visit. At most, he should just take a helicopter from the airport. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
briansbiology Posted June 10, 2019 Share Posted June 10, 2019 On 6/8/2019 at 6:06 PM, 7by7 said: If Farrakhan ever visited London it would have been before 1986: he has been banned from entering the UK since then! (A high Court ruling in 2005 overturned the ban, but that in itself was overturned on appeal.) Khan was 16 in 1986; I don't know if Farrakhan ever visited London before 1986 when his ban came into force nor if he did what the 16 year old, or younger, Sadiq Khan's view on his visit were; do you? https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-sadiq-khan-farrakhan-0916-chicago-inc-20160915-story.html he didnt but he fought to allow Farrakhan access to London. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJRS1301 Posted June 10, 2019 Share Posted June 10, 2019 2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said: All the police would have been paid anyway. The only extra costs would be for specific London related things, like perhaps putting on meals, accommodation and transport for out of town security personnel. Personally, I don't agree with motorcades, as they are a pain in the <deleted> for ordinary people trying to make a living and paying taxes for all the BS of a state visit. At most, he should just take a helicopter from the airport. The "costs" would have also included paying for the state banquet, the extra protection required by the monarchy for him while family while out and about, hiring of barricades for crowd control, costs for shutting down airspace as his plane arrived, and marine one flew him to the palace etc. More police would have been rostered on. possibly paid overtime, and the costs involved in planning the whole debacle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaibeachlovers Posted June 10, 2019 Share Posted June 10, 2019 2 hours ago, RJRS1301 said: The "costs" would have also included paying for the state banquet, the extra protection required by the monarchy for him while family while out and about, hiring of barricades for crowd control, costs for shutting down airspace as his plane arrived, and marine one flew him to the palace etc. More police would have been rostered on. possibly paid overtime, and the costs involved in planning the whole debacle. I was just replying to the post about motorcades, but yes, IMO, stop all the BS for people that think they are important- no more state banquets in a city that has homeless people, no more Royal walkabouts, etc. In fact, lets make them do everything by video conferencing. Might upset the women's magazines that love that sort of thing, but it's a brave new world and we all have to make sacrifices. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJRS1301 Posted June 10, 2019 Share Posted June 10, 2019 43 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said: I was just replying to the post about motorcades, but yes, IMO, stop all the BS for people that think they are important- no more state banquets in a city that has homeless people, no more Royal walkabouts, etc. In fact, lets make them do everything by video conferencing. Might upset the women's magazines that love that sort of thing, but it's a brave new world and we all have to make sacrifices. Or pay for the security and transportation from their own accumulated wealth. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simple1 Posted June 10, 2019 Share Posted June 10, 2019 *removed quote edited out* The truth... https://www.london.gov.uk/about-us/governance-and-spending/sharing-our-information/publication-scheme/mayor-londons-diary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
.thumb.jpg.bc523c85a8d558dbc282dca7a2e602c9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now