ey_tony
Established Member
Are you really suggesting that Trump is like Hitler?....I'm really disappointed in you, I thought you better than that but sadly it appears not!
President Elect's 'top team'
- Thread starter Chris152
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
ey_tony
Established Member
I'm only responding to cranks...what else do you expect me to do?
sploo
Somewhat extinguished member
As just noted; his own VP did, so it's not like Chris is the first: https://edition.cnn.com/2024/07/15/politics/kfile-jd-vance-comments-trump/index.html
Blackswanwood
Still Learning
Well as you’ve asked … act like a grown up by not resorting to name calling, be respectful of other people’s opinions and provide validated facts to support your own views.
Terry - Somerset
Established Member
The US is a democracy (as the UK etc) - normally this means politicians stand, the one with the most votes wins, and gets to decide what games are played.
Some losers, or observers, think the outcome is wrong - I don't doubt their opinion is sincere. They insist they know better. One assumes they believe the winner should stand down, be removed from office, or forced to adopt policies upon which they were not elected.
Doing so would effectively disenfranchise the majority, who by implication (I assume) lack the intellect to understand the issues and arguments, or in some way lack a moral compass. No matter how sincere their reasons, they have no democratic authority.
How are these supreme beings, to whose opinions we all must defer, selected. Or do they simply impose themselves upon society as of right.
In riding roughshod over the majority are they benign dictators or saviours - or worse than those they seek to challenge through having no regard for democratic process.
Answers on a postcard please/
Some losers, or observers, think the outcome is wrong - I don't doubt their opinion is sincere. They insist they know better. One assumes they believe the winner should stand down, be removed from office, or forced to adopt policies upon which they were not elected.
Doing so would effectively disenfranchise the majority, who by implication (I assume) lack the intellect to understand the issues and arguments, or in some way lack a moral compass. No matter how sincere their reasons, they have no democratic authority.
How are these supreme beings, to whose opinions we all must defer, selected. Or do they simply impose themselves upon society as of right.
In riding roughshod over the majority are they benign dictators or saviours - or worse than those they seek to challenge through having no regard for democratic process.
Answers on a postcard please/
danst96
Established Member
oof be careful Terry. Common sense has no place here.The US is a democracy (as the UK etc) - normally this means politicians stand, the one with the most votes wins, and gets to decide what games are played.
Some losers, or observers, think the outcome is wrong - I don't doubt their opinion is sincere. They insist they know better. One assumes they believe the winner should stand down, be removed from office, or forced to adopt policies upon which they were not elected.
Doing so would effectively disenfranchise the majority, who by implication (I assume) lack the intellect to understand the issues and arguments, or in some way lack a moral compass. No matter how sincere their reasons, they have no democratic authority.
How are these supreme beings, to whose opinions we all must defer, selected. Or do they simply impose themselves upon society as of right.
In riding roughshod over the majority are they benign dictators or saviours - or worse than those they seek to challenge through having no regard for democratic process.
Answers on a postcard please/
John Brown
Freeloading Social media influenza
I don't recall anyone in these threads saying that Trump should stand down, be removed from office or forced to adopt policies.The US is a democracy (as the UK etc) - normally this means politicians stand, the one with the most votes wins, and gets to decide what games are played.
Some losers, or observers, think the outcome is wrong - I don't doubt their opinion is sincere. They insist they know better. One assumes they believe the winner should stand down, be removed from office, or forced to adopt policies upon which they were not elected.
Doing so would effectively disenfranchise the majority, who by implication (I assume) lack the intellect to understand the issues and arguments, or in some way lack a moral compass. No matter how sincere their reasons, they have no democratic authority.
How are these supreme beings, to whose opinions we all must defer, selected. Or do they simply impose themselves upon society as of right.
In riding roughshod over the majority are they benign dictators or saviours - or worse than those they seek to challenge through having no regard for democratic process.
Answers on a postcard please/
Happy to be proved wrong.
I'll stick with H L Mencken, who said "Democracy is the idea that the people know what they want, and deserve to get it, good and hard".
selectortone
Still waking up not dead in the morning
Good luck with that.
You are missing the point John, everyone should agree with the outcome and suck it up and agree with the winners. Just like they've done with the current Labour government after their landslide victory.
