Clinton v Trump...

Oh,and...

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

then I'd point out that the British constitution as delivered by the British parliament

Yeah... Point me to "the British constitution".

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

He's not asked me anything that I could answer. To be honest once he accused me of advocating votes for 8 year olds (which is pure invention on his part) I didn't think he was seriously engaging with the debate.

I have pointed out that I was still in Primary school in 1974. What would you expect me to have said at the time?

More to the point it'd be damned weird if I remembered what I'd said about it had it even crossed my radar.

What I have said since on this thread is that any result that goes to a party polling fewer votes is clearly, obviously, definably, undeniably undemocratic. Especially when it goes wrong as often as the US electoral college does.

And in the past I have often made the case for PR and I was in favour of the AV option in the first of Cameron's referenda which was as close to being able to vote for it as I have been able to (there was a thread on here if you want to find it which will back me up on this).

I have also on occasion drawn attention to Churchill's defeat of Attlee in 1951 as a grossly unfair outcome and have never advocated on behalf of FPTP.

There is no inconsistency in my views or statements on this going back several years.

Of course it was pure invention.It was just an ever so slightly exaggerated play on your argument that the voting age should be lowered,which as i remember you were advocating during the lead up to, or in the aftermath of, the Brexit vote.But anyway,you've cleared things up by the "defineably,undeniably undemocratic" words in your post above. Labour won the February 1974 election by polling 11645616 votes compared to 11872180 polled by the Tories-ergo,the result met the your criteria and no doubt had the same poll and the same participants been transported to 2016 instead of 1974,that same criteria would have been applied by your good self in the interests of consistency.Good stuff.

I'm glad you think that's cleared up. It won't be good enough for Rickler though.

I did advocate lowering the voting age to 16, that's for sure. Why not? I don't suppose it would be massively taken up amongst that age group anyway because, largely, they don't engage with conventional politics and are much more likely to hit a single-issue vehicle like CND or Greenpeace, for instance. That's no reason to deny the ones who would like to participate though.

The way I see it if you are adult enough to join the army, marry, have sex etc then you are adult enough to vote should you wish to.

What's controversial about that?

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Angry wrote:

watch this SFD then stfu

I've already seen it.

but do you understand the point he is making though as i dnt think you do.

every word of it is true its people like yourself who got him elected never forget it,

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

I'm glad you think that's cleared up. It won't be good enough for Rickler though.

Quite right. It isn't. You really are as slippery as a snake. Avoiding the question you know is being asked of you.

Try justifying the Labour party win. Was in un-democratic or not?

Greenskin wrote:

.But anyway,you've cleared things up by the "defineably,undeniably undemocratic" words in your post above. Labour won the February 1974 election by polling 11645616 votes compared to 11872180 polled by the Tories-ergo,the result met the your criteria and no doubt had the same poll and the same participants been transported to 2016 instead of 1974,that same criteria would have been applied by your good self in the interests of consistency.Good stuff.

Angry wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Angry wrote:

watch this SFD then stfu

I've already seen it.

but do you understand the point he is making though as i dnt think you do.

every word of it is true its people like yourself who got him elected never forget it,

I'm engaging with those whose opinion is different to mine.

I'm doing exactly what he requests.

Rickler wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

I'm glad you think that's cleared up. It won't be good enough for Rickler though.

Quite right.  It isn't.  You really are as slippery as a snake.  Avoiding the question you know is being asked of you.

Try justifying  the Labour party win.  Was in un-democratic or not?

Greenskin wrote:

.But anyway,you've cleared things up by the "defineably,undeniably undemocratic" words in your post above. Labour won the February 1974 election by polling 11645616 votes compared to 11872180 polled by the Tories-ergo,the result met the your criteria and no doubt had the same poll and the same participants been transported to 2016 instead of 1974,that same criteria would have been applied by your good self in the interests of consistency.Good stuff.

Nothing I say will ever be good enough for you. There's no point in me trying. And if you get annoyed by my refusal to dance to your tune then so much the better.

Besides I have answered that explicitly already whether you agree or not.

No you haven't.  

Annoyed, no.  I just find you pathetic.  A bombastic boring bigot.

Your refusal to answer directly speaks volumes about you.

Un-democratic or not? Yes or No?


So where's the "British constitution" then?

Our constitution is the cumulative effect of Parliamentary activity including the many various acts (unless repealed) and protocols dating back to Magna Carta in 1215.

Where is it? In the Parliamentary archive.

Anyway back on topic:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Our constitution is the cumulative effect of Parliamentary activity including the many various acts (unless repealed) and protocols dating back to Magna Carta in 1215.

Where is it? In the Parliamentary archive.

Wrong again.

Wikipedia:

"Unlike most modern states, Britain does not have a codified constitution but an unwritten one formed of Acts of Parliament, court judgments and conventions."

So there isn't one.  
You were describing something that takes its place.  Luckily for you the internet exists so you could look up some facts to forge some sort of reply with.


Undemocratic?  Yes or No?

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Anyway back on topic:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Lol... Quoting Trump as some sort of fountain of knowledge.

How does it feel having to climb into bed with the sort of person you despise in order to try to drive home your point.

You really are a whore.

How is "one formed of Acts of Parliament, court judgments and conventions" significantly different to "the cumulative effect of Parliamentary activity including the many various acts (unless repealed) and protocols dating back to Magna Carta in 1215".

Forgive me for putting it in my own words rather than parroting a C&P from Wikipedia.

Rickler wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Anyway back on topic:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Lol... Quoting Trump as some sort of fountain of knowledge.

How does it feel having to climb into bed with the sort of person you despise in order to try to drive home your point.

You really are a whore.

There really is no need to be so rude. Or inaccurate.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

How is "one formed of Acts of Parliament, court judgments and conventions" significantly different to "the cumulative effect of Parliamentary activity including the many various acts (unless repealed) and protocols dating back to Magna Carta in 1215".

Forgive me for putting it in my own words rather than parroting a C&P from Wikipedia.

Who knows... who cares...

But you called something "the British Constitution" and there isn't one.

Plain and simple.  You got it wrong.

Like you're wrong about so many things and you just won't ever admit it.


Undemocratic, yes or no?

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Rickler wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Anyway back on topic:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Lol... Quoting Trump as some sort of fountain of knowledge.

How does it feel having to climb into bed with the sort of person you despise in order to try to drive home your point.

You really are a whore.

There really is no need to be so rude. Or inaccurate.

feck off.


Undemocratic, Yes or No?

Can't help yourself, can you?

It reflects awfully on you, y'know.

Nothing reflects as badly as everyone knowing you're not man enough to admit when you're wrong.

You can't answer a simple question with a yes or no answer. Because you know the answer will show you to either be a hypocrite or a fool.  Which isn't surprising as you're both.  But how bad does NOT answering make you look?

To be honest...  I don't know how you have the brass neck to do it.  No credibility left whatsoever.
How do you look at yourself in the mirror?

So un-democratic...   Yes or no?

I've answered that explicitly already.

I missed it and can't find it.

Yes or no?

Look again.

Show me.

You've fecked yourself haven't you.

Yes or no?

You are both correct/wrong (depending on your definition of what a constitution is - single document or not)!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Thanks, Moist.

Let's settle on I'm right and Rickler is wrong because there must be a constitution because it defines the "sovereignty" that the Brexiteers are so passionate about and they must be right, mustn't they?, or else they're getting all worked up over nothing.

Our constitution may only exist in abstract form but it exists nonetheless and there's no need at all for a constitution to be reduced to a single document. Even the US consitutution has been amended 27 times since it was drafted in 1787 meaning there must have been Document [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and then 27 others (with the most recent passed in 1992).

He was just being abusive for the sake of it as usual. I've proven before that he'd jump on the least controversial thing possible (I accurately quoted the time I made a post) but our mods removed it. It's a shame they don't see fit to remove his abuse but there you go.

You might have thought that since we're well into his second decade of this he'd act like a grown-up and stop the nonsense but he insists on repeating as often as possible.

It's like Groundhog Day with less humour and added tumour.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

(I accurately quoted the time I made a post) but our mods removed it. It's a shame they don't see fit to remove his abuse but there you go.