[Tuthmosis]

Also this:

   

[Cyr]

(05-10-2015 09:25 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

Currently there is mounting evidence that election is heavily manipulated since the pre-election support simply does not match the effective results. Polls are easily manipulated as well.



Even if you have a candidate running nowadays who might change something, then you are certainly not getting him. I remember the Ron Paul action a couple of years ago where grassroots support of him was gigantic, but he was still not getting near the effective votes that he should have been receiving.

I am not even discussing his policies, which are faulty to the highest degree - just the fact that nowadays massive manipulation of voting results can be attained since fewer people are involved in compilation and computation of said votes. The more centralized it becomes the easier it gets until finally:

And the funny part is that it would not matter much which pre-selected candidate won - some just fit better to run through different goals on the agenda.

Theres no conspiracy with the chart you posted. Britain has a first past the post system which means that it's possible for a party to win 49% of the vote and 0 seats. Parties like the lib dems and ukip get many fewer seats per vote because a few people vote for them in a lot of districts (not enough to get a majority in many districts, but a sizable number nonetheless).

[Lizard King]

Anyone on twitter want to get the ball rolling with this: Laurie Penny is a liar ???

[Novatore]

(05-10-2015 11:18 AM)Ziltoid Wrote:  

I realize this woman is prettymuch clinically insane, but is this a common party line in the UK? I've never in my life heard the term 'welfare state' used in a non-derisive way... Let alone as something good that should be defended. The US is becoming a welfare state, and it's still a dirty term, here, even to the progressives pushing it.

"Welfare state" doesn't necessarily have negative connotations in the UK.
The welfare state doesn't refer to lots of unemployed people living on welfare, but to the state assisting its citizens. State funded schools, the NHS (state run hospitals), the state pension and near universal child benefit are all part of the welfare state. The idea is to guarantee a minimum living standard.

Most British people support this idea and don't have a problem with the state aiding those in work or helping the genuinely in need, but they are angry at what they see as people taking advantage of the welfare state without giving anything back.

Brits don't have a problem with people claiming unemployment benefit when they are between jobs but are pissed off at people living off benefits with no intention of working.

How to have a welfare state that looks after the vulnerable without encouraging idleness is a problem western Europe is still trying to solve.

[YossariansRight]

Maybe she's acting out because she never gets invited to any Dubai "Port-A-Potty" Parties?

[Lizard King]

Fuck it.

https://twitter.com/LizardKingRVF/status...9467875328



edit: found out about her George Cross confusion: https://twitter.com/hjoneshojo/status/59...0146306049

and: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Award_of_th...s_to_Malta

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(05-10-2015 11:31 AM)Cyr Wrote:  

Theres no conspiracy with the chart you posted. Britain has a first past the post system which means that it's possible for a party to win 49% of the vote and 0 seats. Parties like the lib dems and ukip get many fewer seats per vote because a few people vote for them in a lot of districts (not enough to get a majority in many districts, but a sizable number nonetheless).

Interesting system where you can get 49% of the votes and zero seats. I am sure it is a coincidence it developed that way. That's why I stated that the UK never really got democracy - it has been a farce since the very beginning. Countries like Switzerland with it's direct democracy have much greater ability to uphold grassroots interests. In some areas women got the right to vote in the 1990s, which obviously was more positive than it appeared on surface.

[JohnKreese]

This has been posted before, but this is right in line with Penny's typical nonsense.

In this debate, she stirred shit up (called the guy a racist), get's called out for her actual misgivings, and then attempts to play the victim. Thankfully the audience and moderator weren't having her shit.

This is like that comic that Roosh posted directly in action. EXACT progression.

[Lizard King]

^^ Typical solipsistic feminist. Barely coherent, devoid of any clear logical point.

[Novatore]

As a someone who actually is a British left winger, I'd like to point out that I and almost everyone I know hate Laurie Penny. We have no idea how she keeps getting paid journalism work in supposedly serious publications.

[Lizard King]

She has posted this https://instagram.com/p/2gpdSKFb3L/ on twitter. It's still not the proper George Cross.



Also: https://twitter.com/hashtag/LauriePennys...r?src=hash

[Oz.]

(05-10-2015 01:33 PM)Lizard King Wrote:  

She has posted this https://instagram.com/p/2gpdSKFb3L/ on twitter. It's still not the proper George Cross.



Also: https://twitter.com/hashtag/LauriePennys...r?src=hash

Stupid bitch has no idea what the fuck she is talking about, she defends vandalism on a war memorial while promoting he grandmother's war accomplishments which she can't even name properly let alone understand what it was for.

[Carlos100]

I liked this one the best:

Quote:

#LauriePennysGrandmother has seen attack ships on fire off The Shoulder of Orion

[Hotwheels]

(05-10-2015 09:25 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

Even if you have a candidate running nowadays who might change something, then you are certainly not getting him. I remember the Ron Paul action a couple of years ago where grassroots support of him was gigantic, but he was still not getting near the effective votes that he should have been receiving.

I have no idea (nor do I care) how British politics work, but since you brought up Ron Paul that is simply an example of the social media majority being but a small percentage of the "silent" majority.

Ron Paul had little real support. He's too far off base and drives a Chevette. Just what the nimrods that live only online will get behind. Anyone with any sense knew he was not right and had zero chance.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(05-11-2015 02:07 AM)Hotwheels Wrote:  

(05-10-2015 09:25 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

Even if you have a candidate running nowadays who might change something, then you are certainly not getting him. I remember the Ron Paul action a couple of years ago where grassroots support of him was gigantic, but he was still not getting near the effective votes that he should have been receiving.

I have no idea (nor do I care) how British politics work, but since you brought up Ron Paul that is simply an example of the social media majority being but a small percentage of the "silent" majority.

Ron Paul had little real support. He's too far off base and drives a Chevette. Just what the nimrods that live only online will get behind. Anyone with any sense knew he was not right and had zero chance.

There seem to be have been some manipulations in the beginning, but his policies would have destroyed the US economy within 2 years, so it's not so bad. His son dropped the facade soon after and showed his bi-partisan face soon after.

The UKIP would not have managed to do much anyway.

In the past there were huge truly positive movements in the UK like the Greenshirts which campaigned for interest free social credit which would have solved the money issue and ushered in new prosperity. They actually managed to wipe that movement out of the annals of history - keep in mind that the party had demonstrations at one time of tens of thousands and the support in the population ranged into hundreds of thousands:

   

http://www.kibbokift.org/jhbio.html

There is no voting out of it anyway in our times.

[Saweeep]

(05-10-2015 12:01 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

(05-10-2015 11:31 AM)Cyr Wrote:  

Theres no conspiracy with the chart you posted. Britain has a first past the post system which means that it's possible for a party to win 49% of the vote and 0 seats. Parties like the lib dems and ukip get many fewer seats per vote because a few people vote for them in a lot of districts (not enough to get a majority in many districts, but a sizable number nonetheless).

Interesting system where you can get 49% of the votes and zero seats. I am sure it is a coincidence it developed that way. That's why I stated that the UK never really got democracy - it has been a farce since the very beginning. Countries like Switzerland with it's direct democracy have much greater ability to uphold grassroots interests. In some areas women got the right to vote in the 1990s, which obviously was more positive than it appeared on surface.

It's a system that produces stability and works.

PR, as we have seen across Europe, since forever, is a minefield.

There is no conspiracy here...it's that Britain is majoritatively conservative (with a small c). People are just afraid to say so due to the aggressive dogma of the left.

Empty vessels and all that...

[Cyr]

(05-10-2015 12:01 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

(05-10-2015 11:31 AM)Cyr Wrote:  

Theres no conspiracy with the chart you posted. Britain has a first past the post system which means that it's possible for a party to win 49% of the vote and 0 seats. Parties like the lib dems and ukip get many fewer seats per vote because a few people vote for them in a lot of districts (not enough to get a majority in many districts, but a sizable number nonetheless).

Interesting system where you can get 49% of the votes and zero seats. I am sure it is a coincidence it developed that way. That's why I stated that the UK never really got democracy - it has been a farce since the very beginning. Countries like Switzerland with it's direct democracy have much greater ability to uphold grassroots interests. In some areas women got the right to vote in the 1990s, which obviously was more positive than it appeared on surface.

Personally I believe that direct democracy (like in Switzerland) is a better system than in the uk. That said, first past the post does produce majorities that allow the ruling party to be decisive and pass laws- otherwise there would never be majorities in parliament.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(05-12-2015 08:18 AM)Cyr Wrote:  

(05-10-2015 12:01 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

(05-10-2015 11:31 AM)Cyr Wrote:  

Theres no conspiracy with the chart you posted. Britain has a first past the post system which means that it's possible for a party to win 49% of the vote and 0 seats. Parties like the lib dems and ukip get many fewer seats per vote because a few people vote for them in a lot of districts (not enough to get a majority in many districts, but a sizable number nonetheless).

Interesting system where you can get 49% of the votes and zero seats. I am sure it is a coincidence it developed that way. That's why I stated that the UK never really got democracy - it has been a farce since the very beginning. Countries like Switzerland with it's direct democracy have much greater ability to uphold grassroots interests. In some areas women got the right to vote in the 1990s, which obviously was more positive than it appeared on surface.

Personally I believe that direct democracy (like in Switzerland) is a better system than in the uk. That said, first past the post does produce majorities that allow the ruling party to be decisive and pass laws- otherwise there would never be majorities in parliament.

Indeed - it is a great system if you are part of the plutocracy, no grassroots party will ever be able to rise, all leaders of parties are members of the CFR, even if you have a fantastic party like in the 1930s the Greenshirts, then they won't get anywhere.

Passing laws that are in line with major policies which serve only the upper crust is not democracy, but I am not a fan of democracy either - best would be an ethical autocratic meritocracy, but the money power is way too clever to let that ever become reality. We are so far removed from that option that most people still believe in a democratic but corrupt political process. I for one think it resembles more complete control at the top with minor players squabbling at the mid to low level and the only tricky part is pushing the boundaries towards the intended end-goal without the frogs realizing that they are going to be boiled over generations.

[H1N1]

First past the post actually makes a lot of sense, if you accept the premise that any democratic system of election will be fundamentally flawed in a hundred different ways. The great beauty of first past the post, is that there is the opportunity for basically a mini revolution each election, where the incumbent of No.10 can be literally thrown out of the top seat over night. Cameron had to pack all his stuff into a truck before the election, and standby to leave with his tail between his legs.

With PR, you have a situation where those who can grab power actually have an easier time holding onto it in man ways. If you had PR here, and UKIP, the Greens etc had all got a bunch of seats, and the Tories had done badly by comparison, you could still have a situation where someone with no real mandate to be prime minister could hold on to the trappings of power.

There are obviously merits to both systems, but FPP is not the worst of ideas, and I'd be slower than most to try to change it.

[DannyAlberta]

(05-10-2015 12:45 PM)JohnKreese Wrote:  

Leftist statist demands payment to espouse her leftist statist views, including from organizations that cannot afford it. When called out on it, she demands the right to respond, then says she will not respond (probably because she didn't think of an appropriately plausible cover story on short notice), then tries to explain it anyway in a completely unintelligible and vacuous manner.

I'd laugh, but somehow I suspect she has out together quite the little nest egg from her tripe, which isn't funny at all.

[Veloce]

My favorite:

Quote:

#LauriePennysGrandmother faked the Apollo moon landings with Stanley Kubrick in Room 237 of the Overlook Hotel.

[Veloce]

Damn!

Quote:

Gareth Soye ‏@GarethSoye May 9

#LauriePennysGrandmother is currently powering a small country by turning in her grave.

[magicone]

It is incredible almost that such feminist self-crowned as slut
riding hard on the cock carousel,
gets to be published by so many mainstream websites:

New Republic
Medium
PsMag
Catster
BuzzFeed
The HairPin
Jezebel
The Daily Dot
The Baffler
etc

On The HairPin
Alana Massey praises prostitutes who are rinsing
(emptying the wallets of the beta) older men online:

http://thehairpin.com/2014/12/seeking-ar...-wanitwat/

[Roosh]

She's now writing for Buzzfeed. Isn't that a step down, career wise?

http://www.buzzfeed.com/lauriepenny/the-...e-feminist

She mentions ROK. We had a Twitter beef the other day.

https://twitter.com/PennyRed/status/601420846616412160

[AnonymousBosch]

^ Buzzfeed's audience is young, female, naïve, and the type of 'educated' that reads and writes at a juvenile level.

Penny just found her criticism-free safe space.