Sol invictus wrote:

We vote for parties, not people.

We do vote for people. The constituency MPs.

Grandma Death wrote:

Now scumbag Mark Collett a man who thinks AIDS is a good disease because 'drug users, gays and black people get it' is given airtime on childrens TV. http://news.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/hi/the_p_word/newsid_10000000/newsid_10 002000/10002087.stm Wonderful...of course we should allow people like this unfettered access on TV eh....cause its important to maintain democracy

That interview just makes them look like morons.

Quote:

But we're the same species which makes it a bit different, doesn't it? Mark: You could say that but if all of a sudden there weren't any sparrows and there were only crows, I'd still be sad there weren't any sparrows.

Sparrows and crows are different species, Mark, you thick ****.

Quote:

You're talking like people here are on holiday. They've lived here, some of them, for a generation, some of them for longer. Doesn't that count? Mark: Are you trying to compare somebody, or a group of people who've lived here for maybe 30 years, to people who've lived here for 40,000 years? There's a vast, vast difference in time scale there, my dear.

Yes Mark, the current British have lived here for 40, 000 years. Errm actually you Anglo-Saxon condescending thick t**t our lot have been here for a couple of thousand only. Maybe you should f**k off to Germany?

Barely 1,500 showbaot, not a couple of thousand, please!

bob.appleyard wrote:

Sol invictus wrote: We vote for parties, not people. We do vote for people. The constituency MPs.

We don't get to choose them.

Of course we do, that's what elections are for.

Unless you're admitting to knowing something we don't about the future of elections. . .

Clarino wrote:

Of course we do, that's what elections are for. Unless you're admitting to knowing something we don't about the future of elections. . .

The party puts up the candidates. We don't get to choose who they are.

So? You don't have to vote for any individual you don't want to vote for. YOu get to chose between individuals, you aren't locked in to voting for a party. You can even vote for an independent candidate if you like.

Clarino wrote:

So? You don't have to vote for any individual you don't want to vote for. YOu get to chose between individuals, you aren't locked in to voting for a party. You can even vote for an independent candidate if you like.

But we don't get to choose who they are.

We choose that candidate because he or she belongs to the party we support.

lil bit wrote:

Clarino wrote: So? You don't have to vote for any individual you don't want to vote for. YOu get to chose between individuals, you aren't locked in to voting for a party. You can even vote for an independent candidate if you like. But we don't get to choose who they are. We choose that candidate because he or she belongs to the party we support.

Many people do. But technically your electing the individual you wish to represent you in Parliament.

lil bit wrote:

Clarino wrote: So? You don't have to vote for any individual you don't want to vote for. YOu get to chose between individuals, you aren't locked in to voting for a party. You can even vote for an independent candidate if you like. But we don't get to choose who they are.

Why would you get to choose who a party nominates if you are not a member of said party?

lil bit wrote:

We choose that candidate because he or she belongs to the party we support.

You might, I give it more thought than that. I've even voted for independent candidates in the past.

Showboat wrote:

That interview just makes them look like morons.

Yeah funny enough Griffin looked like a moron on QT. Out of his depth, struggling and laughing like an infant. Still they managed to allegedly recruit an extra 3000 members from it. Griffin, collett and the rest of those muppets don't care about how people like you or I view them. They are interested in reaching a target audience by any means possible.

And so they should be banned from speaking publicly, in order to help them as much as possible. . .

Right?

Clarino wrote:

And so they should be banned from speaking publicly, in order to help them as much as possible. . . Right?

*sigh*

Grandma Death wrote:

Showboat wrote: That interview just makes them look like morons. Yeah funny enough Griffin looked like a moron on QT. Out of his depth, struggling and laughing like an infant. Still they managed to allegedly recruit an extra 3000 members from it. Griffin, collett and the rest of those muppets don't care about how people like you or I view them. They are interested in reaching a target audience by any means possible.

I didn't see him on QT. I wasn't in the UK then. But people who I have talked to about it said it looked like a bit of a set up with the intention of ridiculing him. If it really did look like that then he could have gained some sympathy support.

Clarino wrote:

lil bit wrote: Clarino wrote: So? You don't have to vote for any individual you don't want to vote for. YOu get to chose between individuals, you aren't locked in to voting for a party. You can even vote for an independent candidate if you like. But we don't get to choose who they are. Why would you get to choose who a party nominates if you are not a member of said party?

Because you are a voter, which is what happens in the USA.

In this country, we don't get to choose the representative.

Quote:

lil bit wrote: We choose that candidate because he or she belongs to the party we support. You might, I give it more thought than that. I've even voted for independent candidates in the past.

Even so, you haven't chosen that representative.

You've been provided with one.

Why are you arguing about something so basic?

lil bit wrote:

Clarino wrote: lil bit wrote: Clarino wrote: So? You don't have to vote for any individual you don't want to vote for. YOu get to chose between individuals, you aren't locked in to voting for a party. You can even vote for an independent candidate if you like. But we don't get to choose who they are. Why would you get to choose who a party nominates if you are not a member of said party? Because you are a voter, which is what happens in the USA.

No it isn't. You can only vote in the primaries for one party, the one you register with.

Quote:

In this country, we don't get to choose the representative.

Yes you do, at the election. You don't get to vote on who the party's nominee should be unless you join the party.

Quote:

Quote: lil bit wrote: We choose that candidate because he or she belongs to the party we support. You might, I give it more thought than that. I've even voted for independent candidates in the past. Even so, you haven't chosen that representative.

Yes I have, by voting for them.

Quote:

You've been provided with one.

Provided with an independent? By whom? He made the decision to stand all by himself, what was there to chose besides whether or not to vote for him?

Quote:

Why are you arguing about something so basic?

Because aparently you don't know how elections work.

Clarino wrote:

lil bit wrote: Clarino wrote: lil bit wrote: Clarino wrote: So? You don't have to vote for any individual you don't want to vote for. YOu get to chose between individuals, you aren't locked in to voting for a party. You can even vote for an independent candidate if you like. But we don't get to choose who they are. Why would you get to choose who a party nominates if you are not a member of said party? Because you are a voter, which is what happens in the USA. No it isn't. You can only vote in the primaries for one party, the one you register with.

So, you get to have an input.

Quote:

In this country, we don't get to choose the representative.

Yes you do, at the election. You don't get to vote on who the party's nominee should be unless you join the party.[/quote]

You don't get to choose the candidate in other words.

Quote:

Quote: lil bit wrote: We choose that candidate because he or she belongs to the party we support. You might, I give it more thought than that. I've even voted for independent candidates in the past. Even so, you haven't chosen that representative.

Yes I have, by voting for them.[/quote]

Who didn't choose who it would be!

Quote:

Quote: You've been provided with one. Provided with an independent? By whom? He made the decision to stand all by himself, what was there to chose besides whether or not to vote for him?

You didn't choose that he put himself forward.

Quote:

Quote: Why are you arguing about something so basic? Because aparently you don't know how elections work.

You vote for the candidate supplied.
You don't get to choose who she or he may be.

Showboat wrote:

Grandma Death wrote: Showboat wrote: That interview just makes them look like morons. Yeah funny enough Griffin looked like a moron on QT. Out of his depth, struggling and laughing like an infant. Still they managed to allegedly recruit an extra 3000 members from it. Griffin, collett and the rest of those muppets don't care about how people like you or I view them. They are interested in reaching a target audience by any means possible. I didn't see him on QT. I wasn't in the UK then. But people who I have talked to about it said it looked like a bit of a set up with the intention of ridiculing him. If it really did look like that then he could have gained some sympathy support.

It was a 'set up' for want of a better word. However doesn't change the fact he looked well out of his depth. He simply lacks the articulateness of other politicians despite his apparant educational background.

He described the Klu Klux Klan as non violent!

lil bit wrote:

Clarino wrote: lil bit wrote: Clarino wrote: lil bit wrote: Clarino wrote: So? You don't have to vote for any individual you don't want to vote for. YOu get to chose between individuals, you aren't locked in to voting for a party. You can even vote for an independent candidate if you like. But we don't get to choose who they are. Why would you get to choose who a party nominates if you are not a member of said party? Because you are a voter, which is what happens in the USA. No it isn't. You can only vote in the primaries for one party, the one you register with. So, you get to have an input.

Which is not the same as chosing who the nominees are.

lil bit wrote:

Quote: Quote: In this country, we don't get to choose the representative. Yes you do, at the election. You don't get to vote on who the party's nominee should be unless you join the party. You don't get to choose the candidate in other words.

Of course you don't, that would be ridiculous.

lil bit wrote:

Quote: Quote: Quote: lil bit wrote: We choose that candidate because he or she belongs to the party we support. You might, I give it more thought than that. I've even voted for independent candidates in the past. Even so, you haven't chosen that representative. Yes I have, by voting for them. Who didn't choose who it would be!

That's not even a sentence.

lil bit wrote:

Quote: Quote: You've been provided with one. Provided with an independent? By whom? He made the decision to stand all by himself, what was there to chose besides whether or not to vote for him? You didn't choose that he put himself forward.

Why should I have any say in whether a man stands for election as an independent candidate?

lil bit wrote:

Quote: Quote: Why are you arguing about something so basic? Because aparently you don't know how elections work. You vote for the candidate supplied.

No, I vote for one of several candidates, from all parties and none.

lil bit wrote:

You don't get to choose who she or he may be.

Which is entirely irrelevant. You have options other than the one person one party puts forward. Of course, I can see how you'd struggle to understand that you can vote for other candidates.

Clarino wrote:

lil bit wrote: Clarino wrote: lil bit wrote: Clarino wrote: lil bit wrote: Clarino wrote: So? You don't have to vote for any individual you don't want to vote for. YOu get to chose between individuals, you aren't locked in to voting for a party. You can even vote for an independent candidate if you like. But we don't get to choose who they are. Why would you get to choose who a party nominates if you are not a member of said party? Because you are a voter, which is what happens in the USA. No it isn't. You can only vote in the primaries for one party, the one you register with. So, you get to have an input. Which is not the same as chosing who the nominees are.

But they get to choose from them.

We don't.

Quote:

lil bit wrote: Quote: Quote: In this country, we don't get to choose the representative. Yes you do, at the election. You don't get to vote on who the party's nominee should be unless you join the party. You don't get to choose the candidate in other words. Of course you don't, that would be ridiculous.

Which is what I have been pointing out.

We can only vote for whomever stands.

We don't get to choose who they are.

lil bit wrote:

Quote: Quote: Quote: lil bit wrote: We choose that candidate because he or she belongs to the party we support. You might, I give it more thought than that. I've even voted for independent candidates in the past. Even so, you haven't chosen that representative. Yes I have, by voting for them. Who didn't choose who it would be!

That's not even a sentence.[/quote]

yes it is.

Read it again.

I made it clear the first time.

Quote:

lil bit wrote: Quote: Quote: You've been provided with one. Provided with an independent? By whom? He made the decision to stand all by himself, what was there to chose besides whether or not to vote for him? You didn't choose that he put himself forward. Why should I have any say in whether a man stands for election as an independent candidate?

You claim you can choose the people for whom you vote.

You can only choose from the people named on the polling card.

You don't get to choose whose names will be printed.

Quote:

lil bit wrote: Quote: Quote: Why are you arguing about something so basic? Because aparently you don't know how elections work. You vote for the candidate supplied. No, I vote for one of several candidates, from all parties and none. lil bit wrote: You don't get to choose who she or he may be. Which is entirely irrelevant. You have options other than the one person one party puts forward. Of course, I can see how you'd struggle to understand that you can vote for other candidates.

It's entirely relevent to this particular point. In fact, it's entirely the point.

Once again, we don't choose the people for whom we can vote.

The individual parties choose who will stand in every constituency.

In the case of independent candidates, you didn't choose the independent candidate for whom you voted, did you?

He presented himself. You could only chose one of three (or however many it was) but you couldn't choose who they would be.

That is the point you are arguing against.