Look at What Happens to Peaceful Protesters in the States

That’s the point.

Are there rules that govern a candidate must have a minimum %’age of the vote to be a winner?...otherwise the ballot is considered void?

Since, if the “99%” wish to make a difference and get their voice heard, it’s simple. (assuming one can cast a non-vote as such).

If the number of people who vote represent the majority, as the 99% imply, and if they all cast a non-vote, or “invalid”, what would occur?. When the officer reads out votes cast and then there is a huge %’age of non-votes and say 1% for, whomever, that candidate will have been elected on a seriously small minority of the votes cast.

If this occurs across the whole nation…you’ll end up with “elected candidates” but do not represent the majority of the electorate at all, not by a long shot. This is the most serious message you can send. This addresses democracy to its core.

Or...It could still end up a status quo, just with smaller numbers!.

But how do you think the wider ‘audience’ (inc international) will react to such mind blowing figures, that an elected candidate having less than a few % of the whole populations' votes, yet be in power? If that doesn’t cause or prompt “change” of sorts then it is clear, nothing shall. Well, nothing that the “99%” would like to be changed. Save for a riot or civil war…

 

There are many countries where rulers have very low support. And some where the ruling party had > 100% (e.g. Albania).

If the scenario you described occurred in the US then, yes, there would be a huge outcry. On Facebook.

 

Thanks for the link, Fanie.

http://genocidewatch.org/

 

The left has tried to "fix" this country the same way a veterinarian would "fix" a dog.

 

Capitalism did not cause global warming, but thermo nukes will, followed by nuke winter.

 

So what you are saying is good will come after bad. I'll get my lead lined overcoat from the cleaners.

 

no but what did cause it, at least in part, was the oil and gas industry's billions spent on bribing politicians/campaign contributions, who then acted, and legislated in the oil and gas companies better interests, instead of ours. Which is exactly the kinda thing this thread is all about.

 

It doesn't help to define everyone and everything you disagree with as part of some monolithic evil 'left,' Hoyt. When you do that, you're also defining yourself as part of an irrational right...

When I start trying to sort out left vs. right, liberal vs. conservative, etc. in this country, I'm struck by how backward-looking a lot of self-identified conservatives seem to be. They spend their time yearning for the good old days that never were and wanting to drag us back there, instead of looking forward for better days to come.


Personally, I wouldn't want to go back to the good old days. With all its faults and uncertain future, I'd rather be alive here and now in this country than at any time in the past.

 

I've updated a page on my 'Truth About South Africa' and the genocide taking place here. I'm sure you will find it applicable.
http://www.faze.co.za/South Africa Truth/Genocide on SA Whites.htm

the other pages about SA is here
http://www.faze.co.za/South Africa Truth/Index Page.htm

To check if who you vote for is ligit ask them to express their attitude towards the public being armed and if they are committed to protecting your rights.

Two simple questions - that tells it all !

 

That relates so well to the following stuff - it is something at the borderline between hilarious and depressing:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ollings-anger-brainwashing-MUPPETS-movie.html

And this is the best reaction I've read so far:
http://www.screenjunkies.com/video/...-muppet-caper-braining-washing-your-children/

 

Almost all groups have vilified he opposition to dehumanize them. In a similar vein oil has been portrayed as something "unnatural" when it is an organic compound.

 

I like that one.
My current favourite is from a park ranger in Kenya who was complaining indignantly that an erupting volcano was "destroying the environment".

 

But that is the problem, pigeonholing or labelling people/things/ideas etc.

As soon you place a person into a category it is easy to manipulate said category to be either positive or negative, depending upon where "you" view said category. Beit religion, politics, race etc etc. It just plays into those with the power to manipulate.

If person A walks down the street and passes by person B, can person A tell that B is a right-wing activist or that person A is a left win activist....no. Do they wear signs on their clothes saying..."I am left wing" or "I am right wing"...or even "I am HIV positive" etc, no.

If not why not??..and then ask that same question again before you categories others with such labels, but in conversation.

Everything must be treated on its merits, not with a hint of bias, myopia or conspiracy etc. Because as soon as you do, you've lost your argument and any chance of a meaningful debate on on subject without fear (you can define that as you see fit) and, by some, persecution.

Debate should be without limits or labels.

 

I have two criteria for deciding someone is a right-wing conservative:

1. He identifies himself as a right-wing conservative.

2. He identifies me as a left-wing liberal, for daring to disagree with anything he says or believes.

Fairly simple system of classification, I'd say.... Anyone who wants extra feathers awarded for his right-wing status can simply tell me he's a 'real' American, and accuse me of hating America.

 

If I voice my opinion I'm an activist for the right. As far as I am concerned I am down the middle of the road, with NAZI's with nationalist socialists and Jew haters on the far right and Communists and more Jew haters on the far left. At least I am an activist (simply by voicing my opinion) without violence and looting, vandalism and impeding the flow of traffic. Can the left or right make such a claim?