Quite a few of the anti-Trump brigade have gone apoplectic. They're so outraged. If only the President elect were an LGBT then all would be well with the World.
I read the news today oh boy! Page 1,858
Quote: zooo @ 9th November 2016, 1:09 PMMore individuals actually voted for Hillary, it looks like.
They just have a bizarre system.
More bizarre than ours? UKIP get 4 million votes and stay with one seat in Parliament. That's bizarre.
On the outcry of a racist sexist pig being pres then please, I'd say most of the world's even recent leaders have been. Trump's just been the most honest one yet to blow away all the false pretense that people are so clearly sick of from politicians.
And he is the best performer of the lot on stage or camera, and that's what we really take notice of, not twaddling bs. Let's hope he illegalizes PC, the real scourge of our age. If that's all he does he'll be the greatest world leader ever.
And surely Clinton blew the Chance to be heir first female president, insulting the Midwest and misreading the mood of half her nation wasn't her best move. And yes, she's been around a long time and many were sick of her already. I'm sounding like a Yankee now. Go Trump woo woo.
So are you for Trump or Clinton? 
I don't get it.
BBC Radio quoted a stat that said that 50% of the US electorate didn't vote.
This would mean that 74% approx. of the US electorate didn't vote for the winner and would be disenfranchised by the result.
Something fundamentally wrong there.
Quote: SSTT @ 13th November 2016, 3:02 PMBBC Radio quoted a stat that said that 50% of the US electorate didn't vote.
This would mean that 74% approx. of the US electorate didn't vote for the winner and would be disenfranchised by the result.
Something fundamentally wrong there.
First of all, statistics can be manipulated to support anything you'd like.
Voter turnout for the election stands at 55.4% and will rise a bit as ballots continue to be tallied. It looks like the last UK election had a turnout of 66.1%. But wait, the two numbers can't be compared, because the UK figure is the percentage of registered voters who voted, while the U.S. figure is the percentage of eligible voters. There are 200 million registered voters in the United States, so with 126 million (and counting) votes, that equates to a 61.3% turnout, which is close to the UK's turnout.
In what is essentially a 2-party system, in a close election the winning party will always have much less than 50% of the citizens' votes, since many of them are underage or not registered. It's just the way that things work. And the system does work, with our leadership switching back and forth on a regular basis, thus preventing a single party from having too much power and keeping us firmly in the middle of the road.
And remember, you can't complain about being disenfranchised if you don't bother to vote in the first place.
I see three prisoners (two rapists and a GBH, all three apparently a risk to the public) have left an open prison behind. I'll not say escaped as how can you escape if you're not actually locked up. It must be frustrating for anybody who wants to escape from an open prison as they are thwarted before they even try. Perhaps the Human Rights experts could look into that as there may be a breach there.
Quote: Frankie Rage @ 14th November 2016, 2:24 PMI see three prisoners (two rapists and a GBH, all three apparently a risk to the public) have left an open prison behind. I'll not say escaped as how can you escape if you're not actually locked up.
I can understand such prisons for people convicted of nonviolent crimes, but for rapists? It makes no sense at all.
It seems that the people who decide these things here don't approve of too much 'locking up' or in having too many prison guards either. As politicians they may feel that they personally have sufficient protection from harm and are far enough removed from any direct consequences - so what's the problem? I can see their point.
Quote: Frankie Rage @ 14th November 2016, 3:16 PMAs politicians they may feel that they personally have sufficient protection from harm and are far enough removed from any direct consequences - so what's the problem? I can see their point.
I'll bet someone who murders or assaults a politician won't be housed in an open prison.
Quote: DaButt @ 14th November 2016, 3:22 PMI'll bet someone who murders or assaults a politician won't be housed in an open prison.
We have such a murder case in process right now - and as you surmised - the accused is being held in a Category A closed prison and is on trial at the 'Old Bailey' which has stringent security and which tries major criminal cases from Greater London; or 'exceptional' cases from outside London. This is one of those 'exceptional' cases.
If found guilty he is likely to be locked up for a long time, I feel.
Surely this can't be true?
Quote: DaButt @ 16th November 2016, 3:00 PMSurely this can't be true?
Mmm.. Mebbe.. but anyway we'll still be able to shout, "Yah boo sucks" at the Ruskies.. (although from a safe distance so they can't hear..)
It does make you wonder what HM Gov actually does with all that f**king tax we pay..
Quote: Frankie Rage @ 16th November 2016, 3:26 PMMmm.. Mebbe.. but anyway we'll still be able to shout, "Yah boo sucks" at the Ruskies.. (although from a safe distance so they can't hear..)
It does make you wonder what HM Gov actually does with all that f**king tax we pay.
Having a navy which can't even fight other naval ships seems like a waste of money.
Yes, a deterrent only works if you have some real muscle behind it.
There may be a time coming where our Navy ships will have the guns but shells will be 'on ration'; but I suppose all the sailors can come up on deck and shout 'bang'. Might fool someone..
It's all getting messy. What are we spending our money on? 
Quote: Frankie Rage @ 16th November 2016, 4:37 PMYes, a deterrent only works if you have some real muscle behind it.
It's all getting messy. What are we spending our money on?
Probably shite, but ask Mrs. Effing May.