Is Trump going to make president?

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Is Trump going to make president?

Page 47 of 66 < 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 >

Hoof Hearted 08 Feb 17 11.20am
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 1.8m is certainly enough to have it debated in parliament (500,000), and I think it kind of displays that people here aren't happy with him. It may well be sufficient numbers to debate in Parliament, but at the end of the day will have as much bearing as the debate about naming that ship Boaty MacBoatface! Some of the public spend their lives demonstrating and compiling petitions. The majority of the public let it wash over them and move on.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hoof Hearted 08 Feb 17 11.20am

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

1.8m is certainly enough to have it debated in parliament (500,000), and I think it kind of displays that people here aren't happy with him.

It may well be sufficient numbers to debate in Parliament, but at the end of the day will have as much bearing as the debate about naming that ship Boaty MacBoatface!

Some of the public spend their lives demonstrating and compiling petitions.

The majority of the public let it wash over them and move on.

Alert a moderator to this post

OknotOK Cockfosters, London 08 Feb 17 11.41am
Originally posted by Hoof Hearted How so? You can't fault the maths! Firstly - not everyone of that £xxmln people are eligible to sign the petition so it wouldn't be 3% Secondly - it implies that everyone thinks that is the only way of expressing dissatisfaction with the specifics. As you and Hrolf suggested some people think signing petitions are frankly pathetic. I know plenty of people who are completely opposed to Trump and his policies but haven't signed the petition (indeed I haven't signed it). Thirdly - it implies everyone is equally informed and knows about it. Which is fairly obviously not true (although I suppose you could make a reasonable argument that if they aren't informed about it then they are likely to be the sort of people who aren't massively bothered about politics/Trump in general). Fourthly - it implies that petitioning to keep Trump out of the country equals being against him. Lots of people believe in freedom of speech and that just because they don't agree with someone, they should still be able to come to this country. In other words, the people signing a petition saying they want to keep Trump out are definitely not the only ones who don't agree with his policies. Frankly it was a risible suggestion that because 1.8m people have signed a petition, that these are the only people either bothered about or anti Trump. I wouldn't use the "pro Trump" visit petition as a justification for how many people supported him either. The numbers were I think in the couple of hundred thousands. Yougov polling released yesterday showed that a minority of the UK believe in applying restrictions in line with the US proposals (although only by a slim amount - 47:53). It is fairly clear that 97% do not either agree with Trump or don't care. Edited by OknotOK (08 Feb 2017 11.46am) "It's almost like a moral decision. Except not really cos noone is going to find out," Jez, Peep Show
Alert a moderator to this post

OknotOK

Cockfosters, London 08 Feb 17 11.41am

Originally posted by Hoof Hearted

How so?

You can't fault the maths!

Firstly - not everyone of that £xxmln people are eligible to sign the petition so it wouldn't be 3%

Secondly - it implies that everyone thinks that is the only way of expressing dissatisfaction with the specifics. As you and Hrolf suggested some people think signing petitions are frankly pathetic. I know plenty of people who are completely opposed to Trump and his policies but haven't signed the petition (indeed I haven't signed it).

Thirdly - it implies everyone is equally informed and knows about it. Which is fairly obviously not true (although I suppose you could make a reasonable argument that if they aren't informed about it then they are likely to be the sort of people who aren't massively bothered about politics/Trump in general).

Fourthly - it implies that petitioning to keep Trump out of the country equals being against him. Lots of people believe in freedom of speech and that just because they don't agree with someone, they should still be able to come to this country. In other words, the people signing a petition saying they want to keep Trump out are definitely not the only ones who don't agree with his policies.

Frankly it was a risible suggestion that because 1.8m people have signed a petition, that these are the only people either bothered about or anti Trump.

I wouldn't use the "pro Trump" visit petition as a justification for how many people supported him either. The numbers were I think in the couple of hundred thousands.

Yougov polling released yesterday showed that a minority of the UK believe in applying restrictions in line with the US proposals (although only by a slim amount - 47:53). It is fairly clear that 97% do not either agree with Trump or don't care.

Edited by OknotOK (08 Feb 2017 11.46am)

"It's almost like a moral decision. Except not really cos noone is going to find out," Jez, Peep Show

Alert a moderator to this post

Hoof Hearted 08 Feb 17 11.49am
Originally posted by OknotOK Firstly - not everyone of that £xxmln people are eligible to sign the petition so it wouldn't be 3% Secondly - it implies that everyone thinks that is the only way of expressing dissatisfaction with the specifics. As you and Hrolf suggested some people think signing petitions are frankly pathetic. I know plenty of people who are completely opposed to Trump and his policies but haven't signed the petition (indeed I haven't signed it). Thirdly - it implies everyone is equally informed and knows about it. Which is fairly obviously not true (although I suppose you could make a reasonable argument that if they aren't informed about it then they are likely to be the sort of people who aren't massively bothered about politics/Trump in general). Fourthly - it implies that petitioning to keep Trump out of the country equals being against him. Lots of people believe in freedom of speech and that just because they don't agree with someone, they should still be able to come to this country. In other words, the people signing a petition saying they want to keep Trump out are definitely not the only ones who don't agree with his policies. Frankly it was a risible suggestion that because 1.8m people have signed a petition, that these are the only people either bothered about or anti Trump. I wouldn't use the "pro Trump" visit petition as a justification for how many people supported him either. The numbers were I think in the couple of hundred thousands. Yougov polling released yesterday showed that a minority of the UK believe in applying restrictions in line with the US proposals (although only by a slim amount - 47:53). Edited by OknotOK (08 Feb 2017 11.43am) Is that all you've got? LOL Seriously though, you were going well till you mentioned Yougov.... Their recent track record on polling would lead me to believe the opposite of what their poll results are indicating with a much higher margin.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hoof Hearted 08 Feb 17 11.49am

Originally posted by OknotOK

Firstly - not everyone of that £xxmln people are eligible to sign the petition so it wouldn't be 3%

Frankly it was a risible suggestion that because 1.8m people have signed a petition, that these are the only people either bothered about or anti Trump.

I wouldn't use the "pro Trump" visit petition as a justification for how many people supported him either. The numbers were I think in the couple of hundred thousands.

Yougov polling released yesterday showed that a minority of the UK believe in applying restrictions in line with the US proposals (although only by a slim amount - 47:53).

Edited by OknotOK (08 Feb 2017 11.43am)

Is that all you've got?

LOL

Seriously though, you were going well till you mentioned Yougov.... Their recent track record on polling would lead me to believe the opposite of what their poll results are indicating with a much higher margin.

Alert a moderator to this post

OknotOK Cockfosters, London 08 Feb 17 11.50am
Originally posted by Hoof Hearted Is that all you've got? LOL Seriously though, you were going well till you mentioned Yougov.... Their recent track record on polling would lead me to believe the opposite of what their poll results are indicating with a much higher margin. Fair point "It's almost like a moral decision. Except not really cos noone is going to find out," Jez, Peep Show
Alert a moderator to this post

OknotOK

Cockfosters, London 08 Feb 17 11.50am

Originally posted by Hoof Hearted

Is that all you've got?

LOL

Fair point

"It's almost like a moral decision. Except not really cos noone is going to find out," Jez, Peep Show

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 08 Feb 17 11.51am
Originally posted by Hoof Hearted It may well be sufficient numbers to debate in Parliament, but at the end of the day will have as much bearing as the debate about naming that ship Boaty MacBoatface! Some of the public spend their lives demonstrating and compiling petitions. The majority of the public let it wash over them and move on. Yeah, but if you're going to have petitions that the government will 'discuss in parliment', then when the threshold is passed, it has to be done. What people who didn't respond or act want, is supposition, what is important, is that a threshold was suppassed, and as a result notice must be taken. What you, or I think of the general public, and I'm pretty sure my personal view is more cynical and depressing than yours, its democracy in action. And yes, it should have been called Boaty McBoatface - Because that's what happens when your stupid enough to let 'the general public have their say'. Calling it that would serve as a permanent reminder as to why people don't ask these kinds of questions, or set a reasonable restriction or bench mark. If petitions are being heard at 500,000 respondents, then the government really should be punished for setting its threshold so low, by actually have to do follow through (Until they're sensible enough to publish limitations on petitions or raise the threshold to a sensible level). Problem of this world, people make dumb and stupid decisions, that they aren't held accountable for. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 08 Feb 17 11.51am

Originally posted by Hoof Hearted

It may well be sufficient numbers to debate in Parliament, but at the end of the day will have as much bearing as the debate about naming that ship Boaty MacBoatface!

Some of the public spend their lives demonstrating and compiling petitions.

The majority of the public let it wash over them and move on.

Yeah, but if you're going to have petitions that the government will 'discuss in parliment', then when the threshold is passed, it has to be done. What people who didn't respond or act want, is supposition, what is important, is that a threshold was suppassed, and as a result notice must be taken.

What you, or I think of the general public, and I'm pretty sure my personal view is more cynical and depressing than yours, its democracy in action.

And yes, it should have been called Boaty McBoatface - Because that's what happens when your stupid enough to let 'the general public have their say'. Calling it that would serve as a permanent reminder as to why people don't ask these kinds of questions, or set a reasonable restriction or bench mark.

If petitions are being heard at 500,000 respondents, then the government really should be punished for setting its threshold so low, by actually have to do follow through (Until they're sensible enough to publish limitations on petitions or raise the threshold to a sensible level).

Problem of this world, people make dumb and stupid decisions, that they aren't held accountable for.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Hoof Hearted 08 Feb 17 11.54am
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 Yeah, but if you're going to have petitions that the government will 'discuss in parliment', then when the threshold is passed, it has to be done. What people who didn't respond or act want, is supposition, what is important, is that a threshold was suppassed, and as a result notice must be taken. What you, or I think of the general public, and I'm pretty sure my personal view is more cynical and depressing than yours, its democracy in action. And yes, it should have been called Boaty McBoatface - Because that's what happens when your stupid enough to let 'the general public have their say'. Calling it that would serve as a permanent reminder as to why people don't ask these kinds of questions, or set a reasonable restriction or bench mark. If petitions are being heard at 500,000 respondents, then the government really should be punished for setting its threshold so low, by actually have to do follow through (Until they're sensible enough to publish limitations on petitions or raise the threshold to a sensible level). Problem of this world, people make dumb and stupid decisions, that they aren't held accountable for. But....Can we call Trump "Hairy MacHairpiece"? He suggests he has Scottish Ancestry?
Alert a moderator to this post

Hoof Hearted 08 Feb 17 11.54am

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

What you, or I think of the general public, and I'm pretty sure my personal view is more cynical and depressing than yours, its democracy in action.

Problem of this world, people make dumb and stupid decisions, that they aren't held accountable for.

But....Can we call Trump "Hairy MacHairpiece"?

He suggests he has Scottish Ancestry?

Alert a moderator to this post

.TUX. 08 Feb 17 12.11pm
In other IOUSA news........ Every year around this time the US federal government releases an annual financial report to the public. [Link] To cut a very long story short, according to this year’s report, the government’s net loss “more than doubled, increasing $533.2 billion (103.7%) during [Fiscal Year] 2016 to $1.0 trillion.” After adding up all of its assets (like tanks, aircraft carriers, government buildings, etc etc.) and subtracting liabilities (the national debt), the government’s “net worth” was MINUS $19.3 trillion at the close of the 2016 fiscal year. That’s worse than 2015’s NEGATIVE $18.2 trillion, which was worse than 2014’s NEGATIVE $17.7 trillion, which was worse than 2013’s NEGATIVE $16.9 trillion. The IOUSA is fooked, plain and simple. Buy Litecoin.
Alert a moderator to this post

.TUX.

08 Feb 17 12.11pm

In other IOUSA news........

Every year around this time the US federal government releases an annual financial report to the public.
[Link]

To cut a very long story short, according to this year’s report, the government’s net loss “more than doubled, increasing $533.2 billion (103.7%) during [Fiscal Year] 2016 to $1.0 trillion.”
After adding up all of its assets (like tanks, aircraft carriers, government buildings, etc etc.) and subtracting liabilities (the national debt), the government’s “net worth” was MINUS $19.3 trillion at the close of the 2016 fiscal year.
That’s worse than 2015’s NEGATIVE $18.2 trillion, which was worse than 2014’s NEGATIVE $17.7 trillion, which was worse than 2013’s NEGATIVE $16.9 trillion.

The IOUSA is fooked, plain and simple.

Buy Litecoin.

Alert a moderator to this post

OknotOK Cockfosters, London 08 Feb 17 12.25pm
Originally posted by Hoof Hearted But....Can we call Trump "Hairy MacHairpiece"? He suggests he has Scottish Ancestry? If I start a petition saying Trump should be allowed to address parliament but only if the speaker refers to him as "Hairy McHairpiece" at every available chance would you sign? "It's almost like a moral decision. Except not really cos noone is going to find out," Jez, Peep Show
Alert a moderator to this post

OknotOK

Cockfosters, London 08 Feb 17 12.25pm

Originally posted by Hoof Hearted

But....Can we call Trump "Hairy MacHairpiece"?

He suggests he has Scottish Ancestry?

If I start a petition saying Trump should be allowed to address parliament but only if the speaker refers to him as "Hairy McHairpiece" at every available chance would you sign?

"It's almost like a moral decision. Except not really cos noone is going to find out," Jez, Peep Show

Alert a moderator to this post

Jimenez SELHURSTPARKCHESTER,DA BRONX 08 Feb 17 12.31pm
Originally posted by Hoof Hearted But....Can we call Trump "Hairy MacHairpiece"? He suggests he has Scottish Ancestry? He's probably more Scottish than Kermit in fairness!! Pro USA & Israel
Alert a moderator to this post

Jimenez

SELHURSTPARKCHESTER,DA BRONX 08 Feb 17 12.31pm

Originally posted by Hoof Hearted

But....Can we call Trump "Hairy MacHairpiece"?

He suggests he has Scottish Ancestry?

He's probably more Scottish than Kermit in fairness!!

Pro USA & Israel

Alert a moderator to this post

hedgehog50 Croydon 08 Feb 17 12.40pm
Originally posted by Jimenez He's probably more Scottish than Kermit in fairness!! You mean Hoary MacMouthpiece? We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]
Alert a moderator to this post

hedgehog50

Croydon 08 Feb 17 12.40pm

Originally posted by Jimenez

He's probably more Scottish than Kermit in fairness!!

You mean Hoary MacMouthpiece?

We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 08 Feb 17 2.21pm
Originally posted by Hoof Hearted But....Can we call Trump "Hairy MacHairpiece"? He suggests he has Scottish Ancestry? Know terrorists, who have a reputation for historical attacks as far south as York. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 08 Feb 17 2.21pm

Originally posted by Hoof Hearted

But....Can we call Trump "Hairy MacHairpiece"?

He suggests he has Scottish Ancestry?

Know terrorists, who have a reputation for historical attacks as far south as York.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 08 Feb 17 2.26pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 Know terrorists, who have a reputation for historical attacks as far south as York. As far south as Wembley. They can stick Mel Gibson up their kilts. Jock McTrump better wise up on what he aligns with. Red necks are one thing, but the Scots?
Alert a moderator to this post