Europe can Stop Lecturing Us Now...

Equating a nation to a home is obscene. A home is much more than a nation, and it is protected by rights. All a nation does is infringe on rights. If an immigrant owns land, he owns it, it doesn't matter if you hate the color of his skin or the fact that he does your job better than you, it's not like he's forcing anything on anyone.

You should be preaching to those Americans forming armed militias on the Mexican border, WM.

As I said, you don't get such armed militias in Europe...
 
AnyOldIron said:
The immigrants are that way because Europeans refuse to accomadate them and hate them.

Have you ever been to Europe, Watermark?

We have huge immigrant populations in the UK and EU and the vast majority are accomodated well. The 'hate' is reserved for the right only, the vast majority of Europeans feel no hate for immigrants.

I might remind you of the 'irrationality' involved with Americans whenever Mexicans loom on the horizon.

You don't get armed militias forming in Europe to fight away immigrants....
Click to expand...

Ridiculous. Anti-immigration sentiment is MUCH greater in Europe than America, and no one simply wants immigrate to most of your continent because it's not a great place to live. We're the only place with signifigant population growth in the developed world because of this, and the only place that can really compete with China in the next 100 years because of this. The EU is going to continue to shrink.

Whatever immigrants you guys do have you hate. At least we don't form entire parties around immigrant hate.
 
And the militia doesn't "fight immigrants away". It informs the border guard whenever they see some. I personally think it's a waste of time, but hey, different strokes for different folks...
 
The British national party... The national democrats... the national front...

We don't have parties like this in the US, especially ones that are poised to win seats. Even in the FPP democracies like yours and the French there are parties like this (The BNP and the FN).
 
Well this is what you get with proportional representation, the upside is supposed to be that you get more representation than the 2 big parties, but it hasn't made much difference in Germany with Social and Christian Democrats taking the vast majority of the support and seats.
 
AnyOldIron said:
Equating a nation to a home is obscene. A home is much more than a nation, and it is protected by rights. All a nation does is infringe on rights. If an immigrant owns land, he owns it, it doesn't matter if you hate the color of his skin or the fact that he does your job better than you, it's not like he's forcing anything on anyone.

You should be preaching to those Americans forming armed militias on the Mexican border, WM.

As I said, you don't get such armed militias in Europe...
Click to expand...
HAHAHAHA,
IRA, Basque seperatists, any number of countries in Eastern Europe with Ethnic strife and militias.
And at least "those Americans" follow the laws of their nation without murdering anyone with bombs and shit.
 
TheDanold said:
Well this is what you get with proportional representation, the upside is supposed to be that you get more representation than the 2 big parties, but it hasn't made much difference in Germany with Social and Christian Democrats taking the vast majority of the support and seats.
Click to expand...

France? France has a single-member district, presidential system. It's a multi-party system, however, by some odd swing of events. I assume one of the main reasons the US has little third party activity is because the parties let their member do whatever they want basically - in most European in other democracies, party disicpline is very tight, so in order to have different opinions you HAVE to make another party.
 
Oh, you're talking about Germany...

In Germany it's actually very difficult to get your party into the parliament, especially a radical one, because they have a very high threshold for representation. It's sort of a moderate mix in between ours and the radical PR systems. This specific party just happens to have lots of support in that nation. Neo-nazi's have much support in Europe that the don't have in the US.

It's more to do with the culture that the party got elected than the "evils" of the system, and anyway they make up nowhere near enough to hold real legislative power.

I've critiscized the single-member district system in the past for narrowing down political thought and the citizenry into a mere game... this has lead to the fading of some ideolgies that would otherwise be strong - such as classical liberals, who have parties in all PR nations but don't exist and can't wield any power whatsoever in "majoritarian" nations. How can you have a majority if you have a system that practically throws away the ballots of the minority? You can't.
 
Watermark said:
Oh, you're talking about Germany...

In Germany it's actually very difficult to get your party into the parliament, especially a radical one, because they have a very high threshold for representation. It's sort of a moderate mix in between ours and the radical PR systems. This specific party just happens to have lots of support in that nation. Neo-nazi's have much support in Europe that the don't have in the US.

It's more to do with the culture that the party got elected than the "evils" of the system, and anyway they make up nowhere near enough to hold real legislative power.

I've critiscized the single-member district system in the past for narrowing down political thought and the citizenry into a mere game... this has lead to the fading of some ideolgies that would otherwise be strong - such as classical liberals, who have parties in all PR nations but don't exist and can't wield any power whatsoever in "majoritarian" nations. How can you have a majority if you have a system that practically throws away the ballots of the minority? You can't.
Click to expand...
You have to remember these are individual reps of various districts. If the Green Party polls 4% nationwide, yet doesn't have enough majority votes in even a single district than why should they have representation? Their is no single district that desired to have a Green Party rep.
It would be far better to push for decentralization and let states or even better communities (where you can more easily have majority of people say Green or Libertarian) and they can govern themselves. This was the original thinking of the founders anyway.

"I believe the states can best govern our home concerns and the federal government our foreign ones." – Thomas Jefferson
 
TheDanold said:
You have to remember these are individual reps of various districts. If the Green Party polls 4% nationwide, yet doesn't have enough majority votes in even a single district than why should they have representation? Their is no single district that desired to have a Green Party rep.
It would be far better to push for decentralization and let states or even better communities (where you can more easily have majority of people say Green or Libertarian) and they can govern themselves. This was the original thinking of the founders anyway.

"I believe the states can best govern our home concerns and the federal government our foreign ones." – Thomas Jefferson
Click to expand...



Without the minority, you cannot have a majority.

Here, let me give you this exeample:

10 1 member districts with 1000 voters

50% of the vote required to get each district - 50 votes to get elected.

25% of the vote required to get a majority of seats. So you have a sub-majority of 250 people "representing" the entire populace.

With 1 ten member district each person needs 100 votes to get elected. 50% of the vote equals a majority of the seats.

Therefore, single districts lower the threshold to get elected, while PR raises it.


Proportions are important.
 
But a party with 4% of the vote couldn't get into German parliament in any case, nor could it get into most countries parliaments.

If I want to vote for a local candidate, let me do it. Don't force me to.
 
Anyway, do you believe that it would be altogether correct to have a party with 30% of the vote get no seats, and two other parties with 35% of the vote get seats just because they happened to have 50% in several random areas? Is it right to allow those people who happened to be lucky enough to live in those districts run the country, running over the other 30%, simply because they got 50% in a few damn districts?
 
Watermark said:
The immigrants are that way because Europeans refuse to accomadate them and hate them. Can't you see that violence not only happens to white Christians, but exists in cycles?
Click to expand...

They don't WANT to fit in, you fucking retarded goon, they want to force europe under shariah law, and the totalitarians love it.

I'm glad some nationalists won. I'm glad some people exist who think non brown people also deserve a nation devoted to their well-being.
 
AssHatZombie said:
They don't WANT to fit in, you fucking retarded goon, they want to force europe under shariah law, and the totalitarians love it.

I'm glad some nationalists won. I'm glad some people exist who think non brown people also deserve a nation devoted to their well-being.
Click to expand...


Yeah! White Power!

:cheer: :cheer: :cheer:
 
AssHatZombie said:
They don't WANT to fit in, you fucking retarded goon, they want to force europe under shariah law, and the totalitarians love it.

I'm glad some nationalists won. I'm glad some people exist who think non brown people also deserve a nation devoted to their well-being.
Click to expand...

What?

AssHat, I can't believe you dug a thread this old up. Get a life.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top