Remember the Left?

Skrivet av Al Fappino, 30.06.2017 at 07:40

they don't want to get called to vote for a new government 2 or 3 times a year (like Spain did)

Actually, it felt nice for me. And I fucking wouldn't mind to have to vote yet again.

Skrivet av RaulPB, 30.06.2017 at 08:08

Skrivet av Al Fappino, 30.06.2017 at 07:40

they don't want to get called to vote for a new government 2 or 3 times a year (like Spain did)

Actually, it felt nice for me. And I fucking wouldn't mind to have to vote yet again.

I bet you voted Podemos

Skrivet av Al Fappino, 30.06.2017 at 07:40

Ok, i understand all that, but still, what about voters? For example, i as a party, promised certain things to them, and now when i'm in the parliament, i formed coalition so i can have majority, and that other party force me to make compromise, so now i can't fullfill my promises to my voters.

Thus, the system is still unfair to voters.




I see 2 options to solve that problem:

a) the party collecting most votes on election, gets the parliament 100%, even though they don't get majority of votes on elections (51% + 1 vote)

b) let parties continue to make after-election coalitions, but laws they pass in the parliament need only more than second votes to pass, not 2/3 of the parliament

Option A means one party will rule alone for 4-5 years until next election, option B means laws get to pass easily even parliament is not full with members (if parliament have 500 seats and only 150 showed up, law can still pass even if 149 abstained).

Skrivet av Skanderbeg, 30.06.2017 at 14:06

I see 2 options to solve that problem:

a) the party collecting most votes on election, gets the parliament 100%, even though they don't get majority of votes on elections (51% + 1 vote)

b) let parties continue to make after-election coalitions, but laws they pass in the parliament need only more than second votes to pass, not 2/3 of the parliament

I personally would not encourage to let a single party to rule alone, it seriously becomes a problem when you ignore 40% of the population. Specially when they start passing laws without any negotiation with the rest or, even worse, when they start passing laws they had never talked about nor benefit anyone but themselves, close to having absolute power (spanish case a couple years ago). The ideal would be to have a party negotiate the political programme with the other in order to reach a middle term. If they can't reach any position, then voting again is the solution. This way, if they reach a deal, they can govern peacefully but with a certain balance.

Skrivet av Skanderbeg, 30.06.2017 at 14:06

Skrivet av Al Fappino, 30.06.2017 at 07:40

Ok, i understand all that, but still, what about voters? For example, i as a party, promised certain things to them, and now when i'm in the parliament, i formed coalition so i can have majority, and that other party force me to make compromise, so now i can't fullfill my promises to my voters.

Thus, the system is still unfair to voters.

Catching up on some post but I'll add my opinion of parliamentary systems:

Disclaimer: For my reasoning I am assuming elections are proportional. I understand some (like the UK, not sure about Russia) have a first-past-the-post system but I am going to assume that even in these countries, the parliament is for the most part proportional (even though they can turn out terrible like i the UK in the second to last general election).


Tito, it looks like your main concern is fairness- if a party wins the most votes, should it not be allowed to rule?

What I like about coalition governments is you have a good mix of parties that represent a variety of issues (this can get bad like in the Netherlands where no one has formed a government since elections in March). Personally, I think coalition governments are, for the most part, fair:

****Will be using UK parties for my example****

Let's say Parliament is composed of 100 sears. The Tories (Conservatives) get 40% of the vote and are given 40 seats. Labour gets 30% of the vote and thus 30 seats. Liberal Dems get 20% and 20 seats. Lastly UKIP gets 10% and ten seats.

By your logic (at least I believe this is what you mean), you would argue that the Tories should NOT have to form a coalition- they should either have full control or at the very least more weight in their votes than others.

I would argue both proposals would be flawed- by giving the Tories FULL control, than the government is only representing a minority of the people- 60% of voters are left WITHOUT a voice in government. The second proposal (having a hard time understanding exactly what you mean) sounds to me that the largest party (Tories) would need less than the 2/3 votes necessary to pass legislation. In effect you are saying that the largest party has more voting power than the other parties. In effect, you are also saying that Tory voters in general (the people) have much more representation and power than the 60% of non-Tory voters. What this means is that the Tories, while a plurality, are not the majority (otherwise, they would not need a coalition) and thus the system is where a minority rules over a majority.

With coalition governments, (lets say Tories and Liberal-Dems team up, ie. 60% of votes and 60 seats) you have a government that represents the MAJORITY of people. You have two sides (tories and liberal-dems) representing two large groups of people. You have your base campaign goals (manifesto) and if your party does not get the majority of votes, than your party's platform/manifesto does not represent want MOST people want. Hence, parties in coalition compromise. This way the minority is not ruling over the majority, rather it is he majority working together to better push their country forward.

I think it's also important to note that having one party in power (specifically one with complete control like in option A) over a long period of time tends to cause problems. These includes corruption which can affect all levels of society. I like to look at Italy as an example of this when there were two main parties- Communist and Christian Democrats. The Catholic church always backed the DC (and while they did not openly campaign for the party, they did encourage church goers to vote for a party that "is christian and democratic"). Most church-goers are woman and in effect the CD could always count on, at the very least, woman voting for them. Men would obviously all vote for them too. The DC (Democrazia Cristiana) ruled Italy, alone or in coalition, from 1948 until its 1990-91 collapse under the attack of investigative magistrates (corruption accumulates when there is no alternations of moderate ruling parties). No other party afterwards had the same power as DC and thus the technocrats steered Italy into financial mess including joining the Euro zone the Italys economy was not sufficiently stable enough. 1994 changed this when Berlusconi arrived and taught Italy there was something worse than corruption- institutional paralysis that persist when the supreme leader looks after his own business and his own fun-filled personal life. Hence Italy underwent the socially tragic consequences of prolonged economic stagnation and chronic youth unemployment. Because of the DC's one party rule (and the Catholic Churchs immense influence in the party), at each level of the state bureaucracy the Church, directly or indirectly, exercise its influence on civil-service jobs and promotions; on the allocation of investment funds and of the various kinds of government grants; on administrative decisions dealing with zoning and building regulation. All of these brought the Church, through its influence in a one-party dominated state, many benefits. While the facilities of the state bureaucracy has steadily deteriorated compared with he dynamic private and semi state section, the Catholic Church's educational and religious facilities have steadily expanded; money to build and the permission required to do so have never been lacking.


IN CONCLUSION: Coalition governments are fair as these coalitions represent the majority of people. They compromise because neither party had ideas that sufficiently represented more than half the country. Compromise (which isn't exactly a bad thing) helps bring together a ruling government that represents the majority of people directly.

I would also like to point out that while they represent the majority of people, this does not mean that the minorities should not be respected, ignored, etc. Turkey is an example of a country where the majority vote the AKP into power but they do not help minorities (like the Kurds).

***SORRY for long post but hope I made my points clear enough****



****UPDATE******

I must have skimmed over your explanation of option B (not sure how )

I would agree with this proposal but I don't see how it solves the problem if all members showed up and vote against the ruling/largest party (which party whips will do). Would this still not cause coalitions as parties grouped together to vote on certain proposals to have the upper hand in the governments agenda?

The left has become so degenerate and labels everyone who disagrees to the point that that words like "nazi" which used to have an evil connotation, lost all meaning alothgeter , or became positives

Guy: well, you see, these refugees will end up ruining our countr
Left: you evil nazi, we are antifa!
Guy: erm...you know that muslims/syria/iraq were nazi sympathizers right? why would we be racist towards them, they wanted to be our ally. Furthermore, islam is not a race, islam is a death cult
Left: OMG HOW CAN U BE SO RACIST

it's now clear what agenda hitler fought against. They are openly murdering us. if things keep going like this, history will potray him as a hero all along (provided whites survive)



there was a map i cant find it anymore, showing "minorities". We are so outnumbered it's not even funny. the only minority if you look at the world numbers and distribution is white, found only in europe and North USA, and it's going down

Skrivet av Unleashed., 03.07.2017 at 08:05

Planetary speaking, yes, white color is minority. But whites make 90-95% of European countries, still. While brown, yellow and black colors make 90-95% majority in their own countries, so there is no problem, yet.

That's also a problem to start your game Death of White Race, players refuse to it because muslims occupied Europe (and not because jews controlling Arabia or America as you created, apparently they are fine with it )

Skrivet av Unleashed., 03.07.2017 at 08:05

The left has become so degenerate and labels everyone who disagrees to the point that that words like "nazi" which used to have an evil connotation, lost all meaning alothgeter , or became positives

Guy: well, you see, these refugees will end up ruining our countr
Left: you evil nazi, we are antifa!
Guy: erm...you know that muslims/syria/iraq were nazi sympathizers right? why would we be racist towards them, they wanted to be our ally. Furthermore, islam is not a race, islam is a death cult
Left: OMG HOW CAN U BE SO RACIST

it's now clear what agenda hitler fought against. They are openly murdering us. if things keep going like this, history will potray him as a hero all along (provided whites survive)



there was a map i cant find it anymore, showing "minorities". We are so outnumbered it's not even funny. the only minority if you look at the world numbers and distribution is white, found only in europe and North USA, and it's going down

North usa? You do know the south is still extremly racist right? New Mexico, South Taxas, California, oregon, Washington, Nevada, and Colorado are the only states where whites will become minorities, either do to aggressive migrants, or liberal governments. Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, Georgia and south Carolina are still mostly racist military worshipping confederates xD

Skrivet av Waffel, 03.07.2017 at 17:21

A question for you unleashed, you seem tormented by these notions, if our race is to be eradicated because we challenge the zionist masters, what are you doing to help? As long as we are left in this limbo state of fake peace, where atrocities go unmentioned by the media, where injustice is the only constant, what can we possibly do? It's obvious to me they already crushed our fighting spirit, and filled our lives with sin and false truth. I don't agree with everything, most of you say, especially the fact I hold no animosity twards other races, they are just other pieces on the chess board, same as you and i, I cant hate them, when they don't even relise what is going on. But I sincerely am looking for answers, how do white people win? How do we survive? Is it worth surviving if we lose ourselves in the process? I can not be an accomplice to genocide based on race when 99% of people are innocent of any crime. What do we do in these days leading up to what might be our final chapter?

Skrivet av Helly, 05.07.2017 at 05:11

A question for you unleashed, you seem tormented by these notions, if our race is to be eradicated because we challenge the zionist masters, what are you doing to help? As long as we are left in this limbo state of fake peace, where atrocities go unmentioned by the media, where injustice is the only constant, what can we possibly do? It's obvious to me they already crushed our fighting spirit, and filled our lives with sin and false truth. I don't agree with everything, most of you say, especially the fact I hold no animosity twards other races, they are just other pieces on the chess board, same as you and i, I cant hate them, when they don't even relise what is going on. But I sincerely am looking for answers, how do white people win? How do we survive? Is it worth surviving if we lose ourselves in the process? I can not be an accomplice to genocide based on race when 99% of people are innocent of any crime. What do we do in these days leading up to what might be our final chapter?

We are not challenging them. That ended in 1945. While I don't agree with (national) socialism or any form of it because it sacrifices my individual rights and freedoms, Hitler fought the very same powers that today are flooding europe with rapefugees.

Germany issued debt-free and interest-free money from 1935 and on, accounting for its startling rise from the depression to a world power in 5 years. Germany financed its entire government and war operation from 1935 to 1945 without gold and without debt, and it took the whole Capitalist and Communist world to destroy the German Revolution and bring Europe back under the heel of the Bankers.

First of all, islam is not a race. Islam is a death worshipping cult that only brings death, poverty, and destruction.

The natural response is obviously anger, indignation, desire to wake people up, to show them what is going on, and rightfully so. To tell them the truth, it is openly stated in the quran to spread islam and kill/rape all "infidels", this is not a maybe, it is their goal by default, there are no "moderate muslims", if anything the "extremist" will chop your head off while the moderate will watch and nod.

Now, in Germany, a woman was kicked down the stairs by a bunch of muslims. Your natural response of course is want to fight against these savages. But then you take a look around: if you even dare speak out against it, you will be labelled a "racist" by very same woman you tried to defend. If you want to play that game, go ahead.



and then.....

Police Tracking Racist Who Leaked Video of Migrant Kicking Woman Down Stairs
https://bbs.dailystormer.com/t/police-tracking-racist-who-leaked-video-of-migrant-kicking-woman-down-stairs/70167

Do you really want to fight for people who will spit in your face for standing up for what is right? The media and their owners at this point is a nearly unstoppable machine. For every person we unplug from the matrix, 1 million more get brainwashed, and will hate your guts just for being able to see the truth.

They even attempted to Starve the alt media youtubers who talk about islam, Alex Jones, etc, they REMOVED the ads to cut off their money supply. Youtube really did that.

They are having their revenge for the "holocaust", and this time nobody will stop it, what's worse, they are asking for it and voting for it. That's how brainwashed and cucked your average westerner is. To be honest the US voters surprised me and gave me some hope. But Trump will only delay it, not stop it. There is some hope in the US due to the population being armed, and Eastern Europe will become he new hope if things keep going like this. When they become numerous enough they will attempt to take over. A bloodbath will emerge, and either they get slaughtered, or we do.

You asked, what we can do. The only thing to stop(and maybe, MAYBE save the west) is to Close Down The Borders Right Now, in this very moment as I type.

Can you do that? Can we do that? The only people who can, won't, in fact they are in on the agenda.

So what's the solution? There is no solution. To be aware of the problem is red pill, to be aware of the fact that there is no solution, is the black pill. Take it.

So what we can do (which is what I do) is then focus on yourself as individual, live your life, develop yourself, your abilities, your happiness, cause there is still some time till the shit Really hits the fan. God help those people who will be alive when the civil war stats. By then it will be too late. We tried to warn them.