Free speech, democracy, and all that jazz ...

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

I've told you before, you don't know me, and you are in no position to lecture me on the dangers of religion and religious extremists.

Great way to spin it to the ''how do i make this about ME'' but not quite factual now is it? You came up with some weird ''it's always the white men frame, i just pointed out the source of most of the terrorism in the past 20 years. @AndyRM pointed out one of them was Russian so you white folks frame simply does not add up.

 

[AndyRM]

Great way to spin it to the ''how do i make this about ME'' but not quite factual now is it? You came up with some weird ''it's always the white men frame, i just pointed out the source of most of the terrorism in the past 20 years. @AndyRM pointed out one of them was Russian so you white folks frame simply does not add up.

I didn't mention the colour of his skin, just that the killer was Russian, not French.

 

[Beebo]

The elections in Iran don't seem to have received much coverage?, or, it would appear, much participation on the part of the electorate, almost as bad as the UK.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024...ow-as-conservatives-dominate-irans-parliament

What’s the point when candidates can only stand if approved by the highly conservative religious leaders. Very sad for the people of Iran.

but then the US only get a choice of Biden or Trump, so who’s democracy is better?

 

[matticus]

What’s the point when candidates can only stand if approved by the highly conservative religious leaders. Very sad for the people of Iran.

but then the US only get a choice of Biden or Trump, so who’s democracy is better?

Quite obviously the latter. Democracy is having the choice (when you come down to basics). And if the vast majority reeeeeally wanted neither of them, then neither would have gotten to be President.

 

[Ian H]

Quite obviously the latter. Democracy is having the choice (when you come down to basics). And if the vast majority reeeeeally wanted neither of them, then neither would have gotten to be President.

Quite obviously the latter. Democracy is having the choice (when you come down to basics). And if the vast majority reeeeeally wanted neither of them, then neither would have gotten to be President.

That's not actually true. They're chosen by party machines, and there isn't a box on the ballot paper to vote neither.

 

[RecordAceFromNew]

What’s the point when candidates can only stand if approved by the highly conservative religious leaders. Very sad for the people of Iran.

but then the US only get a choice of Biden or Trump, so who’s democracy is better?

Very sad? I guess the 1953 coup, installation of the Shah's brutal puppet regime, our stealing their oil, and the consequences since haven't worked out as well for them as we had hoped?

Now that both of us are talking about puppetry, I wonder what the Iranians think of the ethnic cleansing on their doorstep? Do you think they might notice certain foreign country has near complete stranglehold over US foreign policy? Or, closer to home, how both countries have stranglehold over both our major parties at the expense of our national interest?

Unless anybody thinks aiding, abetting, or providing cover for genocide for the whole world to see is in any country's national interest, never mind meeting the yardstick of basic decency.

Wot? Did we think the most pervasive, corrosive foreign interference has been by the Russian?

Talking about closer to home...

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politic...-really-represent-brits-priorities-and-values

 

[matticus]

That's not actually true. They're chosen by party machines, and there isn't a box on the ballot paper to vote neither.

The party machines - which in the USA is actually a messy democracy itself, it's not totally behind closed doors - have to choose candidates that stand a chance of being elected.
No practicable system allows everyone to vote for their perfect President!

But anyway: do you think their system is better than Iran's?

 

[Ian H]

The party machines - which in the USA is actually a messy democracy itself, it's not totally behind closed doors - have to choose candidates that stand a chance of being elected.
No practicable system allows everyone to vote for their perfect President!

But anyway: do you think their system is better than Iran's?

Marginally, depending where you live, and the gap appears to be diminishing. https://abcnews.go.com/US/missouri-...g-felony-sex-offender-list/story?id=107803364

 

[the snail]

The party machines - which in the USA is actually a messy democracy itself, it's not totally behind closed doors - have to choose candidates that stand a chance of being elected.
No practicable system allows everyone to vote for their perfect President!

But anyway: do you think their system is better than Iran's?

In many US states you can vote for anybody you like for president, you just write their name on the ballot paper.

 

[Ian H]

In many US states you can vote for anybody you like for president, you just write their name on the ballot paper.

Yebbut, you're not actually voting directly for the president.

 

[albion]

https://amp.theguardian.com/footbal...actics-spotlight-autocratic-creep-in-football

And the big crowds at City and Newcastle tell us that most people turn a blind eye when it suits.

 

[AndyRM]

It's an interesting article but it's not really anything new. Questionable owners have been rinsing clubs and the league for years, and not just in England. Even in Germany with their much admired 50+1 ownership model.

The crowds at Newcastle and City have been massive for years, especially at Newcastle, even in the most miserable of times under Ashley. It's a bit much to expect a club's fanbase to turn their backs, especially when they've got a chance of silverware.

Football boycotts and protests are incredibly tricky things to organise and navigate. I can't think of any that have been wholly successful. We tried one at Killie to oust our previous owner, and only a really dedicated hardcore of about 500 fans (roughly a sixth of our average gate) stayed away as part of it and were given a pretty hard time by those who didn't.

 

[matticus]

https://amp.theguardian.com/footbal...actics-spotlight-autocratic-creep-in-football

And the big crowds at City and Newcastle tell us that most people turn a blind eye when it suits.

Good grief. That is some writing.
"Here we are then, at last. The chrysalis has finally hatched. The thing that was always going to be the thing has now become the thing."

Could you please tell me which bit of that article is The Point? I got tired about 4 paras in when I read this:

"it is hard to decide which is the most nauseating aspect of the whole affair. Perhaps it is the ragbag of populism and hot-button shouting tagged on by City’s lawyers and mouthpieces."

 

[AndyRM]

It was probably written by a disgruntled Chelsea fan, dismayed that following the departure of Abramovic, their new unscrupulous billionaire owner is making a right arse of things.

 

[Beebo]

Referring to the “elites” and the “tyranny of the majority” seem to be the issue.

It’s quite clear that Man city are the elites already. And they don’t like the fact that even a free market has to have some controls.

There has always been a few clubs who were better resourced than others but sport gets very boring if just a few teams dominate at the expense of all the rest just because they can buy the players.