says every democrat since 1970

Waith, 1970?

What happened there?

Probably not that exact year, but round-about. The shift from southern democracy and civil rights.

That early?

DIdnt realise that

when the party gained a lot more voters. yeah, signs point to it.

Realized they could make a voting bloc I assume

Popular vote: One city dictating what a nation should do.

the popular vote is completely useless. it does not even reflect how many people would have voted for each candidate if the president actually would be decided by popular vote

because... why the f**k would i bother to go vote if my vote would be for the republican candidate and i live in california (that goes for any state where it is clear beforehand who is going to win)

im not even a fan of universal sufferage

more of a starship troopers kind of guy? 😄

girl but i get the reference. i dont nessicaraly think the vote should be religated to those who do military service, though that would be a qualifier, though just the same id divide military organization into professional army and milita and either would qualify for a vote but also i think some other national social services could be appropriate. i just think that people should demonstrate their willingness to be responcible with regards to the nation when given the power to have effect on the nation. though youd also have to fix a lot of the other corruption of the democratic system so that votes actually matter too

also its an opt in system not a disqualification system. you can never have your voting rights revoked (though the same limitations put on them that already exist still apply like being a prisoner) however you can choose to opt in at any point in your life after adulthood

problem with "do x to vote" is that you can potentially restrict people from doing x

this would be a system you could not restrict. besides we already technicly do that, you cant vote unless your a citizine, this would simply add another hoop to that, yes it can be corrupted and people will try to corrupt it but people will try to corrupt anything.

basicly the law itself has to change for more restictions to be added than what ive already stated

as what ive stated would be an added restriction

so my statement that its a ssytem you could not restrict isint entirely true because the system is defined as a restriction in of itself

the natural idea of creating any system is that you fine tune it with redudencys to prevent its undermining, however that also means that pointing out how it can be underminded isint an argument against that system unless a solution cant be found to prevent that corruption. but that also means a blanket statement about a system being corruptible can be applied to every system including the status quo so its meaningless without an example given that specifys the exploit

The thing is, you start from the default "no one can vote" while the current system has the default "everyone can vote"* both need exceptions but in my opinion to say "if you do xyz you are disqualified" is the better way to do it because you are punishing bad behavior and are not forcing people to do anything**. Stay out of trouble and you can vote.

*with the limitation of citizens but that is needed

**well... register to vote...

i'm also a firm beliver in having mandatory ID Cards (that are not drivers licenses) for everyone and requiring people to bring them to the voting booth

i rather promote good behavure rather than punish bad behavure, or do both. people respect what they have when they earn it, refusing to do something wrong is only an accomplishment in a world that the pressure to do something wrong is high

you live in a society where the pressure to do something wrong is high 😉

thats not a good society is it?

Well, wrong is subjective

it is, and it isn't 😄

we do in theory enforce a standard of right and wrong on all people we monitor within the country however

still i think that giving some effert for all people in the nation to strive to have the power to control the fate of the nation gives that power more respect and also inspires people to use it more. as you recall theres pretty poor voting turnouts

Dank and sargon are making a huge mistake IMO on joining UKIP

its going to split the vote and Labour actually could have a chance now...

what they SHOULD have done... (IMO) ... is join the liberal democrats and tried bringing them back to their libertarian roots.... also it would be hilarious when people call them far right - and theyre part of what is generally thought of as a far left party

@wacka Theres also the point that who has been at every really? Who has spoken out the loudest from the start? Anne Marie Waters. This is a big slap in the face to her and a massive set back for For Britain. Tommy is good friends with her. I can't see him joining UKIP but I don't know the man.

Sargon 4 UK prime minister

no!

The man got beat by Fisty Splinters. He would have no chance in the House

all of these parties just take votes from the tories ... basically we'll just end up with Labour in power

time to sell your home

buy MREs... they'll be extremely valuable soon

you can trade them in the breadlines

Im in a 5yr fixed mortgage... wonder what the cost of selling up would be :/

So whats UKIP?

In a few words?

A single issue party of getting the UK out of the EU

as it actually is? or how the media and normal folk see it?

As it actually is

If I wanted to see the media slant, ill look into a septic tank

yah basically UK independence party... wants independence

as the media sees it... a far-right racist party

But what is its goals a views beyond that?

@wacka I wouldn't care about splitting the vote. We would end up with a Con/UKIP coalition. Not a bad thing.

Nationalist is one thing

I remember they did this documentary.. a "SERIOUS" documentary on chan4 where the UKIP won the election... and about a year in they were mass deporting any brown person with secret police roaming the streets beating any brown person

UKIP is basically the populist party of the UK

Populist I see

If that word means anything to you

They are not going to will outright any time soon. Thats the best out come we could hope for

And Sargon and Dank both joined up or are being voted for leadership?

heres the trailer... if you want to search for the full thing.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9VSWZamw_E

Joined. It's in a bad shape after everything they wanted happened. What was the point of them. Now Sargon and Dank are going to try and make it into a viable party.

So whats Sargon gonna do with his channel then?

Sounds like alot of extra work

they even had the guy who reads out the election on it.. and david cameron.. it was a serious documentary completely sh*ting on UKIP 😛

UKIP isn't done though since they seem to be the 'anti-SJW' faction of Britain as well. They're for decentralisation of power, small government and absolute free speech. Which is to say they don't believe in hate speech

You know the drill

Free speech absoltist? I like these guys already

they got 4million votes in 2015

Thats not many....

Which part of UK again?

7%

10% of the voting pop

12.6% of the 2015 votes

3rd largest party https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results

And they fucking hated saying that. How I giggled.

they should have gone with liberal democrats

I mean dank and sargon at least... maybe not PJW

PJW is def suited for UKIP .. but sargon and Dank could bring Lib dems back to their libertarian roots

Lib Dem is basically (or at least it was) a libertarian party standing for libertarian values

Got any links to that? They came out of the Labour party

links to what?

That they used to be Libertarians. I've spoken to my granddad about them and he never mentioned anything like that.

why do you think they are called liberal democrats?

sounds more appealing

"the Democrats" are socialists in america
"The labor party" in any country cares little for its labor people
"Peoples Republic" tends to be communist dictatorships

with sargon and dank running it, it would be libertarian

wouldnt UKIP become that too then though?

It' about optics though. They've spent years saying they arem't far right.

yeah the media wouldnt even have to call them far right anymore... just need to say - oh these guys are UKIP

and people (normal people) would just assume far-right

whereas lib dem has always been seen as lefty

centre-left

and lately heading towards far-left.. but I wouldnt say they are there yet

so the media would have to explicitly say "far-right youtubers have joined lib dems" which to normal people wouldnt make any sense at all

but wouldnt they just change the narrative?

Lib-dems no longer to be trusted since they're being co-opted by far right extremist, nazi loving my soggy knee white supremacist dogwhistlers

that just wouldnt make sense to normal people... because their policies would mostly be the same

And they already have the members with alot of cross over in UKIP

you assume normal people know their policies

well.. they would when the MSM starts talking about them