Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > Today's News > Politics / Elections

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 28-07-2016, 03:20 PM   #21
grandmasterp
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: The SkegVegas Coast
Posts: 31,797
Likes: 2,579 (1,692 Posts)
Default

St Jimmy you are wrong, your reading of wiki is wrong and the Privy Council can't make laws, neither can the Queen.
Laws are made and enacted in Parliament.
The Royal Assent is the Queen signing laws off- ceremonially.
She can't say "No" to anything.
She neither appoints nor can she fire Prime Ministers. She 'receives' new Prime Ministers. The ruling party appoints the Prime Minister.
The ruling party is the one that got the most votes at the last general election.
Done with you now - it aint my job to educate you and no way am I your therapist.

Last edited by grandmasterp; 28-07-2016 at 03:22 PM.
grandmasterp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-07-2016, 03:24 PM   #22
st jimmy
Senior Member
 
st jimmy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 2,086
Likes: 1,393 (829 Posts)
Default

I repeat
Quote:
Originally Posted by st jimmy View Post
I agree that at least one of us is delusioned...
Likes: (1)
st jimmy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-07-2016, 03:26 PM   #23
grandmasterp
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: The SkegVegas Coast
Posts: 31,797
Likes: 2,579 (1,692 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by st jimmy View Post
I repeat
Only correct statement you've made thus far is buddy.
grandmasterp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-07-2016, 03:53 PM   #24
vancity eagle
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 10,492
Likes: 4,415 (2,493 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kizzie View Post
Bernie thought by endorsing Clinton it was in the bag. But many are now pushing for Jill.
I like a lot of what she and the green party stand for. I believe they even advocated to nationalize the federal reserve.

Real leftists need to leave the democratic party behind so it can be utterly exposed as the corporatist party that it is and it can just die.

A lot of Bernie supporters are not going to vote for Hillary and this is good. Fuck Hillary and all the fake leftists out there, who just think they have certain demographics locked down because they think they wont vote Republican.

Splinter the democratic party and keep wallstreet out.

Also if Bernie wasn't a shill , he would have joined Jill Stein, I believe she even asked him to join her party and run as the candidate. He refused and endorsed Hitlery.

Last edited by vancity eagle; 28-07-2016 at 03:55 PM.
Likes: (3)
vancity eagle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-07-2016, 04:17 PM   #25
noncooperation
Senior Member
 
noncooperation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Europe GMT+1
Posts: 4,302
Likes: 617 (403 Posts)
Default

very few people seem to really understand the concept and benifits of NOT VOTING - a bit sad.
__________________
.

There 'should be' 1000's of REAL, high quality photograph's of earth from space/moon all over the internet - WHERE ARE THEY?!
Likes: (1)
noncooperation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-07-2016, 05:29 PM   #26
kizzie
Registered Users
 
kizzie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Hertfordshire UK
Posts: 5,486
Likes: 3,707 (1,806 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by noncooperation View Post
very few people seem to really understand the concept and benifits of NOT VOTING - a bit sad.
Oh but we do, its just that the people more likely to vote are Tory voters . So if we don't try to change the government by voting ourselfs then we really don't have any chance at all .

Change is coming, just in case its through Corbyn I shall be voting.. Who knows maybe telling us that voting does not work could be a lie tptb put out there
We need to be proactive right now. I can feel it in me water.
__________________
When you stop watching what they want you to watch you stop thinking what they want you to think.. Then you see a world that is nothing like they tell you it is.
Likes: (2)
kizzie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-07-2016, 06:52 PM   #27
lavendersky
Senior Member
 
lavendersky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Here, there, and everywhere!
Posts: 1,088
Likes: 750 (332 Posts)
Default

I agree, I just don't understand how the American people can vote for either one of these idiots.The mudslinging media circus is a joke and they are blatantly thumbing their noses at the rest of us.But then I don't want Obama in office any longer either, though I am sure he would love some more time to fuck up this country. I am hoping in the coming months the people of this country will snap out of the daze they are in and see this government for what it really is. Enough is enough.

BTW, lizards are very gentle and curious creatures. I spend a lot of time around them since they are everywhere here where I live.
lavendersky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-07-2016, 10:37 PM   #28
alfredo79
Senior Member
 
alfredo79's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Italy
Posts: 3,141
Likes: 1,085 (679 Posts)
Default

In US half of population does not go to vote. I hope this time a 60% of abstension at least.
Likes: (1)
alfredo79 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-07-2016, 12:02 AM   #29
bendoon
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 12,954
Likes: 1,346 (693 Posts)
Default

Anyone who doesn't vote is helping to maintain the status quo.
__________________
The Beast from the sea with 7 heads, 10 horns and 10 crowns has been wounded to one of the heads, the 2 horned beast from the earth commanded us to worship the 7 headed beast but on 23rd June 2016 we said no.


Don't forget, everything is foretold you just need to have the eyes to see and the ears to hear.
Likes: (1)
bendoon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-07-2016, 02:02 AM   #30
vancity eagle
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 10,492
Likes: 4,415 (2,493 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bendoon View Post
Anyone who doesn't vote is helping to maintain the status quo.
Not if there isn't a viable option, which in the case of the US there isn't. Not the Republicans and the Democrats anyways.

Voting between corporate warmonger 1 and corporate warmonger 2 IS MAINTAINING THE STATUS QUO.

Exposing the fraud is at least trying to move beyond it.
Likes: (2)
vancity eagle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-07-2016, 02:14 AM   #31
sevenhills
Senior Member
 
sevenhills's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: On a Pennine hillside
Posts: 2,643
Likes: 1,236 (800 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vancity eagle View Post
Not if there isn't a viable option, which in the case of the US there isn't. Not the Republicans and the Democrats anyways.

Voting between corporate warmonger 1 and corporate warmonger 2 IS MAINTAINING THE STATUS QUO.

Exposing the fraud is at least trying to move beyond it.
Communism failed a longtime ago in theUS - sorry to tell you
__________________
Any advantages or "privilige" you have are thanks to the hard work and sacrifice of your Ancestors - Rejoice in them, dont feel the need to Check Them
sevenhills is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-07-2016, 04:18 AM   #32
vancity eagle
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 10,492
Likes: 4,415 (2,493 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sevenhills View Post
Communism failed a longtime ago in theUS - sorry to tell you
Communism has never been in the US. In fact Communism has never existed anywhere in any large capacity because Communism IS STATELESS.

China and USSR were socialist.

The little bit of socialism that FDR implemented in 1933 was responsible for the expansion of the middle class and the greatest wealth gain by ordinary people in US history.

The period of the smallest wealth inequality and greatest gains of the middle class in American history was after the "socialist" New Deal policies were implemented up until Ronald Reagan began the Process of the Mont Pellerin society to fuck it all up and promote "free markets" "small government" "neoliberalism" "lower taxes" "reaganomics" "trickle down economics"

Now with the continuation of these policies throughout both Republican and Democratic presidencies, wealth inequality is back to an all time high.

Do some research and stop listening to the stupid slogans of corporate whores.

Last edited by vancity eagle; 29-07-2016 at 04:19 AM.
Likes: (1)
vancity eagle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-07-2016, 05:03 AM   #33
dumbcritic
Senior Member
 
dumbcritic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 2,636
Likes: 541 (285 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by grandmasterp View Post
We did this one before St Jimmy. The Queen is a 'constitutional' monarch here in the UK which means the role has been 'constituted' or created by Parliament. That happened way back in 1689 via the Bill of Rights which changed the monarch's role from - being a 'ruler' -to - being a 'servant of Parliament'.
She has no political powers and only gets to read out the policies that the government of the day have written for her to read out on 'Queen's Speech' day when she is 'invited' into Parliament. She isn't allowed in at any other time.
We don't have a written constitution, we have 'case law'.
The government we vote for enacts laws and judges rule on case law.
Voters vote for the government and 'simple majority wins'.
A parliamentary committee appoints all judges.
The Queen has to 'ratify' what Parliament decides. She has no power and no vote, she has influence but has to do as she is told. The monarch is expressly forbidden 'by Parliamentary Statute' from expressing personal political opinions in public at all- ever.
I hope that helps.
Sure she does: ''In one instance the Queen completely vetoed the Military Actions Against Iraq Bill in 1999, a private member's bill that sought to transfer the power to authorise military strikes against Iraq from the monarch to parliament. She was even asked to consent to the Civil Partnership Act 2004 because it contained a declaration about the validity of a civil partnership that would bind her.'' https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/...als-veto-bills

Then there is the Privy Council which acts as an advisor to the monarch (they are head). It's now mostly made up of senior politicians but they can enact legislation without a vote in Parliament. This assumes the monarch gives their consent to it. In December 1966, Lord Chalfont, a Foreign Office minister, signed a contract in Washington giving the Pentagon a 50-year "lease" on Diego Garcia with an automatic extension of 20 years. If you watch the film by John Pilger then he offers some interesting comments on the role of the Privy Council in this matter.

On top of this is the Royal Prerogative which allows the PM to declare war and sign treaties (amongst other things) without a vote in Parliament. It's very likely the final say would be with the monarch.

Also the monarch can remove any elected members of parliament and even dissolve it as well. Members also have to give the Oath of Allegiance on top of all this.

Whilst the monarch may not give their (personal political) views in public they very likely do so in private when they meet/chat with the PM weekly. Charles has done this so I can't see why other members of that family wouldn't either http://uk.businessinsider.com/prince...ll-text-2015-5

This photo should tell you where the real power lies
__________________
''Chlorine is a deadly poison gas employed on European battlefields in World War I. Sodium is a corrosive metal which burns upon contact with water. Together they make a placid and unpoisonous material, table salt. Why each of these substances has the properties it does is a subject called chemistry'' - Carl Sagan

Why is it that the loudest critics of ''Big Pharma'' are Big Placebo?

Last edited by dumbcritic; 29-07-2016 at 05:25 AM.
Likes: (1)
dumbcritic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-07-2016, 05:11 AM   #34
dumbcritic
Senior Member
 
dumbcritic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 2,636
Likes: 541 (285 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bendoon View Post
Anyone who doesn't vote is helping to maintain the status quo.
That's like blaming people who don't drive for car crashes
__________________
''Chlorine is a deadly poison gas employed on European battlefields in World War I. Sodium is a corrosive metal which burns upon contact with water. Together they make a placid and unpoisonous material, table salt. Why each of these substances has the properties it does is a subject called chemistry'' - Carl Sagan

Why is it that the loudest critics of ''Big Pharma'' are Big Placebo?
dumbcritic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-07-2016, 05:15 AM   #35
dumbcritic
Senior Member
 
dumbcritic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 2,636
Likes: 541 (285 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kizzie View Post
Oh but we do, its just that the people more likely to vote are Tory voters . So if we don't try to change the government by voting ourselfs then we really don't have any chance at all .

Change is coming, just in case its through Corbyn I shall be voting.. Who knows maybe telling us that voting does not work could be a lie tptb put out there
We need to be proactive right now. I can feel it in me water.
In the words of Lysander Spooner: ''A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.''
__________________
''Chlorine is a deadly poison gas employed on European battlefields in World War I. Sodium is a corrosive metal which burns upon contact with water. Together they make a placid and unpoisonous material, table salt. Why each of these substances has the properties it does is a subject called chemistry'' - Carl Sagan

Why is it that the loudest critics of ''Big Pharma'' are Big Placebo?
dumbcritic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-07-2016, 06:38 AM   #36
the tealady
Forum Advisor
 
the tealady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Down by the sea
Posts: 18,967
Likes: 4,646 (2,473 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by grandmasterp View Post
So your answer is 'Don't Vote' St Jimmy.
Fair enough, nobody is compelled to vote, that's democracy.
Russell Brand took a similar view to you and then changed his mind.
People tend to make their own minds up about voting or not voting.
IMO all our Yank chums should now vote for Trump.
Just for LOLs.

Won't be too many LOL's when he invades Iran and the missiles come raining down.

Maybe then the people will realise that the old 'duck and cover' training won't save them.
Not voting in the US is the safest way. it will force a constitutional crisis, a new election will have to be held and if the people can get organised and raise up some real opposition....
__________________
Unlike a lot of other people, David walks the talk. Be careful who you trust in this alternative media and research.

Please don't feed the trolls.

When I LIKE a post, it does not always mean I agree, it can also just mean I think a valid point has been made.
Likes: (2)
the tealady is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-07-2016, 07:05 AM   #37
kizzie
Registered Users
 
kizzie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Hertfordshire UK
Posts: 5,486
Likes: 3,707 (1,806 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dumbcritic View Post
In the words of Lysander Spooner: ''A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.''
If we don't choose then we cannot cry when the master who makes you work for nothing making him rich gets in power over the master who gives you land and stands beside you working it, making it fertile allowing you both to share at the same table.
__________________
When you stop watching what they want you to watch you stop thinking what they want you to think.. Then you see a world that is nothing like they tell you it is.
Likes: (1)
kizzie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-07-2016, 02:16 PM   #38
st jimmy
Senior Member
 
st jimmy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 2,086
Likes: 1,393 (829 Posts)
Default Internet trolls - Astroturfers

And then the next problem: internet trolls, astroturfers. These are specialised companies to divert the attention away from criticism on the government, politicians and large corporations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by grandmasterp View Post
Only correct statement you've made thus far is buddy.
One strategy of the astroturfers, is posting immediately (suspiciously fast) after a post that needs to be neutralised. They usually don’t attack the message but discredit the person behind the information (the Ad hominem attack). The astroturfers never provide any interesting information, but mostly spread false rumours. By using several nicknames, they can have a discussion between trolls. And by using computers to help them write messages they are able to react very fast.
This is the most interesting story I found on astroturfing: https://sharylattkisson.com/top-10-astroturfers/
What the government at the same time tries, is convince us that people that try to break through the state propaganda, by putting information on the internet, are the real problem (trolls). Here’s a prime example of how the state media - Stanford and Cornell universities – have “researched” internet trolls: http://www.esquire.com/lifestyle/new...nford-cornell/
Of course astroturfing is also used to harass Targeted Individuals on the internet.

When there is no freedom of the press, and the internet is being manipulated by astroturfing, there is no democracy. In the ongoing American presidential campagn, it’s no secret that internet trolls are widely used. So now they can put out any message they want, without taking reponsibilty. Some countries do have legislation against astroturfing, but this is mostly about illegal advertising, for example: the Federal Trade Commission in the USA and the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive in the European Union.

Here’s information about the 1 million dollar internet troll army of Hillary Clinton: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...trolls/484847/
Here you can read that Russian president Putin uses internet trolls to support Donald Trump: http://uk.businessinsider.com/russia...16-7?r=US&IR=T
The main objective of internet trolls in this presidential campagn is convince us we only have two options (Clinton and Trump). When we – the people - realise that we can take the power back, there’s no stopping us.
Likes: (1)
st jimmy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-07-2016, 03:00 PM   #39
grandmasterp
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: The SkegVegas Coast
Posts: 31,797
Likes: 2,579 (1,692 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dumbcritic View Post
Sure she does: ''In one instance the Queen completely vetoed the Military Actions Against Iraq Bill in 1999, a private member's bill that sought to transfer the power to authorise military strikes against Iraq from the monarch to parliament. She was even asked to consent to the Civil Partnership Act 2004 because it contained a declaration about the validity of a civil partnership that would bind her.'' https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/...als-veto-bills

Then there is the Privy Council which acts as an advisor to the monarch (they are head). It's now mostly made up of senior politicians but they can enact legislation without a vote in Parliament. This assumes the monarch gives their consent to it. In December 1966, Lord Chalfont, a Foreign Office minister, signed a contract in Washington giving the Pentagon a 50-year "lease" on Diego Garcia with an automatic extension of 20 years. If you watch the film by John Pilger then he offers some interesting comments on the role of the Privy Council in this matter.

On top of this is the Royal Prerogative which allows the PM to declare war and sign treaties (amongst other things) without a vote in Parliament. It's very likely the final say would be with the monarch.

Also the monarch can remove any elected members of parliament and even dissolve it as well. Members also have to give the Oath of Allegiance on top of all this.

Whilst the monarch may not give their (personal political) views in public they very likely do so in private when they meet/chat with the PM weekly. Charles has done this so I can't see why other members of that family wouldn't either http://uk.businessinsider.com/prince...ll-text-2015-5

This photo should tell you where the real power lies
It does indeed show who has real power.
Mrs May is the Prime Minister.
Parliament makes our laws.
We vote in elections and wheover wins forms the government and has a parliamentary majority.
The Queen gets to read out one speech a year relating government policy.
That speech is written for her by the government of the day.
The Queen is a symbolic figurehead who has some influence but NO political power.
The old girl can't even vote FFS.
Believe as you will but Blighty is a parliamentary-democracy mate - we haven't had monarchical government here for over 300 years.
Still and all.
Can't expect foreigners to understand such things can we?

Last edited by grandmasterp; 29-07-2016 at 03:01 PM.
grandmasterp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-07-2016, 03:02 PM   #40
white light
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: B-lighty
Posts: 14,585
Likes: 3,461 (2,416 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by st jimmy View Post
And then the next problem: internet trolls, astroturfers. These are specialised companies to divert the attention away from criticism on the government, politicians and large corporations.
One strategy of the astroturfers, is posting immediately (suspiciously fast) after a post that needs to be neutralised. They usually don’t attack the message but discredit the person behind the information (the Ad hominem attack). The astroturfers never provide any interesting information, but mostly spread false rumours. By using several nicknames, they can have a discussion between trolls. And by using computers to help them write messages they are able to react very fast.
This is the most interesting story I found on astroturfing: https://sharylattkisson.com/top-10-astroturfers/
What the government at the same time tries, is convince us that people that try to break through the state propaganda, by putting information on the internet, are the real problem (trolls). Here’s a prime example of how the state media - Stanford and Cornell universities – have “researched” internet trolls: http://www.esquire.com/lifestyle/new...nford-cornell/
Of course astroturfing is also used to harass Targeted Individuals on the internet.

When there is no freedom of the press, and the internet is being manipulated by astroturfing, there is no democracy. In the ongoing American presidential campagn, it’s no secret that internet trolls are widely used. So now they can put out any message they want, without taking reponsibilty. Some countries do have legislation against astroturfing, but this is mostly about illegal advertising, for example: the Federal Trade Commission in the USA and the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive in the European Union.

Here’s information about the 1 million dollar internet troll army of Hillary Clinton: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...trolls/484847/
Here you can read that Russian president Putin uses internet trolls to support Donald Trump: http://uk.businessinsider.com/russia...16-7?r=US&IR=T
The main objective of internet trolls in this presidential campagn is convince us we only have two options (Clinton and Trump). When we – the people - realise that we can take the power back, there’s no stopping us.
Or a bunch of posters post, say four or five irellevant spam posts, immediately after. It's sure happened to me.
Likes: (2)
white light is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:20 AM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.