Trump the Heretic

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

Economic oppression:

The gap between rich and poor is widening not shrinking. This runs counter to the fundamentals my forefathers wanted to see their descendants living under.

My generation has been half as financially reimbursed for its time, as the generation immediately before it, with many of us living with our parents despite having jobs.

The cost of living is unattainably high, relative to average pay for a full time job at basic rate, far higher than it was relative to earnings, at any point in either my mothers memory or that of my grandparents generation.

Who I am against:

Anyone who protects the system in its current trend, despite the fact that the trend in question cannot be maintained without society collapsing under the weight of the debt it necessitates, despite the fact that it is harmful to the entire working class, which is the majority in my country, despite the fact that it harms our people and the public purse.

a reply to: TrueBrit

The gap between rich and poor is widening not shrinking.

But this is what you want...free market baby...yeah !!! it's a consequence.

The cost of living is unattainably high, relative to average pay for a full time job at basic rate, far higher than it was relative to earnings, at any point in either my mothers memory or that of my grandparents generation.

I dont get it man...I make 1,500 Euros per month...I'm living just fine over here in this poor backwards balkan state. The cost of an apartment in the capital is around 400-600 Euros per month for a small apartmenet. I took a loan and bought a house in the countryside...and am now paying 400 per month to repay a loan. For the next 25 years. I dont complain. I still have money for a car and to pay for the gas.

I'm happy. How is that you...the Great Britain is worse of to live in ? And why do so many migrants then go to GB ?

Anyone who protects the system in its current trend, despite the fact that the trend in question cannot be maintained without society collapsing under the weight of the debt it necessitates, despite the fact that it is harmful to the entire working class, which is the majority in my country, despite the fact that it harms our people and the public purse.

although noble...I feel it is ultimately unrealistic. The system can not be brought down anymore. Short of cataclizmic catastrophe by an asteroid hit. The system has posted guards...and is paying your friends and family to turn against you if necessary. You can be wearing a straight jacket in no time.

To tell you the truth...I dont see the point of that crusade anymore. We are all part of the system...that's why it can never be destroyed by us.

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

We have sixteen million people in this country, who at present have less than one hundred pounds in the bank. Look up the reasons why for yourself if you like. Go ahead and figure out what fuel costs, what utilities cost here, what rents and property prices generally are like here. Most of the people I know have NO disposable income, after bills and rent and food and so on.

The fact is, your nation is cheap as hell to live in. Mine is not.

a reply to: TrueBrit

We have sixteen million people in this country, who at present have less than one hundred pounds in the bank

and you want to take in more...and you dont see the problem in there for you and your people ?

Go ahead and figure out what fuel costs, what utilities cost here, what rents and property prices generally are like here.

Great Britain is a world hotspot for migration, legal and illegal alike...the demand for property is high...therefore...houses and basic living necessities are more expensive. Its the basic economic tenet...demand and supply. This all breaks on your backs...You cant have it both ways.

You want to be multi culti ?...that's the price.

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

That, with respect, has next door to nothing to do with it. Multiculturalism is not causing even one tenth of the cost of living issue in this country. My nation could be flourishing now, if its workforce were being paid adequately for their time, and if the people who own rental property were not living in cloud cuckoo land.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

That, with respect, has next door to nothing to do with it. Multiculturalism is not causing even one tenth of the cost of living issue in this country. My nation could be flourishing now, if its workforce were being paid adequately for their time, and if the people who own rental property were not living in cloud cuckoo land.

Come on man...it's simple math...less people...less demand for housing...less resources used...price of everything drops.

It's simply a numbers game...we are over populating and over crowding city areas. Consequently...poverty rises. Crime rises.
No migrant is gonna go the countryside to grow tomatoes. They all want the good life they've seen on TV.

Rental property owners can charge whatever they like...I'm sure they rent at the highest rate they can get...or they would have dropped them. It's all dictated through the wonderful magic that is free market economy. And as long as demand is high...they dictate the price.

As I said...you cant have it both ways.

You know why my country is cheap to live iN ? because we have low wages compared to the rest of the EU..and nobody from outside wants to live here. Only 54 migrants applied for an asylum here during the last year migrant crisis. We are too poor for them to stay here. They all want to go to Germany and UK. It's where the milk flows...they say.

ANd you expect for the system to magically provide for all of you ? Good luck man.

Math is a beautiful thing...if people are poor it's either they dont want to work or there is no work...and if there is no work...it means there is no demand for it...the market is saturated with labor. Unqualified and qualified. End of story.

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

Which is what I'm getting at. I just don't see where there's an actual policy to divide the two. Either they're both guilty of something, or their policies wind up as a wash. Pro Russia, anti China isn't really any different than anti Russia/pro China. While not every policy is equal in application, they wind up pretty equal in result.

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

I'm not who you asked, but in many ways we are more oppressed today.

For example, in the time of our forefathers the higher social classes were held to higher legal standards. All over Europe common law was that if a peasant struck an aristocrat there would be no penalty, but if an aristocrat struck a peasant there would be death. Basically, if you had more privileges in life you would also have more expectations placed upon you.

In the US we didn't have royalty or an aristocracy but our Constitution does demand a jury trial for any incident above $20. Before inflation ruined the value of $20, it was a lot of money. Basically, it said that if you were wealthy your trial didn't just need to meet the stipulations of the letter of the law, but you had to meet the social consensus on the spirit of the law as well.

Today we have lost this and it has completely reversed. The poorer you are today, the more likely you are to lose your trial and the greater your punishment will be. This goes for everything from speeding tickets where a poor person can be fined a months income for getting a ticket, and have points put on their license, while a wealthy person will pay 2-4 hours worth of income to have the case dismissed.

The one place in which we are all supposed to be equal is in the courtroom, but that's the place today where no one is equal.

a reply to: Aazadan

All over Europe common law was that if a peasant struck an aristocrat there would be no penalty, but if an aristocrat struck a peasant there would be death.

What?

In the US we didn't have royalty or an aristocracy but our Constitution does demand a jury trial for any incident above $20.

Which Article and Section?

originally posted by: Phage
What?

It was a couple hundred years ago at this point, but that was the norm. In exchange for extra wealth and political power, the law favored the commoner. Of course, most of the upper class just went after each other.

Which Article and Section?

The Seventh Amendment

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

a reply to: Aazadan

The Seventh Amendment

Yes, you have the right to request a jury.
There is no Constitutional requirement that civil suits (no matter the value) be heard before a jury.

originally posted by: Phage
Yes, you have the right to request a jury.
There is no Constitutional requirement that civil suits (no matter the value) be heard before a jury.

It goes before a jury unless you choose not to. Given the time involved in having one, many people choose to skip it. And most these days, just choose to plea. I'm referring to criminal cases though not civil. The constitution doesn't apply to civil cases, and even when it does it's a federal thing. Most civil cases are state matters.

a reply to: Aazadan

I'm referring to criminal cases though not civil.

Then what's $20 dollars have to do with it?
The Seventh is talking about "suits of common law", is it not?

a reply to: Aazadan

You're telling me the Government pays a Judge, Jury, Police, Court System, and Jail over $20 disputes and you're complaining? That sounds near impossible economically to pull off. They must be fiscal genius.

originally posted by: imjack
a reply to: Aazadan

You're telling me the Government pays a Judge, Jury, Police, Court System, and Jail over $20 disputes and you're complaining? That sounds near impossible economically to pull off. They must be fiscal genius.

They don't, but they're supposed to. Or more accurately, if the $20 kept up with the value of inflation it would be about $5000 today. Basically, holding to the spirit of the Amendment, there should be a jury in cases that don't take place in small claims court.

I'm sure someone will correct me with more accurate numbers but it's something like 93% of criminal cases that are settled with a plea bargain rather than go to court. That's part of the whole reason why justice isn't blind today. Prosecutors routinely see 98% conviction rates, but pleas count as convictions. That means that at minimum 2 out of every 7 cases a prosecutor takes to court result in not guilty verdicts. Trials are not cost effective. They're slow, expensive, and rarely break even. Plea bargains are profitable though.

If you have money you can pay for a lawyer and get a better result. Our constitution even recognized this inherent flaw and gave the poor free access to lawyers, but public defenders these days are overworked, underpaid, under staffed, usually plea your case (it's the inverse of the prosecutor rate), and in some states the requirement that you are freely provided with a lawyer has been completely circumvented and you instead pay in installments. Also, if you lose your case you pay court costs. If you don't pay either, even if you were found not guilty you go to jail on contempt.

All of which is to say, people are supposed to be equal in the courtroom, but they aren't because they have access to different qualities of representation. The original safeguards put in place to prevent this, provided to be unwieldy and too cumbersome to the process and as such have been ignored or lost their meaning.

originally posted by: Phage
Then what's $20 dollars have to do with it?
The Seventh is talking about "suits of common law", is it not?

Dollars were used because the Constitution predates the prison system. Back then most punishments involved fines or military conscription, there was little ability to hold prisoners.

The 7th refers to both. Cases are supposed to be tried by jury (excluding what is basically small claims court today), this was partially because juries determine guilt on both the letter and spirit of the law. It's essentially a lower standard for guilt than just the letter of the law. We've gotten away from that though over time.

a reply to: Aazadan

The 7th refers to both.

I disagree. It concerns civil suits. It uses the word, specifically

Article III, Section 2 concerns criminal trials. It uses the word, specifically.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Your apologies are the most thoughtful compared to the usual counter vitriol and straw man silliness that goes on here. Even Pence said something like "oh it's just Donald being Donald, he won't really do that" not his exact words but something along those lines. Give him an inch and he'll take a mile. That's what flimflam artists do so effectively. He's managed to fool you so maybe you are not as smart as you think you are. Comedians and satirists mocked a certain despot early on until it was too late. The thought of a Trump presidency should be taken seriously by any rational human. The "rage" is coming from his conned base of hate-filled and ill-informed who get their information from biased and downright insane sources that just make things up and apologize, apologize, over and over for their choice which is simply a reflection of their own backward prejudices and greedy desires . Not from those who oppose an embarrassingly incompetent candidate. But hey, thanks Obama!

If by some slim chance Trump does manage to fool enough people. His people will get exactly what they deserve and sadly the rest will have to suffer the consequences as well. It's just another scam for The Donald.

Trump's Multi-Level Pyramid Scam

a reply to: LesMisanthrope
Sorry to inform you Hillary isn't any better. She's sexist , racist, corrupt, etc. Welcome to the realization we are all screwed no matter who wins.

a reply to: Aazadan

For example, in the time of our forefathers the higher social classes were held to higher legal standards. All over Europe common law was that if a peasant struck an aristocrat there would be no penalty, but if an aristocrat struck a peasant there would be death. Basically, if you had more privileges in life you would also have more expectations placed upon you.

I have never heard of such a thing, so you'll have to excuse my ignorance. As far as I remember my history...this has never happened. Got a link to a story or something ?