ForestBoard

Darths and Droids wrote:

Nonsense. If the President won his relection campaign then he won it. If he lost it, then he lost it. Perhaps you're complaining about incumbent advantage in reelections?

Yes. The last single-term president was Bush Sr. and that was a bit of an odd situation due to his broken promise regarding taxation and Perot taking votes from him.

Sean fiobha wrote:

Its this little England ('' British '' nationalism) attitude an the fact we're being ignored by Westminster that we're kicking up a fuss aboot.

As a citizen of a Nordic country, if Scotland chooses and gets their independence somehow, I welcome you to the group of Nordic countries.

Orang-utang wrote:

Having fallen from the canopy, and appearing quite dead for a day or two, the Orang-utang stirs from the pile of leaves that had come to cover him.

Crawls out from underneath this formerly dead weight.

Sean fiobha wrote:

Lousykitty

A think yer confused Turbeaux said Scotland.

It wisnnae Scotland that had the potato famine it wis Ireland, although ye are right we have been baeth treated terribly. A dinnae ken how many in Northern Ireland vote fir brexit but here in Scotland less than 40% did, yer also right in the fact that we are a minority only 5 million in scotland compared to over 55 million in England alone. Its this little England ('' British '' nationalism) attitude an the fact we're being ignored by Westminster that we're kicking up a fuss aboot.

If ye want maire info am sure Candlewhisper Archive can tell ye maire as he lives in the uk as well a believe.

Right, beat me to it, the potato famine was Irish.

Re: Scotland, it's simultaneously over and under-represented.

It's over-represented because there's 59 Scottish constituencies for 5.4 million people, while there's 533 English constituencies for 56 million English people, so a Scottish vote gets more representation than an English vote. Likewise, devolution means that Scottish people have more proportional say over their government's policies than English people do.

However it's also under-represented, because 533 MPs have more sway than 59 MPs, and so there'll never be a parliamentary majority that puts the SNP's interests first. Tyranny of the majority, and so on. No Prime Minister elected by English MPs can afford to be the one who "breaks the Union".

Of course, the real problem here is FPTP. The SNP (Scottish Nationalist Party) got 48 seats off 4.7% of the popular vote, whilst the Green Party got 1 seat from 2.7% of the popular vote. Likely in a proportional representation system their vote share would increase massively as well, as many voters (like myself) avoid voting for them because the priority is to oppose the Tories by voting for whoever is closest to them in a given constituency.

To me, the fix is proportional representation as this simultaneously makes the system more equitable in power distribution to voters and increases the voice of minority interests, such as environmentalists and voices for Scottish independence. Right now, FPTP has given PM Boris such a huge majority that he can basically ignore the environment, ignore Scotland, ignore the poor, attempt to suppress the free press, basically ignore everyone apart from his business allies.

A pretty much agree wi whit ye said Candlewhisper Archive but a have minor nitpick it no the scottish "nationalist" party its the scottish national party, a swear the English politicians an bbc dae this aw the time just so people git negative connotations in their heed such as anti immigration an exclusion aff minorities. Tae be fair tho a think a've heard a few Scottish tories say nationalist party as well. Its just a way fir the tories to continue their smear campaign on every other party an take the spotlight aff their ain nationalism.

Elundris wrote:

I honestly can't understand the UK stance on this issue.
I mean, Scotland decided to remain with them, and many did so specifically to remain in the EU. Then the UK leaves the EU and they wonder why Scotland is unhappy about it. Well... I bet that if the Scottish people had known this before their independence vote, they'd have left the UK, in the end, the difference was about 10%, which is quite a bit, but many voted to ensure they keep the EU benefits.

We've wonder aboot why we cannae leave the uk fir years, they claim that Scotland is a money drain on the uk economy an that we widnnae survive on are ain but a think its the opposite because they are so unwilling tae give up on us even tho it wid "benefit" the rest o the uk. Their wis a report dun in the 70s called the McCrone report "The document gave a highly favourable projection for the economy of an independent Scotland with a "chronic surplus to a quite embarrassing degree and its currency would become the hardest in Europe"" this report wis dun after oil wis found in the north sea, because it wis favourable tae an independent Scotland the uk govrenment kept it hidden until 2005 when it wis accidentally found through the freedom of information act 2000.

Story o the McCrone report, highly recommend reading.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCrone_report

Love and Nature wrote:

As a citizen of a Nordic country, if Scotland chooses and gets their independence somehow, I welcome you to the group of Nordic countries.

A thank ye fir yer support, we used tae have sum cultural ties tae Scandanavia through a language called Norn descend fae old Norse although it died like 150 years ago, their is a revival o it called Nynorn though. We also have the option o creating a celtic union wi Ireland through our shared culture e.g. Gaelic.

Love and Nature wrote:

As a citizen of a Nordic country, if Scotland chooses and gets their independence somehow, I welcome you to the group of Nordic countries.

Oooh - good idea. Party in Denmark. Doesn’t matter if you’re not in Denmark - the Danes throw the best parties. Drinks are cheaper there too.
Edit:
[I think the ties between Scotland and the Norse were not always happy ones in the olden days, so we should start off with a party, in the eventuality that we do become closer again.]

Verdant Haven wrote:

The present WA Resolution is a bit poorly argued...
...I believe this is its basic argument:
1) Capital Punishment should be outlawed
2) The targeted bill (Preventing the Execution of Innocents) nearly outlaws Capital Punishment simply due to how onerous its regulatory burden is.
3) We should repeal this pile of regulations and just outright ban Capital Punishment properly
4) Compromise is for wimps, and there's no possible way repealing this will go badly or result in leaving Capital Punishment widely unaddressed due to an inability to pass a non-compromise bill on the topic.

I’d like to vote against capital punishment but it seems like this might not be the best way to do that.

For those who are following the Oatland Winter Games, yesterday saw the first two events, and I'm pleased to say it was a fantastic showing for Forest!

Paplia athletes took gold and silver in Figure Skating, Ordand collected gold in Cross Country, and my own athletes captured Cross Country silver and bronze. That's five out of a possible six medals going to Forest on day one!

While I don't expect we shall be so dominant every day, the next event coming up (on Feb 9th) is Ice Hockey, which is Wernher Magnus Maximilian Von Braun's national specialty, so look for more podium possibilities then!

I'm proud of Forest for fielding four full teams to the winter games - we are very well represented in this embassy ally event!

Kinectia wrote:

I’d like to vote against capital punishment but it seems like this might not be the best way to do that.

I'm with you. I personally would love to properly ban Capital Punishment, but I have no confidence that this repeal and replace will effort will work, so I'd rather keep things as they are until I see a better-worded proposal.

I cannot help but ask this... Is anyone else very pissed off about the Iowa caucus right now?

😕

Frieden-und Freudenland wrote:

I cannot help but ask this... Is anyone else very pissed off about the Iowa caucus right now?

😕

I can't be pissed off when we just heard from you on this board for the first time in 97 days! ^_^

My very conservative parents are forcing me to watch the state of the union even though I'm a high schooler who still doesn't even have a job, so whatever comes out of this speech will literally have no bearing on me.

Mozworld wrote:

I would imagine all the campaigns are extremely pissed off. There aren't many delegates at stake in Iowa, so the main purpose of them is to give a bounce before heading into New Hampshire. With still only a few results out and the State of the Union about to eat into news coverage, millions and millions of dollars have likely been wasted.

Wasting millions of dollars as a politician is called Tuesday.

Turbeaux wrote:

It could reveal plans regarding jobs and/or education. (I am not watching it because I would rather watch documentaries.)

Very few plans as it turns out (except it's infrastructure week again, and there's a whopping $50 million for neonatal research!!!). It was 15 minutes of the amazing economy, and then the rest was fluff lifted straight from reality TV (including Oprah-style scholarship and medal giveaways) with a few spots of horrifying right-wing dogwhistling intermingled.

Plus Pelosi ripping up the speech at the end, of course.

Kinectia wrote:

Is there a difference between coverage of election campaigns and reality tv? I’m seeing less and less...

Barely, we are getting closer and closer to Idiocracy.
https://youtu.be/CNsCwg5MxP0