Its 15 years ago that the war on terror started

Its 15 years ago that the war on terror started.

>What's your country?
>How does your country celebrate living 15 years in fear of Muslims?

Other urls found in this thread:

occupydemocrats.com/2016/09/12/breaking-democratic-party-calling-emergency-meeting-consider-replacing-hillary-health/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

>How does your country celebrate living 15 years in fear of Muslims?
By sending them all to Europa.

2real4me

This is a more accurate map.

How is Hillary doing?

Not good, shes about to be replaced

occupydemocrats.com/2016/09/12/breaking-democratic-party-calling-emergency-meeting-consider-replacing-hillary-health/

Ignoring that there is 1 million refugees in Turkey and the same in Lebanon
Do your homework/10

>Ignoring that there is 1 million refugees in Turkey and the same in Lebanon
Are they staying in those places? Or making their way elsewhere?

Thats right, they are headed to benefits.

Pic shows Hillary's white house

I prefer that than a sick president. We got one in France, it was ugly.

They stay here, mostly
The one who don't is because Turkey is full

>Turkey
>Full

Please

Of course. Shes been trying to cover up the fact that shes sick so several months.

Recently she claimed to 'not remember' all of the issues regarding her emails and Benghazi.

They will have to upgrade soon.

She was diagnosed with pneumonia.

Maybe lack of nutrition?
Did she shart out all her vitamin C?

>Did she shart out all her vitamin C?
No shes spitting it up.

Her bowels probably havent worked in 10 years.

>Ambiguous soap Opera disease
I'd be willing to bet 10€ it's all an act.

Why is there a hole in her cheek underneath her ear?

Is she the anti-christ?

>it's all an act.
It might be bait to get Donald Trump to make fun of her and eventually give her sympathy.

>"Why would he say such a mean thing about a sick old lady!?"

Thats the mic stand friend.

Why does she have a mic stand underneath her ear instead of a cheek?

Did she pay for it with tax money?

What's happening now is making Europe lean right, politically. If this is thanks to Americans maybe you aren't that bad after all.

>Why does she have a mic stand underneath her ear instead of a cheek?
To prop her up maybe? Shes having trouble standing btw.

>Britain
>Europe

Join north-america.

Its all very complicated and multidimensional.

If Europeans refuse to like our Muslim policies, we must force you to see it our way.

>The spitident of America
Hahahaha

Shes so too repulsive to become president. She wont get enough votes, even if she lives to see election day.

Why do you think everyone was trying to run as a Republican this year (16 other candidates). Because everyone knew how easily Hillary would be defeated.

Are you going to vote green or libertarian? (extra choice: be a cuck)

>Are you going to vote green or libertarian?
3rd parties are for cucks.

Even if a 3rd party candidate became President; the congress would be comprised of Democrats and Republicans. So its all the same topics and options.

But aren't you a democracy?
Are you saying you don't have any influence on politics?

This is a Republic.

We dont have influence on political parties (or their agendas), only on legal governance.

>Tfw a constitutional monarchy has more democracy then a republic.

You only need 0,7% of the voters to vote for you here and you get a seat in the national government.

>a democracy is more democratic than a republic
We dont reward losers in the US.

Why would we pollute the government with people who cant perform the basic task of getting votes?

But you do need votes here, it's just that you don't need an area with 51% of the people to vote for you.

If 20% of the people vote for you, you get 20% of the seats

>If 20% of the people vote for you, you get 20% of the seats
And if only 20% of democrats win elections; only 20% of them will take seats in House or Senate.

Yes, but votes in California are less worth than in Dakota.

And we don't have gerrymandering. Because there are no area's/districts

>but votes in California are less worth than in Dakota.
No. Each representative or senator is afforded 1 vote. Representation is based on population, so California has more space on the House floor than Dakota.

So if out of 1000 democrats, only 30 win... The democrats have 30 votes for whatever legislation they bring.

Yes but California has less representatives then they should.

Per capita they have less representatives then Dakota

>Per capita they have less representatives then Dakota
That might be true, but California has more Reps in the House than Dakota. Their population is larger, so it makes sense for California to be granted more Reps.

If people feel a state is too crowded for their vote to be heard, they must leave.

But we don't have that problem, (if everyone voted who could vote) you only need 90.000 votes for 1 of the 150 seats. Doesnt matter where in the country they are from.

Thanks to that we have 12 parties right now with seats in the government.

What problem? Every state gets 2 senators regardless of population, no one is underrepresented.

You have 12 parties and still experience gridlock and poor governance.

>Poor governance
What?

Yes but every state getting 2 senators is a problem. Because thanks to that the representatives per capita aren't equal everywhere. And some votes are thus worth more than others.

Also, If I'm correct your states are devided in (kind of) districts and you only need 51% of the people in the district and that's the winning party. (Simplified).

>every state getting 2 senators is a problem. Because thanks to that the representatives per capita aren't equal everywhere. And some votes are thus worth more than others.
States that have successful governance means people want to move to that state (FL, CA, TX).

Therefore they should be a lot more Reps. I dont see how thats bad in anyway.

Districts can be won by either party, they are created for House of Reps proportions.

germans called them
germans should take them all
fuck germans

Hello Hans, are you ok?

I am a Greek

The bad thing is that not all votes are equal, and if you live in a district (which are drawn with gerrymandering) where 51% of the people vote for republicans there's no need to vote for democrats because republicans have already won.

Without districts and state representatives every vote is worth the same.

If you draw districts like this it's not fair.

>Its 15 years ago that the war on terror started.
>>What's your country?
>>How does your country celebrate living 15 years in fear of Muslims?
lol nice try to trolling but too faaaaaat

>there's no need to vote for democrats because republicans have already won.
>If you draw districts like this it's not fair
Why don't democrats put up another candidate?

Conceding a loss isn't equal to votes not being equal. Like I said earlier; we dont have influence on the capabilities of the political parties. Just the laws they vote for.

If democrats are too stupid to put up viable candidates who arent dying or corrupt, thats a problem for the party. Not the district of voters.

But it's not fair because you can get a way bigger proportion of the seats than your proportion of voters is.

In America blue has won with 80% here,
But in the Netherlands it would have been
53%

But that image shows that 4 blue have been elected and only 1 red.

>But it's not fair because you can get a way bigger proportion of the seats than your proportion of voters is.
Then isn't it the obligation of the opposing party to defeat that candidate with ideas?

Also, why would the Rep from L.A. get votes from the voters in Northern California?

They dont have contact and cant be represented by the same person who represents L.A.

But here in the Netherlands we only have national representatives in the national government.

The local representatives are elected locally in a different election.

The varying population of the states has effects that matter in actually politics. Another example is Electoral College for POTUS.

These we key ideas because the US was still being formed and having a strong population was important for become a state itself.

>Arabs shooting from Milan
>Milan shooting at Arabs

Let's say, you and 9 friends want to decide where to eat, a vegetarian place or a meat restaurant.

6 of you want meat and 4 want vegetarian.

With a Dutch system you would go to a meat place.


But with a district system you could put them in 3 groups, one group of (4 meat eaters), and 2 groups with (2 vegetarians and 1 meat eater)

Then you would go to a vegetarian place. Even though 2 more people want a meat restaurant.
.

That is not fair isn't it?

>You and 9 friends
>But with a district system you could put them in 3 groups, one group of (4 meat eaters), and 2 groups with (2 vegetarians and 1 meat eater)
Thats 10. You added an extra person.

You + 9 friends = 10

>6 of you want meat and 4 want vegetarian.
>With a Dutch system you would go to a meat place.
>Then you would go to a vegetarian place. Even though 2 more people want a meat restaurant.
So in the US system, half as many people are displaced?

Not displaced, but the votes of some people didn't count as much as the vote of the other voters.

Well that's just how voting works. Your vote was lost, if you don't win

No, you rearranged the votes in such a way you won. That way the minority won.

In your scenario 4 ppl threw away votes and in the us situation only 2 threw away votes.

No, 6 threw away their vote in the us system. 6 people lost.

You've broken them into 3 groups, there are still 6 meat voters.

What's your point?

Yes but 2 out of 3 groups voted vegetarian, thus all of them go to the vegetarian place.

How is districting different than Netherlands governing?

You have 10 parties from people who didn't win anything. They just got grouped in with 2 who took most seats.

You assuming you can't change districts

In the Netherlands we look at the percentage of votes you got, no matter where in the country they came from.

If 6 people vote meat, meat gets 60% of the seats here.

But with districts meat got 6 votes and 33% of the seats.

>fear of Muslims
Good joke, Muslims are bros.

Districts are redrawn once in a while by the winning party (I thought it was every 8 years?).

>If 6 people vote meat, meat gets 60% of the seats here
Literally what?

It was according to the example mate.

6/10 people voted meat thus meat gets 60%

M8, we've always been at war with muslims, lol.

That's what happens here.

Disctricts have nothing to do with that. If meat can't win votes in vegetarian district they need a less meaty candidate.

Wouldn't you agree?

Practices like gerrymandering are generally acknowledged problems with the US electoral system. Stop taking the bait dude.

That's not what happens in us.

In us meat got 33% of the seats.

Meat couldn't win votes because the others in their districts where vegetarians. You can't convince vegetarians to eat meat can you?

It's really easy to fuck over the majority with districts.

1) get as much meat eaters in one district as possible, with very few vegetarians.
2) put vegetarians with a slight majority in the other districts.

That way you can win with the minority.
And because the minority won once, they can redrawn the districts next time and will continue step 1.