Skip to main content

Replies sorted oldest to newest

ksazma posted:
Django posted:
Baseman posted:

No!!  It’s a reasonable question of clarification from the Judge! Where are you confused about?

Read again !!

hint

Do Party (s) with higher number of seats in Parliament forms a government ?

Only when they coalesce. Independently the 33 seats of APNU and AFC was still not the government. 

No !!!  a  party can have less than majority seats in parliament and can form a Government.

Django
ksazma posted:
Django posted:
ksazma posted:

Django bai, I don't see anything erroneous with the question. Why do you think he erred?

Please re-read the statement, and revisit Guyana Electoral System.

I don't understand what you mean. The question was rhetorical but not erroneous.

Not acceptable, by the Honorable Justice, he should have more deeper understanding of Guyana Constitution the Electoral System.

Django
Last edited by Django
Django posted:
ksazma posted:
Django posted:
Baseman posted:

No!!  It’s a reasonable question of clarification from the Judge! Where are you confused about?

Read again !!

hint

Do Party (s) with higher number of seats in Parliament forms a government ?

Only when they coalesce. Independently the 33 seats of APNU and AFC was still not the government. 

No !!!  a  party can have less than majority seats in parliament and can form a Government.

Only when there is not another party with more seats. The party with the majority seats forms the government in Guyana. The only way the 33 seats of the Coalition was able to be the government instead of the 32 seats PPP party was they had to coalesce before the elections. Otherwise, they would have been exactly where they were prior to May 2015.

FM
ksazma posted:
Django posted:
ksazma posted:
Django posted:
Baseman posted:

No!!  It’s a reasonable question of clarification from the Judge! Where are you confused about?

Read again !!

hint

Do Party (s) with higher number of seats in Parliament forms a government ?

Only when they coalesce. Independently the 33 seats of APNU and AFC was still not the government. 

No !!!  a  party can have less than majority seats in parliament and can form a Government.

 The party with the majority seats forms the government in Guyana.

Wrong !!!  re-visit 2011 government.

Django
Django posted:
ksazma posted:
Django posted:
ksazma posted:

Django bai, I don't see anything erroneous with the question. Why do you think he erred?

Please re-read the statement, and revisit Guyana Electoral System.

I don't understand what you mean. The question was rhetorical but not erroneous.

Not acceptable, by the Honorable Justice, he should have more deeper understanding of Guyana Constitution the Electoral System.

The judge was not wrong in his assertion. He is not Williams. 

FM
ksazma posted:
Django posted:
ksazma posted:
Django posted:
ksazma posted:

Django bai, I don't see anything erroneous with the question. Why do you think he erred?

Please re-read the statement, and revisit Guyana Electoral System.

I don't understand what you mean. The question was rhetorical but not erroneous.

Not acceptable, by the Honorable Justice, he should have more deeper understanding of Guyana Constitution the Electoral System.

The judge was not wrong in his assertion. He is not Williams. 

Lil brother, you copping out !!

Django
Django posted:
ksazma posted:
Django posted:
ksazma posted:
Django posted:
Baseman posted:

No!!  It’s a reasonable question of clarification from the Judge! Where are you confused about?

Read again !!

hint

Do Party (s) with higher number of seats in Parliament forms a government ?

Only when they coalesce. Independently the 33 seats of APNU and AFC was still not the government. 

No !!!  a  party can have less than majority seats in parliament and can form a Government.

 The party with the majority seats forms the government in Guyana.

Wrong !!!  re-visit 2011 government.

2011 elections results

PPP - 32 seats

APNU - 26 seats

AFC - 7 seats

Which of the 26 seats APNU or the 7 seats AFC is greater than the 32 seats PPP bai? 

FM
Last edited by Former Member
ksazma posted:
 

2011 elections results

PPP - 32 seats

APNU - 26 seats

AFC - 7 seats

Which of the 26 seats APNU or the 7 seats AFC is greater than the 32 seats PPP bai? 

Being a jokey now   which ever party (s) contest the Elections and wins the most Votes forms the Government, seats in parliament isn't the benchmark to form the government in Guyana.

Django
Last edited by Django
Django posted:
ksazma posted:
Django posted:
ksazma posted:
Django posted:
ksazma posted:

Django bai, I don't see anything erroneous with the question. Why do you think he erred?

Please re-read the statement, and revisit Guyana Electoral System.

I don't understand what you mean. The question was rhetorical but not erroneous.

Not acceptable, by the Honorable Justice, he should have more deeper understanding of Guyana Constitution the Electoral System.

The judge was not wrong in his assertion. He is not Williams. 

Lil brother, you copping out !!

Why you say so? The judge was perfectly correct in his rhetorical question. He was actually putting lash pun those two Appellate Court fools who foolishly argued that 32 plus 34 equals 65. 

FM
Django posted:
ksazma posted:
 

2011 elections results

PPP - 32 seats

APNU - 26 seats

AFC - 7 seats

Which of the 26 seats APNU or the 7 seats AFC is greater than the 32 seats PPP bai? 

Being a jokey now

That is math bai. Was APNU or AFC the government from 2011 to 2015? Together they had one more seat but they weren't together yet. Had they not gotten together, they would still be the opposition today. Actually, today, the Coalition is illegally squatting in office. 

FM
ksazma posted:

Why you say so? The judge was perfectly correct in his rhetorical question. He was actually putting lash pun those two Appellate Court fools who foolishly argued that 32 plus 34 equals 65. 

The question is, the required number of votes of all 65 members of parliament, that will force the government to call elections, when ever a motion of confidence is tabled against the government.

The 32 + 34 = 65, are for weak thinkers.

Django
Django posted:
ksazma posted:

Why you say so? The judge was perfectly correct in his rhetorical question. He was actually putting lash pun those two Appellate Court fools who foolishly argued that 32 plus 34 equals 65. 

The question is, the required number of votes of all 65 members of parliament, that will force the government to call elections, when ever a motion of confidence is tabled against the government.

The 32 + 34 = 65, are for weak thinkers.

The stupidity of the PNC position showed up in their performance at the hearing. 

The judge asked a perfectly relevant question in the context of this hearing, not theatrics!

FM
Django posted:
ksazma posted:

Why you say so? The judge was perfectly correct in his rhetorical question. He was actually putting lash pun those two Appellate Court fools who foolishly argued that 32 plus 34 equals 65. 

The question is, the required number of votes of all 65 members of parliament, that will force the government to call elections, when ever a motion of confidence is tabled against the government.

The 32 + 34 = 65, are for weak thinkers.

Exactly my point. Those two appellate court judges were weak thinkers. The only stipulation for the NCV is that ALL 65 members have to vote. Had the Coalition been smarter, some should have been absent and the stipulation would have worked in their favor.

FM
ksazma posted:
Django posted:
ksazma posted:

Why you say so? The judge was perfectly correct in his rhetorical question. He was actually putting lash pun those two Appellate Court fools who foolishly argued that 32 plus 34 equals 65. 

The question is, the required number of votes of all 65 members of parliament, that will force the government to call elections, when ever a motion of confidence is tabled against the government.

The 32 + 34 = 65, are for weak thinkers.

Exactly my point. Those two appellate court judges were weak thinkers. The only stipulation for the NCV is that ALL 65 members have to vote. Had the Coalition been smarter, some should have been absent and the stipulation would have worked in their favor.

Or raise an objection to the vote, from the Government side, they were dumbstruck.

Django
Django posted:
ksazma posted:
Django posted:
ksazma posted:

Why you say so? The judge was perfectly correct in his rhetorical question. He was actually putting lash pun those two Appellate Court fools who foolishly argued that 32 plus 34 equals 65. 

The question is, the required number of votes of all 65 members of parliament, that will force the government to call elections, when ever a motion of confidence is tabled against the government.

The 32 + 34 = 65, are for weak thinkers.

Exactly my point. Those two appellate court judges were weak thinkers. The only stipulation for the NCV is that ALL 65 members have to vote. Had the Coalition been smarter, some should have been absent and the stipulation would have worked in their favor.

Or raise an objection to the vote, from the Government side, they were dumbstruck.

The only reason the government did not raise any objections is because they truly agreed with the NCV. It is only the next day when it stared to dawn on them that they are about to find themselves back in the Opposition that they began making up one silly straw clutching excuse after the other. And to their shame, every excuse they made up hurt them more than it did the PPP. 

FM

Ow Bai, DJ is clutching at straws. It’s good to see that a great deal of civility exists but DJ’s argument is exactly that of William’s and Posters responses are similar to that of the CCJ judges schooling and scolding him in a very professional manner. 

This case is looking very good for the PPP so far with the PNC and their lawyers displaying a great degree of haplessness. 

 

FM
Last edited by Former Member
Django posted:

33 or 34? CCJ begins hearing appeal on passage of No Confidence motion  

β€œIf the majority of the court of appeal is right, do I understand that you need 34 votes to send the government home, but you only need 33 to govern?” asked Justice Jacob Wit.

β€œThat is effectively what they are saying,” Mendes answered.

 Source

http://www.ccj.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Hon-Mr-Justice-Jacob-WIT-200x300.jpg

The Honourable Mr Justice Jacob Wit

 

Z

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×