Given that the PPP practice to holding free, fair and transparent elections since they took office in 1992, blackmail doesn't seem like something they would resort to. Not like how Granger deserted all decent expectations by unilaterally appointing an 84 years old person who could even tell which end of the pen had the ink to be GECOM chairman. This after he insisted that the person had to be fit and proper.

ksazma posted:

Given that the PPP practice to holding free, fair and transparent elections since they took office in 1992, blackmail doesn't seem like something they would resort to.

lol

but your howler doesn't address my question

What happens to y'all illogical 'constitutional process' if Granger gives 'compromat' as a reason?

Homme posted:

ksazma posted:

Given that the PPP practice to holding free, fair and transparent elections since they took office in 1992, blackmail doesn't seem like something they would resort to.

lol

but your howler doesn't address my question

What happens to y'all illogical 'constitutional process' if Granger gives 'compromat' as a reason?

Let him give that as a reason and then we will see where it goes. So far he has resisted the judge's order to state his reasons for rejecting the 18 people presented by the Opposition Leader. The ball was in his court and he dropped it.

ksazma posted:

Homme posted:

ksazma posted:

Given that the PPP practice to holding free, fair and transparent elections since they took office in 1992, blackmail doesn't seem like something they would resort to.

lol

but your howler doesn't address my question

What happens to y'all illogical 'constitutional process' if Granger gives 'compromat' as a reason?

Let him give that as a reason and then we will see where it goes. So far he has resisted the judge's order to state his reasons for rejecting the 18 people presented by the Opposition Leader. The ball was in his court and he dropped it.

You apparently are not sharp enough to see the absurdity I am pointing to with this thread

and i don't have time to waste with a tutorial

Enjoy running with the herd

Homme is trying to cloud the issue with his cryptic BS. Poor scholarship with his If -then statement.

My father used to say when we use if in our arguments 'If shit was sugar, you would have stirred it in your tea!'

The fact is that Granger went against the constitutional requirements and the ruling of the Chief Justice. He seems to be one of the few to approve of the president's decision. He joins the AFC which has lost all credibility and hangs on to its ministerial positions for the political and financial benefits.

ksazma posted:

Given that the PPP practice to holding free, fair and transparent elections since they took office in 1992,

If all of their elections they felt were free, fair and transparent then why don't they accept the results of the last one? 

The election in 2015 was held on the same basis as were the others, and in fact the results were the same as in 2011, not winning more than 50%.  So the PPP loss shouldn't have been a surprise.

But even now the PPP screams that the PNC rigged the last election, when it was they the PPP who were in power.

Oh and btw reports are that the PPP's anger with the last election, isn't that they lost. It is that they had put in place mechanisms to win, but these were discovered.  They did so as the demographics have shifted to the point where the PPP isn't as sure of victory as they were in the 1997, 2001 and 2006 elections.

Zed posted:

Homme is trying to cloud the issue with his cryptic BS. Poor scholarship with his If -then statement.

My father used to say when we use if in our arguments 'If shit was sugar, you would have stirred it in your tea!'

The fact is that Granger went against the constitutional requirements and the ruling of the Chief Justice. He seems to be one of the few to approve of the president's decision. He joins the AFC which has lost all credibility and hangs on to its ministerial positions for the political and financial benefits.

Just not running with the herd bai

Study my "if-then statement" carefully, and have someone intelligent explain the 'constitutional' implications to you if it is still too difficult to understand

Homme posted:

 

You apparently are not sharp enough to see the absurdity I am pointing to with this thread

and i don't have time to waste with a tutorial

Enjoy running with the herd

Not so long ago, you stated that you are not interested in suppositions either. Why the change of heart? Either Granger is interested in explaining his actions or not. The Opposition has a right to object to his actions whether he care about their objection or not. If Granger begin to act like Burnham behaving like he was going to live forever, he will have to one day deal with the inevitability that Burnham was forced to deal with. No one live forever and while youth does not guarantee long life, Granger is no spring chicken.

ksazma posted:

Homme posted:

 

You apparently are not sharp enough to see the absurdity I am pointing to with this thread

and i don't have time to waste with a tutorial

Enjoy running with the herd

Not so long ago, you stated that you are not interested in suppositions either. Why the change of heart? Either Granger is interested in explaining his actions or not. The Opposition has a right to object to his actions whether he care about their objection or not. If Granger begin to act like Burnham behaving like he was going to live forever, he will have to one day deal with the inevitability that Burnham was forced to deal with. No one live forever and while youth does not guarantee long life, Granger is no spring chicken.

My reasoning has little to do with Granger

caribny posted:

ksazma posted:

Given that the PPP practice to holding free, fair and transparent elections since they took office in 1992,

If all of their elections they felt were free, fair and transparent then why don't they accept the results of the last one? 

 

Because the difference in vote counts prompted them to request a recount of the votes. Their sole objection to the result was based on the denial to have the votes recounted. Even the dude from the UK mentioned it yesterday or today which means it is still an open issue to him. It may just be that the result would still be ratified but that opportunity was never utilized. What they did not do is resort to tactics like Hoyte's "mo fiah, slo fiah" threats.

Homme posted:

ksazma posted:

Homme posted:

 

You apparently are not sharp enough to see the absurdity I am pointing to with this thread

and i don't have time to waste with a tutorial

Enjoy running with the herd

Not so long ago, you stated that you are not interested in suppositions either. Why the change of heart? Either Granger is interested in explaining his actions or not. The Opposition has a right to object to his actions whether he care about their objection or not. If Granger begin to act like Burnham behaving like he was going to live forever, he will have to one day deal with the inevitability that Burnham was forced to deal with. No one live forever and while youth does not guarantee long life, Granger is no spring chicken.

My reasoning has little to do with Granger

The person whose actions are currently under scrutiny is Granger. Focusing on anyone else is meaningless.

In reality, the Constitution of Guyana is irrelevant if the leaders of Guyana chooses to make it irrelevant. No one could have stopped Burnham from abusing the laws of Guyana or having ones written to benefit him. Granger who is beginning to look like Burnham wouldn't care much what the Constitution or the Chief Justice thinks. Everyone know that the PNC was brutal. The US knew also which prompted Kennedy to issue an apology to Jagan after the 1992 elections. 

ksazma posted:

Homme posted:

ksazma posted:

Homme posted:

 

You apparently are not sharp enough to see the absurdity I am pointing to with this thread

and i don't have time to waste with a tutorial

Enjoy running with the herd

Not so long ago, you stated that you are not interested in suppositions either. Why the change of heart? Either Granger is interested in explaining his actions or not. The Opposition has a right to object to his actions whether he care about their objection or not. If Granger begin to act like Burnham behaving like he was going to live forever, he will have to one day deal with the inevitability that Burnham was forced to deal with. No one live forever and while youth does not guarantee long life, Granger is no spring chicken.

My reasoning has little to do with Granger

The person whose actions are currently under scrutiny is Granger. Focusing on anyone else is meaningless.

I am not "focusing on anyone else"

Pay attention

Homme posted:

 

I am not "focusing on anyone else"

Pay attention

You are free to focus wherever you wish. Many folks right now are rightfully focused on Granger's actions in the dead of night Friday. Even the UK dude took time to comment on it.

ksazma posted:

Homme posted:

ksazma posted:

Given that the PPP practice to holding free, fair and transparent elections since they took office in 1992, blackmail doesn't seem like something they would resort to.

lol

but your howler doesn't address my question

What happens to y'all illogical 'constitutional process' if Granger gives 'compromat' as a reason?

Let him give that as a reason and then we will see where it goes. So far he has resisted the judge's order to state his reasons for rejecting the 18 people presented by the Opposition Leader. The ball was in his court and he dropped it.

Dont waste your time with Jackasses!!!

Ksacz, these FILTH HEADS cannot think differently. The key words are FILTH HEADs!!!

Homme posted:

Zed posted:

Homme is trying to cloud the issue with his cryptic BS. Poor scholarship with his If -then statement.

My father used to say when we use if in our arguments 'If shit was sugar, you would have stirred it in your tea!'

The fact is that Granger went against the constitutional requirements and the ruling of the Chief Justice. He seems to be one of the few to approve of the president's decision. He joins the AFC which has lost all credibility and hangs on to its ministerial positions for the political and financial benefits.

Just not running with the herd bai

Study my "if-then statement" carefully, and have someone intelligent explain the 'constitutional' implications to you if it is still too difficult to understand

I understand very well the constitutional requirements and the ruling of the Chief Justice on the issues posed to her. 

Stir your If-then into what you drink!

Zed posted:

Homme posted:

Zed posted:

Homme is trying to cloud the issue with his cryptic BS. Poor scholarship with his If -then statement.

My father used to say when we use if in our arguments 'If shit was sugar, you would have stirred it in your tea!'

The fact is that Granger went against the constitutional requirements and the ruling of the Chief Justice. He seems to be one of the few to approve of the president's decision. He joins the AFC which has lost all credibility and hangs on to its ministerial positions for the political and financial benefits.

Just not running with the herd bai

Study my "if-then statement" carefully, and have someone intelligent explain the 'constitutional' implications to you if it is still too difficult to understand

I understand very well the constitutional requirements and the ruling of the Chief Justice on the issues posed to her. 

Stir your If-then into what you drink!

The Chief Justice also confirmed in her ruling that it is the President, acting in his own deliberate judgement, who must determine whether a person is ‘fit and proper’

The Chief Justice advised that there is no legal requirement for the President to state reasons for rejecting a list,

though it is her belief that in the furtherance of democracy and good governance, he should since Article 161 (2) speaks to the need for dialogue and compromise.

The Chief Justice further advised that it is the Head of State who has sole discretion on the determination of what is ‘fit and proper’ and as such, the President is not obligated to select a person from the six names on a list of which he has determined positively that the persons thereon are unacceptable as fit and proper persons for appointment.

https://www.kaieteurnewsonline...t-be-a-former-judge/

Zed,

I am hearing a lot of talk about the Chief Justice ruling,here is some info.

caribny posted:

ksazma posted:

Given that the PPP practice to holding free, fair and transparent elections since they took office in 1992,

If all of their elections they felt were free, fair and transparent then why don't they accept the results of the last one? 

The election in 2015 was held on the same basis as were the others, and in fact the results were the same as in 2011, not winning more than 50%.  So the PPP loss shouldn't have been a surprise.

But even now the PPP screams that the PNC rigged the last election, when it was they the PPP who were in power.

Oh and btw reports are that the PPP's anger with the last election, isn't that they lost. It is that they had put in place mechanisms to win, but these were discovered.  They did so as the demographics have shifted to the point where the PPP isn't as sure of victory as they were in the 1997, 2001 and 2006 elections.

 

 

2015 was the PPP election?  Really? Don't twist the man's words.  He is saying that the PPP never rigged an election which is a documented fact.

Django posted:

Zed posted:

Homme posted:

Zed posted:

Homme is trying to cloud the issue with his cryptic BS. Poor scholarship with his If -then statement.

My father used to say when we use if in our arguments 'If shit was sugar, you would have stirred it in your tea!'

The fact is that Granger went against the constitutional requirements and the ruling of the Chief Justice. He seems to be one of the few to approve of the president's decision. He joins the AFC which has lost all credibility and hangs on to its ministerial positions for the political and financial benefits.

Just not running with the herd bai

Study my "if-then statement" carefully, and have someone intelligent explain the 'constitutional' implications to you if it is still too difficult to understand

I understand very well the constitutional requirements and the ruling of the Chief Justice on the issues posed to her. 

Stir your If-then into what you drink!

The Chief Justice also confirmed in her ruling that it is the President, acting in his own deliberate judgement, who must determine whether a person is ‘fit and proper’

The Chief Justice advised that there is no legal requirement for the President to state reasons for rejecting a list,

though it is her belief that in the furtherance of democracy and good governance, he should since Article 161 (2) speaks to the need for dialogue and compromise.

The Chief Justice further advised that it is the Head of State who has sole discretion on the determination of what is ‘fit and proper’ and as such, the President is not obligated to select a person from the six names on a list of which he has determined positively that the persons thereon are unacceptable as fit and proper persons for appointment.

https://www.kaieteurnewsonline...t-be-a-former-judge/

---

Zed,

I am hearing a lot of talk about the Chief Justice ruling,here is some info.

Take the totality of the ruling, not just one part. Do not just pick the parts that you like.