SA future - 702 comment

[Waaib]

They've already had a 2/3rd's majority but somehow the genocide has yet to arrive.

Shouldn't really have commented - you may return to your knee-jerk panicking now.

Did they? I thought they missed it the 2/3rds by a few percent.
No panic or knee-jerk here. Maybe my post was a poorly worded to display panic. It's just how I think things will go. Nothing can be done about it, it will all just play out in the future.

 

[chiskop]

Did they?

Yes, from 2004 - 2009

I thought they missed it the 2/3rds by a few percent.

Yes, they missed it fractionally this year.

 

[Kosmik]

(Not sure how long this thread will last....)

I think that in the next election the ANC will get the 2/3's majority they need to change the constitution. When that happens they'll make some changes in their next term of office. What will be interesting is to see if the following election (after their 2/3's win) go their way again. The changes they'll make will either scare more voters into voting against them or bring on complete apathy and let them run amok forever. Hopefully the constitution holds long enough for the voters to change their minds.

There was caller on 702/567 about a week ago. She identified herself as being in her mid 30's and black. She was extremely well spoken and mentioned being a professional of some kind. She said that even though she didn't want vote for them to she felt morally obliged to vote ANC. She listed a whole string of things she felt they were doing wrong but said she'd still vote for them because of the struggle. It was the first time I'd heard that kind of thinking in SA. Reminded me of Zim.

I disagree, this last election was the first time since '94 that the ANC did not get a two thirds. People are starting to see, especially your new middle class, just what a bugger up they've been doing. If the ANC turns around and improves things, we may see them reach two thirds again but with all the scandals,backhands and lack of service delivery, people are getting tired.

 

[chiskop]

I disagree, this last election was the first time since '94 that the ANC did not get a two thirds.

Is it so difficult to check things before you talk ****?

2004 was the only time the ANC got > 66.66% in an election. (In 1999 they were very very close, and may have got over 267 seats in Parliament - which is what really counts - after floorcrossing.)

 

[Dolby]

You think they'll get 2/3 next time?

 

[LazyLion]

I think that in the next election the ANC will get the 2/3's majority they need to change the constitution. When that happens they'll make some changes in their next term of office.

They had two thirds once before didn't they?

Oh, sorry... didn't see all those post above.

Anyways... I think the ANC's share will start declining year on year from now on. Unless they pull a Mad Bob, they are going to struggle to hold on to their voters.

 

[Nerfherder]

You think they'll get 2/3 next time?

Depends hey... JZ has promised a lot. If they do fix most of their problems then I don't really mind if they get 2/3.

If they don't fix enough stuff then I think there will be very little chance of 2/3

 

[Kosmik]

Is it so difficult to check things before you talk ****?

2004 was the only time the ANC got > 66.66% in an election. (In 1999 they were very very close, and may have got over 267 seats in Parliament - which is what really counts - after floorcrossing.)

Hmmm intresting, as far as I was aware they've always had prior but the floor crossing could definately have muddled things. Hehe, don't normally check facts that I live through, sign of getting old and grouchy

 

[Waaib]

From the pre-2009 election messages I got the impression that all non-ANC voters MUST vote to prevent the 2/3rds majority. I didn't realize they already had it. So it was more a case of take way the 2/3rds than prevent it. Semantics I suppose. I According to Wiki they got 69.69% in 2004 and 65.90% in 2009. Interesting how the message got through to me.

This means though that the DA was saying stop Zuma's team from getting 2/3rds as because they will act differently to the previous ANC leaders.

I should really pay more attention .... actually no.... too many waves to surf.

 

[sox63]

From the pre-2009 election messages I got the impression that all non-ANC voters MUST vote to prevent the 2/3rds majority. I didn't realize they already had it. So it was more a case of take way the 2/3rds than prevent it. Semantics I suppose. I According to Wiki they got 69.69% in 2004 and 65.90% in 2009. Interesting how the message got through to me.

This means though that the DA was saying stop Zuma's team from getting 2/3rds as because they will act differently to the previous ANC leaders.

I should really pay more attention .... actually no.... too many waves to surf.

Its not your fault dude, the way you percieve the issue is as a result of the negative fear mongering politicking parties like the DA did in the run up to the election.

As for the 702 comment, perhaps marine1 sent the sms and posted it here as well? We all know his agenda

 

[killadoob]

Yea that is strange why then if the ANC had 2/3's majority was it such a big thing to stop them getting it again?

If they had 2/3's why did they not do whatever people fear they would do with 2/3's?

 

[Waaib]

Yea that is strange why then if the ANC had 2/3's majority was it such a big thing to stop them getting it again?

If they had 2/3's why did they not do whatever people fear they would do with 2/3's?

My interpretation / understanding was that Team Zuma was keen on changing the constitution with things like remove the limit on 2 terms for a President and that Mbeki's Team never did that because they understood business and what it took to prevent corruption etc.

 

[Kosmik]

My interpretation / understanding was that Team Zuma was keen on changing the constitution with things like remove the limit on 2 terms for a President and that Mbeki's Team never did that because they understood business and what it took to prevent corruption etc.

I would say they knew more about what side thier bread was buttered on and changing the consitution would have resulted in financial losses from external investment depending on what directions it went.

 

[daveza]

said she'd still vote for them because of the struggle. It was the first time I'd heard that kind of thinking in SA.

Seriously that's the first time you've heard it ?

90% of the whites who voted ANC in 1994 ( me included ) because they felt morally obliged to do so.

I would imagine 5% voted ANC just to annoy the Nats and the other 5% voted ANC because at the time none of the other parties were worth the ink.

 

[chiskop]

My interpretation / understanding was that Team Zuma was keen on changing the constitution with things like remove the limit on 2 terms for a President and that Mbeki's Team never did that because they understood business and what it took to prevent corruption etc.

Your interpretation is wrong.

Why would Zuma, who was not even president at that stage, be concerned about making sure he could still rule in ten years time??

The constitution has been changed numerous times, there is a thread somewhere about it. Floor crossing and Khutsong have been the result of constitutional amendments.

 

[Waaib]

Seriously that's the first time you've heard it ?

It was the first time I had heard an educated black (I think it's relevant here) person say that even though she agrees the ANC is not delivering and is corrupt she would still vote for them purely because of the struggle.

 

[daveza]

Mbeki's Team never did that because they understood business and what it took to prevent corruption etc.

Yet most of the corruption now being revealed began under Mbeki's watch.

 

[Flanders]

It doesn't matter how the ANC performs as far as peoples' votes go (as is evident). I reckon they'll get 2/3rds next time round unless something drastic changes. Just what, I don't know. I just don't see COPE being around for the next election and they were the spanner in the ANC's works. Hopefully I'm wrong.

 

[PeterCH]

+1

The main thing that I would say is that in 1930 Germany was still recovering from WW1 and the consequences of being the team that lost.

Anyone who knows anything about history will tell you that 1930's Germany and 2010's SA are worlds apart.

You bet. The Germans came up with an efficient system to murder millions of men, women and children in a very systematic, matter of fact way. They didn't really hate their enemies that much either - Germans lived and intermarried with the Jews for centuries, they lived and intermarried with the Poles for centuries, they had experiences of having the Roma for centuries. They bordered Russia and the Kaiser and Tsar were related. They were allies against the French and sometimes the British and helped to break down neighbours together.

In a way they turned on the people they were used to, and just decided one day to murder off 6+ million Jews, 20 million Poles, hundreds of thousands of Roma, and continue with Russians and other people in the hope of achieving a Living Space in the East. It's quite chilling really but hey-- they were very efficient at it and almost emotionless. The majority of the population simply gave their approval although most people were individually decent, once indoctrinated with Marxist-Nazi BS they efficiently opened up their killing machine.

The only comparison I can think of is Rwanda - Tutsis and Hutus. Again these people lived together for many centuries.

I doubt this will happen in SA.

 

[noxibox]

Cool, so this is not really good for us whites, but means in a decade or so South Africa is going to be a major industrial power? Does South Africa have to invade Poland or is somewhere closer acceptable. Maybe South Africa can claim Namibia is really its land.