BF2S Forums Presidential Election 2016

Dilbert_X wrote:

Jay wrote:

Sounds like it's working as intended to me

Exactly my pojnt, its supposed to be shit. All these people complaining that its shit are missing the point.

I'd like to hear your reasoning on why it's "supposed to be shit".

Dilbert_X wrote:

pirana6 wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

I'd be angry.

You ARE angry. You complain more than the entire us population of this site. How many times have you even been to this country you can't stop bitching about?

I've been to the great Satan 4-5 times.
In that period America has 'intervened' militarily in 11 different countries, each time for no reason other than its money-making/power agenda.

Which 11 countries?

pirana6 wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

pirana6 wrote:

You ARE angry. You complain more than the entire us population of this site. How many times have you even been to this country you can't stop bitching about?

I've been to the great Satan 4-5 times.
In that period America has 'intervened' militarily in 11 different countries, each time for no reason other than its money-making/power agenda.

Which 11 countries?

well dilbert is a cantankerous old man so it's likely he's been to the US while we were still in our Banana Republic phase.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

pirana6 wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

I've been to the great Satan 4-5 times.
In that period America has 'intervened' militarily in 11 different countries, each time for no reason other than its money-making/power agenda.

Which 11 countries?

well dilbert is a cantankerous old man so it's likely he's been to the US while we were still in our Banana Republic phase.

dilbert unequivocally hates all things American, regardless of what they are, so it really reduces his credibility every time he brings up something new.

I am interested in seeing how strongly Jay supports our election system once we elect a democrat president and congress in November.

This just in! Political elites set up system largely controlled by monied interests!  The constitution was set up to self-govern the colonies in order to detach from British rule.  Was the system set up skewed in favor of powerful people? Yes, it was.  Just like in virtually every other nation-state in existence.  Yes, there is no American Exceptionalism.  Darn.

Unlike many countries?  OK. Our congress is made up of both rich white men from privileged families and the "common man" you speak of.  We have a bicameral legislature - something you should be familiar with, what with being raised in England.  Ours largely mimics it - the Senate as the House of Lords and the House of Reps as the House of Commons.  Except we don't go as far as limiting and appointing members to the Senate - it's actually more democratic and egalitarian than the House of Lords in the UK, even with the historical racism and sexism in the US.  We currently have a black president who was raised by a single mom, which is more in line with the demographic of the US population at large than the "top 1%" you speak of.  So you're actually wrong again - the current sitting president is evidence that a common man has a chance of achieving "anything" in US politics, albeit a statistical outlier when looking at the overall picture of American presidents.  If you have the time, take a look at the people who make up our Congress - it's a pretty demographically eclectic bunch, even if it is dominated by old rich white men.  The major problem I see with our Congress isn't the barrier to entry - it's that once elected, most members focus primarily on getting reelected instead of working for their constituents.  Maybe that's an American-only problem - I honestly don't know because I haven't really studied modern governments since college.

The constitution has nothing to do with stopping 3rd parties or minor candidates - I suggest familiarizing yourself with the actual history and political process in the US instead of seemingly basing your knowledge on news releases and internet commentary.  The cutting off of third party or minor candidates is a direct result of the machinations of the two party system we currently have (itself not a result of any doctrine or mandate in the constitution).  The two party system as we know it happened organically during the early years of the United States. However, you could make the argument that the Citizens United case (among other rulings) and the creeping belief that corporations and other non-human entities fall under the definition of "citizen" under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution is a bottleneck to the future of 3rd parties in the U.S., but only because of the current grip on power those two political parties already have.

Yes, we are all brainwashed into believing the constitution is a perfect document that must never be altered.  That's why the constitution has been amended 17 times since it was originally adopted.

You're a dummy dude.

PS - I have no delusions that our system of government as set up is perfect. I am one of the most vocal critics of US policy and style of government here. The difference between you and I is I can argue from a soapbox propped up on knowledge, not ignorance.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

This just in! Political elites set up system largely controlled by monied interests!  The constitution was set up to self-govern the colonies in order to detach from British rule.  Was the system set up skewed in favor of powerful people? Yes, it was.  Just like in virtually every other nation-state in existence.  Yes, there is no American Exceptionalism.  Darn.

Unlike many countries?  OK. Our congress is made up of both rich white men from privileged families and the "common man" you speak of.  We have a bicameral legislature - something you should be familiar with, what with being raised in England.  Ours largely mimics it - the Senate as the House of Lords and the House of Reps as the House of Commons.  Except we don't go as far as limiting and appointing members to the Senate - it's actually more democratic and egalitarian than the House of Lords in the UK, even with the historical racism and sexism in the US.  We currently have a black president who was raised by a single mom, which is more in line with the demographic of the US population at large than the "top 1%" you speak of.  So you're actually wrong again - the current sitting president is evidence that a common man has a chance of achieving "anything" in US politics, albeit a statistical outlier when looking at the overall picture of American presidents.  If you have the time, take a look at the people who make up our Congress - it's a pretty demographically eclectic bunch, even if it is dominated by old rich white men.  The major problem I see with our Congress isn't the barrier to entry - it's that once elected, most members focus primarily on getting reelected instead of working for their constituents.  Maybe that's an American-only problem - I honestly don't know because I haven't really studied modern governments since college.

The constitution has nothing to do with stopping 3rd parties or minor candidates - I suggest familiarizing yourself with the actual history and political process in the US instead of seemingly basing your knowledge on news releases and internet commentary.  The cutting off of third party or minor candidates is a direct result of the machinations of the two party system we currently have (itself not a result of any doctrine or mandate in the constitution).  The two party system as we know it happened organically during the early years of the United States. However, you could make the argument that the Citizens United case (among other rulings) and the creeping belief that corporations and other non-human entities fall under the definition of "citizen" under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution is a bottleneck to the future of 3rd parties in the U.S., but only because of the current grip on power those two political parties already have.

Yes, we are all brainwashed into believing the constitution is a perfect document that must never be altered.  That's why the constitution has been amended 17 times since it was originally adopted.

You're a dummy dude.

PS - I have no delusions that our system of government as set up is perfect. I am one of the most vocal critics of US policy and style of government here. The difference between you and I is I can argue from a soapbox propped up on knowledge, not ignorance.

I just want to add that third parties don't exist because, as I stated previously, our presidential election is based on winning each state individually. The state legislatures have created onerous barriers to entry that make it really difficult for third party candidates to even make it onto a ballot.

Again, our system is not perfect, but improvements have been made. Senators used to be appointed by the state governor rather than directly elected, for example.

We need to break up the Indian reservations and dismantle the bureau of Indian Affairs.

Crime especially towards vulnerable people like women and children is out of control on reservations. State, county, and even federal police have limited ability to police these areas. Financial mismanagement by corrupt tribal leaders has led to generations of poverty and drug abuse. By breaking up the reservations and letting the state take over the administration of former reservation land, the lives of the people living on many of the reservations can be genuinely improved.

Pirana mentioned state's rights and local control.

Mate, I wouldn't knock on how the US elects a president when our choice for a PM is up to the majority in parliament.

Cybargs wrote:

Mate, I wouldn't knock on how the US elects a president when our choice for a PM is up to the majority in parliament.

Our PM can't make executive orders or veto parliament.

Last edited by DrunkFace (2016-02-05 19:10:22)

DrunkFace wrote:

pirana6 wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

They're both shit.

Republicans declare a winner with 28% of the vote. A system with no preferences if a totally flawed system.

In a system of 12 choices, how do you decide who wins? And don't say whoever gets the most amount of votes.

Are you really that dense or do you have no idea how preferences work? One person always get a majority.

Democrats... Where to start.
No written ballots
There is so many problems with this, it's unbelievable such archaic methods are still used anywhere in the world let alone the richest most powerful country to have ever existed.

The president of the us is decided by written ballot. There. Can you sleep at night now?

And then to top it all off the result is decided by a fucking coin toss.

Man... people are really jerking themselves about this coin toss. Get ready to take off your foil hat!
First of all, it's a primary NOT THE ACTUAL ELECTION. Secondly, in SOME precincts there's an odd number of delegates, lets say 7, if the vote is tied, they each get 3 and the coin flip decides the last delegate. Read more about it (or likely don't, just keep bitching) here: http://www.npr.org/2016/02/02/465268206 … ry-clinton

Please keep defending a factually flawed system, show that stupidity and blind nationalism. It's the same reason your the only developed country without universal health care, the only developed country with bizarre out of control gun laws/crime, the only developed (and 99% of underdeveloped) countries to not use the metric system.

My 4th grade class president elections were run better then this. You should be ashamed at such incompetence America.

Yeah? Every highschooler in the US also took a US politics class. Try it.

4th grade aint highschool. Also maybe you should just take a politics class, the US part is obviously bias and missing huge chunks of information, kind of like sex education in those bible belt states.

You're a moron.