Thread: 2016 Democratic US Presidential Candidates

Originally Posted by bsnub

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Oh come off it snubby, she's got to be your favourite carpet muncher the way she's always sucking up to Bernie.

I would do her but she is no fan of Bernie at this point.

Is that because she looks like a bloke?

^ Do not deny that you would pound that. She is little and has a tight bod.

Originally Posted by bsnub

^ little and has a tight bod.

He gives the same reason for his desire to pound half of One Direction.

Originally Posted by bsnub

Originally Posted by pseudolus

Would love it if Killary is dumped.

I would be ok with that if the DNC honored the will of the people and gave the nomination to Sanders. I rather like TYT's myself.

DNC - anyone but Sanders. Most of the upper echelons would vote for Trump before Bernie.

Originally Posted by bsnub

I would do her

Originally Posted by pseudolus

Would love it if Killary is dumped.

So you're saying you want Trump.

Originally Posted by wjblaney

Originally Posted by pseudolus

Would love it if Killary is dumped.

So you're saying you want Trump.

A good example of how "democratic" the US Selection system is

You, the voters, can chose who you want. Do you want Trump the bankrupt racist fool or Killary the mass murdering banker shill psycho. The choice is yours, so have your free pick of them.

Umm no - I do not want Trump. It's like saying "well, I don't want Cancer" to be met with "well does that mean you want AIDS"?

No, I want neither, and I would prefer not to have a system which forces you to have a deadly degenerative disease, getting you to pick which one you want to have.

Now is killary Cancer or AIDS?

^ Oh it's simply that you prefer a parliamentary republic to a representative democracy.

Originally Posted by wjblaney

representative democracy.

Leaving aside "democracy", do you think any of the last 100 years of presidents of the US have been "representative"?

Truman closest but he only made it cuz Franklin croaked.

^^ the missing link is a viable option on the ballot to reject all the candidates. If 50% or more choose that option, you hold the election again. That ensures whoever us elected will be a real representative of the people.

^^US has near that. A write in candidate. Don't think has ever happened but a write in could win the election.

Originally Posted by bsnub

^ Do not deny that you would pound that. She is little and has a tight bod.

Good Lord, Snub. You REALLY need to get out of the US for a while.

Originally Posted by Norton

Don't think has ever happened but a write in could win the election.

It could not happen, period, exclamation point. The two "governing parties" (Dems and the GOP) have soooooo much money that there is no chance, whatsoever, of a third party candidate ever winning, let alone a write-in candidate.

Originally Posted by wjblaney

My question is, in the last 100 years, do you recognize any U.S. president as having been singularly important in historical terms? If so, good or bad terms?

You would need to prove it was them doing it, rather than the people behind them. I do not believe that for a long long time that any USA president has been anything other than a puppet. The only difference now is that it is just so bloody obvious.

Originally Posted by pseudolus

You would need to prove it was them doing it, rather than the people behind them. I do not believe that for a long long time that any USA president has been anything other than a puppet. The only difference now is that it is just so bloody obvious.

Tell me if you think Winston Churchill was a puppet.

Originally Posted by wjblaney

Originally Posted by pseudolus

You would need to prove it was them doing it, rather than the people behind them. I do not believe that for a long long time that any USA president has been anything other than a puppet. The only difference now is that it is just so bloody obvious.

Tell me if you think Winston Churchill was a puppet.

Yes. Next?

Originally Posted by pseudolus

Yes. Next?

Yes, now I see and your point is made.

Originally Posted by wjblaney

Originally Posted by pseudolus

Yes. Next?

Yes, now I see and your point is made.

There' a lot of bull written about Churchill, rewriting of history, glossing over, justifying his actions, and probably more importantly, wiping out what he knew and when he knew what the Nazis were really up to. Also, he was made, in Europe at least, the face of Nazi Germany Defeated, but in reality, 4 out 5 german fighters killed in WW2 were killed on the eastern front by the Soviets, and it was them who liberated Berlin. They had more to do with defeating Germany than the UK and US together, but we've forgotten that, and instead, raise a drink to Churchill, who himself, backed the United States of Europe almost fanatically

I believe that Churchill was a brand, and his exceedingly close relationship with the media barons and Banking Elite points towards something that is not in the BBC history of him

Originally Posted by Norton

^^US has near that. A write in candidate. Don't think has ever happened but a write in could win the election.

The conceptual framework behind the option to reject all is that it brings voters' consent into the electoral process.

A democratic government is supposed to be created by the consent of the governed, but in the current electoral process there is no meaningful way to withhold consent, so consequently consent cannot be meaningfully be given either.

With a viable option to reject all on the ballot, voters are now able to meaningfully withhold consent and so therefore are giving their consent when they vote for any candidate.

The reason why at least 50% must choose to reject all to trigger a new election is that if you vote for any one candidate, your consent to be governed by the eventual winner, whether you voted for him or not is assumed.

So it quite different from a write in candidate, or spoiling a ballot (which nothing more than an abstention)

The way I describe it is that currently our electoral model is simply 'lead, follow, or get out if the way' and this is why many people feel powerless within our so called democracies, they are currently stripped of the democratic prerequisite of being able to give and withhold their consent in elections.

In my view its THE key reform required to shift the balance of power away from political parties (and the special interests that control them) into the hands of voters. Currently the electoral system begets nothing more or less than an elected oligarchy, with only constitutional restraints and independent institutions holding them somewhat in check. Voters are relatively powerless in this system, and are very much the junior partners at the table, though are heavily patronised as being more powerful than they are, but this charade is fast becoming impossible to maintain.

^Where is your evidence that the American public is clammoring for such a radical change to the constitution? You are simply presenting an unrealistic, theoretical fantasy.

Originally Posted by longway

Anyway to answer your question this theoretical fantasy is called democracy, you know the thing that so many people died for and the system of government within which we are supposed to be living.

No Longway, nobody fought for 'none of the above'. You are brit advising Americans on their electoral process. We excluded you from having a say in such things over 200 years ago so fuk off you pillock.

^ the dumbmonkey is furiously flailing away at his keyboard today.

when you guys told the uk to fuk off your declaration of independence specifically states that your government will derive its authority by the consent of the governed, i am getting you to live up to your own ideals dumbass, you can thank me by kissing my ring.