selecting Presidential candidates system isn't a weird and bewildering mess, I'm happy to hear your arguments. :hehe:
selecting Presidential candidates system isn't a weird and bewildering mess, I'm happy to hear your arguments. :hehe:
I'll happily admit, I have no idea how it works. About the only thing I get is the whole designated survivor thing :hehe:Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
I actually studied it for A Level Politics. I just assumed you weren't supposed to understand itQuote:
Originally Posted by Burney
This bit where randos get to wander into a room and somehow decide who gets delegates from the caucus (Sanders won in one place because 14 Ethiopian meatpackers voted for him :hehe: ) is only the beginning. You then have the Primaries, in which the party's candidate can be voted for by - wait for it - anyone who is a registered voter. So die-hard opponents of the Democrats can quite legitimately go and vote to influence which Democrat candidate should get the nomination. :hehe:Quote:
Originally Posted by PSRB
The whole thing is impressively mental.
Me too. And, while that has given me some grasp of the mechanics of it, it still doesn't make any sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Luis Anaconda
Yep - never understood the logic in it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
Just think how you could blow their minds with a suggestion like 'Hey lads. How about we just let the candidates campaign for a bit and then let all registered members of the party have a couple of run-off votes to whittle down the number of candidates and then have a deciding vote between the last two to see who should be our Presidential candidate? It could be done in about two months - three tops."Quote:
Originally Posted by Luis Anaconda
I'm struggling to see what the problem would be with this.
The Yanks always live in 1783. cf their need for guns to protect them from George III's Redcoats even though the state now has Apache gunships, tanks and drones and the like.Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
They designed their system at a time when the candidates would have to traverse the continent on horse and cart. Now we have tv debates and jets, there's no need for it to last longer than a UK campaign. But they're backward.
It's like that Christian sect that still lives in the C18th. God doesn't want you to enjoy His blessings of modernity. Nor to live as people did in Jesus's time, which would at least have some sort of logic to it. No, God wants you to live as we did when the goras first got to Amerikaland.
But the most stupid bit of the Septic system, the electoral college, is also to do with the horse and cart bit. Nowadays, they could just count the vote on the day. But instead you have a situation, such as 2000or 2016, when the Yank with the most votes loses.
And all the silly Septic cünts think this is both normal and acceptable.
Like supposedly having an independent judiciary, but choosing the judges on their politics, and then allowing the randomness of their dates of death to lead to constitutional decisions that go against the current will of the electorate and will set the course for the next generation or two.
To be fair, at least they do actually live in a democracy, something no-one who lives in France can claim. There, you get to choose an elected monarch once every seven years, after which he can do exactly whatever the fúck he (it's always a he) likes with zero Parliamentary scrutiny. Stupid frogs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult
Other than the fact that the president has only ruled for 5 years since Chiraq's 2nd term (2002-7), I'm so glad you agree with my French Commie mate's reasoning for supporting Melenchon's France Insoumise {FI}.Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
His sole manifesto was creating a 6e République based on the British system {well, Indian with a titular president, not a monarch.} He would then have called fresh elections straight away.
The the socialists had pulled out in 2017, and a chunk of that 6% voted for Melenchon, he'd have made the run off.
But good to see you agree with us Gilets Jaunes types. There's hope for you yet.
{When my mate told me FI's plans and I said it was basically the system we'd been telling you to use for over 200 years, he laughed and said that was the problem - if it hadn't been what the Brits had suggested, France would have done it years ago.}
I would of course support democrats against dictators. Being ruled by decree as the French are is no way for a supposedly significant nation to carry on. :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult
Mind you, I do suspect a large number of the Gilets Jaunes are only there because they want to retire on full pay at 55. Idle commie frog swine.
No. That's what the current strikes are about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
The GJs morphed from a fuel tax complaint into a general condemnation of Macron's use of ordnances to rule by decree when it had only been introduced by de Gaulle as an Algerian war measure only to be used in national security cases.
I whipped up this film in an afternoon when I got there last Jan. After that poor boxer got nicked for standing up for an innocent young lady battered by the CRS.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/wx42uqb921...0720p.mp4?dl=0