Party politics aside. Is this honestly what passes for a democratic process?
Speechless...
C-Span Iowa Caucus Video - 5 mins long - watch the whole disorganised thing...
Ooh and look - that tried and true method of deciding between two options is also put to use - the coin toss. I mean, I know it's only a county caucus but still... #isthisthebestwecando?
Last edited by Galant; 02-02-2016 at 11:58 PM.
No trees were harmed in the creation of this message. However, many electrons were displaced and terribly inconvenienced.
TRUMP VS PUTIN or TRUMP&PUTIN VS WORLD. Bernie sanders is a cranky uncharismatic complaining old fart. Hilary Clinton is head honcho of the lizard illuminati. Do we really have democracy anyway.
Last edited by malarkey95; 02-02-2016 at 11:53 PM.
These are party Causcuses, they aren't a democratic process at all.
What's happening here is that the major political parties are choosing who they submit as their candidate for the democratic process that is the real election. It is conducted according to the party rules for each state party. Some use a caucus, some an election, but nothing stops them setting rules however they like, only party members are involved.
The actual election happens in November, and has it's own problems, just like the electoral system in the UK.
There is no surprise that the fix is in for Clinton, a lot of big money is being spent to buy her the candidacy and keep her out of prison. So far, more than three times as much as any Republican candidate.
Trump get's a lot of commentary, but what he really represents is the utter disgust that the American public has for the political parties. Trump is the closest thing we have to an honest politician, and, while I disagree with many, if not the majority of the things he says, I at least have some respect for him. The other Republican candidates? Not so much.
The nightmare scenario is Hillary and Cruz winning the nominations. I'll probably vote Libertarian anyway.
Anyone see when Hilary was giving a speech at one of her campaign rallies, the dude who was seen in the background pulling faces with stickers at the side of his mouth? Rather funny lol.
I think Cruz will be good why <expletive removed> would you vote hillary teepee
Last edited by peterb; 03-02-2016 at 12:43 PM. Reason: Expletive
British politics may have got itself into a bit of a mess at the moment with an opposition party that is completely ineffectual, but operates inside a bubble where it deludes itself that it is working. However, when the least horrific option available in US politics is Hillary Clinton, that is a whole other level of messed up.
If Wisdom is the coordination of "knowledge and experience" and its deliberate use to improve well being then how come "Ignorance is bliss"
looks like cruz has been caught cheating already and trump might go to court over it
and Clinton? was already calling the media to get them to call her the winner before the votes had come in - as it was , those coin toss decided it!
new Hampshire will be interesting and I hope they go against Clinton from now on.
I'm trying to translate this into English, so bear with me. I would not vote for, and have an extreme dislike for Hillary because she is dishonest, has repeatedly lied under oath, and has deliberately circumvented security procedures as part of an attempt to hide her actions in office. She belongs in prison.Originally Posted by malarkey95
Cruz is a theocrat, who claims to be a Constitutional lawyer, but doesn't understand the First Amendment. The religious right already has far too much influence in US politics, the last thing we need is a President pushing for Sharia law.
Understood, I was just amazed that, even for a low-level in-party process (that's still part of the wider, overall, democratic process), this level of (dis)organisation and procedure is in place.
Next year the should have all elementary schools run an alternate science fair where the project is to design an effective way to count people in a room. They can broadcast the results as a special edition of Are You Smarter Than A 5th Grader?
No trees were harmed in the creation of this message. However, many electrons were displaced and terribly inconvenienced.
Hillary getting the nomination is a scary prospect in and of itself. The fact she's even viable as a candidate at this point just makes a mockery of it all. I honestly don't expect her to be prosecute for what a clear violations of security and responsibility. Even if she were somehow proven 100% innocent of everything that would still leave her as vitally incompetent. It's just huge farce and quite depressing, actually, if one dwells on it.
On the other hand you've got Sanders. I haven't reviewed all his policies but generally speaking I suspect I'd be polar opposite to him on most issues. Somehow, though, he at least seems sincere in those views - or maybe that's just a result of contrast when standing opposite Hillary.
As for Republicans I'm not sure who I'd vote for. The main issues that tend to get brought up and discussed aren't the ones that give me clarity on what I feel are most important. That's one of the big problems with the media-focused processed that gets put on. The candidates roll on with their talking points on whatever seem to be the big interests of the day and it all just feels like hot air with nothing really clear being revealed. I heard a few people get behind Rand Paul who seemed like an interesting prospect but he's just dropped out.
Of the prospect that remain, the realistic ones are who - Trump, Cruz, Bush (?) and maybe Rubio on the outside?
If that holds out then we're looking at the next president of the USA being either:
H Clinton, B Sanders, D Trump, T Cruz, J Bush and M Rubio.
That list seems equal parts underwhelming, intriguing and downright scary.
No trees were harmed in the creation of this message. However, many electrons were displaced and terribly inconvenienced.
Poor old Flint Michigan nobody cares about them
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hSLL_lRNE8
Bush is the establishment choice. He's the GOP equivalent of Hilary with big money from Super PACs. Republicans are a little bit more resistant to voting for the person they are told to vote for, and his results show this. Rubio is another establishment politician, and it seems like the GOP are pushing for him to beat Cruz and Trump due to Bush's poor showing.
Cruz has a big following in large part because he pitches himself as a 'Tea Party' candidate, and has even been called Libertarian. The Tea Party has become a right wing conservative movement, and Ted Cruz himself is a big-government federalist, but he's picking up the extreme right on labels rather than policy.
Sanders would be a lot better than Hillary, but is a long way to the Left. He's already the most successful non-Christian Presidential candidate, which tells you a lot about the political landscape. He is, of course, another big-government federalist.
Rand ran a very poor campaign, and was in many ways tainted by his father's legacy. He was easily my pick of the Republican candidates, and the only one advocating for fiscally responsible government. He would have made a very good president.
The only other person running who I think would do a great job is Gary Johnson. 'Who?' you might ask? He's a candidate for the Libertarian party nomination. In 2012 he won just under 1% of the popular vote meaning he has no chance whatsoever and is also the most successful Libertarian Party candidate ever. The system is set up deliberately to prevent candidates from other parties from being successful, and it is a significant achievement that 1% of the electorate were aware that another candidate existed.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
