America is a corrupt Plutocracy

[Leader]

It does cover the election process, skip over the first 3 sections about who can be prez.

since 1832 the president is a person backed by the two parties, namely democrats and republicans, nowhere it mentioned that there is two party system in US constitution..

US president is directly voted, yet indirectly placed to power..., nowhere it says that it must be a party's candidate..but without winning majority electors vote from both houses, he cannot become president.. this is how it should be according to the constitution, but it isn't.

originally, he was suppose to be independent of party affiliation, but evolution of your practice couldnt sustain the so called most powerful man of america being elected on popular vote alone. this separation failed, otherwise there wouldnt have been more than 2 candidates for Presidency each election.

There is a huge difference between analogies as applied to individuals and those that can apply to entire countries. Your examples are simply inapplicable in this situation.

Is there any other superpower yet? Nope.

failure to produce counter argument.

again being super power doesnot mean best system, as no gangster can claim to be evolved from best system, clearly its a case of plutocracy. there is a punjabi says, jina day kaar danay, ona day kamlay v siyanay, fits best on your desire for capitalist system to call best comparatively, just on the basis of being super power in this bipolar world..

as I have given you examples, those country's people are living way better conditions..

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

since 1832 the president is a person backed by the two parties, namely democrats and republicans, nowhere it mentioned that there is two party system in US constitution..

US president is directly voted, yet indirectly placed to power..., nowhere it says that it must be a party's candidate..but without winning majority electors vote from both houses, he cannot become president.. this is how it should be according to the constitution, but it isn't.

originally, he was suppose to be independent of party affiliation, but evolution of your practice couldnt sustain the so called most powerful man of america being elected on popular vote alone. this separation failed, otherwise there wouldnt have been more than 2 candidates for Presidency each election.

First off yes there are two large parties..but they are not the only ones on the ballot. Nor is it a requirement to be in a party. It just so happens the Republican and Democratic parties choose a single person to represent them in the US election. They do this simply so they don't field multiple candidates splitting their user base up against a single candidate from another party.

The political party conventions are a pre-screen to see if they were to put a candidate out for the US election which one would get the most votes. This pre-presidential voting has ZERO to do with the Constitutional election process. It is their "club" trying to feel out who would have the best chance to win if selected to run in the Presidential Election. They don't have to do it that way. They could put multiple candidates on the ballot but then their chance of winning plummets.

7 people on the 2012 ballot


President/VP Party
Obama / Biden. Democratic
Romney / Ryan. Republican
Johnson / Gray. Libertarian
Stein / Honkala. Green
Goode / Clymer. Constitution
Anderson / Rodriguez Justice
Lindsay / Osorio. Socialism & Liberation

 

[VCheng]

there is a punjabi says, jina day kaar danay, ona day kamlay v siyanay, fits best on your desire for capitalist system to call best comparatively, just on the basis of being super power in this bipolar world.

Isn't that Punjabi saying correct?

 

[Leader]

Isn't that Punjabi saying correct?

Yup... again you missing the point...

First off yes there are two large parties..but they are not the only ones on the ballot. Nor is it a requirement to be in a party. It just so happens the Republican and Democratic parties choose a single person to represent them in the US election. They do this simply so they don't field multiple candidates splitting their user base up against a single candidate from another party.

The political party conventions are a pre-screen to see if they were to put a candidate out for the US election which one would get the most votes. This pre-presidential voting has ZERO to do with the Constitutional election process. It is their "club" trying to feel out who would have the best chance to win if selected to run in the Presidential Election. They don't have to do it that way. They could put multiple candidates on the ballot but then their chance of winning plummets.

7 people on the 2012 ballot


President/VP Party
Obama / Biden. Democratic
Romney / Ryan. Republican
Johnson / Gray. Libertarian
Stein / Honkala. Green
Goode / Clymer. Constitution
Anderson / Rodriguez Justice
Lindsay / Osorio. Socialism & Liberation

bro you are missing the point, president's election originally had got nothing to do with the parties, he was suppose to win popular vote at his own, not at behest of the political parties, but once he got the poplar vote, his selection was done by the political parties through electors, currently 538?

the system separated the election of the president and political parties contesting to reach the congress/senate.. but this separation didnt last, as you see the political parties back a candidate for president and its the convention now practiced..

 

[Developereo]

Every form of government is dominated by an elite. That's a fact of human nature. The challenge is to build enough safeguards to save the commoners from their excesses.

It is always a work in progress, and it's all relative, but the US has one of the better systems in existence.

PS. Perfect (financial) equality is neither achievable nor desirable.

 

[VCheng]

Yup... again you missing the point................

What point is that exactly? You have already admitted that no other system works better than USA's in generating creativity, wealth and influence on a global scale.

 

[Leader]

What point is that exactly? You have already admitted that no other system works better than USA's in generating creativity, wealth and influence on a global scale.

were did I say anything remotely like that?

 

[VCheng]

were did I say anything remotely like that?

Here:

.........
my claim is better than your manipulative system at any given day... where few enjoy life, and populace suffer...

Yes, it has no practical example today, but dont assume there will be none in the future as well, we will thrive for it and prove it..


bas soch ka faraq hai, you are conformist, I am not !!

 

[punit]

Nuts, the Constitution never envisioned a prez independent of political affiliation.

Russian propaganda, sent out to confuse foreigners about who is in the right and who is in the wrong. The Bear is out to gobble Ukraine and wants outsiders to look elsewhere.

Ukraine belongs to Bear ! there is nothing much any one can do about it! About the topic USA system even if flawed is best !

 

[Leader]

Here:

you drunk ?

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

Yup... again you missing the point...

bro you are missing the point, president's election originally had got nothing to do with the parties, he was suppose to win popular vote at his own, not at behest of the political parties, but once he got the poplar vote, his selection was done by the political parties through electors, currently 538?

Hold on a second. A "political party" is nothing more than a group of people announcing a certain strategy they want the government to follow. The ultimate goal of a political party is to appeal to as large a block of voters as they can so somebody with their thinking can win the election. As I mentioned before there were 7 people running for the 2012 Presidential election. Each one had an equal spot in the voting page and technically if everything was random only 1/7 a chance of someone picking their candidate. In the end you are at the whim of the person casting the ballot - they don't even have to vote for someone in their own party. They could vote for ANY of the 7.

Political parties were nothing new when the Constitution was written. The British already had political parties (eg Whigs & Tories). Every president after Washington also had a political party. In fact #5 was a Whig!

As I say you don't have to be part of a political party to run.
Ralph Nader ran completely without a party in 2008.
John Hagelin created his own party "Natural Law" and ran with it in 2000.
Ross Perot created his own political party "Reform" and ran with it in 1996. (in 1992 he ran completely without a party)
Pat Buchanan borrowed the name "Reform" and ran with it in 2000.

Yup... again you missing the point...
the system separated the election of the president and political parties contesting to reach the congress/senate.. but this separation didnt last, as you see the political parties back a candidate for president and its the convention now practiced..

The Constitution sets up what is called the "Electoral College" which refers to "Electors".

....."if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President,".....

The US does not have a "direct vote" democracy. It has a "state vote" democracy. The "Electors" are appointed by each state to represent who the people of that state voted for. The number of Electors is a calculation based upon a formula that includes census data. When people vote in the US election, their votes are tallied for their state. Whoever gets the most votes in their state usually gets all the Electors for that state (a few states have weird division rules). Those Electors in turn cast their state votes for the President. Theoretically that means it is technically/mathematically possible to win the popular vote but lose the Elector vote.

 

[VCheng]

you drunk ?

No need to get personal. I enjoy out discussion but please do not make such remarks again. Thanks.

You did admit that your claim of a mixed capitalist/socialist system being better "Yes, it has no practical example today", did you not? That means, that in reality, the US system, imperfect as it is, still delivers the best results overall.

 

[Leader]

No need to get personal. I enjoy out discussion but please do not make such remarks again. Thanks.

You did admit that your claim of a mixed capitalist/socialist system being better "Yes, it has no practical example today", did you not? That means, that in reality, the US system, imperfect as it is, still delivers the best results overall.

I need not to get person but you need a little shame on how you falsely and repeatedly saying that I admitted to your stupid point of america being the best available system..

I DIDNOT and you are lying shamelessly that I said US has the best system !

have some honor.

this conversation is over here.

 

[VCheng]

I need not to get person but you need a little shame on how you falsely and repeatedly saying that I admitted to your stupid point of america being the best available system..

I DIDNOT and you are lying shamelessly that I said US has the best system !

have some honor.

this conversation is over here.

Yes, all you admitted was that what you have in mind as the better system is only imaginary, and the US system has no peers in reality. Or do you want to deny that now?

 

[Leader]

Yes, all you admitted was that what you have in mind as the better system is only imaginary, and the US system has no peers in reality. Or do you want to deny that now?

look, lets not waste each others time, I didnt say what you are claiming and you know it too, you are just twisting it like jew questioning moses about cow..

move on..