My vote is a boycott against the system. That's why I refuse to vote for a president. — Merkwurdichliebe

But it won't do anything except weaken the chances of the better alternative.

But it won't do anything except weaken the chances of the better alternative. — S

What better alternative, Hilldawg? Romney?McCain? Kerry? Gore?

What better alternative, Hilldawg? Romney?McCain? Kerry? Gore? — Merkwurdichliebe

The Democrat candidate. I would've voted for Hillary if I could've.

That you "throw away your vote". This idea is the problem. — ssu

Indeed...

You are probably right that a third party needs to gain prominence, beginning at the local level. But I think that is just as likely to occurr as as people, en masse, deciding to vote third party, and getting it elected to president.

I would've voted for Hillary. — S

Would've? Why no vote?

(Add. You would have been wrong. But you also would have been wrong to vote for Trump.)

England, I understand

I believe Hitler and Stalin would thrive in the present day American political system.

What better alternative, Hilldawg? Romney?McCain? Kerry? Gore? — Merkwurdichliebe

Brown’s Cow.

You would have been wrong. But you also would have been wrong to vote for Trump. — Merkwurdichliebe

Hillary actually had some good proposals. Not just better than Trump's: good. They would have been of benefit to the working class. And assessments of her economic plan were rosier.

Perhaps. Btw, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

I have figured out the equation. The math is quite simple.
Trump=the people fucked over
Clinton=the people fucked over

Perhaps. Btw, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. — Merkwurdichliebe

:lol:

No, seriously. I provided quite a bit of info about that here on the forum around the time of the election. You could probably find them by searching through my posts for "Hillary" by using the advanced search function.

How would they have fucked people over, except those who could do with a bit of fucking over, i.e. the wealthiest?

Obama made a bunch of idealistic promises too, and delivered nothing. Hilldawg is way more entrenched in the establishment, probably deeper than Obama has ever been. Did you really believe her?

Obama made a bunch of idealistic promises too and delivered nothing. Hilldawg is way more entrenched in the establishment, probably deeper than Obama has ever been. Did you really believe her. — Merkwurdichliebe

I didn't have complete trust in her, no. Far from it. But she said all that stuff in public, so anything she would've u-turned on could be used against her.

She likely would have followed through on enough of it, or some comprise near enough to it, to make it worth the vote.

The only positive thing that came out of the last presidential election is that it proved that the electoral system might not be rigged.

Most of what they promise is set up for the sole purpose of u-turning, they don't represent the electorate

Most of what they promise is set up for the sole purpose of u-turning, they don't represent the electorate. — Merkwurdichliebe

Some cynicism is justified. I'd say that that's too cynical.

"You know what Hillary says, 'suck my clit and balls.'" ~Eric Cartman, South Park.

Some cynicism is justified. I'd say that that's too cynical. — S

To be fair, Diogenes is one of my greatest influences.

what’s with the monkey business? You jealous of Rogers human dna? — praxis

I'm practicing inscrutability. I've found that the best course is to do things that truly make no sense.

You are probably right that a third party needs to gain prominence, beginning at the local level. But I think that is just as likely to occurr as as people, en masse, deciding to vote third party, and getting it elected to president. — Merkwurdichliebe

Or either party breaks up in two.

Imagine how that would look like either with Republicans or Democrats.

Play with this fantasy: "the people" is extremely smart. So smart that they are able to punish the democrats for their failure to be brave and radical in support of the people while at the same time making clear that, (a) republicanism is repugnant and does not command a majority, (b) a radical is what is required rather than a moderate, (c) don't expect me to vote for a venal, business as usual, bullshit candidate just because she's a woman.

Now, assuming "the people" is smart, assuming they meant exactly what they said at the last election, and that they expect the democrats to learn some lessons, who you gonna put forward? Of whom I've seen from across the pond, Warren stands out as sensibly radical, and - dare I say in all naivety? - honest.

Have Obama run for Vice President with the unspoken promise that the President resign immediately.

I don't think that's legal under the Constitution.https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#History

I don't think that's legal under the Constitution. — Hanover

Pfft.

Also, from your link:

There is some debate about how this amendment works with the 12th Amendment. The 12th Amendment limits who can become Vice-President to only people who meet the requirements of being President. One side of the debate points out that since a 2 term president can not become president again, that person can also not be vice-president. The other side of the debate is that the 12th Amendment deals with requirements but the 22nd deals with elections. This side points out that not being allowed to be elected does not mean that person does not meet the requirements needed by the 12th Amendment.

...

Since no president who has served two terms has ever tried to be vice-president, this problem has not yet been decided by the courts.

Pfft. — Michael

That's why I said "I think." But anyway, he should give it a try and see what happens.

That's why I said "I think." — Hanover

You should do less of that and more campaigning for Obama.

Play with this fantasy — unenlightened

Why do you play with that absurd fantasy? And why would they be so smart in clinging on to the two party system in the first place?

I think that smartness comes from the realization that in a democracy people have different ideas and uphold different values. Hence the smart thing is to seek a consensus that the vast majority can live with.

Or either party breaks up in two. — ssu

Interesting. That thought never occurred to me. But now that I think about all the discord in the two parties, it's becoming more and more of a possibility.

Why do you play with that absurd fantasy? — ssu

Well because it is the foundational fantasy of democracy and I am an inveterate optimist. But I understand you are an elitist, so you don't have to play.