Thread: Where are the Men of America!

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

Anyone ever try and run for office in the U.S? It seems easy. Just get enough signatures and your on the list. Of course thats meaningless. You need money and lots of it and unless your independently wealthy and are willing to put your money up you will need contributers. That's where the system starts. Big companies will be glad to give you the money but if you get elected you now owe them. In addition once you get into a legislature or congress you're expected to support your party and play by their rules.If you try to go your own way your marginalized so as to have little say in what goes on and you'll never get reelected again.

There is nothing particularly manly ("Where are the men of America?") about an elected official, sworn to uphold the Constitution (nor any person sworn to any rightful duty), not doing so because of pressure from special interests or other party members.

Originally Posted by Galopede

Why do people insist that Gordon the Moron Brown is unelected? As opposed to any other UK prime minister that is. Britain does NOT elect a prime minister as the USA elects a president.

The Prime Minister is the leader of the majority party in the Commons. He is not elected other than as a member of Parliament.

Bliar was the leader at the last election. Brown became PM the same way as some bloke called Churchill did a while ago!

That said, the youtube guy is pretty accurate!

Gareth

Although we don't directly elect the PM (i.e. there's no ballot with alternative PM names) we do normally vote at a general election where the leader of each party is explicit, noted and known. So, you hate Blair and would rather have electrodes inserted under your nails than have him as PM? OK then, don't vote New Labour. The point is, one has a vote which has an impact on which leader becomes PM.

If I think Cameron is a baby-faced populist turd, then I can vote anything but Conservative at the next election. He might still get in, but at least it will be because the Torys won more votes (put simplistically).

But Brown... well. No general election... in fact, he has deliberately left it as long as possible. I think that's pretty undemocratic.

And if Churchill obtained his post the same way, then that doesn't make it a valid reason to continue working this way. Perhaps we were lucky, or perhaps the circumstances were so extreme at the time that the populace were focusing on that instead. I didn't live through Churchillian times, but I'm sure as hell living through Brownian motions... and boy do they stink! All the more for the fact that he was not the leader of the party when I voted last time and yet he is now leader of the government.

It ain't right.

Originally Posted by Galopede

Why do people insist that Gordon the Moron Brown is unelected? As opposed to any other UK prime minister that is. Britain does NOT elect a prime minister as the USA elects a president.

The Prime Minister is the leader of the majority party in the Commons. He is not elected other than as a member of Parliament.

Bliar was the leader at the last election. Brown became PM the same way as some bloke called Churchill did a while ago!

Originally Posted by majurey

Although we don't directly elect the PM (i.e. there's no ballot with alternative PM names) we do normally vote at a general election where the leader of each party is explicit, noted and known. So, you hate Blair and would rather have electrodes inserted under your nails than have him as PM? OK then, don't vote New Labour. The point is, one has a vote which has an impact on which leader becomes PM.

If I think Cameron is a baby-faced populist turd, then I can vote anything but Conservative at the next election. He might still get in, but at least it will be because the Torys won more votes (put simplistically).

But Brown... well. No general election... in fact, he has deliberately left it as long as possible. I think that's pretty undemocratic.

And if Churchill obtained his post the same way, then that doesn't make it a valid reason to continue working this way. Perhaps we were lucky, or perhaps the circumstances were so extreme at the time that the populace were focusing on that instead. I didn't live through Churchillian times, but I'm sure as hell living through Brownian motions... and boy do they stink! All the more for the fact that he was not the leader of the party when I voted last time and yet he is now leader of the government.

It ain't right.

One of the many things that irritates me about Godawful Brown, apart from his fiscal idiocy, is that not only was he unelected by the British electorate, but also by his party. There was no election by either the parliamentary or the general membership of the Labour Party. Unelected, however you care to define it.

Churchill became PM in time of war & did a blinding job. Brown became PM because Blair quit. If Brown had any honour, he would have called a general election within six months. Yet here we are nearly two years down the road & there is still no sign that he has any desire to call that election & leave No 10. We probably will get Cameron as our next PM purely as an electoral reaction to twelve years of hard Labour. We do not live in a true democracy for the simple reason that whoever is resident in Downing Street is put there by the voters of marginal constituencies. If you believe that we live in a democracy at all.

Originally Posted by jnich67

She's hot....what the hell is wrong with me?

Jordan

You ain't alone...