41 men targeted but 1,147 people killed: US drone strikes

[Hermit]

Correct. And their mandate comes from the people who vote. All good.

No, their mandate comes from the Constitution.

Clearly demonstrating you do not understand the meaning of "mandate"

Always banging on about your sacred constitution. Guess what, most democratic, developed countries also have a constitution, which, together with the legal system and a free press act as checks and balances against a willful government. The USA isn't the unique paragon of constitutional democracy you make it out to be.[/quote]He does understand it. Right up to the point where he loses the argument that Obama did not have a mandate because he did not get the vote of the majority of all potential voters. Then mandate by vote becomes mandate by constitution. Always a new definition to suit circumstances when the old one doesn't do the job, has our Seth.

[Seth]

Correct. And their mandate comes from the people who vote. All good.

No, their mandate comes from the Constitution.

Clearly demonstrating you do not understand the meaning of "mandate"

Always banging on about your sacred constitution.

Of course, and rightly so.

Guess what, most democratic, developed countries also have a constitution, which, together with the legal system and a free press act as checks and balances against a willful government.

Well, they think they do. Interestingly, many of them are modeled on our Constitution. None of them except perhaps Switzerland recognize the right that serve as the guarantor of all the other ones: The right to keep and bear arms.

The USA isn't the unique paragon of constitutional democracy you make it out to be.

Actually, it is.

He does understand it. Right up to the point where he loses the argument that Obama did not have a mandate because he did not get the vote of the majority of all potential voters. Then mandate by vote becomes mandate by constitution. Always a new definition to suit circumstances when the old one doesn't do the job, has our Seth.

Little steps for little minds. Since you can only understand the simple concepts I bring one step at a time it's necessary to build the argument brick by brick so that I can demonstrate to the lurkers exactly how mindlessly devoted to socialism you actually are.

[JimC]

As usual, you avoided the key question of Osama's mandate after he won the election.

Actually, one could not call it a strong mandate, given the very low voter turn out, but mandate it is.

An honest question - does the traditionally low (and, I gather, increasingly low) voter turnout in the US worry you? To me, it indicates a worrying disconnect between populace and political process over there. Mind you, even with our "compulsory voting" (in theory, hardly ever enforced) a similar trend exists, with, for example, an increased number of informal votes in our last state election, and polls indicating increasing disenchantment with politicians of any political persuasion.

[pErvinalia]

The same thing is happening in all countries. And the obvious reason is that people are sick of the political class and their pandering to moneyed interests (i.e. Neoliberalism). Seth, of course, won't see this. He'll think low voter turn out is because Obama is a Marxist. Seth and his ilk in the US are hilarious. They really do have no clue how much of a right winger neoliberal capitalist Obama is.

ETA, I've just started a new facebook group dealing with this issue specifically. No one cares, of course. Too busy shopping and watching Master Chef.

[laklak]

Hey, it's a 0.0358% hit rate. One hell of a lot better than my Lotto history.

[Seth]

As usual, you avoided the key question of Osama's mandate after he won the election.

Actually, one could not call it a strong mandate, given the very low voter turn out, but mandate it is.

An honest question - does the traditionally low (and, I gather, increasingly low) voter turnout in the US worry you? To me, it indicates a worrying disconnect between populace and political process over there. Mind you, even with our "compulsory voting" (in theory, hardly ever enforced) a similar trend exists, with, for example, an increased number of informal votes in our last state election, and polls indicating increasing disenchantment with politicians of any political persuasion.

Yes, it is worrying, but also comforting in a rather abstruse way. Most of those who do not vote are members of the dependent class who probably shouldn't be allowed to vote in the first place.

My solution to voter apathy is to constitutionally require a "None of the Above" choice on every candidate ballot for every government elected position. The rule is that if NOTA wins a majority of the votes in any election, ALL of the candidates who ran are forever barred from running for or holding public office for life. We need a way to weed out the most useless and detrimental politicians and ensure that they will never be seen or heard from again.

[Hermit]

As usual, you avoided the key question of Osama's mandate after he won the election.

Osama never ever faced an election. You've been laden with a misconception.

[pErvinalia]

As usual, you avoided the key question of Osama's mandate after he won the election.

Actually, one could not call it a strong mandate, given the very low voter turn out, but mandate it is.

An honest question - does the traditionally low (and, I gather, increasingly low) voter turnout in the US worry you? To me, it indicates a worrying disconnect between populace and political process over there. Mind you, even with our "compulsory voting" (in theory, hardly ever enforced) a similar trend exists, with, for example, an increased number of informal votes in our last state election, and polls indicating increasing disenchantment with politicians of any political persuasion.

Yes, it is worrying, but also comforting in a rather abstruse way. Most of those who do not vote are members of the dependent class who probably shouldn't be allowed to vote in the first place.

"Libertarian"

My solution to voter apathy is to constitutionally require a "None of the Above" choice on every candidate ballot for every government elected position. The rule is that if NOTA wins a majority of the votes in any election, ALL of the candidates who ran are forever barred from running for or holding public office for life. We need a way to weed out the most useless and detrimental politicians and ensure that they will never be seen or heard from again.

I think I like that idea. Although, I wouldn't ban them forever. Just from the pertinent election.

[JimC]

I don't mind a "none of the above" option either...