and how would it be?

It's just like if you trusted Google or something to record all the votes. Evidently they're going to pick the candidate friendliest to Google, yet Americans for some grounds think that the government is uncorruptible.

How would it be? A bunch of folk vote, a guy counts it, and who ever won the vote gets the position. If the guy counting it is corrupt he's gaoled, and it'd be obvious if he was corrupt as the people who get elected would always help this guy.

Funnily enough, the exact opposite happened in this election. Someone who promised to rid DC of corruption, was not a member of the inner circles of Washington, and was in direct opposition to the major party, won.

Now if you're done with suggesting democracy is a spook, where's you proving dictatorship exists and it really isn't just an oligarchy because you need multiple folk to run a government?

If the guy counting it is corrupt he's gaoled

1. he has the gaols, in real world
2. it's very hard to catch/prove
3. anyone who does catch or get new evidence is paid off or quitened in some way.

the people who get elected would always help this guy.

Or not for the same grounds that it would be obvious, but more likely yes since any "help" can just be explained by a good heritage or well-paying job or winning lottery or something like that.

Funnily enough, the exact opposite happened in this election.

A mainstream conserve won, nothing special.

was not a member of the inner circles of Washington

You can't know that. Only ALLAAH has knowledge of the unseen.

in direct opposition to the major party, won.

the one? and most splits are pretty small. both parties against immigration, both warmongers, both helping their businesses, so on. Most likely same with Libertarians and Greens, there are just some parties that are just to see for popularity of more extreme policies. Not also saying his party had both sides of the "Congress".

where's you proving dictatorship exists and it really isn't just an oligarchy because you need multiple folk to run a government?

That's what I usually mean, although often someone has the ending say; for exemple, in North Korea, Gim Jong Oon can go anywhere and comment on anything and they take it as gospel.

A mainstream conserve won, nothing special.

Trump isn't a conserve, and he defintely isn't mainstream. This just shows that you have little knowledge on this election. Well, little knowledge about the US in general, because you seem to think that the US is just Belarus with two Lukashenkos instead of one.

You can't know that

What next, are you going to accuse Vermin Supreme of being in the Washington Inner Circles?

both parties against immigration, both warmongers, both helping their businesses, so on

Trump is much more vocal on illegal immigration than Obama, also, Trump is much less of a warmonger than Clinton or Kasich would be; he's against NATO being a spear into Russia, against regime change, and generally just wants to fight one current war harder. Not gonna argue the last point, because it's inherent in a government that has the amount of regulations the US has.

A mainstream conserve won, nothing special.

Xpapy, STFU. This alone shows you have no knowledge of American politics.

>Donald Trump
>Mainstream

Pick one.

"Gim Jong Oon"

Geem Jung Eun *

lol look at all these globeheads fight eachother, typical

Jim Gen Pe

Trump isn't a conserve

Checklist time.

*For lowering involvement in international organisations (anti-globehead)
*For wielding torture on foreign prisoners.
*For obsessive spying programmes on Americans and on foreigners (allied and not).
*For upscaling war on Mashriq, including boots.
*Against free trade (internationally).
*For more military spending and less foreign help spending.
*Against taking in refugees.
*For bringing back draft if America "needs to fight for its freedom"
*For dealing with weak countries like they're dirt (still keeping Guantánamo camp, despite Cuban governmental againstness)
-----
*Against any government environmental regulations of any kind for muh free market.
*Against favouring minority ethnicities.
*For wielding torture as punishment in gaols.
*Against fighting watch corruption.
*Free market (more or less)
*For curbing immigration.

Yep, loves pollution, hates social freedoms, loves free market, hates Syriens sounds like a textbook conservative to me.

defintely isn't mainstream

*Party formed 162 years ago.
*1 of 2 parties to hold presidentship since its forming.
*Held majority in House of Representors since 2010.
*Held majority in Senate (and thus full Congress) since 2014.
*Out of 5 last presidents, 3/5 Republican.

Uh, what?

What next, are you going to accuse Vermin Supreme of being in the Washington Inner Circles?

I would if this "Vermin Supreme" got picked.

Trump is much more vocal on illegal immigration than Obama

That's the point - to make each other seem very split asunder by talking about different things with different words (for exemple, I think Trump called out Obama for not saying radical Islaamic terror enough, and indeed, he is more reluctant to say it but needless to say, Obama loves to hunt the Islaamists.

also, Trump is much less of a warmonger than Clinton or Kasich would be; he's against NATO being a spear into Russia

his one good thing. It still might lead to Russia doing some (more) bad things, but speculative.

against regime change

He wasn't against overthrowing Assad, if that's what you mean, but only after Mashriq was done with.

Now, besides those small points, the big policies.

*War: wonderful
*Diplomatish: let's dominate the world to a high level.
*Healthcare: good.
*Environmentish: giv petrol.

*For wielding torture on foreign prisoners.
*For obsessive spying programmes on Americans and on foreigners (allied and not).

One, so were democrats (they even torture on Americans, look up 'Homan Square'), considering Obama started this, this is not conservatism.

*For bringing back draft if America "needs to fight for its freedom"

America already has the draft, it just doesn't use it. Plus this is way better than Clinton's "let's extend the draft to women" bs.

*For dealing with weak countries like they're dirt (still keeping Guantánamo camp, despite Cuban governmental againstness)

So is Obama. Try again.

*Party formed 162 years ago.

He's been in the party for four years, and disagrees with a lot of what they want

Uh, what?

He was a celebrity who came into politics as a way to get marketing, hijacked the party, and holds views antithetical to many party members (pro-gay marriage).

He wasn't against overthrowing Assad, if that's what you mean, but only after Mashriq was done with.

https://www.isidewith.com/candidate-guide/donald-trump/foreign-policy/overthrow-of-assad

*War: wonderful

Ideologically he might like war, but he hasn't been advocating for new ones

*Diplomatish: let's dominate the world to a high level.

Citation needed, goy

*Healthcare: good

Yeah, you're right, he'd be a better candidate if he thought healthcare was bad

One, so were democrats

Yeah and so are most authoritarian/violent things on this list, and I'm just trying to make the point that Trump is conservative, not that Democrats are morally better.

America already has the draft, it just doesn't use it.

It has a draft framework* it does not have a draft. But I get what you mean. Point taken.

So is Obama. Try again.

as I said before I do not uphold Obama or the USA. And even if I did, what brings you to would say "Try again"?

He's been in the party for four years, and disagrees with a lot of what they want

hijacked the party

well yeah it'd be pretty odd if he was in the party for 162 years. And you have to agree with most things they say and be upheld by the commitee or else you're out. And what general policies does he disagree with much? Not on war, not on environment, a little on healthcare.

holds views antithetical to many party members (pro-gay marriage).

that's what you name? One small form of discrimination against a group that makes up less than 5% the population? This is what I mean, if this is what they make out to be important issues, then sure they're as different as night and day, but it's all about being "vocal". What is really the biggest split between them is ties with Russia.

https://www.isidewith.com/candidate-guide/donald-trump/foreign-policy/overthrow-of-assad

source: No, this would allow ISIS to control Syria

"We have to get rid of ISIS first. After we get rid of ISIS, we’ll start thinking about it. But we can’t be fighting Assad. And when you’re fighting Assad, you are fighting Russia, you’re fighting — you’re fighting a lot of different groups.

But we can’t be fighting everybody at one time."

what I said:He wasn't against overthrowing Assad, if that's what you mean, but only after Mashriq was done with.

Ideologically he might like war, but he hasn't been advocating for new ones

did Clinton? Wars come when they're disponsible.

Citation needed, goy

well more specifically then, just openly for bugging other countries, sanctions, and making resource-valuable countries either allied with either wrecked badly.

you're right, he'd be a better candidate if he thought healthcare was bad

this isn't about being better or worse, this is just two parties and candidates being pretty much the same