As David has pointed out, Nixon was not impeached, nor was he removed from office by the judicial system. That he resigned, and that he may have done so to avoid impeachment is not evidence that his administration was incompetent. For example, a capitalist who engages in illegal activity can very well be competent, and may be using criminal methods to advance his capitalistic goals. Evidence of criminality is not evidence of incompetence. Quite apart from that, impeachment means to be accused of a criminal or other reprehensible act, it does not mean that he or she who has been impeached has been shown to have been guilty of criminal or reprehensible acts. Only two Presidents have been impeached, Andrew Johnson and William Clinton, and neither of them was convicted.
You state, ex cathedra
, that Americans "lack any knowledge of world politics." This involves, of course, a gross characterization of all Americans which does your argument no credit. You cannot possibly know what degree and sophistication of a knowledge of world politics each and every American possesses. That you do not approve of the electoral system in the United States is not evidence that Americans "lack any knowledge of world politics"--this is one of the silliest charges you've levelled against Americans, and simply demonstrates once again your dedication to libelling Americans simply because they are Americans.
I repeat the charge of your ignorance because your remarks demonstrate that you lack basic knowledge of how the American electoral system works. It is not nonsense to point that out. To claim that i argue stupidly when i point out that you display an ignorance of the American political system reflects negatively on you, not on me. I have no idea what you mean by saying: ". . . as i don't resect you views . . ."--talk about animal noise!
Knowing how you would choose to vote is no measure at all of how much any given individual knows "how people work." Given that there was only one candidate listed as an independent--Ralph Nader--you'd have been free, of course, to waste your vote that way. You know nothing about the Democratic Party, obviously, if you believe that John McCain could ever have been nominated as their candidate--once again, you display your ignorance. If, in fact, McCain had not been endorsed by the Republican Party, had not been nominated by the Republican Party, he could not legally have been registered on ballots as the Republican candidate.
Your remark about the Electoral College choosing between the two worst candidates put forward is the expression of an opinion on your part, not a statement of fact. Once again, you display your ignorance. There were six candidates who were able to get their names on presidential ballots, and those of whom you are ignorant garnered somewhat more than one and a half million votes out of the somewhat more than 131,000,000 votes cast. Since your claim about the "worst candidates" could only reasonably be based on a comparison of all candidates, you obviously have no basis for your remark.
Once again, the Electoral College does not choose candidates, the people vote for the candidate of each voter's choice, and the college simply registers the outcome according to the instructions of the respective legislatures of the several states. You are missing altogether the significance of this debate for Americans, who do understand the system, and this is because, once again, you are ignorant of how the system works. For example, the member Robert Gentel objects strenuously to a particular aspect of the Electoral College which arguably is cause of the most dissatisfaction with the system on the part of Americans. I'm not going to tell you what that is, because if you were to genuinely inform yourself on how the system works, you would learn what that aspect of the College is. Both Joe and I have commented on the winner take all aspect of how the Electors are instructed to vote in almost all of the states. That is, apparently, something else of which you are ignorant. If you really wanted to learn how the College works, you would read the third clause of Article II, Section One of the Constitution, and you would read the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution, which amended that clause. Of course, this would still not explain to you why the Electoral College exists. I rather doubt, though, that you will inform yourself--you've given ample evidence that your only object here is to air your opinions from ignorance, while attempting to get a rise out Americans here by insulting them and their nation.
More of your ignorance: candidate are
chosen in the summer, they are not chosen in January. Whoever wins the presidential election is inaugurated in his or her office in January. Furthermore, i did not say that any voter is compelled to vote for any party in an election. Speaking specifically of primary elections, i pointed out that in those states in which someone is required to register for a particular party, or as an independent, that person may not vote in the primary election of any party other than the one for which they have registered; further, i pointed out that in states in which there is no requirement to register with a party affiliation, a voter may vote in the primary for any one party, but only for one party, and may not vote in the primary election for any other party; finally, i pointed out that in the states which conduct caucuses rather than primary elections, people may only participate in the caucus for the party with which they are affiliated based on their voter registration. You are the one here who displays an inability to argue logically and intelligently; in your terms which you have used in your post, you argue "stupidly." Time and again, you erect straw men rather than fairly characterizing my remarks.
There is absolutely no reason to respond to your rants vilifying Americans and the United States. I am in no way obliged to disprove your invidious remarks about Americans and the United States, and you completely fail to provide any evidence for your silly insults.
See if you can't come up with something intelligent and informed to debate--so far, you've just puked up your ignorance and irrational hatred.