Just stirring the pot baby, stirring the pot!!!!
You really have to think to yourself who would have been better. You have to understand that George Bush is by no means eloquent, although in order to become a president, you can't be stupid. I get kind of sick when people say that he is. He's just not a very formal person to say in general.
Well I think no matter who you vote for, if they are not already, they soon will be crooked or do something most people disagree on. I dont think the President is much more than a puppet on a string really. I think there are a few others that really run the country!! Like the Illuminati or someone!!! lol.... Just kidding about that part!
The thing that is most confusing is how the voting is set up. You vote, although I essentially does not count, it's the electoral college that makes the decision. I completely agree with this point of view, for if not everyone votes, is there a real representation. Do the citizens have the knowledge of these people, or are they going with gut feelings or popularity?
I'd say gut feeling and popularity both!
How many voters do you think have actually researched the person they are voting for, and for that matter, all of the people running?
Jimmy was done in by the Hostage Crisis. It was staged.
Actually it won't make much of a difference who gets elected.
BTW, I came up with my own government ideology...it's based on a selection of 2 head conservatives, liberals, and independents who initially control the government with a congress made up of those three groups as well with a head conservative, liberal, and independent, and a speaker. The congress "teams" work together to come up with 1 single idea/law/etc to pass/veto/etc. It works the same with the head leaders, although since there are 2 of them, if they disagree it falls back on 1 decision by that point of view group into the congress. It gets even more involved, but I don't want to take up too much room .
Is their even a president, or just congress?
Personally i hate the fact that we have a "democrat" or "republican" president, because then only >50% of the country is happy for his term. What needs to be done is they need to rid party titles, and let people vote for who they actually stand for, rather then the party they "stand for".
If not that then we should have a more broad government which limits the power of the president, or just gets rid of the president completely, and puts more power into the hands of the people directly (rather then representation). Kind of a Hobbes theory, but obviously man had a lot less problems in the state of nature.
Thomas Hobbes is not directly linked to my form of government anyway. There are 6 main leaders of the government followed with a speaker who is a figurehead of the country, although he has no power. There is a house of reps, although it has no real power, just an influence on the congress, which is made up of 3 groups, which you can probably guess. I'll upload a pic of the structure and post it. It is no where near perfect, and it's kind of half typed, half scrawled from edits on 3 pieces of paper :suspiciou . What's your "ideal" form of government, if any
Without getting into much detail, my ideal government went be less centralized, and would be forced to work together. No sides. Their would be many more branches, but still keeping the judicial, legislative, and getting rid of the executive, and creating more less powerful branches. There would be one head branch with more power then all, with 1000 or so members, that would switch off people every session, kind of like a jury. The people would not be politicians, the would be normal citizens, that are willing to take part in their government. This branch would act as the "president" but would not have as much power, but their would be no president. That's the basics, i know it is farfetched, but its just a thought.
The only flaw in our government ideologies would be the fact that some people could work "together" and get what they want over the other people if you know what I mean.
Yes, that is true, that is one of the few advantages of political parties. They could work together, but even tho there are no "sides" people are still going to have opposing opinions. Its just a draft, i'm sure if i was actually in charge of creating a government it would be more well thought up.
Obama advocates high-speed for everyone in all reaches of the nation... Now there's a candidate who'll get my vote.
Indeed. Parties are meant to be another part of the checks & balances process. Unfortunately, it has also led many to deceive and conspire where they would have had otherwise not.
Working together or not though, I think we'd probably have the same problems.
Your right, we probably would. Politics are very difficult to go about.
John Mccain is coming out strong. Interesting.
Colbert is in 3rd..hehe
Nationally, it seems like It is Obama, And Giuliani Are leading the way. I am happy with either one of those two.
For God's Sake! Obama has only been in the US Government for 2 YEARS! He is very inexperienced!
Umm..yeahh...He was elected into the Illinois State Senate in 1996..That is 11 years.
"being in the United States Government" is considered experience? What Experience do you get? How to rig a election so the final vote comes down to the state that my brother happens to be governor for? Or maybe how to start a pointless war? Hmm..yeh
Thats like saying that because someone doesn't go to college, means they are inexperienced in what they do.
But yeh, 2 and 11, happen to be different.
I dont want an "experienced" politician. I want someone free of ties to corporations, and PACs. I want someone that puts this country back on track.
What does experience mean? That you can probably do the job...But it doesn't mean you are going to do it well.
My view of experience is the amount of time previously spend on a certain subject that involves what you are applying for, or running for (at least in political perspective ). And yes, I agree with you Twite. Even experienced politicians might not be ready either.
Then what was your motive here
No...I believe that most people without experience don't know what to do, and therefore won't be able to do as thorough a job as a very experienced person. This is why we have to be careful for who we vote for. Just because someone may not be able to speak doesn't mean they won't do a good job.
there are plenty not listed and G. Bush cannot run for re-election.