View Poll Results: Who is the most dynamic and inspiring political leader in modern history?

Voters
11. You may not vote on this poll
  • Donald Trump

    1 9.09%
  • Barrack Obama

    2 18.18%
  • Ronald Reagan

    0 0%
  • Adolph Hitler

    3 27.27%
  • Other (give name in your post)

    5 45.45%
Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 61

Thread: Why do we need a PRESIDENT?

  1. Top | #1
    Veteran Member Lumpenproletariat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    ^ Why don't I get any pretty jewels? Waaaaa!
    Posts
    1,563
    Rep Power
    22

    Why do we need a PRESIDENT?

    Wouldn't Hitler have to take the prize for most charisma? best at manipulating his audience? And isn't one's ability to manipulate the listening audience the most important qualifier to be chosen as "leader" or "President"?

    Wouldn't another Hitler be most likely to be elected U.S. President today, if he could correctly identify which symbols or slogans are most popular with the public?

    Do we really need a "President"? Why?

    Shouldn't our goal today be to reduce the status of the president to that of a figurehead only, or a symbol with little or no special power, other than for some symbolic functions?

  2. Top | #2
    the baby-eater
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Straya
    Posts
    3,776
    Archived
    1,750
    Total Posts
    5,526
    Rep Power
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by Lumpenproletariat View Post
    Do we really need a "President"? Why?
    Once upon a time, the founding fathers of the USA believed that the President, Congress and the Judiciary would all keep each other in check. However the founding fathers didn't seems to anticipate the possibility that all three branches of government would be controlled by the same political party and therefore collaborate with each other to fulfil the party's goals.

    In the present day, the US has a feral president but Congress refuses to remove him from power because he is aligned with their political party. The Senate also failed to prevent the President from appointing a supreme court judge who is clearly unfit for the office, once again because the nominee was aligned with their political party.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lumpenproletariat View Post
    Shouldn't our goal today be to reduce the status of the president to that of a figurehead only, or a symbol with little or no special power, other than for some symbolic functions?
    That would bring the US system closer to the Westminster system. In the Westminster system there is no separate executive branch of government: executive powers are wielded by the Prime Minister and Cabinet, while the head of state (the Queen) is just a rubber stamp.

    This system doesn't permit the rapid rise of the likes of Donald Trump because such "outsiders" usually only win themselves and their followers a handful of seats in Parliament.

  3. Top | #3
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Oregon's westernmost
    Posts
    11,193
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    29,406
    Rep Power
    54
    Poll: Franklin Delano Roosevelt Did more to shape the nation than any of founding fathers, more than Lincoln, and more than Teddy Roosevelt

    First to the notion of a president. We need national power vested in an individual rather than in a committee or a machine.

    As to structure of government and political organization. We seem to have it about right. Parties have controlled the country before now and have been set straight before by a population with much less information available to them. So slogans won't win the day beyond some current crisis or situation in 'merica.

    We are currently going through a process that is likely to reduce the power of the executive significantly. That's happened three or four times since founding.

    To really correct things we'd need to pass several amendments interposing more levels of governance such as regional representative bodies and responsibilities. Actually this country needs to get back to a place where no more than 50 to 100 thousand people per representative and 300 to 500 thousand per senator are involved. Higher levels of representation could be achieved through votes by citizens directing the above defined representatives to select individuals for national representation every three years on a continuously randomized schedule.

    Citizens need to feel connected to leadership. There should be regional managers (presidents) and regional courts to address special needs in each, probably five, region.

    I really think the general structure of our constitution is about right. We just need some fine tuning to accommodate populations and regions. The idea of a national leader elected in a single campaign needs to be toned down and decreased in extent of campaign. If we make the electors now with states be directly elected managers of regions and states, the national campaign could be run more or less on a schedule similar to that of GBs national elections.

    Regions should be set up to more or less equally and reflect each other with small and large state configurations. With five 10 state regions we would have the beauty of an odd number of regions comprising our basis for national government. So most of what separates us would be housed in regions diffusing then from national debates and the national election would reflect the consensus of all citizens within the republic. Doing this would have deflated the minority vote for president in 2016 from gaining control of the national electoral will.
    Last edited by fromderinside; 10-02-2019 at 12:51 AM.

  4. Top | #4
    Sapere aude Politesse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Chochenyo Territory, US
    Posts
    2,454
    Rep Power
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by Lumpenproletariat View Post

    Do we really need a "President"? Why?
    So the idiot peasants will think that there's a king, and not ask uncomfortable questions about the corporate oligarchy that quietly governs the country?

    As for your question, surely Queen Elizabeth II; she has sustained through one of the most complex acting careers in history an entire system of government that is utterly at odds with the general political sympathies of her citizens. Like her 66 year long performance is the only reason an entire theocratic, aristocratically wealth-drenched, and theoretically authoritarian monarchy still exists over a largely secular, socialist, and democracy-hugging nation. And all that largely without serious political challenge. All while giving the strong impression of not doing anything at all. From this outsider's viewpoint, a truly remarkable show.

  5. Top | #5
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Oregon's westernmost
    Posts
    11,193
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    29,406
    Rep Power
    54
    Your notion that QE2 was charismatic and changing in any way staggers me. Actually her most significant thing is the actor representing her being pictured seeing The Stagg in the Movie The Queen.

  6. Top | #6
    Sapere aude Politesse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Chochenyo Territory, US
    Posts
    2,454
    Rep Power
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by fromderinside View Post
    Your notion that QE2 was charismatic and changing in any way staggers me. Actually her most significant thing is the actor representing her being pictured seeing The Stagg in the Movie The Queen.
    She's the clever kind, not loud kind. Loud kinds end up shooting themselves in a bunker somewhere eleven years in. Clever ones don't give the impression of doing much, but nevertheless prop up a grossly unequal system that heavily benefits themselves and their family for half a century. If Hitler was Commodus, QEII is the Antoninus Pius of our time.
    Last edited by Politesse; 10-02-2019 at 02:33 PM.

  7. Top | #7
    Veteran Member Lumpenproletariat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    ^ Why don't I get any pretty jewels? Waaaaa!
    Posts
    1,563
    Rep Power
    22

    Why should one madman make the decision rather than a "committee"?

    Quote Originally Posted by fromderinside View Post
    First to the notion of a president. We need national power vested in an individual rather than in a committee or a machine.
    I've heard that cliché before, but what does it mean? Or, WHY is one individual a better decision-maker than a committee or a "machine"?

    The only explanation I've heard for that is the cliché that a camel is a horse designed by a committee. Which is a bad argument because if you need to travel 100 miles through the desert, the camel is superior.

    So, what's wrong with having a committee decide whether to drop a bomb on Moscow rather than leave it to one nutcase charismatic "President" who was better than the other demagogues at manipulating idiots to vote for him?

  8. Top | #8
    Veteran Member Lumpenproletariat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    ^ Why don't I get any pretty jewels? Waaaaa!
    Posts
    1,563
    Rep Power
    22

    So everyone agrees: We DON'T need a "President" -- right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lumpenproletariat View Post

    Do we really need a "President"? Why?
    So the idiot peasants will think that there's a king, and not ask uncomfortable questions about the corporate oligarchy that quietly governs the country?
    But what if we WANT them to ask the questions? (as you probably do?) What if we don't want to keep them in ignorance? In that case, why do we need a "President"?

  9. Top | #9
    Veteran Member Tigers!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    On the wing waiting for a kick.
    Posts
    1,726
    Archived
    2,558
    Total Posts
    4,284
    Rep Power
    53
    Sir Winston Churchill

    Took the english language into battle. Kept the flame of resistance to Hitler alit.
    NOTE: No trees were killed in the sending of this message, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.

  10. Top | #10
    Veteran Member PyramidHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    RI
    Posts
    4,474
    Archived
    4,389
    Total Posts
    8,863
    Rep Power
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by Tigers! View Post
    Sir Winston Churchill

    Took the english language into battle. Kept the flame of resistance to Hitler alit.
    Starved 3 million Bengali Indians in a single year because he didn't like them. Go off king

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •