Is the presidential role outdated
0
FinalBoss
#levelupyourgrind
Cruz wrote...
FinalBoss wrote...
Yeah, and that counter argument really cleared things up for me, thanks for that. XD
Why do I need one when you're outright wrong? You don't even understand the system you're criticizing. You don't even see how you're at odds with yourself sometimes.
I know I can only blame myself for humoring you, but if you're being genuine, stop being so proud and admit you don't know much at all. Try looking at what you wrote and compare it to how our current model actually works.
[edit]
Didn't see your edit.
Yes, there is a substantial difference between the two and goes back to a previous point I made. Don't try to write it off "worse than nationalism" again if you're going to bother replying.
And again, I mentioned the fractured state the EU is in, with it's identity crisis and growing resentment from many nations inside.
I know enough about the system to realize that it isn't working, so I feel that a new model should be replaced. A direct democracy hasn't been tried before, yet somehow you know that it'll be worse than the system we have. I can't help but wonder whether you're paranoid about people around you having more power, or you're just plain afraid of change.
I never said caring about your state/community is "worse than nationalism", I said just as bad. And comparing what I'm proposing to how things are done in the EU is a bad example since they don't have a direct democracy model to analyze and collect statistics from.
You expect me to throw in the towel just because we don't see eye to eye on this. You say I'm wrong despite lacking any proof that I don't know what I'm talking about. If you don't think its a good idea, that's fine, but this isn't a debate where there is a right or wrong answer. Mainly because the idea of a direct democracy may never see the light of day due to it being too radical and revolutionary for the American society. We don't know whether a direct democracy will work or not. But just because we don't know doesn't mean it isn't worth trying, or worse, it should never be talked about.
1
Cruz
Dope Stone Lion
FinalBoss wrote...
You expect me to throw in the towel just because we don't see eye to eye on this. You say I'm wrong despite lacking any proof that I don't know what I'm talking about. If you don't think its a good idea, that's fine, but this isn't a debate where there is a right or wrong answer. Mainly because the idea of a direct democracy may never see the light of day due to it being too radical and revolutionary for the American society. We don't know whether a direct democracy will work or not. But just because we don't know doesn't mean it isn't worth trying, or worse, it should never be talked about.
No, I expect you to be the grown ass man that you are and admit you don't know what you're talking about.
I already tried debating you, don't go on trying to give yourself victim status of me attacking you and not your viewpoints.
-1
FinalBoss
#levelupyourgrind
Cruz wrote...
FinalBoss wrote...
You expect me to throw in the towel just because we don't see eye to eye on this. You say I'm wrong despite lacking any proof that I don't know what I'm talking about. If you don't think its a good idea, that's fine, but this isn't a debate where there is a right or wrong answer. Mainly because the idea of a direct democracy may never see the light of day due to it being too radical and revolutionary for the American society. We don't know whether a direct democracy will work or not. But just because we don't know doesn't mean it isn't worth trying, or worse, it should never be talked about.
No, I expect you to be the grown ass man that you are and admit you don't know what you're talking about.
I already tried debating you, don't go on trying to give yourself victim status of me attacking you and not your viewpoints.
Why should I admit such a thing when I'm merely expressing an opinion? An opinion that was supposed to spark a civil conversation btw.
I never stated my opinions as facts. Also, I never said you're attacking me personally, I said you're saying I'm wrong without providing evidence of such. I keep asking you how you know the system would fail when it never came to practice, but you keep dodging the question.
0
Cruz
Dope Stone Lion
FinalBoss wrote...
Cruz wrote...
FinalBoss wrote...
You expect me to throw in the towel just because we don't see eye to eye on this. You say I'm wrong despite lacking any proof that I don't know what I'm talking about. If you don't think its a good idea, that's fine, but this isn't a debate where there is a right or wrong answer. Mainly because the idea of a direct democracy may never see the light of day due to it being too radical and revolutionary for the American society. We don't know whether a direct democracy will work or not. But just because we don't know doesn't mean it isn't worth trying, or worse, it should never be talked about.
No, I expect you to be the grown ass man that you are and admit you don't know what you're talking about.
I already tried debating you, don't go on trying to give yourself victim status of me attacking you and not your viewpoints.
Why should I admit such a thing when I'm merely expressing an opinion? An opinion that was supposed to spark a civil conversation btw.
I never stated my opinions as facts. Also, I never said you're attacking me personally, I said you're saying I'm wrong without providing evidence of such. I keep asking you how you know the system would fail when it never came to practice, but you keep dodging the question.
When your opinion is based on wrong assumptions, it's easy to discredit everything you have to say. And by saying things like, "this was supposed to spark a civil conversation" and then lying with "you're saying I'm wrong without providing evidence", it's hard not to assume you're a whiny cunt trying to make every rebuttal and snark into a personal attack.
You don't know enough about the system you're trying to criticize.
You don't know the state of affair of the EU or why I brought up, made up a total bogus assumption despite me telling you exactly what's wrong with it.
You keep saying that direct democracy hasn't been tried out before. This is so fucking stupid to read that I almost got an aneurysm.
I literally point out how the logical flaw in you logic of us not being divided anymore if we remove states and you come back with the same argument I literally just picked apart.
You're not wroth the effort to continue this pointless conversation. As I've said a few times already, you don't even know what it is you're criticizing or promoting.(You seriously think that no society has had direct democracy and even said the US is a psuedo mob-rule)
-1
FinalBoss
#levelupyourgrind
Cruz wrote...
FinalBoss wrote...
Cruz wrote...
FinalBoss wrote...
You expect me to throw in the towel just because we don't see eye to eye on this. You say I'm wrong despite lacking any proof that I don't know what I'm talking about. If you don't think its a good idea, that's fine, but this isn't a debate where there is a right or wrong answer. Mainly because the idea of a direct democracy may never see the light of day due to it being too radical and revolutionary for the American society. We don't know whether a direct democracy will work or not. But just because we don't know doesn't mean it isn't worth trying, or worse, it should never be talked about.
No, I expect you to be the grown ass man that you are and admit you don't know what you're talking about.
I already tried debating you, don't go on trying to give yourself victim status of me attacking you and not your viewpoints.
Why should I admit such a thing when I'm merely expressing an opinion? An opinion that was supposed to spark a civil conversation btw.
I never stated my opinions as facts. Also, I never said you're attacking me personally, I said you're saying I'm wrong without providing evidence of such. I keep asking you how you know the system would fail when it never came to practice, but you keep dodging the question.
When your opinion is based on wrong assumptions, it's easy to discredit everything you have to say. And by saying things like, "this was supposed to spark a civil conversation" and then lying with "you're saying I'm wrong without providing evidence", it's hard not to assume you're a whiny cunt trying to make every rebuttal and snark into a personal attack.
You don't know enough about the system you're trying to criticize.
You don't know the state of affair of the EU or why I brought up, made up a total bogus assumption despite me telling you exactly what's wrong with it.
You keep saying that direct democracy hasn't been tried out before. This is so fucking stupid to read that I almost got an aneurysm.
I literally point out how the logical flaw in you logic of us not being divided anymore if we remove states and you come back with the same argument I literally just picked apart.
You're not wroth the effort to continue this pointless conversation. As I've said a few times already, you don't even know what it is you're criticizing or promoting.(You seriously think that no society has had direct democracy and even said the US is a psuedo mob-rule)
I was gonna say I don't think you're attacking me on a personal level, but then you go calling me a "whiny cunt", which isn't convincing me that you aren't attacking me personally. Other than that remark, I already stated on a previous post that you are only attacking my ideas and not me as a person.
I will admit I was wrong about there not being any practices of Direct democracy in the history of the world. I did research, and aside from past attempts from Ancient Rome and Athens, Switzerland is the only modern country to practice a direct democracy. However, contrary to your fears, it seems Switzerland's system is considered to be fairing quite well with the people. It's been practiced there since the 13th century, seeing as they haven't adopted other foreign systems, I take it that it's a sucessful alternative to common democracy used in countries like the U.S.
I can only assume that people like you are afraid of change, or just want a scapegoat whenever things go wrong. If that's the case, then I can easily see why you don't want something like a direct democracy.
1
Cruz
Dope Stone Lion
FinalBoss wrote...
Cruz wrote...
FinalBoss wrote...
Cruz wrote...
FinalBoss wrote...
You expect me to throw in the towel just because we don't see eye to eye on this. You say I'm wrong despite lacking any proof that I don't know what I'm talking about. If you don't think its a good idea, that's fine, but this isn't a debate where there is a right or wrong answer. Mainly because the idea of a direct democracy may never see the light of day due to it being too radical and revolutionary for the American society. We don't know whether a direct democracy will work or not. But just because we don't know doesn't mean it isn't worth trying, or worse, it should never be talked about.
No, I expect you to be the grown ass man that you are and admit you don't know what you're talking about.
I already tried debating you, don't go on trying to give yourself victim status of me attacking you and not your viewpoints.
Why should I admit such a thing when I'm merely expressing an opinion? An opinion that was supposed to spark a civil conversation btw.
I never stated my opinions as facts. Also, I never said you're attacking me personally, I said you're saying I'm wrong without providing evidence of such. I keep asking you how you know the system would fail when it never came to practice, but you keep dodging the question.
When your opinion is based on wrong assumptions, it's easy to discredit everything you have to say. And by saying things like, "this was supposed to spark a civil conversation" and then lying with "you're saying I'm wrong without providing evidence", it's hard not to assume you're a whiny cunt trying to make every rebuttal and snark into a personal attack.
You don't know enough about the system you're trying to criticize.
You don't know the state of affair of the EU or why I brought up, made up a total bogus assumption despite me telling you exactly what's wrong with it.
You keep saying that direct democracy hasn't been tried out before. This is so fucking stupid to read that I almost got an aneurysm.
I literally point out how the logical flaw in you logic of us not being divided anymore if we remove states and you come back with the same argument I literally just picked apart.
You're not wroth the effort to continue this pointless conversation. As I've said a few times already, you don't even know what it is you're criticizing or promoting.(You seriously think that no society has had direct democracy and even said the US is a psuedo mob-rule)
I was gonna say I don't think you're attacking me on a personal level, but then you go calling me a "whiny cunt", which isn't convincing me that you aren't attacking me personally. Other than that remark, I already stated on a previous post that you are only attacking my ideas and not me as a person.
I will admit I was wrong about there not being any practices of Direct democracy in the history of the world. I did research, and aside from past attempts from Ancient Rome and Athens, Switzerland is the only modern country to practice a direct democracy. However, contrary to your fears, it seems Switzerland's system is considered to be fairing quite well with the people. It's been practiced there since the 13th century, seeing as they haven't adopted other foreign systems, I take it that it's a sucessful alternative to common democracy used in countries like the U.S.
I can only assume that people like you are afraid of change, or just want a scapegoat whenever things go wrong. If that's the case, then I can easily see why you don't want something like a direct democracy.
I'm guessing you literally glanced over the wikipedia page, saw Switzerland and said, yeah, good enough.
Switzerland as a whole is a Confederacy, one of Switzerland's Cantons, a state like equivalent, has Direct Democracy. Switzerland is an extremely decentralized union SOMETHING I LITERALLY PRAISED IN THIS THREAD.
This is the exact shit I'm talking about. You don't know what you're talking about. Even when you "admit" to be wrong, you're really not making an effort to understand what you got wrong or why you're being criticized otherwise you wouldn't be spouting this "afraid of change" crap. I literally recommended something that's a change to current status quo(limiting terms for congress members) and you shot it down to make a logic deficient point.
And this is not the first time you assign feelings and thoughts to someone else (you're scared of change, hurr). Stop doing it if you claim you want a genuine conversation.
You're not the stupidest person I've met in these forums the last 7+ years but you're certainly very ignorant, proud, stubborn and certainly shameless when it comes to lying.
-1
FinalBoss
#levelupyourgrind
Cruz wrote...
FinalBoss wrote...
Cruz wrote...
FinalBoss wrote...
Cruz wrote...
FinalBoss wrote...
You expect me to throw in the towel just because we don't see eye to eye on this. You say I'm wrong despite lacking any proof that I don't know what I'm talking about. If you don't think its a good idea, that's fine, but this isn't a debate where there is a right or wrong answer. Mainly because the idea of a direct democracy may never see the light of day due to it being too radical and revolutionary for the American society. We don't know whether a direct democracy will work or not. But just because we don't know doesn't mean it isn't worth trying, or worse, it should never be talked about.
No, I expect you to be the grown ass man that you are and admit you don't know what you're talking about.
I already tried debating you, don't go on trying to give yourself victim status of me attacking you and not your viewpoints.
Why should I admit such a thing when I'm merely expressing an opinion? An opinion that was supposed to spark a civil conversation btw.
I never stated my opinions as facts. Also, I never said you're attacking me personally, I said you're saying I'm wrong without providing evidence of such. I keep asking you how you know the system would fail when it never came to practice, but you keep dodging the question.
When your opinion is based on wrong assumptions, it's easy to discredit everything you have to say. And by saying things like, "this was supposed to spark a civil conversation" and then lying with "you're saying I'm wrong without providing evidence", it's hard not to assume you're a whiny cunt trying to make every rebuttal and snark into a personal attack.
You don't know enough about the system you're trying to criticize.
You don't know the state of affair of the EU or why I brought up, made up a total bogus assumption despite me telling you exactly what's wrong with it.
You keep saying that direct democracy hasn't been tried out before. This is so fucking stupid to read that I almost got an aneurysm.
I literally point out how the logical flaw in you logic of us not being divided anymore if we remove states and you come back with the same argument I literally just picked apart.
You're not wroth the effort to continue this pointless conversation. As I've said a few times already, you don't even know what it is you're criticizing or promoting.(You seriously think that no society has had direct democracy and even said the US is a psuedo mob-rule)
I was gonna say I don't think you're attacking me on a personal level, but then you go calling me a "whiny cunt", which isn't convincing me that you aren't attacking me personally. Other than that remark, I already stated on a previous post that you are only attacking my ideas and not me as a person.
I will admit I was wrong about there not being any practices of Direct democracy in the history of the world. I did research, and aside from past attempts from Ancient Rome and Athens, Switzerland is the only modern country to practice a direct democracy. However, contrary to your fears, it seems Switzerland's system is considered to be fairing quite well with the people. It's been practiced there since the 13th century, seeing as they haven't adopted other foreign systems, I take it that it's a sucessful alternative to common democracy used in countries like the U.S.
I can only assume that people like you are afraid of change, or just want a scapegoat whenever things go wrong. If that's the case, then I can easily see why you don't want something like a direct democracy.
I'm guessing you literally glanced over the wikipedia page, saw Switzerland and said, yeah, good enough.
Switzerland as a whole is a Confederacy, one of Switzerland's Cantons, a state like equivalent, has Direct Democracy. Switzerland is an extremely decentralized union SOMETHING I LITERALLY PRAISED IN THIS THREAD.
This is the exact shit I'm talking about. You don't know what you're talking about. Even when you "admit" to be wrong, you're really not making an effort to understand what you got wrong or why you're being criticized otherwise you wouldn't be spouting this "afraid of change" crap. I literally recommended something that's a change to current status quo(limiting terms for congress members) and you shot it down to make a logic deficient point.
And this is not the first time you assign feelings and thoughts to someone else (you're scared of change, hurr). Stop doing it if you claim you want a genuine conversation.
You're not the stupidest person I've met in these forums the last 7+ years but you're certainly very ignorant, proud, stubborn and certainly shameless when it comes to lying.
Okay, I overlooked that part, I apologize. I got caught up in what you were saying that I missed an entire one sentence you made about Switzeland. I'm only human. It's not like I'm doing this on purpose, you just come across as arrogant and rude, which threw me off. Of course my next question would be, do you, or do you not agree with a direct democracy? Or do you just not want a sole governing style? Because when you first came on this thread, you told me to "fuck off" with this idea.
0
A president is still needed.
Why do tribes have tribal leaders? Why do armies have ranks? Why do sports teams have captains?
People, groups, organizations and teams in general need a representative, a figurehead to give a face to said groups. In regards to the president he also brings an image of how America is going to grow, people vote for that image that they want thus Trump got elected.
The problem with voting for Trump as the People's representative is that there will always be people who's didn't vote for him and when their preferred candidate loses it's a case of too bad! The majority voted for the image of Trump's America that he promised to enact if elected and if electoral promises arn't kept then nobodies happy.
There are a lot of people who didn't vote for Obama and wern't happy with the result, there were a lot of people who voted for Obama and promises wern't kept.
Basically it boils down to corruption. Unfortunately you can't please everyone all the time, there will always be things that presidents do that people won't agree with, doesn't matter if they're 4-8 year term presidents or lifetime dictators like the Kim family, and you know what? It'd be the same result in directionless cooperative communes too.
The vast majority of people will always be unhappy, just like finding a job that you truly love, the majority of people will never find it, if you manage to be the very rare 1% who actually thinks that everything's pretty much gravy then you're very very lucky. Most of us make the best out of situations and fall back on compromises.
Some people don't want to do that though and stamp their feet like petulant children, life's tough, too bad, suck it up.
Why do tribes have tribal leaders? Why do armies have ranks? Why do sports teams have captains?
People, groups, organizations and teams in general need a representative, a figurehead to give a face to said groups. In regards to the president he also brings an image of how America is going to grow, people vote for that image that they want thus Trump got elected.
The problem with voting for Trump as the People's representative is that there will always be people who's didn't vote for him and when their preferred candidate loses it's a case of too bad! The majority voted for the image of Trump's America that he promised to enact if elected and if electoral promises arn't kept then nobodies happy.
There are a lot of people who didn't vote for Obama and wern't happy with the result, there were a lot of people who voted for Obama and promises wern't kept.
Basically it boils down to corruption. Unfortunately you can't please everyone all the time, there will always be things that presidents do that people won't agree with, doesn't matter if they're 4-8 year term presidents or lifetime dictators like the Kim family, and you know what? It'd be the same result in directionless cooperative communes too.
The vast majority of people will always be unhappy, just like finding a job that you truly love, the majority of people will never find it, if you manage to be the very rare 1% who actually thinks that everything's pretty much gravy then you're very very lucky. Most of us make the best out of situations and fall back on compromises.
Some people don't want to do that though and stamp their feet like petulant children, life's tough, too bad, suck it up.
-4
FinalBoss
#levelupyourgrind
Akaoni21 wrote...
A president is still needed.Why do tribes have tribal leaders? Why do armies have ranks? Why do sports teams have captains?
People, groups, organizations and teams in general need a representative, a figurehead to give a face to said groups. In regards to the president he also brings an image of how America is going to grow, people vote for that image that they want thus Trump got elected.
The problem with voting for Trump as the People's representative is that there will always be people who's didn't vote for him and when their preferred candidate loses it's a case of too bad! The majority voted for the image of Trump's America that he promised to enact if elected and if electoral promises arn't kept then nobodies happy.
There are a lot of people who didn't vote for Obama and wern't happy with the result, there were a lot of people who voted for Obama and promises wern't kept.
Basically it boils down to corruption. Unfortunately you can't please everyone all the time, there will always be things that presidents do that people won't agree with, doesn't matter if they're 4-8 year term presidents or lifetime dictators like the Kim family, and you know what? It'd be the same result in directionless cooperative communes too.
The vast majority of people will always be unhappy, just like finding a job that you truly love, the majority of people will never find it, if you manage to be the very rare 1% who actually thinks that everything's pretty much gravy then you're very very lucky. Most of us make the best out of situations and fall back on compromises.
Some people don't want to do that though and stamp their feet like petulant children, life's tough, too bad, suck it up.
Sheep need a shephard, got it. X_X
-2
Lemme beat this dead horse around and say you Americans have a clusterfuck of problems about you.
IMO, your country is too large and diverse to be cohesively run by a single person. Geographically and culturally, your individual states are pretty much countries in of themselves(try comparing California's terrain and demographic to something like Florida). IIRC, your federal government was meant to be an intermediary between the states, delving in matters when it involved more than just the one or if it was international.
Whether that was the case or not, that is personally how I would have your United States run. Where the federal government does not interfere in the individual states business and they are left to run themselves how they see fit so long as they did not do anything that would be against your written Constitution. In terms of the individual states, being part of a smaller group means its easier for the individual person to have a say in what gets done.
On top of voting in their representatives, I'd give the people the option of 'voting with their feet' that is to say if their state is doing something they personally do not agree with but not necessarily something against the Constitution(perhaps their state just has a higher tax percentage), they should be allowed free movement within the United States to move to another state whose policies they're more in agreement with. If enough of the state feels the same way and decides to 'vote with their feet' also, its in the state government's incentive to change their policies to be more appealing to the demographic of people they want to stay.
Your United States would essentially be a nationwide social experiment with 50 sub-governments tinkering their policies to develop a form of government that best appeals the people. There are flaws in this idea, for sure but ultimately it is only hypothetical and would probably never happen because tbh you Americans don't really want freedom with the direction you've been going since your founding. That's a whole other can of worms though that I won't debate here. In fact, I'm not gonna debate anything. I've written this simply to put out another idea as food for thought in a forum that I rarely ever go on anymore so go ahead and call me dumb for writing this, I don't have any intent on reading it.
IMO, your country is too large and diverse to be cohesively run by a single person. Geographically and culturally, your individual states are pretty much countries in of themselves(try comparing California's terrain and demographic to something like Florida). IIRC, your federal government was meant to be an intermediary between the states, delving in matters when it involved more than just the one or if it was international.
Whether that was the case or not, that is personally how I would have your United States run. Where the federal government does not interfere in the individual states business and they are left to run themselves how they see fit so long as they did not do anything that would be against your written Constitution. In terms of the individual states, being part of a smaller group means its easier for the individual person to have a say in what gets done.
On top of voting in their representatives, I'd give the people the option of 'voting with their feet' that is to say if their state is doing something they personally do not agree with but not necessarily something against the Constitution(perhaps their state just has a higher tax percentage), they should be allowed free movement within the United States to move to another state whose policies they're more in agreement with. If enough of the state feels the same way and decides to 'vote with their feet' also, its in the state government's incentive to change their policies to be more appealing to the demographic of people they want to stay.
Your United States would essentially be a nationwide social experiment with 50 sub-governments tinkering their policies to develop a form of government that best appeals the people. There are flaws in this idea, for sure but ultimately it is only hypothetical and would probably never happen because tbh you Americans don't really want freedom with the direction you've been going since your founding. That's a whole other can of worms though that I won't debate here. In fact, I'm not gonna debate anything. I've written this simply to put out another idea as food for thought in a forum that I rarely ever go on anymore so go ahead and call me dumb for writing this, I don't have any intent on reading it.
0
1)What is your opinion of the presidency?
The Executive Branch is a check against the Legislative and Judicial Branches and they are checks against each other and the Executive Branch. No branch of the government should have more power than another.
2)What is your opinion of the above proposal in contrast to the presidency?
Direct democracy is what is called "mob rule". Mob rule is what destroyed the Roman Empire and Ancient Greece. Mob rule is also what made life hell in the American Colonies before the Revolution. This is why the US was founded as a constitutional federal republic and not a democracy. They wanted the majority as well as the minority groups to have a chance at making a change to the country. The problem is that the US has transitioned into an oligarchy and isn't the republic that it was originally. The power originally rested between the people and the states. Now it rests heavily with the federal government and corporations.
3)Do you have a better idea that could potentially give citizens more power in politics?
Return to the republic the US was founded as instead of trying to repeat the failings of Ancient Greece and the Roman Empire.
The Executive Branch is a check against the Legislative and Judicial Branches and they are checks against each other and the Executive Branch. No branch of the government should have more power than another.
2)What is your opinion of the above proposal in contrast to the presidency?
Direct democracy is what is called "mob rule". Mob rule is what destroyed the Roman Empire and Ancient Greece. Mob rule is also what made life hell in the American Colonies before the Revolution. This is why the US was founded as a constitutional federal republic and not a democracy. They wanted the majority as well as the minority groups to have a chance at making a change to the country. The problem is that the US has transitioned into an oligarchy and isn't the republic that it was originally. The power originally rested between the people and the states. Now it rests heavily with the federal government and corporations.
3)Do you have a better idea that could potentially give citizens more power in politics?
Return to the republic the US was founded as instead of trying to repeat the failings of Ancient Greece and the Roman Empire.
0
jmason
Curious and Wondering
I'm of the opinion that the "Presidential" position (or role, if you must) should be revised - there must be stricter qualifications. We can't keep accepting presidential candidates that are grossly unqualified or unfit to be a public servant, else we end up having essentially a lottery where we sometimes end up electing a qualified person and next time a total moron.
Maybe have the presidential candidates face something akin to a job interview with real-life qualifications - proficient knowledge of basic law, past leadership roles, has served in government for at least 6 years, achievements, and diplomacy skills.
Maybe have the presidential candidates face something akin to a job interview with real-life qualifications - proficient knowledge of basic law, past leadership roles, has served in government for at least 6 years, achievements, and diplomacy skills.