2008-07-21, 01:36 AM
Schrodinger Wrote:[SIZE="3"]Thank you very much for your post. In general, you can correct me if I'm wrong, you stated that it seems like society as a whole isn't living up to legitimately achieving what is right and is instead attempting to take shortcuts in order to achieve the same results.
I agree with the associations you made and the theme of your message. Except with American politics, it has become extraordinarily worse in the sense that we have accepted that it is OKAY if our President raises the debt. It is OKAY if our President declares war and totally ignores the opinion of the populace even if they might be vehemently opposed. How we came to accept such a rude and corrupt abomination to become the status quo of our current political system that rules our nation, it's honestly frightening. I believe that if we want 2008 to be the catalyst of reform, we must reform our political system from the corrupt roots that originated from the bipartisan system of Democrats and Republicans. And the last person to fix such a erroneous system would be a Democrat or a Republican. [/SIZE]
[SIZE="1"]
Mmm. Yes, that basically sums up my feelings on the subject.
However, I don't agree with the second statement that you made. If I understood it correctly, then it seems like you're stating the president should only be allowed to do what the public wants him to do. To me at least, it sounds like "Popular = Good", "Unpopular = Bad". Just because it's unpopular doesn't make it a bad decision (not saying I agree / disagree with the Iraq war). I do believe that the leaders should listen to the opinions of the public, and take that into consideration when making choices of such magnitude, but they should retain executive powers. Without that ability, is the president not more than a figurehead that is only a powerful extension of the public?
Honestly, I'm not even sure what the heck would be a reasonable compromise between the two ideas. Completely ignoring the public is bad, but leaving everything in their hands doesn't seem like such a swell idea either. (Assuming we're talking about the current state of the populace, not some hypothetical intelligent one)[/SIZE]
Mmm. Yes, that basically sums up my feelings on the subject.
However, I don't agree with the second statement that you made. If I understood it correctly, then it seems like you're stating the president should only be allowed to do what the public wants him to do. To me at least, it sounds like "Popular = Good", "Unpopular = Bad". Just because it's unpopular doesn't make it a bad decision (not saying I agree / disagree with the Iraq war). I do believe that the leaders should listen to the opinions of the public, and take that into consideration when making choices of such magnitude, but they should retain executive powers. Without that ability, is the president not more than a figurehead that is only a powerful extension of the public?
Honestly, I'm not even sure what the heck would be a reasonable compromise between the two ideas. Completely ignoring the public is bad, but leaving everything in their hands doesn't seem like such a swell idea either. (Assuming we're talking about the current state of the populace, not some hypothetical intelligent one)[/SIZE]