Presidential Elections are.......
By AidaLily
@AidaLily (1450)
United States
March 31, 2012 10:53am CST
Pointless.
Before anyone gets all mad and tries to convince me that they aren't read this first...
1.) The president of the united states is like the spokesperson for a name brand company. A spokesperson may have their own specialized product they can sell, but for the most part all the promoting, marketing, hiring, etc is all done by other people.
2.) A little about the government. All bills must pass through congress.
-Step 1: The bill goes to congress
-Step 2: Congress wastes more time than necessary before deciding to agree or disagree on a bill.
-Step 3: The president either signs the bill or vetos it.
If the bill is veto'd by the president....
-Step 4: Congress can re-agree on the bill with another large majority and the bill becomes the law whether the president disagreed with it or not.
Taking that into account, if either of the 'different' parties (They really aren't different, only different when it comes time for elections.. but its really one party deciding it all. People just refuse to open their eyes and see that.) who control congress wanted anything to change for the american people they could have changed it no matter who was in office. It just goes faster when the president is their 'party'.
3.) There isn't a separate party just one party (in terms of republicans/democrats) keeping the country divided so they can stay in power. If there were really two separate parties who cared about the country in different ways, then they would work for the American people and not spend money on ads during election years for you to keep them with decent jobs and great benefits. The majority of people in politics or not would promise you the world in exchange for that salary, tax breaks, and great benefits especially people struggling a lot in these times.
For all those saying 'We need a republican in office' or 'Anyone but a republican in office' or 'Four more years for Obama' or 'Anyone but Obama'.... pay attention please for the love of whatever you worship or believe in.
These people held positions for years. Once they are out of office, they still get paid. The former presidents and congress members alike. Who is paying them for their years out of office? The government. Who does the government get most of their money from? Taxpayers. They aren't two different parties. Hell, everyone says Romney and Obama have some of the same ideals... but they are from two 'different' parties right? Santorum doesn't stand a chance of winning over independent voters because he is an evangelical extremist and most women aren't thrilled about him either.
Seriously give someone 50 million dollars and watch how the media puts them into the limelight unless the democratic-republican party (because that is what they are) pays more to put themselves into the limelight. I wouldn't be surprised if while the country is fighting about whose better... every time a new president is elected the democratic-republican party all gets together and laughing, joking, hell drinking, and more having a huge secret hush hush party while congratulating the "other" party on their acting capabilities and discussing strategies for who they want to pit against each other in next election and what one party can do to make the other people look bad and see if America buys it... which they know most of America will.
3 responses
@sierras236 (2739)
• United States
1 Apr 12
Do you even read the US Constitution?
Do you know how hard it is for Congress to overturn a Presidential veto? In this Congress with these Senators and Representatives, the chances are zero. Even a long shot wouldn't bet against that.
He is also the Commander In Chef of the military. Put simply with out a CIC, you have no military whatsoever. Countries live and die on their military power.
He also appoints the people who represent this country to other countries. That is a big deal as well.
He also appoints the Supreme Court Judges. If you have even paid the remotest attention to the health care law, those Judges pretty much shape the entire law of the land.
Go read the US Constitution and then tell me he has no real power.
@AidaLily (1450)
• United States
2 Apr 12
Have I read the Constitution? Yes. In fact it was part of the classes I had to take. Those same college classes that have professors that are not afraid to be honest. Yes, the majority can over rule the president. At least that is how it is supposed to work.
Once again we have people in all offices who could care less about old pieces of paper. They can say they do. It makes great campaign material especially with so many Americans dissatisfied with the government. They throw a few words here and there, they show a picture of it in their office, and everyone believes they know it and care to enforce it.
He is CIC, but congress can decide to go to war. Appointing people is all well and good, but you have no idea what those people will say. And if he appoints them... its no different than appointing an assistant manager who may or may not do a great job and still that whole thing with congress.
If a president truly had power, then he wouldn't need to constantly go through congress to make decisions that would be beneficial to the country. As I stated in another discussion, congress will more than happily vote against any of those so called constitutional rights in a heartbeat. However no one wants to believe or see that.
The Supreme Court Judges if you even pay attention aren't there to make all these laws into anything. They get these debates or law cases when the legislation is challenged by someone and plenty of politicians and churches challenged the health care bill. If none of them challenged it then the Supreme Court wouldn't have anything to do with it.
There is a large difference in reading what is supposed to happen and then paying attention to what actually happens. I think most people who bring up the constitution only read what is supposed to happen, but nothing about what is happening.
@sierras236 (2739)
• United States
2 Apr 12
I was wondering because it sounds entirely like you haven't by asking such questions.
Also, his executive orders do not have to go through Congress for approval. The main limitation on that one is money. If he needs to spend it, it has to go through the House.
Yes, he has to go through Congress. It is to make sure that he doesn't grab the all the power. If he didn't have this particular check than our country could turn into a dictatorship in like two seconds. It is an important check. Just like the Supreme Court is the check for bills being passed by Congress. Likewise with declaring war. Otherwise, our troops would probably be fighting in every country in the world including our allies.
Don't they ever discuss checks and balances in school anymore?
Yet, for of all his powers, the most potent is the appointment to the Supreme Court. That is the one that affects future generations and leaves the most lasting effect of his policies long after he is out of the White House.
If your professors aren't afraid of total honesty, then this is the one power that they should be absolutely terrified of any President having.
The Supreme Court Judges take on the cases that directly relate to the US Constitution or conflict between State and Federal laws. If you paid attention to the real world, you would see that they rejected far more cases than they take on because their role is also limited. In fact, their ruling can be overturn by an amendment to the US Constitution. 2/3 ratification by the States and the whole legal landscape changes. Again, another check this time by the States.
But I am curious did they also discuss why States have more powers than Federal Government?
@redhotpogo (4401)
• United States
26 May 12
you're sort of right, but not quite. Your vote is pointless. You don't really vote for the president a few elected people do, and they almost never go the way of the citizens. They just let you vote to give you the feeling of more freedom and democracy. It's all a show.
@grandpa_lash (5225)
• Australia
23 Apr 12
I don't know enough about US politics to really contribute to this discussion, but I would like to have on record my admiration for your clarity of thinking. Yes, as the earlier response tacitly suggests, the devil is in the details, but the basic premise could be applied to many "democratic" systems. I can see little difference, for instance, in the two major parties in Australia, roughly parallel to the US parties, but instead feel that the "left" wing has moved right into the middle ground, and the "right" has gone from liberal to ultra-conservative (and somewhat aggressively Christian), yet it still comes across as a big boys' club with only differences of style rather than substance between the protagonists.
If you want to get into the theoretical side, discuss, say, forms of democracy, I'm your man.
Lash