Thread: The Perfect President

Yes but Delerium said last "good" president. Every president had his faults. Every last one.

Well....we kind of shot our selves when we signed the deal when the told Miguel Gorbatrov to tear down the wall because there was a clause that kept these other countries from trying to outdo the US when it came to the space shuttle program, because we were so freakin scared that they were going to put missles in orbit to shoot at us. But we only have the two shuttles that we have active, the others kind of should we say "blew up" on us and we don't have a whole lot of people who can go up and save our sorry tails if we get stuck in spaces like we did about three weeks ago. If other countries had shuttle programs maybe when we get out butts in a sling out in space maybe they could fly up and get us out of trouble.
I actually did my home work on this subject because we did an assignment over this in class and we had to list the reasons for why the Berlin wall was taken down......Well torne down would be a little better context. But seriously. Yes there are alot of faults with all of our previous presidents.
Someone told me earlier that a good leader takes the criticizem and don't have to defend their actions and all. They told me that even though it seems like bush is a whacko but there are alot of things he doesnt tell people because he may have good reason. I dont know you guys tell me what yall think.

The beginning of this post reminds me of one of my last experiances in college. I'm 30 (graduated when I was 29), yet it never really occured to me that I was a return college student. I felt the same age as everyone around me.

I got quite the shock one day when I was sitting in one of my classes and the professor sent around a questionaire that had the question of who was the first president you remember. 9/10th's of the class said Clinton. I about fell out of my chair. To tell you the first president I remember was the early years of Regan. I gained 10 years of age overnight!

As for the perfect president, there isn't one. There never will be. Every voter looks for diffrent things. I personally am a conservitive who feels George Bush isn't using the "beat stick" enough on all those liberals on capitol hill (even the one's who claim to be republican ). But truth be told, I'm glad he's not.

The closest thing we will get to the perfect president is one who will compromise for programs that will acutally help people while staying true to his core principles (whatever they may be). I don't like Al Gore and I feel he would have made a horrible president, but I respect him on how sincere he holds his core belifs and how he does not compromise them. I think he's a loon because of them, but hey, I can respect him for it. I feel George Bush has done the same thing. Like or hate his policies, he has sacrificed political gain for the good of the nation on some areas. Take a look at stem cell research. Bush took a beating from both the hard right and hard left, yet because of his compromise in using exsisting stem cell lines while not increasing those lines, we acutally have stem cell research funded by the Federal government going on today. He compromised (allowing exsisting lines of embryonic stem cells to be used instead of wasted) but stayed true to his core princicples (not creating new lines of embryonic stem cells). I can get behind that.

Compromise is what allowed this country to be formed. Compromise is what allows it to continue. Compromise is the mark of a good president. It's as perfect as were going to get.

Originally Posted by Barronmore

Compromise is what allowed this country to be formed. Compromise is what allows it to continue. Compromise is the mark of a good president. It's as perfect as were going to get.

Perfect. Other wise we would all have to be the same to be fairly represented.

I know it seems odd but I think a true republic would be nice in this country I think that each person should represent themselves I think that is the way to go in this country I mean I know a democracy works but if everyone represented themselves then there would be no room to complain about everything.

Originally Posted by yanna

I know it seems odd but I think a true republic would be nice in this country I think that each person should represent themselves I think that is the way to go in this country I mean I know a democracy works but if everyone represented themselves then there would be no room to complain about everything.

We do. The US is a Federal Republic (ie. multiple states with representation). I think what you mean is a true Democracy.

re·pub·lic
noun
1 : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president; also : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government
2 : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law; also : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government

Source: Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.


pure democracy
n.

A democracy in which the power to govern lies directly in the hands of the people rather than being exercised through their representatives.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

The problem with a pure Democracy is that it causes a "tyrany of the majority". Anything the majority wants, they get. There is no need for comprimise of any kind. So what happens when you're not in the majority?

It works well in small groups but when you get more then 500 voters it falls apart.

yanna;

Try to get this board to actually agree to somthing important...like a national law or such. Under a democrocy, every voice is heard...every shrill, shreeking, insulting voice is heard (and ofcourse so are the calm reasonable ones). NOTHING would actually be accomplished and socity would come to a halt as we endlessly debated all the issues. A pure democracy does not work with millions of people. The group is too large. As Arrianna pointed out, a pure democracy works great with groups up to 500. Get a group as large and diverse as all of us together and we'll be arguing until the end of time.

What we have in America is a Democratic Republic. What that means is that the represented choose the representitive, who is accoutable to those represented. It's a novel idea, one the world had never seen before. The founding fathers called it a "great experiment", and that experiment has stood the test of time for over 200 years. I think after 200 years we can call the experiment successful.

The founding fathers carefully crafted our government with the intent of making sure all voices are heard and that the majority voices don't rule the minority voices. I personally call it the "Rhode Island" principle because that's how it came into being. Small Rhode Island wanted equal representation with larger states like NY because they didnt' want to be bullied into accepting everything NY wanted to do. NY wanted it's size and strenght to count for somthing and felt it had the right to steamroll over Rhode Island and other small states because they had more people. What was born form this tug of war was a enginious system where the majority rules most of the time but the minority acutally has a say in what happens and can thwart the goals of the majority. It's actually quite fasinating when you study it.

Point is, our system of governent with its' checks and balances could not function in a pure Democracy. It could not function in a pure Republic (as those in power would not be accountable to anyone not in power for any decisions they made). it is only in this mix that we can acheive such a delicate balance. I wouldn't want to change that for anything.