Login is disabled. This forum is read-only.
Imperial Forum → Politics → The Do Nothing President
Hypothetically speaking, if a president was running on the platform of doing nothing, with the exception of the essential duties of the executive, would you vote for them? Anyhow, I always thought it would be amusing to run for office on a platform of being the "do nothing president!"
The do nothing president ftw!
Harding?
Depends. Since my country doesn't have Presidents, i'll change the question to:
"Would you vote for a politician was running on the platform of doing nothing".
I would say yes for the country, no for my state, and no for my local government. The latter two sux0rs beyond the physical limits of sux0r.
Seriously, democracy doesn't work. The people keep electing the same bloody idiots...Now we have a state that is 15 billion dollars in deficit, a *really* shit public system (schools, police, roads, etc, and above all healthcare), and the state government has been muddled up in corruption allegations...
Not to mention they built a firestation BACK TO F[IRETR]UCKING FRONT...WTF?!?
Erm..whoops. End off-topic rant.
Often the president is pretty much 'do nothing' anyway. I'd much prefer even an open "I won't do shit!" president over the socialist we just elected.
skoe, you say democracy doesnt work, but how is it failing? look where democratic governments are present and look at the most stable countries with the highest standards of living and they are one in the same. clearly democratic governments work.
Avo,
Hahaha. You do realize that many of those same countries were once autocracies and were also the most powerful and wealthy countries a hundred years ago right? You also realize that those countries were also among the first to industrialize and had colonial empires right?
Bush the elder worked on the New World Order.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rc7i0wCFf8g
>Hahaha. You do realize that many of those same countries were once autocracies and were also the most powerful and wealthy countries a hundred years ago right? You also realize that those countries were also among the first to industrialize and had colonial empires right?
And where are those autocracies now?
> A10 wrote:
And where are those autocracies now?>
Overthrown for being a bunch of noobs, or for less noobs, monarchs with constitutional limits.
>Still the most powerful countries in the world, though starting to face competition by oligarchic China
No the autocracies are gone. They've been replaced by a form of government that is more flexible and able to better adapt to modern times.
And China has a long way to go. Per capita income in china is just 2k a year. They're strong because they're big but they haven't yet been able to match the quality of life of other countries.
> A10 wrote:
> >Still the most powerful countries in the world, though starting to face competition by oligarchic China
No the autocracies are gone. They've been replaced by a form of government that is more flexible and able to better adapt to modern times.
And China has a long way to go. Per capita income in china is just 2k a year. They're strong because they're big but they haven't yet been able to match the quality of life of other countries.>>
Naw, democracy is more of a feature of capitalism. Just ask yourself who exercises the power in a democratic government and who the government always seems interested in satisfying first.
Well, China has billions of people living in it, most of who are farmers. But the people in the cities are doing tremendously better. Their GDP is also getting close to the US.
> Justinian I wrote:
> Avo,
Hahaha. You do realize that many of those same countries were once autocracies and were also the most powerful and wealthy countries a hundred years ago right? You also realize that those countries were also among the first to industrialize and had colonial empires right?
i do realize that. but that doesnt explain why people think democracy has failed. whats the goal of government? different people think the goal of government should be different things. i want to know what goals does skoe think the government should have that makes him think democracy has failed. i mean, its certainly not stability, quality of life, or wealth where democracy has failed.
i think that in these times where the masses are so "educated" a democratic government is one of the only ways to keep the "educated" masses stable and to keep the government stable.
well, even though the u.s. is "democratic", it really isn't. Democratic governments only work with really small groups, like tribes. But once you get many thousands of people, you have to have what we do right now, a Republic. It just makes it easier to have who we "want" representing us so the can vote based on how the majority wants them to, thus making a vote go from having millions a state to 1/2 or even 55 for C.A, but its a lot faster
i'd vote for the dude or dudette that ran on the "do everyone" platform, thats hot.
magical lands. i didnt say we have a democracy. the US is democratic because they vote for their representatives. the US's government is a DEMOCRATIC republic.
democratic republic? ohhhhh like the congo right
Imperial Forum → Politics → The Do Nothing President
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.