Is the United States ready for a President who speaks to the populace like adults?

[InfiniteNow]

I'm genuinely unsure. I know many of you ARE ready for such a possibility, and, in fact, desperately crave it.

 

With that said, I ask that readers and respondents post their thoughts and share their views about the majority of US voters when addressing the question.

 

 

Are the people of the United States ready for a President who speaks to the populace like mature adults? Explain, and let's discuss. :phones:

[Boerseun]

Politics is a thorny issue.

 

And it could also be said that a nation gets the leaders they deserve.

 

I know in my country, the vast majority of the electorate is scientifically illiterate, superstitious, philosophically unsophisticated, believes in ghosts and spirits, and so on and so forth. Unfortunately, they are the vast majority, and the future leaders will be elected by them, from their ranks.

 

In the US, something like 80% of people are devout Christians. Not that that's a bad thing in itself, but it might say something about where your leaders will come from, and which crowd they'll have to please in order to get elected.

 

Us select few, trained in the sciences, might naturally assume that everyone has the same skeptic nature we have. But we are, unfortunately, far the minority. And the future leaders will not come from our ranks. And that goes for Africa, as well as the US, unfortunately. However incongruous it might sound at first. The tyranny of the masses is, indeed, a tyranny.

 

However advanced we might appear technologically, our minds and hearts are still stuck in the Dark Ages, with bigotry, superstition, a faulty understanding of cause and effect (which explains religion) reigning supreme.

 

If a leader or a President gets elected by addressing the masses as if they are children, its not saying much about the leader under discussion. It does, however, speak volumes about the masses. And the masses, worldwide, are not scientifically literate, nor appreciative of those who are, making their world possible and comfortable with all these gizmos and advances that makes the general sod in the street think he's any better than a medieval serf.

[freeztar]

I'll have to agree with Boerseun.

 

Once we stop acting like children, then we will be ready.

[Moontanman]

I'm genuinely unsure. I know many of you ARE ready for such a possibility, and, in fact, desperately crave it.

 

With that said, I ask that readers and respondents post their thoughts and share their views about the majority of US voters when addressing the question.

 

 

Are the people of the United States ready for a President who speaks to the populace like mature adults? Explain, and let's discuss. :(

 

Absolutely not! The more people you get to gether the more child like their responses become, with as many people in the US that choose to be spoon feed reality I don't think it's possible for them to come out of their high chairs. Far too many people want to be told what to think, what to believe, and when to think and when to believe.

Our whole system of electing people to office is based on this basic idea. Never happen........

[pgrmdave]

The best leader would not be one elected by the people but one who gained that appointment in some other means that was more selective. Unfortunately, any process which could produce a spectacularly good leader runs the same risk of producing a spectacularly bad leader. In the end, democracy isn't about getting the best people into the best places, but about mitigating the damage they can do once they're elected.

[Boerseun]

In the end, democracy isn't about getting the best people into the best places, but about mitigating the damage they can do once they're elected.

Well, seeing as the rep system is no more, I would like to present you with virtual rep +100 vir this particular line.

 

Can I quote you on this?

[InfiniteNow]

Well, seeing as the rep system is no more, I would like to present you with virtual rep +100 vir this particular line.

 

Have you been sucking off the teet of a mutant diseased cow again? It's that green box on the top right of the post... The one I just pressed for your post #2 in this thread... Comments viewable still in the User CP.

 

 

The problem is that the idiots have been running the asylum for too long... (I'm referring, of course, to the US populace, not Boerseun )

[jackson33]

The question should be, 'Is the populace ready to be addressed as adults?' and the answer, obviously not...

 

However, the US is not a pure democracy and was intended to be a 'representative' government. Then it was founded on the idea, that those with a vested interest (ONLY) should determine the Federal Government. The democracy, if you like that word, was used for States when electing their Federal Representatives, Senators and electors (who then nominated & voted for a President). States however, for the most part followed the Federal Constitution in their's, through election laws which allowed only male 'land/business owners' a vote in the outcome. The founders, generally worried that people, who had no vested interest, would vote with ignorance or to benefit themselves. Today, in the US, every person (still through the States) has a vote for all representation, so long as they meet the requirements of any particular State. Generally breathing is all that is required...

 

The US populace is a religious group, something over 85% believing in a God, under Christan philosophy, with about 50% being Catholic. None of the 43 elected presidents, was atheist or agnostic and was some form of Christan.

The founders, diversified in their own religious leanings were only concerned in forcing religious on the total of any one and very careful to establish that principle. They also were aware of 'The Church of England' and how destructive that influence was...

[InfiniteNow]

The question should be, 'Is the populace ready to be addressed as adults?' and the answer, obviously not...

I am not sure that I follow the distinction you are making between that question and the one I posed. Can you please elaborate?

 

 

None of the 43 elected presidents, was atheist or agnostic and was some form of Christan.

Either you are mistaken, or Abraham Lincoln, William Howard Taft, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and John Adams were never presidents. :eek_big:

 

 

 

Famous Atheists,

[jackson33]

Politicians pander to their audience. Its nearly a requirement to be elected and practiced by all. If an audience where open to issues (not possible), had an understanding of issues (do not) and was truly concerned with the Nation (rare), politicians could speak the truth.

 

You are welcome to google 'religion of presidents', probably 20 sites, where the following is indicated. Each arguable, I am sure, but where historians have pretty well settled...

 

Taft-J. Adams...Unitarian, Jefferson- James Madison... Episcopalian and Lincoln was raised Baptist, very religious (read bible daily) but did not regularly attend or formerly join any church.

 

Most would agree, obviously not you, that being a religious person has always played a roll in the election of a President, regardless of the original intended system or the current process...

[InfiniteNow]

Ermm... Okay.

 

So, back to the question at hand.

[Thunderbird]

Studies have been done where a group of random individuals are put in a room to solve certain problems, The usual outcome is that the person’s that immediately attempt to put themselves in positions of leadership, or also the first to sacrifice truth to retain a consensus or group think. The interest becomes more about what will keep the group together as a unit, under control of the leadership, rather than what is the best information and direction for all. It is the dark side of democracy, but it is still the best system to date.

[Freddy]

About 81% of Americans identify with Christianity. How devout they are I have no clue, but I know plenty who are not devout.

 

Catholics make up about 25% of Americans. I am a fallen one.

 

Jefferson identified himself as a Deist, who edited the Bible so it contained Jesus words. He did not believe in miracles or Jesus' divinity.

 

The United States is a Republic and is required by the Constitution to guarantee each state a republican government.

 

The word, Democracy, is not found in the Constitution.

 

Harry Truman is the president that I think treated Americans as adults.

[C1ay]

And it could also be said that a nation gets the leaders they deserve.

 

This is fairly obvious in that the vast majority of the 535 members of Congress, elected by the people, should be sent packing. The founders saw the problem with using the popular vote and purposely constructed the electoral college to avoid it in the case of choosing the President. Throughout history democracies chosen by a popular vote have eventually failed. Perhaps the founders should have found a more indirect method of choosing the people's and the state's representatives as well.

 

The best leader would not be one elected by the people but one who gained that appointment in some other means that was more selective.

 

I think perhaps the President should be chosen by Congress as long as the problems with electing a responsible Congress are fixed. We could start by repealing the 17th Amendment and making the Senators representatives of the States as originally intended.

[jackson33]

Probably the single most effective tool in the US Constitution is the use of 'Checks and Balances', where each branch can be over ridden by another, in some way. If Congress chose the President, that would seriously injure the Executive branch, if for no other reason than expectations. Remember, the 'electors' are chosen by by local legislatures, even today. They will represent the 'Party' the populace vote for, which may NOT be the party in a power of a state or their representation in Washington.

 

The 17th Amendment, allows for progression of a public career, in a timely manner. Where senators were originally chose, through a States legislature procedure, those legislature were and are now voted into office by the states people. With few exceptions the same people would have been voted to represent a state as Senator, including Ms. Clinton, but with a time delay for State residency (think was 9 years).

 

As for 'sent packing', yes people from outside one state have always thought this of representation from others. IMO; W/O the 17th Amendment, this would be even a larger problem, as Federal influence will always go along with longevity/seniority. Think it was Hamilton, who argued for 'life terms' for Senators, losing to Madison's 6 year arguments. That is the sentiment did exist the extensive terms, now seen.

 

I would agree, Truman came close to truth in speaking to people. More important, he acted on his convictions, not concerned with some legacy.

Lincoln, also would be a close second and several early in our history. However these folks had few 'government dependents' to worry about and the voters for the most part, concerned with Country first, public opinion well down the list...at the time.

[C1ay]

I get the impression you don't understand the damage done by the 17th Amendment. As founded Congress has two houses, The House of Representatives which are intended to represent the people and The Senate which was intended to represent the States. State interests can be quite different than the people's interests. The 17th Amendment made Senators representatives of the people by making them elected by the people instead of being chosen by the State legislatures. The effect is that the constituents of the Senators and those they must pander to in order to get elected or reelected are the people and not the States they are intended to represent. We effectively have 2 houses of representatives for the people now and no genuine representation of the States.

[jackson33]

I'm not sure, Senators were intended to represent their State in total. It would seem to me 'one' would would have been better and then making the 17th adm. a problem. Even with two, with equal power to any State, not always are they from the same party, the States Legislatures affiliation, the Governors party or in fact members of any majority party. Wouldn't this tend toward the founders wishes to thwart dominance of any party.

 

At any rate, the rolls of the House and Senate are different and the 6 year term, limits pandering to State officials or the public and the interest of their State SHOULD be up front, even on National interest, as perceived by their political affiliation or platform. If the people of a State elect their legislatures and those legislatures then picked the Senators, wouldn't the pandering then become expectations of the people to begin with.