Three Presidents

What if we had three presidents, one from each thing, Libertarian, Republican, and Democrat. They could bounce ideas of each other and keep everything in balance.

Hypothetically speaking, what do you think?

Naw, I like the Constitution just as it is.

reply to post by Phlynx


Dude, I am so embarrassed for you.

One from each "thing?"

Originally posted by RRconservative
reply to post by Phlynx

 

Dude, I am so embarrassed for you.

One from each "thing?"

Yep, as long as people understand what I mean a I really don't care. I don't feel embarrassed at all.

[edit on 2-10-2009 by Phlynx]

Oh Gawd....


We can barely handle one screwing things up. What makes you think we could handle three at one time? Let's look at the last three for example.

We would have slick Willie and Monica playing hide the cigar in the oval office with Bush riding on air force one bombing every country on Earth while Obama is out back giving everything away and apologizing for it while he is doing so.



[edit on 2-10-2009 by SLAYER69]

I think it's a terrible idea, but I wouldn't have any objection, say, to Dreyers coming up with a new three flavored Ice Cream.

They could call it...

Neopolitician

I'm sure they wouldn't sell much of it though, cause it would probably taste like ****.

There have been times in America's history when the President and Vice-president have been from different "things". That didn't work at all. Why would having multiple presidents from different parties be any different? They would each have their own agenda that they'd want to accomplish and so, get nothing done.

On second though, that's kinda like now. Things wouldn't change much would they?

reply to post by lernmore


Hilarious!

Also...I don't think that's a bad proposition, but I don't think it's the best one, either (who knows what that would be!). We definitely need to revamp the way things are done, and that's certainly an idea.

Originally posted by Phlynx
What if we had three presidents, one from each thing, Libertarian, Republican, and Democrat. They could bounce ideas of each other and keep everything in balance.

Hypothetically speaking, what do you think?

Well, if you are going to have 3, then you might as well have 300,000,000. We have a hard time getting 1 president to be efficient, any more than that would exponentially increase the "cluster F" that is the US Presidency!

Just my 2-cents

reply to post by SLAYER69


Dang Slayer, your post is hilarious.


I once proposed having two Presidents. One for Domestic policy and one for foreign policy.

I just feel that for the most part a President focuses on one policy and the other one gets ignored.

Anyway, my idea sank very quickly

Libertarian??!! No way, thats never been tested. we'd have to substitute that party with the Whig party!!!

and seriously that wouldnt work anyway because right now we are free to elect any kind of president we want. Communist, National Socialist, Green, whatever. If we limited it to 3 specific parties that would be unconstitutional wouldnt it?

reply to post by Phlynx


I see you're thinking at least.

Our system of the American Presidency is based upon the Spartan concept of one king to lead the men to war while the other king stayed at home to protect the people.

This is where we got the President and Vice President from, because the Founding Fathers based our entire system after Rome and Greece, I have studied it all of my life so unfortunately I do not have a link to provide as I got that from many books on Government and how it was set up based on the concepts of trying to change from the "Old World" into the "New World".

I think you should expand your original post a lot more based on the concepts of these particular ideologies, so that you can get it more attention, or it may falter.

3 presidents elected from three different things. Hmmmmmmm......oh, I think that would make it necessary to have 3 different sets of food tasters. By the way, would they take turns occupying the Oval Office? Or have three desks in there? Can you imagine the hissy fits and backstabbing to determine who gets to have the best view from the windows? And one set of aides would remove all the W's from computer keyboards while another set would remove all the H's. And who would get to abscond with the official silverware at the end of the 4 years? Oh, the fighting and arguing over who gets the best plot of ground for their respective victory gardens. Would we have to have 3 Airforce One's? And who would get to ride in A, B , or C? Which First Lady or First Man, that in itself would be a problem, no I am First Person, no I am First Person, would get to go to Copenhagen to plead a case for why the Olympics should be located in the U.S.?
What if one president wanted a dog and the other two wanted a cat, or a ferret, which First Pet gets the choice cuts of meat? Ah, yeah, I know. Just let them all fight over it all.

Anyway, OP, thinking outside the box is good. It's how change begins.

Edited to add: Rock, Paper, Scissors solved many problems when I was a kid. And immature kids comes to my mind when I consider these politicvarmints in D.C.


[edit on 2-10-2009 by kyred]

I would be really impressed if we could start out with one President!

Three is purely wishful thinking.

If anyone has spotted the real President, you know the person who would actually run the nation like he/she cared about the nation and knows what would be good for the nation and has the intelligence and backbone to do these things...please tell them he/she is desperately needed in Washington.

As usual an imposter has taken their job!

Originally posted by octotom
There have been times in America's history when the President and Vice-president have been from different "things". That didn't work at all. Why would having multiple presidents from different parties be any different? They would each have their own agenda that they'd want to accomplish and so, get nothing done.

On second though, that's kinda like now. Things wouldn't change much would they?

My FAVORITE president was Ford, precisely BECAUSE he didn't "get anything done", meaning he didn't mess anything up either.

The country did fine for a little while on autopilot.

Originally posted by SpartanKingLeonidas
reply to post by Phlynx

 

I see you're thinking at least.

Our system of the American Presidency is based upon the Spartan concept of one king to lead the men to war while the other king stayed at home to protect the people.

This is where we got the President and Vice President from, because the Founding Fathers based our entire system after Rome and Greece, I have studied it all of my life so unfortunately I do not have a link to provide as I got that from many books on Government and how it was set up based on the concepts of trying to change from the "Old World" into the "New World".

I think you should expand your original post a lot more based on the concepts of these particular ideologies, so that you can get it more attention, or it may falter.

We where based on trying to mix the Spartan Oligarchy and the Athens Direct Democracy. A lot of what we are is based on is in the book The Republic, by Plato, but our kings are no longer philosophers. One problem was Oligarchys have internal wars, and Democracy get into external wars. What they never expected, was that we would get both if we combined the two.

reply to post by Phlynx


I have always thought a council of perhaps 10-12 men/women instead of one president with no real power. You may not know this, but the County Sheriff actually has more power than the president.

The Council would be a volunteer thing, every one would serve, like a community service thing. Terms would be for 5 years or so, and all would not rotate at once, but one at a time, at different times. This was the senior members could teach the new members how to do things. Elections would be held on the internet, and everyone has a vote. Votes are verified by unique IP address only.

That thing that really bothers me is this...we have two (2) political parties with any sort of chance at the White House. Two choices, in which both are like peas in a pod, is not enough choices. We need maybe 6, or 7 recognized political parties, all of whom have a chance. Force the media to cover all parties, and report on all news.

Another thing. The presidency is bought, you know that, right? Make it so no one can spend billions on a presidency run, and give more people a chance.

Originally posted by Phlynx
What if we had three presidents, one from each thing, Libertarian, Republican, and Democrat. They could bounce ideas of each other and keep everything in balance.

Hypothetically speaking, what do you think?

At this point we'd be better off with a magic 8-ball in the Oval Office making decisions.

Three Presidents. Hmmm... you mean operating with the smooth efficiency of a committee? Right.