An idea about trying to fix coruption in government

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 09:54 AM
link   
On my drive home from work last night I was pondering something. I was pondering something from a John Titor posts. I first want to say that this is not a thread about JT or any of his predictions. I am not looking for "it is a hoax". But in his post he mentioned that in "his time" they no longer have just 1 president. They have, I think he said 25 presidents.

What I want to discuss here is the possibilities of this happening. My proposal is this. In today's society having one president leaves alot of room for corruption. I mean nobody dares speak out against the president for fear of being branded nonamerican. This one president can easily hide his corruption, especially when he can appoint his own people to certain posts. I think that haveing multiple presidents can actually avoid alot of that from happening. A sort of checks and balances, considering the original checks and balances system no longer works. Each president is elected by the people like the current pres is we just have more presidents to elect. Now I am not saying that corruption will cease to exist but if you think about it, it would be a lot harder to get away with it.

It shure would keep a lot more presidents honest. Again I am not looking to debat JT's predictions or whether he was a hoax or not. I did get the idea from his post and want to discuss the idea. Of course this would happen only after voter reform took place though. So what does everyone think on this matter.




posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmilici
On my drive home from work last night I was pondering something. I was pondering something from a John Titor posts. I first want to say that this is not a thread about JT or any of his predictions. I am not looking for "it is a hoax". But in his post he mentioned that in "his time" they no longer have just 1 president. They have, I think he said 25 presidents.

What I want to discuss here is the possibilities of this happening. My proposal is this. In today's society having one president leaves alot of room for corruption. I mean nobody dares speak out against the president for fear of being branded nonamerican. This one president can easily hide his corruption, especially when he can appoint his own people to certain posts. I think that haveing multiple presidents can actually avoid alot of that from happening. A sort of checks and balances, considering the original checks and balances system no longer works. Each president is elected by the people like the current pres is we just have more presidents to elect. Now I am not saying that corruption will cease to exist but if you think about it, it would be a lot harder to get away with it.

It shure would keep a lot more presidents honest. Again I am not looking to debat JT's predictions or whether he was a hoax or not. I did get the idea from his post and want to discuss the idea. Of course this would happen only after voter reform took place though. So what does everyone think on this matter.


UGH!!!!!
Why is it that I keep seeing this non-sense!?!?!?!

50 Million people "dared to speak out" against the president on tuesday!

I see about 50 complaints a day on this forum.

People speak out against the president constantly.

We live in the greatest society on earth. More people agree with me than do not....just look at the last election. You see, your problem is, that since something happened against the way you wanted it too...(GWB Being elected), you automatically assume that it is because people were just afraid to agree with you.

News Flash....People are not afraid to speak out against the president. UNFORTUNEATLY FOR PEOPLE LIKE YOU, THERE ARE MORE PEOPLE THAT AGREE WITH HIM, THAN PEOPLE WHO AGREE WITH YOU!



posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 10:05 AM
link   
Seapeople, if you are not going to discuss what I am proposing please do not post. I have been branded unamerican and non patriotic in the past for speaking out against bush. But this is not what this thread is about. You keep posting on this forum like that and I will be hitting the ignore button. Thank you.



posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 10:14 AM
link   
I like the idea of trying to eliminate the corruption of our government, but the President is the easy target and not the ones we should focus on.

The true perpetrators of corruption work in the House & Senate, this is where the dirty deeds are done. As a nation we must hold our representatives in Congress to a much tighter srutiny.

Strict term limits on our reps in Congress could be a start, but how would this pass when the ones who would vote on the legislation are the ones who would be the target of such legislation?

Maybe state referendums to limit the terms could be put on the ballot and let the citizens decide if they want career politicians to represent them.

I think retargetting your efforts towards changing the face of those on Capitol Hill will help in the reduction of the corruption.

The President is much easier to change, and already has a term limit.



posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmilici
Seapeople, if you are not going to discuss what I am proposing please do not post. I have been branded unamerican and non patriotic in the past for speaking out against bush. But this is not what this thread is about. You keep posting on this forum like that and I will be hitting the ignore button. Thank you.


Wow, I am hurt. Here, I will answer your post. No, we should keep the constitution exactly the way it is. No 25 presidents. There are plenty of checks and balances in our government, as long as we reduce its size, not increase it. The corruption comes when there are too many entities to control, not the other way around.

By the way.....you have spoke out against Bush before...as you said. According to your grim outlook of oppresion that supposedly exists, someone should have silenced you right? You are a very very very very brave person for risking everything to express your political views.....being that you are in such danger for doing so.

Edit: Oh and just for the record.... Regarding you ignoring me, or threatening to do so. Wouldn't that be using the same tactics that you feel are wrong for our conservative government to use?

[Edited on 11/5/2004 by Seapeople]



posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 11:34 AM
link   
Getting rid of the strangle hold of the two party (now one party) would be a good start. There is no way two parties much less one can represent 300 million people and the big have discovered they dont even have too, all they have to do is promise you anything and then blame it on the other party when they dont deliver.

Even when caught red-handed there zombies will just say "well the other guy lies more"



posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 12:17 PM
link   
Seapeople you do bring up a point on your edit remarkb and you are correct. I appologise and will not ignore or threaten to ignore you or anybody again.

Do understand I am not proposing it has to be 25 pres., but the current system of check and balances do not work. I saw your sarcasm in your second paragraph but the truth is we as an american people are on the way to being supressed. Just look at the guy about 1 or 2 years ago during the run up to the iraq war. Him and his son was in a mall in upstate NY where they both purchased anti-iraq war t-shirts and put them on as soon as they got them. They were in the food court when a security guard came to them and said to take them off. When they refused the guard called the police and asked them to leave. At that point they refused and were arrested for trespassing. How is that not oppression.

JacKatMtn does bring up a good point. The real corruption is in the houses. I guess I used the wrong word. I think I should have been more clearer and said to stop a dictatorship from happening. You cannot argue that the pres has more power know than that office has had in the past. Mostly becouse of the patriot act.

But then Amuk brings up a good point about the 2 party system, now a 1 party system. That opens up a whole new can of worms., How do we go about changing something like that?



posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 12:33 PM
link   
I wholeheartedly agree with setting term limits on the US House of Representatives and especially the US Senate. Doing so would significantly reduce corruption in the federal government. The problem is that senators already have too much power and outside of occasionally voting themselves a raise to their already over-inflated salaries, they will never allow term limit legislation to pass.

As far as the office of president is concerned, I propose that the current limitation of serving two consecutive terms continue, that each term should be extended to six years (as it is currently with senators) but with the option of running for office again in four years. This way, good leaders can have an even greater impact over the course of their presidential careers. The same should be allowed for state governors.






new topics
 
0

log in

join