Elections aren't just contests (voters, Congress, campaign, Democrats)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
With Republicans involved in choosing who they will run against President Obama, and the extreme partisanship that seems to typify our political forums these days, I think it's important to remember that elections aren't just a contest to see who can win the nomination or who wins the election.
Elections were initially designed to give people a voice. A voice in a conversation that's supposed to be between ourselves and our elected leaders. That conversation isn't supposed to be a one-way series of speeches. It's supposed to be a real and vibrant conversation.
I'd like a President who doesn't tell us how he's going to fix things, because the truth is, the President isn't going to fix things. The President is going to work with Congress and with the people to fix things, and that's not an easy process. I don't want a President who promises things he cannot deliver, and I want the voters to call him on it when he makes those promises. It's a conversation, between voters and candidates, that requires voters to demand substance, not hollow promises, that needs to happen in this country.
I don't want or anyone should want a President who is totally full of it! but someone who is full of answers, determination, a smart business sense ,and briningng people together, not the opposite. A President who doesn't promise something he will never deliver. And a Presdient who takes some blame for the many mistakes he has made. Does not blame everyone he can think of for our many problems, but be a Man, man up, and take some responsibility for the problems we face, i could respect that.
sanrene:"Where were you and this missive when obama was ignoring the "voice" of the people as he was shoving obamacare down our throats?"
LOL. I voted against BO in 2008, and dislike Obamacare, but your statement is DEAD wrong. bO campaigned on NHC, was elected by a wide margin (his vote total exceeded JM's by over 15%, higher than most presidential elections over the last several decades), and he than, predictably, fought for and signed into law, what he campaigned on.
In our system, the minority viewpoint we were both part of in 2008 does not have the votes to stop the majority view. Nor should it. Now a new president might fight for, and have the votes to, dismantle Obamacare, and that would also be democracy, but nowhere was our nations governence to be done via MINORITY rule.
Where were you and this missive when obama was ignoring the "voice" of the people as he was shoving obamacare down our throats?
So...you actually believed that tripe about the healing planet and slowing of the tides?
You actually believed the tripe from the most divisive, partisan president EVER, that he was a president for ALL the people?
Have you listened to any of his speeches lately?
I'm trying to figure out why you decided to personally attack me for positions I haven't even taken, instead of addressing the topic of this thread. Do you actually read posts, or is your automatic response to anything I write a knee-jerk and senseless anti-Obama rant?
Yeah like Hope n' Change, that was promising us a lot, of bologna. He won, and we got Bologna.
That's my point, though. We know the President's role in government is to implement and enforce the laws that Congress passes. The President is powerful, because he has limited resources to do his job, and so he gets to decide how to use those resources, (ie, he sets the priorities and sets the tone of policies) and he has veto power, of course. But he can't make laws, and he can't raise or lower taxes. Those actions are what we elect the people in Congress to do. We know this. We've all taken civics courses. So when a candidate promises hope and change, (and frankly, isn't that what they all promise, essentially?), it's up to us to take up our part of the conversation. How?
How? In the case of Obama, how was he going to achieve all the things he promised? We knew, all of us, supporters, opposition, people who preferred to be neutral, we knew he couldn't. We know, all of us, supporters, opposition, people who are neutral, that the roster of Republicans currently running for nomination, are making promises right now which sound great, but can they keep those promises? How are they going to keep those promises?
I'm not condemning them for making promises. I'm saying that the conversation, which is the point of the election process, the conversation needs to be happening right now, between voters and candidates. And asking them how they are going to keep their promises leads to a discussion, an important discussion, of how they think our government works, and how they will work within that government. That's important for voters to know, isn't it?
One of the things I'm terribly disappointed in Obama is that he said during his campaign that he would be a more transparent administration than his predecessor, that things wouldn't happen behind closed doors. This is something a President can make happen, and should make happen. But it hasn't happened. With Obama now campaigning for re-election, this is one of the topics I want to be part of the conversation with him.
Elections, you see, are not just contests. Elections are the best opportunities that voters have to be a part of the political process, to be a part of the conversation. I'm excited that we all have a chance to join in the conversation, and I just wanted to start a thread to see what people wanted to hear in the election conversation, what kind of candidate they wanted, what the people think is important. While it's fun and interesting to watch the debates and discuss who won and why, and it's interesting to hear the speeches, to me, the most valuable part of the election conversation is to hear what the people are thinking, to listen to the voters. Because the voters are the drivers during an election, the candidates are just along for the ride. And sometimes we forget that.
With Republicans involved in choosing who they will run against President Obama, and the extreme partisanship that seems to typify our political forums these days, I think it's important to remember that elections aren't just a contest to see who can win the nomination or who wins the election.
Elections were initially designed to give people a voice. A voice in a conversation that's supposed to be between ourselves and our elected leaders. That conversation isn't supposed to be a one-way series of speeches. It's supposed to be a real and vibrant conversation.
Tell that to main stream media and internet forums who are currently trying to choose "the winner" long before the election is held. The democrats and their media lackeys are already declaring the Republican winner they want and trying to convince the ignorant TV watching masses by repeating their results over and over hoping it will stick (cough Romney cough).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
