• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Thank You, Donald

joe1776

Well-Known Member
The first step to a solution is to recognize that you have a problem. Donald Trump's one term ought to make it obvious, to at least half of the American citizenry, that the checks and balances engineered into our system of government aren't enough to withstand the damage a corrupt president can do. Just imagine the harm Donnie could have done in a second term, unconcerned about reelection.

While you're at it, just imagine how much more harm Trump could have done if he was brighter. A brighter man, with the same weakness of character, would have used Machiavellian tactics to disguise his corruption and gotten himself reelected.

Yes, the current system can be fixed by weakening the presidency. But I think the problem is more basic than that. I think the concept of leadership, giving one individual more power than others over the decision-making process, is basically flawed.

The decisions on climate control should be made by a panel of experts on climate control (majority rule). The decisions on how best to implement the climate control panel's recommendations should be done by a panel of experts on the economy.

The people with ambition for leadership, to have power over others, are typically narcissists. Like Donald Trump, they are know-it-alls who won't listen to the experts on anything. We can thank him for making it apparent that, in some future governing system, the presidency should be eliminated.
 

Altfish

Veteran Member
The first step to a solution is to recognize that you have a problem. Donald Trump's one term ought to make it obvious, to at least half of the American citizenry, that the checks and balances engineered into our system of government aren't enough to withstand the damage a corrupt president can do. Just imagine the harm Donnie could have done in a second term, unconcerned about reelection.

While you're at it, just imagine how much more harm Trump could have done if he was brighter. A brighter man, with the same weakness of character, would have used Machiavellian tactics to disguise his corruption and gotten himself reelected.

Yes, the current system can be fixed by weakening the presidency. But I think the problem is more basic than that. I think the concept of leadership, giving one individual more power than others over the decision-making process, is basically flawed.

The decisions on climate control should be made by a panel of experts on climate control (majority rule). The decisions on how best to implement the climate control panel's recommendations should be done by a panel of experts on the economy.

The people with ambition for leadership, to have power over others, are typically narcissists. Like Donald Trump, they are know-it-alls who won't listen to the experts on anything. We can thank him for making it apparent that, in some future governing system, the presidency should be eliminated.
Just imagine the damage he could have done if the election was close instead of being a landslide (To quote Trump).
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Why the significant advantage of that system in your opinion?
It's much more efficient since the majority party or coalition government basically runs the show. And if they screw up, then people can vote for an alternative party. IOW, if things aren't going well, people will know which party/coalition to blame.

Also, it's more conducive to multiple parties versus just mainly two as in our presidential system. And some countries with a parliamentary system have a "vote of confidence" provision, thus if the majority party/coalition screws up, a new election can be called over a relatively short period of time.

It's not a perfect system, but I prefer it over what we have here in the States.
 

bobhikes

Nondetermined
Premium Member
The first step to a solution is to recognize that you have a problem. Donald Trump's one term ought to make it obvious, to at least half of the American citizenry, that the checks and balances engineered into our system of government aren't enough to withstand the damage a corrupt president can do. Just imagine the harm Donnie could have done in a second term, unconcerned about reelection.

While you're at it, just imagine how much more harm Trump could have done if he was brighter. A brighter man, with the same weakness of character, would have used Machiavellian tactics to disguise his corruption and gotten himself reelected.

Yes, the current system can be fixed by weakening the presidency. But I think the problem is more basic than that. I think the concept of leadership, giving one individual more power than others over the decision-making process, is basically flawed.

The decisions on climate control should be made by a panel of experts on climate control (majority rule). The decisions on how best to implement the climate control panel's recommendations should be done by a panel of experts on the economy.

The people with ambition for leadership, to have power over others, are typically narcissists. Like Donald Trump, they are know-it-alls who won't listen to the experts on anything. We can thank him for making it apparent that, in some future governing system, the presidency should be eliminated.

The problem isn't the presidency its congress. The president only gets away with this foolishness because Congress can't or won't act. These so called laws that the president signs without going through congress are only allowed because Congress refuses to do anything. They generally get overturned by the Supreme Court when challenged. This President was impeached but really not prosecuted because of a Political Congress. New rules on the presidency or supreme court are not going to fix our system. We need new rules for Congress. Terms limits, Limits of time and money allowed for campaigning, Limits to company contributions and Limits to lobbying.

Term Limits benefits us by Requiring Congressmen to change which breaks established ties and requires new ones to be made. Keeps Congressmen current.

Campaigning Limits benefits us by requiring less money necessary to run opening the campaign to possibly more candidates. It also emotionally benefits us as we don't have to put up with it to long.

Limiting Company Contributions and Limits to Lobbying benefits us by minimizing the ability to buy an election. The biggest richest company won't win in all companies can contribute the same amount.
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
The problem isn't the presidency its congress. The president only gets away with this foolishness because Congress can't or won't act. These so called laws that the president signs without going through congress are only allowed because Congress refuses to do anything. They generally get overturned by the Supreme Court when challenged. This President was impeached but really not prosecuted because of a Political Congress. New rules on the presidency or supreme court are not going to fix our system. We need new rules for Congress. Terms limits, Limits of time and money allowed for campaigning, Limits to company contributions and Limits to lobbying.

Term Limits benefits us by Requiring Congressmen to change which breaks established ties and requires new ones to be made. Keeps Congressmen current.

Campaigning Limits benefits us by requiring less money necessary to run opening the campaign to possibly more candidates. It also emotionally benefits us as we don't have to put up with it to long.

Limiting Company Contributions and Limits to Lobbying benefits us by minimizing the ability to buy an election. The biggest richest company won't win in all companies can contribute the same amount.
IMO, your criticism that Congress can be blamed for allowing the President to get away with the corruption is correct. However, that fact doesn't cancel out my point that the presidency is the most likely source of corruption.

Congress can also be the source of corruption but corrupting Congress is a far more difficult and expensive thing to do than corrupting one individual.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
It's much more efficient since the majority party or coalition government basically runs the show. And if they screw up, then people can vote for an alternative party. IOW, if things aren't going well, people will know which party/coalition to blame.

Also, it's more conducive to multiple parties versus just mainly two as in our presidential system. And some countries with a parliamentary system have a "vote of confidence" provision, thus if the majority party/coalition screws up, a new election can be called over a relatively short period of time.

It's not a perfect system, but I prefer it over what we have here in the States.
In Canada's parliamentary system, every so-called "money bill" (budgets and spending bills) is an automatic vote of confidence -- if the bill fails, the government falls and an election is held. That's not all that likely when the governing party has a strong majority, but in minority parliaments (my preference, and the situation here right now), it is quite easy to toss out a government. For that reason, it is to the minority government's great benefit (and that of the Canadian people) to negotiate and compromise with opposition parties. And that is never a bad thing.
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
For those of us who lack your imagination. Please do tell us the harm he would do?
Oh my gosh, where to begin? Right off the top, I would expect him to quadruple the size of his Mar-A- Lago secret service detail and raise the price of a glass of water on their dinner bill from $3 a glass to $10.
 

bobhikes

Nondetermined
Premium Member
IMO, your criticism that Congress can be blamed for allowing the President to get away with the corruption is correct. However, that fact doesn't cancel out my point that the presidency is the most likely source of corruption.

Congress can also be the source of corruption but corrupting Congress is a far more difficult and expensive thing to do than corrupting one individual.

I guess we disagree, Congress has be corrupted by Money for many years now and Presidency changes every 8 years at max. Dumping money into a permanent Senator is far better than giving your money to a temporary President. Congress actually is required to make the laws not the President, it just that Congress isn't doing its job anymore.
 
The first step to a solution is to recognize that you have a problem. Donald Trump's one term ought to make it obvious, to at least half of the American citizenry, that the checks and balances engineered into our system of government aren't enough to withstand the damage a corrupt president can do. Just imagine the harm Donnie could have done in a second term, unconcerned about reelection.
Great point.

I think the other lesson is that no system - even one with robust checks and balances - is immune when half the voters, and the leadership of an entire party, is willing to jettison universal values and put party over country.

Not every bad behavior can be addressed by law or regulation (this is an understatement). I hold Trump Party leaders and half the voters responsible for selling out their own values and supporting this psychopathic lying bully.

Conservatives say they believe in personal responsibility. So do I. I hold them personally responsible for inflicting this man on us and not having the guts to stand up for what they knew was right.
 

Ponder This

Well-Known Member
Oh my gosh, where to begin? Right off the top, I would expect him to quadruple the size of his Mar-A- Lago secret service detail and raise the price of a glass of water on their dinner bill from $3 a glass to $10.

:eek: You don't say? The horror of a second term of Trump is the cost of water at Mar-A-Lago? :eek:

Intolerable! How do we contain such massive evil? /s
 

tytlyf

Not Religious
Campaigning Limits benefits us by requiring less money necessary to run opening the campaign to possibly more candidates. It also emotionally benefits us as we don't have to put up with it to long.

Limiting Company Contributions and Limits to Lobbying benefits us by minimizing the ability to buy an election. The biggest richest company won't win in all companies can contribute the same amount.
The corporate Republican party won't allow this to happen. They aren't interested in middle-class policies.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
The decisions on climate control should be made by a panel of experts on climate control (majority rule). The decisions on how best to implement the climate control panel's recommendations should be done by a panel of experts on the economy.
Still advertising for your authoritarian wet dream?
 
:eek: You don't say? The horror of a second term of Trump is the cost of water at Mar-A-Lago? :eek:

Intolerable! How do we contain such massive evil? /s
I know - by making Mexico pay for it! Like the wall, right?

Last I checked, of the thousands of children he brutally separated, hundreds had still not been reunited with their parents, two years later. For that alone, the man is a national disgrace. Sadly there are even more reasons than that.
 

Ponder This

Well-Known Member
I know - by making Mexico pay for it! Like the wall, right?

Last I checked, of the thousands of children he brutally separated, hundreds had still not been reunited with their parents, two years later. For that alone, the man is a national disgrace. Sadly there are even more reasons than that.

Ah yes, the cages built by Obama and Biden to hold the children they separated from their parents? I understand that Biden has more changes in mind for immigration policy.

Meanwhile Mexico is policing their border with the U.S. to stop illegal immigration... go figure!
Mexico says it has deployed 15,000 forces in the north to halt U.S.-bound migration

But somehow reducing the flow of illegal immigration in the U.S. (which reduces the numbers of children separated from parents) would be "harm" to the U.S.?

Come on. Give me the worst thing Trump would do in a second term. Don't give me non-issues. Immigration wasn't even a substantial issue in the 2020 election because Trump ended so much of the problem that his opponent didn't have a strong position to debate from on that point.
 
Ah yes, the cages built by Obama and Biden to hold the children they separated from their parents?
Holy false equivalence, Batman! You should really spend less time on the White House Twitter feed and more time in reality, with the rest of us. Obama/Biden built a shelter to house unaccompanied minors. Trump instituted a "zero tolerance" policy separating thousands of children from their parents as a deterrent, without so much as a plan in place to reunite said children. This was monstrous. That's why Trump was forced to end his policy by the courts and a national uproar.

To wit, on the "cages built by Obama":

"The makeshift shelter was built in response to an exodus of unaccompanied immigrant children from Central America. But those children did not arrive with their parents; they were unaccompanied. The shelter was not being used as part of a child separation policy, and U.S. border agents did not separate those children from their parents."​

This is different from what Trump did. Sort of like how a degree from Trump University is different from a real degree. "One of these things is not like the other" as they say.

Source: Immigration fact check: 'Who built the cages?'

Meanwhile Mexico is policing their border with the U.S. to stop illegal immigration... go figure!
Mexico says it has deployed 15,000 forces in the north to halt U.S.-bound migration
That's fantastic news - albeit, from over a year ago. How many children did Mexico demand that we brutalize, in order to do that?

But somehow reducing the flow of illegal immigration in the U.S. (which reduces the numbers of children separated from parents) would be "harm" to the U.S.?
I am confused. Trump unnecessarily harmed thousands of innocent children. What is your question?

Come on. Give me the worst thing Trump would do in a second term. Don't give me non-issues. Immigration wasn't even a substantial issue in the 2020 election because Trump ended so much of the problem that his opponent didn't have a strong position to debate from on that point.
I am now thoroughly confused. By the 2020 election, over 500 children still had not been reunited with their parents. That's over two and a half years separated from their families. These are innocent children. Not only was this considered a "substantial issue" - in Realworld, perhaps not in Trumpworld - it was and continues to be a national disgrace.

I do not have the power to predict the "worst thing" Trump will do in a one week period, much less four years. But this was one awful thing - which, I notice, you haven't even tried to defend. Because you can't. It resulted from Trump's capricious and erratic nature, which does not seem to improve with age and certainly would not have been tempered as a lame-duck.
 
Top