GeorgeG
<font color=blue>Stumped for 2005<br><font color=r
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2001
- Messages
- 7,364
Three words that have often struck worry into even my closest friends are "I was thinking..."
Anyhow, with all the political threads that have literally been gagging us over most of this year, we seem to be too focused on the primary candidates and political parties. With a lot of energy going into the "change" argument, we're all expecting our respective candidates of choice to make changes, fix a broken government, and turn things around. I'm not trying to debate the merits of the candidates. That's been done to death and beyond, but I'll explain what has me thinking.
We're about to elect a new president and vice president. Both candidates are calling for change, one more than the other, but the general idea is we need change from politics as usual. Now, we've all seen how George W. Bush gets the blame for everything and anything and I'm not trying to debate that, either, but our government is run by more than one or two people at the top and that is by design.
Every president has to have the support, or lack of, from both the Senate and House of Representatives. 535 politicians from both parties who basically make the laws (often break them, too) and while the president can veto what they say, that veto can be overruled. So, if we're out to change our government to any significant extent, we must consider no less than 1 president, 1 vice president, 100 senators and 435 representatives who are all elected to do our bidding for we are supposed to be a governent for, by, and of the people, which would be, uh... us!
So, we want to change. Okay, change can be good, right? But, if we want change, why are we stuck with two candidates who are senators from their respective states, who are, and have been, part of the problem? Even if they really do want change, they are and always willl be up against 535 old problems. And, since we elected all those problems, it's our own fault and we deserve whatever we get.
Like I said... I was thinking. Maybe we just need a really good king!
Anyhow, with all the political threads that have literally been gagging us over most of this year, we seem to be too focused on the primary candidates and political parties. With a lot of energy going into the "change" argument, we're all expecting our respective candidates of choice to make changes, fix a broken government, and turn things around. I'm not trying to debate the merits of the candidates. That's been done to death and beyond, but I'll explain what has me thinking.
We're about to elect a new president and vice president. Both candidates are calling for change, one more than the other, but the general idea is we need change from politics as usual. Now, we've all seen how George W. Bush gets the blame for everything and anything and I'm not trying to debate that, either, but our government is run by more than one or two people at the top and that is by design.
Every president has to have the support, or lack of, from both the Senate and House of Representatives. 535 politicians from both parties who basically make the laws (often break them, too) and while the president can veto what they say, that veto can be overruled. So, if we're out to change our government to any significant extent, we must consider no less than 1 president, 1 vice president, 100 senators and 435 representatives who are all elected to do our bidding for we are supposed to be a governent for, by, and of the people, which would be, uh... us!
So, we want to change. Okay, change can be good, right? But, if we want change, why are we stuck with two candidates who are senators from their respective states, who are, and have been, part of the problem? Even if they really do want change, they are and always willl be up against 535 old problems. And, since we elected all those problems, it's our own fault and we deserve whatever we get.
Like I said... I was thinking. Maybe we just need a really good king!
