Does the world really need a US president at all?

LLOD · 04-28-2008, 06:53 AM

As the saying goes: Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Given that the US president is one of the most powerful people in the world, then, if you believe that power corrupts, it follows that ANY US president must also be one of the most corrupt people in the world.

Thus, in the current run up to the presidential elections, it follows that it doesn’t matter whether it’s a Democrat or a Republican who becomes president. The simple act of wanting to be president means that they are corrupt or corruptible.

Instead of encouraging the Republican or Democrat candidates to take office, wouldn’t it be more responsible of the voting population of the US to use their vote to prevent such people from taking office?

CrazyFlamingos · 04-28-2008, 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LLOD

As the saying goes: Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Given that the US president is one of the most powerful people in the world, then, if you believe that power corrupts, it follows that ANY US president must also be one of the most corrupt people in the world.

Thus, in the current run up to the presidential elections, it follows that it doesn’t matter whether it’s a Democrat or a Republican who becomes president. The simple act of wanting to be president means that they are corrupt or corruptible.

Instead of encouraging the Republican or Democrat candidates to take office, wouldn’t it be more responsible of the voting population of the US to use their vote to prevent such people from taking office?

So we should eliminate the position of President?

pensacola_niceman · 04-28-2008, 09:35 AM

I think this country would function much better under the leadership of local warlords.

garysher · 04-28-2008, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrazyFlamingos

So we should eliminate the position of President?

It's a colossal responsibility for one person, immeasurably greater and more complicated than when the Republic was founded and the population was about 5m.

Most Republics have a President, who is Head of State, and a Prime Minister or Chancellor, who runs the country on a day-to-day basis.

Rather like corporations have a Chairman and a CEO.

That way the President can stay aloof from party politics and fulfill a more statesman like role.

I think it's rather demeaning when a US President of either party has to fly around the country to speak at fundraisers, which Clinton did at the height of the Kosovo conflict.

Maybe the time has come for the US to update itself but I wouldn't hold your breath.

pensacola_niceman · 04-28-2008, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by garysher

It's a colossal responsibility for one person, immeasurably greater and more complicated than when the Republic was founded and the population was about 5m.

Most Republics have a President, who is Head of State, and a Prime Minister or Chancellor, who runs the country on a day-to-day basis.

Rather like corporations have a Chairman and a CEO.

That way the President can stay aloof from party politics and fulfill a more statesman like role.

I think it's rather demeaning when a US President of either party has to fly around the country to speak at fundraisers, which Clinton did at the height of the Kosovo conflict.

Maybe the time has come for the US to update itself but I wouldn't hold your breath.

Don't forget that Hitler combined the offices of Chancellor and President after Hindenburg's death. We all know what happened next.

garysher · 04-28-2008, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pensacola_niceman

Don't forget that Hitler combined the offices of Chancellor and President after Hindenburg's death. We all know what happened next.

It caught fire and crashed