Better choices

[saveliberty]

Can't we design a better system for choosing Presidents. I am not impressed with our current one at all. The last one was the best of two bad choices. In fact, you can count on two hands the number of truly good Presidents.

Many groups will promote the Vice President at a certain point. They gain experience before running the entire organization.

To be clear, I'm not opposed to elections, just some type of vetting system that brings better options to the fore. Perhaps a chief executive proving ground from which to draw.

 

[dilloduck]

Can't we design a better system for choosing Presidents. I am not impressed with our current one at all. The last one was the best of two bad choices. In fact, you can count on two hands the number of truly good Presidents.

Many groups will promote the Vice President at a certain point. They gain experience before running the entire organization.

To be clear, I'm not opposed to elections, just some type of vetting system that brings better options to the fore. Perhaps a chief executive proving ground from which to draw.

no ---we can't. The republicrats have made sure of that.

 

[rightwinger]

Its worked for over 225 years.

Our system of government has been emulated around the world and I would not trade it for anything


What are you some Commie wanting our leader appointed by some backroom insiders?

 

[dilloduck]

Its worked for over 225 years.

Our system of government has been emulated around the world and I would not trade it for anything


What are you some Commie wanting our leader appointed by some backroom insiders?

Like now you mean ?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Can't we design a better system for choosing Presidents. I am not impressed with our current one at all. The last one was the best of two bad choices. In fact, you can count on two hands the number of truly good Presidents.

Many groups will promote the Vice President at a certain point. They gain experience before running the entire organization.

To be clear, I'm not opposed to elections, just some type of vetting system that brings better options to the fore. Perhaps a chief executive proving ground from which to draw.

Only five times in our history have Vice-Presidents been elected to the Presidency. Fairly rare.

The system we have is excellent, as long corruption doesn't set in.

It has.

The demise of the 'vetting' function of the Fourth Estate is the fault in the system.

It seems that the AP assigned eleven reporters to 'fact check' the Palin book. How many to do the same for the books of Candidate Obama?

And the same sort of discrepancy in the number of reporters who scurried to Wasila, as compared to the number who hiked over to Chicago to check on

Occidental College records
Columbia College records
Columbia Thesis paper
Harvard College records
Selective Service Registration
medical records
Illinois State Senate records
Illinois State Senate schedule
Law practice client list
A Certified Copy of original Birth certificate
embossed, signed paper Certification of Live Birth
Harvard Law Review articles that were published
University of Chicago scholarly articles
Record of baptism


If we had journalists instead of Democrat-stenographers, do you think we would have this administration?

 

[Mike458877]

Can't we design a better system for choosing Presidents. I am not impressed with our current one at all. The last one was the best of two bad choices. In fact, you can count on two hands the number of truly good Presidents.

Many groups will promote the Vice President at a certain point. They gain experience before running the entire organization.

To be clear, I'm not opposed to elections, just some type of vetting system that brings better options to the fore. Perhaps a chief executive proving ground from which to draw.

no ---we can't. The republicrats have made sure of that.

Yeah, yeah and the dildo-ducks screwed everything else up!

Leave to a liberal to come off with the first educated response!

One called Duck! lol

Whew

 

[saveliberty]

The system is not excellent. In 44 Presidents, over half have been quite poor. We would never allow these people to run a major corporation let alone the whole country.

 

[blu]

I am not sure I could trust your system since you have huckabee '12 in your signature. people get who they vote for. they want people of little substance but that ride the party line hard and give inspiring speeches. if you destroyed the two party system then real candidates could emerge

 

[saveliberty]

Just considering ideas. I voted third party last time. Probably would have been Hillary, if se had goten the nomination. Still, there were no great choices.

 

[slackjawed]

If we had 'none of the above' on every ballot, and required a majority of votes to win, it might help.
If none of the above wins, we get new candidates until one achieves a majority.
I understand Nevada does it in their state elections.
It would start a new perienial campaign- "nobody for president"
who is the best for the job-nobody, who will listen to the voters?-nobody
oh wait, we seem to have that now, well we should have the choice of none of the above.
Most of the presidential elections I have participated in in the last 32 years have been a choice between two skunks that i would not want to run the town dump, yet those are the only choices.
None of the above would get us better candidates

 

[ScottBernard]

You can't satisfy everyone with a president. I just want knowledge, judgment, and character as the basic requirements.
I have to ask all those in this thread, what is the ideal president?
No superhero fantasies please.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Can't we design a better system for choosing Presidents. I am not impressed with our current one at all. The last one was the best of two bad choices. In fact, you can count on two hands the number of truly good Presidents.

Many groups will promote the Vice President at a certain point. They gain experience before running the entire organization.

To be clear, I'm not opposed to elections, just some type of vetting system that brings better options to the fore. Perhaps a chief executive proving ground from which to draw.

You're putting far too much blame/credit on the President, who actually has no real power. Therefore you waste your thoughts and energies on that and forget the actual problem.

To steal a phrase from Carville, "It's the Congress, stupid."

 

[ScottBernard]

I agree, the real power resides in the legislature.

 

[ihopehefails]

IN my opinion we should go back to where the electorial colleges pick the president based on what the state legislatures want instead of direct popular vote of each state this way the executive branch represents the state government's interest so that it would restore our checks and balance system of state vs federal government more.

 

[ihopehefails]

If we had 'none of the above' on every ballot, and required a majority of votes to win, it might help.
If none of the above wins, we get new candidates until one achieves a majority.
I understand Nevada does it in their state elections.
It would start a new perienial campaign- "nobody for president"
who is the best for the job-nobody, who will listen to the voters?-nobody
oh wait, we seem to have that now, well we should have the choice of none of the above.
Most of the presidential elections I have participated in in the last 32 years have been a choice between two skunks that i would not want to run the town dump, yet those are the only choices.
None of the above would get us better candidates

It would send a message that if nobody won to either canidate a or b that no one liked either of them enough to vote for them.

 

[JW Frogen]

Personally, I think we should all just get shit faced drunk and throw darts at the candidates.

Which ever one whines less wins.