Do we really need a POTUS?

[Gracie]

We have the senate. And congress. And Governors. And Mayors. Governors of each state have the power to run that state with the help of the citizens of it. Why do we need ONE person to rule all states when each state has its own "ruler"?

The choices we have for this next run as POTUS is pretty shitty. Even that core of people are corrupted and the electoral votes don't help the people voting in who they truly want. So...why have a POTUS? Why can't we have each governor of each state have the power OF that state, and each head of state have a say in how this country deals with foreign matters, policies, etc? Isn't the saying "more heads than one" is better?

 

[Arianrhod]

The Senate and the House comprise Congress (one part of the tricameral system established by the Founders, hallowed be their names). There's the SCOTUS, the second part of the tricameral system established by the Founders, hallowed be their names. And the third part, which works to keep the other two in balance and not dominant, just as they do for it is -?

 

[DarkFury]

The POTUS is supposed to be the last stand of "We the People".

 

[Gracie]

So far, we are not The People.

 

[Harry Dresden]

We have the senate. And congress. And Governors. And Mayors. Governors of each state have the power to run that state with the help of the citizens of it. Why do we need ONE person to rule all states when each state has its own "ruler"?

The choices we have for this next run as POTUS is pretty shitty. Even that core of people are corrupted and the electoral votes don't help the people voting in who they truly want. So...why have a POTUS? Why can't we have each governor of each state have the power OF that state, and each head of state have a say in how this country deals with foreign matters, policies, etc? Isn't the saying "more heads than one" is better?

there has to be someone to be the boss and make the big decisions or else everyone would do what they want....maybe the 50 governors should get together and appoint a president for a 4 year term.....

 

[Gracie]

We have the senate. And congress. And Governors. And Mayors. Governors of each state have the power to run that state with the help of the citizens of it. Why do we need ONE person to rule all states when each state has its own "ruler"?

The choices we have for this next run as POTUS is pretty shitty. Even that core of people are corrupted and the electoral votes don't help the people voting in who they truly want. So...why have a POTUS? Why can't we have each governor of each state have the power OF that state, and each head of state have a say in how this country deals with foreign matters, policies, etc? Isn't the saying "more heads than one" is better?

there has to be someone to be the boss and make the big decisions or else everyone would do what they want....maybe the 50 governors should get together and appoint a president for a 4 year term.....

Yes. That might be better than what we have now. This is a very piss poor selection we have this go round. Do we choose the button pusher drill baby drill wall building earth polluting war mongering one....or do we go with the lying soulless murdering doors-flung-wide-to-all bribe accepting corrupt one?

And...We The People have no choice but to choose either one, right? Does that not give an answer as to what mess we are in when nobody is fit for the job? Evil, or Most Evil? We The People MUST choose what is given us.

 

[S.J.]

His job is to carry out the laws passed by Congress. He was never meant to be a dictator (like Obama). He was never meant to MAKE laws (like Obama). He was meant to be part of the balance of power, not THE power. This is why WE, THE PEOPLE need to step in and stop the corruption.

 

[Gracie]

His job is to carry out the laws passed by Congress. He was never meant to be a dictator (like Obama). He was never meant to MAKE laws (like Obama). He was meant to be part of the balance of power, not THE power. This is why WE, THE PEOPLE need to step in and stop the corruption.

With...gag...TRUMP?

 

[S.J.]

His job is to carry out the laws passed by Congress. He was never meant to be a dictator (like Obama). He was never meant to MAKE laws (like Obama). He was meant to be part of the balance of power, not THE power. This is why WE, THE PEOPLE need to step in and stop the corruption.

With...gag...TRUMP?

Are you against securing the border? Deporting illegals? Banning muslims?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The president is the leader of ALL the people, and the far right makes up a very small minority of the people.

 

[Gracie]

His job is to carry out the laws passed by Congress. He was never meant to be a dictator (like Obama). He was never meant to MAKE laws (like Obama). He was meant to be part of the balance of power, not THE power. This is why WE, THE PEOPLE need to step in and stop the corruption.

With...gag...TRUMP?

Are you against securing the border? Deporting illegals? Banning muslims?

No. But I damn sure don't want Trump doing it. He's too knee jerky. First...secure the border. Stop giving out so much aid to countries that do nothing for us, so that "wall building" will generate jobs HERE with U.S. citizens. Once that is done. Get rid of the illegals that are known to be illegal that flaunt it. Send them back to their birth countries. That will generate more jobs too since someone has to be hired to go thru the many steps it will take. Concerning Muslims..they are no different than anyone else applying to be a citizen. They have to go thru the same procedures others do and they cannot bring their 7th century demands with them. Adopt this country? Adopt it's ways and laws and language.

 

[aaronleland]

His job is to carry out the laws passed by Congress. He was never meant to be a dictator (like Obama). He was never meant to MAKE laws (like Obama). He was meant to be part of the balance of power, not THE power. This is why WE, THE PEOPLE need to step in and stop the corruption.

With...gag...TRUMP?

Are you against securing the border? Deporting illegals? Banning muslims?

I fully support securing the border and deporting illegals. Banning an entire religion from entering our country because a very small fraction of their population is violent? No.

 

[Ringel05]

No, what we need right now is an emperor for life, I'm ready to move into that position anytime........

 

[aaronleland]

His job is to carry out the laws passed by Congress. He was never meant to be a dictator (like Obama). He was never meant to MAKE laws (like Obama). He was meant to be part of the balance of power, not THE power. This is why WE, THE PEOPLE need to step in and stop the corruption.

With...gag...TRUMP?

Are you against securing the border? Deporting illegals? Banning muslims?

No. But I damn sure don't want Trump doing it. He's too knee jerky. First...secure the border. Stop giving out so much aid to countries that do nothing for us, so that "wall building" will generate jobs HERE with U.S. citizens. Once that is done. Get rid of the illegals that are known to be illegal that flaunt it. Send them back to their birth countries. That will generate more jobs too since someone has to be hired to go thru the many steps it will take. Concerning Muslims..they are no different than anyone else applying to be a citizen. They have to go thru the same procedures others do and they cannot bring their 7th century demands with them. Adopt this country? Adopt it's ways and laws and language.

I agree any illegals flaunting their status should be deported, but I doubt few are. Realistically many illegals presently in the U.S. are here to stay. Secure the border, and stem the flow. And realistically we are never getting Mexico to pay for a wall. They won't pay for their own people. Much of what Trump proposes he can't accomplish.

 

[S.J.]

No. But I damn sure don't want Trump doing it. He's too knee jerky. First...secure the border. Stop giving out so much aid to countries that do nothing for us, so that "wall building" will generate jobs HERE with U.S. citizens. Once that is done. Get rid of the illegals that are known to be illegal that flaunt it. Send them back to their birth countries. That will generate more jobs too since someone has to be hired to go thru the many steps it will take.

If Trump doesn't do it, nobody will. None of the other candidates even mentioned it until they saw Trump's numbers go up over this issue. And all of them said they would NOT deport the ones that were already here. So, if it's not Trump, no wall will be built and the illegals will get to stay and continue ruining our economy and committing crimes.

Concerning Muslims..they are no different than anyone else applying to be a citizen. They have to go thru the same procedures others do and they cannot bring their 7th century demands with them. Adopt this country? Adopt it's ways and laws and language.

Two things about that:

One, The ban would be temporary until we can figure out how to insure none of them are terrorists. Again, none of the other candidates is willing to do this. They want to keep letting them in even thought there's no effective way of vetting them at this point.

Two, how do we determine they will adopt our ways and laws? You see what's happening in Michigan. They start out as law abiding citizens, happy to be here, then as their numbers increase, so do their demands and so does their aggression. I agree, IF we can find a way to insure they will adopt our country and it's laws, let them in. But until then, why put ourselves and our national security at risk?

 

[easyt65]

This question is a testament to our failed school system, one that no longer adequately teaches about our Constitution, history, government, etc...

 

[S.J.]

His job is to carry out the laws passed by Congress. He was never meant to be a dictator (like Obama). He was never meant to MAKE laws (like Obama). He was meant to be part of the balance of power, not THE power. This is why WE, THE PEOPLE need to step in and stop the corruption.

With...gag...TRUMP?

Are you against securing the border? Deporting illegals? Banning muslims?

No. But I damn sure don't want Trump doing it. He's too knee jerky. First...secure the border. Stop giving out so much aid to countries that do nothing for us, so that "wall building" will generate jobs HERE with U.S. citizens. Once that is done. Get rid of the illegals that are known to be illegal that flaunt it. Send them back to their birth countries. That will generate more jobs too since someone has to be hired to go thru the many steps it will take. Concerning Muslims..they are no different than anyone else applying to be a citizen. They have to go thru the same procedures others do and they cannot bring their 7th century demands with them. Adopt this country? Adopt it's ways and laws and language.

I agree any illegals flaunting their status should be deported, but I doubt few are. Realistically many illegals presently in the U.S. are here to stay. Secure the border, and stem the flow. And realistically we are never getting Mexico to pay for a wall. They won't pay for their own people. Much of what Trump proposes he can't accomplish.

Sure we can. We deduct it from their foreign aid.

 

[Gracie]

No. But I damn sure don't want Trump doing it. He's too knee jerky. First...secure the border. Stop giving out so much aid to countries that do nothing for us, so that "wall building" will generate jobs HERE with U.S. citizens. Once that is done. Get rid of the illegals that are known to be illegal that flaunt it. Send them back to their birth countries. That will generate more jobs too since someone has to be hired to go thru the many steps it will take.

If Trump doesn't do it, nobody will. None of the other candidates even mentioned it until they saw Trump's numbers go up over this issue. And all of them said they would NOT deport the ones that were already here. So, if it's not Trump, no wall will be built and the illegals will get to stay and continue ruining our economy and committing crimes.

Concerning Muslims..they are no different than anyone else applying to be a citizen. They have to go thru the same procedures others do and they cannot bring their 7th century demands with them. Adopt this country? Adopt it's ways and laws and language.

Two things about that:

One, The ban would be temporary until we can figure out how to insure none of them are terrorists. Again, none of the other candidates is willing to do this. They want to keep letting them in even thought there's no effective way of vetting them at this point.

Two, how do we determine they will adopt our ways and laws? You see what's happening in Michigan. They start out as law abiding citizens, happy to be here, then as their numbers increase, so do their demands and so does their aggression. I agree, IF we can find a way to insure they will adopt our country and it's laws, let them in. But until then, why put ourselves and our national security at risk?

Obama got in twice with of "yes we can"....and yes, he sure did much to the amazement of those that believed in him.
Trump's "Lets make america great again" could mean something entirely different than what we all think.
They all lie.
No Hillary. No Trump. No two party. Something MUST be done because the rate we are going..we are fucked. Without vaseline. And it's gonna burn.

 

[Gracie]

The way it is going now, each state has a couple of people who decide who is POTUS. COUPLE OF PEOPLE. Let that sink in. Each governor is voted in BY THE PEOPLE of that state. The people have a say. A voice. The set up we have is states people really have no voice. So this smoozing of certain states dictates who winds up POTUS. Does this not raise a really big red flag? Why yes. It sure does. As I have said over and over...it matters naught who California votes for. We are all still at the polls and the next POTUS is already a done deal. How would the rest of the states feel about that if it were the same?

 

[S.J.]

The way it is going now, each state has a couple of people who decide who is POTUS. COUPLE OF PEOPLE. Let that sink in. Each governor is voted in BY THE PEOPLE of that state. The people have a say. A voice. The set up we have is states people really have no voice. So this smoozing of certain states dictates who winds up POTUS. Does this not raise a really big red flag? Why yes. It sure does. As I have said over and over...it matters naught who California votes for. We are all still at the polls and the next POTUS is already a done deal. How would the rest of the states feel about that if it were the same?

They need to change the hours of voting to compensate for the time difference. Polls all over the country should open and close at the same time. Why should we cater to the convenience of the media? It isn't THEIR election, it's AMERICA'S election and it should be done as fairly as possible, not to coincide with their prime time programs.