I think we should switch to a parliamentary form of government. I'm all for party unity.

We don't need presidents to run a country anymore, this isn't the early 1800's when there needed to be a strong national figure, one that supposedly weens us off the british style of monarchy. I think this whole president thing has gone on far to long and we sould elect the cabinet members on elections day. You know, actual experts about what they are about to take care of... it should be easy for the chairman of the cabinet go on any particular day: "The State of the Union is strong" I mean, it's not like there is a lot of brain power coming out of the current leaders brain.

And then they'd probably get impeached or forced to resign because of their apparent lack of "family values." It's the same thing with non-Christian or unmarried candidates. People want family-friendly presidents, even though other candidates could be better suited to run the country.

theres nothing wrong with being gay or lesbian, but this country is too narrow minded to accept something like that because apparently being gay/lesbian means your not in the right state of mind and couldnt make such hard, presidential decisions.......sure. the only way i think it would happen is if say male president whoever was in office for 3,5,6 years or however long and came out of the closet. you see that alot with mayors, govenors, etc.

There is nothing wrong with being Gay or Bisexual. Really, what does that matter when it comes to politics anyway?

It has nothing to do with anything, but people apparently perceive said classifications as relevant to politics, hence the posters arguing that twice said classifications are not relevant. Or something.

quote:

Originally posted by LoveTheRainbow:
What does this have to do with War and Terrorism?

I had the same question triss.

Oh AND can I ask what this thread has to do with War and Terrorism?

Quick random question for the day:

WTF does sexual orientation, Race, or gender have to do with politics anyway??

Now.. back to the reality which is our world... we suck.

And I agree with you. I just wanted to point out that it could go the other way. Other wise the gay/female/non-white president still gets the blame.

Haha. I think I got called a homophobic nazi on one of these once.

I wasn't really trying to make a point about acceptance so much as that irrelevant qualities in a politician should not be considered when choosing who to vote for.

But of course, having a gay/female/non-white president would be an indication of increased acceptance among voters. Just as long as the elected person was elected based on his/her politics.

quote:

Ideally, we'd reach a point where a politician's being [insert stigmatized whatever] isn't an issue for voters to freak out over.

True. However they still will because Jews should be blamed for everything, Afican Americans are inferior, Mexicans only know how to steal, Asians are bad drivers, Gays are going to hell, Women are emotionally unstable, ect.


Just so I don't get yelled at (again), that was sarcasm.

Oh yeah, I agree it works both ways.

I'm just thinking about people who are freaking over Obama without even knowing what his politics are.

Ideally, we'd reach a point where a politician's being [insert stigmatized whatever] isn't an issue for voters to freak out over.

quote:

My concern is that people, in their desire to have non-white, non-straight, or female officials, will look past the fact that the person they are voting for, regardless of which categories they fit in, may still be a moron.

That works the other way around too.

Personally, I think the next president will be Canadian

Alright all joking aside. Americans are not at all accepting of Homosexual or Bisexual people (well some of you are, but the majority of voters aren't) So well, I don't think its going to happen any time soon.

Perfect? How?

Sexual orientation, race, and religion are (or at least should be) superficial differences. We blow them totally out of proportion, not only in our bigotry against each other, but in the positive assumptions we make based on these differences as well.

I honestly recommend you all to read "Wide Awake" by David Levithan. It's a story about America in the not-too-distant future, where an openly gay Jewish president is elected. The author himself is opening gay, aswell.
I myself have not read the book yet, but I plan to. It sounds promising; a prophesized and perfect world.

My concern is that people, in their desire to have non-white, non-straight, or female officials, will look past the fact that the person they are voting for, regardless of which categories they fit in, may still be a moron.

Ew. Too many commas.

because the only reason that bush was elected was because we live in a nation that is so homophobic, they wanted bush to be president instead of someone that was roumered to be gay
and they wanted a present that was advocatin aginst gay marrige
no matter what people say, america never has had seperation of church and state, and probally never will.

The admnistration as a whole knew it was lying.
What you say ammounts to him not being responsible for the current course of events because he was not personally aware of decisions being made under his authority as president.
Bush, being an idiot, may not have been aware of it, but as the president and the US's maximum political authority he is held responsible for his administration's policy as a whole, the fact that he seems to be unaware of many things going on inside his government just gives more reasons to hypothesize on the validity of an impeachment process. It won't happen, but he is definitly deserving.
To make an analogy, when a hospital's hygiene is suspect of causing health problems who is held responsible for it? The hospital's director, because he is the maximum authority in charge of the correct functioning of the entity. You don't responsibilize the maintenance and cleaning personel, as they are only mandated workers that recieve orders.
This situation is likewise in the political scene.
What we may deduce from this is that, whilst Bush is physically the president, his intelectual capacity impairs his ability to govern, thus he doesn't fully exercise presidential obligations, and rely's on others to do things for him. This is irresponsible behaviour when coming from a president.


I suggest the following books on the subject:

Against all Enemy's - Richard Clark
War Made Easy - Norman Solomon
The Greatest Story Ever Sold - Frank Rich