What is the presidency becoming?

[frigidweirdo]

First the president wasn't elected by the people, but by electors. This was to stop popularity politics away from the presidency. In a manner which is similar to, say, the Swiss system where the seven members of the executive (rather than one as is usual) are appointed by the politicians themselves and means that the executive doesn't become about popularity.

This changed and suddenly the electors were chosen based on popular politics. However electors could, and have in the past, chosen to do what they like rather than go the way the people have asked them to go.

So, from having presidents who were considered to be great politicians among their peers, things changed and by the 1980s it was about popularity, Reagan an actor, Clinton was just a player, Bush presented himself as what Clinton wasn't and Obama presented himself as what Bush wasn't.

But with Trump, and also with Palin, the presidency seems destined to morph into something else. From the generation of the radio with people like FDR and Hoover, to the age of the TV with Kennedy, Nixon etc, now it's the internet age, the age of instant news and instant opinion, where people feel the need to talk, and don't those like Palin and Trump make people's tongues (and fingers on their keyboards) go at ninety miles an hour.

Big Brother, Xfactor, the Apprentice, all these reality TV shows that keep people entertained by people making fools of themselves, or putting their emotions on TV, or whatever to keep the people entertained.

A look at all presidents from Reagan onwards shows presidents who were physically appealing in some way, presentable to the media who wanted to sell stories. Now with the internet it's gone off the scale, people want their reality TV, they want it more and more.

Is the presidency doomed to just be a dancing monkey with a drum forever, and the US will never, ever get a president who is actually about the job?

 

[Votto]

All Progs know is that the President needs more and more power.

That'll fix everything

 

[The VOR]

First the president wasn't elected by the people, but by electors. This was to stop popularity politics away from the presidency. In a manner which is similar to, say, the Swiss system where the seven members of the executive (rather than one as is usual) are appointed by the politicians themselves and means that the executive doesn't become about popularity.

This changed and suddenly the electors were chosen based on popular politics. However electors could, and have in the past, chosen to do what they like rather than go the way the people have asked them to go.

So, from having presidents who were considered to be great politicians among their peers, things changed and by the 1980s it was about popularity, Reagan an actor, Clinton was just a player, Bush presented himself as what Clinton wasn't and Obama presented himself as what Bush wasn't.

But with Trump, and also with Palin, the presidency seems destined to morph into something else. From the generation of the radio with people like FDR and Hoover, to the age of the TV with Kennedy, Nixon etc, now it's the internet age, the age of instant news and instant opinion, where people feel the need to talk, and don't those like Palin and Trump make people's tongues (and fingers on their keyboards) go at ninety miles an hour.

Big Brother, Xfactor, the Apprentice, all these reality TV shows that keep people entertained by people making fools of themselves, or putting their emotions on TV, or whatever to keep the people entertained.

A look at all presidents from Reagan onwards shows presidents who were physically appealing in some way, presentable to the media who wanted to sell stories. Now with the internet it's gone off the scale, people want their reality TV, they want it more and more.

Is the presidency doomed to just be a dancing monkey with a drum forever, and the US will never, ever get a president who is actually about the job?

Just chop off the first six letters of your user name and you will be fine.

 

[hipeter924]

Hate to break to you, but corruption, bribes, and dirty tricks campaigns were around back in the 19th century, and not just today.

 

[Sonny Clark]

Ok, lets look at this from the "reality" side of the equation, shall we? First, all professional politicians are bought and paid for, FACT. Secondly, all professional politicians are mere puppets of the rich, the powerful, and the influential, FACT. Now, it takes a tremendous amount of money and the support of the powerful to get to the oval office, or to get a seat in Congress. No one gets elected to office that is not willing to play the game, no one. Those are just common sense and simple logical FACTS. By the time a person takes a seat in the oval office, or in Congress, they owe many favors, and they make good on those debts.

What we have in government today, is taxation without fair and equal representation, FACT. Honesty and politics mix like water and oil, FACT. Once elected to office, professional politicians exert their will ( the will of the puppet masters ), and not the will of the people, FACT. Anyone that believes differently, is obviously living in a state of denial. These truisms have been proven over time, and continues today. So, it follows, that elections are rigged, voters are choosing between those that the rich, the powerful, and the influential have enabled to get on the ballots, and voters are merely playing the game by pre-set rules, established by those with the power and means to determine the government that we live under.

If any of the above were not true, America would not be in the sad shameful state that it's presently in, FACT. Basically, politics in America today, is nothing more than a cruel game played against this once great nation and her citizens. We, the people and citizens of this once great nation, have given up our power and voice, and have become nothing more than a source for votes and tax revenue, period. Yet, election after election, voters continue to aid and abet the very ones hell-bent on our further destruction, and assist those that force social and economic hardships on the populous.

When we blame politicians, or a political party for our woes, we're actually ignoring our role in the grand scheme of things. The cold hard truth of the matter is, politicians do not just waltz into Washington and take a seat in government, we allow them a seat in government via our votes. By doing so, it's akin to handing a thief the keys to the bank fault, then when discovering the money has been stolen, we blame the thief instead of blaming ourselves for given him the keys. We'll never get from point " A " to point " B " on the socioeconomic scale, as long as we turn a blind eye to our role in the corrupt political game in this country. At some point in time, we, the American public, MUST take responsibility for the direction of this once great nation. We can start the process of correction by never ever voting for a professional politician to serve in government.

 

[frigidweirdo]

First the president wasn't elected by the people, but by electors. This was to stop popularity politics away from the presidency. In a manner which is similar to, say, the Swiss system where the seven members of the executive (rather than one as is usual) are appointed by the politicians themselves and means that the executive doesn't become about popularity.

This changed and suddenly the electors were chosen based on popular politics. However electors could, and have in the past, chosen to do what they like rather than go the way the people have asked them to go.

So, from having presidents who were considered to be great politicians among their peers, things changed and by the 1980s it was about popularity, Reagan an actor, Clinton was just a player, Bush presented himself as what Clinton wasn't and Obama presented himself as what Bush wasn't.

But with Trump, and also with Palin, the presidency seems destined to morph into something else. From the generation of the radio with people like FDR and Hoover, to the age of the TV with Kennedy, Nixon etc, now it's the internet age, the age of instant news and instant opinion, where people feel the need to talk, and don't those like Palin and Trump make people's tongues (and fingers on their keyboards) go at ninety miles an hour.

Big Brother, Xfactor, the Apprentice, all these reality TV shows that keep people entertained by people making fools of themselves, or putting their emotions on TV, or whatever to keep the people entertained.

A look at all presidents from Reagan onwards shows presidents who were physically appealing in some way, presentable to the media who wanted to sell stories. Now with the internet it's gone off the scale, people want their reality TV, they want it more and more.

Is the presidency doomed to just be a dancing monkey with a drum forever, and the US will never, ever get a president who is actually about the job?

Just chop off the first six letters of your user name and you will be fine.

I can't believe someone things what you said is funny.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Hate to break to you, but corruption, bribes, and dirty tricks campaigns were around back in the 19th century, and not just today.

Hate to break it to you, but we're not talking about corruption, bribes and dirty tricks campaigns.

 

[Edgetho]

Reagan was the former Governor of California which, in case it escaped your attention, is the biggest State in the Union. And he was a good one.

He was also the best president of the 20th Century. By a wide margin

George H.W. Bush was a bit of a let-down but he was a good steward, an honest man, a decent man.

What de-railed him was SCUM OF THE EARTH LIBERTURDIAN FILTH running Ross The Insane in 1992.

It was liberturdian SCUM that handed Bill The Rapist that election. Period.

Ross The Insane ran on a Conservative, family-values ticket that took votes from George HW, not from The Rapist.

And if Liberturdian SCUM get their way, they'll run the complete imbecile Trump The Punk against whatever the Republicans put up and hand HITLERY the election.

Believe it

Liberturdians are scum

 

[frigidweirdo]

Reagan was the former Governor of California which, in case it escaped your attention, is the biggest State in the Union. And he was a good one.

He was also the best president of the 20th Century. By a wide margin

George H.W. Bush was a bit of a let-down but he was a good steward, an honest man, a decent man.

What de-railed him was SCUM OF THE EARTH LIBERTURDIAN FILTH running Ross The Insane in 1992.

It was liberturdian SCUM that handed Bill The Rapist that election. Period.

Ross The Insane ran on a Conservative, family-values ticket that took votes from George HW, not from The Rapist.

And if Liberturdian SCUM get their way, they'll run the complete imbecile Trump The Punk against whatever the Republicans put up and hand HITLERY the election.

Believe it

Liberturdians are scum

Anyone who uses terms like "Liberturdians" is instantly going to look silly. If you have a point, make it using proper words and without the banal terms that don't make much sense and tell people that you're not thinking objectively.

 

[hipeter924]

Hate to break to you, but corruption, bribes, and dirty tricks campaigns were around back in the 19th century, and not just today.

Hate to break it to you, but we're not talking about corruption, bribes and dirty tricks campaigns.

You are under the illusion that political campaigns are different, even though only the technology has changed. Popularism has always been a major factor in US presidential campaigns.

 

[Edgetho]

Anyone who uses terms like "Liberturdians" is instantly going to look silly. If you have a point, make it using proper words and without the banal terms that don't make much sense and tell people that you're not thinking objectively.

eat a dick

 

[frigidweirdo]

You are under the illusion that political campaigns are different, even though only the technology has changed. Popularism has always been a major factor in US presidential campaigns.

Am I?

What I'm saying is that things are changing. I didn't say populism wasn't there, just that the manifestation of populism is changing and with the internet and instant access allowed by wifi all over the place and internet available through phones and so on, it means people want "news" instantly, and most of that "news" is entertainment news.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You are under the illusion that political campaigns are different, even though only the technology has changed. Popularism has always been a major factor in US presidential campaigns.

Am I?

What I'm saying is that things are changing. I didn't say populism wasn't there, just that the manifestation of populism is changing and with the internet and instant access allowed by wifi all over the place and internet available through phones and so on, it means people want "news" instantly, and most of that "news" is entertainment news.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Anyone who uses terms like "Liberturdians" is instantly going to look silly. If you have a point, make it using proper words and without the banal terms that don't make much sense and tell people that you're not thinking objectively.

eat a dick

Jeez, did you finish first grade? I'm putting you on ignore. You don't need to reply to this, I won't see it.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Nice op

 

[hipeter924]

You are under the illusion that political campaigns are different, even though only the technology has changed. Popularism has always been a major factor in US presidential campaigns.

Am I?

What I'm saying is that things are changing. I didn't say populism wasn't there, just that the manifestation of populism is changing and with the internet and instant access allowed by wifi all over the place and internet available through phones and so on, it means people want "news" instantly, and most of that "news" is entertainment news.

Well, thanks for the clarification then.

I would agree with you though that from the 1980s on-wards, the Presidential office has become less and less professional, and more like a power/popularity trip or soap opera.

Put political speeches in this, and you will find that Presidential speeches as well as political speeches in general, have become less and less sophisticated in their construction.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You are under the illusion that political campaigns are different, even though only the technology has changed. Popularism has always been a major factor in US presidential campaigns.

Am I?

What I'm saying is that things are changing. I didn't say populism wasn't there, just that the manifestation of populism is changing and with the internet and instant access allowed by wifi all over the place and internet available through phones and so on, it means people want "news" instantly, and most of that "news" is entertainment news.

Well, thanks for the clarification then.

I would agree with you though that from the 1980s on-wards, the Presidential office has become less and less professional, and more like a power/popularity trip or soap opera.

Put political speeches in this, and you will find that Presidential speeches as well as political speeches in general, have become less and less sophisticated in their construction.

Who are political speeches aimed at? They're aimed at A) the media who will report it in the manner in which they choose, and B) the electorate.

You only need to take a short look at a political forum like this to see that truth and reality aren't the thing that gains or loses you support. It's all about playing this game of getting people on your side with almost totally illogical nonsense that "makes sense" to people who really don't spend much time thinking.

The reality TV nonsense in politics is really bad. It is literally for people who want to be force fed emotions. They want to be told how to think. So, these speeches are doing that more and more and taking away from intelligence which you'd hope would win the day in politics.