If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NPR)   "As we re-imagine the role of the president, is there a case to be made for a direct, open-source presidency that we might all participate in?"   (npr.org) divider line 147
    More: Scary, US President, presidents, President Woodrow Wilson, United States, Office of the United States Trade Representative, tax reform, Louisiana Purchase, Maru  
•       •       •

1967 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 Feb 2013 at 11:39 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



147 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-17 09:33:28 AM
As long as they get J.J. Abrams to direct, that man can re-imagine anything!
 
2013-02-17 09:42:39 AM
Linton Weeks should rethink his name.
 
2013-02-17 09:51:35 AM
I would like to think the American electorate is smarter than this.

I would like to think that... I really would.
 
2013-02-17 09:56:40 AM
People in general are idiots

/Yes I am mostly talking about myself, but you are, too
 
2013-02-17 09:56:59 AM
I liked the bit about strengthening the cabinet and moving power away from WH staff.
 
2013-02-17 10:01:37 AM

cman: People in general are idiots

/Yes I am mostly talking about myself, but you are, too


THIS!

/Myself included.
 
2013-02-17 10:13:33 AM
Did you pay attention to the

When was this ever not the case? And "re-imagine"? No one's going to take you seriously if you talk like a movie studio suit.
 
2013-02-17 10:14:26 AM
My post got chopped up. Oh well.
 
2013-02-17 10:47:05 AM
"Maybe the American presidency could become a multiuser experience incorporating crowdsourced decision-making and crowd-determined executive action-taking."

like a democracy? that's so crazy it just might work.
 
2013-02-17 11:27:39 AM
An open source presidency?  So it would be a grass-roots effort funded by corporate entities that, despite being launched to great fanfare ultimately ended in failure after 4-6 years?

Great idea that would never work in reality.
 
2013-02-17 11:44:02 AM
Doesn't that defeat the purpose of having a single president?
 
2013-02-17 11:44:42 AM
upload.wikimedia.org

President Tux
 
2013-02-17 11:45:38 AM

cman: People in general are idiots

/Yes I am mostly talking about myself, but you are, too


Actually, I'm not. I'm really rather bright. Not nearly bright enough to be president, though.
 
2013-02-17 11:47:10 AM
Yes. And a 20-year-old man standing in a dark room surrounded by by lingerie models reclining naked on gynecological exam tables would probably just stand there and do algebra problems in his head.

/Human nature, how werk it?
 
2013-02-17 11:48:03 AM

Kumana Wanalaia: Doesn't that defeat the purpose of having a single president?


Most of them have been married.
 
2013-02-17 11:53:01 AM
No.
 
2013-02-17 11:55:38 AM
Direct democracy makes what we have now look like a farking utopia.
 
2013-02-17 12:01:50 PM
What about a parlimentary system? Seems most other economically advanced countries have one in place.
 
2013-02-17 12:02:20 PM
In our post modern society people are throwing around the term 'emergence' to describe systems that come from a joint collection of ideas and effort. As much as I want it to be a good idea, it really isn't. A single person's general understanding of things is so limited that I don't see how a large group of them could ever come close to making a single 'best' decision.

This is why our political system will eventually fail. We are all too stupid for our own good. And the people who are smart enough to help direct things know they are and will gladly undermine the process in the name of their own financial solvency.

We are all so thoroughly boned I am beginning to feel like Lindsay Lohan.
 
2013-02-17 12:04:35 PM
I don't think so. The next time you have some bright ideas keep them to yourself.
 
2013-02-17 12:05:51 PM
There is a reason ships only have one captain.
 
2013-02-17 12:08:44 PM
I think all laws should be passed on the basis of who can win a fist fight.

Obama and Biden vs. Boehner and Ryan to see if healthcare passes.

Pelosi vs. Bachmann for funding schools.
 
m00
2013-02-17 12:12:18 PM
"no"
 
2013-02-17 12:18:40 PM

badhatharry: There is a reason ships only have one captain.


There's also a reason most ships don't have half their crew tearing pieces off the engines because they don't like the captain.
...
 
2013-02-17 12:20:49 PM
Repurposing words effectivating a goal-oriented mission statement vis-a-vis empowerment future-today disruptivating technologically-consumeristic betterment postivism profitability-sharement empowering your collectivized solutions!

i300.photobucket.com
 
2013-02-17 12:22:43 PM
All of us is stupider than any of us.
 
2013-02-17 12:25:43 PM

m00: "no"


Exactly.
 
2013-02-17 12:25:43 PM

INeedAName: A single person's general understanding of things is so limited that I don't see how a large group of them could ever come close to making a single 'best' decision.


Not that I disagree with your conclusion, but it should be noted that what you've described here is the foundation of modern market theory - the notion that, while individuals may be wrong, a large group of individuals acting collectively will generally be right.
 
2013-02-17 12:32:38 PM

BMulligan: INeedAName: A single person's general understanding of things is so limited that I don't see how a large group of them could ever come close to making a single 'best' decision.

Not that I disagree with your conclusion, but it should be noted that what you've described here is the foundation of modern market theory - the notion that, while individuals may be wrong, a large group of individuals acting collectively will generally be right.


We with psychology backgrounds call that groupthink.

"How can I be wrong? Everyone else is doing it."

People are dumb animals.
 
2013-02-17 12:32:57 PM
Finally, we can create the long-awaited Department of Lolcats.
 
2013-02-17 12:34:03 PM
Maybe it has gone over my head but am I the only one who doesn't understand the "scary" tag on this?
 
2013-02-17 12:34:15 PM

BMulligan: INeedAName: A single person's general understanding of things is so limited that I don't see how a large group of them could ever come close to making a single 'best' decision.

Not that I disagree with your conclusion, but it should be noted that what you've described here is the foundation of modern market theory - the notion that, while individuals may be wrong, a large group of individuals acting collectively will generally be right.


I thought studies had found that "the market" is, on average, as successful as random selection. In other words, the larger the number of people in your group, the more right and wrong choices are made ultimately cancelling each other out. The same could be said in a way for the very concept of Democracy as a whole, really.
 
2013-02-17 12:38:37 PM

numbquil: Maybe it has gone over my head but am I the only one who doesn't understand the "scary" tag on this?


He knows:

i.imgur.com

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority
 
2013-02-17 12:39:13 PM

guilt by association: What about a parlimentary system? Seems most other economically advanced countries have one in place.


You haven't been keeping up with American Exceptionalism TM have you? Nothing that works and makes sense in other countries would EVER work here. Government form and function, drug policy, scientific inquiry, taxing and budgeting, absolutely NOTHING. Because... AMERICA! that's why. So, no, your idea will not work.

/and, citizen, you forgot to were your flag lapel pin in the proscribed manner
//better fix that before your name ends up on a list somewhere
 
2013-02-17 12:48:11 PM
Nothing would ever get done, you'd have 50% of the people on both sides of an issue and they'd just fight and call each other names. Nothing would ever get accomplished.

/wait...
 
2013-02-17 12:48:48 PM
While it has been pointed out already that this is a great idea on paper, the reality is not so nice. I would like to remind us all that we may think that our current system is the worst functioning system right now, but we've had people think this since the dawn of this country.

The purpose of our democracy, with it's checks and balances, is to prevent the stupid laws from getting passed, and while right now, we seem to be at an impasse as to what constitutes stupid, we've always had stupid laws get put on the books and then get taken off later on. Look at the Alien and Sedition act under John Adams. That was in the second farking presidency that we already violated our first, most sacred amendment.

So while I acknowledge the plight of many of you thinking that we are a bunch of glorified dumbasses, take to heart that if you really want to change this country for the better, really get things back to where we can see ourselves as functioning, really have a government that is beholden to the rights we have placed in stone in our founding documents, then you  must get involved. You must right your Congresscritter, write to your president, write to your senator and when all else fails, when everything you've ever thought made this country great is seen to be swept beneath the rug of injustice, then get the fark in the race and reach out to those that feel the same way. You may not win, or you may win by the slightest of margins, but you will have the ability to help reshape this country in a more constitutional, just way than you thought previously.

This is a government of the people, by the people and for the people, and if you really still believe that, then what the goddamn fark are you doing sitting on your asses? If you don't want to get involved or not run for public office because you don't think you're smart enough or you don't have the ability to do so, that's fine. I respect that. But if you don't want to run because you're too lazy or you have no faith in the system that we've all created, then gosh, farker, I don't even want to know you anymore.
 
2013-02-17 12:49:33 PM
Thanks alot fartObama, elect one blah guy and we have to redo the presidency,

Histories worst monster
 
2013-02-17 12:50:32 PM

numbquil: Maybe it has gone over my head but am I the only one who doesn't understand the "scary" tag on this?


Imagine 'likes' setting US foreign policy.
 
2013-02-17 12:57:50 PM
upload.wikimedia.org

What an Open Source presidency may look like

"It's GNU/America, goddammit"
 
2013-02-17 12:58:01 PM
No.
 
2013-02-17 01:00:42 PM
1) The Two-Headed President.

upload.wikimedia.org

Been done.

2) President By Committee.

www.biography.com

Tried that.


3) The Video Gamer Presidency.

farm9.staticflickr.com

That ship has sailed.
 
2013-02-17 01:02:24 PM

Karma Curmudgeon: numbquil: Maybe it has gone over my head but am I the only one who doesn't understand the "scary" tag on this?

Imagine 'likes' setting US foreign policy.


Honestly, I would take that over what we got now.

I don't trust Congress to do any more than yell at each other and waste tax money on "business" trips and hiring "qualified" family members and friends to jobs that suspiciously look like they do not actually do anything.
 
2013-02-17 01:04:35 PM

Hobo Jr.: Karma Curmudgeon: numbquil: Maybe it has gone over my head but am I the only one who doesn't understand the "scary" tag on this?

Imagine 'likes' setting US foreign policy.

Honestly, I would take that over what we got now.


This is why we can't have nice things.
 
2013-02-17 01:04:38 PM
If we all have guns, then we'll all be equal, right?
 
2013-02-17 01:07:01 PM

Altair: numbquil: Maybe it has gone over my head but am I the only one who doesn't understand the "scary" tag on this?

He knows:

[i.imgur.com image 402x402]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority


Yes, because lots of pettit tyrants are not as good as one central tyrant.
 
2013-02-17 01:08:37 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: Altair: numbquil: Maybe it has gone over my head but am I the only one who doesn't understand the "scary" tag on this?

He knows:

[i.imgur.com image 402x402]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

Yes, because lots of pettit tyrants are not as good as one central tyrant.


strawman... yawn
 
2013-02-17 01:12:18 PM

StopLurkListen: Repurposing words effectivating a goal-oriented mission statement vis-a-vis empowerment future-today disruptivating technologically-consumeristic betterment postivism profitability-sharement empowering your collectivized solutions!


In other words, a Rube Goldberg machine built entirely out of string and farts.
 
2013-02-17 01:13:51 PM

BMulligan: INeedAName: A single person's general understanding of things is so limited that I don't see how a large group of them could ever come close to making a single 'best' decision.

Not that I disagree with your conclusion, but it should be noted that what you've described here is the foundation of modern market theory - the notion that, while individuals may be wrong, a large group of individuals acting collectively will generally be right.


And it directly correlates to my ending paragraph that people who best understand the system will use it fark the rest of us.
 
2013-02-17 01:14:44 PM
media.pcgamer.com
 
2013-02-17 01:19:22 PM

guilt by association: What about a parlimentary system? Seems most other economically advanced countries have one in place.


THIS!

I've been suggesting it for years.  Notice that when we (meaning Generals Marshall and MacArthur) helped frame new constitutions for Germany and Japan after WWII, both were given parliamentary systems and our federal system was specifically rejected.

A switch would do two major things for us: it would allow the replacement of an unpopular head of government, and it would encourage a plurality of political parties, as coalition government becomes possible.
 
Displayed 50 of 147 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report