Question

All > Politics, World Events & Society

jamshabam: 9 months ago | Last edited at 11:04PM on 8/4/2012

Why is our president a member of a single party rather than a liaison between all parties?

in the USA

Answer This Question

Report as

Answer 1

SummerSucks: 9 months ago

Because most people want to vote for someone belonging to either the Republican or Democratic party. They don't understand how these two political parties have become so screwed up that they cause this country so much trouble. So, they listen to the rich people - because THAT'S what gets your face in the spotlight, money. You don't stand a chance of winning a campaign if you don't have the political party backing you - and vote for which candidate they prefer. So, Obama is from the Democratic Party. He will not be a liaison between the 2 parties because he can't exclude his own preferences for his party.
If the Republicans want something done the Democrats start bawling. If the Democrats want something the Republicans dig their heels in.

It's called compromise, people! Not all members of these political parties are this way but the majority are. The Tea Party Republicans scare me a little but that stupid b.s. with the Occupy movement for the liberals was even worse.

Helpful (1) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (1)

Report as

majesticunicorn: 9 months ago

I think that the whole idea of political parties is ridiculous, especially for somebody who is meant to represent our country as a whole. It must be confusing for new people from other countries who move here and learn about our government system. If they do that when we have a right winger in office they assume us to be a conservative nation overlall, but if they go here when a liberal is president they could think we are democrats.

Report as

Add a comment...

Answer 2

RexViatores: 9 months ago

Cause we're a confused nation full of confused people

Helpful Fun Thanks for voting Comments (2)

Report as

jamshabam: 9 months ago

But no one else does it that way either! The idea seems somehow outside of democracy, which I must say is quite silly.

Report as

SummerSucks: 9 months ago

Naive is better than confused. Too many people still think it's perfectly fine to only listen to what they hear about the politicians.

Report as

Add a comment...

Answer 3

zachman50: 9 months ago | Last edited at 11:22PM on 8/4/2012

hi

Helpful Fun Thanks for voting Comments (5)

Report as

jamshabam: 9 months ago

I meant the institution of presidency more than the current president. He seems to me a victim of our edifice.

Report as

zachman50: 9 months ago

oh no idea

Report as

jamshabam: 9 months ago

yeah.. me neither :D

Report as

zachman50: 9 months ago

i changed my answer to hi

Report as

zachman50: 9 months ago

so hi

Report as

Add a comment...

Answer 4

LucyNJersey: 9 months ago

The president is a member of a single party rather than a liaison between all parties because of democracy. He is the representative of the people and should be self governing by appointing other members to act on his behalf.

Helpful Fun Thanks for voting Comments (2)

Report as

jamshabam: 9 months ago

I don't follow. Because he is the representative of the people, he should be self governing... what does that mean? Shouldn't the representative of the people represent the people?

Report as

majesticunicorn: 9 months ago

I agree on that one that he should try to hold the best interests of all citizens in his mind and heart when making political decisions, unfortunatlley politicians, even presidents on both sides seem to have ceased in doing that since the early days of America so far.

Report as

Add a comment...

Answer 5

winetastergirl: 9 months ago

Unfortunately, politics have become interwoven with hot button issues, like abortion, gay rights, religious beliefs. This forces politicians to pick sides rather than just simply representing ALL people, which is what they are supposed to do.

Helpful Fun Thanks for voting Comments (3)

Report as

majesticunicorn: 9 months ago

If I was President some day I'd try finding ways to meet in the middle of two opposite sides of any issue. For example of those listed. With abortion I'd make it legal in emergancy cases but I wouldn't make religious medical facilties offer them, I'd let each place have a choice on the matter. I'd also try to require a course about potential negative effects of terminating the pregnancy and why adoption might be a better option if the woman is unable to raise the child. For gay rights I'd say that same sex couples can get married but I wouldn't force religious folk to marry them or force churches to host the wedding ceremonies, beause that is unconstitutional. That also kinda covers the topic of religious beleifs, but just saying. I woulds leave my faith out of my running campiagn and out of public eye as much as possible so that I be judged in a non religious light. I believe that that would also gain me more followers because people would hear what I think of issues and not just that I'm part of a certain worship group.

Report as

winetastergirl: 9 months ago

That sounds like a good plan. Represent everyone, regardless of of their beliefs and your beliefs:):)

Report as

majesticunicorn: 9 months ago

thanks, I'm always looking for agreement

Report as

Add a comment...

Answer 6

majesticunicorn: 9 months ago

political parties were first avoided in America because of negative effect in earlier civilizations. HOwever we fell into the trap and now after less than 300 years as a nation and around 500 as a civilization including before we were apart from Great Britain, we are divided. Theis is not because we are openly different from each other but because we label ourselves and categorise based on personal beliefs instead of just agreeing to disagree and believing what we each individually believe in.

Helpful (1) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (0)

Report as

Add a comment...