#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
The U.S. Needs A Leader
His Majesty King Abdullah II
For president in 2016
Add New Argument |
2
points
1
point
1
point
1
point
You have been watching the news reporting Obama's continual attempts to circumvent Congress right. Did you miss the reporting on his indecision about what to name our enemy. Perhaps the selfie video was somehow presidential to you. The one on the same day. Showing the most recent American killed by ISIS having her grieving family making statements to the media. Our guy in th WH loves the celebrity of being president, but clearly does not love the service to our nation which it demands. 1
point
Both the king of Jordan and Ike are of the same cloth. They both excelled in the same command and control structure. They both are decisive, confident leaders who can inspire and unite a nation to follow them. These characteristics are NOT present in the WH today. Hence The U.S. Needs A Leader 1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
Do you think it is fair to have a religiously based monarch in a country that does not have a uniform religion, though? Yes and no. My personal bias for my own religion has some weight here. I would love to have Christianity taught everyone and share with a country, but it actuality it would be unfair and unjust in my eyes. Theocracies, historically speaking, have been quite discriminatory against minority religions. I agree. 1
point
Actually I have to say it does come as a bit of a surprise. I know you consider yourself religious and that you might want a person of similar religion in that job, but I would not have expected that you would want that job itself to be a religious one. Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are trying to say..? 1
point
Hopefully this clarification will give you a clear understanding. This monarchy I want doesn't not have to be religious based at all. It would be more beneficial to a monarchy if there wasn't an official religion so that people will possibly have a better attitude towards the government. I would prefer a religiously based monarchy so that the country could see the truth or at least the believed truth within our theology. I can see how this would cause problems though. 1
point
2
points
1
point
1
point
In what ways would your envisioned monarchy be different from our current Presidency? There wouldn't be a congress that holds some power. The King/Queen would hold absolute power and authority. The military would be in absolute control of the monarch. Would it be hereditary? Yes, I would highly prefer a bloodline monarchy. Would it create laws as well as enforce them? Yes, the monarch would probably have a council of some sort to discuss what laws need to be created, enacted, or even abolished. Would it have sentencing powers as well? Yes, the monarch would have absolute authority to sentence men and women for their wrong doings. 1
point
Preferable IF: The monarch were benevolent. The economy were strong. 1.) Stability leading to security. 2.) No frigging political parties. 3.) No frigging Congress trying to justify its existence. 4.) Short effective command structure leading to timely decisions and quick responses to sudden changes. 5.) Possible hot looking Queen, with princesses. Worse if the monarch were His Majesty King Obama, because: 1.) Al Sharpton would be in charge of The Royal Police. 2.) Van Jones would return as HCO. (Head Community Organizer) 3.) Jeremiah Wright's church (Trinity United Church of Christ) becomes official state sponsered religion. 4.) Valerie Jarrett would replace the supreme court. 5.) Bill Ayres would be in charge of making sure every classroom in America had a pinko, leftist, radical communist indoctrinater, in charge of learning. 6.) Sharia would replace our legal system. 1
point
1
point
In what ways do you think this type of monarchy would be preferable? The creation, enactment, and possibly the regulation of laws would be very effective. Seeing as a single person, a council possibly, would create the laws the amount of time it would take, in comparison to the US congress, would be much shorter. Putting the law out sounds fairly easy. Regulation would probably be the same honestly. What ways might it be worse? The citizens won't have as much say and power as they would in the US. If the citizens don't like the law they may have to just deal with it. 1
point
If, instead of being called a monarchy, it was called a dictatorship, would it still appeal to you? Are there significant differences between the two? When very much of the population agrees on a policy and in emergency situations - does our government generally function too slowly for you? The rest of the time, is speed necessarily a good thing? Does excogitation and diversity of opinion provide better solutions than a single person may themselves quickly discover? More than just accepting laws - would people also be afraid of speaking out against the ruler? If so, would that be positive, negative, neutral? Same for the press? Is one person easier to corrupt than a large group? Might such a situation be volatile - family squabble, overthrows, lack of an heir, abdication, assasination, military coup? (see here and here) 1
point
If, instead of being called a monarchy, it was called a dictatorship, would it still appeal to you? Are there significant differences between the two? Yes, they are both pretty much the same exact thing. A monarchy just seems more organized for kingship. I can't think of many differences. When very much of the population agrees on a policy and in emergency situations - does our government generally function too slowly for you? It appears in this manner to me. Emergency situations are pretty easily responded to, but basic policy seems to be what is slow. The rest of the time, is speed necessarily a good thing? Does excogitation and diversity of opinion provide better solutions than a single person may themselves quickly discover? To me speed is a good thing. Diversity of opinion is a very good thing. This is why I would rather have a council sit with the King/Queen. More than just accepting laws - would people also be afraid of speaking out against the ruler? If so, would that be positive, negative, neutral? Same for the press? Yes, as they should be. We believe that speaking out against our leaders, unless what they do is wrong by our standards, is intolerant. Same goes for the press. Is one person easier to corrupt than a large group? Depends on the situation, but for the most part I believe so. Might such a situation be volatile - family squabble, overthrows, lack of an heir, abdication, assasination, military coup? Of course. The King's/Queen's words are just words. I'm not sure if you noticed, but the second link didn't give me a coup d'etat list. 1
point
To me speed is a good thing. Can you elaborate on that a bit? What benefits do you see, etc.? speaking out against our leaders, unless what they do is wrong by our standards, is intolerant What about when what they do is wrong by your standards? I would rather have a council sit with the King/Queen Should having a council be mandated, maybe through having a constitutional monarchy, etc.? the second link Sorry, it had special characters that CD didn't like - hopefully this one works: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ 1
point
Can you elaborate on that a bit? What benefits do you see, etc.? Sure I can. By speed I mean the time between when a problem is evident and when a law is created to mend the problem. I wish for that time to be short. If there is a problem i would like it fixed as soon as possible. What about when what they do is wrong by your standards? A leader is not exempt from the law unless the law isn't applicable to them. For example if a law stated "No person shall kill another person" the King/Queen cannot kill another person (unless the killing is justified, which can be explain in the laws). If the law states that no citizen may walk the streets between 11pm and 6am then the King/Queen, in my eyes, is exempt. The law would have to roam the streets to make sure the law is being obeyed. I would call the King/Queen the law. Should having a council be mandated, maybe through having a constitutional monarchy, etc. It's not a requirement, but I highly recommend it. The King/Queen would have the absolute say, but having a council would be very nice so multiple opinions can be heard. Sorry, it had special characters that CD didn't like - hopefully this one works: The link works now and it's rather interesting. The plethora of coup d'etats is outstanding. 1
point
i would like it fixed as soon as possible Understandable. I guess I have just run into the whole - the quickest fix is not the best fix - problem enough to skew my opinion. A leader is not exempt from the law unless the law isn't applicable to them. An absolute monarchy would generally seem to be above the law, right? Since they create the law, they can say that the law specifically does not apply to them. Or, since they also control sentencing, they can say their sentence is nothing (or to eat a slice of pecan pie...). The plethora of coup d'etats is outstanding Yea, sometimes I think Wikipedia is way underrated (then I see some other postings...) If the people feel they are living under an undesirable monarch, what method should be used to change them? 1
point
Understandable. I guess I have just run into the whole - the quickest fix is not the best fix - problem enough to skew my opinion. Of course the quickest fix is not the best fix or the most optimal. I just prefer a quick fix to many problems. An absolute monarchy would generally seem to be above the law, right? Since they create the law, they can say that the law specifically does not apply to them. Or, since they also control sentencing, they can say their sentence is nothing (or to eat a slice of pecan pie...). True, very true. Yea, sometimes I think Wikipedia is way underrated (then I see some other postings...) I wiki many things. I don't doubt many wiki articles. If the people feel they are living under an undesirable monarch, what method should be used to change them? Whatever method suits their fancy. I'd imagine the people would resist the law or the King's/Queen's orders will be ignored. 1
point
-1
points
|