Are you proposing that there is a universal law that states that all presidents are equally corrupt, and thus people must logically be equally concerned about all presidents?
I wish I could remember who said this-“All things being equal, they ain’t.”
No.
There was certainly noise about the system as a whole being corrupt - or ineffective. I don’t think it was the tea partier level of noise - but it was a disgust that was larger than just GWB. After all, we wouldn’t have gotten GWB as president without the “interference” of the SC.
And Bricker is right, there were calls to assassinate Bush - there are always nutcases calling to assassinate the President, or trying to do it themselves. After all, someone tried to assassinate Ford! Sometimes they are on the right, sometimes on the left. If you cherrypick your data and dismiss the side you are on as “not serious” in their threats while taking the most casual mark of the opposition as proof they are on the verge of armed revolt - you’ll get exactly what you are looking for.
(The guns to protests thing is really disturbing to me…I’m not the world’s largest public display of guns fan to start with and I think it will end badly.)
(Speaking of which, Assassination Vacation may have been the best book I’ve read this past year.)
All presidents are not equally corrupt, or even equally corruptible.
But all of them are human, and all of them have the potential for corruption. The best solution to this is to allow any single seat, or series of seats, in government only enough power to gum up the works, not destroy the system if it or they are occupied by completely corrupt or incompetent individuals.
ETA: No, Bush wasn’t a lizard person. The last president to be a lizard person LBJ.
I would think it is just the human condition. Governments have a tendency to devolve into tyranny. This is natural for any entity that has power over the populace. I think the founding fathers tried their hardest to make our government as UNLIKELY as possible to slip into tyranny by putting restraints on federal power. Whether or not you agree with what the feds are doing there is no denying that they have been expanding their power and reach since this republic was formed.
That’s where I’m coming from; it’s kind of moot whether your actual president is corrupt when the system itself is corrupt and co-opted.
Here’s the poll I was talking about.
Here’s a snip:
I think the trust in gov’t took a big hit as people watched the deals made to get the HCR bill through the Senate. Even though those were (mostly, I think) taken out later, that foul taste lingers in the mouth.
My face is straight because I’m more worried about trends than status quo. Bush was increasing the assault on the constiturion, Obama has been, demonstrably, decreasing it. If he had snapped his fingers and turned it all off like a light switch, that would be better, of course, but imperfection in his reversal doesn’t make me scared that he’s going to suddenly do a complete 180 with his entire modus operandi and start ordering gulags.
The pervasiveness and mainstreamyness of this kind of behavior is disturbingly new.
At least in my waking memory. Gods know what they did in prior generations; probably regular riots in the streets over every little thing. Wouldn’t surprise me.
Our system is designed to be frustratingly inefficient on purpose. It’s called “checks and balances”. People will always be pissed off about something with the government because there will always be some element of opposition to everything to get in the way of getting stuff done.
You know who had a really efficient government? The Nazis.
Gulags aside, I hear what you’re saying, but I think you’re still off base. I’m worried about trends, and in plenty of ways - the ways most criticized by the left two years ago - Obama has not changed the ongoing “assault on the constitution.” We’re still involved in two land wars in Asia and we’re still wiretapping without warrants. In addition, we’re now targeting Americans for assassination. I don’t see an imperfection of reversal there - I don’t see reversal.
Fundamentally I think you’re wrong to place your faith in the best intentions of a man. The trend that should worry you is one stretching back 80 years - the ever increasing power of the executive office. You didn’t like Bush, so you didn’t trust him to properly use the power he had; you like Obama so you seem to be willing to give him a pass for now, even though he’s continuing the very policies that Bush was slammed for. Rather than trust that those in power will use the power right - if we like them - shouldn’t we be distrustful regardless, seek to bolster checks and balances, and try to disperse power as much as possible?
[highjack]
IMO, no. The Nazi’s seemed to be riddled with a lot more infighting and duplication of services (in order to create or protect someones political fiefdom) than we have at the moment in the U.S.
This seriously impacted true efficiency in a negative way.
[/highjack]
But we don’t. Case in point: Obamacare. More than half the people in the country were against it, but the government shoved it up our butts anyway.
Bush had the help and backing of congress during most of his playtime - where else do you propose we distribute the power to? Have you any specific changes in mind? 'Cause I’m not going to start throwing bricks through windows without a plan.
Still pushing that bullshit no matter how often you get corrected, huh?
When did that stop being “down your throats”, and what symbolism is intended by either metaphor?
Sounds like the '60s actually. Although the anti-government movement was mostly left-wing then, I think it stemmed from the same basic cause: the belief, right or wrong, that the policy makers in the government are all but immune to public opinion. Back then it was the Vietnam War: lots and lots of Americans (and not just men facing the draft) had serious doubts as to the wisdom and morality of our actions in SE Asia. And yet the government proceded all but autonomously to carry on with the war.
Actually, a large percentage of them wanted more healthcare, not less, but don’t let the facts get in the way of your partisan rant.
The states and the people, as cliche and lame as it sounds. And I don’t know how. It’s above my pay grade. 
I see the problem as one of accountability as well. While we may be able to agree that the executive branch has too much power, or that we can enter armed conflicts too easily, or can too easily subvert the constitution and spy on citizens, there seems to be little accountability. It’s shrugged off, or considered necessary for the “War on Terror”. Much power in the hands of few seems like a bad idea, but everything is trending that way and most people seem content to accept it. I wish I knew how to straighten things out. shrugs
I see what you did there. 
Well, I’m not sure that there *aren’t *mechanisms in place to enforce accountability and balance power properly - I think they just weren’t employed properly by the heavily republican legislative and executive branches. (I have less of an opinion of what the judiciary should have been doing; I’m uninformed. Pay grade and all. :)) If the problem isn’t the system, then systemic corrections aren’t likely to fix it; persons in government inclined to ignore the old rules would ignore any new rules too. And if the problem was the people (which I think it clearly was), then rotating or tossing them out should go a fair ways to correcting it.
Well, this thread is about people with hyperbolically hysterical reactions to the percieved lack of, well, whatever they want the government to be like, right?
Dude, you’re wrong. Some people didn’t like it, some people liked it but wanted more, and a plurality were okay or even liked it.
More than half wanted this bill and more.
I suggest that some of the power needs to be dissolved, some returned to the states and some stay where it is.
I don’t have a complete list of what should be where, but drug policy, among other things, should clearly be a local matter.