Alternative thinking as far as this "Change-Hungry" President goes

In response to: Obama Criticism

I agree people out there are giving way too much unsupported criticism on Obama. I understand his plans but for as much as he pushed this 'Change' campaign went, I really haven't seen too much change. One of my teachers said that you really can't see what a president has done until after his term, but can we really afford to trust that rule right now?

I think that, like Kennedy, Obama's charm won the presidency, not him. People wanted to change history so badly that they gave in to the charm that Obama gave in all of his speeches and even in his appearance. He's got a beautiful, (African-) American family that sold his followers. He almost gave a commercial-like presence with him & his family where the undertones said, "If you vote for me, your family can be like this again, back to the good ol' days!"

Even though he's promised big, doesn't mean that he's going to come through big.

Hello Mr.Governor....errr..President

In my history classes it's really never made a lot of sense to me why our states dont have more power. Governors would be more suited to deal with their state's problems, because they do after all live in their state. But reading different arguments on this idea, I have realized that the state governors have gotten entirely too accustomed to having the federal government "fix" their problems for them. This generation's set of government wouldn't be cut out for more power like we would like for them to be. I think that the problem might be is that the people that are running for presidency are more ready to take on more power for their states & not necessarily taking on a whole country. I think that if the governors got used to more power and the President had less internal problems to worry about, the powers would even out a little more & put less pressure on every one.

"Just Say No."

Going to public school all my life, i can honestly say that I've encountered illegal drugs a few times. I think most of the american population has, even with out knowing. They are everywhere. The "War on Drugs" didn't come about until the 1980's when Regan was in office. That meant more money, more time and more worry for something we already have laws for.

What I dont understand is why we're spending all this extra effort for something thats always going to be around? People are always going to want drugs. In a recent artical I read, "In 2008, President Bush signed the Mérida Initiative, which would provide $1.4 billion to Mexico and other countries over three years to help combat drug smuggling and violence." And do we still have people using, and killing for drugs? Yes, yes we do.

Why do we get to use alcohol at a certain age but people don't get to use drugs with similar regulations? Some people would say, it's because it's harmful to your body. I say, so is half the things we serve in fast food chains everyday. What does it matter to the government if I'm harming my body or not? Is it against the law to practically send millions of troops on a death mission to Iraq? I didn't think so.

People are going to want what they cant have. Theoretically if you legalized drugs it would get rid of this problem, right? No, I still believe that people are going to still want drugs. those people can still live separate lives if they want. I do believe however, that it would get rid of the "blood" that all drugs supposedly have on them, because since it's legal no one has to get killed for those drugs anymore. More lives (not only deaths, but livelihoods as well), time and, money would be saved if we worried less about "The War on Drugs" and more about issues that require immediate attention.

In Response to:the Electorial College Needs To GO!

The Electoral College Needs To GO!

I'd like to start by saying that this is a thought that should scare you. If there wasn't an Electoral College, the smaller, less populated states would more than likely lose their voice. No on would care for them. Major politicians wouldn't give a hoot about the 'little people' in the small states because they wouldn't really need their votes in the end.

There would also be a chance that our nation's leader could be chosen by one person. It could be anyone, and it would more than likely be some one that's not as smart as the next person because the smarter people have already gone & given their vote. So the next president could be chosen by that crazy guy next door that talks to his cats. Then there would be a whole issue on whether people that are diagnosed with mental disabilities should be able to vote, with the chance that the votes are tied & it relies on one person & that person ends up being crazy.

The Bush/Gore election was also mentioned. You want to know how may times that has happened in the more than two-hundred years that this country has been alive has the popular vote not won. Twice, and that just means our system is working. In American Idol ( I think I am required as a teenager to make at least one pop culture reference) there was a situation where by some error an untalented singer was chosen and people got together and kept voting for him in spite for the show. Who says America wouldn't do the same in the situation where the people were given the power to tip the polls like that? It is after all American Idol. I think it's somewhat of a naive thought to think that something like that wouldn't happen under those circumstances.

To conclude, I think that if we got rid of the electoral college it would do harm to the people, future & government.