• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do Away with the Inauguration Ceremony?

Do Away with the Inauguration Ceremony?

  • Yes

    Votes: 6 16.2%
  • No

    Votes: 31 83.8%

  • Total voters
    37
As far as I can tell, they only celebrate it in Washington. The rest of the country doesnt care. One day Id like these celebrities to lead by example and just get to work. This smacks of royalty.

You don't care and think it smacks of royalty, but you can't really say you speak for the rest of the country. Inauguration ceremonies and balls have been held since President Washington's first.
 
As far as I can tell, they only celebrate it in Washington. The rest of the country doesnt care. One day Id like these celebrities to lead by example and just get to work. This smacks of royalty.

That's funny. It was a democratic proposal, and yet you see it as monarchical. This was one of the unique moments in the country's running where the President of the United States himself would discuss his ideas to the people, where it would run in the newspapers thereafter. Andrew Jackson, a man who wanted to further establish democratic values in the United States, did so by opening up the inauguration to the general public at the White House (I might add, tolerating the drunkenness of the crowd in the night to come).
 
You don't care and think it smacks of royalty, but you can't really say you speak for the rest of the country. Inauguration ceremonies and balls have been held since President Washington's first.

Next thing you know, the State of the Union Address will be seen as Authoritarian, rather than the House of Representatives keeping him in balance.
 
Next thing you know, the State of the Union Address will be seen as Authoritarian, rather than the House of Representatives keeping him in balance.

I'm sure that's in the offing. He lives for that too, you know, lording over both chambers.
 
Next thing you know, the State of the Union Address will be seen as Authoritarian, rather than the House of Representatives keeping him in balance.

Fisher TV would show a rerun of The Big Bang Theory instead of the state of the union. That show gets crazy ratings even for its syndicated reruns.
 
I'm sure that's in the offing. He lives for that too, you know, lording over both chambers.

It seems our esteemed poster forgets what a treat it is to get his leader, he voted for or against (but the act of vote itself), speak to the people about his ideas. If you want a lovely little contrast, maybe Joe could think about how many public appearances the Queen of England gives, or oh my me, how many television interviews she gives.

I'm suspecting that John here is in the minority, but let's say this to any poor soul who thinks otherwise: this is a democratic function, not an monarchical one, you fools!
 
Last edited:
It seems our esteemed poster forgets what a treat it is to get his leader, he voted for or against (but the act of vote itself), speak to the people about his ideas. If you want a lovely little contrast, maybe Joe could think about how many public appearances the Queen of England gives, or oh my me, how many television interviews she gives.

I'm suspecting that Joe here is in the minority, but let's say this to any poor soul who thinks otherwise: this is a democratic function, not an monarchical one, you fools!

I'm in prickly mood about this, as is plain to see, so I'm really appreciating your posts, Fiddy. I realize it's common practice for some to malign whatever the current occupant of the White House does, but really folks? These are traditions of our country from its first president. In historical terms, the transition of power has been accomplished only through conflict, usually accompanied by horrible violence. Hell, even currently, in Syria. We should be proud, no matter the letter that follows the leader's name, that we have this lasting tradition over more than two centuries and the entirety of our existence as a nation.

It's a niggle, to be sure, but small of those complaining.
 
Three points...

  1. I didn't say she was/is. I just said she is acting like an old person who is fighting the idea.
  2. "Old" is subjective. You'll have to specify what you consider old to be.
  3. Evidence (her actions/'do) suggests she thinks or fears she is (see #1).

You said she was an old person trying to look young. So, if old is subjective, how old are you?
 
You said she was an old person trying to look young. So, if old is subjective, how old are you?
No. What I said was...

Though I do think Michelle's new 'do makes her look like an old person desperately trying to look young... which is worse than simply being or looking old.
Added emphasis mine.
 
No. What I said was...


Added emphasis mine.

She's fine. I would say attractive. Now, besides that, why is that important?
 
She's fine. I would say attractive. Now, besides that, why is that important?
I didn't say, nor did I imply, that she was unattractive.

Now, besides that, are you suggesting that people should be forbidden from voicing observations? Or, just the ones you don't think are important?
 
Not really sure why we do this anymore. It seems like a waste of time and money to have a big party every time someone gets selected to be President. Especially when theyre relected. I know that most of it is paid for privately, but theres got to be plenty of side expenses that arent. I say, swear them in, and get to work.
I say no.But if someone got a second term I think that maybe the inauguration shouldn't be that extravagant.
 
How about no. I wonder if this exact thread would be up if Romney won. :roll:
 
That's funny. It was a democratic proposal, and yet you see it as monarchical. This was one of the unique moments in the country's running where the President of the United States himself would discuss his ideas to the people, where it would run in the newspapers thereafter. Andrew Jackson, a man who wanted to further establish democratic values in the United States, did so by opening up the inauguration to the general public at the White House (I might add, tolerating the drunkenness of the crowd in the night to come).

Perphaps it meant something 200 years ago. Todays its just more hero worship.
 
Next thing you know, the State of the Union Address will be seen as Authoritarian, rather than the House of Representatives keeping him in balance.

Another pointless event today. He doesnt say anything we havent heard. He gives a speech, and everyone quickly forgets it. QUICK, what did he say last year? Did it matter?
 
It seems our esteemed poster forgets what a treat it is to get his leader, he voted for or against (but the act of vote itself), speak to the people about his ideas. If you want a lovely little contrast, maybe Joe could think about how many public appearances the Queen of England gives, or oh my me, how many television interviews she gives.

I'm suspecting that John here is in the minority, but let's say this to any poor soul who thinks otherwise: this is a democratic function, not an monarchical one, you fools!

I didnt vote for President. Ive given up on the whole system. And this is just more evidence that the govt is too big, having extravagent parties to honor itself while the rest of send them 30% of our paycheck. Maybe if they ever get anything positive done, then I will personally throw them party.
 
Really need to be putting a rootabega option because I reallydon't care either way.
And yet, you posted in the thread.........:thinking
 
For a re-election? Yes, I think we should do away with it on the scale that it is being given. We should still have an address, but it should be much smaller and less grand. I totally get someone being elected for the first time having a large ceremony though.
 
Somehow I strongly suspect that the OP would not exist if their candidate had won the presidential election.
 
I think we can still have the swearing in and such but we don't really all the hoopla that goes with it. Plus a lot of it is just wasteful spending.
 
Perphaps it meant something 200 years ago. Todays its just more hero worship.

No, it is what still what I have already mentioned it is. You're just whiny.

Another pointless event today. He doesnt say anything we havent heard. He gives a speech, and everyone quickly forgets it. QUICK, what did he say last year? Did it matter?

The State of the Union does what I say it does, but it is also used for the administration's public policy proposals for the coming year that he wants Congress to pass. The administration spends months preparing its stated policy proposals through a constant negotiation between policy councils, the cabinet, and the Office of the President, just so they can have it ready for the State of the Union.

I didnt vote for President. Ive given up on the whole system. And this is just more evidence that the govt is too big, having extravagent parties to honor itself while the rest of send them 30% of our paycheck. Maybe if they ever get anything positive done, then I will personally throw them party.

You do know that they have had extravagant parties since Washington, right? Washington used it with great pomp and circumstance (more so than our current leaders), and while Thomas Jefferson disliked the pomp, used dinner parties to ship in an extraordinary amount of fine wines and foods, just so he could ease his guests and get them out of their political mindsets, so that shortly thereafter you can strike a deal right then and there. While it is unlikely to strike such a deal now, you're mostly using the inauguration as some sort of symbolism of decadence, when it used to be worse.
 
Last edited:
We do need poll improvement here.
Like so many things, this is neither yes or no.
What we need is thinking / balance.
No vote - again
The inaugural ball is excessive to say the least. But we do need this (toned down).
Is it necessary to burn down Washington to bring about change and improvement ???
 
Today's official inauguration is a small formality, tommorow's (publicity?) redo show is the wasteful, hoopla version. Obama/Biden decided on that since the timing of the real event on a Sunday was not to their liking. ;)
Its NOT their decision...its "Washingtons" .
 
I didnt vote for President. Ive given up on the whole system. And this is just more evidence that the govt is too big, having extravagent parties to honor itself while the rest of send them 30% of our paycheck. Maybe if they ever get anything positive done, then I will personally throw them party.

So you choose not to participate, that is your right. Then you can't really complain. It's like the woman sitting there angry but silent at her husband. He should know why she's angry and fix it without word from her.

Our government was designed for its citizens to participate.
 
Somehow I strongly suspect that the OP would not exist if their candidate had won the presidential election.
Sadly.....and I, for one, am getting tired of it...
To the losers, I say "grow up" .
 
Back
Top Bottom