• 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
It's a tradition that we as a nation should keep. It's a tradition the represent that our democracy works (regardless of your man won or not) and shows that power can be passed peacefully from one administration to another.

It is important for what it represents and that should be affirmed each time it occurs.
 
it has been an interesting thread to read. you can pretty much tell which posters voted for the other guy...

I marvel at the angry old white guys contingent. First they whine because 'immigrants' (that would be the ones not from Northern Europe) are not adopting the 'culture' of our nation. And now they attempt to mock someone they see as doing just that! Then they wonder why they are marginalized and ignored????

Now the re-election Inauguration IS smaller than the first one. The first crowd was the biggest ever on the Mall, this one the 4th largest. Instead of 11 balls I heard there will be 2.

Those who claim to be so jaded with the Inauguration and its pomp and circumstance forget who is doing it, and how many times it has been done.

If you can put aside your political bitterness you have to admit a few facts. This is the Greatest Nation on the planet officially swearing in its leader. The Leader of the Free World. The Leader of the most powerful nation on the planet. Try and let that percolate passed the political bias.

This event has happened under 60 times since George Washington. 60 times the Presidency has passed PEACEFULLY in a nation that rose from backwater to global superpower. This isn't just for us, it showcases the nation and it's government to the world.

I can see how some don't like to celebrate, I don't do New Years, but I'd say those are a very few when it comes to the Presidency. Would be nice to archive this thread in a real handy place for when the 'other guy' wins and has his ceremony... :peace
 
Everyone?

Those founders who put on Washington's inaugural ceremony and the balls that followed the night after? If some of them didn't participate, it doesn't matter. Washington set the mark and it's been followed since.
 
Leader of the Free World. The Leader of the most powerful nation on the planet. Try and let that percolate passed the political bias.

This event has happened under 60 times since George Washington. 60 times the Presidency has passed PEACEFULLY in a nation that rose from backwater to global superpower. This isn't just for us, it showcases the nation and it's government to the world.

I can see how some don't like to celebrate, I don't do New Years, but I'd say those are a very few when it comes to the Presidency. Would be nice to archive this thread in a real handy place for when the 'other guy' wins and has his ceremony... :peace

First off, I know people like this "leader of the free world" nonsense, but it's nonsense. The President of the United States is just that, President of the United States. Congress is to have more power than the President, so the President isn't even the most powerful politician in America, let alone the world. He hold no responsibility nor duty to the rest of the world. Not Leader of the Free World but rather Executive of the US Government. That's it.

Peaceful transfer of power is great, a truly ground breaking ideal at the time. But that's also part of it is this powerful notion of not having a sovereign. The government serves the People, not the other way around. If you want to talk about a showcase of America and what we do and what we believe in, our continued military intervention in the world for decades speaks louder than our President being sworn it.

President is not King and we shouldn't treat him as one. The fanfare we seemingly have over this is reminiscent of England's fawning over their royalty. President is just a dude, another American ideal.
 
it has been an interesting thread to read. you can pretty much tell which posters voted for the other guy...

I marvel at the angry old white guys contingent. First they whine because 'immigrants' (that would be the ones not from Northern Europe) are not adopting the 'culture' of our nation. And now they attempt to mock someone they see as doing just that! Then they wonder why they are marginalized and ignored????

Now the re-election Inauguration IS smaller than the first one. The first crowd was the biggest ever on the Mall, this one the 4th largest. Instead of 11 balls I heard there will be 2.

Those who claim to be so jaded with the Inauguration and its pomp and circumstance forget who is doing it, and how many times it has been done.

If you can put aside your political bitterness you have to admit a few facts. This is the Greatest Nation on the planet officially swearing in its leader. The Leader of the Free World. The Leader of the most powerful nation on the planet. Try and let that percolate passed the political bias.

This event has happened under 60 times since George Washington. 60 times the Presidency has passed PEACEFULLY in a nation that rose from backwater to global superpower. This isn't just for us, it showcases the nation and it's government to the world.

I can see how some don't like to celebrate, I don't do New Years, but I'd say those are a very few when it comes to the Presidency. Would be nice to archive this thread in a real handy place for when the 'other guy' wins and has his ceremony... :peace

Very well said and I like how you put it into the various contexts and underscore what differentiated our country at its founding and just why it should be celebrated every time it occurs.

Yes, it the next time the presidency changes parties.
 
Last edited:
First off, I know people like this "leader of the free world" nonsense, but it's nonsense. The President of the United States is just that, President of the United States. Congress is to have more power than the President, so the President isn't even the most powerful politician in America, let alone the world. He hold no responsibility nor duty to the rest of the world. Not Leader of the Free World but rather Executive of the US Government. That's it.

Peaceful transfer of power is great, a truly ground breaking ideal at the time. But that's also part of it is this powerful notion of not having a sovereign. The government serves the People, not the other way around. If you want to talk about a showcase of America and what we do and what we believe in, our continued military intervention in the world for decades speaks louder than our President being sworn it.

President is not King and we shouldn't treat him as one. The fanfare we seemingly have over this is reminiscent of England's fawning over their royalty. President is just a dude, another American ideal.

Gee, I would have thought President Washington would have disdained it on those grounds.
 
The size of the inauguration... any inauguration... should be limited to...

  • Swearing in.
  • Parade.
  • Military parching bands, etc.
  • 1 event/ball.

That's reasonable and something the taxpayers should pay for.

No fly-overs*. Any additional events/balls can be paid for and sponsored by others.

*- I have heard that fly-overs are done by pilots who need to get their minimum fly-time in anyway. If that is true, then it is not necessarily costing any extra. However, even if it is true, I'd prefer it be limited to public events such as an inauguration, and not private events such as sporting events.
 
First off, I know people like this "leader of the free world" nonsense, but it's nonsense. The President of the United States is just that, President of the United States. Congress is to have more power than the President, so the President isn't even the most powerful politician in America, let alone the world. He hold no responsibility nor duty to the rest of the world. Not Leader of the Free World but rather Executive of the US Government. That's it.

Peaceful transfer of power is great, a truly ground breaking ideal at the time. But that's also part of it is this powerful notion of not having a sovereign. The government serves the People, not the other way around. If you want to talk about a showcase of America and what we do and what we believe in, our continued military intervention in the world for decades speaks louder than our President being sworn it.

President is not King and we shouldn't treat him as one. The fanfare we seemingly have over this is reminiscent of England's fawning over their royalty. President is just a dude, another American ideal.

Oh but he is the Leader of the Free World. If he doesn't use our national resolve, might and economic clout it won't get done. Time and time again until our President stands up the other nations just mill around. Bosnia comes to mind in the modern era. When we with hold our signature on a treaty or agreement that document is crippled. Congress has over the years abdicated much of it's power to the President. you do know about the war powers act and how easily BushII got his war in iraq. Congress, even under GOP control still had the power to block the war, what it lacked was the political will.

When pointing out our continued military operations around the world, please remember the man being sworn in today is called the Commander in Chief, he who sits in the CiC seat is very much the leader, though not King.

Now I said LEADER of the free world, not KING of the USofA. I didn't say he held absolute power, but he is the leader, like it or no. I do understand some on the left wing see the pomp and pageantry of a democracy celebrating a peaceful second term of it's first minority President as 'fawning' as if for a British monarch, and I do realize lots of people draw the line between 'king' and 'leader' differently. I saw no crown, no lifetime seat of power, no divine right... he isn't a king nor is he treated like one.
 
I'd say remove second-term inaugural ceremonies. They're just plain redundant.
 
I think its an important ceremony to celebrate 220 year record of a peaceful transfer of power from one leader to the next
 
Oh but he is the Leader of the Free World. If he doesn't use our national resolve, might and economic clout it won't get done. Time and time again until our President stands up the other nations just mill around. Bosnia comes to mind in the modern era. When we with hold our signature on a treaty or agreement that document is crippled. Congress has over the years abdicated much of it's power to the President. you do know about the war powers act and how easily BushII got his war in iraq. Congress, even under GOP control still had the power to block the war, what it lacked was the political will.

When pointing out our continued military operations around the world, please remember the man being sworn in today is called the Commander in Chief, he who sits in the CiC seat is very much the leader, though not King.

Now I said LEADER of the free world, not KING of the USofA. I didn't say he held absolute power, but he is the leader, like it or no. I do understand some on the left wing see the pomp and pageantry of a democracy celebrating a peaceful second term of it's first minority President as 'fawning' as if for a British monarch, and I do realize lots of people draw the line between 'king' and 'leader' differently. I saw no crown, no lifetime seat of power, no divine right... he isn't a king nor is he treated like one.

He's not even "leader" of the US. Just a cog in the machine of government. But some of y'all most certainly want to anoint our President as "Leader of the Free World" some supposed authority figure to watch over the world and keep people in line. It's not our job, and we sure as hell ain't getting paid by other nations to do it.

The President is just a dude, just one guy. We don't need to spend the money we spend on the hoopla and pageantry of inauguration. It should be televised, President can give a speech; but we don't need the rock and roll show that accompanies this BS.
 
Sounds like somebody is bitter that their candidate wasn't being sworn in.
 
I think its an important ceremony to celebrate 220 year record of a peaceful transfer of power from one leader to the next

So have a swearing in cermemony and a speech and be done. Why does there have to be an entire day of festivites? I wonder how the soldiers fighting in Afghanistan feel watching the Commander dance while they fight, and the media fawning over Michelles dress instead of their war.
 
So have a swearing in cermemony and a speech and be done. Why does there have to be an entire day of festivites? I wonder how the soldiers fighting in Afghanistan feel watching the Commander dance while they fight, and the media fawning over Michelles dress instead of their war.

Last night they seemed to enjoy it just fine. So apparently did the couple that I occasionally talk to (her husband was in Afghanistan), when they were at the ball last night.
 
Last night they seemed to enjoy it just fine. So apparently did the couple that I occasionally talk to (her husband was in Afghanistan), when they were at the ball last night.

The ones who arent in Afghanistan. The ones over there were probably too busy.

A nine-hour gun battle raged through the heart of Kabul on Monday, leaving at least seven dead and eight wounded. The latest attack, claimed by the Taliban, shows a defiant insurgency that may not be taking a break for winter

Read more: Attacks Hit Kabul During Inauguration - Business Insider
 
So have a swearing in cermemony and a speech and be done. Why does there have to be an entire day of festivites? I wonder how the soldiers fighting in Afghanistan feel watching the Commander dance while they fight, and the media fawning over Michelles dress instead of their war.

I think its an important ceremony to celebrate a 220 year record of a peaceful transfer of power from one leader to the next.
 
The ones who arent in Afghanistan. The ones over there were probably too busy.

I'm not suggesting that all soldiers are completely pleased to be where they are. What I am suggesting is that you're being mighty selective, considering that all Presidents of the United States have had inaugurals and celebrations. It strikes as partisan rancor and desperation for a point.
 
President is not King and we shouldn't treat him as one. The fanfare we seemingly have over this is reminiscent of England's fawning over their royalty. President is just a dude, another American ideal.

While you may think this is Julius or Augustus Caesar receiving a triumph, you also have to keep in mind that public appearances are also a sign of democratic or populist virtue. Many Royalty think it beneath them to appear before the public or be interviewed for the public. Many of the inaugural changes resulted in an attempt to decrease, rather than increase, the aristocratic and/or monarchical nature of prior balls and whatnot. Washington had that aura about him where people were still murky in how to address him in such social gatherings, as he was quite a bit more fond of courtly protocol than any President since.
 
Last edited:
I'm not suggesting that all soldiers are completely pleased to be where they are. What I am suggesting is that you're being mighty selective, considering that all Presidents of the United States have had inaugurals and celebrations. It strikes as partisan rancor and desperation for a point.

Right is right.
 
I think its an important ceremony to celebrate a 220 year record of a peaceful transfer of power from one leader to the next.

And I dont. That is nothing special for the US. Now, pay off the debt, and then we can have a celebration as that would be truly unique.
 
I think it would be nice, for tradition's sake to have a small ceremony or whatever, but there's far too much money being spent on the inauguration.

Then again, no matter who is president, there are always vehement supporters and they want a big celebration. That's just natural.
 
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.

when it looks like a coronation like Barrack Hussein Obama Hell Yes.
 
Back
Top Bottom