Ar trebui sa fie un exercitiu democratic prin care ne asumam o vizine politica si constructia acesteia intr-o perioada de 5 ani. Ar trebui sa fie un "buy-in" democratic al cetateanului de rand in vitorul tarii.Aceasta viziune politica acopera toate aspectele sociale inclusiv cel militar. Asta zice teoria generala a statului si dreptului.Ca de obicei realitatea romaneasca cu teoria consitutionalismului se intalnesc precum sinele de cale ferata. Actualul ocupant de tron cincinal a promis ca el nu va acorda grade de general pe ochi frumosi si va acorda aceste grade doar celor ce "au pus piciorul in teatre de operatiuni"- citat aproximativ, exista declaratia completa pe internet.Am vrut sa cred in principiu, nu vedeam cum un general al justitiei militare ar calca prin teatre ori un general de medicina militara, insa din tot adinsul am vrut sa cred principiul in sine.M-am bucurat in schimb ca functia de sef SMG este acordata prin rotativa unui reprezentant al categoriilor de forte, m-au intristat teribil nominalizarile in schimb. Sunt curios cum va influenta sns-ul viitorul presedinte...
Mda, ar trebui, dar nivelul nostru de cultură politică nu ne permite să vedem mai departe de simpatii sau antipatii faţă de candidaţi sau formaţiunile politice din care provin. Probabil că, pe măsură ce data alegerilor se va apropia, se va ajunge iar la replici dure, jignitoare, la ironizarea celor care au anumite simpatii politice şi încercări de campanie electorală gratuită (sau nu?). Într-o Românie în care puţini cetăţeni mai văd dincolo de "ziua de azi" este periculos să comentezi subiecte politice. Cam la fel ca şi discutarea dogmelor religioase.
Am mai trecut prin campanii electorale si am supravietuit ,oricum dracu' nu-i atit de negru :
Daca ar umbla prin tara , nu cu jumatati de masura ci cu o frumoasa si solida bara de inox , pun pariu ca ar iesi coana lenuta prezidenta inca din primul tur ..
" Gestul necontrolat pe care Elena Udrea l-a făcut în faţa unui alegător Elena Udrea a început băile de mulţime. Aflată la festivalul “Toamna Severineana”, în timpul unei vizite electorale la Drobeta Turnu Severin, Elena Udrea şi-a aranjat sutienul chiar în timp ce vorbea cu unul dintre simpatizanţi. LINK
P.S.Ei problema se poate pune şi altfel....dacă cel care iese preşedinte se pişă pe votul tău şi mai aprobă, că de nu are ce face (sanchi) şi mai aprobă enşpe mii de taxe.....cum este?Sau el are dreptul că-i democraţie!
Apropos, o viziune interesanta a functiei presedentiale in raport cu armata: Does military service still matter for the presidency?
By John Nagl May 25, 2012 In every presidential election since 1992, the candidate with the less distinguished military résumé has triumphed.
Bill Clinton defeated war heroes George H.W. Bush and Bob Dole; National Guard pilot George W. Bush beat Vietnam veterans Al Gore and John Kerry; and Barack Obama was decisively elected over John McCain, who had displayed extraordinary valor during years of captivity as a Navy pilot in North Vietnam.
In 2012, we won’t have the chance to test this trend: For the first time in modern American history, neither major candidate for the presidency has any military experience.
This is a dramatic change. The crucible of combat not only created these United States but has also given us many of our most successful presidents.
Our first president, and still the greatest of all Americans, was a general before he was elected; George Washington’s leadership of the Continental Army proved that he could handle the challenges of a newborn nation. William Henry Harrison’s short presidency was based in no small part on his victory over the Shawnee Indians at the Battle of Tippecanoe; with Vice President John Tyler, he won on the slogan “Tippecanoe and Tyler, too.” The presidency of Ulysses S. Grant, though marked by scandal,would never have been but for his steady generalship in America’s bloodiest conflict.
Harry Trumancame to prominence as the commander of a National Guard artillery battery in the First World War in France; his performance in combat powered his rise to the Oval Office. Service in World War II gave the nation not just Dwight D. Eisenhower but also John F. Kennedy, whose heroism as a PT boat skipper in the Pacific was a counterpoint to Eisenhower’s leadership of a great alliance in Europe.
Games - Click Here for More! Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush all served in uniform during World War II, while Jimmy Carter, too young for that conflict, graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy and served aboard nuclear submarines during the Cold War.
But today, the connection between service in war and election to the highest office in the land has been severed.
How we got here is difficult to ascertain. The sample size of presidential elections is small, and military service is far from the only factor that voters consider. Yet the 2012 White House hopefuls reflect a broader truth: Even in a country waging what seems to be a forever war, military service is increasingly limited to a small swath of volunteers, widely admired but little known.
Early in our nation’s history, Americans fought to claim a continent both from its native inhabitants and from foreign powers that coveted its riches. Fighting for the country was a regular part of the American experience, and excellence in that service was one way to demonstrate leadership to the nation. The pool of citizens who were veterans was broadened by the draft during the Civil War and both World Wars, increasing the number of political candidates with military service and the connection voters felt to contenders with whom they had shared the experience of combat. Everyone respected those who had served — and perhaps even looked down a bit on those who had not been a part of America’s battles.
That relationship broke down during the Vietnam War, when not all segments of society were called upon to fight. When Johnson chose not to mobilize the National Guard for combat duty, it became a refuge for the sons of the elite who were avoiding war. James Fallows has written, movingly and guiltily, of how the most privileged Americans found ways to avoid the draft, sending the less fortunate to war in their place.
Games - Click Here for More! The long conflict in Southeast Asia tore the United States in two, destroying an effective consensus about the use of American power abroad. The soldier became the symbol of an unpopular war. Presidential candidates who had answered the nation’s call struggled to connect with voters who often hated the war that had helped form them. Gore played down his service in Vietnam during his bid for the White House, while Kerry’s service became a liability; although he was one of a few candidates to have been wounded in combat, he was “swift boated” by opponents who questioned some details of his service. No American veteran of any earlier war, let alone another recipient of several Purple Heart medals, would have been treated this way.
But this black mark on America’s treatment of its veterans is fading. In the wake of Vietnam, the country chose to meet its national security needs with a force composed entirely of professionals who had volunteered for duty. This force has proved enormously capable — triumphing in Desert Storm, easily defeating both the Taliban rulers and Saddam Hussein’s army, and demonstrating adaptability when performing counterinsurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan. No one who has served in today’s military would countenance a return to the draft and a force composed at least in part of Americans compelled to serve. The small size of the military relative to the population — well under 1 percent — makes broadening the service base both unnecessary and unlikely.
But there are costs to this all-volunteer military that are not immediately apparent, even on this weekend dedicated to remembering its sacrifices. The disconnect between those who give the orders and those who have no choice but to follow them has never been wider; all Americans salute the same flag, but only a few carry it forward against enemy fire. The military has become a caste apart from the nation it protects, with many of its fighters the sons and daughters of military leaders — a family business that asks much of a few. Service academy alumni journals are full of photos of multi-generational family reunions in combat zones, while most of us do no more to support the troops than stand, remove our caps and cheer when they present the national colors before a baseball game.
Now, nearly 30 years into this experiment with an all-volunteer force, and more than a decade into America’s longest war, the nation will elect a president who has not known the tender courtesies of a drill sergeant at oh-dark-thirty in the morning. Military service is not the only way to demonstrate dedication to country or capability for high office, of course; Franklin Delano Roosevelt was one of our greatest presidents despite never wearing a uniform, although his appointment as assistant secretary of the Navy gave him a useful perspective on the military he would lead with such distinction.
Both President Obama and Mitt Romney have demonstrated impressive leadership in government, education and business. Obama’s bona fides as commander in chief are clear; he has shown his resolve in the pursuit of Osama bin Laden and the effective dismantling of al-Qaeda during his administration. The first lady’s dedication to military families, worn down after years of war, is exemplary.
Still, the choice to take the nation to war is the most important decision a president can make. A commander in chief who has actually served on the battlefield has peerless personal experience and can make that decision with greater empathy.
And after this election, there will be a new generation waiting to enter the political arena, veterans of a tough decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Unlike those who fought in Vietnam, the veterans of these wars have been embraced by an American public that supports the troops, even if they oppose the conflicts in which they fought. The admiration offered to today’s veterans bodes well for the prospects of future political candidates who have known firsthand the burden of carrying out the orders of the president abroad.
Wars have given the United States many of its most important political leaders, and we can expect those who have led this country’s sons and daughters in the sands of Anbar province and the mountains of the Hindu Kush to turn their sights to the highest office in the land in years to come.
When they do, these veterans will lead the nation back to its foundations. Forged in war, they will work to build a better peace.
John Nagl, a retired Army officer, is the Minerva professor at the U.S. Naval Academy and a veteran of both wars in Iraq. He is the author of “Learning to Eat Soup With a Knife: Counterinsurgency Lessons From Malaya and Vietnam.”
Ăsta da "primar"! Asta da organizare de alegeri prezidenţiale
Vot în cimitir
Situaţie inedită în comuna Vultureşti, din judeţul Suceava, unde în satul Mereşti, secţia de votare va fi realizată în prăznicarul situat în cimitirul satului.
„Ducă-se pe pustie”… şi o cruce mare - e una dintre reacţiile bâtrânilor din sat, cărora le-am dat vestea duminică, taman când ieşeau de la biserică. Decizia e oficială, deşi numai un vot al Consiliului parohial ar fi îndeptăţit la luarea unei astfel de hotărâri, iar oamenii nu au fost consultaţi chiar în situaţia în care prăznicarul e făcut prin contribuţia comunităţii, şi aparţine ei.
Mai mult chiar, dacă va exista un decedat în sat, în intervalul alocat pregătirii şi organizării alegerilor, e posibil să apară situaţia în care, deşi a contribuit la realizarea prăznicarului, familia decedatului să nu poată realiza praznicul în singurul spaţiu din sat pretabil la aşa ceva.
De ce s-a ajuns aici? – vă întrebaţi şi dvs. fireşte. Comuna Vultureşti nu a reuşit să se mobilizeze în atragerea de fonduri şi nici în realizarea unor investiţii absolute necesare – reţea de apă şi canalizare, asfaltarea măcar a drumului principal, reparaţia cămunului cultural vechi dacă nu construirea unuia nou şi aşa mai departe.
Mai mult chiar, la Mereşti, comuna Vultureşti se mai înregistrează un record nedorit: ambele şcoli s-au desfiinţat şi s-au transformat în cârciumi, printr-o mişcare despre care nu discutăm astăzi, dar promitem să revenim.
Cum alte clădiri în afara caselor de locuit nu prea mai sunt, s-a ajuns la situaţia în care duminică, populaţia din Mereşti va merge să-şi exprime liber alegerea… în cimitir.
Procesul de vot, e un act care trebuie exercitat cu maximă răspundere, dar capătă la Mereşti o conotaţie aparte prin poziţionarea secţiei de vot într-un spaţiu privat, în prăznicar.
Ne exprimăm speranţa că şi în această situaţie votarea se va desfăşura în bune condiţii, iar după votare se vor găsi insituţii care să cerceteze şi povestea cu transformarea şcolilor în cârciumi şi cea cu abuzul de a fi decis utilizarea unui spaţiu care nu-ţi aparţine fără acceptul proprietarului.
Duminică în satul Mereşti, comuna Vultureşti, judeţul Suceava sătenii vor aprinde o lumânare pentru morţi şi vii, vor spune un „Doamne ajută!” şi vor merge la vot cu speranţa că viitorul le va aduce întâmplări mai bune.
Nu am inteles NIMIC din aceasta campanie electorala A fost o continua porcaiala, numai denigrarea adversarilor. A zis cineva ce vrea sa faca in limitele constitutionale ale prerogativelor de presedinte? Ca in afara de ordine si medalii, presedintele nu poate imparti nimic (iar daca Guvernul nu-i da buget, nici p'alea nu le poate da), sa nu mai zic ca nu are drept de masuri ce tin de executiv. Este un fel de arbitru in societate, care poate fi bagat in seama sau ignorat. Conteaza Guvernul, care este executivul (ala cu banii), si Parlamentul, care este legislativul (care face regulile jocului). De ce se lupta atata pentru functia asta mai mult decorativa, pentru ce se cheltuie milioane de euro in campaniile prezidentiale (data trecuta Basescu a cheltuit 14,9 milioane RON, Geoana 12,5)??? Cum si cine ii recupereaza, sub ce forma? Cat din banii astia sunt de la buget, adica de la noi toti? In cate comune s-ar baga apa si canal de banii astia, poate si ceva asfalt, mai ales in alea care au deja sali de sport? Stiu, sunt intrebari retorice...
Forums
! 
