Presidential Address

[DinoDoc]

Do we? If the public had an agreed upon vision they would be able to elect a president and a congress that share that vision. The president isn't elected to be a dictator who pushes through a program that only half of the country wants.

I'm curious if he's actually a fascist given his attraction to strongman politics and contempt for normal democratic checks on Presidential power.

[Kidlicious]

I'm curious if he's actually a fascist given his attraction to strongman politics and contempt for normal democratic checks on Presidential power.

A person either has principles or they don't. If you don't anything is possible.

[kentonio]

Congress has been obstructing the president for a long time. Granted the repugs have taken it to a new level, but that's how it's set up,
All the checks and balances were basically designed to minimize the ability to make changes.

The system stops working when it's used the way it has been. Isn't the congressional approval rate and more importantly how long it's been so low now a clear sign that something is going very, very wrong?

Do we? If the public had an agreed upon vision they would be able to elect a president and a congress that share that vision. The president isn't elected to be a dictator who pushes through a program that only half of the country wants.

So you're saying that the party that lost the popular vote for congress by over a million votes, the presidency by 5 million and the senate by 10 million should in fact be able to stop the other party from enacting any of the legislation that they campaigned on and received mandates from the public for?

Cool, get ready for America to never get any form of clear governance in future then, until the public get pissed off and provide someone with a supermajority that they will then use to really, really disenfranchise their political rivals. Because that's why this is so ****ing stupid, and why it's so frustrating that people keep pretending this is just 'how the American system works'. Complete bull****, it was never designed to be misused like this.

Not disfunctional. That's already been explained to you.

I have no interest in being 'explained' to by someone who cannot spell dysfunctional.

[Guynemer]

You've never had a party use the system in the way it's currently being (ab)used. The idea that whats been happening over the last 5 years is somehow normal is completely laughable. Even in the supposedly civilized senate, the fillibuster was abused to the point of ridiculousness.

You elect a president to drive forward a vision for the country. He's won twice now and has had every damn thing he's tried to do, big or small, obstructed by the opposition. This is utterly dysfunctional, and it's appalling that so many people here are fine with it.

Then again I suppose you get the government you deserve.

All of this is precisely true (except for the bit that "so many people here are fine with it"), but means sweet **** all when it comes to the Constitution. Sorry. This is the pit our elected representatives have driven us into, and it is unlikely we will find our way out.

[Guynemer]

The system stops working when it's used the way it has been. Isn't the congressional approval rate and more importantly how long it's been so low now a clear sign that something is going very, very wrong?

Congress has ALWAYS had a low approval rate; yes, it is as low as it has even been, but it is usually sub-30. BUT, ask people how they feel about their OWN congressperson, and you're likely to get a 60-70% approval rate. "It isn't my guy who is ****ing things up, it is all those other bozos that get elected by all those idiots who live elsewhere." That's why Congress has a >90% retention rate. (And, of course, our insane campaign finance system.)

[Ban Kenobi]

So you're saying that the party that lost the popular vote for congress by over a million votes, the presidency by 5 million and the senate by 10 million should in fact be able to stop the other party from enacting any of the legislation that they campaigned on and received mandates from the public for?

Cool, get ready for America to never get any form of clear governance in future then, until the public get pissed off and provide someone with a supermajority that they will then use to really, really disenfranchise their political rivals. Because that's why this is so ****ing stupid, and why it's so frustrating that people keep pretending this is just 'how the American system works'. Complete bull****, it was never designed to be misused like this.

Presidential elections are usually won or lost by a margin of several million votes. That doesn't mean they should be a winner-take-all affair where the winning faction gets dictatorial power for the next four years. It may be stupid that a party that loses the popular vote still controls the House of Representatives, but that doesn't completely remove its legitimacy as a political institution. And the current dysfunctional state of government is abhorrent, but the fact remains that when the government is divided the different factions are supposed to work out some sort of compromise, rather than having the slightly stronger faction strong-arm everyone else into doing whatever it wants.

I have no interest in being 'explained' to by someone who cannot spell dysfunctional.

[kentonio]

And the current dysfunctional state of government is abhorrent, but the fact remains that when the government is divided the different factions are supposed to work out some sort of compromise, rather than having the slightly stronger faction strong-arm everyone else into doing whatever it wants.

Well yeah, that's the point. The system was constructed by people who genuinely believed that political factions would compromise and put country before party. If that stops happening then the system stops working properly.

[Ban Kenobi]

If Obama just starts doing whatever he wants, that'll set a bad precedent if a Republican president is ever elected again.

[Patroklos]

What I think is more funny is that when someone disagree with the President they are obstructionist, when one person disagrees with Congress he is a divine king foiled by Satan.

Not everybody agrees with Obama, boo hoo.

[N35t0r]

Yeah, they'll probably go and invade a country or two.


Oh wait.

[Ban Kenobi]

Yeah, they'll probably go and invade a country or two.


Oh wait.

Can you imagine the hissy fit conservatives would have had if the Democrats had been smart enough to filibuster the Iraq War?

[Guynemer]

What I think is more funny is that when someone disagree with the President they are obstructionist, when one person disagrees with Congress he is a divine king foiled by Satan.

Not everybody agrees with Obama, boo hoo.

[Kidlicious]

Our system was designed under the principle of "Don't Tread on me," out of respect for the minority party. It was designed for a peaceful union, not this.

[Kidlicious]

Can you imagine the hissy fit conservatives would have had if the Democrats had been smart enough to filibuster the Iraq War?

Ask yourself why didn't they.

[kentonio]

Our system was designed under the principle of "Don't Tread on me," out of respect for the minority party. It was designed for a peaceful union, not this.

Couldn't agree more.