wayneL
VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!
- Joined
- 9 July 2004
- Posts
- 25,961
- Reactions
- 13,264
Wayne
that's your opinion - ok?
just one man's opinion
gordon2007,
I agree. I resent having US politics shoved down my throat ad nauseum. If there are agendas out there, is there an agenda in that? I'd much prefer to hear how the Tories have Gordon McBean on a skewer.
Soooooo... the anti-Islamists never talk about Islam?That's kind of my point, but not quite. Who's doing the shoving though? Certainly you cant' blame the yanks for the local presses here covering it so much. You say you don't like it being shoved down your throat yet you (not picking on you specifically) add your two cents to this thread.
I don't care that there is a thread on american politics. The earlier post was not a complaint about american politics or this thread. Certainly one needs to talk about more than just the stock market.
It just amazes me though that people can be so anti american yet they still cannot help themselves to talk so much about america.
Once again,
Why does it matter? Even if it were my country, or i could vote.
Presidents have no real power anyway. They are controlled by big business with vested interests.
Doris (or others), can you please explain how Obama will be any different?
A president is just a public face who has no real influence over anything
Well I guess every messiah cops a bit of a shellacking.Ah Prawn, such unwarranted cynicism! What is wrong with you?
This is pretty much like the Second Coming. Where's your sense of messianic zeal?
prawn,Once again,
Why does it matter? Even if it were my country, or i could vote.
Presidents have no real power anyway. They are controlled by big business with vested interests.
Doris (or others), can you please explain how Obama will be any different?
A president is just a public face who has no real influence over anything
Yet by the late twentieth century, U.S. presidents had successfully asserted that this title empowered them to order American forces into battle even if Congress had not used its undoubted constitutional right to decide whether or not to declare war
US History Encyclopedia: U.S President
The president of the United States is by far the best known politician both within the United States and around the world. Americans who struggle to recall the name of their representative, senator, or governor almost certainly know the name of the president. Citizens of other countries from Iraq to China, Australia to Russia, are generally familiar with the president's name and photograph and have an opinion on his performance in office. The fame that U.S. presidents enjoy today is appropriate, for the person who holds that office is at the center of both American politics and world affairs. Yet the president is not all-powerful at home or abroad. U.S. presidents are of ten frustrated overseas (for example, in their attempts to bring peace to the Middle East or Northern Ireland), and domestically it is well to remember that, as the political scientist Charles O. Jones has emphasized, the United States does not have a presidential system of government in the sense that presidents are free to make and implement policy.
Powers of the Office
The Constitution, as is well known, created a system of checks and balances to prevent tyrannical government. The political scientist Richard Neustadt correctly noted that the Constitution did not create a system of separated powers favored by theorists such as Montesquieu, in which legislative, judicial, and executive powers were kept separate from one another. Rather, the Constitution gave pieces of all these powers to all branches of government. The power to oversee the departments and agencies of the federal government is given to Congress and the courts as well as to the president; Congress as well as the president is involved in foreign policy through Congress's powers to block the appointment of ambassadors and decide whether to accept or reject treaties, and through its general power of the purse through which it decides how much, if at all, to fund policies proposed by the president and his officers.
The Constitution is also particularly brief and ambiguous in describing the powers of the president. The president is given the rights to nominate ambassadors and other officers of the United States and to require their opinions in writing, to veto legislation (subject to override by a two-thirds majority), to report on the state of the union, to negotiate treaties, and to be commander in chief. The Constitution therefore provides a mixture of both precise and ambiguous powers to the president. There was no doubt from the earliest years of the republic that the power to veto legislation provided presidents with an enormously valuable bargaining chip in the legislative process.
In the case of other Constitutional grants of power, it has taken many years of practice and interpretation to define what they mean. At the time the Constitution was written, the role of the British king as commander in chief had become merely ceremonial and honorific. Yet by the late twentieth century, U.S. presidents had successfully asserted that this title empowered them to order American forces into battle even if Congress had not used its undoubted constitutional right to decide whether or not to declare war.In the Cold War nuclear era, the implications were sobering.
On a less dramatic level, the question of which officers and officials of the United States the president can not only appoint but dismiss is similarly ambiguous in the Constitution. The matter was not fully settled by the Supreme Court until the twentieth century; for example, the president can fire the Attorney General or the Secretary of State, but cannot fire members of independent regulatory commissions or independent counsels. In important respects, therefore, the powers of the president have accumulated over the centuries rather than invariably originating unambiguously from the Constitution.
The Constitution gave the president one enormous advantage compared with the other two branches of government, namely the singularity of the office. Power in Congress is widely fragmented between two chambers and among numerous committees, subcommittees, and part leaders. Individual legislators are hesitant to grant much of their own power to anyone. The president in contrast enjoys a solitary splendor. As Alexander Hamilton recognized in the Federalist Papers, the president is much better placed to act with speed and dispatch in making decisions than the fragmented Congress. The president's bargaining position with Congress is also enhanced by its divisions and his singularity.
Presidents enjoy one important advantage because of a constitutional practice rather than the Constitution as such. The president is uniquely positioned to claim to be the person who can speak for the United States and the national interest, particularly during crises and emergencies.
This reflects the fact that, contrary to the plan for electing the president set out in the Constitution, the president is in practice elected directly by the people voting state by state. Thus the president can claim with some plausibility to be the only politician to have been elected by all the people, in contrast to legislators elected by a single state or district. Yet all these Constitutional advantages must be set against the constraints the Constitution provides and that we have discussed above. The most obvious are worth reiterating. Presidents cannot legislate without Congress.
Presidents cannot even implement established policies unless Congress, which has the power of the purse, provides the funding. The contrast with a prime minister who can rely on a disciplined parliamentary majority (as is generally the case in Great Britain) is striking. etc
Fortunately for presidents, they enjoy a number of advantages not enumerated in the Constitution to help them in their attempts to persuade. Particularly in times of acute crisis, such as the beginning of a war, the president's dual role as head of state as well as head of government causes a "rally effect" in which the public and other politicians unite in support of the nation's leader. Presidents can reward support with government contracts for the legislator's constituency, appointments for friends, or support for the legislator's own favorite proposal. Most importantly, presidents have the ability to "go public" in the words of Samuel Kernell, appealing to the public for support over the heads of other politicians. The rise of the electronic media, first radio and then television, has enabled presidents to establish a direct, almost personal relationship with voters that skilled presidents such as Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton have used to good effect. It is probably advisable for presidents to use this tactic on a limited number of important issues lest it lose its impact. If used wisely, it can be decisive.
Once again,
Why does it matter? Even if it were my country, or i could vote.
Presidents have no real power anyway. They are controlled by big business with vested interests.
Doris (or others), can you please explain how Obama will be any different?
A president is just a public face who has no real influence over anything
Doris
Barack certainly seems the "cooler under stress" (recent accusations about health policies - and responses thereto etc)
:topicYou are spot on 2020! Is this a male thing?
I find myself embarrassed at times when the 'feminine' emotional ploys are applied as mean and nasty.
Today was tough for me with a feral, testosterone-infested adolescent surreptitiously stealing a small bird's eye chilli from my cookery demo bench and eating it to show off to his mates... then rubbing his eyes when they watered!
I took a leaf out of Obama's book and calmly led him to a sink, wet his hands, sprinkled salt over them for him to rub it in, then held his head forward as I scooped water to wash out his eyes. Entertaining for the class and a lesson for him.
Yes... 'cooler under stress' is a good trait to have... in many areas of life!
:topic
doris, sounds like you could have poured a bucket of water over his head - then He'd have been a bit cooler under stress as well
PS thanks for the updates.
PS My guess is that only a few are reading this thread though lol - or caring who wins.
One theory about the apparent lack of interest could be that we're all so happy to see the end of GWB, that any which way, the world will win
I think I'm agreeing with you though - Hillary is showing her claws a little too often.
She could take a leaf out of Penny Wong's book to advantage. - downright freezing under stress
Or not, as the case may be.Next Wednesday will incite interest again...
Why not?I personally wouldn't recommend the US type.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?