Is it the president's job to fundamentally change the country, or to ensure that executive branch agencies like the VA, CDC, ICE, IRS, Secret Service etc function smoothly?
23% idiots so far.
To many Presidents try to legislate from the Oval Office. That's not their job.
It occurred to me today that everyone took for granted that he would run the country properly while working for the promised "change." I think what a lot of us thought from the start has become obvious. He wasn't competent to run the executive branch
to begin with.
His first job is to protect our nation from outside invasions, including ebola and terrorists. He is also charged to uphold, protect, and abide by the Constitution.
So, its presidential failure that left us with kudzu, winged euonymus, oriental bittersweet, brown marmorated stink bug, garlic mustard, Norway maple, Japanese barberry, emerald ash borer, and chestnut blight? I mean, if you consider preventing
the introduction of non-native organisms to be a presidential duty...
Garlic & mustard too??? You've got to be kidding, both are great things to have. Besides your list doesn't infect, rob or kill people, which is an important part of the criteria. I should have been more specific.
Garlic mustard, Alliaria petiolata, an allelopathic invasive biennial that is destroying the understory ecosystem of forests throughout the US. But if it's the president's job to protect us only from organisms dangerous to our health, is it his job
to stop the flu before it arrives on our shores each year?
I mean, I don't disagree that it's the president's and generally the government's job to protect the country from terrorism, but it's not really on the president's shoulders to stop Ebola. That's the job of our health system.
His job is to lie enough to get reelected. Then his job is just to build his presidential library whilst adding to the size and power of the federal government as much as he can. The bigger the government and the more agencies it has then
....then obviously the more work he did while president and more compassionate and caring and loving and yada yada yada he is.
Aren't those the same?
No, they are not the same. The job of the POTUS is to maintain the executive branch (White House, IRS, CIA, EPA...every federal office) foreign affairs, military and WORK with congress to as the 3rd equal branch to get the country on track.
He is supposed to ensure the laws are followed. Executive orders are made to make changes in federal policies.
He refuses to work with congress (republicans). So he acts more like a dictator than a president with "pen and phone".
To "fundamentally change" the country, is to rebuild the country as we know it, from the base, into what he feels the country "should be". Taking little regard for others, imposing himself upon all levels of government to conform.
Like a CEO at a company, Presidents set direction for the country. It's the political capital of the office and it's been that way since Washington was sworn in.
You are confusing CEO with COO, CEO is head of the company and the board. While COO is elected by the board to run operations, the board is reported to by the COO and then the board speaks to the shareholders.
And the all report to the CEO. Who sets direction. The other execs can bring him information, but it all rolls up to him. The directors can remove him if they don't like the results. But the direction and the tone are set by the CEO.
Read the oath of office. It is pretty clear.
You're a "stay in your box" kind of guy aren't you?
Lol stay in my box kinda guy Huh? I venture from time to time, but if you are suggesting that I am the kind of guy that stays his course, yes. Don't tell me you are one of those who changes according to your mood or current flow of events?
Tell me, who do you believe me to be? My personality type?
Don't forget to explain how on this topic, I am staying in my box. I'm sitting here trying to figure out how the POTUS's oath of office is somehow subject to interpretation, you know, outside the box it originally came in.
"He refuses to work with congress (republicans)."
Well, that's one hell of a rewriting of recent history.
Congress passes a jobs bill, that concludes his working with republicans
What else has he done? Does a great leader publicly vilify the opposing side?
Tell me, how many republican bills has you man Harry Reid put to the floor?
I mention Mr Reid, because he is the Obama puppet
I don't have a man named Harry Reid, so I can't really speak for him. How many compromises has Obama offered to Republicans in congress only to have them refuse to come to the table? Congressional Republicans have made a farce of the government by
I'm sure your version of recent historic events, can be summed up in an MSNBC or CNN journalistic documentary.
Obama doesn't bring "offers", he brings ultimatums. It is either his way or the pen.
All he ever talks about is bypassing congress
focusing all of their energy, from day one, on opposing everything about the current president, i.e. these people that morons have elected are spending their time (for which we all pay them) to act like a bunch of snotty fucking middle-schoolers who
He has never had any intentions of working with republicans.
are upset about the person chosen to walk at the front of the line on the way to the class field day. They even publicly declared that their goal, as soon as he was elected, was to make sure that he could get nothing done so he wouldn't be reelected.
Republicans have out many bills on the table, those of which Harry Reid refuses to bring and obama claims (for most) he will not support.
Who are you quoting that said this?
Or is this the collective assumption of the liberal party?
Or do you not remember the last 5 years? Seriously, for a while, the democrats seemed to have an exclusive claim on bratty uselessness, but in the last 5 years, republicans have taken whiny obstinance to entirely new levels.
See what you did there? You made false claim. I'll save you the energy and time, it was Joe Biden saying he "heard" Mitch McConnell say "joe, I'm sorry but I won't be able to help you".
Maybe at some point a republican has said something on those lines, but your claim that it was publicly cried out that republicans vowed to shoot down the ideas with no consideration...you are losing credibility by this.
Have republicans in part been partisan? Absolutely. But your claim is a far cry from true.
Whiney obstinance? We have a senate who votes on party lines, with little acception, they are nothing more than yes men to the president. That why they are distancing themselves from Obama in the mid terms.
Tell me about the senate nuclear option?
And you are going to tell me the republicans are being obstructing?
I will give you this, republicans are divisive amongst themselves, which isn't helping their cause at all. Democrats, even though not one can think for themselves, are at least for the most part United.
I'm not referring to whatever muddled imaginings Biden has conjured up, in referring to things like McConnell's comments to National Journal and Cantor's cahootzing with Ryan and Limbaugh.
So McConnell's comments on the EPA is what has you missing sleep at night?
Oops, did I say Limbaugh? I meant Gingrich. Those fat, red-faced blowhards all look the same to me.
I was about to denounce Limbaugh. He is the worst example. I have little respect for him after some the comments he has made.
Are you dodging my question about nuclear option?
That was im unprecedented. It was for the sole purpose of silencing the republicans.
*im was a typo
Watch the news, you'll see all of the democrats that are up for reelection, who each voted on party line with Obama policies, trying there best to distance themselves to win. Obama is poison this election cycle...
...it's difficult for a candidate to win when they run on the policies of our Golfer in Chief.
Arcto you are absolutely deluded if you believe that Obama has brought even one "compromise" to the Republican Party.
It's his job to better the state of the country.
I don't see anything in the oath if office or in the responsibilities listed in the constitution to suggest that. The closest thing is "to provide for the general welfare," which I doubt anyone would say is synonymous with "fundamental change."
Both and more
Can you point me to any kind of authority for the former?
I'm sure it's buried in an executive order somewhere. :-)