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?
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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."
Comments: Add Comment