Presidents Are Not Kings, Despite Trump's Attempts

[MineralMan]

Presidents are supposed to have limited powers. That has changed somewhat, but still remains true. Presidents can only spend money that the Congress allows. Presidents cannot make laws. That requires Congress as well.

That's why electing a "revolutionary" as President would change nothing more than electing a liberal progressive as President. The USA doesn't make sweeping changes in one presidential term in office. Our government wasn't designed to allow that. No President can force Congress to do anything it doesn't want to do.

Trump took a stab at forcing things past Congress. Mostly, he lost those attempts. In 2018, he lost the House of Representatives to Democrats, who impeached him to demonstrate their power.

We won't elect a "revolutionary" President in 2020, either. Collectively, we know better than that. When we elect progressive Democrats as our Presidents and elect Democrats to majorities in Congress, progress gets made. That is what we need to do in 2020.


Biden 2020!
You Go, Joe!

[NurseJackie]

1. Bernie's "revolution" is pure fantasy. It will never happen.

C'MON! GET IN! We're taking back America!





Joe/Kamala or Biden/Harris 2020!!
Jump on the Biden Bandwagon & abandon the revolution!!

[MineralMan]

2. Exactly. Bernie Sanders is really a throwback to the 1960s.

Since those days, the largest socialistic nation, the USSR, no longer exists. China still exists, but none of us want to move to China. Cuba's still around, but most of us wouldn't move there, either.

Bernie Sanders is still spouting slogans from the 1960s, barely altered at all. His world view has never evolved out of that period. I know that, because I was a wild-eyed revolutionary myself back then in many ways

That stuff never did work. It failed, instead. We have some countries that have adopted a sort of almalgam of market economy, mixed with some socialistic features. I'd like to see us do that, but the old Marxist/Leninist crap was never a viable prescription for society.

We could do a lot better, but not by looking back in time to the first half of the 20th century. We know better now. We have models we can use that are actually working pretty well. I think we should see about adopting some of those models' methods.

We don't need a Revolution. We need more and better-guided Evolution.

[PatSeg]

3. I think a major problem with a lot of Democratic voters,

is they tend to look to a president as some sort of savior. An all powerful being who is going to inspire them and transform their world, rather than look for a competent, experienced leader, who they might not fall in love with. I often hear people refer to a popular politician as the "next FDR" or the "next Bobby Kennedy", but there was only one FDR or RFK and they were leaders for their time, not this time.

For too many elections, Democratic voters focused mostly at the top of the ticket, often overlooking down ballot races and frequently skipping the mid-term elections. Its great to be inspired and motivated, but without a pragmatic and realistic approach, we can't see real progressive change. No president can do it alone, unless he/she is a monarch or a dictator.

I can say all this as when I was younger, I also looked for a president to fall in love with, not understanding the complexities of government and politics.

[MineralMan]

4. I agree with your assessment.

Last edited Thu Mar 12, 2020, 02:02 PM - Edit history (1)

Presidents can be thought leaders and stimulators of change, but they do not create the changes themselves. Instead, they help make changes happen through various means, but always through legislation and incremental change.

I, too, fell in love with a few people who ran for office, but always ended up disappointed that they did not really accomplish all that much to resolve the serious issues people face. Like a lot of people, JFK was a hero when I was a teenager, but he played a role in ramping up the Vietnam war and then was assassinated. I gave up hero worship and focused on more incremental changes than sudden changes.

I've always focused more on legislative offices than executive offices, because that's where change really happens. All too often, we forget that in our zeal to elect the "ideal" President.

Change happens slowly, and it's up to us to help elect the lawmakers who will make those changes happen.

[PatSeg]

5. Yes

If you put your leaders on a pedestal, they almost always will disappoint you, unless of course you lie to yourself, such as with republicans and Reagan. I've seen it with Obama. I never got swept up with all the "hope and change" rhetoric, so my expectations were realistic, but a lot of voters were disappointed that he didn't magically transform the world. I'm sure many of them stayed home during the midterm election of 2010, which assured he wouldn't have the congressional support needed for any progressive legislation.

Democrats speak in glowing terms about Obama now, but there was a time when his approval ratings were very low within his own party and members of congress didn't want him to campaign for them. Voters wanted a god and they got an in-the-flesh human president, who fortunately happened to be an excellent president. Today I love Obama, not for the president I hoped he would be, but for the president that he was. I didn't fall in love with him, I grew to love him. He earned it.