squiggly
- 3,277
- 263
I never said that.
Whats your point?
Obama doesn't have the power to back up his words? What..?.....did he not know the extent of his presidential power when he made the comments? Well he should have....he is the fucking president of the Unuted States of America.
You imply it in the bold statement above--suggesting that he made some sort of promise he couldn't keep is essentially the crux of the argument you made there.
I'm asking you to produce that promise in quotable form from the president's mouth.
When people ask someone running for president "what they would do" in a given situation--it does not always translate into the person saying "I will do this". This is understood in politcs--especially when the person answering the question does not have the power to do said thing (which is the case here).
His opinion is that we have better things to be doing--but that doesn't mean he can just unilaterally change the way the entire government handles these things. Presidents do not have that power for good reason--and I'm quite glad it is that way.
The point is that if a president had that power--democrats would be more lenient on drug policy, and republicans would be more strict. But they don't--so it's a futile and pointless argument.
Again--this is a case of you not understanding the job description. If a person runs for president on the idea that "I will change this law" it's always understood to mean that he will do his best--because it is also understood (again, by 4th graders) that he doesn't get to make every decision, that in fact laws go through their own version of "due-process" before (and after) becoming law.
The only promises which are historically held-to (or held responsible for failing to) are ones which discuss bills that a president would veto or sign. If he said "I would sign a bill" or "I will veto a bill" and then doesn't--that's when he's broken a promise. Bush Sr. "Read my lips no new taxes" and then he signed new taxes into law--that is a broken presidential promise.
I'll say two things I know for sure.
1. The president never said I promise anything as it goes to this issue.
2. The president never had the power to do much about this sans congress--both he and any interviewers asking him about this understood that. Again, it is not his responsibility to explain to you personally how things work so that your opinion won't be so deluded. Unfortunately, the job for educating people about politics falls on 4th grade social studies teachers (who obviously do a terrible job) and on ourselves.
What I'm arguing isn't that the president is perfect--but rather that over the last 40 years this country has become confused about who is running the show. Congress is "king" of the united states and it always has been/will be. They are the most direct line to the people and that is why they have this power. The president is only meant to keep them, and the military, in line.
The president of a company doesn't actually go build the widgets or do the leg-work on an upcoming project. He delegates, demands a plan (asks for in the case of our president--he cannot command that one be formed), and has the final say.
It's essentially the same here, the only difference being that his subordinates are a bunch of whiny old fucks who want to play "party-lines" rather than run the country. The president cannot fire them. We have to--and there is the trick. So long as we're worried about the president these guys don't get fired. They are impotent and have all failed at their jobs. They should not be running the most powerful nation (for now) in the world. I personally don't blame the president for the failure of congress, you can if you want but I'd say it's driving a pretty hard bargain to hold one guy responsible for 500 people (over half of whom are hell bent on his utter destruction).