4 ms·

That is a very absurd argument, one I have heard several times in liberal circles. President of United States of America is the most powerful man in the world.

That is a very absurd argument, one I have heard several times in liberal circles. President of United States of America is the most powerful man in the world. He doesn't owe anyone anything. We elect him thinking he will do what he promised and the only retribution for him is that he will either be impeached or not get re-elected. That's it. That is democracy. Unless he had 'an offer he could not refuse', he is guilty of a lot of betrayal (apart from crimes he can commit from a presidential position). He is not there to do physics, he has been given power to explicitly do what cannot be done without power. Apologetic my ass.

knowaveragejoe 11y ago
This is pretty much verbatim the "Green Lantern" theory of the presidency, fwiw. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/04/30/why-the-green-lantern-theory-of-presidential-power-persists/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/04/30...
- cubancigar11 11y ago
  Green Lantern theory says president should have sway over Congress. That is not the issue here.
  - knowaveragejoe 11y ago
    No, the Green Lantern theory is basically that the public believes the President can do anything and everything he wants, and therefore can follow up on all of their campaign promises.
TeMPOraL 11y ago
> We elect him Out of how many candidates were you selecting? 300 million? Or just a few, with long political careers? You don't get to the point of being an actually electable candidate if you could stir up a real mess within the establishment.
- irixusr 11y ago
  The entire political process is a vetting system to weed out the unreliables and the ones who won't play by the rules. Also, I have an inkling that the system is a sociopath pass filter; at any level of government the candidate who is slightly more immoral has improved chances. After a few iterations we have power lusting vampires in charge (the Cheneys, Clintons, ect.)
bwindels 11y ago
> He doesn't owe anyone anything Candidates can and almost all do take an unlimited amount of money from private donors to fund their campaigns, likely in exchange for favourable legislation. Obama gathered $1072.6m like this in 2012. Obama owes his donors big time I would say.
- hellbanner 11y ago
  If he's selling a service to them, yes.
- cubancigar11 11y ago
  See, I get that. He got a lot of money. But still he doesn't owe them anything. What is going to happen to him if he doesn't deliver to people who paid him that much money? Is he going to get assassinated? Is he going to have legal troubles? As a president he has the option to bypass large chunks of constitution, which in fact is the actual problem here. He is literally above the law.
  - bwindels 11y ago
    Well, if he starts the custom of not delivering upon his promises to donors, I could image that the next democratic candidate would have a very hard time finding donors. So I guess the pressure from the party would be very big not to go there.
    - cubancigar11 11y ago
      Which means it will be up to the general populace to ensure the small guy wins. And Obama as a person doesn't believe that. Now that is the real question here. We as people do not think surveillance is bad. We clap for Batman and worry about Jack Bauer. That is the real insight here.
      - TeMPOraL 11y ago
        Jack Bauer maybe not, but I sure as hell would like to see S.H.I.E.L.D.
powertower 11y ago
You did not elect Obama. The major news networks, in combination with the major holders of political and economic powers, did - by allowing you to be aware of a few handpicked candidates, and regulating the stories spinned around them. If they did not want Obama in office, you would not even have seen his name anywhere on screen or in print. Democracy in its true form has never existed in history as it is not really sustainable for many kinds of reasons, that all lead to disasters (people tend to vote for what is only good for them short-term leading to long-term losses, too many different groups arguing over X and Y and Z leading to stand-stills, etc). I'm not saying we have it good right now, but it was for a while (last 150 years). But nothing lasts forever and eventually all systems decline and collapse.
- ant6n 11y ago
  Your 3rd and 4th paragraph are a very poor excuse for this undemocratic system. Other countries are doing much better. But attitudes like this won't get you there.

knowaveragejoe 11y ago

This is pretty much verbatim the "Green Lantern" theory of the presidency, fwiw. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/04/30/why-the-green-lantern-theory-of-presidential-power-persists/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/04/30...

cubancigar11 11y ago
Green Lantern theory says president should have sway over Congress. That is not the issue here.
- knowaveragejoe 11y ago
  No, the Green Lantern theory is basically that the public believes the President can do anything and everything he wants, and therefore can follow up on all of their campaign promises.

TeMPOraL 11y ago

> We elect him Out of how many candidates were you selecting? 300 million? Or just a few, with long political careers? You don't get to the point of being an actually electable candidate if you could stir up a real mess within the establishment.

irixusr 11y ago
The entire political process is a vetting system to weed out the unreliables and the ones who won't play by the rules. Also, I have an inkling that the system is a sociopath pass filter; at any level of government the candidate who is slightly more immoral has improved chances. After a few iterations we have power lusting vampires in charge (the Cheneys, Clintons, ect.)

bwindels 11y ago

> He doesn't owe anyone anything Candidates can and almost all do take an unlimited amount of money from private donors to fund their campaigns, likely in exchange for favourable legislation. Obama gathered $1072.6m like this in 2012. Obama owes his donors big time I would say.

hellbanner 11y ago
If he's selling a service to them, yes.
cubancigar11 11y ago
See, I get that. He got a lot of money. But still he doesn't owe them anything. What is going to happen to him if he doesn't deliver to people who paid him that much money? Is he going to get assassinated? Is he going to have legal troubles? As a president he has the option to bypass large chunks of constitution, which in fact is the actual problem here. He is literally above the law.
- bwindels 11y ago
  Well, if he starts the custom of not delivering upon his promises to donors, I could image that the next democratic candidate would have a very hard time finding donors. So I guess the pressure from the party would be very big not to go there.
  - cubancigar11 11y ago
    Which means it will be up to the general populace to ensure the small guy wins. And Obama as a person doesn't believe that. Now that is the real question here. We as people do not think surveillance is bad. We clap for Batman and worry about Jack Bauer. That is the real insight here.
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      Jack Bauer maybe not, but I sure as hell would like to see S.H.I.E.L.D.

powertower 11y ago

You did not elect Obama. The major news networks, in combination with the major holders of political and economic powers, did - by allowing you to be aware of a few handpicked candidates, and regulating the stories spinned around them. If they did not want Obama in office, you would not even have seen his name anywhere on screen or in print. Democracy in its true form has never existed in history as it is not really sustainable for many kinds of reasons, that all lead to disasters (people tend to vote for what is only good for them short-term leading to long-term losses, too many different groups arguing over X and Y and Z leading to stand-stills, etc). I'm not saying we have it good right now, but it was for a while (last 150 years). But nothing lasts forever and eventually all systems decline and collapse.

ant6n 11y ago
Your 3rd and 4th paragraph are a very poor excuse for this undemocratic system. Other countries are doing much better. But attitudes like this won't get you there.