Heard today in a public place "The President doesn't have any power it's all congress"

[JanMichael]

"so why keep blaming him? He can't do anything because it's all congress. People are stupid and crazy he's a good man he just can't do anything with congress"

That's about accurate with perhaps a few missed vocal inflections and terms. I was sitting directly in front of the obviously bedazzled folks.

I wanted to ask in a polite way - why run then? Why do it if there is nothing possible or within one's reach policy-wise? Why collect all of that money? Is the presidency a neutered figurehead position like in some countries?

Why?

EDIT: their whole conversation centered around the "fact" that the presidency is literally and figuratively non-existent and without any influence or power. Thus my query as to why would one run then?

[JanMichael]

1. It's neat seeing the recs go up and down with no comments! nt?

[bottomofthehill]

2. it is sort of true.

he does not have the ability to start much on the legislative front, but he does have the ability to stop a lot of bad stuff from happening by using his veto.

[Just-plain-Kathy]

3. Bush and Cheney achieved everything they wanted. n/t

[Skittles]

6. YUP

[SammyWinstonJack]

14. Amazing that, eh?

[Scuba]

19. Bingo.

[ellisonz]

4. I think the American public would be benefited if every hotel room...

...had a copy of the Constitution instead of a Bible.

The President has very specific powers, raising revenue and appropriating funds is not one of them. He can encourage legislators to make proposals on his behalf - he can even insert himself into negotiations. But he cannot force anything through the legislative branch. The same is true of the judicial branch. It's the whole balance of powers thing and anyone who doubts its necessity should take a good long look at our history.

[Skittles]

7. bush and cheney managed to wipe their asses with the Constitution

[ellisonz]

8. Somewhat.

It's still the law of the land.

Besides, does that mean we should too?

[Skittles]

9. some presidents are effective and some are not

I would put the current in the latter

[ellisonz]

10. That'd be your opinion.

I think this lady would beg to disagree: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x820916

[Skittles]

11. OWS BABY

it's the opinion of a LOT OF PEOPLE

[Number23]

21. I honestly don't understand this compulsion you have to try and make OWS about Obama

In thread after thread after thread, there you are parroting the view that OWS is "about Obama" because people think he's so ineffective.

And everytime someone tries to remind you that OWS is about protesting the country's political and economic culture of the last more than 30 years; that there have been NO discernible anti (or even pro) Obama element to the protests in the 2 and a half months that they've been protesting; that some of the president's strongest supporters support OWS; and that the president himself has voiced support for OWS, you get quiet and then pop up in another thread a few minutes later with your "OWS is protesting Obama because he's ineffective."

Occupy is all over the world. Do you think people Occupying Budapest are protesting Obama? Exactly what do you get out of this seemingly desperate need you have to make the OWS protests about the president?

[msongs]

5. depends on which president does it not? some are effective and some are not nt

[Capitalocracy]

12. In a way, they're on the right track.

We focus too much on the president, which does two things: it gives them, in a sense, more power than they should actually have, while at the same time turning them into a figurehead because the president is such a focal point in terms of the public dialogue while the congress and local governments pass under the radar.

But if what they're saying is that the president doesn't have power, they're obviously dead wrong. If you want to change things, however, you can't just focus on the president.

[progressoid]

13. Are you sure you didn't just read that on DU?

:shrug:

[JanMichael]

18. Positive. In the real world not the "interweb". nt.

[mmonk]

15. Just ask an "enemy combatant".

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

16. He's obviously very powerful when he wants to be. nt

[treestar]

17. That's not true either

The President can veto a bill from Congress.

OTOH, Congress is quite powerful too. It's meant to be that way.

Where it gets stupid is where people seem to think the President should write the bills and "make" Congress pass them. It wasn't meant to be like that. We just focus on the POTUS because he is easy to see as opposed to 535 Congress people. In theory a good President does nothing but wait for the bills to come to his desk. Sad and desperate people like the idea of the President "leading" for them - and why is Congress unpopular? Because they are 535 different opinions and there is no way to latch onto Congress as the "Great Leader."

[quaker bill]

20. School house rock

They did a whole thing about this once. Check it out sometime.

The President can sign or veto what congress passes, but he/she can neither sign nor veto what they do not pass. Even republicans have figured this much out....