Would you vote for a Presidential candidate

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: winnar111

With Joe Lieberman as his Vice President? The chances might be higher than you think.
Nah, under Gore the VP likely would have had about as much influence over policy as Gore had under Clinton.. ie: not much.
That presumes, at the minimum, that he would have lived the full 8 years.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
76,580
32,279
136
Originally posted by: winnar111

That presumes, at the minimum, that he would have lived the full 8 years.
Of course it does, but you are once again reinforcing my original point: It matters who the President is.
 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: winnar111

That presumes, at the minimum, that he would have lived the full 8 years.
Of course it does, but you are once again reinforcing my original point: It matters who the President is.
True, but I don't theres a solution if you want to continue expanding the government.

When the founding fathers were around there were something like 4 cabinet members. Now we have 15.

Congress clearly isn't interested in running anything, so they punt duties to executive agencies.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
76,580
32,279
136
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: winnar111

That presumes, at the minimum, that he would have lived the full 8 years.
Of course it does, but you are once again reinforcing my original point: It matters who the President is.
True, but I don't theres a solution if you want to continue expanding the government.

When the founding fathers were around there were something like 4 cabinet members. Now we have 15.

Congress clearly isn't interested in running anything, so they punt duties to executive agencies.
Congress isn't supposed to run things, they are supposed to set up the rules for how things are run. Right now the President is ignoring those rules. This needs to end, I don't really care how.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,563
9
81
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: SagaLore
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Yes, in a second. I would do it for different reasons though. My primary concern isn't presidential vs. state power, it is presidential power compared to the other two federal branches. At this point the executive branch is completely and utterly out of control. It has become a genuine threat to the rule of law that our entire system of government is based on, and someone has to rein it in, I don't care who.
That's kind of what I was leaning towards - even though they're federal branches, they're representative of the states.
Well then yes. If this next president and Congress did not do a single blessed thing other than neuter the executive branch, they would have done this country a great service. That's the real danger of Bush's presidency. It's not that he mired us in a shitty war, it's not that he's had disastrous economic and tax policies, (although both are bad), it's not even his assault on our civil liberties (although this is awful), it's that he's been attacking the fundamental basis for our system of government that is supposed to be there to keep this from getting out of hand.
The corruption of the executive began long before Bush. Bush was simply using the power granted by previous administrations.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
49,229
11,085
136
Originally posted by: QED
No. The real power of the Presidency is quite overrated.
Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
it's not the president's power im concerned with, its congress's
You 2 are nuts. Seriously.

And I don't think Gore would have invaded Iraq but I also don't think Gore would have been re-elected in 04. Make of that what you will.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
76,580
32,279
136
Originally posted by: BoberFett

The corruption of the executive began long before Bush. Bush was simply using the power granted by previous administrations.
While the corruption of the executive did happen long before Bush, to say that he was simply using the power granted by previous administrations is flatly false. He has made broad and continuing assertions of executive power that far exceed anything any previous administration has attempted. (lone exception, possibly Nixon... but we all saw what happened to him)
 

retrospooty

Platinum Member
Apr 3, 2002
2,031
74
86
the supposition that Gore never would have invaded Iraq is tenuous given he would be working wit the same wrong intelligence accounts that both Clinton and Bush received.
That hinges on whether or not you believe Bush when he says the intelligence was flawed... CLinton didnt get that crap- it all came in the Bush admin. Even during the Bush admin, a major part of his staff Colin Powell told him it was not enough to go in, and he had to stay out. The fact of the matter is that it was flawed, and it was invented to be flawed by Bush/Cheney and team, and Gore would not have invented those flawed intelligence reports... In short, Bush lied to get us in and Gore wouldnt have. Not that I think Gore would have been a good prez, prolly not... But Bush lied to get us in Iraq and the lame "blame it on bad intelligence" game is a cop-out and a redirect, and of course QED, you bought it.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY