Jebus wrote: ↑Fri Aug 31, 2018 2:33 amI never wrote that the POTUS is more powerful at "passing laws" so the fact that some dictators have more control of their laws is irrelevant. I suggested that the POTUS is one of the most powerful people on the planet.
I was referring to your point about how the President is still one of the top three most powerful people in the country, even without Congress or the Courts.
Jebus wrote: ↑Fri Aug 31, 2018 2:33 am
Obviously I think it's an inherent bad. That's the whole point of my argument. Any system where attempts to limit the powers of the presidency must be approved by the president is inherently fucked up.
It's a double edged sword. I don't think it's fair to call it an inherent good or bad if the possibilities of either are present.
Jebus wrote: ↑Fri Aug 31, 2018 2:33 am
Power comes down to two things:
1. The freedom to do as you please.
You can't do as you please, since the President is not above the law, and, for like the 15th time, can be blocked by the other branches.
Are you aware of the Checks and Balances placed?
Jebus wrote: ↑Fri Aug 31, 2018 2:33 amIf one were to compare Trump to Putin, Putin definitely wins on point 1 whereas Trump would win on point 2. Some of the dictators mentioned earlier in this thread are so weak on point 2 that they don't come close to the power of Trump or Putin.
This may or may not be true, but maybe we can estimate this.
Jebus wrote: ↑Fri Aug 31, 2018 2:33 amAccumulated knowledge over time is not irrelevant (at least not until senility kicks in), especially when discussing history that one of the parties is old enough to remember (or old enough to remember the direct aftermath).
So are you implying that I haven't studied those eras in history or had conversations about them with others?
Jebus wrote: ↑Fri Aug 31, 2018 2:33 amYes.
Then why didn't you just say you also studied it at a college level, instead of saying you have age over me? Or, are you loosely defining 'college level'?
Jebus wrote: ↑Fri Aug 31, 2018 2:33 am
Could be, should be. Who gives a shit? The whole point of the discussion is if one type of system is superior to the other, and that includes both potential benefit and potential harm.
Okay, now you have to prove that having no President would be better than having one.
Don't you think it'd be more cost effective to just adjust how the Presidency functions, rather than eliminating it altogether? This is reminding me of conversations about anarchism.
Jebus wrote: ↑Fri Aug 31, 2018 2:33 am
Who do you think has the biggest potential to pass shitty legislation: one person or a group of people?
With the way politics works in this country, and how everything is framed, roughly both have the same potential.
Jebus wrote: ↑Fri Aug 31, 2018 2:33 am
An executive order can go into effect immediately. Lots of damage can be done before the Supreme Court or Congress overturns the order.
If it isn't done at the Federal Level, local courts will quickly overturn it.
The President still has to work with the Congress and Courts, and without them, are basically impossible to enforce.
Not to mention, like a lot of laws proposed by Congress, Executive Orders usually take a lot of time to be implemented; Executive Order 9981 wasn't fully implemented until a few years after it is signed.
Jebus wrote: ↑Fri Aug 31, 2018 2:33 am
Very few (if any) countries give away as much power to one person as the U.S. If one were to define a country's success according to the life quality of all its citizens relative to that country's location and amount of natural resources, the most successful countries are those with a wide power base.
This sounds like a practical concern.
Jebus wrote: ↑Fri Aug 31, 2018 2:33 amI both started and finished my formal education in the U.S., and having lived most of my life outside the U.S. I think I am able to look at US history and government more objectively than most.
There may be biases affecting both of us; I assume you're not too fond of the US?
I'll respond to your other post later.