That’s nonsense. Literally improving the pool of candidates will improve those selected. Further once enough are replaced, they will be able to accomplish things regardless of who’s president.
There’s literally no point in replacing the president if the congress opposes them.
Mine. We focused on the top and lost everything including the legislative base.
In the late seventies the unions didn’t feel that Democrats had done enough for them so they decided to punish carter. By not endorsing or supporting him. In the end we lost both Carter and the unions. If only They had focused on addressing the legislature that could have actually changed something. And not let Reagan get in power.
This isn’t an isolated example. In fact, of the three branches of US government. The presidency is one of the least useful ones to hold. It’s nice to hold. But if you want to actually pass laws Etc you need to legislature. And a court that isn’t beholden’s big business to instantly overturn it. With enough people in the legislature they can force the president to sign it with a veto-proof majority. The president can’t do any of that. At best they can make me transition Smoother by agreeing to sign the legislation. But that’s it. It’s basic civics I guess they don’t teach that in school anymore though.
That’s an interesting example, because the unions were correct. Reagan happened, but then when they did endorse the next Democrat for President, he fought hard to undo the damage, and didn’t promote something like, say, NAFTA, right? Or when they endorsed Biden, he didn’t break a strike, or anything?
Basically, when does this process of putting promoting better people in the party begin?
That’s nonsense. Literally improving the pool of candidates will improve those selected. Further once enough are replaced, they will be able to accomplish things regardless of who’s president.
There’s literally no point in replacing the president if the congress opposes them.
Okay, which version actually happened over the past 50 years—yours or mine?
Mine. We focused on the top and lost everything including the legislative base.
In the late seventies the unions didn’t feel that Democrats had done enough for them so they decided to punish carter. By not endorsing or supporting him. In the end we lost both Carter and the unions. If only They had focused on addressing the legislature that could have actually changed something. And not let Reagan get in power.
This isn’t an isolated example. In fact, of the three branches of US government. The presidency is one of the least useful ones to hold. It’s nice to hold. But if you want to actually pass laws Etc you need to legislature. And a court that isn’t beholden’s big business to instantly overturn it. With enough people in the legislature they can force the president to sign it with a veto-proof majority. The president can’t do any of that. At best they can make me transition Smoother by agreeing to sign the legislation. But that’s it. It’s basic civics I guess they don’t teach that in school anymore though.
That’s an interesting example, because the unions were correct. Reagan happened, but then when they did endorse the next Democrat for President, he fought hard to undo the damage, and didn’t promote something like, say, NAFTA, right? Or when they endorsed Biden, he didn’t break a strike, or anything?
Basically, when does this process of putting promoting better people in the party begin?