Yep.

Is the presidency overrated?

I'd give it a "5".

Of course without a scale this is meaningless, but so be it. I carry to my grave the little secret of what I meant by a rating of 5. Let the posterior worry about the depth of wisdom thus not express'd.

real political 'power' and influence lies in either in the legislature, or in the judges, at least as far as the system as a whole goes and works, who agrees with me? — IvoryBlackBishop

The President appoints federal judges. That is a tremendous power, with the potential to have impact that lasts decades.

The President appoints federal judges. That is a tremendous power, with the potential to have impact that lasts decades. — Relativist

You talk about the US system? In that case I would agree. That is probabyl one of the biggest powers assigned to the president.

That power was recognized by evangelical Christians - that's why they voted for Trump, and will do so again.

Too often the president is regarded as a father-figure. The standards we hold for them are inhuman, appropriate for popes and saints, but not the average man. That’s why so much of politics is acting. In that sense he is an overrated figure.

That power was recognized by evangelical Christians — Relativist

If it is in the constitution, shouldn`t it be "recognized" by everyone?

- that's why they voted for Trump, and will do so again. — Relativist

Since every president has this power, what does it matter?

If it is in the constitution, shouldn`t it be "recognized" by everyone? — Nobeernolife

Sure- in an ideal world, all voters would understand this and other information pertinent to making wise voting choices. TV commercials would be a waste of time and money would be much less relevant. We don't live in that world.

Evangelicals aren't smarter than everyone else, they're just focused on abortion. Abortion became legal (nationally) by court action, and it's clear that court action can undo it. This provided a political lever. Pro-choice people (a strong majority of the populstion) aren't nearly as focused. Sure, they'd prefer women have choice, but it isn't a sine qua non for choosing whom to vote for, as it is with many pro-life people.

Evangelicals aren't smarter than everyobe else, they're just focused on abortion. Abortion became legal (nationally) by court action, and it's clear that court action can undo it. This provided a political lever. Pro-choice people (a strong majority of the populstion) aren't nearly as focused. Sure, they'd prefer women have choice, but it isn't a sine qua non for choosing whom to vote for, as it is with many pro-life people. — Relativist

Not a legal expert, but afaik, the abortion thing was decided by the supreme court and not on the level of the judges that the president can appoint, so I don´t see why this is even relevant.

Since every president has this power, what does it matter? — Nobeernolife

My guess would be that a Republicant president would appint Republicant-leaning judges, and a Democratic president would appoint a Democratic-leading judge.

Much is at stake.

------------------------

American politics reminds me of the old novel by a French national writer, Robert Merle, who wrote the book "The Island." It's a brilliant book. Brilliantly written. It describes a political struggle, where the "bad" is always a step ahead of the "good". Eventually a war breaks out, and it turns out, that one-by-one, the "bad" guys who support the "BAD" leader are actually "good" guys who want to support the "GOOD" leader, but they line up for the "BAD" because of unrelated injuries suffered, real or imagined, in the hands of the "good" guys. The ideals, the imagined future, the goals and the means to attain those goals are all agreed by almost all "bad" guys that the "good" guys got it right, yet they fight them under the leadership of the "BAD" leader.

Apparently the "BAD" leader was crafty at mind-mining the people, and he fostered in them the injuries and somehow made that a pivotal point to join him instead of the "GOOD" leader. A typical case of Divide and Conquer.

America is the same. Everyone hates murder, drugs, bombing of innocent people abroad, the skyracketing price of medicare, and they all want prosperity, equal chances for everyone, etc etc but for some reason the evangelist religion hijacked the Spirit of America and got it by the balls, and it never stops squeezing it.

"Adamo megszolalt. "Szerintem a tahitiaknak is adjunk foldet."
("Adamo spoke: "I think we ought to give some land to the Tahitians, too.")
("Adamo a dit: "Je pense que nous devons aussi donner de la terre aux Tahitiens.")

My guess would be that a Republicant president would appint Republicant-leaning judges, and a Democratic president would appoint a Democratic-leading judge. — god must be atheist

It's not that the judges are leaning toward a party, it's about the respective judicial philosophies of the appointed judges. Republicans embrace originalists, who practice a narrower view of interpretation (the right to choose to end a pregnancy is not an enumerated right in the Constitution, and so they are inclined to deny this as a right). Democrats embrace the "living constitution" principle, which has a more expansive view of civil rights (the Constitution also refers to their being rights other than those that are enumerated - a lever that permits growing individual rights). There's also a tendency of originalists to pay less heed to past court decisions (thus enabling overturning Roe v Wade), whereas the "liberals" are more inclined to defer to stare decisis (treating Roe v Wade as established law).

My guess would be that a Republicant president would appint Republicant-leaning judges, and a Democratic president would appoint a Democratic-leading judge. — god must be atheist

That is to be expected from the system, so I fail to see what the problem is. What applies to one party should apply to the other, unless you you want a one-party system. China, anyone?

America is the same. Everyone hates murder, drugs, bombing of innocent people abroad, the skyracketing price of medicare, and they all want prosperity, equal chances for everyone, etc etc but for some reason the evangelist religion hijacked the Spirit of America and got it by the balls, and it never stops squeezing it. — god must be atheist

What? Looking from the outside, I don`t see much religion in the US political brouhaha, and secondly, what is this "evangelist religion" anyway?

Not a legal expert, but afaik, the abortion thing was decided by the supreme court and not on the level of the judges that the president can appoint, so I don´t see why this is even relevant. — Nobeernolife

Who do you think appoints Supreme Court justices?

Who do you think appoints Supreme Court justices? — Relativist

That is always a 2-party brouhaha, no? I remember some epic fights about that.

That is to be expected from the system, so I fail to see what the problem is. What applies to one party should apply to the other, unless you you want a one-party system. China, anyone? — Nobeernolife

If you can't see the difference between republicants and democrats, then I can see your point.

But if you admit that the lives and lifestyles of a great number of people will be affected DIFFERNTLY whether the top judges in the country are rep or dem leaning, then your objection just reflects short sightedness.

What you are advocating is that since the dems will be dems, and reps will be reps, and the judges behaviours are EXPECTED to be leaning to their philosophies that coincide with their parties', therefore the judges are immaterial for their leaning. That opinion is unreasonable thinking, as the nature of the judges' decisions will affect people in different ways, depending on their leaning. A lot of people could be affected by getting forced to behave in ways they don't want to behave. This is what the difference means. And you may argue that the same number but different individuals will be inconvenienced either way, you neglect to take into consideration that every person CAN vote for his or her way to be hopefully the dominant one, by voting for a president who promises to select judges according to the particular voters' preferences.

You should get some beer, man. You're spinning out on withdrawal. Either that, or you're getting slushed. I sense a lot of anger and lashing out in your replies, with no reason attached to your angry outbursts.

If you can't see the difference between republicants and democrats, then I can see your point. — god must be atheist

Frankly, no I can not. Do you want to give privileges to one party that the other does not have? In that case, why bother at all with several parties? Demand the Chinese or North Korean 1 party model, where the one flawless party rules alone.

ou should get some beer, man. You're spinning out on withdrawal. Either that, or you're getting slushed. I sense a lot of anger and lashing out in your replies, with no reason attached to your angry outbursts. — god must be atheist

I am having some beer right now, and you should stop mind reading. As Scott Adams points out, that is loserthink.

Too often the president is regarded as a father-figure. — NOS4A2

I would not regard Barrack Hussein or Trump as my father. And certainly not the murderous warmongering hag Hillary CLinton. What do you mean?

I would not regard Barrack Hussein or Trump as my father. And certainly not the murderous warmongering hag Hillary CLinton. What do you mean?

Not as a father but as a father-figure, someone to look up to and treat like a father. I’m not saying this is true of everyone. I personally see the president as a man doing a job.

Overrated?

Yes!

I would argue that political leadership overrates it’s power in every system. The most whimsical examples of this are when the political leadership tries own success stories of the economy or tech & scientific advances. The influence of lawmakers is typically quite marginal.

Not as a father but as a father-figure, someone to look up to and treat like a father. I’m not saying this is true of everyone. I personally see the president as a man doing a job. — NOS4A2

I agree with yours (the second) definition. I disagree with the first one. I don´t think a nation needs a father figure as president, unless you regard the people as children.