Would you rather your political party control the White House or Congress?

[Estil]

Here's a really good question for all of you; given the choice, would you rather have your political party in control of Congress or in control of the White House? No, you can't have both; that's too easy.

[Gravekeeper]

I have no political party so I can't really answer that one. -.-

Though I will point out that how much power a party could wield from either position is dependent entirely on how big of an asshole said party wants to be. We've seen just how much damage can be wrought and money wasted by taking the GOP's obstructionism route. But on the flip side, the White House has the power of executive orders which could be grossly abused in the wrong hands. The White House is also the one in the position to deal with foreign policy.

Congress can only continue to fuck things up for everyone at home. The White House can fuck things up on the world stage.

[Andara Bledin]

I have no political party so I can't really answer that one. -.-

Though I will point out that how much power a party could wield from either position is dependent entirely on how big of an asshole said party wants to be. We've seen just how much damage can be wrought and money wasted by taking the GOP's obstructionism route. But on the flip side, the White House has the power of executive orders which could be grossly abused in the wrong hands. The White House is also the one in the position to deal with foreign policy.

Congress can only continue to fuck things up for everyone at home. The White House can fuck things up on the world stage.

Well, you know, until Congress decides to publish open letters to foreign powers in a juvenile and utterly unprofessional (perhaps even treasonous) attempt to undermine the president's work with them...

[Gravekeeper]

Well, you know, until Congress decides to publish open letters to foreign powers in a juvenile and utterly unprofessional (perhaps even treasonous) attempt to undermine the president's work with them...

Well, okay there's that yes. >.>

[HYHYBT]

They didn't seem to get much done even when they DID have both...

Assuming Congress is split enough that it cannot consistently override vetoes, I'd rather the presidency.

[TheHuckster]

The White House is also the one in the position to deal with foreign policy.

Except that Congress has the sole discretion to vote to declare war.

Assuming Congress is split enough that it cannot consistently override vetoes, I'd rather the presidency.

I'd think that would mean the party doesn't "control" congress, which was the crux of the question.

Checks and balances are supposed to even out such that one branch shouldn't have insurmountable power over the country. It's why while the executive branch has veto power, Congress still has the chance to override the veto with a 66% majority, and executive orders can be overruled by the judicial branch.

The unfortunate side-effect is if two branches are polar opposites, as it has often been especially in recent times, you end up in stalemates and staring contests, where one side is obstructing the other. If a question such as this is difficult to answer, then I would say the institution of separation of powers is doing its job.

[s_stabeler]

Except that Congress has the sole discretion to vote to declare war.

yes, but the President is the one who can actually order troops to attack, and there hasn't been a formal declaration of war since WW2, IIRC. a sufficiently asshole president could theoretically order troops to attack another country, then more-or-less dare Congress not to back his actions.

[Gravekeeper]

Except that Congress has the sole discretion to vote to declare war.

Declare it, yes. But the president can ( and has 125 times in American history so far, apparently ) order military action without congressional authorization. Even Obama has done this as recently as 2011.

Conversely, congress doesn't have the power to do this without the president's approval. So its sort of a moot point. Especially given how many wars the US has been involved in without any formal declaration. As stabeler mentioned, the last one was WW2.

[Estil]

Except that Congress has the sole discretion to vote to declare war.

Would you be surprised to learn we've only done that a grand total of five times in the entire history of the US? And WWII was the last time we ever did so? (EDIT: as I just noticed Gravekeeper already pointed out)

And yes I absolutely agree about the separation of powers thing. I very much appreciate that we live in a country where we elect a whole new President every four or eight years, and the entire House and 1/3 of the Senate must "answer to the voters" every other year.

And probably the most important historical precedent we've ever made in our history is one you don't hear nearly as much about in the history books as we should. The election of 1800 was the first time that an opposition party (Thomas Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans) won the Presidency over the then incumbent Federalist party (John Adams). Now some of John Adam's buddies after the election were hoping he would challenge the results or otherwise not just "take" the loss, but Mr. Adams in his wisdom decided that Jefferson won fair and square and the transfer of power needs to take place without muss or fuss. We in the US take for granted the peaceful transfer of power from one President (sometimes of the opposing party) to another and I honestly don't think most Americans realize how lucky we are in that regard. I for one would rather not live under the alternative (living under a one party dictatorship or having military coups seemingly every few years for example).

[s_stabeler]

to be fair, peaceful transfers of power are not uncommon in democratic countries. ( the lats time a genuinely democratic country had the outgoing government throw a tantrum was the UK in 2010, when the outgoing Labour government promptly handed out large amounts of money to try to create a poison pill for the incoming Coalition. ( including leaving a comment in the Chancellor of th Exchequer's desk "Sorry, there's no money left") Whioch is one reason why i think the Conservatives managed to win a majority the next election- even with the spending spree by the previous government, they managed to set the economy to rights.

[Greenday]

Gotta go with president. Veto power that Congress realistically can't do anything about. Appoints Supreme Court Justices. Military. Executive orders.

[Gravekeeper]

Gotta go with president. Veto power that Congress realistically can't do anything about. Appoints Supreme Court Justices. Military. Executive orders.

Sweet crib, private transportation, your own jet, a cool podium, etc.

[TheHuckster]

Just not any jet. A fully customized pimped out Boeing 747! Those little cramped Gulfstreams are for the 1%ers!

[Estil]

to be fair, peaceful transfers of power are not uncommon in democratic countries.

Today that is certainly true but what I was talking about was how it got started for the US back in 1800. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think there were a whole lot of democratic countries back then (technically though we're a republic rather than a democracy). After all the whole reason we broke away from Great Britain (1801 is when they became the UK) was that back then King George III still had the final say on things...as opposed to the constitutional monarchy where the monarch just "smiles and waves" (okay I know there's a bit more to it than that but now it's the House of Commons and especially the Prime Minister and his/her ruling party that truly holds the chips).

[Estil]

Just not any jet. A fully customized pimped out Boeing 747! Those little cramped Gulfstreams are for the 1%ers!

Which BTW will be getting a whole new Air Force One by the time the next big guy/gal takes office in 2017! Considering the current one was built in 1990 the replacement is LONG overdue.