Example collocations logo

President in sentence

4412 examples of President in a sentence

It follows that the US needs a president who will put America first and knows how to extract the best deals for it at every opportunity, using the country’s full might to advance its interests.
But tackling the spending and revenue components of deficit reduction should be high on the agenda when the new president takes office next year.
It was this math that led Mario Draghi, the president of the European Central Bank, to declare that, “The European social model has already gone."
As we await Trump’s inauguration as US president on January 20, it is worth pondering the first year of populist rule in Poland.
Because Tudjman created a highly-centralized political system with vast prerogatives vested in the president, the opposition's best bet was to stick together in hope of mustering the two-thirds majority needed to change the constitution.
The Commission retains a monopoly on proposing new legislation, the character of which is heavily influenced by the president.
Although Iranian citizens had the right to elect their president, the candidates had to be vetted by the Council of Guardians, half of whom were picked by the unelected Supreme Leader.
Since Iran is the enemy (remember George W. Bush’s “axis of evil”?), it is better to deal with a president who talks and acts like a crazy thug, than with a reasonable-sounding figure who promises reforms.
This is also why 70% voted for Mohammed Khatami, the reformist president, in 1997.
The quiet dignity of the protests that followed did more for Iran’s standing in the world than any amount of belligerent posturing by a populist president.
Renewing the South Korean MiracleSEOUL – South Korea’s incoming president, Park Geun-hye, takes over a country that has been a global role model for economic development.
Of course, the head of state – whether the president or the monarch – has other critical duties as well, including acting as guarantor of the constitution and a symbol of national unity.
Moreover, in proportional voting systems like Italy’s, where no single political party normally wins a majority of seats in parliament, the president often plays a key role in appointing the prime minister.
The Italian president can also compel parliamentary deputies to rethink their decisions (in the United Kingdom, the monarch has outsourced this authority to the House of Lords).
Ideally, that head of state would be an elected president, rather than a hereditary monarch.
Indeed, anything worthwhile that a monarch can do, an elected non-executive president can do better – not least because an elected official is much less likely to be undermined by the scandals of pampered offspring or degraded by the inevitable hypocrisy and servility of a royal court.
More important, an elected president has much greater legitimacy than a hereditary monarch, whose claim to authority depends exclusively on tradition and ceremony.
An elected president has a stronger mandate to be controversial, especially in areas of thought and culture that lie beyond the domain of quotidian politics but shape the quality of the public space in which politics plays out.
But the most important reason why an elected president is better equipped than a monarch to catalyze a public conversation about a society’s values and priorities is that he or she is more likely to be a person of superior ability.
The idea of a Tea Party candidate becoming US president is alarming, to be sure, but European populists could only be part of coalition governments.
As a result, the smiling presidents and prime ministers could afford to be more diplomatic than Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek, who, in his role as acting president of the European Union, had warned that Obama’s economic plan would lead others down a “road to hell.”
He would be president, not the Alaskan.
The strategy harks back to the South Korea’s decade-old “Sunshine Policy,” former president Roh Moo-hyun’s unsuccessful outreach to the North, which Moon supported.
Given the risks posed by an unpredictable US president, South Koreans’ unease is easy to understand.
Since the end of the Korean War, no president has even casually, much less flippantly, called the US role on the peninsula into question.
Even to the most inveterate optimist, the G7 summit in Quebec earlier this month was proof that the geopolitical West is breaking up and losing its global significance, and that the great destroyer of that American-created and American-led order is none other than the US president.
As Jon Hilsenrath of the Wall Street Journal points out, William Dudley, then the executive vice president of the New York Fed’s Markets Group, presented staff research that sought, politely and compellingly, to turn the principals’ attention to where it needed to be focused.
Simply put, whoever is US president, his or her program will have priority.
In his first press conference as president, he shocked the world with his depiction of the Soviet Union, with which a détente had been emerging, as willing “to commit any crime” to gain an advantage over America.
Personal deals made by a president serving a four- or eight-year term can’t safeguard a democracy’s interests.
BackNext