[The Final Dakar]

We're less than two months off from the GOP taking control of both houses of congress for the first time during Obama's tenure, so it's time to go on record and predict just how much of a dictator he's going to be, since that is how many of his detractors view him.

For context, 11 of W's 12 vetoes came after the 2006 election.

[BadKosh]

Its important to note WHO was in power after the 2006 elections in the house and senate. When they talk about Clinton they fail to mention the monetary restraint Newt and the Repubs put on him, and in 1986 when they say Reagan spent so much it was the Democrats in power in both houses, like it was since 2007 when they started the mass spending, and such just to 'blame Bush'.

I'm more worried about his executive orders. I hope the Repubs grow some balls and defund as many of his favorite projects, departments and such for every jerk action Obama takes.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Its important to note WHO was in power after the 2006 elections in the house and senate. When they talk about Clinton they fail to mention the monetary restraint Newt and the Repubs put on him, and in 1986 when they say Reagan spent so much it was the Democrats in power in both houses, like it was since 2007 when they started the mass spending, and such just to 'blame Bush'.

I specifically mentioned 2006 because that was the year Dems got control of the houses. But since you mention it…

List of United States presidential vetoes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
May 1, 2007: Vetoed H.R. 1591, U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007. Override attempt failed in House, 222-203 (284 needed). A later version of the bill that excluded certain aspects of the initial legislation that the President disapproved of H.R. 2206, was enacted as Pub.L. 110–28 with the President's approval.

June 20, 2007: Vetoed S. 5, Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007. No override attempt made.

October 3, 2007: Vetoed H.R. 976, Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007 ("SCHIP"). Override attempt failed in House, 273-156 (286 votes needed).

November 2, 2007: Vetoed H.R. 1495, Water Resources Development Act of 2007. Overridden by House, 361-54 (277 votes needed). Overridden by Senate, 79-14 (62 needed), and enacted as Pub.L. 110–114 over President's veto.

November 13, 2007: Vetoed H.R. 3043, Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2008. Override attempt failed in House, 277-141 (279 votes needed).

December 12, 2007: Vetoed H.R. 3963, Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007.[29] Override attempt failed in House, 260-152 (275 votes needed).

December 28, 2007: Vetoed H.R. 1585, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008.[30] No override attempt made. A later version of the bill that changed a minor provision of which the President disapproved was quickly passed by Congress (H.R. 4986) and was enacted with the President's approval as Pub.L. 110–181 on 28 January 2008.

March 8, 2008: Vetoed H.R. 2082, Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008.[31][32] Override attempt failed in House, 225-188 (276 votes needed).

May 21, 2008: Vetoed H.R. 2419, 2007 U.S. Farm Bill.[33][34] Overridden by House, 316-108 (283 votes needed). Overridden by Senate, 82-13 (64 votes needed). Enacted as Pub.L. 110-234 over the President's veto. Due to a clerical error, this act was repealed by Pub.L. 110-246.

June 18, 2008: Vetoed H.R. 6124, 2007 U.S. Farm Bill, re-passed by Congress to correct a clerical error in HR 2419.[35] Overridden by House, 317-109 (284 votes required). Overridden by Senate, 80-14 (63 votes needed). Enacted as Pub.L. 110-246 over the President's veto.

July 15, 2008: Vetoed H.R. 6331, Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act.[36] Overridden by House, 383-41 (283 votes required.) Overridden by Senate, 70-26 (64 votes required). Enacted as Pub.L. 110–275 over the President's veto.


Four of those overrode his veto, meaning they had bipartisan report, which strikes me as dictator level (Didn't personally support).

[OAW]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

When they talk about Clinton they fail to mention the monetary restraint Newt and the Repubs put on him,

Dude seriously? Don't you realize by now that you can only sell that nonsense to those who weren't actually paying attention at the time? Newt and the GOP didn't impose squat on Clinton. The reason why the Clinton Administration saw federal surpluses was because of the PAYGO provisions to the budget that mandated that any increase in spending or decrease in taxes had to be offset. A provision that the GOP opposed because they didn't ... and still don't .... like to pay for tax cuts! Sure Gingrich was House Speaker while this provision was IN EFFECT ... but it was PASSED by the DEM controlled Congress prior to Gingrich gaining power. As soon as Bush II was elected and the GOP had the opportunity to get rid of it they did. And skyrocketing deficits soon returned. Imagine that.

OAW

[Cap'n Tightpants]

He'll be impeached for abuse of executive powers, and should be. The balance between the legislative and executive branches is horribly broken now.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

He'll be impeached for abuse of executive powers, and should be.

By both the house and senate? You realize the Senate needs 67 votes, right?

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

The balance between the legislative and executive branches is horribly broken now.

I feel like Congress' gridlock has made things look worse than they actually are.

Case in point: “To those members of Congress who question my authority to make our immigration system work better, or question the wisdom of me acting where Congress has failed, I have one answer: Pass a bill.” WIll that actually happen?

[subego]

Veto all the things!

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

He'll be impeached for abuse of executive powers, and should be. The balance between the legislative and executive branches is horribly broken now.

So what in your estimation is the substantive difference between the executive action taken by Presidents Reagan and Bush I vs. President Obama on the immigration front?

OAW

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by OAW 

So what in your estimation is the substantive difference between the executive action taken by Presidents Reagan and Bush I vs. President Obama on the immigration front?

Can you clear up for me what executive action Reagan took? I'm pretty sure that the amnesty he granted was a bill passed by congress, but since Obama isn't granting real amnesty, Im curious what executive actions Reagan undertook.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

By both the house and senate? You realize the Senate needs 67 votes, right?

I said impeached, not removed from office. The more probable outcome would be censure for the remainder of his time in office.

I feel like Congress' gridlock has made things look worse than they actually are.

Case in point: “To those members of Congress who question my authority to make our immigration system work better, or question the wisdom of me acting where Congress has failed, I have one answer: Pass a bill.” WIll that actually happen?

"Congress made me do it!" isn't a valid defense, as I've stated before, he's set dangerous precedent that can't be ignored. Think about it this way, would you want Ted Cruz in office with near unlimited executive powers, writing EOs whenever he doesn't get his way, or to change existing laws to suit him? You know, given what Obama has done, someone like Cruz could just indefinitely suspend the ACA, or any other law, just by saying, "Well, congress was obstructing the legal process by not allowing a vote, so I did what was necessary". Agreeing with an illicit action doesn't make it right, the ends don't justify the means.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

I said impeached, not removed from office. The more probable outcome would be censure for the remainder of his time in office.

The wiki article doesn't make it clear how many votes you need to start the process. I assume 50, but can it be filibustered?

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

"Congress made me do it!" isn't a valid defense"

I don't think congress made him do it. It's his conscious decision that acting unilaterally is worse than not acting. Historically, I don't know how this compares, and legally, I don't have the knowledge to know whether it stands up, but I'll cede that to the courts if they get involved.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Agreeing with an illicit action doesn't make it right, the ends don't justify the means.

You're inferring I support his decision. And we know I'm a huge detractor of the ends justify the means.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Can you clear up for me what executive action Reagan took? I'm pretty sure that the amnesty he granted was a bill passed by congress, but since Obama isn't granting real amnesty, Im curious what executive actions Reagan undertook.

Here you go ...

But as the AP report pointed out, in 1986 Reagan issued an executive order that provided relief for the undocumented children of immigrants who had been granted amnesty under IRCA. In 1990, Bush established a "family fairness" program that deferred deportations for some "family members living with a legalizing immigrant" who were in the country before IRCA was passed. According to the AP, up to 1.5 million people were affected by Bush's executive action, approximately the same percentage of the undocumented immigrant population expected to be affected by Obama's forthcoming order.

Right-Wing Media Fail To Distance Reagan And Bush From Obama On Immigration | Blog | Media Matters for America

The bottom line is that there are limited resources to enforce existing law. And the POTUS has vast discretion on how to prioritize the enforcement of immigration law. Prioritizing criminals and national security threats over the family members of legal immigrants is within his purview as Chief Executive. Obama's order simply defers ... NOT eliminates any deportation action for certain classes of immigrants for 3 years. An order which can be overturned by a subsequent POTUS or rendered moot by Congressional legislation.

And so the million dollar question is ... after our good friends on the right finish their latest freak out ... what is the substantive difference between Reagan and Bush "deferring deportation" for some classes of illegal immigrants and Obama doing the same? I mean other than the R and D thing that is.

OAW

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

The wiki article doesn't make it clear how many votes you need to start the process. I assume 50, but can it be filibustered?

With the current Senate rules, set by the Dems, no it can't (it isn't a regular bill).

I don't think congress made him do it. It's his conscious decision that acting unilaterally is worse than not acting. Historically, I don't know how this compares, and legally, I don't have the knowledge to know whether it stands up, but I'll cede that to the courts if they get involved.

You're inferring I support his decision. And we know I'm a huge detractor of the ends justify the means.

This really isn't a decision for courts, they interpret laws within a different context, this is a case of abuse of power by the Executive branch, and that's handled by Congress.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by OAW 

So what in your estimation is the substantive difference between the executive action taken by Presidents Reagan and Bush I vs. President Obama on the immigration front?

OAW

You might be in the wrong thread, this one isn't solely about immigration, so why constrain it within that narrow view?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

With the current Senate rules, set by the Dems, no it can't (it isn't a regular bill).

I would think it's up to McConnell to adopt that rule for the next session, though.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

This really isn't a decision for courts, they interpret laws within a different context, this is a case of abuse of power by the Executive branch, and that's handled by Congress.

They're already suing him over other other executive actions. And where there is a conflict between the two branches over authority, its up to the courts to settle the dispute (Particularly if congress can't supercede the president by actually passing something).

I don't think it'll come to it, but I'll be highly amused if they sue Obama over his immigration action instead of passing a bill.

[The Final Dakar]

On topic for the thread, I'd have gone with the compromiser option but his actually saying what a lot of people are thinking "don't like what I'm doing, pass a bill!" bumps me up on him having more of a spine than usual. I may wait til we get closer to Jan to make a final call, however.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

You might be in the wrong thread, this one isn't solely about immigration, so why constrain it within that narrow view?

Yeah ok.

So please elaborate on your view of President Obama's "abuse of executive powers" that YOU mentioned. Other than this recent immigration situation that you are clearly ducking.

OAW

[Cap'n Tightpants]

I wasn't, and am not, ducking the "immigration situation", if your memory was half as good as you claim it is, you'd know that (WRT Mexico) I'm pro amnesty and open borders. WTF are you going on about?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

You might be in the wrong thread, this one isn't solely about immigration, so why constrain it within that narrow view?

Because OAW = narrow view.

That's just how it is.

Every black president needs his fanboi.

-t

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

I wasn't, and am not, ducking the "immigration situation", if your memory was half as good as you claim it is, you'd know that (WRT Mexico) I'm pro amnesty and open borders. WTF are you going on about?

So let's get this straight. I ask you to the substantive difference between Obama and he's GOP predecessors WRT executive orders on the immigration front. You object and say the thread isn't just about immigration. So I say fine. How has Obama "abused his executive authority" in general? To which you respond with a statement about your position on ... you guessed it ... IMMIGRATION! Still haven't said anything substantive about Obama's supposed "abuse of executive authority". But you ask me what I'm you going on about? Yeah. Ok.

OAW

[Cap'n Tightpants]

"Tell me how Obama has differed from the Republicans on immigration!"
"This thread isn't about immigration, that's the other thread."
"You're ducking the immigration issue!"
"I'm not "ducking the immigration issue", my stance on it is even further to the Left than Obama's."
"You're not answering my questions!!"

Seriously, whatever your problem is, go find a shrink and deal with it, or buy a big wall-mounted rubber fist and f*** yourself. I don't care which. Entertaining your questions is a hopeless waste of everyone's time.

[Waragainstsleep]

I rather enjoyed watching Fox and friends crying about Obama's use of scripture.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

"Tell me how Obama has differed from the Republicans on immigration!"
"This thread isn't about immigration, that's the other thread."
"You're ducking the immigration issue!"
"I'm not "ducking the immigration issue", my stance on it is even further to the Left than Obama's."
"You're not answering my questions!!"

Seriously, whatever your problem is, go find a shrink and deal with it, or buy a big wall-mounted rubber fist and f*** yourself. I don't care which. Entertaining your questions is a hopeless waste of everyone's time.

The issue here is that you see what you want to see. As opposed to what was actually stated.

Originally Posted by OAW

So please elaborate on your view of President Obama's "abuse of executive powers" that YOU mentioned. Other than this recent immigration situation that you are clearly ducking.

Or perhaps reading comprehension is just not your strong suit? In any event, I'm ok with you deluding yourself into thinking that you've really told me off or something. I'm quite confident everyone else can see your BS for exactly what it is. The fact that you resort to insults instead of just answering a simple question where I had clearly put the immigration issue aside speaks volumes.

And just for the record this is what I challenged ...

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants

He'll be impeached for abuse of executive powers, and should be.

And 3 replies later you are STILL long on this claim but short on anything whatsoever to substantiate it. It would appear you are more interested in rattling off opinions instead of substantive debate. So carry on.

OAW

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Where were we before all the baiting started? Oh yeah.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I would think it's up to McConnell to adopt that rule for the next session, though.

I think it's now a default and he has to change it, and taking power away from a seated majority is a whole lot harder than adding to it or leaving things the same, which is a lot like the problem with the executive branch.

They're already suing him over other other executive actions. And where there is a conflict between the two branches over authority, its up to the courts to settle the dispute (Particularly if congress can't supercede the president by actually passing something).

I don't think it'll come to it, but I'll be highly amused if they sue Obama over his immigration action instead of passing a bill.

That's largely because they didn't have any hope of impeaching him, now with a majority in the Senate that's a much simpler matter, of course. All the executive order madness is going to require serious measures to correct. He can't simply edit laws after they've been passed, just to suit whatever he wants to do at the time, and he can't enact Constitutional plans (or Acts) by executive fiat, except when there's a true national crisis (there wasn't), and even then they're temporary. Both of those things are extremely dangerous precedents that will lead to even worse abuse unless they're corrected. No one person should have that much power, I don't care who they are, and the thought of someone like Ted Cruz or Nancy Pelosi with it... well... that just plain old scares the shit out of me.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

I think it's now a default and he has to change it

OK. Either way I think all he needs is a simple majority to approve a rule change, and no, it can't be filibustered.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

That's largely because they didn't have any hope of impeaching him, now with a majority in the Senate that's a much simpler matter, of course.

You're likely right, but just four years ago the GOP didn't have that self-restraint. I think them waiting until after the election to actually sue was a political saavy move because I don't believe it has all that much support.

Similarly, I don't think an impeachment process would do the GOP any favors now, in public opinion.

[BadKosh]

Lets see what the SCOTUS has to say about it. They have already knocked down some of his BS.

[Chongo]

This sums up why impeachment/conviction won't happen.

Trey Gowdy says no to impeachment: ‘Have you met Joe Biden?’

[Chongo]

SNL strikes again. Schoolhouse Rock "I'm Just a Bill" parody.
Capitol Hill Cold Open - Saturday Night Live - YouTube

[Chongo]

I need to dig up some of my old utility bills. I can make a fortune at Home Depot.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

This sums up why impeachment/conviction won't happen.

Joe Biden is worse than a muslim socialist dictator? I want to see those opinion columns.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Joe Biden is worse than a athiest socialist dictator? I want to see those opinion columns.

fixed

That was Trey Gowdy's opinion.

[The Final Dakar]

He's a nobody as far as I can tell.

[Chongo]

Gowdy is chairman of the United States House Select Committee on Events Surrounding the 2012 Terrorist Attack in Benghazi.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Gowdy is chairman of the United States House Select Committee on Events Surrounding the 2012 Terrorist Attack in Benghazi.

So a nobody appointed to a temp committee?

Tell me, did you see what happened with the latest report?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

So a nobody appointed to a temp committee?

Tell me, did you see what happened with the latest report?

Yes. It was greeted like the 9/11 report. The Select Committee on blah blah blah is still meeting. I'll be surprised if anything damming comes from it. Even if there is, as Obama said:

One of the great things about America is we don't have real long memories

[The Final Dakar]

House may vote to undo Obama immigration order

"We're looking at a number of options in terms of how to address this. This is a serious breach of our Constitution," Boehner told reporters. "It's a serious threat to our system of government, and frankly we have limited options and limited ability to deal with it directly."

lolololol

This is Democrat-quality talk.

[The Final Dakar]

Obama setting the tone here in the preseason. Gonna sign this piece of shit. Democrats, of course, complicit.
Omnibus bill deserved hold-the-nose approval - Baltimore Sun

For instance, let's have a show of hands from all those Americans who really thought that too-big-to-fail banks really needed to get back into the business of investing huge sums of money in complex derivatives like those that brought the country to the brink of economic ruin six years ago. Anybody? Yet there it is in the 2015 spending bill — a rollback of a key provision within the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reforms that could easily lead to taxpayers getting put back on the hook for future bank failures in a big way.

I'd love to hear their reasoning for this.

Instead of limiting such contributions to a "mere" $97,200, the 1 percent will now be able to give $777,600, and a married couple more than $3 million. Speaker John Boehner called it an offset for a decision to stop federal funding of political conventions — as if it represented some form of benign privatization.

I now find myself in agreement with tea partiers and don't know how I feel about this.

Tea party fumes over campaign finance plan - Tarini Parti and Anna Palmer - POLITICO

“Conservatives support the First Amendment and believe there should be no limits on political speech,” said Ken Cuccinelli, president of the Senate Conservatives Fund. “Unfortunately, the new limits included in the omnibus only increase political speech for party insiders while silencing the majority of Americans who are fed up with Washington.”

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Mo' money can't be bad!

[BadKosh]

And Yesterday......


Obama amnesty is unconstitutional, federal judge finds - Washington Times

[Cap'n Tightpants]

about damned time.


(and I'm not talking about the policy itself, but the imperial way it was pushed across)

[turtle777]

That would have never happened if we had a constitutional scholar in the White House.

Oh, wait, never mind

-t

[BadKosh]

He was a part-time lecturer, NOT a "Scholar".

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Well, everyone pads their resume, ya know?

[turtle777]

Shit, that dude even padded his birth certificate

-t

[BadKosh]

and his shoulders......

[The Final Dakar]

First one down... Obama rejects Keystone XL bill - CNN.com
Party option, no surprise.

[OAW]

Obama has now issued his THIRD presidential veto. The fourth lowest in US history. Nevertheless, let the conservative handwringing begin.



OAW

[turtle777]

LOL, that's only because up until now, he had the Senate do his bidding.

You'll see much more vetoes in the next 2 years.

By the end, when Obama leaves office, he'll probably have the highest veto record ever.

-t

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

LOL, that's only because up until now, he had the Senate do his bidding.

Thank you, Captain Obvious

Originally Posted by turtle777 

By the end, when Obama leaves office, he'll probably have the highest veto record ever.

-t

Apparently you forgot the filibuster exists, which is weird seeing as its been used relentlessly the past 6 years.

[BadKosh]

I wonder if McConnell will locate his balls and change the filibuster rules back. The rest of the establishment Repubs seem to have sold their spines to the Jello people.