Which is the problem I have here! We have a situation where the President is talking about ignoring Congress because ohmigosh these things aren't happening and Congress is super terrible and they hate me (also they hate you) so I Have To Act!.
Your arguments would hold more weight if this weren't actually true.
I know this is just a vehicle to say "lol Congress" but I disagree with you. Regardless of how terrible Congress is, the President shouldn't be couching arguments suggesting he act unilaterally in party political rhetoric. It's reckless, no matter the reasons for it. Road to hell, good intentions, yadda yadda yadda.
Spool is putting forth the idea that Obama is railroading laws and bypassing Congress. Also he is saying that Obama is an anomaly with how often he uses executive orders. Also the dreaded slippery slope warble garble.
To get a detailed look at them there are a few posted on Wikipedia for recent presidents if you click through or you can go to Archives.gov
I'm also not making any slippery slope arguments. Presidents always try to expand executive power with a couple of notable exceptions), and a progressive desire to have this President stick it to this Congress will set precedent for other Presidents to do so as well. A level of comfort with Obama saying he'll circumvent Congress is not going to translate to a similar level of comfort when it's not your guy running things, but the other guy is going to go ahead and do it anyway; this idea ought to at least give you some pause before you hop on the Imperial Presidency train. People are going to use this President's behavior as justification for the next one's, just as they do today for Obama... just as you did yourself a few posts ago.
As to whether executive orders are right? Absolutely they are right and necessary and Obama has not 'expanded' the president's power. It was right where it's always been. There have been presidents who made bad executive orders but most of them by a wide margin make good ones and necessary ones.
Spool maybe instead of demonizing Obama and making gut claims from drudge actually look into it. Obama has ignored immigration laws?
Obama hasn't expanded the powers of the President? Drone strikes against foreigners in nations with which we are not at war, not to mention against American citizens. The vastly expanded surveillance apparatus. These are clearly expansions!
Both of these programs were implemented under Bush the Lesser. I get that Obama hasn't ended them, but they're by no means an expansion of Presidential authority under Obama.
Also, I cannot find even the slightest of fucks to give about the citizen we offed. He was a traitor in an area where we have ongoing operations. Maybe, you know, try not being a terrorist.
Spool is putting forth the idea that Obama is railroading laws and bypassing Congress. Also he is saying that Obama is an anomaly with how often he uses executive orders. Also the dreaded slippery slope warble garble.
To get a detailed look at them there are a few posted on Wikipedia for recent presidents if you click through or you can go to Archives.gov
I'm also not making any slippery slope arguments. Presidents always try to expand executive power with a couple of notable exceptions), and a progressive desire to have this President stick it to this Congress will set precedent for other Presidents to do so as well. A level of comfort with Obama saying he'll circumvent Congress is not going to translate to a similar level of comfort when it's not your guy running things, but the other guy is going to go ahead and do it anyway; this idea ought to at least give you some pause before you hop on the Imperial Presidency train. People are going to use this President's behavior as justification for the next one's, just as they do today for Obama... just as you did yourself a few posts ago.
As to whether executive orders are right? Absolutely they are right and necessary and Obama has not 'expanded' the president's power. It was right where it's always been. There have been presidents who made bad executive orders but most of them by a wide margin make good ones and necessary ones.
Spool maybe instead of demonizing Obama and making gut claims from drudge actually look into it. Obama has ignored immigration laws?
Obama hasn't expanded the powers of the President? Drone strikes against foreigners in nations with which we are not at war, not to mention against American citizens. The vastly expanded surveillance apparatus. These are clearly expansions!
Both of these programs were implemented under Bush the Lesser. I get that Obama hasn't ended them, but they're by no means an expansion of Presidential authority under Obama.
Also, I cannot find even the slightest of fucks to give about the citizen we offed. He was a traitor in an area where we have ongoing operations. Maybe, you know, try not being a terrorist.
If he was a traitor, we should have accused him of treason. This line-blurring is exactly the sort of thing people got mad at Bush about. Speaking of, yes both those programs were begun under GW Bush, and expanded in both scope and frequency under Obama.
Which is part of my complaint. Presidents expand their power unless checked. Exceptions are rare. We should be wary of the trend.
I find it Ironic that you're talking about the road to hell spool when the founding fathers designed the three seperate branches with the idea that they would work together to serve the interests of the people.
Fast forward to the present day where you have John boehner unable to reign in radical elements of his own party that played chicken with a financial apocalypse and proud of the fact that he has been speaker of the least productive congress in at least a hundred years.
This is not to say that the president should order an AC 130 to lay waste to congress while it's in session, but that it is high time he pointed out that congress is like a sebaceous cyst; the longer you ignore it, the worse it's gonna get.
Spool is putting forth the idea that Obama is railroading laws and bypassing Congress. Also he is saying that Obama is an anomaly with how often he uses executive orders. Also the dreaded slippery slope warble garble.
To get a detailed look at them there are a few posted on Wikipedia for recent presidents if you click through or you can go to Archives.gov
I'm also not making any slippery slope arguments. Presidents always try to expand executive power with a couple of notable exceptions), and a progressive desire to have this President stick it to this Congress will set precedent for other Presidents to do so as well. A level of comfort with Obama saying he'll circumvent Congress is not going to translate to a similar level of comfort when it's not your guy running things, but the other guy is going to go ahead and do it anyway; this idea ought to at least give you some pause before you hop on the Imperial Presidency train. People are going to use this President's behavior as justification for the next one's, just as they do today for Obama... just as you did yourself a few posts ago.
As to whether executive orders are right? Absolutely they are right and necessary and Obama has not 'expanded' the president's power. It was right where it's always been. There have been presidents who made bad executive orders but most of them by a wide margin make good ones and necessary ones.
Spool maybe instead of demonizing Obama and making gut claims from drudge actually look into it. Obama has ignored immigration laws?
Obama hasn't expanded the powers of the President? Drone strikes against foreigners in nations with which we are not at war, not to mention against American citizens. The vastly expanded surveillance apparatus. These are clearly expansions!
And yes, Obama has ignored immigration law, deciding to set up an entire program for "dreamers" with no legislative underpinning, and refusing to deport them. Which is again something I agree should be done! But it strains the boundary of credulity to suggest that his action falls within Prosecutorial Discretion.
I'd appreciate it if you backed off suggestions that I'm demonizing the President, or that I'm just parroting drudge report or whatever. Because it's getting annoying. Maybe you just don't know me yet?
At worst, those are maintaining status quo from previous (*ahem*) administrations.
Now, you can argue that the existing precedent established by previous administrations is wrong - wrong then, wrong now - and in many cases I would agree with you. But no matter how you cut it, unless you look all squinty-eyed and sideways at al-Awlaki* there's no standard where you could say that under Obama, the Executive has unilaterally expanded the powers of the president.
On immigration, there's a long precedent of executive orders:
Reagan Executive Order 12324 - Interdiction of Illegal Aliens
Reagan Executive Order 12582 - Naturalization requirements exceptions for aliens and non-citizen nationals of the United States who served in the Grenada campaign
Pres. G. H. W. Bush Executive Order 12711 - Deferred deportation of Chinese nationals and their direct dependents in response to the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989. See Executive Order 12711.
President GW Bush Executive Order 13269 of July 3, 2002 - Expedited Naturalization of Aliens and Noncitizen Nationals Serving in an Active-Duty Status During the War on Terrorism
President GW Bush Executive Order 13276 - Delegation of Responsibilities Concerning Undocumented Aliens Interdicted or Intercepted in the Caribbean Region
So again, where has Obama expanded the powers of the executive beyond established precedent?
*whose targeting was a continuation of precedent and policies established by previous administrations.
Spool is putting forth the idea that Obama is railroading laws and bypassing Congress. Also he is saying that Obama is an anomaly with how often he uses executive orders. Also the dreaded slippery slope warble garble.
To get a detailed look at them there are a few posted on Wikipedia for recent presidents if you click through or you can go to Archives.gov
I'm also not making any slippery slope arguments. Presidents always try to expand executive power with a couple of notable exceptions), and a progressive desire to have this President stick it to this Congress will set precedent for other Presidents to do so as well. A level of comfort with Obama saying he'll circumvent Congress is not going to translate to a similar level of comfort when it's not your guy running things, but the other guy is going to go ahead and do it anyway; this idea ought to at least give you some pause before you hop on the Imperial Presidency train. People are going to use this President's behavior as justification for the next one's, just as they do today for Obama... just as you did yourself a few posts ago.
As to whether executive orders are right? Absolutely they are right and necessary and Obama has not 'expanded' the president's power. It was right where it's always been. There have been presidents who made bad executive orders but most of them by a wide margin make good ones and necessary ones.
Spool maybe instead of demonizing Obama and making gut claims from drudge actually look into it. Obama has ignored immigration laws?
Obama hasn't expanded the powers of the President? Drone strikes against foreigners in nations with which we are not at war, not to mention against American citizens. The vastly expanded surveillance apparatus. These are clearly expansions!
Both of these programs were implemented under Bush the Lesser. I get that Obama hasn't ended them, but they're by no means an expansion of Presidential authority under Obama.
Also, I cannot find even the slightest of fucks to give about the citizen we offed. He was a traitor in an area where we have ongoing operations. Maybe, you know, try not being a terrorist.
His teenaged kid wasn't but was killed in a separate strike. That's the one that's galling. As opposed to dumb.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Spool is putting forth the idea that Obama is railroading laws and bypassing Congress. Also he is saying that Obama is an anomaly with how often he uses executive orders. Also the dreaded slippery slope warble garble.
To get a detailed look at them there are a few posted on Wikipedia for recent presidents if you click through or you can go to Archives.gov
I'm also not making any slippery slope arguments. Presidents always try to expand executive power with a couple of notable exceptions), and a progressive desire to have this President stick it to this Congress will set precedent for other Presidents to do so as well. A level of comfort with Obama saying he'll circumvent Congress is not going to translate to a similar level of comfort when it's not your guy running things, but the other guy is going to go ahead and do it anyway; this idea ought to at least give you some pause before you hop on the Imperial Presidency train. People are going to use this President's behavior as justification for the next one's, just as they do today for Obama... just as you did yourself a few posts ago.
As to whether executive orders are right? Absolutely they are right and necessary and Obama has not 'expanded' the president's power. It was right where it's always been. There have been presidents who made bad executive orders but most of them by a wide margin make good ones and necessary ones.
Spool maybe instead of demonizing Obama and making gut claims from drudge actually look into it. Obama has ignored immigration laws?
Obama hasn't expanded the powers of the President? Drone strikes against foreigners in nations with which we are not at war, not to mention against American citizens. The vastly expanded surveillance apparatus. These are clearly expansions!
Both of these programs were implemented under Bush the Lesser. I get that Obama hasn't ended them, but they're by no means an expansion of Presidential authority under Obama.
Also, I cannot find even the slightest of fucks to give about the citizen we offed. He was a traitor in an area where we have ongoing operations. Maybe, you know, try not being a terrorist.
If he was a traitor, we should have accused him of treason. This line-blurring is exactly the sort of thing people got mad at Bush about. Speaking of, yes both those programs were begun under GW Bush, and expanded in both scope and frequency under Obama.
Which is part of my complaint. Presidents expand their power unless checked. Exceptions are rare. We should be wary of the trend.
Except that he was a ranking officer in a paramilitary organization that we functionally declared war on. Which put him in the exact same spot as any other leader in a belligerent military organization - fair game.
So, even if I take all of this "Obama is just as bad about expanding Executive power or worse than any prior President" at face value, what, I'm supposed to believe that if we just elect Republicans, they're going to limit the power of the Executive?
Spool is putting forth the idea that Obama is railroading laws and bypassing Congress. Also he is saying that Obama is an anomaly with how often he uses executive orders. Also the dreaded slippery slope warble garble.
To get a detailed look at them there are a few posted on Wikipedia for recent presidents if you click through or you can go to Archives.gov
I'm also not making any slippery slope arguments. Presidents always try to expand executive power with a couple of notable exceptions), and a progressive desire to have this President stick it to this Congress will set precedent for other Presidents to do so as well. A level of comfort with Obama saying he'll circumvent Congress is not going to translate to a similar level of comfort when it's not your guy running things, but the other guy is going to go ahead and do it anyway; this idea ought to at least give you some pause before you hop on the Imperial Presidency train. People are going to use this President's behavior as justification for the next one's, just as they do today for Obama... just as you did yourself a few posts ago.
As to whether executive orders are right? Absolutely they are right and necessary and Obama has not 'expanded' the president's power. It was right where it's always been. There have been presidents who made bad executive orders but most of them by a wide margin make good ones and necessary ones.
Spool maybe instead of demonizing Obama and making gut claims from drudge actually look into it. Obama has ignored immigration laws?
Obama hasn't expanded the powers of the President? Drone strikes against foreigners in nations with which we are not at war, not to mention against American citizens. The vastly expanded surveillance apparatus. These are clearly expansions!
Both of these programs were implemented under Bush the Lesser. I get that Obama hasn't ended them, but they're by no means an expansion of Presidential authority under Obama.
Also, I cannot find even the slightest of fucks to give about the citizen we offed. He was a traitor in an area where we have ongoing operations. Maybe, you know, try not being a terrorist.
His teenaged kid wasn't but was killed in a separate strike. That's the one that's galling. As opposed to dumb.
Again, this comes back to war is hell. It's important to remember that it was Al-Qaida that declared war first on the US in the 90s, with us returning the favor on 9/12/2001.
So, even if I take all of this "Obama is just as bad about expanding Executive power or worse than any prior President" at face value, what, I'm supposed to believe that if we just elect Republicans, they're going to limit the power of the Executive?
What is the point here?
As we all know, the only two options are "agree 100% with everything Obama says and does" and "elect Republicans".
Spool is putting forth the idea that Obama is railroading laws and bypassing Congress. Also he is saying that Obama is an anomaly with how often he uses executive orders. Also the dreaded slippery slope warble garble.
To get a detailed look at them there are a few posted on Wikipedia for recent presidents if you click through or you can go to Archives.gov
I'm also not making any slippery slope arguments. Presidents always try to expand executive power with a couple of notable exceptions), and a progressive desire to have this President stick it to this Congress will set precedent for other Presidents to do so as well. A level of comfort with Obama saying he'll circumvent Congress is not going to translate to a similar level of comfort when it's not your guy running things, but the other guy is going to go ahead and do it anyway; this idea ought to at least give you some pause before you hop on the Imperial Presidency train. People are going to use this President's behavior as justification for the next one's, just as they do today for Obama... just as you did yourself a few posts ago.
As to whether executive orders are right? Absolutely they are right and necessary and Obama has not 'expanded' the president's power. It was right where it's always been. There have been presidents who made bad executive orders but most of them by a wide margin make good ones and necessary ones.
Spool maybe instead of demonizing Obama and making gut claims from drudge actually look into it. Obama has ignored immigration laws?
Obama hasn't expanded the powers of the President? Drone strikes against foreigners in nations with which we are not at war, not to mention against American citizens. The vastly expanded surveillance apparatus. These are clearly expansions!
Both of these programs were implemented under Bush the Lesser. I get that Obama hasn't ended them, but they're by no means an expansion of Presidential authority under Obama.
Also, I cannot find even the slightest of fucks to give about the citizen we offed. He was a traitor in an area where we have ongoing operations. Maybe, you know, try not being a terrorist.
His teenaged kid wasn't but was killed in a separate strike. That's the one that's galling. As opposed to dumb.
Again, this comes back to war is hell. It's important to remember that it was Al-Qaida that declared war first on the US in the 90s, with us returning the favor on 9/12/2001.
And as we've argued many times about, I continue to say it's the wrong approach to terrorism and plays into their narrative. But I think we can dispense with actually having that argument for the 59th time.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
So, even if I take all of this "Obama is just as bad about expanding Executive power or worse than any prior President" at face value, what, I'm supposed to believe that if we just elect Republicans, they're going to limit the power of the Executive?
What is the point here?
As we all know, the only two options are "agree 100% with everything Obama says and does" and "elect Republicans".
I've explicitly said before that I don't agree with everything Obama does, in particular how he constantly gives big sloppy blowjobs to corporate interests and also how he only recently stopped reaching "across the aisle" (read: "between the bars of the lion cage").
But as far as I can tell this isn't the General Barack Obama Criticism Thread, or the Compare Obama's Use of Executive Powers to Prior Presidents thread, so I'm left wondering what this has to do with the SotU?
Hey, congratulations, assholes, you have managed to get the SOTU thread locked 24 hours before the SOTU even happened! If there was an Emmy for achievements in being terrible, you all would win it, and then probably fight about who got to stick it on their mantle!
A new SOTU thread can be created tomorrow before the actual speech. For now, all of you go find a corner to sit in while you think about how much you fucking suck.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Posts
I know this is just a vehicle to say "lol Congress" but I disagree with you. Regardless of how terrible Congress is, the President shouldn't be couching arguments suggesting he act unilaterally in party political rhetoric. It's reckless, no matter the reasons for it. Road to hell, good intentions, yadda yadda yadda.
Both of these programs were implemented under Bush the Lesser. I get that Obama hasn't ended them, but they're by no means an expansion of Presidential authority under Obama.
Also, I cannot find even the slightest of fucks to give about the citizen we offed. He was a traitor in an area where we have ongoing operations. Maybe, you know, try not being a terrorist.
If he was a traitor, we should have accused him of treason. This line-blurring is exactly the sort of thing people got mad at Bush about. Speaking of, yes both those programs were begun under GW Bush, and expanded in both scope and frequency under Obama.
Which is part of my complaint. Presidents expand their power unless checked. Exceptions are rare. We should be wary of the trend.
Fast forward to the present day where you have John boehner unable to reign in radical elements of his own party that played chicken with a financial apocalypse and proud of the fact that he has been speaker of the least productive congress in at least a hundred years.
This is not to say that the president should order an AC 130 to lay waste to congress while it's in session, but that it is high time he pointed out that congress is like a sebaceous cyst; the longer you ignore it, the worse it's gonna get.
At worst, those are maintaining status quo from previous (*ahem*) administrations.
Now, you can argue that the existing precedent established by previous administrations is wrong - wrong then, wrong now - and in many cases I would agree with you. But no matter how you cut it, unless you look all squinty-eyed and sideways at al-Awlaki* there's no standard where you could say that under Obama, the Executive has unilaterally expanded the powers of the president.
On immigration, there's a long precedent of executive orders:
Reagan Executive Order 12324 - Interdiction of Illegal Aliens
Reagan Executive Order 12582 - Naturalization requirements exceptions for aliens and non-citizen nationals of the United States who served in the Grenada campaign
Pres. G. H. W. Bush Executive Order 12711 - Deferred deportation of Chinese nationals and their direct dependents in response to the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989. See Executive Order 12711.
President GW Bush Executive Order 13269 of July 3, 2002 - Expedited Naturalization of Aliens and Noncitizen Nationals Serving in an Active-Duty Status During the War on Terrorism
President GW Bush Executive Order 13276 - Delegation of Responsibilities Concerning Undocumented Aliens Interdicted or Intercepted in the Caribbean Region
So again, where has Obama expanded the powers of the executive beyond established precedent?
*whose targeting was a continuation of precedent and policies established by previous administrations.
His teenaged kid wasn't but was killed in a separate strike. That's the one that's galling. As opposed to dumb.
Except that he was a ranking officer in a paramilitary organization that we functionally declared war on. Which put him in the exact same spot as any other leader in a belligerent military organization - fair game.
What is the point here?
Again, this comes back to war is hell. It's important to remember that it was Al-Qaida that declared war first on the US in the 90s, with us returning the favor on 9/12/2001.
As we all know, the only two options are "agree 100% with everything Obama says and does" and "elect Republicans".
And as we've argued many times about, I continue to say it's the wrong approach to terrorism and plays into their narrative. But I think we can dispense with actually having that argument for the 59th time.
I've explicitly said before that I don't agree with everything Obama does, in particular how he constantly gives big sloppy blowjobs to corporate interests and also how he only recently stopped reaching "across the aisle" (read: "between the bars of the lion cage").
But as far as I can tell this isn't the General Barack Obama Criticism Thread, or the Compare Obama's Use of Executive Powers to Prior Presidents thread, so I'm left wondering what this has to do with the SotU?
A new SOTU thread can be created tomorrow before the actual speech. For now, all of you go find a corner to sit in while you think about how much you fucking suck.