Politics

[Polish Leppy 22]

Can you explain that a little more, as Medicaid and ACA go after two different groups.

Also what economic problems is medicaid supposed to solve?

Sure. Medicaid was designed to provide medical assistance to persons in certain categories: income level, age, assets, pregnancy, blindness, citizenship status, etc. The pitch for medicaid (and ACA) was that government subsidies and involvement would lower costs for people and making it more "affordable", thus keeping more money in people's pockets.

We know that it is a failed policy and ACA willl just expedite that freefall.

 

[BobD]

Almost impossible to watch anything political on TV anymore without gagging.The shit that comes out of their mouths is ridiculous.

Right or wrong, republican or democrat, on this issue of immigration it's nice to see someone act with some brass balls.

 

[NDFANnSouthWest]

This President is out of control...what a clown.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Almost impossible to watch anything political on TV anymore without gagging.The shit that comes out of their mouths is ridiculous.

Right or wrong, republican or democrat, on this issue of immigration it's nice to see someone act with some brass balls.

Haha. So when Bush passed the Patriot Act he was tearing apart the Constitution and was a racist Nazi.

Obama acts completely on his own (against his authority) with obamacare (last year) and immigration now, and he is a man of "brass balls."

What a crock of shit lol. This is a post-Constitutional presidency.

 

[irishff1014]

Haha you know it's bad when fox, cbs, and abc don't stop the programs for the president. The only channel here that had it other the cnn,foxnews, and msnbc was nbc.

 

[T Town Tommy]

Haha. So when Bush passed the Patriot Act he was tearing apart the Constitution and was a racist Nazi.

Obama acts completely on his own (against his authority) with obamacare (last year) and immigration now, and he is a man of "brass balls."

What a crock of shit lol. This is a post-Constitutional presidency.

As I have said many times, this President will go down in history as perhaps the absolute worst President our country has ever seen. The full effects of his time in office will not be seen for years.

With that said, the Republicans don't need to overreach here either. They control the power of the purse. They can affectively fight his executive order by simply not funding the programs necessary to get it done. No need to shut the government down. Pass a continuing resolution for a spending bill, wait till they control Congress in January, and then let him feel the full power of Congress' appropriations process. They need to systematically perform their duties beginning early next year to provide him will every bipartisan bill they can muster. Let him veto all the jobs bills, the Keystone Pipeline, and every other piece of legislation that should be passed. Then throw it out there just like this past election. He will see that his last two years in office the only way he gets anything done - legally or illegally - is with his pen. And if I was Congress, I wouldn't even fund him with enough money to buy a damn pen.

 

[T Town Tommy]

Haha you know it's bad when fox, cbs, and abc don't stop the programs for the president. The only channel here that had it other the cnn,foxnews, and msnbc was nbc.

That's because NBC is lock step with this President.

 

[Bluto]

As I have said many times, this President will go down in history as perhaps the absolute worst President our country has ever seen. The full effects of his time in office will not be seen for years.

With that said, the Republicans don't need to overreach here either. They control the power of the purse. They can affectively fight his executive order by simply not funding the programs necessary to get it done. No need to shut the government down. Pass a continuing resolution for a spending bill, wait till they control Congress in January, and then let him feel the full power of Congress' appropriations process. They need to systematically perform their duties beginning early next year to provide him will every bipartisan bill they can muster. Let him veto all the jobs bills, the Keystone Pipeline, and every other piece of legislation that should be passed. Then throw it out there just like this past election. He will see that his last two years in office the only way he gets anything done - legally or illegally - is with his pen. And if I was Congress, I wouldn't even fund him with enough money to buy a damn pen.

George Bush 2 based on his foreign and domestic policies is hands down the worst President since WW2.

 

[Circa]

This President is out of control...what a clown.

The racism mark was hit on earlier in another thread. I hate my own opinion at times but I never go against my heart. Bush wanted this comprehensive immigration bill also. Obama is and always will be thrown under the bus because of his race instead of what he stands for, is rightfully bullshit! Politics has become a sporting type event that the networks showed tonight. If we as the people keep acting as if this is our type of sport, we deserve the likes of a Russian ideal being more advanced in the heart of their people and our's trying to figure out what party they want to affiliate with

 

[Circa]

Exactly backwards. Republicans were elected in this cycle specifically to be the "party of no." The electorate hates Obamacare, amnesty, and whatever it is Obama is agreeing to with the Chinese about climate change. They don't want government to "get things done" just for getting-things-done's sake if those "things" are crap ideas. Gridlock is a feature of our Constitution, not a flaw. Gridlock is intentional and helps ensure that only the very best ideas get through.

Logic: If the electorate wanted the Republicans to "work with Obama" for the next two years, they would have voted for Democrats.

Logic would also say don't pay attention to the new's because you never get the whole story. Logic and politics are like cats and dog's. Sometimes they do sometimes...

Logic: Those that vote are usually higher end individual's. The system has been working for them since the Reagan era.

 

[Circa]

All of those things are rights as subsets of the right to liberty, but education and driving are not. Got it.

This is in fact a Right and should be.
Freedom of movement under United States law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Buster Bluth]

As I have said many times, this President will go down in history as perhaps the absolute worst President our country has ever seen.

He's not even the worst guy this century. We haven't had a good President since....Truman?

Obama - awful
Bush - awful
Clinton - awful
Bush - meh
Reagan - double awful
Carter - awful
Ford - Who?
Nixon - lol
Johnson - awful
Kennedy - n/a
Eisenhower - in retrospect, not good.
Truman - maybe?

The full effects of his time in office will not be seen for years.

The effects of what exactly? He hasn't accomplished much.

 

[NDFANnSouthWest]

The racism mark was hit on earlier in another thread. I hate my own opinion at times but I never go against my heart. Bush wanted this comprehensive immigration bill also. Only because (It's a damn shame), Obama is and always will be thrown under the bus because of his race, instead of what he stands for is rightfully bullshit! Politics has become a sporting type event that the networks showed tonight. If we as the people, keep acting as if this is our type of sport, we deserve the likes of a Russian ideal being more advanced in the heart of their people, and our's trying to figure out what party they want to affiliate with.

I have no idea what race has to do with my post, I am so sick of people that don't agree with this lawless president are called raciest.....

 

[Circa]

I have no idea what race has to do with my post, I am so sick of people that don't agree with this lawless president are called raciest.....

Lawless? I just don't understand that point. I figure you're just as well as I. Not calling you out, just was a point I was trying to state.

 

[IrishinSyria]

Challenge to everyone accusing Obama of constitutional overreach. I've included a link to the DOJ's analysis of the DHS policy. Please read through it and show where it's wrong. I've also included a link to an open source copy of the blue-book, please use proper annotations when citing the relevant law to make your case, it makes it easier to check your cites. Thanks.

http://www.justice.gov/sites/defaul.../11/20/2014-11-19-auth-prioritize-removal.pdf

https://www.legalbluebook.com/img/PastVersions/USC15.pdf

 

[West Coast Domer]

He's not even the worst guy this century. We haven't had a good President since....Truman?

Obama - awful
Bush - awful
Clinton - awful
Bush - meh
Reagan - double awful
Carter - awful
Ford - Who?
Nixon - lol
Johnson - awful
Kennedy - n/a
Eisenhower - in retrospect, not good.
Truman - maybe?



The effects of what exactly? He hasn't accomplished much.

Don't give him the truth Buster!

 

[BobD]

Party politics is for ass clowns.

Our country is run by ass clowns.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Exactly backwards. Republicans were elected in this cycle specifically to be the "party of no." The electorate hates Obamacare, amnesty, and whatever it is Obama is agreeing to with the Chinese about climate change. They don't want government to "get things done" just for getting-things-done's sake if those "things" are crap ideas.

"The electorate" is whoever showed up to vote. In 2012, a real referendum on Obamacare, they reelected him.

2014 had more to do with Obama blowing, Republican gerrymandering, classic six-year itch, etc than voting against specific programs.

Six-year itch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The six-year itch, according to political scientists, is the pattern which takes place during a US president's sixth year in office. This year is characterized by the nation's disgruntled attitude towards the president and his political party. During this time, there is a midterm election and the party in power usually loses a significant number of seats in Congress.

Democrat Bill Clinton is the only two-term President since Reconstruction not to have this occur.

Gridlock is a feature of our Constitution, not a flaw. Gridlock is intentional and helps ensure that only the very best ideas get through.

So if only the best ideas get through...why does the federal government suck?

Logic: If the electorate wanted the Republicans to "work with Obama" for the next two years, they would have voted for Democrats.

Care to elaborate?

 

[pkt77242]

Party politics is for ass clowns.

Our country is run by ass clowns.

I would love to abolish political parties.

 

[Woneone]

Challenge to everyone accusing Obama of constitutional overreach. I've included a link to the DOJ's analysis of the DHS policy. Please read through it and show where it's wrong. I've also included a link to an open source copy of the blue-book, please use proper annotations when citing the relevant law to make your case, it makes it easier to check your cites. Thanks.

http://www.justice.gov/sites/defaul.../11/20/2014-11-19-auth-prioritize-removal.pdf

https://www.legalbluebook.com/img/PastVersions/USC15.pdf

I dunno. I remember someone saying something along these lines though...

“Sometimes when I talk to immigration advocates, they wish I could just bypass Congress and change the law myself. But that’s not how a democracy works. What we really need to do is to keep up the fight to pass genuine, comprehensive reform. That is the ultimate solution to this problem. That's what I’m committed to doing.”

and this

The most important thing for your viewers and listeners and readers to understand is that in order to change our laws, we’ve got to get it through the House of Representatives, which is currently controlled by Republicans, and we’ve got to get 60 votes in the Senate.

and this

“I’m not a king. You know, my JOB as the head of the executive branch ultimately is to carry out the law. And, you know, when it comes to enforcement of our immigration laws, we’ve got some discretion. We can prioritize what we do. But we can’t simply ignore the law. When it comes to the dreamers, we were able to identify that group and say, ‘These folks are generally not a risk. They’re not involved in crime. … And so let’s prioritize our enforcement resources.’ But to sort through all the possible cases of everybody who might have a sympathetic story to tell is very difficult to do. This is why we need comprehensive immigration reform. To make sure that once and for all, in a way that is, you know, ratified by Congress"

and I think he also said this

“f, in fact, I could solve all these problems without passing laws in Congress, then I would do so. But we’re also a nation of laws. That’s part of our tradition. And so the easy way out is to try to yell and pretend like I can do something by violating our laws. And what I’m proposing is the harder path, which is to use our democratic processes to achieve the same goal that you want to achieve. … It is not simply a matter of us just saying we’re going to violate the law. That’s not our tradition. The great thing about this country is we have this wonderful process of democracy, and sometimes it is messy, and sometimes it is hard, but ultimately, justice and truth win out.”

This guy must be against what happened today, right?

 

[BobD]

I would love to abolish political parties.

They are our number one problem. No one party or person has all the right answers. We can't get anything done because these bone heads sit around acting like children....I take that back, children would do a better job.

 

[pkt77242]

They are our number one problem. No one party or person has all the right answers. We can't get anything done because these bone heads sit around acting like children....I take that back, children would do a better job.

Politicians (on both sides) are more beholden to their party then to their constituents.

 

[IrishinSyria]

And obviously, he didn't change the law, he exercised executive discretion to change DHS's enforcement priorities so... no, that guy wouldn't be against what just happened?

As a general rule, when Congress vests enforcement authority in an executive
agency, that agency has the discretion to decide whether a particular violation of
the law warrants prosecution or other enforcement action...

As the Supreme Court explained in Chaney, the decision whether to initiate enforcement
proceedings is a complex judgment that calls on the agency to
“balanc[e] . . . a number of factors which arepeculiarly within its expertise.”
Id. These factors include “whether agency resources are best spent on
this violation or another, whether the agency is likely
to succeed if it acts, whether the particular enforcement action requested best fits
the agency’s overall policies, and . . . whether the agency has enough resources to
undertake the action at all.” Id. at 831; cf. United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S.
456, 465 (1996) (recognizing that exercises of prosecutorial discretion in criminal
cases involve consideration of “‘uch factors as the strength of the case, the
prosecution’s general deterrence value, the Government’s enforcement priorities,
and the case’s relationship to the Government’s overall enforcement plan’”
(quoting Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598, 607 (1985))).

 

[Woneone]

Politicians (on both sides) are more beholden to their party then to their constituents.

What continues to amaze me is how there is seemingly no middle ground with these clowns. It's a farce in every way, shape and form now.

 

[Woneone]

And obviously, he didn't change the law, he exercised executive discretion to change DHS's enforcement priorities so... no, that guy wouldn't be against what just happened?

How so? By ignoring the enforcement all together? That is not re-prioritization, that ignoring the law and infringing on the constitution. He doesn't get to pick and choose what laws he likes and dislikes.

After Bush's own push for comprehensive immigration reform failed, he asked his legal team to examine his executive powers to change immigration policy. But they quickly concluded the kind of action Obama is now contemplating would go beyond presidential authority.

I personally agree that Amnesty should happen. I think there are plenty of reasons for it, and I think the two parties should have put something together (as everyone else has said, the party system is past it's prime).

But to pretend this isn't anything but a power-play now that the Elections are past is delusional. He could have done this when he had a majority and both the Senate and House (2009?). He could have done this WHEN EVER according to him. But until now, until today he actually said he wasn't allowed, by law, to do it. And now? Yea, he doesn't care anymore, because he has no one else in his party that he could hurt taking this stance.

Let's repeat that. He said he wasn't allowed to do it. Did someone find a new passage of the constitution and say, "Oh, hey Barry, lookie what I found! You know that whole immigration thing? Yea, it's a total go now."

It's crap (the execution, not the idea. Hell, I don't even blame him for it totally). I get that the president gets leeway in EO's, but you don't get unilateral power.

 

[T Town Tommy]

George Bush 2 based on his foreign and domestic policies is hands down the worst President since WW2.

He is up there too but this guy has two more years of ignorant stuff. He will trump Bush and Carter... and I thought that would never happen.

 

[T Town Tommy]

He's not even the worst guy this century. We haven't had a good President since....Truman?

Obama - awful
Bush - awful
Clinton - awful
Bush - meh
Reagan - double awful
Carter - awful
Ford - Who?
Nixon - lol
Johnson - awful
Kennedy - n/a
Eisenhower - in retrospect, not good.
Truman - maybe?



The effects of what exactly? He hasn't accomplished much.

Obamacare will probably be a multigenerational screwup that can not be measured just how bad until every aspect of it gets activated. This immigration EO also will have effects for years to come. His lack of foreign policy anything will take at least a decade to fix. So yeah... he hasn't accomplished much... and what he has will go down as unbelieveably awful.

And shame on you for your Reagan rating. He was the best modern day president. Period. End of discussion.

 

[ShawneeIrish]

He's not even the worst guy this century. We haven't had a good President since....Truman?

Obama - awful
Bush - awful
Clinton - awful
Bush - meh
Reagan - double awful
Carter - awful
Ford - Who?
Nixon - lol
Johnson - awful
Kennedy - n/a
Eisenhower - in retrospect, not good.
Truman - maybe?



The effects of what exactly? He hasn't accomplished much.

I think Reagan is the worst president of the modern era so we agree there. However, i would argue that LBJ was the last good president. His major flaw was Vietnam which I do not excuse, however it was mainly the fault of Ike and JFK. LBJ was the last President to offer good domestic policy. I do like your Meh rating for Old Man Bush, as he was far better than Clinton or Obama, both of whom get respect from people who claim to be liberals but are both actually governed as right of center presidents who did a horrible job. I would say Bush I was the best president of my lifetime. FDR was the last good president and LBJ was the last respectable president.

EDIT: As to the Nixon LOL he may have had no ethics and been a scumbag but on many issues he was to the left of Obama, healthcare for one.

 

[IrishinSyria]

How so? By ignoring the enforcement all together? That is not re-prioritization, that ignoring the law and infringing on the constitution. He doesn't get to pick and choose what laws he likes and dislikes.



I personally agree that Amnesty should happen. I think there are plenty of reasons for it, and I think the two parties should have put something together (as everyone else has said, the party system is past it's prime).

But to pretend this isn't anything but a power-play now that the Elections are past is delusional. He could have done this when he had a majority and both the Senate and House (2009?). He could have done this WHEN EVER according to him. But until now, until today he actually said he wasn't allowed, by law, to do it. And now? Yea, he doesn't care anymore, because he has no one else in his party that he could hurt taking this stance.

Let's repeat that. He said he wasn't allowed to do it. Did someone find a new passage of the constitution and say, "Oh, hey Barry, lookie what I found! You know that whole immigration thing? Yea, it's a total go now."

It's crap (the execution, not the idea. Hell, I don't even blame him for it totally). I get that the president gets leeway in EO's, but you don't get unilateral power.

I won't argue that his timing and presentation of the issue isn't 100% political, because I agree that it is (though I would argue it's bad politics; the congressmen who were begging him to hold off on this until after the election lost anyway.) However, as far as I can tell, the case for his authority to do this is rock solid. He's not changing the law. He's not violating any sort of constitutional protection. He's directing DHS to direct their efforts at stopping dangerous illegals. If Congress wants DHS to get rid of everyone, they should fund a DHS that can handle 12 million people. Until that day, it makes sense to me that they worry less about parents and families and more about criminals and smugglers.

 

[phgreek]

I dunno. I remember someone saying something along these lines though...



and this



and this


and I think he also said this



This guy must be against what happened today, right?

well...being he was a constitutional law guy...you'd think he knew what he was saying. So if he was wrong like 20 times when he said this very action was illegal, how'd he get to be a constitutional lawyer, and subsequently a law prof?

can we call for his college transcripts again...BWAHAHAHA! I know that pisses you Obama lovers off...so why not have a little fun.

Anyway...He's either fundamentally wrong (20x), which calls into question the ONE and ONLY credential he brought to office, or he was correct, and he is a reckless fool...

And Syria...I think what you ask is a fool's errand...if I understand correctly, that is. You are looking in code???(can't see links)...won't likely find it specifically enumerated. What this comes down to is interpretation, and precedent...and no I don't think Reagan and Bush 41 are precedence for this...because I think in both cases they clarified intent of law, and congress was behind it...ie neither went against the will of congress...I think its safe to say Mr. Obama has, and I think thats where he gets clipped...but we shall see. One thing about this guy...he is audacious...