|
FDR was basically God Emperor of the United States, and he's one of the most popular president's ever. So I personally think the American people want a President to do more not less, well, I guess if that President is also not a scary color.
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 20:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 16:43 |
|
|
Radish posted:At this point I highly doubt that anything terrible the GOP wants to do is being held back by some sort of good nature or because Obama is playing fairly. They are going to do whatever they can get a way with regardless of what precedent that Obama sets. This isn't entirely true. The GOP leadership will have a much harder time keeping their caucus in line the more pissed off the deeply conservative folks get and the more convinced they are that they can stick it to Obama. Boehner doesn't want to shut down the government, but if he can't wrangle up 218 republican votes without having to attach a veto-inducing immigration rider he's out of luck because Pelosi has been loving masterful at keeping the Democratic house caucus in lockstep.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 20:47
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:This is an article on the likely Republican response. One point to note when understanding where he's coming from is that although Chait is pretty firmly on the Democratic side he does not believe the order is a good idea legally - he views it as a dangerous expansion of Presidential power. And he's right to be worried about that. Do you on the left view a more powerful presidency as a desirable state of affairs?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 20:49
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:And he's right to be worried about that. Do you on the left view a more powerful presidency as a desirable state of affairs? You are pretending it is getting more powerful, when it already has been established in history that the presidency is as powerful as the person who is President, wants it to be.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:And he's right to be worried about that. Do you on the left view a more powerful presidency as a desirable state of affairs? We already have a powerful presidency, I'm just glad he's using that overreach to help people rather than kill them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 20:53
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:And he's right to be worried about that. Do you on the left view a more powerful presidency as a desirable state of affairs? No. But then, I'm a hermeneutic communist, so what I want will never matter. It's the disingenuity of the Republicans that is worthy of derision here. I don't think forums poster Pauline Kael was worried about executive overreach before, say, about six years ago. I can't remember what happened at that time, but it sure must have had an effect on you guys.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 20:54
|
|
|
Boston goons: the Student Immigrant Movement (http://simforus.com), the largest undocumented student organization in MA, will be having a watch party tonight at 7:30 PM at the SIM Office, Location 9A Hamilton Place, Downtown Boston near Park Street. If you want to get involved, you should support SIM, they're amazing. United We Dream, the largest undoc student group in the country, will be having an online watch party / GDT chat here: http://unitedwedream.org/executiveaction/?source=fb3.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 20:57
|
|
|
So are we going to see Hillary traipsing around next week saying "how 'bout that Obama, huh? What a swell thing for a guy to do!" If I were her, I'd be going to a watch party in San Antonio tonight.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 21:00
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:And he's right to be worried about that. Do you on the left view a more powerful presidency as a desirable state of affairs? The President can do whatever he wants and literally tell Congress to "Sue me", this has been the case since forever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 21:02
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:And he's right to be worried about that. Do you on the left view a more powerful presidency as a desirable state of affairs? At this point, given the state of our political system, the Presidency is at least capable of doing things and of responding to public sentiment so it's pretty much a lesser of two evils situation and I'm ok with it. I do not believe a future Republican president would have been restrained from using this power if Obama wasn't planning on using it again considering Obama set the precedent already with the Dreamers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 21:10
|
|
|
As much as I'm in favor of reforming immigration I gotta say that I think this is a really bad way to do it. The President making people temporarily un-illegal by executive order and then basically daring the opposing party to re-gently caress those people twice as hard in 2016 is an ugly way to govern.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 21:30
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:As much as I'm in favor of reforming immigration I gotta say that I think this is a really bad way to do it. The President making things temporarily un-illegal by executive order and then basically daring the opposing party to re-gently caress those people twice as hard in 2016 is an ugly way to govern. All other ways have failed. There is no avenue forward for immigration reform except this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 21:31
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:All other ways have failed. There is no avenue forward for immigration reform except this. Obama hasn't tried resigning yet.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 21:31
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:And he's right to be worried about that. Do you on the left view a more powerful presidency as a desirable state of affairs? That ship sailed on executive orders with the enforcement of Executive Order 6102 as law.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 21:33
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:As much as I'm in favor of reforming immigration I gotta say that I think this is a really bad way to do it. The President making people temporarily un-illegal by executive order and then basically daring the opposing party to re-gently caress those people twice as hard in 2016 is an ugly way to govern. Also how are they going to be twice as re-hosed or whatever? Obama wins, and immigration advocates get some kind of action in this direction instead of stonewalling from the rest of Congress. Was it Paul Ryan or Rand Paul that literally escaped out a window when someone identified themselves as a D.R.E.A.M.E.R. There was zero movement, there was no other way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 21:33
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:As much as I'm in favor of reforming immigration I gotta say that I think this is a really bad way to do it. The President making people temporarily un-illegal by executive order and then basically daring the opposing party to re-gently caress those people twice as hard in 2016 is an ugly way to govern. Agreed, but if our political process is going to grind to a halt because of partisan bickering I'd rather the President do something than nothing. Nonsense posted:Also how are they going to be twice as re-hosed or whatever? Obama wins, and immigration advocates get some kind of action in this direction instead of stonewalling from the rest of Congress. Rand Paul https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HCpkVlX5OA
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 21:33
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:All other ways have failed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 21:33
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:That ship sailed on executive orders with the enforcement of Executive Order 6102 as law. I think you're forgetting Andrew Jackson was first, or was it Adams? or was it Washington when he ordered Mohawks and Iroquois executed en masse? Oh well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 21:33
|
|
|
Barbara Boxer just tweeted this. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:In this case I don't agree that the ends justify the means. Tough poo poo, literally. Congress is a buncha bozos blocking anything from reaching the floor. There are Republicans who wanted to help get some kind of immigration reform bill to take home to the voters in 2012-2014-2016, but the Republican party is in batshit mode not Obama.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 21:36
|
|
|
HUGE PUBES A PLUS posted:Barbara Boxer just tweeted this. One that's missing from this year: Deferred deportations to Ebola-affected nations.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:Tough poo poo, literally. Congress is a buncha bozos blocking anything from reaching the floor. There are Republicans who wanted to help get some kind of immigration reform bill to take home to the voters in 2012-2014-2016, but the Republican party is in batshit mode not Obama. It kinda sucks that Obama is going to need to make the trillion dollar coin as well because of the Republicans taking all legislative action hostage.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 21:38
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:Also how are they going to be twice as re-hosed or whatever?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 21:39
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Doing this isn't permanent and never will be. It isn't even a path to anything permanent if I read it right. It's just "We (probably) won't deport you while Democrats are in charge." Nothing is stopping a Republican president from nuking the whole deal the first hour he's in office. In my view while it may be an incremental step in the right direction, it's still just using the destitute as cheap labor that can be expelled from the country whenever convenient. If you'll forgive a spoonful of hyperbole; one step above slavery. I agree that it's not permanent, and hasn't faced SCOTUS scrutiny the way Obamacare has, but I also feel like the ACA, this is all bark from the GOP, they can whip up USAToday writers to speak of VIOLENCE and POLARIZATION all they want, a handful of voters cast their ballot in 2014, and the Republicans are going to get their shalackin in 2016. This Republican President idea is nonsensical because he can't just undo people being here defacto.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 21:42
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Doing this isn't permanent and never will be. It isn't even a path to anything permanent if I read it right. It's just "We (probably) won't deport you while Democrats are in charge." Nothing is stopping a Republican president from nuking the whole deal the first hour he's in office. Yeah, let's spit in the face of a demographic projected to become larger than our current electoral base in the next couple decades. No repercussions there. No politician wants to be the guy who removed civil protections from millions of people with family members who can vote. Rent-A-Cop posted:In my view while it may be an incremental step in the right direction, it's still just using the destitute as cheap labor that can be expelled from the country whenever convenient. If you'll forgive a spoonful of hyperbole; one step above slavery. Two steps above slavery is better than one step above slavery. We already use the destitute as cheap labor that can be expelled from the country whenever convenient, that's the status quo. It's a good thing to make it more difficult to expel them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 21:43
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Obama hasn't tried resigning yet. Still failed under Bush so it's not Obama that's the problem.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 21:51
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:Tough poo poo, literally. Congress is a buncha bozos blocking anything from reaching the floor. There are Republicans who wanted to help get some kind of immigration reform bill to take home to the voters in 2012-2014-2016, but the Republican party is in batshit mode not Obama. A lot of Americans really don't like the idea of open borders and Amnesty, regardless of the team executing the DC parlor game to make it happen. If we're cheering because it's a big gently caress you to Republicans after the frog stomp election a couple weeks ago, then fine, but lets not pretend that this is going to play well overall politically. Obama's done running for office, but I'm pretty sure someone's going to run under the D badge in 2016. What's Hillary's take on this going to be? As a Republican, I'm glad to see the Dems continue the pattern of alienating white suburban and working class voters.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 21:51
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:As a Republican, I'm glad to see the Dems continue the pattern of alienating white suburban and working class voters. Which continues to be overwhelmingly more Democratic and less white as time goes on, congrats?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 21:52
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:In this case I don't agree that the ends justify the means. Rent-A-Cop posted:Doing this isn't permanent and never will be. It isn't even a path to anything permanent if I read it right. It's just "We (probably) won't deport you while Democrats are in charge." Nothing is stopping a Republican president from nuking the whole deal the first hour he's in office. In my view while it may be an incremental step in the right direction, it's still just using the destitute as cheap labor that can be expelled from the country whenever convenient. If you'll forgive a spoonful of hyperbole; one step above slavery. This objection isn't an "the end doesn't justify the means". You're arguing the means are just not very good. However, the fundamentals of your argument don't work: they already can be expelled, and by giving them legal rights they become able to challenge illegal working conditions. Nothing stops a Republican from nuking the deal but in that case they're no worse off than they were before, and got at least two years with some amount of peace of mind and legal protections.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:This Republican President idea is nonsensical because he can't just undo people being here defacto. Popular Thug Drink posted:Yeah, let's spit in the face of a demographic projected to become larger than our current electoral base in the next couple decades. No repercussions there. No politician wants to be the guy who removed civil protections from millions of people with family members who can vote. Popular Thug Drink posted:It's a good thing to make it more difficult to expel them. Edit: Now I know what the bottom of a dogpile feels like.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 21:54
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:A lot of Americans really don't like the idea of open borders and Amnesty, regardless of the team executing the DC parlor game to make it happen. If we're cheering because it's a big gently caress you to Republicans after the frog stomp election a couple weeks ago, then fine, but lets not pretend that this is going to play well overall politically. Obama's done running for office, but I'm pretty sure someone's going to run under the D badge in 2016. What's Hillary's take on this going to be? As a Republican, I'm glad to see the Dems continue the pattern of alienating white suburban and working class voters. Not even Republicans agree with your political analysis. In fact, that's half of the source of the fury, that it will play quite well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 21:54
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Because rational thought, careful foresight, and meticulous planning are hallmarks of politics. Oh no wait, that's sensationalist racist garbage and naked self-serving greed. The Republicans would whack this in a second if they thought it would either buy them votes or just keep their more openly racist elements from splitting. Excuse me if "The Republicans are crazy racists, but they aren't crazy." doesn't instill in me enormous confidence. The better argument is more "once this has been the law for 2 years any Republican who doesn't support this is basically unelectable in the general election". Problem is that makes them unelectable in the primary, of course.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 21:56
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:A lot of Americans really don't like the idea of open borders and Amnesty, regardless of the team executing the DC parlor game to make it happen. If we're cheering because it's a big gently caress you to Republicans after the frog stomp election a couple weeks ago, then fine, but lets not pretend that this is going to play well overall politically. Obama's done running for office, but I'm pretty sure someone's going to run under the D badge in 2016. What's Hillary's take on this going to be? As a Republican, I'm glad to see the Dems continue the pattern of alienating white suburban and working class voters. This executive order will actually help strengthen the border but nice try. Also Bill Clinton came out in support of action today, so I assume that means Hillary would probably support it considering Democrats are pretty lockstep behind Obama now that they don't have anything else to lose.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 21:56
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:A lot of Americans really don't like the idea of open borders and Amnesty, regardless of the team executing the DC parlor game to make it happen. If we're cheering because it's a big gently caress you to Republicans after the frog stomp election a couple weeks ago, then fine, but lets not pretend that this is going to play well overall politically. Obama's done running for office, but I'm pretty sure someone's going to run under the D badge in 2016. What's Hillary's take on this going to be? As a Republican, I'm glad to see the Dems continue the pattern of alienating white suburban and working class voters. I don't think white working-class voters are terrified of Mexicans, actually. I think that the sort of existential fear about whether "Amnesty" will mean the destruction of American culture is really limited to the upper-middle-class and higher.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 21:56
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:I don't think white working-class voters are terrified of Mexicans, actually. I think that the sort of existential fear about whether "Amnesty" will mean the destruction of American culture is really limited to the upper-middle-class and higher. Even if he's correct in working class whites being totally forever alienated from the Democrats, they continue to shrink as they cease adding to the vote pool. They're working class, anybody of that stripe hardly votes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 21:58
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:The better argument is more "once this has been the law for 2 years any Republican who doesn't support this is basically unelectable in the general election".
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 21:58
|
|
|
If this ends up with Ted Cruz crying on the senate floor and Mitch having a heart attack from the stress of it all Obama will eclipse FDR has my favorite president.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 22:01
|
|
|
CBS and NBC will not be broadcasting this speech. Is that normal for a major address.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 22:03
|
|
|
euphronius posted:CBS and NBC will not be broadcasting this speech. Is that normal for a major address. Ratings baby, ratings!
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 22:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 16:43 |
|
|
euphronius posted:CBS and NBC will not be broadcasting this speech. Is that normal for a major address. November sweeps. Big Bang Theory and Two and a Half Men are must-see TV!
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 22:06
|
|
