• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Progressives Gave Up Their Chance to Stop a New Hitler

fmw said:
It is important to understand that the left approves of the president making his own laws. When there is a president from the right, guess what will happen.
Click to expand...

Oh, that's easy.

The right will turn themselves into a pretzel defending any and all EOs by a president from the right.;)
 
Captain Adverse said:
Executive orders are not "law," they are merely instructions from the Chief Executive to the Federal agencies that he supervises on how he wants them to pursue their duties.

Think "policy" enacted by a new CEO while that executive holds office. They can be changed whenever a new President is elected.

All agencies are still bound by the law, cannot contravene Constitutional limitations, and must cease and desist whenever instructed to do so by court order.

This is actually why I support the power of the Court system to interpret law.
Click to expand...

This pretty much defines a two branch government with the legislative branch needed only to supply funds and to establish general guidelines. The immigration guidelines appear to permit the executive to do as they wish, by siimply asserting that it is "the right thing to do", until or unless the SCOTUS elects (no case gets a mandatory SCOTUS appeal) to intervene.
 
LowDown said:
With Obama progressives broke all the guardrails. Now they don't know how to survive the winds that will result.

Mr. Obama doesn't need to justify his actions. He realizes that no one can stop him. He has set new norms for presidential governance, and it has seeped into the national conscience.

So, as a result, Hillary is promising to govern by diktat. She will punish companies that try to avoid taxes. If congress won't support that then she'll use her executive authority to do it.

Liberals don't like guns, so Hillary is promising to use executive authority to limit their use, Congress and the majority of Americans be damned.

On immigration Obama ignored statutory limitations and wrote rules to prevent illegal immigrants from being prosecuted. Hillary vows to go much, much further along that line.

Mr. Trump caused an uproar by proposing to limit entry of Muslims into the country. Is he on a sound legal basis? Who cares? Trump specializes in in disdain for the law, the Constitution, and any code of civilized conduct. Guardrails are for losers. He’d set up a database to track Muslims or force them to carry special IDs. He’d close mosques. He’d deport kids born on American soil. He’d seize Iraq’s oil fields. He’d seize remittance payments sent back to Mexico. He’d grab personal property for government use.

The press and political class let Obama burn it all down because they agreed with him on the policies. The checks and balances, the guardrails, are gone, and there's nothing to stop a new Hitler.

Americans worried about a new Hitler should oppose abuse of executive power no matter who is president.

No Political Guardrails - WSJ
Click to expand...

I'm aware of everything you mention, and no one dislikes that sort of abuse of executive power more than me. But I don't think your alarm is justified, because you are overlooking impeachment. It is that big stick that finally settles any dispute over the way a President, or any civil officer of the U.S., uses his power--and the People of this country hold it. The moment of a vote to convict by two-thirds or more of the Senators present, who are elected and held to account by the People, the person impeached no longer holds any official power at all. After that, he is also subject to prosecution for any crimes he may have committed. I don't think we will ever have to consider it in Mrs. Clinton's case, because I don't believe she will be elected--too old, too infirm, too unlikeable, and too habitual a liar.
 
matchlight said:
I'm aware of everything you mention, and no one dislikes that sort of abuse of executive power more than me. But I don't think your alarm is justified, because you are overlooking impeachment. It is that big stick that finally settles any dispute over the way a President, or any civil officer of the U.S., uses his power--and the People of this country hold it. The moment of a vote to convict by two-thirds or more of the Senators present, who are elected and held to account by the People, the person impeached no longer holds any official power at all. After that, he is also subject to prosecution for any crimes he may have committed. I don't think we will ever have to consider it in Mrs. Clinton's case, because I don't believe she will be elected--too old, too infirm, too unlikeable, and too habitual a liar.
Click to expand...

The New York Times could unearth videos of Obama and Michelle eating babies alive and still the Democrats would block any impeachment effort. And look at all the stuff that Democrats are already ignoring when it comes to Hillary. Impeachment is useless with so much bad faith in the Congress.
 
LowDown said:
The New York Times could unearth videos of Obama and Michelle eating babies alive and still the Democrats would block any impeachment effort. And look at all the stuff that Democrats are already ignoring when it comes to Hillary. Impeachment is useless with so much bad faith in the Congress.
Click to expand...

If you are right, so many Americans are so morally debased and self-serving there is no hope whatever for us. I am not ready to go so far as to believe that.
 
OP sounds like GOP establishment supporter.

gop-establishment-advice.jpg
 
Last edited:
BWG said:
Oh, that's easy.

The right will turn themselves into a pretzel defending any and all EOs by a president from the right.;)
Click to expand...

I don't see how you can say this when Bush was getting flack from the right for that very thing. GW Bush got lots of flack from the right for signing an order giving the NSA what some people termed "unconstitutional" rights to surveillance. GHW Bush is still taking flack from the right for the Family Fairness orders.

Simply counting the number of executive orders each president signs isn't valid. Most of the orders previous presidents signed are simply housekeeping and clarification. Obama makes a point of telling us that he is going around Congress when he writes many of his orders, and there is the rub.
 
LowDown said:
The New York Times could unearth videos of Obama and Michelle eating babies alive and still the Democrats would block any impeachment effort. And look at all the stuff that Democrats are already ignoring when it comes to Hillary. Impeachment is useless with so much bad faith in the Congress.
Click to expand...

Obama could literally turn out to be the second coming of Jesus and Republicans would still want to impeach him. Neener.
 
Deuce said:
Have you read the thread title by any chance?
Click to expand...

It mentions Hitler, not Hillary.

I suppose I can understand how you could look at one and see the other, but I did not.
 
code1211 said:
It mentions Hitler, not Hillary.

I suppose I can understand how you could look at one and see the other, but I did not.
Click to expand...


Ok. Now, after you read the thread title, did you read the OP?
 
Deuce said:
Obama could literally turn out to be the second coming of Jesus and Republicans would still want to impeach him. Neener.
Click to expand...

Well, if he actually turned out to be Jesus the Republicans would have a hard time beating Democrats to the punch.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Again, NO. All that an executive can do is decide whether or not he intends to enforce a law, and then how he will act to enforce it during his term of office. That is not "changing the law."

Executive orders have been rescinded by subsequently elected Presidents. :shrug:
Click to expand...

How is a President who refuses to recognize or obey the law of the land passed by Congress not changing the law? That's like saying I didn't change the rule, I just didn't like it so I made up a new one to use instead.
 
LowDown said:
With Obama progressives broke all the guardrails. Now they don't know how to survive the winds that will result.

Mr. Obama doesn't need to justify his actions. He realizes that no one can stop him. He has set new norms for presidential governance, and it has seeped into the national conscience.
Click to expand...

Examples.....?

Most of his Presidency IS the GOP in congress stopping him.

Voinovich on McConnell's approach Obama: "“If he was for it, we had to be against it...He wanted everyone to hold the fort. All he cared about was making sure Obama could never have a clean victory.”"

Republican aide: “People were pretty demoralized, and there were two totally opposite thoughts on how to approach the situation,” a McConnell aide recalls. “One was, `we don't like the president, we ought to pop him early.’ The other was, `he’s really popular, we should work with him, because that’s what people want us to do.’ The boss’s take was: Neither." McConnell realized that it would be much easier to fight Obama if Republicans first made a public show of wanting to work with him."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...4e9a138-e302-11e1-98e7-89d659f9c106_blog.html

Economist's View: If Obama Was For It, We Had To Be Against It






What "guardrail" has Obama broken?

LowDown said:
Mr. Trump caused an uproar by proposing to limit entry of Muslims into the country. Is he on a sound legal basis? Who cares? Trump specializes in in disdain for the law, the Constitution, and any code of civilized conduct. Guardrails are for losers. He’d set up a database to track Muslims or force them to carry special IDs. He’d close mosques. He’d deport kids born on American soil. He’d seize Iraq’s oil fields. He’d seize remittance payments sent back to Mexico. He’d grab personal property for government use.

The press and political class let Obama burn it all down because they agreed with him on the policies. The checks and balances, the guardrails, are gone, and there's nothing to stop a new Hitler.

Americans worried about a new Hitler should oppose abuse of executive power no matter who is president.
Click to expand...


Yes, and it's Obama's fault that my cat missed the litter box. He probably also left that new scuff mark near my favorite chair.






More seriously: This thread is delusional. There are all sorts of things to criticize Obama over. Not some hypothetical future Hitler.
 
German guy said:
When I read the thread title, I thought this would be about Trump.
Click to expand...

Well, it sort of is. The OP alleges that if someone like Trump gets elected and acts like Hitler, that will all be Obama's fault.

Not the people who voted for the someone like Trump.
 
Mr Person said:
Examples.....?

Most of his Presidency IS the GOP in congress stopping him.

Voinovich on McConnell's approach Obama: "“If he was for it, we had to be against it...He wanted everyone to hold the fort. All he cared about was making sure Obama could never have a clean victory.”"

Republican aide: “People were pretty demoralized, and there were two totally opposite thoughts on how to approach the situation,” a McConnell aide recalls. “One was, `we don't like the president, we ought to pop him early.’ The other was, `he’s really popular, we should work with him, because that’s what people want us to do.’ The boss’s take was: Neither." McConnell realized that it would be much easier to fight Obama if Republicans first made a public show of wanting to work with him."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...4e9a138-e302-11e1-98e7-89d659f9c106_blog.html

Economist's View: If Obama Was For It, We Had To Be Against It






What "guardrail" has Obama broken?




Yes, and it's Obama's fault that my cat missed the litter box. He probably also left that new scuff mark near my favorite chair.






More seriously: This thread is delusional.
Click to expand...

If helping your cat were his job, that is best you might want to hope for.
 
Mr Person said:
Examples.....?
Click to expand...

Of course you know what I'm talking about.

  • Obamacare is problematic, so Obama unilaterally alters the law.
  • Congress won't change the immigration system, so Obama refuses to enforce it.
  • The nation won't support climate change legislation, so Obama creates it through regulation.
  • If the Senate won't install his nominees, he declares it in recess and installs them anyway, even if the Senate says they are not in recess.
  • He blew up certain cherished ethics of his office, too, like representing all Americans and not demonizing them.
  • He egged on his IRS to target conservatives.
  • He used his Justice Department to exact retribution on politically unpopular banks.
  • He had his EPA lead an armed raid of an Alaskan mine.


Our divisive president never misses an opportunity to deride Republicans or the tea party. He is more scornful toward fellow Americans than toward Islamic State. This too sets new norms. [Following Obama's example] Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid now uses the chamber to accuse individual citizens of being “un-American.” Asked recently what “enemy” she was most proud of making, Mrs. Clinton lumped “Republicans” in with “the Iranians.” Ted Cruz rose to prominence by mocking his Republican colleagues as “squishes.” Mr. Trump has disparaged women, the other GOP contenders, Iowans, wives, the disabled, Jews.
Click to expand...

And it looks like we won't be able to go back:

The more outrageous Mr. Trump is, the more his numbers soar. The more Mrs. Clinton promises to cram an agenda down the throats of her “enemies,” the more enthusiastic her base. The more unrestrained the idea, the more press coverage; the more ratings soar, the more unrestrained the idea. The humble candidates—those with big ideas, but with respect for order and honor—are lost to the shouting.
Click to expand...

wsj.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom