Is Obama a President or King?

[KUSA]

A few years ago, this guy would have been carrying our bags.

Bill Clinton talking about Obama.

[DeistPaladin]

The voters also showed their opposition to the democratic party when they voted out the democrats in the State and National midterms.

No, they didn't.

35% turnout.

That's not a reflection of the American people.

[LostLocke]

The voters also showed their opposition to the democratic party when they voted out the democrats in the State and National midterms.

No, they didn't.

35% turnout.

That's not a reflection of the American people.

Actually, it is a refection of the American people.
But at 35% it's not an 'anti-Democrat' stance, it's more like a 'Meh, I don't care' stance.

[A Theist]

The voters also showed their opposition to the democratic party when they voted out the democrats in the State and National midterms. Are all those voters racist conspiracists too, or is it because they opposed the policies of barack obama and the democrats? You guys on the left are getting really nutty with your stupid ass conspiracy theories.

Nope just the rude bastards that say all the racist stuff.

Yeah, like Min. The rude racist.

---

The voters also showed their opposition to the democratic party when they voted out the democrats in the State and National midterms.

No, they didn't.

35% turnout.

That's not a reflection of the American people.

It's reflection enough. barack and the democrats couldn't motivate enough of your side to get out and win the election.

[DeistPaladin]

The GOP doesn't like barack's policies, period.

You know, if what you say really is true, that the GOP are driven so crazy by Obama's watered-down, heavily compromised, Wall-Street-friendly centrist policies that they can't behave like adults during a State of the Union Address or they need to grind the legislature to a halt for six years (at a time when the nation is in crisis) then they need to get out of politics and do something else for a living. They clearly don't have the emotional maturity to handle the responsibility for governing a country.

Either way...

---

It's reflection enough. barack and the democrats couldn't motivate enough of your side to get out and win the election.

On that I do agree.

Big note to Democratic leaders: whining about how bad the coming election is going to be will not fire people up to get out there and vote.

Don't act like Private Hudson the whole year before an election.

[Mister Agenda]

It's easy to be involved in violent and criminal activity in the states without there being a record of it- and yet...we don't require that of our citizens.

I'm unaware of the ethical principal that requires treating foriegn guests exactly the same as natural citizens. For the record, I'm not proposing giving guest workers the vote, either. I would like to see streamlined immigration too (maybe automatic on application after two years with a Visa and not getting in serious trouble), but that's a somewhat separate matter.

DNA sampling means we'd be able to catch our own domestics better as well.

Why would we want to catch them? Why would Homeland Security help?

Any argument you make for it that you don't immediately extend to our own citizens is just going to get both barrels from me.

Why should guest workers automatically get all the same rights and privileges as natural citizens? Why should this quibble get in the way of people actually getting to come to work in this country? 'Sorry, we almost had a guest worker program that would have let almost anyone who isn't a known criminal come to the USA legally and indefinitely, but the swab issue killed it. Maybe in another decade or two.'

If it would alarm you that our government was doing something to americans, it ought to alarm you when they do it to others (after all, you and I know they're just practicing for when they -do- get to do it to americans).

Slippery slope arguments tend to be fallacious, and you don't strike me as the 'FEMA death camp' type. People don't choose to be born in the USA, so natural citizens would have no way of avoiding the requirement except to 'go underground' or flee the country. In a political climate where terrorism is a leading (if overblown) concern, passage of such a guest visa program might hinge on identification issues.

It's just not a difficult ideal to live up to at all, I see no value in compromise on this point.

If you were trying to feed your family and the difference between getting in legally and having to give thousands of dollars to a coyote to smuggle you over to an existence where you're constantly looking over your shoulder for INS; and a swab would make the difference, you might see the value in compromise.

I understand that it's just compromise for you, I'm just cautioning against even -considering- such a "compromise".

And I get your objections. I just don't think they trump letting people enter the country legally when all they want is a job. If it makes issuing guest visas palatable enough to get it happening sooner than later, I'm okay with it. I'm okay with visas that favor Mexcican and Canadian citizens over other nationalities, too.

I get that there's a tension between idealism and pragmatism. But 'best' shouldn't get in the way of 'better'.

All that said, even my modest proposal getting passed is a pie-in-the-sky fantasy in any foreseeable political climate except the realization that we need Mexicans and South Americans here to support our economy. I have some slight hope that the argument that knowing who is entering the country puts us in a better situation regarding national security than we are in currently will carry some weight, and I am heartened that over half of Americans are good with some kind of immigration reform, but I'm still not optimistic that the next change will not be 20 steps forward and 19 steps back, because of where our legislators are at.

---

Let me put this another way, soberly consider what we're discussing as "just a compromise" - why should we ever find ourselves in a position to be so casual about such a thing, as to dangle it in front of bigots to -appease them-? What would that say about -us-?

That we are willing to pay the price of not feeling good about our integrity if it will help desperate people who only want to make a better life for themselves.

---

Being elected president makes him president. America doesn't have a king. He isn't doing anything that can't be overridden by congress or the next president.

If Obama re-writes the laws he is effectively a king. It doesn't matter what congress would pass...he'd re-write the law with an executive order.

Executive orders are not laws nor re-writes of laws.

Now Obama may have it in his power to defer the prosecution and deportation of 5 million illegal immigrants.

It's a certainty that the president has this power.

He certainly does not have the power to issue an executive order making those illegal immigrants legal.

That is correct.

The law is pretty clear, it is illegal to hire illegal immigrants. If Obama makes it legal to hire illegal immigrants he is definitely over stepping his bounds and effectively re-writing laws.

Good thing that what he actually did was halt prosecution of people who hire a certain class of illegal immigrants. That doesn't make it legal.

---

...the liberal bias of the other networks...

Anyone who was still attached to the myth of the "liberal bias" of the media should have been disabused of that delusion during the W Bush years.

Let's see: Fox News was established a few years before George W. Bush became president. Could that have had an effect on the way the media was leaning?

The media shamelessly turned into a bunch of cheer leaders in the run up to the Iraq War and then swept it all under the rug when it turned out to be based on lies.

War is good for ratings, as is controversy about war. Since the evening news became ratings-driven, it has been fairly non-partisan in making sure the American public supports war.

They even managed to create an artificial moratorium on the words "lie" or "liar", condemning anyone uttering those words as impolitic and "shrill".

By 'ban' you seem to mean 'editorial decision'.

This ban lasted until some people had their health insurance plans canceled and suddenly the word "lie" was in vogue again. It was all changed on a fucking dime like the propaganda in Orwell's 1984.

That's what Fox news is for. Can you justify your insinuation that I think otherwise?

If you work in the media and you either are a liberal or report on a story sympathetic to liberals, you are skating on thin ice.

It didn't used to be that way.

Your career hangs by a thread. You make one mistake and you are FIRED. You made an honest mistake? Fuck you, you're fired! You have 25 years with us? Fuck you, you're fired! Turns out you were completely right about what you said? Fuck you, you're fired! You're lucky if we don't physically throw you out and dump the contents of your desk out the window.

Used to be that an open conservative had a great deal of trouble getting hired by the networks, and 90% of their journalists self-identified as liberals, to the point that a conservative journalism major was more likely to find employment in a conservative think-tank than at a news station.

I remember when Bill Clinton was elected. Leading up to the election, the economic news was all gloom and doom, despite Bush Senior's insistence that the economy had started turning around months ago. The week after Clinton was elected--not took office, was elected--the economic news suddenly turned good and the networks were doing man-in-the-street interviews crediting Clinton for the 'sudden' turn-around. The particularly blatant piece of journalistic bias (that arguably handed Clinton the election, since it's rare for a president not to win a second term when the economy is on the upswing) would galvanize the right wing to prioritize media influence going forward.

If you work in the media and you are either a conservative or report on a story sympathetic to conservatives, there is no accountability for any mistakes or even gross negligence. You can shit yourself on air, pull it out of your pants and fling it at the camera. At most, you may go to the penalty box for a month or two and then be back on the air with nothing said.

How old are you? You seem to think Fox News has always existed.

See Lara Logan and Dan Rather for an apples to apples example. There are many others I can name.

Again, you seem to think I believe there is a current liberal bias in the media, based on little I have said. I suppose I'm a little flattered that I can say seven words and you'll devote so much effort to them.

If Republicans win an election, even if it's a 51/49 win, it's reported as a "mandate" and the discussion turns to "how will the Democrats come to the center" (as if they're not already centrist enough).

If Democrats win an election, even if it's a landslide, it's reported as "a call for bipartisanship" and the discussion turns to "how will the Democrats still include the Republican minority as they govern".

I think you watch too much Fox News.

Liberal
Media
My
Ass

Because life before 1996 doesn't count?

[downbeatplumb]

Is Obama a president or King?

Kings are never elected and inherit power by being you know royal.

He's a president.

You should've gone for dictator or tyrant, he's not one of these either, but the question would've made sense.

[Mister Agenda]

You see, Woodie thinks when republicunts issue executive orders they are upholding the constitution but when black democrats do it they are 'kings.'

You really have to dismiss morons like him.

I'm really glad to hear that you're a fair and open minded guy who's not a racist prick like everyone else you accuse whenever they disagree with you. I'm sure you'll join me in voting for Lt. Col. Allen West and former Secretary of State, Dr. Condoleeza Rice for President and Vice President in 2016...West and Condi, 2016!

I'm rather fond of Condi, but she seems to sincerely not want back in the White House. West seems sketchy. I don't foresee a world in which Condi would agree to be his running mate, or why she should settle for less than President if she's suddenly interested.

---

Your explanations are as vapid as you are, Woodie. Grow the fuck up. Everyone is on to you.

If my explanation is wrong then you should be able to show why it is wrong. The fact that you cannot is evidence that my explanation is right or that you are just too much of a moron to cogently explain why it is wrong.

Which is it dummy?

Most of your explanations seem to amount to 'look around the thread until you see where I addressed this before'.

---

I would not vote for Condi...dummy.

I was being sarcastic to show how stupid liberals are when they claim the right hates Obama because he is black.

You seem to have a pattern of trying to show how liberals don't take the high road by avoiding it yourself. Messaging tip: snark isn't your strong point.

---

No, it is how your party works. Democrats don't go out of their way to make your party look good. But they would never balk at voting for what they perceive as being in the country's best interest just because the republicans were supporting it. Only your party is that corrupt.

Funny, I seem to remember George W. being for an immigration reform bill that's not that much different from what President Obama is pushing, only the Democrats blocked it. And I remember Nixon trying to establish a negative income tax that would have guaranteed poor people some kind of income, but the Democrats blocked it. In both cases the motivation seemed to be to not let a Republican president score points on one of 'their' issues. It's easy to look virtuous when people's memories are short. Until George W. Bush, Republicans had a reputation in the last century for not getting us into wars, now getting us into wars is something both parties can agree on because they're both led by neocons.

[Brian37]

Tonight Obama, presumably, will side step congress and enact his own immigration reform. Does this make him a president or a king?

Now I don't normally like to use material from Fox News because many of you are simply unwilling to hear an opposing view point when it comes from Fox News(which is silly) but I think Napolintano does a good job of framing what we should be looking when Obama presents his solution to the immigration problem.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/11/2...onal-fire/

If anyone wants to post opposing views of what we should be looking for....please do it now before Obama makes his play.

After it is all said and done, let this be the thread in which we discuss Obama's go it alone....immigration reform.

GOP sheep claim to be experts on the Constitution when the reality is that they merely get lead by their politicians with coded Orwellian crap.

Every president for the past 50 years has signed congressional legislation or used executive order to deal with immigration.

The GOP has not been prevented from legally making the attempt to counter Obama's executive order. Now here is a civics lesson for you, which has been in place that BOTH parties use.

Separation of powers.

That means no one part of government can create and hold absolute power. If one part of the government does something, the other two always have options to challenge it or over time change, tweak and or reverse. EVEN the Supreme Court does not have absolute power. In the 200 plus years we have seen once held decisions by that court later be over turned by a new Supreme Court.

Obama is not the first to use executive order, and out of prior presidents he has used it the least. Now if the GOP does not like what he has done, they can pass legislation, and if Obama vetos it, and they pass it again, by law, the second go around he would be forced to sign it.

The GOP can also challenge the order in court. Now that does not mean they will win, it only means they can bring it to a court.

And win or lose Obama is not allowed to stay in office forever. He is forced by law to leave in 16. If the GOP wins they can have their president, tweak, change or remove that order.

No tyranny going on. The reason the GOP is pissed is that he made a chess move they cant counter without looking like dicks to Latino voters.

If they do pass legislation and he signs it, the GOP simply does not want him getting credit for it. If they challenge it in court, and the court sides with the GOP they look like dicks, even if they win. If they win the oval office in 16 and remove it, again, they look like dicks.

They simply got painted into a corner and politically schooled. But no laws were broken.

[Jaysyn]

The voters also showed their opposition to the democratic party when they voted out the democrats in the State and National midterms.

And at the very same time voters showed their overwhelming preference for progressive laws & initiatives. Nearly every single proposed progressive ballot initiative either became law or at least had a majority (over 51%) while the regressive initiatives such as "personhood" failed nationwide. Almost all of the Demos that did win were running progressive campaigns, not trying to prove they were Repub-lite centrists.