(February 27, 2016 at 1:42 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote:(February 27, 2016 at 12:10 pm)Old Baby Wrote: He doesn't have unlimited power, but he can still dish out the hurt with illegal wars (Bush in Iraq) with the most powerful military in the world without having to go to congress for approval. Then there's the executive order that King Obama and King Bush have been so fond of. I'm grateful that we have the congressional lunatic asylum, whether they happen to be blue or red, and I actually like the fact that it's very difficult to change the status quo. That means it's a much harder fight and longer process to change things, but once they are changed they're not likely to be flipped on and off based upon the whims and biases of whatever regime has the majority.
Oh, FFS... "so fond of"? Stop watching Faux News.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/every...one-chart/
![[Image: mehta-datalab-executiveorders1.png?w=575]](https://espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/mehta-datalab-executiveorders1.png?w=575)
Calm down. I don't watch Fox news. Sorry to have picked on your guy, but your chart doesn't really change anything. I was addressing whether or not the President really had a lot of power, and to my estimation he does because of the good ol' executive order, among other things. I guess it's my use of the word "king" that has upset you. I used it toward Obama and Bush because theirs are the presidencies I've paid the most attention to, since I was a teenager when Clinton was president. I'll just put "King" in front of all guys' names who have used it the same amount of times or more to be fair. That's not to say that every use of the executive order is unjustified, but I haven't always cared for the way that Obama or Bush used this power.
