US midterm elections: Barack Obama’s legacy could be ruined in one day

[chuckd]

Republicans still won.

Gloating is rude.

Sore loser.

[Publicus]

The same could be said of the extreme left wing in the US. I will grant you that the right wing currently seems more vicious, but the left wing was the same way about a decade ago.

You bring up a interesting point about voter participation. Yes, I do think the right is trying to decrease the number of democrat voters who show up to vote by passing voter ID laws. There isn't any real evidence of significant voter fraud in the US, but the right knows what the end result of these laws will be: fewer votes for Democrats. At the same time, this is 2014 and if you don't have an ID in the US then I'm not really sure how you live your daily life. On a related note, congress needs to pass some laws that change the way voting takes place in America. For example, polling stations need to be open for more than one day.

To get on the voters list in Ontario, I had to show one form of approved ID, and proof of residence (utility, cable, phone bill). They would then mail me a voter registration card at election time and I had to bring this and/or my ID to vote. I don't hear the masses complaining about voter suppression there. If someone registered to vote and was not eligible they would be liable to prosecution for violating election laws. What ID was required? The usual stuff -- passport, license or provincial id. Most young people rush to get a drivers license as soon as they can, it is a right of passage. They rush to get an ID to make sure they have ID if asked when going to a bar. They go to get a passport so that they can travel. They require ID to travel by air, to open a bank account.

Why is it such a burden to get an ID for voting in the US? Do all these masses of people have no bank account? Do they not travel by air? They don't drink? I heard that the US has a much higher percentage of evangelists that may not drink -- but I they would likely vote republican anyway would they not?

There are lots of dead people that vote in Chicago.... but I guess that would not be considered voter fraud would it.... Of course if you don't require ID it is hard to figure out how much voter fraud goes on unless the same person tries to vote after someone else voted for them (since 60% of people don't generally vote, there are lots of inactive voters to vote for -- so that is not usually a problem).

I grew up having one basic day to vote on.... and one or two days to vote on if I was really and truly not able to vote on that day. The voter participation was typically around 70%. All this advanced polling has not really increased voter participation, but it has lessened people from actually engaging in listening to what their politicians are saying before the election (since they already voted if they were going to). It is like having a trial and the jury deliberating and coming to a verdict before actually hearing the evidence.

If the problem is no ID, why not organize ID drives to get the unfortunate people an ID. Of course if people are too lazy to get an ID before voting, and have no use for it because they distil their own liquor.... hide out in swamps and shoot anyone trespassing on their land.... what makes you think they would vote in the first place?

Are Americans that lazy and stupid that they cannot get IDs yet Canadians have no problem. It does not bode well for America....

That's an interesting letter to one's self or a letter to the local newspaper in Ontario or perhaps to the office of Sen Ted Cruz, but it has little or no bearing on the situation in the United States either in the present or historically.

Which Canadians had been enslaved for 300 years then systematically disenfranchised for another 100 years by laws designed to preclude their voting. How many Canadians are racist to their bones and would do anything to prevent blacks, ethnic migrant nationals and other minorities from voting? Do Canadians vote on a Tuesday or on a Sunday? Are Canadian election campaigns twelve months long or two or three months in their duration. Etc.

The fact is voter fraud in the United States is infinitesimal and the fact is well and thoroughly documented.

As for the statement......

If the problem is no ID, why not organize ID drives to get the unfortunate people an ID. Of course if people are too lazy to get an ID before voting, and have no use for it because they distil their own liquor.... hide out in swamps and shoot anyone trespassing on their land.... what makes you think they would vote in the first place?

They don't. I've never thought of these "unfortunate people" in any political campaign I've manged or had been an advisor to. The people you describe don't vote nor do they register to vote. The people who "are too lazy to get an ID before voting, and have no use for it because they distil their own liquor" have nothing to do with the discussion or the thread.

Btw the false construction you concoct gets you no merit badges....

Are Americans that lazy and stupid that they cannot get IDs yet Canadians have no problem. It does not bode well for America....

[Publicus]

Republicans still won.

Gloating is rude.

Sore loser.

Sore winner

If a winner is sore when he wins then what's he like when he loses....

We'll find out election night 2016.

[Publicus]

This is not Soviet style government nor are Soviet style tactics involved. The allegation of "propaganda" is also outlandish and extreme.

To make such a wild claim is 100% disinformation and shows a contempt of the voters that suggests voters cannot be trusted unless they don't vote, or that perhaps voters shouldn't be allowed to vote unless voters vote the "right way."

The vast majority of Americans don't object to Prez Obama's political views or philosophy, to the extent he has any. Voters have twice demonstrated the fact. Voters instead want competence in whatever the president does and they are not getting competence from Washington, not from Democrats and not from Republicans. The hope voters will turn to the extreme far right are what is unrealistic and a complete folly. Voters will stay home first as we saw last week.

The risk in the voters staying home is however is that the extreme fanatical hard right will prevail, which would mean voters across the spectrum run the great risk of being relieved altogether of their "burden" to vote in the right way. One recalls history, 1933 especially and in particular.

The guy below works for Obama and was the architect of Obama care. I think you need to listen to what he says.

The comments and the nature of the comments vis a vis politics and government are known specifically and generally for a long time. Congress and parliaments are known to pass "midnight legislation" consistently although not as a rule.

The approach is not to be commended as it across the board from right to left to include the center tends towards the ends justifying the means. I've witnessed such legislation occurring or the impacts of such legislation enacted in these ways and I've witnessed it firsthand. It is not news to me and it is always unwelcome news to me and to many others concerned about process, procedure.

I reiterate that the approach is practiced and it needs to be discouraged, abolished. Opponents of such clandestine processes and procedures always howl about it when they come out on the short end of it, even as they themselves practice the very same means and methods when they are in control.

Neither side will however correct their wrong behaviors. We need to be aware and active if these kind of processes are to be corrected. The Supreme Court has to my knowledge ever invalidated a law passed in this manner for the reason it was enacted in the manner.

Your Statement #1 "This is not Soviet style government nor are Soviet style tactics involved. The allegation of "propaganda" is also outlandish and extreme.

To make such a wild claim is 100% disinformation and shows a contempt of the voters that suggests voters cannot be trusted unless they don't vote, or that perhaps voters shouldn't be allowed to vote unless voters vote the "right way." "

Does not jibe with your post above in my opinion.

I think there's a good reason you don't provide a reason for your opinion, which is that you haven't any good reason to support your opinion.

I nonetheless recognize your opinion which you after all are entitled to have regardless. I don't accept your opinion as valid, but I do accept that you have your opinion and I accept that your opinion is as you state it to be.....

Cheers.

[Publicus]

The Swing of the Political Pendulum will react to the Will of the People.

Political Pendulum.jpg

It's tough to argue with that sort of well thought out and researched analysis.

By the way, in 2016 there will be 10 senate Democrats up for re-election and 24 Republicans. This is a fact, not an opinion or point of view.

And finally, when will one of our resident hyper-partisans show us a single ballot which had the president's policies (sorry, POLICIES) on it?

How could anyone with a pulse possibly interpret the sheer broadness of the 2014 election results, which spanned the country and included governorships and statehouses, and included a statement from Obama himself (!) that his policies were very MUCH on the ballot, as anything BUT a repudiation of his policies?! The mere suggestion is delusional (as I'm sure some number of unelected dems will emphatically tell you).

I'd stated many times the axiom of modern politics and elections in the US, which is that the greater the voter participation in an election the better the outcome for the Democratic party, and that the lesser the participation the better for the Republican party.

In this election 38% participated. The majority of the participant voters wreaked the havoc we have before us. The majority of the 38% do reject the president and his presidency, of that there can be no question.

The bare majority of the 38% participant voters would constitute 20% of all registered voters. In the presidential election years of 2008 and 2012 the 20% were squashed under the massive vote won by Barack Obama. There's another presidential election coming up in 2016 so enjoy your successes while you can.

[bkkcanuck8]

Gloating is rude.

Sore loser.

Sore winner

If a winner is sore when he wins then what's he like when he loses....

We'll find out election night 2016.

So true.....

When Eric Cantor visited the White house 3 days after President Obama won the presidency..... Cantor was trying to share some of his ideas, but President Obama would not listen at all to ideas from someone from the other party. It was not a matter that the President might not have agreed on the items, it was that he had an utter disrespectful attitude to actually listening to ideas from people that may differ from him ideologically speaking. A gracious winner would have said something to the effect that he might not agree with all your ideas -- but I look forward to seeing if we have some common ideas..... but President Obama is anything but a gracious winner.... his response was a curt.

Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won.

It is more of a response that I would have expected in a schoolyard.... I won, you lost... na na na na na....

So it is not surprising that he is also a sore loser....

[Publicus]

Sore loser.

Sore winner

If a winner is sore when he wins then what's he like when he loses....

We'll find out election night 2016.

So true.....

When Eric Cantor visited the White house 3 days after President Obama won the presidency..... Cantor was trying to share some of his ideas, but President Obama would not listen at all to ideas from someone from the other party. It was not a matter that the President might not have agreed on the items, it was that he had an utter disrespectful attitude to actually listening to ideas from people that may differ from him ideologically speaking. A gracious winner would have said something to the effect that he might not agree with all your ideas -- but I look forward to seeing if we have some common ideas..... but President Obama is anything but a gracious winner.... his response was a curt.

Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won.

It is more of a response that I would have expected in a schoolyard.... I won, you lost... na na na na na....

So it is not surprising that he is also a sore loser....

Eric Cantor who is now making millions on Wall Street was the chief obstructionist among the House Republican leadership who just wasn't obstructionist enough for his voting constituency in a right wing conservative Virginia district. This is so even though Cantor gave Speaker Boehner nothing but migraines.

Cantor had just lost his election which among politicians is like a doctor losing his patient or like some TVF posters being wrong in their political views.

Barack Obama's strength is that he won elections to the US Senate and then two elections as president, which is a formidable resume for a politician (and O is really not a politician). It's also his greatest weakness.

Prez Obama was not literally on the ballot in this Republican party election party that will continue to roll over the next two years, but it appears he's pretty clear about whether he himself won or lost. That Republicans were the electorate in last week's election will work against them however.

Rigged elections seldom work out well for the country.

[bkkcanuck8]

Eric Cantor who is now making millions on Wall Street was the chief obstructionist among the House Republican leadership who just wasn't obstructionist enough for his voting constituency in a right wing conservative Virginia district. This is so even though Cantor gave Speaker Boehner nothing but migraines.

It was 3 days after the election, they had not even taken their seats in the house. The President himself had already set the tone. So if he gave migraines in the future, the President basically asked for it with the tone he set.

Prez Obama was not literally on the ballot in this Republican party election party that will continue to roll over the next two years, but it appears he's pretty clear about whether he himself won or lost. That Republicans were the electorate in last week's election will work against them however.

President Obama said HIS policies were on the ballot (though he himself was not). I have to agree with him, they were...

[JDGRUEN]

obama continues to poison the well of this legacy... Promising Executive action - by passing Congress to do favors for millions illegal aliens -- a.k.a. future Democrat voters. For in his eyes they are not illegal aliens - they are 'Undocumented Democrats'... just waiting to be documented.

But distinguished commentator Charles Krauthammer shows the Emperor has no clothes.

Krauthammer: Obama Acts Like a Third World Dictator, Must Be Impeached If He Orders Executive Amnesty

Krauthammer continued. “Congress has to pass it, he has to sign it. That’s the way the damn thing works.”

Krauthammer stressed that Obama “knows he shouldn’t be doing this.” “You cannot simply issue decrees,” he said. “We don’t rule by decree in this country.

http://toprightnews.com/?p=7221

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2014/11/13/Megyn-Kelly-to-Krauthammer-Does-Exec-Amnesty-Warrant-Impeachment

[Ulysses G.]

Krauthammer has been warning against impeachment, because it could hurt the Republican in 2016. I am wondering if he has decided that Obama has to be impeached at all costs. There are certainly grounds for it, if he goes ahead with this lawless power-grab. I trust Krauthammer's opinion more than anyone else.

[NeverSure]

-snip-

.

Too many posters fail to recognize their environment, which is to say we are in the schoolyard and it's the extreme far right wingnuts we hear chanting na na na na na...

And of course we never hear a word from the OCD left wingnuts...

[bkkcanuck8]

The reason why the proposed "decree" is not popular with the average person in the US.... it is because they know the inherent injustice of allowing people that jumped the queue to stay ahead of all those that have been trying to get into the US legally (and are not a security threat). They may be sympathetic to the kids that have grown up in the US and were not of legal age to make the decision themselves (those that have been in the US a long time), and would be willing to cut them some slack.... but the parents are another story.... they should never be allowed to stay in the US legally or be sponsored by their children in the future. They must go back first and come in properly (even if you make it easier for labourers to work in the US legally). They must not be allowed to benefit from jumping the queue ahead of all those that are still waiting. If you need people like that to fill the market, then create a classification for labour in that market to apply properly. If you want free movement of Mexicans into the US market -- modify NAFTA to include free movement of labour.

It is no more acceptable than if you were in a movie lineup to see a popular movie and someone walked right passed, jumped over the line and took a seat. You then come to take that seat and they say, sorry - it is filled. You argue, you say but I was waiting in the lineup to get a ticket.... What would happen in a normal lineup -- there may very well be a brawl with those that are upset with the fairness of the situation -- it is not acceptable. Why is it acceptable for those that jumped the queue to remain, while keeping everyone that was trying to get in legally out? That is why Oregon defeated the issuance of drivers licenses to illegals by a 2/1 margin.... because even in the most liberal of states -- people expect fairness.

[Publicus]

obama continues to poison the well of this legacy... Promising Executive action - by passing Congress to do favors for millions illegal aliens -- a.k.a. future Democrat voters. For in his eyes they are not illegal aliens - they are 'Undocumented Democrats'... just waiting to be documented.

But distinguished commentator Charles Krauthammer shows the Emperor has no clothes.

Krauthammer: Obama Acts Like a Third World Dictator, Must Be Impeached If He Orders Executive Amnesty

Krauthammer continued. “Congress has to pass it, he has to sign it. That’s the way the damn thing works.”

Krauthammer stressed that Obama “knows he shouldn’t be doing this.” “You cannot simply issue decrees,” he said. “We don’t rule by decree in this country.

http://toprightnews.com/?p=7221

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2014/11/13/Megyn-Kelly-to-Krauthammer-Does-Exec-Amnesty-Warrant-Impeachment

The president has the authority under the Constitution and in accordance with statutory law to act on Immigration. Read the executive order when it comes to see the authorizations of it, as it will cite from the Constitution and statutory law, as every executive order does -- every one.

He's not going to try to do the Congress' job, he's going to do the president's job as the president is authorized to do it.

For in his eyes they are not illegal aliens - they are 'Undocumented Democrats'

The Republican party position is entirely political and ignores the national interest and the general well being of the country, so your side forfeits.

Opinion: Obama's immigration reform is long overdue

By taking executive action President Obama is making good on his promise to reform immigration in the US. Conservatives are already calling for impeachment, but his decision is good for the country, says Michael Knigge.

It was definitely no November surprise. After two years of Congressional negotiations on a comprehensive immigration bill faltered earlier this year, US President Barack Obama announced in June that he would do what he needed to tackle the issue. Now his plan is clear.

The inability by Congress to act finally convinced Obama that if he wanted immigration reform he would have to enact it himself by executive order. White House and external lawyers have been trying to craft Obama's order in such a way that it withstands the torrent of legal challenges expected by Republicans. After the midterm elections Obama declared that he was now ready to issue an executive order before the end of the year.

While it appears unlikely that Republicans can thwart the order legally, there is already talk of trying to kill it by refusing to pass a budget for the country unless it prevents the president from making major changes to immigration policy. The result could be yet another shutdown of the government.

http://www.dw.de/opinion-obamas-immigration-reform-is-long-overdue/a-18062774

Who is Krauthammer anyway, a German carpenter or just another Fox Network reactionary racist right winger. Your news source links in your post to TopRight News and to Brietbart News are well known and well documented right wing extremist websites that have zero credibility same as a bunch of certain right wingnuts also well known to posters here..

Edited November 15, 2014 by Publicus

[bkkcanuck8]

Other than the unfairness of the order that he is proposing (which I stated my opinion above). The executive order itself is not really in the constitution. I will quote wikipedia clip which does a better job of explaining it:

There is no constitutional provision nor statute that explicitly permits executive orders. The term "executive power" Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution, refers to the title of President as the executive. He is instructed therein by the declaration "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" made in Article II, Section 3, Clause 5, else he faces impeachment.

Why taking this court is unlikely to succeed has nothing to do with the legality of it -- it is because the constitution indicates what the appropriate process is if the president exceeds his authority and acts against the laws as the congress has passed them... it is impeachment... therefore the courts are likely to pass on it because it is not for them to review. The Congress is responsible for immigration law. An executive order is just an order the president gives which has no constitutional authority to it, but the congress has allowed presidents some leeway in the past and not impeached them allowing it to go on. It has been becoming more and more common until this president who seems to think it gives him carte blanche to act on everything through decrees. The congress should have acted sooner than this to bring the president(s) (most modern ones) into line.

Edited November 15, 2014 by bkkcanuck8

[JDGRUEN]

Authority to Govern by Executive Fiat - yeah sure - .... I think I will listen to a prize winning commentator named Krauthammer... He is not blinded to reality by being an obedient obamacult member...

[Publicus]

The reason why the proposed "decree" is not popular with the average person in the US.... it is because they know the inherent injustice of allowing people that jumped the queue to stay ahead of all those that have been trying to get into the US legally (and are not a security threat). They may be sympathetic to the kids that have grown up in the US and were not of legal age to make the decision themselves (those that have been in the US a long time), and would be willing to cut them some slack.... but the parents are another story.... they should never be allowed to stay in the US legally or be sponsored by their children in the future. They must go back first and come in properly (even if you make it easier for labourers to work in the US legally). They must not be allowed to benefit from jumping the queue ahead of all those that are still waiting. If you need people like that to fill the market, then create a classification for labour in that market to apply properly. If you want free movement of Mexicans into the US market -- modify NAFTA to include free movement of labour.

It is no more acceptable than if you were in a movie lineup to see a popular movie and someone walked right passed, jumped over the line and took a seat. You then come to take that seat and they say, sorry - it is filled. You argue, you say but I was waiting in the lineup to get a ticket.... What would happen in a normal lineup -- there may very well be a brawl with those that are upset with the fairness of the situation -- it is not acceptable. Why is it acceptable for those that jumped the queue to remain, while keeping everyone that was trying to get in legally out? That is why Oregon defeated the issuance of drivers licenses to illegals by a 2/1 margin.... because even in the most liberal of states -- people expect fairness.

The post is a lot of nothing that has nothing to do with anything that is real.

Immigration is yet another of the litany of issues in which the politicians in Washington, namely the Republicans in Congress, are defying and opposing the will of the people across the United States, Republicans, Independents, Democrats alike.

Prez Obama is going to do what a president can and should do under the Constitution and under the laws already enacted by Congress over the past 150 years. The Republicans in Washington are, conversely, the party of constipation, fear mongering, impeachment.

Immigration Reform Proposals Garner Broad Support in U.S.

Democrats, Republicans agree on many potential immigration measures

PRINCETON, NJ -- A majority of Americans would vote for each of six different policy changes that Congress is considering as part of a comprehensive immigration reform bill.

Support ranges from a high of 87% for a multifaceted pathway to citizenship that includes a long waiting period, taxes and a penalty, background checks, and learning English, to a low of 53% for a law that would vary the number of immigrants the U.S. lets into the country, depending on economic conditions.

Over three-quarters of Americans support four of the six proposals in the June 15-16 Gallup survey. In addition to the pathway for citizenship, increased border security wins broad public support, as do a proposal that would allow engineers and scientists who earn graduate degrees in the U.S. to remain in the country and work, and legislation that would require business owners to check the immigration status of any employee they hire.

Five of the six immigration policy measures receive majority support from Democrats, independents, and Republicans, despite the intense partisan wrangling in Congress over immigration reform.

.http://www.gallup.com/poll/163169/immigration-reform-proposals-garner-broad-support.aspx

Edited November 15, 2014 by Publicus

[chuckd]

So true.....

When Eric Cantor visited the White house 3 days after President Obama won the presidency..... Cantor was trying to share some of his ideas, but President Obama would not listen at all to ideas from someone from the other party. It was not a matter that the President might not have agreed on the items, it was that he had an utter disrespectful attitude to actually listening to ideas from people that may differ from him ideologically speaking. A gracious winner would have said something to the effect that he might not agree with all your ideas -- but I look forward to seeing if we have some common ideas..... but President Obama is anything but a gracious winner.... his response was a curt.

Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won.

It is more of a response that I would have expected in a schoolyard.... I won, you lost... na na na na na....

So it is not surprising that he is also a sore loser....

Eric Cantor who is now making millions on Wall Street was the chief obstructionist among the House Republican leadership who just wasn't obstructionist enough for his voting constituency in a right wing conservative Virginia district. This is so even though Cantor gave Speaker Boehner nothing but migraines.

Cantor had just lost his election which among politicians is like a doctor losing his patient or like some TVF posters being wrong in their political views.

Barack Obama's strength is that he won elections to the US Senate and then two elections as president, which is a formidable resume for a politician (and O is really not a politician). It's also his greatest weakness.

Prez Obama was not literally on the ballot in this Republican party election party that will continue to roll over the next two years, but it appears he's pretty clear about whether he himself won or lost. That Republicans were the electorate in last week's election will work against them however.

Rigged elections seldom work out well for the country.

"Rigged elections seldom work out well for the country."

Since this thread is about the mid term elections of 2014, are you now claiming that this election was somehow "rigged"?

I'm assuming you have some documentary proof to go along with your comment concerning "rigged elections".

If so, you might give some consideration to providing a link.?

[hawker9000]

The president only has constitutional authority to enforce existing law, not to make or repeal it. Immigration law is just that, LAW! Obama has no authority to suspend immigration enforcement. It's as clear as it can be, but of course in the eyes of Obamacult members, the man can do no wrong. Usurpation of power is a very dangerous road to be going down. It's the political equivalent of vigilantism. Dems should be careful what they wish for. You know what they say about payback...

[Ulysses G.]

Opinion: Obama's immigration reform is long overdue

Opinion is the operative word. Obama does not have the power to do it without congress and he has admitted it numerous times in the past. He is trying to circumvent the constitution. This guys hypocrisy is astounding. If he goes ahead with this, he SHOULD be impeached.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIVaa37mZv4

Edited November 15, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[bkkcanuck8]

The post is a lot of nothing that has nothing to do with anything that is real.

Immigration is yet another of the litany of issues in which the politicians in Washington, namely the Republicans in Congress, are defying and opposing the will of the people across the United States, Republicans, Independents, Democrats alike.

You were referring to a poll in regards to an immigration bill (which we are not privy to the lead-in questions - which set the stage on how they will answer - which would have been centred around that specific bill).

The public is in support of the President working with congress to come up with an immigration reform bill - which is what the President should do early next year with the new congress. The public DOES NOT support the president stepping around congress and using an executive order to get around congress. The proposal of what President Obama was proposing was going much farther than the immigration bill in regards to Amnesty - giving amnesty to pretty well everyone - not just dreamers. Giving it to the parents, giving it to the people that just flooded across the border the last few months. Basically, with this President any individual trying to follow the law is an idiot. They should just buy a plane ticket and fly to the US and stay.... why obey the laws if someone else is going to jump in-front of you.

IBD (Investors Business Daily) did a poll a few months ago pretty well indicating that an executive order on amnesty was not popular. Why do you think Obama decided to push the amnesty off until after the election? He did not want to create a bad situation worse for incumbents....

A list of polls that indicate this very dichotomy....

http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/13/polls-show-hostility-toward-obamas-work-permits-for-illegals/

[bkkcanuck8]

The post is a lot of nothing that has nothing to do with anything that is real.

Immigration is yet another of the litany of issues in which the politicians in Washington, namely the Republicans in Congress, are defying and opposing the will of the people across the United States, Republicans, Independents, Democrats alike.

You were referring to a poll in regards to an immigration bill (which we are not privy to the lead-in questions - which set the stage on how they will answer - which would have been centred around that specific bill).

The public is in support of the President working with congress to come up with an immigration reform bill - which is what the President should do early next year with the new congress. The public DOES NOT support the president stepping around congress and using an executive order to get around congress. The proposal of what President Obama was proposing was going much farther than the immigration bill in regards to Amnesty - giving amnesty to pretty well everyone - not just dreamers. Giving it to the parents, giving it to the people that just flooded across the border the last few months. Basically, with this President any individual trying to follow the law is an idiot. They should just buy a plane ticket and fly to the US and stay.... why obey the laws if someone else is going to jump in-front of you.

IBD (Investors Business Daily) did a poll a few months ago pretty well indicating that an executive order on amnesty was not popular. Why do you think Obama decided to push the amnesty off until after the election? He did not want to create a bad situation worse for incumbents....

A list of polls that indicate this very dichotomy....

http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/13/polls-show-hostility-toward-obamas-work-permits-for-illegals/

The president and the vast majority of Americans are looking at comprehensive immigration reform, not the single issue of "amnesty." Amnesty is not on the table.

Go to my link, which is the Gallop Organization to read the questions and the responses to each specific question. That would be a minimum responsibility you might have if your are going to waste other people's time with your banal and glib posts from outer space.

The news source you cite is a right wing organization that cites right wing pollsters who say what they want to say against mainstream polling organizations such as Gallop, Washington Post, New York Times etc etc etc.

Isn't it time you went for lunch today?

As you said, the vast majority of people are looking for comprehensive immigration reform..... not the President and an executive order to bypass congress. The "trial balloons" of what the President plans to include - is amnesty. Discretion is letting children that were brought here and raised as Americans - before they were of the age of majority -- to stay. What is proposed is to let the flood of children that were just sent north stay, the parents stay, the "dreamers stay". That is amnesty.

Things that people support and would help you -- you implement before an election.... Things that are unpopular - you do after.... That is why he delayed the executive order until after.

[Publicus]

The president has the authority under the Constitution and in accordance with statutory law to act on Immigration. Read the executive order when it comes to see the authorizations of it, as it will cite from the Constitution and statutory law, as every executive order does -- every one.

He's not going to try to do the Congress' job, he's going to do the president's job as the president is authorized to do it.

For in his eyes they are not illegal aliens - they are 'Undocumented Democrats'

The Republican party position is entirely political and ignores the national interest and the general well being of the country, so your side forfeits.

Opinion: Obama's immigration reform is long overdue

By taking executive action President Obama is making good on his promise to reform immigration in the US. Conservatives are already calling for impeachment, but his decision is good for the country, says Michael Knigge.

It was definitely no November surprise. After two years of Congressional negotiations on a comprehensive immigration bill faltered earlier this year, US President Barack Obama announced in June that he would do what he needed to tackle the issue. Now his plan is clear.

The inability by Congress to act finally convinced Obama that if he wanted immigration reform he would have to enact it himself by executive order. White House and external lawyers have been trying to craft Obama's order in such a way that it withstands the torrent of legal challenges expected by Republicans. After the midterm elections Obama declared that he was now ready to issue an executive order before the end of the year.

While it appears unlikely that Republicans can thwart the order legally, there is already talk of trying to kill it by refusing to pass a budget for the country unless it prevents the president from making major changes to immigration policy. The result could be yet another shutdown of the government.

http://www.dw.de/opinion-obamas-immigration-reform-is-long-overdue/a-18062774

Who is Krauthammer anyway, a German carpenter or just another Fox Network reactionary racist right winger. Your news source links in your post to TopRight News and to Brietbart News are well known and well documented right wing extremist websites that have zero credibility same as a bunch of certain right wingnuts also well known to posters here..

Please permit me to address your post. There are a couple of teensy problems with it.

1. "The president has the authority under the Constitution and in accordance with statutory law to act on Immigration."

Obama's reasoning for this is going to be "prosecutorial discretion". There is no constitutional right for the President to write and enact legislation on his own and statutory law will very likely not stand up under scrutiny for this purpose. That's why we have a Congress and separation of powers.

2. Your link is an editorial written by a German citizen for a German media source, which provides this profile:

"DW represents Germany in the international media landscape. Germany’s international broadcaster conveys the country as a nation rooted in European culture and as a liberal, democratic state based on the rule of law."

The author of the editorial is one Michael Knigge, a German citizen who studied briefly at Duke University in 2006. He is the head of DW's editorial section.

3. Charles Krauthammer is not a German carpenter. He is an American citizen with German ancestry and a very impressive pedigree as described in a brief synopsis on Wikipedia. A former winner of the Pulitzer having obtained a BA from McGill University, studying at Balliol College Oxford and obtaining his MD from Harvard Medical School...none of which teach carpentry.

"Charles Krauthammer (/ˈkraʊt.hæmər/; born March 13, 1950) is an American Pulitzer Prize-winning syndicated columnist, author, political commentator, and physician. His weekly column is syndicated to more than 400 newspapers worldwide.[1] He is a contributing editor to the Weekly Standard and a nightly panelist on Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier. He was a weekly panelist on the PBS news program Inside Washington from 1990 until it ceased production in December 2013."

My guess is more people have heard of Charles Krauthammer than have ever heard of Michael Knigge.

Interesting that you take the time to slam Breitbart and Fox News yet you tout a German editorial.

Your bias is frightening.

http://www.dw.de/germanys-international-broadcaster/a-15703993

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Krauthammer

Your post might be getting a tad focused on the poster instead of the issues.

Your item one disagrees with the Law Dictionary about the constitutionality of executive orders.

Item 2 says you don't like the German point of view towards American politics...and maybe you don't like other things about the journalist I cite.

Item 3 clearly indicates you like extreme right wing journalists of any ancestry as long as they are devout right wingers....academic credentials are nominal credentials to one's political orientation and public policy preferences, so Krauthammer's universities are immaterial to his political faith. The Pulitzer is the highest journalism award which goes to the deserving regardless of their political affiliation....do you know how many Pulitzers the Washington Post and the New York Times have won.....Paul Krugman et al....

Aren't you late for lunch today or something.....

[Publicus]

The president has the authority under the Constitution and in accordance with statutory law to act on Immigration. Read the executive order when it comes to see the authorizations of it, as it will cite from the Constitution and statutory law, as every executive order does -- every one.

He's not going to try to do the Congress' job, he's going to do the president's job as the president is authorized to do it.

For in his eyes they are not illegal aliens - they are 'Undocumented Democrats'

The Republican party position is entirely political and ignores the national interest and the general well being of the country, so your side forfeits.

Opinion: Obama's immigration reform is long overdue

By taking executive action President Obama is making good on his promise to reform immigration in the US. Conservatives are already calling for impeachment, but his decision is good for the country, says Michael Knigge.

It was definitely no November surprise. After two years of Congressional negotiations on a comprehensive immigration bill faltered earlier this year, US President Barack Obama announced in June that he would do what he needed to tackle the issue. Now his plan is clear.

The inability by Congress to act finally convinced Obama that if he wanted immigration reform he would have to enact it himself by executive order. White House and external lawyers have been trying to craft Obama's order in such a way that it withstands the torrent of legal challenges expected by Republicans. After the midterm elections Obama declared that he was now ready to issue an executive order before the end of the year.

While it appears unlikely that Republicans can thwart the order legally, there is already talk of trying to kill it by refusing to pass a budget for the country unless it prevents the president from making major changes to immigration policy. The result could be yet another shutdown of the government.

http://www.dw.de/opinion-obamas-immigration-reform-is-long-overdue/a-18062774

Who is Krauthammer anyway, a German carpenter or just another Fox Network reactionary racist right winger. Your news source links in your post to TopRight News and to Brietbart News are well known and well documented right wing extremist websites that have zero credibility same as a bunch of certain right wingnuts also well known to posters here..

Please permit me to address your post. There are a couple of teensy problems with it.

<<snip>>

My guess is more people have heard of Charles Krauthammer than have ever heard of Michael Knigge.

Interesting that you take the time to slam Breitbart and Fox News yet you tout a German editorial.

Your bias is frightening.

http://www.dw.de/germanys-international-broadcaster/a-15703993

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Krauthammer

I cite a German journalist with expertise in US politics and government while I criticize extreme right wing American media because we of the Leftist Internationale are a tight brotherhood that sticks together.

[Ulysses G.]

Your post might be getting a tad focused on the poster instead of the issues.

The poster is the one trying to ignore the fact that Obama has admitted that he does not have the right to bypass congress and implement this on his own, but he is doing it anyway. He is acting like a dictator - contrary to his own word.

Edited November 15, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[up-country_sinclair]

Opinion: Obama's immigration reform is long overdue

Opinion is the operative word. Obama does not have the power to do it without congress and he has admitted it numerous times in the past. He is trying to circumvent the constitution. This guys hypocrisy is astounding. If he goes ahead with this, he SHOULD be impeached.

Can we try to cut down on the hysteria and hyperbole?

No, the president is not circumventing the constitution. Quite the contrary. In case you are unaware,

the president of the United States is the head of one of the three branches of government: The Executive Branch.

As such he has certain powers and authorities, and that includes executive orders. Former republican presidents

Ronald Reagan, George HW Bush and George W. Bush issued over 800 executive orders between them.

Were they trying to "circumvent the constitution" too?

From recent press reports, it seems President Obama intends to use an executive order on immigration.

Some are predicting that he will expand the DACA and rely of DHS's power of prosecutorial discretion.

This would be particularly savvy because President Ronald Reagan issued essentially an identical

executive order on immigration back in the eighties.

Edited November 15, 2014 by up-country_sinclair

[bkkcanuck8]

Can we try to cut down on the hysteria and hyperbole?

No, the president is not circumventing the constitution. Quite the contrary. In case you are unaware,

the president of the United States is the head of one of the three branches of government: The Executive Branch.

As such he has certain powers and authorities, and that includes executive orders. Former republican presidents

Ronald Reagan, George HW Bush and George W. Bush issued over 800 executive orders between them.

Were they trying to "circumvent the constitution" too?

From recent press reports, it seems President Obama intends to use an executive order on immigration.

Some are predicting that he will expand the DACA and rely of DHS's power of prosecutorial discretion.

This would be particularly savvy because President Ronald Reagan issued essentially an identical

executive order on immigration back in the eighties.

He is head of the executive branch. He is not head of the legislative branch (that is the Congress).

What are the responsibilities of the legislative branch? It is the branch of government that is responsible for implementing (i.e. not writing), supporting, and enforcing the laws made by the legislative branch (Congress) and interpreted by the judicial branch.

That is why the executive order is bounded both by the constitution and the laws of congress....

Edited November 15, 2014 by bkkcanuck8

[chuckd]

<<snip>>

Please permit me to address your post. There are a couple of teensy problems with it.

<<snip>>

My guess is more people have heard of Charles Krauthammer than have ever heard of Michael Knigge.

Interesting that you take the time to slam Breitbart and Fox News yet you tout a German editorial.

Your bias is frightening.

http://www.dw.de/germanys-international-broadcaster/a-15703993

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Krauthammer

I cite a German journalist with expertise in US politics and government while I criticize extreme right wing American media because we of the Leftist Internationale are a tight brotherhood that sticks together.

" we of the Leftist Internationale are a tight brotherhood that sticks together. "

This says more about your political beliefs than anything I or any American can say.

Sadly it is also the stance of our sitting President...he of the "Leftist Internationale".

[Ulysses G.]

This would be particularly savvy because President Ronald Reagan issued essentially an identical executive order on immigration back in the eighties.

One HUGE difference. It was NOT an executive order. Reagan worked with congress. Obama is circumventing them, even though he has admitted numerous times that it is beyond his authority. The Simpson-Mazzoli Act was signed into law by Ronald Reagan and was an Act of Congress. Reagan acted legally according to the constitution. Obama plans on ignoring it.

Edited November 15, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[up-country_sinclair]

One HUGE difference. It was NOT an executive order. Reagan worked with congress. Obama is circumventing their authority, even though he has admitted numerous times that it is beyond his authority. The Simpson-Mazzoli Act was signed into law by Ronald Reagan and was an Act of Congress

At best you're being disingenuous. The Reagan administration decided to change immigration policy on its own, announcing that federal law enforcement would use its “discretion” and extend protections against deportations. This is likely what President Obama is going to do also.

But let's be honest about this issue. First of all, it's good public policy to bring these people out of the shadows: their children were born in the US and they're not leaving. Secondly (and this is what has Republicans pulling their hair out), it's great politics for the president. Not only will it ensure that the majority of Hispanics continue to vote for democrats, but the policy is going to create a chasm in an already divided republican caucus.

Edited November 15, 2014 by up-country_sinclair

[JDGRUEN]

Gruber, a primary architect of obamacare, talks about how it all had to be hidden or the "stupid" voters would reject it.

Gruber a right hand man of obama in bringing about the 'to be' showpiece of the obama legacy. Six videos in all with Gruber making glib statements about lies, misdirection, obfuscation and other INTENTIONAL deceitful acts to pull off getting obamacare passed into law - all done to fool the American public ... the REAL obama legacy... Admitted on video by Gruber...

You can run from this one obama -- but you cannot hide from six very plainly stated videos of your orchestrated lying ...

Lying is obama's Legacy.

And the next Democrat presidential candidate will wear that cloak - unless they fully repudiate obama starting now.

Dear Democrats, Don’t Even Think about Running from Jonathan Gruber

In a 2010 piece, the Daily Kos outlined Gruber’s deep ties to the White House and to HHS, providing even links to his HHS contracts and the stated justifications for his contracts. The language from the presolicitation notice is particularly interesting (note highlighted portions):

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/392696/dear-democrats-dont-even-think-about-running-jonathan-gruber-david-french

Edited November 15, 2014 by JDGRUEN