Lame Duck Actions

[RakuraiTenjin]

What do you think will happen after November when Romney wins the election? As in what policies do you think Obama will attempt to enact and what will his final actions be prior to leaving office in January? Do you guys anticipate any crazy pardons or other actions? Curious for an actual discussion and not just line by line debate.

 

[MuToiD_MaN]

You're calling this election already, eh?

 

[Raziaar]

What do you think will happen after November when Romney wins the election? As in what policies do you think Obama will attempt to enact and what will his final actions be prior to leaving office in January? Do you guys anticipate any crazy pardons or other actions? Curious for an actual discussion and not just line by line debate.

I'll do you a favor and bookmark this thread for you.

 

[Krynn72]

I'll bet one thousand of my posts on Romney losing. As far as I can tell, he's got almost no support at all from moderates.

 

[Russian Mafia]

If Obama loses, he will let the UN take away all the guns and let them invade, right? Or is that if he wins? I am so confused...

 

[ríomhaire]

Obama is certainly known for his crazy, drastic actions.

 

[Eejit]

Lame duck repealing the Second Amendment, duh!

 

[KiplingsCat]

Tell my fortune, O mighty soothsayer! Will I marry a prince or a circus performer? How many babies will I have and what will their names be? Will I live a full life or succumb in my youth to consumption?

Seriously, this discussion is pointless until you actually know what the outcome of the election is. Otherwise it's just futile speculation.

(By the way, Obama is waaaay cuter than Romney. He would definitely have my vote if I were from the US. Also with the support for healthcare and women's reproductive rights and stuff. But mainly that devastatingly handsome face).

 

[KoreBolteR]

People think they have a choice and that its democracy... They can't be further from the truth! Tyranny wriggles through america and the only one to save them is that ron paul guy! The elites hand pick majority of candidates... And hand picked obama because he's got the looks (as you can see from the above poster, it worked)

-KB

 

[Eejit]

Ron Paul is an anti-choice kook who believes the state should be small enough to let corporations run everything unfettered.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

If Obama loses, he will let the UN take away all the guns and let them invade, right? Or is that if he wins? I am so confused...

Aside from being sarcastic thank you for being the only person to actually reply to the question rather than going ape about my prediction.

I do believe Obama may enact some executive orders to bypass Congress again like he has in the past. I am worried about this because it seriously erodes the separation of powers. While not as dramatic as you put it, I can see him issuing executive orders to attempt to track ammunition sales or enact a budget of his choosing since the Democrat controlled Senate refuses to pass a budget for the past 3 years. It's a scary thought, the more these incidents happen the more power the executive branch gains. These type of things have long standing implications well beyond when Obama and Romney are President. They set precedent for Presidents decades in the future to do such a thing.

 

[Krynn72]

or enact a budget of his choosing since the Democrat controlled Senate refuses to pass a budget for the past 3 years. It's a scary thought

Wow, yeah, that sure is a scary thought. No president should ever take charge when congress refuses to do any god damn work. Thats not what the executive order was designed for!

 

[Russian Mafia]

In the end it doesn't matter if he does something or not, I don't think America is even salvageable at this point.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Wow, yeah, that sure is a scary thought. No president should ever take charge when congress refuses to do any god damn work. Thats not what the executive order was designed for!

No, they should definitely not. You erode the power of the legislature and increase the power of the executive branch. The US is not ruled by one man. The President's powers are limited for a purpose. The solution to a poorly performing Congress is elections, NOT simply increasing without boundary the power of the President. This has nothing to do with just Obama but goes for ALL Presidents- their power MUST be limited.

 

[KiplingsCat]

I've been watching a lot of the West Wing lately, and I think I'm beginning to understand how American politics work.

Now, Obama isn't quite as awesome as Martin Sheen, and Romney doesn't even come close. But I can still apply the theory that I've learned to this discussion. From what I've seen so far, a president is supposed to:

a) Play lots of poker
b) Make inspirational speeches with trumpet music playing in the background
c) Come out with witty one-liners
d) Assist however he can with the love lives and personal problems of his staff

It doesn't say anywhere about what the president is supposed to do if he or she gets unelected. Probably because Martin Sheen is so amazing that nobody in the world could think about voting for someone else. But if the issue comes up and I learn more, I'll return to this debate with my new-found knowledge. At this point, I'm still not sure why this debate is really happening, as the hypothetical situation on which the debate is founded has not yet happened. But that's probably because my knowledge of US politics is limited to what I've learned from season one of the West Wing, right?

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

At this point, I'm still not sure why this debate is really happening, as the hypothetical situation on which the debate is founded has not yet happened.

Wrong. Bush and Obama have both used executive orders to circumvent Congress. Whether you agree with the RESULT of what they did or not, the METHOD they did so is a serious threat to freedom and this precedent you can guarantee will be abused by future Presidents. If they continue to issue executive orders that go around Congress and exceed their constitutional authority they risk creating a dictatorship in the future. We have separation of powers for a reason. The President's job is to be the head administrator of executive branch departments, appoint supreme court judges and other official positions, be the head of state, and head of military. His role is not to make or interpret law- that is the job of Congress and the Courts.

 

[Raziaar]

In the end it doesn't matter if he does something or not, I don't think America is even salvageable at this point.

America is fine.

 

[KiplingsCat]

Wrong. Bush and Obama have both used executive orders to circumvent Congress. Whether you agree with the RESULT of what they did or not, the METHOD they did so is a serious threat to freedom and this precedent you can guarantee will be abused by future Presidents. If they continue to issue executive orders that go around Congress and exceed their constitutional authority they risk creating a dictatorship in the future. We have separation of powers for a reason. The President's job is to be the head administrator of executive branch departments, appoint supreme court judges and other official positions, be the head of state, and head of military. His role is not to make or interpret law- that is the job of Congress and the Courts.

No I mean Romney hasn't been elected into office yet, and may never be. So until you know that, there's little point in speculation on the matter. I wouldn't have a clue what all those long words you said just now mean, to be honest. I'm just here to say that worrying about the outcome of a situation that hasn't happened yet (ie Romney getting elected and Obama going crazy) is silly.

Why not just wait until you know the outcome of the election to have this discussion?

 

[Krynn72]

No, they should definitely not. You erode the power of the legislature and increase the power of the executive branch. The US is not ruled by one man. The President's powers are limited for a purpose. The solution to a poorly performing Congress is elections, NOT simply increasing without boundary the power of the President. This has nothing to do with just Obama but goes for ALL Presidents- their power MUST be limited.

The president's power IS still limited. An executive order is not a wish granting device for a president, and is itself restricted in its use. I dont see anything wrong in using its power to accomplish something that NEEDS to be accomplished when congress has paralyzed itself through partisan childishness, and is unwilling to perform their required functions. The precedent that sets is one where congress needs to get off its fat ass and do their job or else the President will do it. Imokwiththis.jpg

 

[Acepilotf14]

I personally want a pay raise

 

[Raziaar]

Executive Orders are only a problem when "The Kenyan" gets to do it. These same people bitching about executive orders are happy when their prospective candidates were talking about using executive orders to turn back all of the stuff Obama has done.

 

[DEATHMASTER]

If it was ever in question, Bill Clinton endorses...

Anyone who remembers the years under his term will know which way to vote.

 

[Bad^Hat]

 

[Eejit]

... in the Oval Office

 

[MuToiD_MaN]

****ing hell where did my "like" button go

 

[ríomhaire]

****ing hell where did my "like" button go

Disabled in the politics forum.

 

[Krynn72]

Disabled in the politics forum.

Why? Not like I give a damn, but doesnt seem to make much sense to disable it just for political threads...

Do people really get that much more upset when people dislike their political post versus their video post?

 

[CptStern]

lol ron paul attracts the lunatic fringe

What do you think will happen after November when Romney wins the election?

lol. civil war is averted and the rednecks lynch blacks so that this never happens again?

 

[Krynn72]

Wow, I feel awful for that lady. What a terrible collection of people.

 

[Bad^Hat]

Yeah. But on the other hand, U S A!