That's twenty in Roman Numerals. Thread thirty is going to be a hoot.
Gromnir had the last post -
You don't have to look very hard to find complaints of Obama "ruling" by EOs. Most people I've talked to actually believed he had the most, if not in all US history then in recent history. Very few actually knew of the specific orders that they hated him for but it was usually the immigration or Fed minimum wage ones. Of course this probably says more about me and the folks that I know more than society as a whole.
As to the Green votes in the Ohio special election, last I checked there weren't enough to change the lead but rather enough to trigger an automatic recount. I got a lot of heat last election for voting Green too even though my state went to Clinton but just like GD I don't think I would have changed my mind if my vote would have been the deciding factor. Wasn't that a Kevin Costner movie? Anyways, 3rd party voters make a better punching bag than the much larger group who don't bother to vote at all.
Man, I updated my phone to the new Android P yesterday and my mobile posting has become exactly 37% worse
it isn't difficult for Gromnir to add to the list o' Obama executive orders which offend beyond immigration and minimum wage, but such stuff is in our wheelhouse as it were. expansion o' domestic surveillance by means o' order were a particular troublesome example, but is hardly solitary. can laundry list stuff if need be. *shrug* in any event, am thinking it is a common mistake to get over invested in the executive orders while ignoring regulations and, to a lesser degree, memorandum and proclamations. am gonna suggest Obama did more to intrude on legislative domain than any executive since LBJ, and he were bold and unapologetic 'bout it. his pen and a phone comments were deserved criticized.
whether you like universal health care, increased minimum wages, changes to immigration, net neutrality along with some o' the more sinister stuff Obama tired to slip past Congress (and were often failing to do so-- no other recent President, regardless o' party affiliation, has had such a dismal record when facing SCOTUS review) the chief executive's role is not to legislate... and were not just executive orders which Obama were using to transform the Presidency.
when Schumer and Pelosi were cheering on Obama as he found ways to marginalize obstructionist (*snort*) republicans, Mitch McConnell (and Gromnir) were warning o' the eventual day o' reckoning. took little imagination to foresee what would happen when a republican President were sitting in the oval office and had access to a pen and a phone.
thank goodness for the relative impotence o' the current chief executive and the common sense o' a few republicans. more than once during the recent Prez elections we opined how trump would have much difficulty advancing his policy agenda. much stuff promised by trump, such as a muslim ban, were patent Unconstitutional, and most other stuff were requiring legislative action. seeing as how trump were not a consensus builder, we predicted a certain 'mount o' Presidential impotence... and thank goodness we were right. a more skilled chief executive with advantages o' a majority in both houses woulda' been punishing democrats for the excesses o' Obama. is also a relief republican leadership has chosen to put a stop to some o' the madness o' the previous administration. trump failure to overcome filibuster has not been met by Congressional effort to change rules such as happened when Obama appointees were being routine held-up.
regardless, numbers of executive orders is extreme misleading even if many conservatives reflexive complain 'bout numbers. too many conservatives nowadays is only capable o' parroting what they see on fox news or read in a trump tweet... and we all know just how accurate such sources is.
two quick asides:
1) Obama, a Con Law prof complaints o' gridlock bothered us a bit
he knew better.
2) Obama didn't wake up on the first day o' his Presidency and single-handed transform the office 'cause Congressional indolence in recent decades made it increasing necessary for chief executives to do what Congress were failing to do.
HA! Good Fun!
And since we were talking US Political Parties in the last few threads, I'll add the thoughts of one George Washington from 1796 -
"However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion."