Sultan Of Swing
Well-Known Member
If Bernie was President would he just executive order his way through everything? Has he spoken much on his views on executive orders?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Sanders Pulls Nearly Even With Clinton in New Poll
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
I haven't read anything about this yet.
That would likely be too arcane a topic for someone trying to maximize popular support.
Btw.....
Go, Bernie!
I don't know what his feelings on executive orders are, but he has said that he intends to get measures through Congress by keeping voters mobilized and actively pressuring Congress.
Sultan Of Swing
Well-Known Member
Eh, that's similar to other controversial politicians like Ted Cruz who have said pretty much the same thing; pressuring Congress. I don't know how exactly that's supposed to work though.
Well, given that Americans are these days more of a mind to be consumers than citizens, I think a President Sanders would have quite a chore politically mobilizing enough of them to pressure Congress.
esmith
Veteran Member
How did that work out for the Obama. Oh, that's right, it was those nasty ole Republicans that blocked his asinine ideas. What you have to remember is that it takes both the Senate and the House of Representatives. of this government to enact a law (however it seems that the Obama doesn't think so). Now even though at the present time the idiots in the blue states that vote in the Obama types far outnumber the voters in the Red states there are more red states than blue states. The last time I checked each state got two Senators. That means the odds of the Democrats taking the Senate are very slim especially with the mood of the country. Sanders major support comes from children that have little or no idea what it is like in the real world. They only believe in instant gratification and "free stuff". At this time they do not have the wisdom (difference between wisdom and education) to see into the future since they have only lived in a world where they have been coddled and they are only concerned with the "now". Sanders has of yet to express his views on foreign policy. He only seems to be attacking the Hillary on her ties to Wall Street. What happens when the tough questions about foreign policy has to be addressed. As much as I would like to see Sanders take Democrats primary he doesn't have a chance. All he is doing is making it hard for the Hillary to swing back from the far left where he is forcing her to go.
Do you think Obama tried to keep his base mobilized in order to pressure Congress? One of Sander's criticisms of Obama is that he did not. And, frankly, Sanders is right.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Ya, Obama is just so "asinine" that unemployment is down to under 5%, the stock market has more than doubled, corporate profits are at an all-time high, 18 million more Americans now have health care, he helped to get us out of the Great Recession that he inherited from the watch of a Republican president, he has kept us out of more wars that some Republicans like McCain wanted to get involved in, his approval ratings in more countries is much higher than Bush's, we are now exporting oil, etc.
Gee, I didn't know that "asinine" was so good, so I'm quite proud to be an "idiot" even though I don't have the "wisdom and education" that some say they have. Yep, I'm just a "blue state" "idiot" devoid of any "wisdom and education". I feel so terrible about that stereotype of myself.
Gee, I didn't know that "asinine" was so good, so I'm quite proud to be an "idiot" even though I don't have the "wisdom and education" that some say they have. Yep, I'm just a "blue state" "idiot" devoid of any "wisdom and education". I feel so terrible about that stereotype of myself.
Sultan Of Swing
Well-Known Member
To be fair, it would be embarrassing if he couldn't get the country out of a recession, it sorta fixes itself, there's not much economic genius behind it. (Though people were speculating a double dip recession so good on him for avoiding that)
esmith
Veteran Member
Well I will have to disagree with you on every point you made.
Let's look at Real Unemployment Rate
Now the Stock Market. Yeah it's up because of "cheap money" You can not make money in the bond market, the only place left is under your mattress or in stocks. Ask yourself who buys stocks, it sure isn't the middle class (except in the 401k's). So only those that can afford the stock market are making money. So, yeah the Obama policies are making the rich richer (wasn't that a problem)
Obamacare. not doing so well. http://nypost.com/2015/11/20/a-new-taxpayer-bailout-to-cover-up-obamacares-failure/
We are exporting oil in spite of the Obama. All of the exploration is being done on non-federal lands.
So, how's the Afghanistan problem going? Hmm seems to be having problems. How's the problems going in the Middle East? Seems there are more problems now than when he took office. How's the problems gong in North Africa.. Seems the Obama and the Hillary basically did the same thing you are blaming Bush for. Oh I see that doesn't count because it's the Obama.
His approval ratings in this country are at rock bottom. Our allies and enemies look at us as bumbling idiots. How's that Russian reset going.
yeah right the Obama really made a difference. The only problem is the difference is in the wrong direction.
Sultan Of Swing
Well-Known Member
If Bush was still in power and embarked on all these foreign adventures can you imagine the outcry and horror of the Left? ARREST THAT MAN! WAR CRIMES!
If you think that is in any meaningful sense more true than it was under any Republican POTUS since Reagan (he definitely included) or than it would conceivably be under any of the current crop of Republican candidates, then I fear you are in for a lot of major disappointment.
Sultan Of Swing
Well-Known Member
Republican candidates keep telling me Iran released its prisoners the day Reagan stepped into office. I don't know how true that is though.
That is apparently true, or real close to it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis_negotiations#Release
That should not be assumed to suggest that Reagan had better respect worldwide - or even specifically in Iran - than Carter, though. And it most certainly does not translate into Obama being perceived as more of a joke than his immediate predecessor. Quite the opposite.
esmith
Veteran Member
True to a point. The hostages were release Jan 20, 1981 Regan took office Jan 20, 1981. However, it is said that the Carter administration brokered the deal by releasing 10-12 billion dollars in seized Iranian assets. It is said that the Iranians took the Carter deal because they did not want to deal with a new administration. Now one could look at it two different ways depending on your political ideals. One way is that Carter did it all with Regan doing nothing. Or Iran decided to take the deal instead of dealing with a new President that they were not comfortable dealing with. Or a mixture of both. Your choice.
Sand Dancer
Currently catless
Fundamentalist Christianity is keeping it afloat, but it is sinking.
Sand Dancer
Currently catless
This works for me:
He should grow a wild beard to match his wild hair.
esmith
Veteran Member
Seems that a professor at Kings College doesn't exactly agree with Bernie.
http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/02/06/who-pays-bernie-sanders-free-college-proposal
don't like the video on Fox how about:
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/knowl...anders-free-public-college-plan-is-a-bad-idea
http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/02/06/who-pays-bernie-sanders-free-college-proposal
don't like the video on Fox how about:
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/knowl...anders-free-public-college-plan-is-a-bad-idea
And even this specific part can be taken in at least two very constrasting if not necessarily mutually exclusive ways.
Of course, Reagan was also (mostly) an unknown quantity for the Iranians at that point.
They were also without a clear benefit to keeping the hostages. It is unclear if they even had any demands beyond the deportation of Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, who died months before the hostages' release. After that point, it was a rather obvious display of power and vengeful feelings and very little else. The new Iranian regime sure felt a benefit from galvanizing people against their supposed common enemy and having the victims of their vengeance to show for it, but it cost a lot of international good will, particularly given the heights of cruelty involved. Once Pahlavi died, their release was unavoidable if still a delicate matter.
If you ask me, Reagan was lucky the Iranians gave him a credit of confidence - one that he later showed not to deserve in the slightest.