How big a failure is Obama's presidency?

The laws on who is allowed to stay here, and under what status, as established by law, passed by Congress. They're the ones who create all those categories, visas, requirements, and whatnot.

Isn't deliberately failing to enforce an existing law effectively the same as changing it unilaterally?

I'm not sure I can believe you, since you began this discussion claiming he had altered the laws on becoming a naturalized citizen. We both know he did no such thing.

No, it's that the Constitution vests all such powers in Congress, but only uses the word 'naturalization'. Obama himself spent the past six years explaining to various activists why he could not Constitutionally do what he just did. He could tap dance around with 'priorities', but it wasn't within his power to give people a pass on the law.

gturner is like an older Federal Farmer. Older, but no smarter. Both seem to have bought the Goebbels party line, though.

We're not the ones trying to move all the power over to the executive branch - like Goebbel's would. Back in 2008 John McCain vowed to fight that, saying

“I take the Constitution very seriously. The biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all. And that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m President of the United States of America.”

Oh wait, that was Obama.

Bush was pushing for amnesty, too, but recognized the limits of Presidential powers in that area:

"With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case. Because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed. And I know that everybody here at Bell is studying hard so you know that we’ve got three branches of government. Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the laws. There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply, through executive order, to ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as president."

Oh wait, that was Obama, too.

Heck, the Republicans will hire that Obama guy to argue their case against the President's unilateral usurpation of Congressional power.

What is this racist tantrum people are mentioning?

Oh, Obama got all pissed off about getting shellacked in the mid-terms, so he started babbling about fruit pickers and claimed he had the right to take Congressional action because they didn't, even though he's not a member of Congress. Congress isn't going to take this lying down, and will probably appoint a half-dozen new Supreme Court justices just to stack the deck. Can they do that? Of course, because Obama has failed to appoint a bunch of new Supreme Court justices, and since he hasn't acted, they can do what he just did and act on his behalf.

Given that five other presidents have done the same, in not changing the law but changing how the law was carried out via executive order, the endless Republican whining appears to be just sore grapes.

Um, no. Obama specifically needed changes in the law to carry this out. Again, in his own words.

THE PRESIDENT: Believe me — believe me, the idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. (Laughter.) I promise you. Not just on immigration reform. (Laughter.) But that’s not how — that’s not how our system works.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Change it!

THE PRESIDENT: That’s not how our democracy functions. That’s not how our Constitution is written.

By the way, that quote comes from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/07/25/remarks-president-national-council-la-raza, but sadly, my browser informs me:

Wrong certificate name

The server's certificate did not match it's host name. Accept?

server name: www.whitehouse.gov

Well, the old Republic was nice while it lasted.

This will really be all for nothing because the GOP will more than likely pass an immigration bill when the new Congress is in session next year.

To be fair, Goebbels stole it from Lenin, but you're the Energizer Bunny of the belief that "a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth."

I think they'll call it a deportation bill after Obama's unconstitutional power grab. There is nothing in the Constitution says its clauses are suspended if the President gets frustrated or angry. As one President famously said:

There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as president.”

Oh wait, that was Obama, too.

Not only are you wrong but you expose your ignorance by mouthing such stupidity. He has not changed any laws but has changed how the government goes about enforcing/carrying out laws. That you do not understand the difference in your quote shows why you fail so often.

Then why couldn't Obama figure that out for six years? Oh, because what he did was unconstitutional - according to Barack Obama. Indeed, he hasn't changed any laws, he just issued a decree that's completely contrary to those laws. He's not allowed to do that. If a President could, then why do we even bother having a Congress? Why did Obama spend six years telling all the immigrant groups that he couldn't what he just did without Congress changing the law?

It is logical not cynical. Given what money is in our society it is obvious that it will overpower any person trying to get elected. You simply cannot make it there without selling your soul because your opponents would be so much more powerful. The fact that they keep smashing down contribution limits and opening up new ways to funnel money into their pockets means anyone who tries to take on one ends up taking them all on in the federal level. That is simple reality. You are confusing cynical with realistic because the truth is the cynical view. Any hope you have of a good candidate coming along is fucked because they would never let him run. It is all full of shit because that is all the machine is designed to produce.

Crist's own words. Look it up.

Sadly I have to agree with this. You can still find honest to good people at the local level, but those people never rise to statewide or federal office.

They might be Crist's own words but they are complete lies.

Neither Bush, nor Reagan required Congress when they did the exact same thing.

That would be great, if true, but they've been refusing to offer any bill (not even in the house) because their base thinks any bill is amnesty.

1) You are being dumb because it has repeatedly been explained to you why it is perfectly legal and even several conservative groups have said as much.

2) The main reason why Obama didn't do it this way was because he knew presidential orders only last until the next president changes them. He kept asking congress to act but Republicans always blocked any bill.

According to Politifact which based their numbers on the Congressional Resource Office official numbers, more Obama appointees have been blocked then ALL OTHER PRESIDENTS COMBINED.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...reid-says-82-presidential-nominees-have-been/

Yes, the GOP has gone batshit insane since then, which is why they no longer get my vote. But all of these things are irrelevant - can you see any major GOP leader starting with 'We need this done. We need to bring the other side to the table. Lets use some of their ideas to help get this passed.' The Heritage Foundation plan with the individual mandate was proposed in 1989. Bush 41 included it in his proposition for health care. Gingrich brought it forward in 93. And he was one of the leading candidates for the Republican primary for the Presidency in 2012, after the ACA was passed into law.

Not all Conservatives embraced the individual mandate even in the 90s, but let's not pretend that this was the Democrats favorite way of addressing health care. Most of the 'leftists' want single payer enhanced with the option of private coverage - like every other 1st world country.

From the New Yorker:
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/06/25/unpopular-mandate

Maybe the fact that he lost the popular vote and the politics around the 2000 election were unusual in the extreme, considering Florida was run by his brother and the Supreme Court filed a one time non-binding finding straight down party lines? There were some huge irregularities in that election - and I was one of the guys pointing out why Bush won here. I don't recall you being around on WF at the time, but I used to be the guy making your arguments - though granted a bit better informed.

Yes, Clinton got attacked at an unprecedented level for the time. Then it increased yet again under Obama. I refer you back to the fact his appointments were blocked via cloture at a higher level than all the other Presidents that came before him combined.

Its also without a doubt that Rubio used 'the hug' picture to attack Crist, and that its widely perceived as the primary reason people doubted his Conservative principles - he didn't hate Obama enough. It doesn't take a great leap of logic to understand why.

Because a huge subsection of GOP voters are now in the solid south and bible belt, and there's not a lot of love lost for hispanics in the majority of the South. The one exception is obviously Florida with their large base of cuban voters compared to any other state.

And there's a large difference between what the party elites want - they've made it clear they need to be more open to minorities - and the party faithful want. GOP voters are older, and racist beliefs are more prevalent in the previous generations.

You don't have to say that every Republican is a racist to know that there is a considerable portion of the GOP base that are racists and that the party leadership chose to court their vote since Nixon's time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

Now with the changing demographics they are trying to distance themselves from that and are finding it difficult because that component of their base is not interested in being more progressive.

And why corruption is rampant in the US. Give $50 to a cop to get out of a speeding ticket - that's bribery. Give $50,000 to a Senator for consideration on key legislation - that's business as usual.

Don't be intentionally obtuse. You know that's not what that point is about.

I realize corporate downsizing has been the trend for a decade, and that the people responsible for it are gaining materially by it. The destruction of the middle class is at the hands of those people more than any other single fact.

But go ahead, split hairs. I see you don't even try to argue the point. Tax cuts for the rich don't help anyone but the rich. Supply side economics can work in a close system, but in an age of globalization it just helps destroy our democracy and turn it into an oligarchy.

http://www.businessinsider.com/major-study-finds-that-the-us-is-an-oligarchy-2014-4

Because you say so.

No, they haven't. Even Obama's own spokesman, Josh Ernest, went on CNN and told Anderson Cooper that what Obama did was exactly what he'd previously said was unconstitutional. Journalists joked that he must have been on truth drugs.

How did the Republicans block a bill back when Democrats controlled both the House and Senate? And in block a bill, Congress is taking action - of not passing a law they think is bad. The Republicans also didn't pass a law limiting voting to white males, so does that mean that Obama has to issue an executive order limited voting to white males now?

If you look you'll find the older Bush also did a very, very similar thing and guess what? It was not found to be unconstitutional. You are just fooling yourself just like you righties are doing with the house's stupid law suit which will be laughed out of court. That is why the first two legal teams the GOP hired quit; the case is a born loser and nothing more than a political stunt for fools and idiots.

Bush's amnesty was much more limited, and in response Ted Kennedy sponsored a bill (signed into law by President Clinton) that stopped that kind of thing. There are also subsequent court cases that held that executive discretion cannot be applied to entire groups en masse, and must be limited to a case-by-case basis. A prosecutor can decide not to charge a particular individual, nor not go after a prioritize a particular type of crime, like jaywalking, but they can't declare that white men are granted immunity from federal hate crime laws.

Not only do all the Republicans in the Senate oppose Obama's actions, four of the non-Republican Senators have already come out on the record against it. Senator Joe Donnelly, Democrat from Indiana, issued a statement saying "It is clear the immigration system in this country is broken, and only Congress has the ability to change the law to fix it. The Senate passed bipartisan immigration reform last summer with my support, though we are still waiting on the House to debate this issue. I am as frustrated as anyone that Congress is not doing its job, but the President shouldn’t make such significant policy changes on his own.” And the Senator stuck it on his website. Obama also lost the support of Manchin, McCaskill, and King. And the day is not even over yet.

Once again the party of "Elect Me So I Can Shut Down the Gubmint" hasn't done its homework:

House GOP panel: Defunding immigration order "impossible"