How big a failure is Obama's presidency?

Garamet, read the list carefully and search for meaning.

Eisenhower
allowed orphans to exceed their quotas about being adopted into US families, and after WW-II, there were a heck of a lot of orphans!

Then he allowed 31,000 Hungarians to immigrate - to escape a Soviet crack down. Do you remember the cold war?

Then he allowed 600,000 Cubans to flee totalitarian communism just off our shores. Shortly after he left office, we had the Cuban missile crisis and the world was on the brink of nuclear war.

Ford
Allowed 360,000 Indo-Chinese (aka Vietnamese) to immigrate after he abandoned their country to totalitarian communist invasion. Helicopters on the embassy roof, millions of refugees fleeing the US disaster, etc. There are now 2 million Vietnamese Americans from the 1 million who found their way here through refugee camps throughout Asia and the Pacific.

Allowed 14,000 Lebanese to immigrate. Do you remember the brutality of the Lebanese civil wars, Christians and Druze fleeing persecution, etc? This is not at all comparable to what Obama just did. In fact, Obama has allowed lots of refugees from Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere into the US and nobody even batted an eye.

Reagan
Allowed immigration of 10,000 Poles. 10,000? That's about 1 percent of the guess as to how many people Obama just let in.

Allowed 15,000 Ethiopians to immigrate. Wait, I though he was racist? Did you know that a whole lot of Ethiopians fled to Israel?

Rescinded the deportation of 200,000 Nicaraguans. Now what was going on in Nicaragua during Reagan's terms? Hrm... I'm sure you can recall something. It would be like Obama rescinding the deportation of Ukranians - or Syrians and Iraqis displaced by ISIS. Again, that is not what we're talking about.

Deferred the deportation of the children of people who'd already been granted amnesty - by Congress - in law.

Bush 41
Deferred deportation of Chinese students - in 1989 - when the Chicoms had tanks crushing students in Tiananmen Square.

Reversed visa denials of Soviets and Indo-Chinese. Did something happen to the Soviets in 1989? Oh yes, the wall fell and they collapsed as an entity.

He deferred the deportation of the spouses and children of people who'd just been given amnesty - by Congress - in law, saying that Congress had forgotten to address whether the spouses and children of those being given amnesty should stay or go, and he was erring toward keeping families intact. Congress did not disagree. In contrast, Congress is strongly disagreeing with Obama's action.

Deferred deportation of El Salvadorans - because we'd have to air drop them into a war zone.

Bush 43
Expedited naturalization for US soldiers. Yes, they do wear an American flag on their arm, the one that holds their US government issued rifle, after they've sworn to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States - the one Obama just wiped his ass with.

Deferred deportation of students affected by Hurricane Katrina. Are Democrats really going there for a talking point? Why yes, they are.

Enabled Cuban physicians to seek asylum in US embassies. Really? He allowed doctors to seek asylum in our embassies? How outrageous!!!!

Deferred deportations of Liberians. Did you know Obama did exactly that several months ago and nobody uttered a peep? Again, that is not what has people upset.

Your argument is with Ancalagon, not me.

I'm just laughing at how the GOP's answer to everything seems to be :tantrum:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/every-immigration-related-executive-action-of-the-last-58-years/

A list of every single executive order dealinng with immigration in the last 58 years for those interested in reality instead of spin.

Well, at this action, you should be the one objecting, and objecting strongly. You see, what Obama has done is assert that the President has the power to not enforce laws passed by Congress. Let's call this the 'non-enforcement doctrine', as has .John Hinderaker at Powerline.

Liberals and leftists generally want more laws and more regulation. Republicans and libertarians want less. This new Obama non-enforcement doctrine, as Hinderaker argued, is a one-way ratchet. The President can't create more laws with it, he can just nullify existing laws - which inevitably means less laws and regulations to worry about.

So the next President, who will almost certainly be a Republican, in no small part because of Obama's immigration actions, can order the IRS to stop collecting corporate income taxes. He can order the EPA to stop enforcing environmental laws. He can order the DoJ to stop enforcing civil rights laws. In short, only the laws the President agrees with will be enforced. All others are null and void - though still on the books. Now if only the framers had come up with a way to keep a President from doing such a thing. A way to ensure that even Republican Presidents enforced laws passed by liberal Democrats. Oh wait. The founders did. They even made the President swear an oath to faithfully execute all the laws. Obama used to argue that the Constitution said exactly that, and that it prohibited him from doing what he just did.

Go bother Ancalagon. I'm not playing.

And if you'll note, all of those executive orders summed together - over 58 years - are less than the uncertainty in what Obama did. He's up to 5.8 million by executive order, and that's just an estimate. There are 31 US states that don't even have 5.8 million citizens. That's the majority of states. It's like adding a couple of new states to the Union without even consulting Congress, much less getting their permission.

See, EbolaMan's not bothered by whether or not immigration reform is legal. It's the number of Brown People that scares him...

Oh look.

Garamet has detected racism.

Surprise...surprise...surprise...

I've said it before and I believe it.

Lots of Democrats seem beholden to the idea that EVERY president in the forseeable future will be a Democrat (led by Hillary Clinton).

It is going to be one hell of a rude awakening for them one day when a Republican (a conservative one) is elected.

So how do you interpret gturner's posts?

Just off hand I detect no racism in posts #96, #94, & 91.

Perhaps you should be more specific.

Garamet sees racism even when a race doesn't exist. Somehow she thinks a blend of the descendants of many European powers, some slaves, a sprinkling of Middle Easterners and Asians, and a wide variety of native Americans produces genes that are different from the people north of the border - who are a blend of the descendants of many European powers, some slaves, a sprinkling of Middle Easterners and Asians, and a wide variety of native Americans.

Speaking of "surprise."

His fear is that "those people" will outnumber the people already here. And the GOP contention is that the only reason this is being done (this one time, as opposed to any time their own side has done it) is to garner votes. Or as one of the GOP's greatest intellectuals put it:

“The social cost will be profound on the U.S. taxpayer — millions of unskilled, illiterate, foreign nationals coming into the United States who can’t speak the English language,” Bachmann told reporters at the Capitol. “Even though the president says they won’t be able to vote, we all know that many, in all likelihood, will vote.”

Bachmann added: “The president has a very single-minded vision. He’s looking at new voters for 2016.... People do vote without being a citizen. It’s a wink and a nod, we all know it’s going to happen."

When asked by The Washington Post why she chose to use the word “illiterate” to describe a group of mostly Spanish-speaking workers, Bachmann said her view was informed by trips to the border.

It is ironic that people who scream loudest aboiut "too many laws," seem the most passionate about protecting the most restrictive readings of the laws. First with ebola, now with immigration. Looks like the GOP is in full thrall with statism.

Negative.

Probably one of the biggest criticisms of Obama outside the US is his expansion of drone strikes, but he's never going to overtake the gun toting image of Bush #43.

In other areas Obamais defintely doing a better job of establishing international cooperation, especially in areas such as climate change.

BTW, @Dayton3, you do know "Brown People" isn't a race, right? At least not out here where the grownups are. Race per se is an artificial construct, but "Brown People" doesn't even qualify.

In areas of complete irrelevancy.

No argument.

Not to mention you had that Republican troll from Kansas running around, just this week, claim that as soon as the number of hispanics reaches critical mass he thinks they're going to kill all of the white people. No really. The right wing race baiting troll of a Republican said he thought all of the white people would be "ethnically cleansed" by the hordes of dirty violent brown people.

That is the racist game Republicans love to play.

So you are in fact denying that by using that term you meant to imply that certain people among conservatives were biased against people who are not white, Anglo-Saxons?

Everyone knows better Garamet.

Given that playing with words is your job, trying to use semantics to scuttle away from what you meant is very poor form.

You do realize the idiocy of saying that even though overall our standing on the world stage has improved b/c of X, Y, Z b/c you don't care about those issues, our standing on the world stage has not improved, right?

You do not get to decide what the rest of the world cares about.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/...ic-cleansing-if-Hispanics-become-the-majority

Be very, very afraid because the brown hordes are going to rape your blond daughter and kill all the white people! Obama will probably help them do it!

Oh, but remember Republicans aren't racist and they would never try to fan racial fears/hatreds. Is that what their lying supporters always claim?

^ You do know he said outright "I don't think this will happen".

And how in the crapper are liberals when they have to dig up an obscure official from Kansas.

Um, if you read foreign papers, this is the lowest the US has ever stood. Allies ignore us, expressing great frustration. Iran's leader said he spent his recent hospital stay laughing at 'that girl', referring to the State Department spokesman who tried to stop ISIS with a hashtag campaign. Even the Washington Post's editorial board said President Obama's foreign policy is based on fantasy. Obama's own cabinet has expressed their frustration to reporters. The Pentagon has to guess what his policies are.

The secretary of state is obscure?

What about that nutbar who just got elected to Congress from Colorado?

Bull shit. There is only one reason for that fucktard to bring up hypothetical race wars & claims of ethnic cleanings of all white people and that was to fan racial fears and hatreds. You don't get to pull that shit and then escape blame just by saying "Oh, but I don't know if that will ultimately happen." That is not a get out of jail free card.

This was just more racist bull shit out of the party who is CONSTANTLY trying to gin up racist bull shit and racial hatred. They've been playing this game for half a century and it is insulting to see you lie and try to pretend it isn't a routine occurance; which you have done in this very thread.

Um, Dinner. Hispanics aren't a race.

Oh, is it time for the "prejudice is OK if the group you're prejudiced against isn't technically a race" game? This should be fun.

You do know (well I guess you don't) but in most states, "Secretary of State" is a "sit on my ass for a few years position until I can run for something that matters" position.

I do not know the political positions of most in the CO. congressional delegation.

To me, it has been the Democrats promoting racial hatred for years.

Remember the anti Bush ad that tried to connect him to a black man in Texas being dragged to death behind a truck by 3 white men.

Or the claim that "Black churches are going to burn" if (insert Republican candidate here) is elected.

No, I'm saying you were the one who brought up race.