Dictator Obama continues to be Best Obama

[King]

http://news.yahoo.com/president-obama-to-order-more-training--oversight-for-military-gear-to-cops-180232655.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Modernity has failed us]

Obama 2016, Obama forever.

[Citizen (The) Doctor]

Obama 2016, Obama forever.

[Beet]

This is a positive step, although the problem with executive orders, as always, is that they're fragile and able to be reversed by the next administration.

[ElectionsGuy]

This is good I guess, though it doesn't do much at all. Of course you can't do much with EO's, so we'll take what we can get.

[Rooney]

This is cool. Obama can be pretty cool.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

It does raise an interesting question to those who are more libertarian minded. Normally Libertarians oppose Executive orders as an unconstitutional power grab, but are EO's OK if they come from a libertarian perspective? Like if President Ron Paul EO'd the federal reserve out of existence, would that be considered "bad" from a libertarian viewpoint?

[TDAS04]

Good. 

[The_Doctor]

I pointed out this was one area the President can act as Commander in Chief. Apparently, they were looking into it and they can do this. This isn't dictatorial; this is pretty much within the executive branch's authority to distribute certain items. It's also a wise move.

[ElectionsGuy]

It does raise an interesting question to those who are more libertarian minded. Normally Libertarians oppose Executive orders as an unconstitutional power grab, but are EO's OK if they come from a libertarian perspective? Like if President Ron Paul EO'd the federal reserve out of existence, would that be considered "bad" from a libertarian viewpoint?

I don't know about other Libertarians but I do not oppose the idea of executive order by any means. There is a very limited authority to an executive order and most are constitutional. Your example of Ron Paul abolishing the Federal Reserve would be completely ridiculous and unconstitutional, however. And yes, I would oppose EO's that I view favorably that grab too much authority and power.

[IceSpear]

It does raise an interesting question to those who are more libertarian minded. Normally Libertarians oppose Executive orders as an unconstitutional power grab, but are EO's OK if they come from a libertarian perspective? Like if President Ron Paul EO'd the federal reserve out of existence, would that be considered "bad" from a libertarian viewpoint?

I wonder how many people would actually oppose executive overreach in general, even if it was in line with their ideology? I'm guessing very few.

[Frodo]

There is one possible drawback to all these executive actions -President Obama could well lose Chief Justice John Roberts when Obamacare is again on the docket.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

There is one possible drawback to all these executive actions -President Obama could well lose Chief Justice John Roberts when Obamacare is again on the docket.

If Obama is just going to cater to the every whim of that right-wing, racist hack, what's the point?

[The_Doctor]

I think if Roberts chose to strike down ObamaCare for any reason, it would be because he felt the Court could safely do so without backlash. In other words, the Court would act only if the public allowed it to. It really, in other words, could rest on how popular the President is next spring.

I don't think Roberts would use the ACA law to undercut the President for being aggressive with executive orders. That'd probably come in other cases.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

I can't believe my approval of him ever went down to "somewhat" from "strongly".  I like him just as much as Kennedy at this point. 

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

There is one possible drawback to all these executive actions -President Obama could well lose Chief Justice John Roberts when Obamacare is again on the docket.

Obama has the lowest rate of executive orders of any President since Cleveland, and Roberts is threatening to retaliate? WTF?

[Türkisblau]

There is one possible drawback to all these executive actions -President Obama could well lose Chief Justice John Roberts when Obamacare is again on the docket.

Obama has the lowest rate of executive orders of any President since Cleveland, and Roberts is threatening to retaliate? WTF?

I don't think that's exactly relevant, is it not the content of the executive orders that matters?

[Slander and/or Libel]

This is a positive step, although the problem with executive orders, as always, is that they're fragile and able to be reversed by the next administration.

Isn't it better to do something, at least for some time, than throw up hands in despair because Congress refuses to act? I agree that legislative action is preferable, but it ain't happening.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Protecting his fellow blacks is a good idea, you see.  I support this regardless.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Protecting his fellow blacks is a good idea, you see.  I support this regardless.

Good God this is revolting.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Protecting his fellow blacks is a good idea, you see.  I support this regardless.

Good God this is revolting.

You may find the non-pc way that was stated as revolting, but isn't it what this article really says it is, Fogs?

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-hold-white-house-meetings-ferguson-085841383--politics.html

[Slander and/or Libel]

Protecting his fellow blacks is a good idea, you see.  I support this regardless.

Good God this is revolting.

You may find the non-pc way that was stated as revolting, but isn't it what this article really says it is, Fogs?

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-hold-white-house-meetings-ferguson-085841383--politics.html

Nothing in that article about race.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Protecting his fellow blacks is a good idea, you see.  I support this regardless.

Good God this is revolting.

You may find the non-pc way that was stated as revolting, but isn't it what this article really says it is, Fogs?

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-hold-white-house-meetings-ferguson-085841383--politics.html

Nothing in that article about race.

"look for ways to build trust and confidence between police and minority communities nationwide."

"Attorney General Eric Holder announced on Monday new Justice Department plans aimed at ending racial profiling"

" will institute rigorous new standards — and robust safeguards — to help end racial profiling"

"Al Sharpton told reporters afterward he would convey to Brown's parents what had occurred in the meeting and expressed confidence it would bring change because Obama put his "full weight behind it."

"He said the goal instead is to ensure that "crime goes down while community trust in the police goes up.""  Where is community trust at its lowest, Fig?

It's all about race, no matter how it's couched.

[Slander and/or Libel]

The first two are about race, and it's my fault for missing them. The second two, and especially the last, are only about race because the institutions in this country have made them coincident with race. There's not an inherent reason that African American communities would have low trust in police.

And saying this is just an example of Obama "protecting his fellow blacks" is still revolting. As though there's something untoward about it, some advantage he's conferring on black people that other people don't get.

[Maxwell]

This is good I guess, though it doesn't do much at all. Of course you can't do much with EO's, so we'll take what we can get.

I'm in total agreement.