"If you sincerely believe a policy is wrong, why not oppose it to the fullest? "

Yeah how many attempts to repeal ACA have their been? You seriously defend those shenanigans?

And you claim to be part of the sensible wing of your party?

Numbers don't count, quality does. And there *are* laws that would be good to be repealed. To take some low-hanging fruit, the Import-Export Bank. It's little more than a welfare program for Boeing. Repealing the statute authorizing it would be good policy, but would just be a tally for repeal to you. See what I mean?


Keep on with your swivel-eyed arguments about how Republicans exist solely to "wipe everything out." You're a self parody. But what else is new?

I do defend efforts to repeal the ACA. It's a bad law. It only doesn't look bad right now because the president is illegally refusing to enforce the bad parts of it. Which are most parts.

You repeat the same stale insults every thread while hilariously defending the swivel eyed loons in your own lunatic party.

"It's a bad law. It only doesn't look bad right now because the president is illegally refusing to enforce the bad parts of it. Which are most parts."

No, it's worked better than anybody expected it to, despite your party's best efforts to sabotage it. You defend 40+ repeal attempts? You have no credibility at all when claiming to support a productive Congress.

Glass houses, bro.

It's worked better than expected because so much is unenforced. Like the goddamn employer mandate, a pillar of the law as written but illegally ignored by the president because it is unpopular and unworkable.

Walker has won, and the state hasn't exploded.

Yeah hilarious your shit for brains party sued Obama because he delayed implementation of a provision they absolutely despise. But we're all supposed to believe you people are about principles and not gimmicks.

Whether or not a lawsuit is a good idea is a completely separate issue from the fact that the president is illegally refusing to enforce the unpopular, unworkable provisions of the ACA.

You cannot obstruct implementation of a law and then whine that it is not being implemented on time.

It's a simple thing, Putin33. The law passed. The president refuses to enforce it. That's now how our system works. If a law is bad you repeal it or pass another that supersedes it. You don't just let an absolute monarch with a four to eight year reign pick and choose how he exercises his arbitrary power.

You people on the left should be more careful about this. Eventually there will be a Republican president again, and if this sort of lawless behavior is allowed ot become the norm he'll be able to not only unmake all these actions by Obama with a stroke of his pen, but he'll also use the precedent to go further.

Maybe President Cruz just decides to have the IRS only collect a flat income tax. Maybe President Jindal decides to have the EPA just not enforce any environmental regulations. Maybe President Bush IX refuses to let HUD hire new staff and the place dies by attrition. This is the camel's nose you're letting in the tent.

^this. If I could give you every +1 I've gotten, I would

YellowJacket I couldn't +1 your biking statement enough. I myself am a republican, yet I always push for energy conservation, and environmentally safe solutions. Biking is truly a win in any light. It promotes a healthy lifestyle and at least you're cutting down on traffic accidents

@Invictus, perhaps if this congress was not the most inefficient congress in the history of the country, which culminated in a shutdown of the government for days, then Obama wouldn't have to be "an absolute monarch" to get anything done.

People who claim one party or person is responsible are absolute morons playing a blame game. There have been two parties who disagreed for centuries, it is only this Congress that has proven it's ineptitude beyond a shadow of a doubt.

A President cannot be a monarch if the other 2 branches are doing their job.

Just think about what you're saying, jmo1121109. Effectively, it's that the president's power is only limited when the Congress goes along with what he wants.

That isn't how it works. The branches of government are independent. If Congress doesn't want to go along with what a president wants to pass, it has every right to. And vice versa.

No, I'm not saying that Invictus, what I am saying is that if Congress would do anything, pass another bill to override the one they don't like, pass a bill changing the current one, pass one to repeal it, etc. Any of that would be better then the absolute nothing they have done the past several years. The current activity level in Congress is just pathetic, and they need to fix their own problems before they should even consider pointing blame anywhere else. You're incorrectly assuming I'm supporting Obama, I only support his monarch actions in the hope it spurs Congress of their asses to actually do their jobs.

And the branches aren't independent, they were built with a series of checks and balances. For example, the VP plays a role in Congress in the event of a tie and holds a role on the house. the courts are appointed by the president, the congress can overrule a veto, etc. Saying they are independent is only true to a degree, but complete independence just doesn't exist.

It's hard to pass a law when Harry Reid doesn't let House-passed bills get a Senate vote.

"I only support his monarch actions in the hope it spurs Congress of their asses to actually do their jobs."

So you support arbitrary government so long as eventually it's given a veneer of legitimacy after the fact. Gotcha.

Lol, so your whole justification of Congress being the most inefficient in the countries history is Harry Reid. Absolutely no blame falls on anyone else. Gotcha

For future reference: this is why it's not so bad that Holland is a monarchy, in which the King/Queen appoints a prime minister based on prior parliamentary consent.
In such a system, electoral responsability is clearer. In other words, we don't put two elected branches of government in opposition of each other.
Of course, America is different and I respect that. But I'd find the continuous finger-pointing between the different branches of government difficult to accept were I a US citizen.

When the House passes a bill and Senate leadership didn't give it a vote in the Senate, who else to blame?

And, knowing that that is the fate of many bills, the incentives of the House to keep doing it are low. So they pass dozens of Obamacare repeals to gin up their constituents, but don't shoot their wad on desperately needed things on tax reform when they know it'll just die on the vine.


If *this* Congress gets as little done, you'll have a point. But much of the last four years' inaction has come from the two houses having divided control.


And again, it's very trouble that you'd allow a president to act lawlessly just because Congress isn't playing ball with him. If one branch doesn't play ball, the game ends till the next election. We're governed by laws, not men, and laws have to be made through the constitutionally mandated process.

@Invicuts, bullshit. There have been multiple divided houses in the history of the country. Never before have any of them passed less bills, or done less for the country.

" We're governed by laws, not men, and laws have to be made through the constitutionally mandated process."

Tough to do when the branch responsible for this hasn't done anything for the past 2 years, and before you ask, no, shutting down the government doesn't count as something.

Now you're just showing your party favoritism trying to place blame on one man. See I personally think Obama is a bad president, but I think this Congress is far worse. Which is why I said I only support the effect his actions has seemed to have, getting Congress to agree on something, to show even the slightest interest in doing something. It's sad that thing has to be reigning in a President, but hey, it's more then they've attempted in years.

Not passing bills in not inherently a bad thing. At least the bad laws all Congresses pass are at a lower level.


I never meant to make it seem like I think you have one opinion of Obama or the other. I'm talking about the institution of the presidency. He, like his predecessors, has expanded presidential power well beyond what is proper under the Constitution. The fact that the current, outgoing Congress has been shitty at its job too is a separate issue, and a less important one. It's hard to have over 500 tyrants, but a few more presidents who get away with the lawless actions Obama has and we won't have much of a republic anymore.

Interesting stat here on executive orders from all Presidents.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php