Anyone else leaning towards Perry?

[jrumann59]

Really?????

Four (4) more years of Obama, and it's game over. I'm predicting blood in the streets this Summer, as the "community" that he has organized starts with civil and social unrest. It's already an accident waiting to happen.

Hyperbole much. Is 4 more years going to be a walk in the park, probably not but the infighting in his own party is a blessing they can't get anything done and if I was him I probably wouldn't run I have a feeling a bunch of skeletons are going to show up and we end with someone that makes GWB look like Rhode's Scholar in politics.

 

[Dead Eye]

Hyperbole much. Is 4 more years going to be a walk in the park, probably not but the infighting in his own party is a blessing they can't get anything done and if I was him I probably wouldn't run I have a feeling a bunch of skeletons are going to show up and we end with someone that makes GWB look like Rhode's Scholar in politics.

Turn on your television, "Occupy Wallstreet" offshoots, all around the U.S. are already starting to ratchet things up. In Oakland, or instance, they just arrested a pretty large group. It is a tinderbox waiting for a match. Hyperbole much? Naw, we are just one incident away. Once one goes, the next will try to outdo the other. And we are supposed to believe that this little community organized itself?

In the meantime, irreversible damage will be done if Obama gets a whack at one more SCOTUS oppointment. The economy is stalled, and Obama will NOT do what is known to be proven to work, and that is lowering taxes. Obama will continue to grow governement at a record wait, and you see that benefits us how?

 

[Dogabutila]

Parties be damned. Who cares? It's not about winning, it's about where we are headed... and "putting the brakes on" is a far better option than holding your nose, closing your eyes, and turning the other way as the car drives off a cliff.

Putting the breaks on? Bush sure slowed that down with the Patriot act. Get a clue.

Let me guess, you woke up one day and finally came to grips with the fact Ron Paul isn't 't going to win. That was the day the pouting started. I could give a rat's butt about the party, but here's a news flash for you, there's only going to be 2 people in the final race - Barrack Obama, and someone else.
Yes, if a Republican wins, mistakes will be made, because nobody's perfect, but at least they'll try, rather than trying to totally radicalize and Socialize our government.
On a lighter note, most people that I encounter, that shares your attitude, voted for Obama the last time, and are now trying to justify their choice by saying the kinds of things that you are. Trying to trivialize and marginalize the Republican candidates due to what I term as "buyer's remorse". It's kinda like a child who is losing a board game, realizes it before the game ends, and now wants to flip the board.

Nope. Even if Ron Paul won it wouldn't mean a thing because so many people (yourself included it seems) think that he's got crazy views and congress on both sides wouldn't let him get anything done.

If you think Republicans actually are any better then Democrats I don't know what to tell you. Who passed the Patriot Act? And because it was a Republican president you guys all cheered and supported it. Heres the thing though, if it was a Democratic president trying to pass it, you guys would have been crying about the privacy invasions just like the Libs did.

If you think the Republican candidates are actually GOOD and need to be trivialized any more then they already are, then I don't know what to tell you. It's telling when more people are voting against Obama then for a candidate. You KNOW there is nobody good to vote for, stop pretending otherwise. Voting against somebody rather then for somebody is just supporting a broken two party system.


So heres the deal. If you can't find a good candidate you might as well let Obama win again. He can't get anything done because we keep him honest. As much as that is possible at any rate. But if a Republican wins, say Romney or even Perry or Cain, do you honestly think that they will restore freedoms rather then take them away? Newsflash for you: None of them will. But you guys will be supporting them as they do it, just because it isn't Obama, and just because it's a Republican.

 

[jrumann59]

Putting the breaks on? Bush sure slowed that down with the Patriot act. Get a clue.



Nope. Even if Ron Paul won it wouldn't mean a thing because so many people (yourself included it seems) think that he's got crazy views and congress on both sides wouldn't let him get anything done.

If you think Republicans actually are any better then Democrats I don't know what to tell you. Who passed the Patriot Act? And because it was a Republican president you guys all cheered and supported it. Heres the thing though, if it was a Democratic president trying to pass it, you guys would have been crying about the privacy invasions just like the Libs did.

If you think the Republican candidates are actually GOOD and need to be trivialized any more then they already are, then I don't know what to tell you. It's telling when more people are voting against Obama then for a candidate. You KNOW there is nobody good to vote for, stop pretending otherwise. Voting against somebody rather then for somebody is just supporting a broken two party system.


So heres the deal. If you can't find a good candidate you might as well let Obama win again. He can't get anything done because we keep him honest. As much as that is possible at any rate. But if a Republican wins, say Romney or even Perry or Cain, do you honestly think that they will restore freedoms rather then take them away? Newsflash for you: None of them will. But you guys will be supporting them as they do it, just because it isn't Obama, and just because it's a Republican.

My wife used to be dyed in the wool democrat. One year I challenged her to listen and vote with her mind, I told here, "If you vote all democrat no problem you were informed and you made a decision based on information, thats all anyone can ask you to do." To my surprise she didn't vote for Obama though she didn't vote for any presidential candidates.

 

[Dead Eye]

Putting the breaks on? Bush sure slowed that down with the Patriot act. Get a clue.



Nope. Even if Ron Paul won it wouldn't mean a thing because so many people (yourself included it seems) think that he's got crazy views and congress on both sides wouldn't let him get anything done.

If you think Republicans actually are any better then Democrats I don't know what to tell you. Who passed the Patriot Act? And because it was a Republican president you guys all cheered and supported it. Heres the thing though, if it was a Democratic president trying to pass it, you guys would have been crying about the privacy invasions just like the Libs did.

If you think the Republican candidates are actually GOOD and need to be trivialized any more then they already are, then I don't know what to tell you. It's telling when more people are voting against Obama then for a candidate. You KNOW there is nobody good to vote for, stop pretending otherwise. Voting against somebody rather then for somebody is just supporting a broken two party system.


So heres the deal. If you can't find a good candidate you might as well let Obama win again. He can't get anything done because we keep him honest. As much as that is possible at any rate. But if a Republican wins, say Romney or even Perry or Cain, do you honestly think that they will restore freedoms rather then take them away? Newsflash for you: None of them will. But you guys will be supporting them as they do it, just because it isn't Obama, and just because it's a Republican.

You're pretty much wrong on all levels, except for the two party being a bad system comment. I vote the person and not the party.
Secondly, what heinous event has come from enacting the Patriot Act? Are they tapping your phones? If tapping mine means taking a terrorist off the street, then go for it. Where is the illegality? Sometimes in war you must use unconventional means. BTW, a Democrat now has control of it, and it doesn't bother me.
Nope, I don't dig Obama because he is a Socialist, if not by party, by principle. On the other hand, I was born a capitalist pig American, and proudly so. I prefer to support such, even not ideal ones, rather than watch this country degenerate into a Third World.cesspool.
Regardless of your opinion, she's still the greatest nation on Earth, worth fighting for, even, rather than giving up on, as though you have apparently decided.
You couldn't pay me to vote for Obama.

 

[Dogabutila]

You're pretty much wrong on all levels, except for the two party being a bad system comment. I vote the person and not the party.
Secondly, what heinous event has come from enacting the Patriot Act? Are they tapping your phones? If tapping mine means taking a terrorist off the street, then go for it. Where is the illegality? Sometimes in war you must use unconventional means. BTW, a Democrat now has control of it, and it doesn't bother me.
Nope, I don't dig Obama because he is a Socialist, if not by party, by principle. On the other hand, I was born a capitalist pig American, and proudly so. I prefer to support such, even not ideal ones, rather than watch this country degenerate into a Third World.cesspool.
Regardless of your opinion, she's still the greatest nation on Earth, worth fighting for, even, rather than giving up on, as though you have apparently decided.
You couldn't pay me to vote for Obama.

BAM. Biggest problem there. You'd give up your rights.... for nothing. Heres a thought, Capitalism is based on freedom and individuality liberty. If you want to protect capitalism then you need to protect the others. Except apparently you think it's possible to really have and keep a capitalistic based society while giving up freedoms.

By the by, the patriot act does a lot more then warrentless wiretapping. Remember sneak n peeks? What heinous event stemming directly from the patriot act? Mayfield. There are search and seizure violations galore ( the whole NSL fiasco too!) compounded by freedom of association restrictions multiplied by speedy trial and due process violations... (indefinite detainment based on secret evidence?) Is this even still America?

Sorry if I don't fall into lockstep and vote Republican just because the eventual nominee isn't Obama, because the Republicans passed THE most unconstitutional bill ever. Never let a crisis go to waste indeed.


So put your money where your mouth is. Economic freedom is only possible with individual freedom. Voting for the lesser evil is still voting for evil, and you have nobody to blame but yourself for when the country turns into a third world cesspool anyways.

 

[mlance238]

Putting the breaks on? Bush sure slowed that down with the Patriot act. Get a clue.



Nope. Even if Ron Paul won it wouldn't mean a thing because so many people (yourself included it seems) think that he's got crazy views and congress on both sides wouldn't let him get anything done.

If you think Republicans actually are any better then Democrats I don't know what to tell you. Who passed the Patriot Act? And because it was a Republican president you guys all cheered and supported it. Heres the thing though, if it was a Democratic president trying to pass it, you guys would have been crying about the privacy invasions just like the Libs did.

If you think the Republican candidates are actually GOOD and need to be trivialized any more then they already are, then I don't know what to tell you. It's telling when more people are voting against Obama then for a candidate. You KNOW there is nobody good to vote for, stop pretending otherwise. Voting against somebody rather then for somebody is just supporting a broken two party system.


So heres the deal. If you can't find a good candidate you might as well let Obama win again. He can't get anything done because we keep him honest. As much as that is possible at any rate. But if a Republican wins, say Romney or even Perry or Cain, do you honestly think that they will restore freedoms rather then take them away? Newsflash for you: None of them will. But you guys will be supporting them as they do it, just because it isn't Obama, and just because it's a Republican.

Agreed: Patriot Act sucks. Two-party system doesn't give us enough legitimate choices.

Disagreed: There are no candidates in the Republican field worth voting into office.

IMO, Herman Cain, Ron Paul, and Michele Bachmann are principled conservatives who would fight for our freedoms. To point your finger backward, using just one president as your example, and say he's proof-positive that all of these candidates will be progressives as well is illogical.

On the other hand, based on his record, Romney may very well be a "compassionate (read: progressive) conservative" as Buch once called himself. But does that mean he's not worth voting for?

No, because leaving Obama in office despite a more conservative Congress does not render him powerless or "in check."

He has the power of executive order and where he doesn't have the power he dismisses the democratic process anyway. See our operations in Syria, Libya, and other parts of Africa; also, just today he announced he's bypassing Congress to alter student-loan repayment terms. What about $500 million taxpayer loans that find their way into the pockets of poorly run green energy companies? Not to mention, all of the super liberal judges he has nominated to the federal courts, most of whom are appointed unless there is a tidal wave of evidence that undermines their candidacies. One, if not two, Supreme Court justices are very near retirement... as a member of this forum, I am assured that you wouldn't want two more Obama-socialist justices appointed, right?

 

[Dead Eye]

BAM. Biggest problem there. You'd give up your rights.... for nothing. Heres a thought, Capitalism is based on freedom and individuality liberty. If you want to protect capitalism then you need to protect the others. Except apparently you think it's possible to really have and keep a capitalistic based society while giving up freedoms.

By the by, the patriot act does a lot more then warrentless wiretapping. Remember sneak n peeks? What heinous event stemming directly from the patriot act? Mayfield. There are search and seizure violations galore ( the whole NSL fiasco too!) compounded by freedom of association restrictions multiplied by speedy trial and due process violations... (indefinite detainment based on secret evidence?) Is this even still America?

Sorry if I don't fall into lockstep and vote Republican just because the eventual nominee isn't Obama, because the Republicans passed THE most unconstitutional bill ever. Never let a crisis go to waste indeed.


So put your money where your mouth is. Economic freedom is only possible with individual freedom. Voting for the lesser evil is still voting for evil, and you have nobody to blame but yourself for when the country turns into a third world cesspool anyways.

Sorry, no GOTCHA moment here. Who has been kicking down your door? Nobody. Might I remind you that we are at war. Like it or not, many a Japanese got interred during WWII. It's an ugly business that sometimes calls for ugly measures. What would you suggest? Continue to allow the terrorists to plot and scheme in the name of liberty, or tap a few phones, and swat the flies? You only have to worry, if you are a fly.

You obviously missed the point. I vote the party, not the person. Stop stereo-typing.

Agreed: Patriot Act sucks. Two-party system doesn't give us enough legitimate choices.

Disagreed: There are no candidates in the Republican field worth voting into office.

IMO, Herman Cain, Ron Paul, and Michele Bachmann are principled conservatives who would fight for our freedoms. To point your finger backward, using just one president as your example, and say he's proof-positive that all of these candidates will be progressives as well is illogical.

On the other hand, based on his record, Romney may very well be a "compassionate (read: progressive) conservative" as Buch once called himself. But does that mean he's not worth voting for?

No, because leaving Obama in office despite a more conservative Congress does not render him powerless or "in check."

He has the power of executive order and where he doesn't have the power he dismisses the democratic process anyway. See our operations in Syria, Libya, and other parts of Africa; also, just today he announced he's bypassing Congress to alter student-loan repayment terms. What about $500 million taxpayer loans that find their way into the pockets of poorly run green energy companies? Not to mention, all of the super liberal judges he has nominated to the federal courts, most of whom are appointed unless there is a tidal wave of evidence that undermines their candidacies. One, if not two, Supreme Court justices are very near retirement... as a member of this forum, I am assured that you wouldn't want two more Obama-socialist justices appointed, right?

Exactly. There isn't one Republican candidate that IMHO wouldn't do a better job than Obama, (except "Moonbeam" Gary Johnson) so why would I even consider supporting him? In fact, I think Newt has the wherewithal to actually make a difference. I also feel as though Cain, Bachman, Perry and Santorum, all have the desire. Paul has right idea, but shoots himself in his own foot by talking above the average guy's head, thus appearing looney. Romney is a place holder until we can find a real conservative to eventually replace him, but voting for Obama is like putting the car in reverse, or even worse, getting into a major accident.

 

[sim1776]

Sorry, no GOTCHA moment here. Who has been kicking down your door? Nobody. Might I remind you that we are at war. Like it or not, many a Japanese got interred during WWII. It's an ugly business that sometimes calls for ugly measures. What would you suggest? Continue to allow the terrorists to plot and scheme in the name of liberty, or tap a few phones, and swat the flies? You only have to worry, if you are a fly.

You obviously missed the point. I vote the party, not the person. Stop stereo-typing.



Exactly. There isn't one Republican candidate that IMHO wouldn't do a better job than Obama, (except "Moonbeam" Gary Johnson) so why would I even consider supporting him? In fact, I think Newt has the wherewithal to actually make a difference. I also feel as though Cain, Bachman, Perry and Santorum, all have the desire. Paul has right idea, but shoots himself in his own foot by talking above the average guy's head, thus appearing looney. Romney is a place holder until we can find a real conservative to eventually replace him, but voting for Obama is like putting the car in reverse, or even worse, getting into a major accident.

I agree with your second statement. In the general election, i'll be voting for whoever the red team picks but I refuse to support psuedoconservatives like Perry and Romney in the primaries. Neither one is a man of integrity.

Your first statement is ridiculous. Can't you justify the PATRIOT act and the "War on Terror" with some thing other than the fallacy of an Appeal to Fear? Less than 1% of prosecutions related to PA powers has been for terrorism. All I see is the Constitution being eroded by both parties' establishments and most people, like sheep, accepting it.

 

[BondJamesBond]

As a non-affiliated voter, I have no horse in the primary race, but A.B.O.

 

[Srsanbo]

I agree with your second statement. In the general election, i'll be voting for whoever the red team picks but I refuse to support psuedoconservatives like Perry and Romney in the primaries. Neither one is a man of integrity.

Your first statement is ridiculous. Can't you justify the PATRIOT act and the "War on Terror" with some thing other than the fallacy of an Appeal to Fear? Less than 1% of prosecutions related to PA powers has been for terrorism. All I see is the Constitution being eroded by both parties' establishments and most people, like sheep, accepting it.

Something is at play that has thus far kept us from having another 9/11 or similar attack on our shores. I am convinced that the Patriot Act is a factor.

That said, I think it was selling the hen house to the foxes. Wasn't it Ben Franklin that said, "Those that would forfeit freedom for the sake of security deserves neither"?

And for the previous statement that BO is in check - that is pretty funny. If it wasn't for a few brave folks, Fast and Furious would be exploited to ensure our rights were fully infringed. To even think he could get another fruitloop progressive on SCOTUS has me terrified as well. He would have four years with nothing to lose. That would be a disaster.

 

[dr_gonzo71]

Repeal the 20th century. Vote GOP.

Does anybody here realize that being a firearms enthusiast does not require you to be a Republican? Or do you just happily follow in lock-step with the right-wing talking points, many of which don't hold water upon closer examination.

I'm not a Democrat either, and there's plenty of things I can criticize about the Obama Administration also, but compared to Perry, Bachmann, or Cain? Come on! They can't even coherently articulate their positions!!

Romney and Huntsman are the only two at this moment that seem to be able to converse above the level of a fifth grader, but I guess they're just RINO's and are not far right enough for most of the people on here.

When Pat Robertson, of all people, is openly criticizing the current crop of GOP'ers for being too far right, maybe that's a sign that they need to rethink their strategy.

 

[mlance238]

Repeal the 20th century. Vote GOP.

Does anybody here realize that being a firearms enthusiast does not require you to be a Republican? Or do you just happily follow in lock-step with the right-wing talking points, many of which don't hold water upon closer examination.

I'm not a Democrat either, and there's plenty of things I can criticize about the Obama Administration also, but compared to Perry, Bachmann, or Cain? Come on! They can't even coherently articulate their positions!!

So articulation might be more important than substance in your eyes? You MUST have voted for BO!!

I did too, actually, but if you've been anything more than brain dead since he took office then you'd realize he's the most socialist and ineffective president ever elected. I chose to ignore his record and loose connections with his radical past, naively believing the moderate policies he was pushing during his campaign.

But given his record as president, yes, it has without a doubt come down to voting for whoever's name is next to the (R) in 2012.

But give him credit where it's due... he's been great at killing terrorists and the economy!

 

[Dead Eye]

I agree with your second statement. In the general election, i'll be voting for whoever the red team picks but I refuse to support psuedoconservatives like Perry and Romney in the primaries. Neither one is a man of integrity.

Your first statement is ridiculous. Can't you justify the PATRIOT act and the "War on Terror" with some thing other than the fallacy of an Appeal to Fear? Less than 1% of prosecutions related to PA powers has been for terrorism. All I see is the Constitution being eroded by both parties' establishments and most people, like sheep, accepting it.

How so? What detriment has the Patriot Act caused you, personally? What freedom or liberty did you personally give up?

Something is at play that has thus far kept us from having another 9/11 or similar attack on our shores. I am convinced that the Patriot Act is a factor.

That said, I think it was selling the hen house to the foxes. Wasn't it Ben Franklin that said, "Those that would forfeit freedom for the sake of security deserves neither"?

And for the previous statement that BO is in check - that is pretty funny. If it wasn't for a few brave folks, Fast and Furious would be exploited to ensure our rights were fully infringed. To even think he could get another fruitloop progressive on SCOTUS has me terrified as well. He would have four years with nothing to lose. That would be a disaster.

Yes, there have been statements made on both sides, I believe at least from both Dick Cheney and Leon Panneta, that have said without stating specifics, that the Patriot Act has been a direct and invaluable tool in thwarting terrorist aggression, here on American soil. Yes, some will start assailing the veracity of either's claims, however, no one has busted down my door, and if they are listening, I hope they get a chuckle now and then. You can't get blood from a turnip.

Repeal the 20th century. Vote GOP.

Does anybody here realize that being a firearms enthusiast does not require you to be a Republican? Or do you just happily follow in lock-step with the right-wing talking points, many of which don't hold water upon closer examination.

I'm not a Democrat either, and there's plenty of things I can criticize about the Obama Administration also, but compared to Perry, Bachmann, or Cain? Come on! They can't even coherently articulate their positions!!

Romney and Huntsman are the only two at this moment that seem to be able to converse above the level of a fifth grader, but I guess they're just RINO's and are not far right enough for most of the people on here.

When Pat Robertson, of all people, is openly criticizing the current crop of GOP'ers for being too far right, maybe that's a sign that they need to rethink their strategy.

Newt Gingrich can "out articulate" all of them combined. Not to mention, I'm not looking for America's next "Idol", I'm looking for the best leader to correct this mess that Obama inherited, and then made it far worse on his watch. You must be a sufferer of "Buyer's Remorse". Your guy sucked, so now you have to say everyone else sucks, so as not to appear to have made a mistake. I knew Obama was a chump from jump street. In Chicago, where my wife is from, they refer to him as the "Chi-town Hustler". I guess you got hustled. It's OK, as my Pop used to say, "It's not a stupid man that makes a mistake. It's a stupid man that makes the same mistake - twice".

So articulation might be more important than substance in your eyes? You MUST have voted for BO!!

I did too, actually, but if you've been anything more than brain dead since he took office then you'd realize he's the most socialist and ineffective president ever elected. I chose to ignore his record and loose connections with his radical past, naively believing the moderate policies he was pushing during his campaign.

But given his record as president, yes, it has without a doubt come down to voting for whoever's name is next to the (R) in 2012.

But give him credit where it's due... he's been great at killing terrorists and the economy!

Not a stupid man

 

[Lex Armarum]

I'm still a Palinista but since she's sitting this one out, I'm backing Gingrich. Romney and Perry are just two flim flam RINOS IMO. Cain is inexperienced, shoots off his mouth too much, and his 999 plan sucks balls.

With a choice out of all of them, I'll take Gingrich because he is an experienced politico who will hopefully take Obama to task in the general, can handle Washington at even its slimiest moments, and has fairly good conservative credentials. I don't care about his personal baggage per se. Since none of the field comes close to an ideal candidate, I am picking the more conservative, most hard-nosed SOB of the lot and that's Newt Gingrich.

 

[BondJamesBond]

So articulation might be more important than substance in your eyes? You MUST have voted for BO!!

I did too, actually, but if you've been anything more than brain dead since he took office then you'd realize he's the most socialist and ineffective president ever elected. I chose to ignore his record and loose connections with his radical past, naively believing the moderate policies he was pushing during his campaign.

But given his record as president, yes, it has without a doubt come down to voting for whoever's name is next to the (R) in 2012.

But give him credit where it's due... he's been great at killing terrorists and the economy!

This idea that the president must be an articulate speaker has always interested/frustrated me. James Madison was not a great speaker. Actually, he avoided public speaking. He thought Patrick Henry, the great orator, was a "blowhard" who was long on talk and short on action. We put too much emphasis on appearance also. Lincoln would never be elected again...too ugly.

But in reality, it doesn't make any difference who you vote for in the general election. My prediction is that BO will take Maryland by 30%, depending on turn-out.

 

[Lex Armarum]

Been watching John Stewart lately have we? Let's face it, dems have been trying to ban guns for most of the last century. I'd rather not be a dem. It's like being the sheep that runs with a pack of wolves.

Romney is a RINO and a flip flopper of the highest magnitude and Huntsman, while he has a better record than Romney, is nothing more than Obama-lite.

I dare you to bring up some right-wing talking points and lets see if they hold water. I can tell you this, right-wing talking points hold a hell of a lot more water than left-wing demo-socialist talking points.

Repeal the 20th century. Vote GOP.

Does anybody here realize that being a firearms enthusiast does not require you to be a Republican? Or do you just happily follow in lock-step with the right-wing talking points, many of which don't hold water upon closer examination.

I'm not a Democrat either, and there's plenty of things I can criticize about the Obama Administration also, but compared to Perry, Bachmann, or Cain? Come on! They can't even coherently articulate their positions!!

Romney and Huntsman are the only two at this moment that seem to be able to converse above the level of a fifth grader, but I guess they're just RINO's and are not far right enough for most of the people on here.

When Pat Robertson, of all people, is openly criticizing the current crop of GOP'ers for being too far right, maybe that's a sign that they need to rethink their strategy.

 

[Second Amendment]

True, my bad BUT is that even correct? I mean they ARE illegal and SHOULD be deported NOT rewarded, correct?

Yes, illegal is the operative word. I love it when their is a "debate" about this issue. They are here illegally, case closed.

 

[jrumann59]

While I voted for GWB both times his rolling back the terms of Posse Comitatus as everyone was so enthralled with Palin and Obama 4 years ago was gross misstep, I also have to throw Congress in there because what they did by allowing was just as criminal as what GWB did.

 

[jrumann59]

No, because leaving Obama in office despite a more conservative Congress does not render him powerless or "in check."

He has the power of executive order and where he doesn't have the power he dismisses the democratic process anyway. See our operations in Syria, Libya, and other parts of Africa; also, just today he announced he's bypassing Congress to alter student-loan repayment terms. What about $500 million taxpayer loans that find their way into the pockets of poorly run green energy companies? Not to mention, all of the super liberal judges he has nominated to the federal courts, most of whom are appointed unless there is a tidal wave of evidence that undermines their candidacies. One, if not two, Supreme Court justices are very near retirement... as a member of this forum, I am assured that you wouldn't want two more Obama-socialist justices appointed, right?

Yes but Congress has ways around executive orders. They can pass legislation against it, deny funding for whatever it is. the reason why most executive orders fly through is because of fear of losing political standing. there are checks and balances the only reason why a president has not tried a super duper preemption of law is because of SCOTUS